User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Thank you 2 Bot work 3 Refs 4 Talk:West Indian cricket team in England in 1988 5 George Calvert 6 Thanks 7 Re: Pashtun people 8 Kakapo 9 The Bot 10 Re:Promoted facs 11 A humble request 12 St. Petersburg, Russia 13 Follow up 14 Houston 15 Thor Halversson 16 Most deserved 17 Restoration Literature 18 Featured article categories 19 The article on Leonard Orban... 20 Thank you 21 Final revision of Abbas Kiarostami 22 FAR 23 Take care 24 Ann Arbor FAR - a final look 25 While I'm thinking of it 26 Don't blame the bot... 27 Microsoft history section. 28 Antioxidant FAC 29 Ernest Emerson 30 Greetings 31 14 - 19 32 Wall of Honor 33 Coeliac disease FAC 34 new FAC 35 Wonderbra FAC 36 Spanish 37 AALAS 38 Jordan and Microsoft 39 Thanks Re: John Major 40 Sure thing! 41 References 42 Nigel Kneale 43 A few things 44 Refs & Adam Gilchrist 45 George VI of the United Kingdom 46 Cite templates 47 William Monahan 48 Various things 49 the article talk page is noticed 50 Russell 51 Mozambican War of Independence 52 Policy v Guidelines 53 Campbell's Soup Cans FAC2 54 Japan FAC 55 Peer review for Myocardial infarction 56 hi 57 Thanks for your note 58 Galileo 59 Ronald Reagan Featured Article Candidacy 60 Re 61 Happyme22 62 Dashes on Mary Wollstonecraft 63 Technopark, Kerala 64 Blockquotes 65 Mainpage FA process 66 Blanking comments on AN/I 67 Cricket World Cup 68 Courtesy link 69 Venezuela PR 70 ref stuff (again) 71 FASD 72 Chagas disease 73 Watch 74 FAs 75 Bias of Footnoted Authors 76 Poetry 77 Jordan FAC 78 PANDAS 79 Aspartame refs

[edit] Thank you

for re-structuring the Hinduism talk page templates. Much appreciated. Gizza^{Chat ©} 05:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bot work

I guess you want to get a bunch ready before you go on travel. It takes longer to process the formerFA templates due to the page moving, and there are 800 or so articles with {{featured}}. Then I suppose I'll go through the articles with {{formerFA}}, {{formerFA2}}, {{farcfailed}}, {{FARpassed}} and variations. Speaking of which, I noticed someone already created a redirect to the ArticleHistory template - another thing for code to look out for. Still finding hidden things from curious links in the archives, which slows things down. The page info generated before was filtered so it had a good concentration of FA-related pages. Other versions with less filtering had 1400 and 900 pages. The latter is probably a reasonable estimate of the FAC pages not linked on appropriate talk pages, but includes about 100 redirects in the WP:FAC prefix. Gimmetrow 11:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Refs

If you get a chance before you jet off, could you have a quick look at the refs for Red Barn Murder. I'm planning on putting up for FAC and this is the first one I've done that has been sourced mostly from books rather than the web. Cheers, Yomangani^talk 12:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Very sensible idea. Done. Yomangani^talk 14:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Done that too. I used to have the footnote dates linked on all my articles by using accessdate=date month|accessyear=year but people kept changing them to accessdaymonth= instead (which is not linked), so I eventually caved in and started putting that, and now it appears they want them linked anyway...bit annoying. Yomangani^talk 16:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:West Indian cricket team in England in 1988

Thanks for tidying the boxes. Should the current status be logged as FA candidate? --Dweller 14:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Calvert

Thanks for correcting my errors on the talk page. It's my first time nominating for FAC. - Mocko13 01:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for fixing the banners on Talk:Go (board game). I was going to ask you to do it, but I didn't think it was important enough. --Ideogram 04:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Pashtun people

I moved all the categories in the article to Category:Pashtun people. You can find them there. I'll try to follow the rest of your advice as well. Thanks, Khoikhoi 11:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, can you respond as to whether your vote on the article has changed or not? I've made significant changes and have addressed the issues others raised in addition to yourself and would appreciate your further input and whether you believe it can be featured again. Thanks and take care. Tombseye 21:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kakapo

Hey; I'm still a little worried about Kakapo. — Deckiller 13:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's been fun :) Your work was extremely instrumental in turning it around though. — Deckiller 14:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Bot

Humph. There's no point to the thing if it'll be constantly stalling. Gimmebot, however, has fast become one of my best friends. Perhaps Gimme would look after Jmaxbot, but I'm not sure the traditions regarding bot "ownership."

I'm off at RfA, BTW. Not stumping (at least not yet! ;). But you did ask for a notification. Marskell 14:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

BanyanTree (talk · contribs) has put in a query to Jmax- (talk · contribs); not sure of the protocol either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Promoted facs

Hi! Thanks for the note. I did not know this automatic updating by GimmeBot. Thanks. I shall be aware! Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A humble request

Hello Sandy. After all of your recent help with maintaining the FA status of The Quatermass Experiment and Quatermass and the Pit, I was wondering whether — if you happened to get the time, I know you're very busy! — you'd be able to cast your expert eyes over Nigel Kneale, which I have put up a peer review request for? It's an article I've worked quite hard on of late, and am very keen to take to FAC. As I said, I know you're already very busy and probably get snowed under with such requests, but I thought as one of the experts on what makes an FA I'd see if there was any way I could make use of your expert opinion. Many thanks. Angmering 22:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

That's okay, no problem! Going somewhere nice, I hope? :-) Angmering 22:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, thank you! I hope it's not too dull a piece of travel reading for you! Angmering 11:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] St. Petersburg, Russia

I have been a real idiot in that FAC. I appologize. If you feel it must be removed from FAC asap. please feel free to do so. --Parker007 00:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Follow up

Dear Sandy,

As you have been incredibly helpful with improving the references for the Ohio Wesleyan University article, I wanted to check in again and ask you for your opinion before I finally nominate the article. Do you think the references need more work? Or any other part of the article? Thank you so much again!!! LaSaltarella 04:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Houston

Sandy, if you get time to reread this article, which has had a lot of work done, please do so, in particular because you often check areas that I don't. Thanks. KP Botany 19:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thor Halversson

The Campus Watch thing (pasted from a blogsite that evidently manipulates the article and, amazingly, one run by holocause deniers called http://www.fpp.co.uk/) is confusing and adds nothing to the entry for Halversson. I agree with JSRP it should not be in the article.

[edit] Most deserved

		The Reviewers Award
		I, Dwaipayan, hereby award you the Reviewers Award for your contributions to reviews in FAC, FAR and other similar areas. Your work is inspiring! --Dwaipayan (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restoration Literature

I feel Restoration literature needs to go to FARC for reasons I listed on the review page. — Deckiller 12:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article categories

Why did you revert my edit to WP:FA? Yes, paracetamol is a medicine, but you could easily expand the definition to Baby Gender Mentor, Caffeine, Enzyme, Enzyme inhibitor and Enzyme kinetics, as they all have medical qualities to them. Paracetamol could easily fit in either section; it's a drug used by doctors, but all drugs are chemicals made by chemists. I put it in the chemical section, with the other chemicals, as I felt the biology and "MEDICAL" section was bloated and it got lost in there, in spite of a better reason - Jack · talk · 17:05, Thursday, 22 February 2007

[edit] The article on Leonard Orban...

...has now been copy-edited and I made changes following your remarks in Peer review/Leonard Orban. Maybe you can take a look at the prose now. I hope it is not a problem that I have nominated the article as a GA candidate. --Michkalas 14:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

I know you are traveling, just to let you know that El Hatillo Municipality, Miranda has been promoted to featured article. Thank you very much for all your reviews and copy edits, the article wouldn't be FA without you. Please accept this barnstar as a thank you.--enano ^(Talk) 20:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for your notable contributions in improving the quality of El Hatillo Municipality, Miranda, and helping it get to Featured Article. I also appreciate very much your unconditional participation in all kinds Venezuela-related topics.--enano (Talk) 20:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Final revision of Abbas Kiarostami

Hi SandyGeorgia!

Over the last few months I have been working on Abbas Kiarostami to make it a feature article. The article have been copyeditted numerous times and also it had peer review for A-class assessment. It also passed GA assessment. Based on the feedbacks I got from peer reviewers and also during GA assessment, I think the article is pretty much ready to become FA. However it may be better to have a final round of copyeditting preferably by English native speakers. Would that be possible for you to help me in this final stage? That would be a great help. Thanks. Sangak 11:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The original article was splitted into two articles: Abbas Kiarostami and Cinematic style of Abbas Kiarostami. My idea is to joint nominate them for FA. Several wikipedians recommended me to contact you as you are an excellent writer and editor. Any comment will be very much appreciated. Sangak 21:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you are busy. I am also planning to take a long wikibreak from March 1st. I am exhausted. I've just nominated the article for FA assessment. Cheers Sangak 07:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAR

I'm really liking the current state of FAR; it's not as overwhelming as it was a couple weeks ago, and I feel we can easily process and boost articles that have people working on them already. — Deckiller 23:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and understood. I disagree about Abyssinia, Henry being just a retelling, but I explained on the review page. — Deckiller 17:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Take care

With all that's going on. Marskell 19:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ann Arbor FAR - a final look

I looked over the citations in the article and corrected the formatting as much as possible. However, I should note that most of the sources do not list an author of the particular passages cited (see my response in FAR for more details). Also, I am using the cite template, which may or may not be complete in format, though it was one of the suggestions that I have been given regarding the citations themselves. Pentawing^Talk 21:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] While I'm thinking of it

I think the V1.0 bot could be made to track the FA and FFA numbers through the ArticleHistory template. There would be a category:ArticleHistory by quality, and subcategories like ArticleHistory FA-Class articles. Could make this count FFAs too. Been thinking about this as we've gone over 1000 pages with ArticleHistory and I'm starting to see them edited incorrectly, possibly well-intentioned now, but eventually vandalism. The 1.0 bot would generate a log of all changes to class categories. Gimmetrow 05:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, for your FFA work, note that Dreyfus affair has recently been renamed from Dreyfus Affair. Would it be easier to have re-promoted articles in CAT:FFA or not? I have an idea which would put them in the * part of the category. Gimmetrow 04:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me if they are in the cat or not (as long as I know what to count), but some people who have worked on re-promoted articles may care if they are categorized as FFAs. Yomangani has one (Platypus - maybe two, can't remember), so maybe we should ask his opinion? Yes, the number of errors in articlehistory will be an ongoing concern; I've been noticing the problem as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A few more things. An anon (from USMA) tried to FAC Tony Eveready but was prevented, ended up putting a nomination text at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Tony_Eveready, and added {{fac}} to the article talk page. I would have fixed the nomination if I didn't think it would get WP:SNOWed anyway. If it is not fixed, the talk page qualifies for speedy deletion as {{db-talk}}.

It is possible to track FFAs without using the FFA/GA status. It takes a bit of logic/code, but it can be done, even displaying the appriate text if we really want. I think this would make the status a lot clearer to people. FA > GA > FFA > FFAC > DGA > FGAN. Pick the first that applies.

If you think it's easier to keep track of the FA/FFA counts on the page itself, you should probably abandon the template. Unfortuately a few other pages use it. It's also possible to combine the two templates into one, with the resulting number chosen by option, ie {{FAnum|FA}} or {{FAnum|FFA}}. Just an idea, but it would mean only one page would need editing rather than two when an article is removed at FAR. Gimmetrow 03:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Having them combined in one template would make it much easier, and might make having them in a separate file worthwhile. Who can set that up? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be easy to set this up, but this number is used in other places, eg WP:GA, and the redirects wouldn't work without changes, and the main redirect is a .js page which would require an admin. Any idea if the jmax-bot is going to get going? Gimmetrow 23:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

As for the FFA stuff, you can see how this works now in the Category:Wikipedia former featured articles. (Note: Pashtun people was re-promoted.) Current FAs are in a special part of the category, but the FFA icon/text is not shown on the talk page. FFA/GA is treated as a display option. Compare Talk:Euro with Talk:Algorithm. OK? Gimmetrow 23:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Things aren't going well on this trip, and the weather has made things worse; I'll catch up on all of that when I get back. I only have about half an hour online, on a very slow dialup. I don't know if anyone is going to fix the bot; I keep asking, it's making me crazy. Thanks, Gimme, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't blame the bot...

I just screwed up on Ridge Route. OK, it's been, like, twice. And the last time I had an excuse... Marskell 20:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll do this when I remove. But now we have more work, not less. Stupid. Marskell 14:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Microsoft history section.

Hi. I saw your comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business and Economics re. the Microsoft FAR. What are your thoughts about the history section? I think it should be cut dramatically to summary style - at present the section is an almost 100% duplication of the History of Microsoft article. I had a go and was quickly reverted. As I said at the FAR page and Talk:Microsoft I'm a 100% remove FA status until this section is cut down. Have a look at my edit, I made what I thought were the bare minimum cuts. To be honest I think more could go. Mark83 23:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Antioxidant FAC

Hi there, Sandy. I wondered if you had time to review this article? The FAC nomination is here. Thank you. TimVickers 05:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Tim; I'm traveling, but hope to have a good internet connection this weekend, when I should be able to review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ernest Emerson

Hi Sandy,

I know you're busy, but can you give this article a "once-over" again...it's up for FAC, too! --Mike Searson 22:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy! I don't think it would have gotten this far without your help! --Mike Searson 04:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings

Hey Sandy, Happy Holi !!!--Dwaipayan (talk)

[edit] 14 - 19

The record for January. Not bad at all. I moved four off the page today, and a whack more will go tomorrow, which means we'll drop back below 30 for the first time in a while. Marskell 11:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wall of Honor

Sandy, just a short note to let you know that I have inducted you into the "Wall of Honor". Cheers! Tony the Marine 04:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coeliac disease FAC

Welcome back (at least partially), you were missed. <cough>*sigh of relief*</cough> Care to weigh in when you have time? :) Fvasconcellos 03:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Just had a quick glance because I'm catching up on small things, but can't really get back into looking seriously until Thursday. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Take your time! One more to put under the magnifier? :) Hope you had a nice trip, Fvasconcellos 14:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

In trying to catch up, I'm leaving these til last. I'm not yet ready to support Coeliac disease, and am going to have to spend a lot of time in it, and I know I can support any article of Tim's, but I have to read it first (he makes teensy-tiny minor typos, so I think I should read it before I support, which will take time :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Busy Sandy, will you remember me, half-way up your talk page? No. 33 of 71 sections ;-). Hi Sandy, I've made some comments on this FAC but I'm not nearly as familiar as you with the standards. Have I been fair? Why no comments from other FAC regulars? I know you are terribly busy and it looks like you won't have enough time for a thorough review. Do you know who else may be able to comment/help? Regards, Colin°^Talk 23:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Colin; yes, I thought you were fair. I keep trying to figure out what to add there; can't put my finger on the problems I have with the article, haven't figured out how to write it up, and don't know what to say there. Has me stumped. I'll go try again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] new FAC

Yo, when you get back, do you mind looking through this FAC? I respect your judgement. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wonderbra FAC

Hi Sandy,

Thanks again for taking the time to read the article and offer your suggestions for improvement. I made several adjustments to hyphen/dash use and added details on the evolution of the Wonder-Bra to Wonderbra trademark. I did not remove the links to the ads hosted by Youtube. Take a look at my comment and let me know what you think.

Best regards,

--Matt Mattnad 13:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sandy. I appreciate your concern about Youtube, and your inclusion of the lawsuit link as evidence that copyright infringement has risks. It's good that you're raising the copyright questions, but I'm not sure the Viacom lawsuit is comparable or fair. Instead of creating a big public debate I figured we could try to work this out here.

I think you're suggesting, without actually saying it, that Wikipedia could be sued like Youtube for linking to materials of uncertain copyright status (it's pretty clear that Viacom's TV shows were both under copyright, and had commercial value that was being infringed upon and exploited for commercial gain by Youtube). In the case of the Wonderbra commercials, it's not at all clear that they are under copyright, and furthermore, unlike Youtube, Wikipedia is not the host of these commercials.

So I guess you are worried about a theoretical risk. On this theory, if Wikipedia is genuinely concerned about possible copyright infringement with external links, then ever bit of content that we link to would have to be affirmatively checked for copyright - not just assumed. But we don't do that because it's impractical and frankly unnecessary since the test is knowingly and intentionally linking to infringing material. As a case in point, there are many featured articles that link to external content with unproven copyright status.

So I guess it comes down to this. The commercials are very helpful to demonstrate the branding strategy taken by Wonderbra in the 1960s to 1970s and enhance the communication of the article. We do not know if they are still protected by copyright, so why then would we remove the links on the basis of assumed, rather than demonstrated copyright infringement. If we apply that logic, then all external links must be to only proven copyright safe material. Accordingly, many external links should be removed, including those of featured articles, pending affirmative copyright checks.

Now, there may be another reason for your objection: Do you think Youtube's a bit unsavory and would it be better to have links to the other sites with the commercials? That's an alternative we could consider. -Mattnad 18:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

But we don't do that because it's impractical and frankly unnecessary ... Actually, we do; WP:EL specifically address this issue. We aren't supposed to link to anything with a oopyright vio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

But there's a difference between demonstrable, knowing, copyvio, and assuming copyvio by default. There's a great discussion on this here Wikipedia talk:External links/YouTube. It articulates many concerns about how editors take on the mantles of copyright judge and jury without necessarily knowing the facts. Hey, it's up to you to reconsider your objection. You've been a super contributor to the quality of the article's format. All I'm proposing is that the links are not necessary against the guidelines. -- Mattnad 18:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yikes, 251KB of differing opinions; here's what Wiki says

From Wikipedia:Copyright: If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work.

Do you know they are not copyright vios? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're asking for affirmative proof of no copyvio which goes beyond the WP guidelines and the law (at least as articulated in the guidelines). One could use that argument like an atom bomb in Wikipedia to eliminate many, if not most external links - how do you "know" they really have copyright etc. It was this kind of affirmative test that I felt was impractical and unnecessary. Please note I'm totally agreeing with you that editors must eliminate demonstrable copyvio. Anyway, this is an interesting discussion and a lot of fun, but how about we sleep on it for a few days. regards. -Mattnad 19:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish

Per your e-mail, I'm not going to use that weblink; I may ask for a sentence or two to be translated at some point. I have to add urls to make the Retrieved on dates make sense, but otherwise Norte Chico is ready. Marskell 13:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AALAS

Hi Sandy; it looks like the organisation may have submitted the article itself - you could try and contact them and as for permission to use the text under the GFDL (instructions here). It'd still need a huge cleanup, but it saves you from writing a new article. If permission comes after deletion, the article can always be restored. If they don't give permission you can go ahead and write a new article on the temporary subpage and it'll be moved over the copyvio when the 7 days is up. --Peta 21:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jordan and Microsoft

Sure; I'll take a look when I get a chance. I agree that Microsoft needs some more time. — Deckiller 23:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks Re: John Major

Hey thanks for posting John Majors nomination for a review on all those project talk pages, it never occured to me! Hopefully the article can be improved! Thanks again. LordHarris 01:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sure thing!

No problem, I'll advise you if I come upon anymore. Great job, btw! -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 04:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

What order do you want the refs to appear in? I'll help. I just used the format from Wayne Gretzky, also does it really matter what order the information goes in if it's all there? I kind of preferred the old method. Quadzilla99 05:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm working from the bottom up, so if you go from the top down, we won't get in each other's way. I'm just trying to make them consistent; the problem now is that the publisher is placed after the article name when there is an author, but before the article name when there is no author. More consistent is to have author name (last name first, followed by first name), article title (when it's a news report rather than a website, it should be in quotes), then publisher, followed by date and access date. Make sense ? Problem is, right now, they don't have a consistent style, since some have publisher before article, some after.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay before I had the ultimate source (whether it be author or website first) I'll get to work. Quadzilla99 05:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I just found a dead link - Numbers you need to know about Michael Jordan - maybe you can find it somewhere? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay will do. Quadzilla99 05:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a ton, I replaced the dead link. It was number 82. Quadzilla99 06:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Number 80 actually numbers you need to know replaced it with nba.com/history link. Quadzilla99 06:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. Quadzilla99 06:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything you want me to work on in the meantime? Quadzilla99 06:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I said this on my talk page but in case you didn't/don't read it Russell should be okay now. I double checked all the links and fixed the broken ones. What happened was that we recently made a decision to combine the accomplishments and legacy section as some of the information was redundant. Needless to say it was done sloppily by someone. Its fixed now. When I say I checked them all, I mean I checked to see if any of them were dead and made sure that the ones that were blank were fixed. I didn't check the format in any of them. Quadzilla99 12:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nigel Kneale

Cheers Sandy. Hope the travelling's going well! Angmering 07:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A few things

So the long and short of it: I do update FFA template, but not the FA template for the moment?

Re your question about length: WP:SS and WP:LENGTH are guidelines, not policy. Whether an article has 30, 40, or 50k of readable prose does not by itself determine whether it passes or is removed, IMO. It should be case-by-case and commonsensical. See something I just started: User:Marskell/FA/FAQ that goes over it.

Thx for zipping through Norte Chico. Marskell 08:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Refs & Adam Gilchrist

Hey, just wanted to quickly thank you for going through my unsightly references and merging them! All the best... The Rambling Man 08:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George VI of the United Kingdom

Yes, I recall that User:ErleGrey just added GA to the class parameter in the WP:Biography template and didn't add the GA template itself. The id number of the reviewed version was oldid=107054364 at 15:52 12th February. DrKiernan 17:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cite templates

Hi, picking up on your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trembling Before G-d‎, can you explain what trouble the cite templates cause? If there's an issue it should be addressed now so they could be modified or deleted rather than waiting for everyone to get familiar with the using the templates. I would be interested in hearing your views. WjBscribe 19:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of problems with them; I'll organize my complaints and get back to you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheers- seems likely something that should be discussed, especially if they are detrimental to the quality of articles. WjBscribe 19:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's see if I can remember all of my gripes with them :-)

• They terribly chunk up the size of the article, and slow down access time, while providing the same info that can be input manually.
• They mess up punctuation (look at antioxidant), causing unsightly spaces after article titles, etc.
• The foreign language icons seem to work in some but not in others; I've had limited success in getting (Spanish) on cite news or cite book, although it does seem to work in cite web, so I have to add the icons manually outside of the cite template.
• My biggest complaint is the lack of consistency across templates; it's hard to recall all of those issues. Different templates handle same parameters differently. Author names and date formatting should be consistently employed across all templates. As I recall, what one does for author or date is different on, for example, cite news than it is on cite web.

I'll add more as I remember. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, some people would have started Wikipedia:Citation template problems by now, just to have a place for these notes. Regarding size and access time, do you mean for editing? The rendered article should be cached, afaik. What’s broken in antioxidant? Also, if you have an example where the language icon stuff is broken, I’ve got some time to look at it. —xyzzy_n 19:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Not enough time for everything :-)

Yes, for editing; when an article has a ton of refs (as medical articles do), the cite templates really chunk up the editing time. Whenever one of TimVicker's (very well referenced) FAs is on the main page, I'm not able to help vandal fight because the pages take so long to load.

I was helping out on the FAC for Same-sex marriage in Spain when we had a terrible time getting the Spanish icon to work in cite news, and ended up adding them all manually. I also recently manually added one to Norte Chico civilization. [1]

As an example, look at the awkward spacing in ref # 98 on antioxidant, following the article title and the PMID. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, I think you're one of the few people who are conscious of the link symbol appearing odd before quotes and other punctuation. Same thing on ref #6. Perhaps propose some changes on the template talk pages. Gimmetrow 01:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm… just thinking out loud, but would it be an improvement if ‘defining’ ref elements could be collected in the references section, right before <references/>, at the expense of making the wikitext longer? I. e. turn

Assertion.<ref>The alien killer wormhole from Mars (2045). ''Of course it’s true''.</ref>
More assertions…

==References==
<references/>

into something like

Assertion.<ref name="fixme001"/>
More assertions…

==References==
<span style="display: none;">
<ref name="fixme001" defining>The alien killer wormhole from Mars (2045). ''Of course it’s true''.</ref>
<!-- etc. -->
</span><references/>

It looks technically feasible, including the possibility of some javascript to convert stuff like antioxidant to this style, at the expense of adding another bit of syntax to the ref element and, as above, slightly more code. (Caveat lector: it’s ca. 0600 in my timezone. Estimate of feasibility may vary with time of day.) —xyzzy_n 05:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

xy, I appreciate your effort, but I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the example. I've been traveling for two weeks, am only home for a week, and have another two weeks of travel pending, so it's a bad time for me to dive into cite templates (which I basically hate anyway :-). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, templates removed. That’s about the ref tag and Cite.php, not the templates. (I haven’t got any good ideas yet on fixing the cite templates. At least none that wouldn’t involve a lot more server load.) —xyzzy_n 20:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Monahan

Huh—I think I've come across some of that guy's edits before ;) I do try to learn how to work with templates before I use them! As for my suggestions, I don't think they were ignored; BillDeanCarter probably thought FAC was a good place to receive input on improving the article, and although I disagree entirely with this use of FAC, it usually works... Fvasconcellos 20:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Various things

The timber framing article was missed because it had underscores. Was rather happy that after replacing the underscores with spaces, it was recognized at the time Raul added, not the time the edit was made. Guess when I add checking for lowercase class codes, I'll also have the code convert underscores on the archive pages whenever the bot edits them. Have also made the change to WP:FA so the count is kept on that page. WP:FA also uses the jmax-bot page once, which is a redirect to template:FA, which transcludes part of WP:FA itself! I was mildly surprised that actually works; I rather think it shouldn't. Maintaining the WP:FA page by hand is quite a bit easier than the WP:GA page by hand, but WP:GA also had a perl code generating the page until a month or two ago. Without the code, it was getting out of sync: there were about 50 articles with the talk page template not listed on the WP:GA page, and about 30 articles listed on the page without the talk page template. Most of the latter were delistedGAs or promoted FAs, but apparently not quite all. Gimmetrow 01:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the article talk page is noticed

"the article talk page is noticed" <-- by placing a template on a talk page with no edit summary? Wow, that's really "going the extra mile" to give notice! --JWSchmidt 04:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russell

Okay, while I did some significant work on that and did support it, Onamatopoeia was the main contributor, what I'm saying is that's not really one of my main projects. I'll notify him and post your concerns on WP:NBA. I'm pretty sure they'll address your concerns, if you'll notice the FAC did have some discussion and it underwent extensive editing while in nomination (Feb 7-17 was the nomination period during which it was edited a couple of hundred times),[2] so while it didn't have the scrutiny of MJ it wasn't exactly rubber stamped either. (If you think that's bad by the way, look at the refs on Boondock Saints, which have author or publisher info). I'm currently still working on MJ's FAC even though it looks bleak so I won't have much time to work on it.

Incidentally, I know you're busy but I've made some changes to the Jordan article (e.g. Jordan had another excellent season-changed to-Jordan again led the league in scoring, Jordan had one of the statistically greatest seasons in NBA history-changed to-Jordan had one of the most prolific scoring seasons in NBA history, Jordan was feared throughout the league as one of the game's best clutch performers-changed to-Jordan was well known throughout the league as one of the league's best clutch performers, exceptional defensive player-changed to-standout defensive player etc. generally inserting more generic terms), and it's been extensively copyedited by two other users. I'm wondering if you could just give some suggestions about what else needs work, even if it doesn't pass FA during this FAC I see no reason to stop working on it or trying to improve it. Incidentally could you give a quick look over Lawrence Taylor and Hakeem Olajuwon? Those are two articles I do work heavily on and I'd like to nominate them for FA eventually so any suggestions would be welcome. Obviously I have to fix the refs in those also. I probably need to make the descriptions of events more generic there also, and I am getting Taylor's book at which point I'll add an early life section and more details about personal life/marriages. You don't have to really read the entire articles if you don't have time, but just look over their formats and point out any obvious errors. I'll look over WP:DASH some more and try to familiarize myself with it. Thanks. Quadzilla99 05:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll ask deckiller again later on today, he hasn't responded yet. Thanks for your input. Quadzilla99 15:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mozambican War of Independence

Hey Sandy, thanks for your comments on the FAC page, I have taken them to heart and worked on the article, and I would like to invite you to take another look and update your views so I can see if I am moving along the right lines? Ta! SGGH 10:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I just took a very quick glance; footnotes are still not formatted. Several websources are missing the publisher (should also include author and publication date when available) and most do not have a complete last access date (month, day, year). I'll be glad to look further once the footnotes are done; see WP:CITE/ES SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to date all refs as accurately as possible, unfortunatly I will have to trawl through the history to find the exact dates, but I will take care of that shortly. I have now added author and date where available to all websources, but what do you mean when you say that aren't formatted? I've looked at WP:CITE but can't find exactly what you mean, I must be being dumb. SGGH 16:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Oooo I see, is it enoguh to have the extra info (such as publisher and access date) in the references section rather than having them all on every footnote? also, is the date that you mentioned the date that I first accessed the resource or the most recent date? Because if the latter can't I check they are all still there and date them all as todays date? SGGH 16:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Have rolled up my sleeves and gotten dug in. I think I haved fixed the bulk of it, I will continue to look through and fix any remainders that I find, I hope this has helped to address part of your concerns about the article. Thanks for your help! SGGH 17:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I've taken care of it. SGGH 20:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed your points, thanks again for your help with this SGGH 21:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we were getting crossed up because I was putting so much emphasis on where you said don't wikilink lone years, so basically it ought to be [[February 17]], [[1958]] where ever there is a full day-month-year date? Even in the footnotes where the dates are repeated numerous times? Or with such duplication shall I just wikilink the first one? SGGH 21:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for your comments, I hope I've implemented solutions to your satisfaction, would you consider supporting the article's FA nomination? SGGH 19:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I had not seen those comments at the time that I posted here, I think there is something wrong with my browser, but anyway I have addressed many of them now. I will wait for Zleiten and Tony the Marine to take a look before commenting further SGGH 20:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

They all seem to have been addressed as of 11:20GMT (he says, covering himself! :D) just to let you know. I'm thinking of contibuting to some other FAC reviews, I hope to be as thorough as you have been, to outweigh the "fan promotion" problem I read about further down in your talk page :) SGGH 11:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am willing to work to up the standard of FA's for the future. I hope that the thorough critique of the Mozambican article means that it will become a good FA role model should it pass! SGGH 14:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Policy v Guidelines

I consider the page itself a de facto policy; the canonical page for a canonical process (like, say, RfA Front matter). Thus everything on it should be held equally—but not everything linked from it. When guidelines link from policy, they offer suggestions, not rules. There is no length maximum for FAs or for any article. It's clarifying, not weakening, to point that out.

And I would quibble with the rest. How is NPOV a "rare" policy? And how is ATT getting weaker by the day? Finally, the image requirements are definitely grounded in policy: Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. Marskell 15:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a policy if the infobox says it's one and it's listed here. Guidelines are less watched, and more liberal in what they're willing to say, than are policies, and I treat them with a healthy skepticism.

Of course I know, particularly with formatting issues, that you are often literally the only person who does the work on certain aspects of the FACs. The FAQ was not intended in the slightest to denigrate consistency, or to place one criterion above another; we can work with the length wording, if you like (I dropped the one offending phrase). But there are misconceptions that I see that are turning into unhealthy memes—that footnotes qua footnotes are a requirement, for instance. They aren't.

Also, we need to separate the wording of policy from the interpretation of policy. As a matter of wording, ATT is not weaker than V was; it's identical, basically, just shorter. Our referencing standards are the same now as they were six months ago. Interpretation, meanwhile, is cultural, as much as anything else. Citation demands wax and wane as critical masses of people decide certain items must be referenced, and particular interpretations of policy thus become the cultural norm. And the two examples on FAR aren't enough to convince me that the culture is becoming less strict in this regard. "[Michael Jordan] quickly became a fan favorite for his exciting high flying style of play and daring drives to the basket," needs a f**ing source? Or, to use ALoan's example from WIAFA, see Adam Gilchrist. The sourcing is a joke, and if the interpretation of 1c ever evolves to the point where citations are expected to this degree it will do far more damage to Wiki than undersourcing on Geogre's FAs from '04 and '05.

NPOV is essentially unenforcable in certain respects, yes, but it's widely cited—the least "rare" of our policies in that regard. That was the only reason I asked. Marskell 18:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

As a straight comparison, underciting is of course a greater danger than overciting, and can be a very serious danger indeed if it's biographical material. But considering Wiki in toto, I think overciting, extrapolating from cases like Adam Gilchrist, does present a clear and present danger: a) it wastes time; b) it leads to arguing; c) it leads people to believe that all articles need to be cited to the same level, when emphatically they do not; d) taking a, b, and c together, it will cause people to leave Wikipedia. And then, like the poor lads in Lord of the Flies and their hunting of pigs, we'll be left with people who are fixated on footnotes in defiance of logic (why are you citing the fact that he's an Australian cricketer, when the next 180 cites bear that fact out?) and without regard to other issues (one of your concerns). As for "the ones I know who are at risk of disappearance, death, imprisonment" that's a BLP issue, and there's certainly no intent to mess about with BLP on the FAQ, which has rapidly become the "hardest" policy we have.

As a last point (because we're hinting at it), Restoration Literature is less undercited then you'd guess at glance. It is undercited, but it's not a radical case; FAR is bending but certainly not breaking if it goes keep. Marskell 21:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I'm finding the appeal to emotion a little startling: "No, the risk of imprisonment, death, disappearance that I referred to is not a BLP issue." Then what is it, as far as Wiki is concerned? You're throwing up a weird hoop I can't really jump through. We don't advocate here; we don't even investigate. We're a tertiary internet source. You're concerned about articles that "affect real people's real lives", while WP:BLP is concerned about the fact that "Wikipedia articles that contain information about living people can affect a subject's life." Largely synonymous, so pardon me for pointing to that policy. FWIW, I don't live in a democracy (people can "disappear" here). I don't live in a boot-to-the-ground dictatorship either, but I understand the difference between life and Wikipedia; the difference between Saadi pointing at one of the Iraqi teachers and saying quietly "she lost both of her brothers last year" and a Wiki edit war on Falluja.

Re leaving Wikipedia, read a, b, c, d again as a complete point. I'm not saying people leave because they're asked to source articles; I'm saying the associated culture can lead them to wonder whether it's worth it. Worldtraveller was probably not in the right frame of mind to make a reappearance, but he's case in point on both sides of the issue: very concerned about sourcing but equally aware of how damaging {{shrubbery}} is. And now, I expect for good, he's left. I hate threats to leave, but there's never anything wrong with looking at root causes of attrition. Why did Gzkn leave?

As for strawmen, Adam Gilchrist is no more a strawman than picking two out of the two hundred FARs that have gone through and claiming standards have weakened. Standards haven't weakened in the slightest; they've been getting steadily stricter for the two-plus years I've been editing. As for "Whackapedia", I don't usually respond to rhetorical questions; if you think I'm arguing for anything less than "articles based on and cited to solid, reliable sources" than we're truly talking at cross-purposes. Marskell 20:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"Verifiability" was a misnomer. If I follow a link to the Times from an article, I'm not verifying the info; I'm simply checking that a point of fact has been attributed. That three pages (V, NOR, and RS) are now one is a significant advance in terms of rationalizing our policies.

• The FAQ does not say "length doesn't matter".

• I have not said that overciting is a greater problem than underciting, anywhere.

• The FAQ addresses common issues, not exceptions: Fair use, "do I have to use footnotes?", "are you actually challenging anything" come up constantly. So let's address them. The wording can be tightened in any direction.

As for Wikipedia's credibility, it will not change while anyone can edit it. What we do or don't on FAC will not change that. Marskell 17:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Campbell's Soup Cans FAC2

You were fairly vocal in FAC1 and have not chimed in on FAC2. Your comments and hopefully support are welcome. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Two things: I've just returned from two weeks of travel, and have two more weeks coming up, so I have to be careful not to get myself overcommitted on FAC. Second, my Support of that article would depend highly on resolution of the Fair Use issues. I don't speak Fair Use, so unless there is an endorsement from Jkelly, Peta, or someone who I know does understand Fair Use, I would be reluctant to Support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Some things have been resolved at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images#February_27. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, I don't speak Fair Use, I've given up on trying, I don't usually understand it, so I can't get involved unless someone who I know does understand it endorses the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japan FAC

Hi, Sandy. We tried to sort out those citation problems. Any thoughts to leave on a fresh nomination? John Smith's 17:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no peer review. He suggested I make one, then said there wouldn't be that much point given it's already had one. John Smith's 19:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review for Myocardial infarction

Feel free to archive the peer review, however I prefer the peer review info over the FAC info. Is there a chance we could archive the FAC instead?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

If you'd rather archive the FAC, we could do that instead? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hi

Sandy - Relieved to see that you're keeping an eye on the project! I see a debate about attribution/citations raging in one or two places. Unclear where they're heading. I've come away to remote Alberta having emailed my email address list to myself; but it's nowhere to be found in my inbox ... great. May have a few snatches of time here and there for WP, after my hard days' skiing and dinner. I kind of miss it after my work maelstrom January/February robbed me of discretionary time. Tony 00:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Tony—nothing important enough to detract from a well-earned vacation. Enjoy SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your note

...on Presuppositional apologetics' arrival at FAR. I'm not around often these days but I was glad to get the notice, and added my two cents there. Best regards, Jwrosenzweig 01:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Galileo

Aw, you changed the talk page. I got a kick out of that one. Gimmetrow 02:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad someone appreciated that :-) The slot machine was going DING DING DING DING WINNER !!!!!! 02:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not the only one out there like that. I'm almost afraid to run the bot on the others, because you would change 'em. The Galileo one was OK until a couple more projects recently added banners and didn't balance the columns. Gimmetrow 03:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I won't change them if you tell me not to :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Raul thought the Galileo page was absurd. A similar one, rather messed up because of blind project tagging, is Talk:Aristotle. I've seen a couple more - all major biographies with multiple subject connections, if I recall correctly. Gimmetrow 03:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That one's a doozie. "What were they thinking?" SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Isaac Asimov, another winner ! Third time's a charm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you need another asterisk on the WP:FFA page for the Provinces article. Do you like how the re-promoted articles appear in the category? Gimmetrow 05:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I really like it; don't know how you make that magic. Former featured article, current featured list, will anything be broken if I just pretend I'm unaware? :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Allright, I sorta kinda fixed it, but I should have a new look tomorrow when I recover my brain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That "more to look at" list is the bunch of current FAs with leftover issues. Gimmetrow 06:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I put 'em there because I saw almost all of them while I was in the diffs looking for the FFA original noms earlier—I'll go back and get them tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I saw you moved the Voynich Manuscript fac. It didn't *need* to be moved. Just needed a link to the capitalized version in the talk page templates. Will process these soon. Gimmetrow 15:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried that first, but couldn't get the parameter to work—remind how to do it again on the featured template? I put {{featured|Voynich Manuscript}} and it didn't work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's the second unnamed parameter. So do featured||pagename. Also, FYI, on these late-created FAC pages with only a couple lines of text, the bot generally finds them too short to archive. (It's so the bot doesn't start moving redirects around.) If Talk:Bruno Kreisky comes up for FAC again, I would say it could just continue on that page. Gimmetrow 15:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

ah, yes, now I remember. Another question: I am adding the date/time stamp at the bottom of each created FAC as the date it was *moved* off of FAC; I'm not taking the time to go make sure that was the same date it was actually added to FA. DO you think that second (time-consuming) step is necessary, or is it OK to "take the diff's word for it?" SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not worth it. I'm using the last date on the fac page as the "end" to find the oldid on these processed pages. I should technically use the date it was added to WP:FA, right? I think it was Orca, one of the few that actually had significant comments, even had a comment a month after it was actually promoted. If someone really cares they can fix it someday - this sort of minutia is well into being a shrubbery. (Monty Python reference.) The FACs since January use the date they enter the archive, of course. Gimmetrow 15:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Good, I'll keep doing what I'm doing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ronald Reagan Featured Article Candidacy

Hi there. I, Happyme22, have only registered one support. The other two came from two unregistered users using their IP address, but they did not sign using four tildes. I have notified bot of them to quickly do so. Happyme22 19:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I'll go fix it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove Reagan's article. I explained to you- I am not the one writing all of the supports! I urge you, check out my IP address, and check out the editing history. Happyme22 19:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re

Thanks, Sandy! I've already left this whole issue behind me.--Yannismarou 19:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happyme22

I am the person who wrote the comments in favor of the Reagan article and I am not Happyme22. Please withdraw that accusation as it is not right. I am my own person. And actually, the Reagan article is very good and a good refuting of some of the fake honors that are said of him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.160.33 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 12 March 2007

The diffs and history show clearly who is making the posts; there are four or five supports entered by one user and one IP. There is no accusation for me to withdraw; only facts supported by diffs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dashes on Mary Wollstonecraft

I'm curious as to why you changed my dash style on Mary Wollstonecraft. According to WP:DASH, you can use a spaced or unspaced dash. I used the unspaced dash consistently. Also, I reverted one change you made inside a quotation; I copied all punctuation and spacing directly from Wollstonecraft's texts. Thanks for the help on the online citations. Awadewit 03:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Technopark, Kerala

Hi, Sandy. Thanks for the comments on the Technopark, Kerala article. I have tried to correct all issues pertaining to dashes, that you had highlighted, as per Dash (punctuation). Request you to review the same when you get time and continue your support to the article's FAC. Thanks and cheers! -- Ajaypp ^{(I am here..)} 09:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blockquotes

Announcing latest refFixing feature - removing floating ref marks after block quotes. See the quotes in Ghandi, sections "Freedom" and "Criticism", and result after fixing. I also dropped the limit to only fix up to 5 successive ref marks. Gimmetrow 16:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know (ctrl-F5 in aciton). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mainpage FA process

Please educate me on terminology you feel I am displaying a lack of understanding of. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking comments on AN/I

Do you perhaps want to explain why you blanked mine, along with other discussions on AN/I, only shortly after they were posted? [3].--Crossmr 00:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't do that, but I have seen diffs like that result from edit conflicts. I wish I knew how to resolve them, or even where to tell you to ask about them, but I don't. I'll see if I can dig up someone who can help explain how this happens. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There was a technical fault with the software during the time of that edit, the same thing happened all over, it is not fault of Sandy's. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Whew, thanks, that was very troubling. Also got this response on AN/I

• WP:VP/T#Edit_histories_temporarily_scrambled.3F--VectorPotential^Talk 00:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah that explains it. I restored mine, but perhaps we should check to see if the other discussions that were removed got restored at some point.--Crossmr 13:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cricket World Cup

Edit history says you protected it, but it's getting slammed by IPs ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Au contraire, I just move-protected it. No one (except admins) can move the article, but everyone can edit it. Maybe I'll semi-protect it if it continues (and if I can come up with a good cricket pun). -- tariqabjotu 00:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Courtesy link

Right. Thank you. I actually reported the problem early on, re-posting my own text and asking for help with restoring the others.[4] I'm sorry to say people didn't seem very interested, though. :-( I didn't actually dare do it myself, since it was obvious from the history that something weird was going on—posts kept disappearing, and people were having to post two or three times before it "took". Also obvious, as I hope my report made clear, that it wasn't you that did the last blanking (as if!), even though it happened at the time of/from/with/ your edit. Bishonen | talk 01:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Venezuela PR

Thank you for your reply on El Hatillo, I'm really happy and I'm going to try to get to the front page some time. Regarding Venezuela, I would love to review it and help improve its quality, but you caught me on a really busy week, I will see if I can find some free time to help but I can't promise anything. Ricardocolombia asked me to help him with Cúcuta, so I might get on that first. I wish I had your ability to work in multiple project simultaneously ;-) Saludos.--enano ^(Talk) 03:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I will take a look at it tomorrow.--enano ^(Talk) 03:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ref stuff (again)

I’m sorry I wasn’t very clear the last time (it was late enough to be early and I didn’t have any code yet). I’d like to try to explain it again, because I think you’re one of the most qualified people to comment on it.

I like the Cite.php system of <ref></ref> and <references/>, but, especially after looking at antioxidant in edit view, I must admit that it makes the article’s code awfully hard to read (even more so for somebody who wasn’t there when it was written). A possible solution, and a feature regularly requested at m:Talk:Cite.php, would be to put the text of the citations (such as the various cite templates or hand-written citations) in a location separate from the actual article.

So I made a patch for Cite.php that adds that feature. Here’s how it works. Suppose we have an article that goes like this (sorry for the nonsense, but I can’t think of anything good right now):

'''blah'''<ref>Hello world!</ref> foobar baz bar foo foooo<ref>...</ref>
fooo.<ref name="oooh">blah</ref> Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.<ref>
hmmmmmmmm</ref>

==References==
<references/>

This is the current way to use Cite.php, mixing the <ref>s with the text and having a single tag in the References section. Here’s how it could be done with my changes if desired:

'''blah'''<ref name="fixme0001"/> foobar baz bar foo foooo<ref>...</ref>
fooo.<ref name="oooh"/> Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.<ref name="fixme0002"/>

==References==
<declarations>
<ref name="fixme0001">Hello world!</ref>
<ref name="oooh">blah</ref>
Note: the following citation is correct. Although M. Eh cites this
name as ‘H. Mmmmm’, the consensus, based on Doe’s biography, is to
use the following spelling:
<ref name="fixme0002">hmmmmmmmm</ref>
</declarations>
<references/>

What happens here is that a declarations element is added and refs are moved into it. For anonymous refs, this requires adding names. Inside <declarations>…</declarations>, no output is generated (I think), but ref elements are processed. Also (and this is what wouldn’t work without patching), in the references list, links are generated not to the hidden citations, but only to the ones in the text. Things like whitespace or remarks left for other editors also won’t be output.

Of course the whole thing (probably) doesn’t break anything existing, and it’s possible to use this feature in parallel with the old style (as shown in the example for the ‘...’ reference). I haven’t bugged Ævar (the author of Cite.php) yet. I’d like to hear your opinion first on whether this is useful/worthwhile/terrible/a crime against humanity/likely to become opposed in any FAC/… Note that, as in the above example, articles using this feature are slightly larger. I’ve tried converting the antioxidant article to this style and the size of the code increased from 74 KiB to 80 KiB. (I wrote something to do it automatically, by the way, so this is possible, too.) If you find the feature useful, would the usefulness outweigh this increase in length?

By the way, to do the above, I installed MediaWiki on my computer, and I copied {{cite journal}} there to make most of the citations in antioxidant show up. I still think citation templates are a good idea in theory, but the CPU load is awful to a degree that I wouldn’t have believed until I saw it. —xyzzy_n 03:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for working on it; I'm glad someone is trying. It's midnight here, so I'm not really getting it (bedtime), but is there an error in the second box? If not, I'm completely missing it. I'll look in the morning. I'm also confused about something; the idea is to make it easier to edit articles (load time problem), so how does an increase in size decrease the load? Gimmetrow wrote the script for the Amazing Gimmetrow RefFixer; hopefully he'll look and provide more intelligent comments than I can. I need to sleep on it, but the idea of separating ref data from the text could be very confusing to editors - not sure? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, load time wasn’t the idea here (although individual sections, except References, would in fact load faster in heavily referenced articles if this was used). The main benefit would be avoiding things like [5]. (I only stumbled across that when testing C code to convert the refs… wouldn’t have been able to spot it while editing.) —xyzzy_n 04:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I oppose this proposal because it doesn't seem to offer a mechanism for identifying orphaned references. What I would find useful would be a Cite.php mod that automatically formats things as Harvard references, including the parsing of raw text, i.e. none of that {{cite whatever}} business. Samsara (talk • contribs) 04:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been tied up with something else today. The approach, separating the ref texts off, has been proposed a number of times before in various ways. It's essentially how the old {{ref}}/{{note}} works, so it's not unfamiliar, and it would make it easier to import TeX documents. Unfortunately, while people have numerous complaints about the cite.php system, it keeps the note content with the text being annotated, and that is generally desireable. Eventually someone will write/implement a smarter edit window, with the reference texts in a separate window and the gory details hidden, yet still connected to the text they annotate. (Probably someone has already.) So this is not to discourage you - the idea does have a fair amount of support - but it's been written and proposed before. Check out Wikipedia:Ref reform for instance. Gimmetrow 04:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Good comments there, although I'm not sure how it makes a difference to importing TeX documents, assuming that BibTeX is used. Samsara (talk • contribs) 04:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I know it’s been proposed a lot, I wouldn’t have bothered with it otherwise. Also, this doesn’t break the usual inline references—it only offers an alternative, for sections like [6]. I understand that the separation of references from text has drawbacks. (By the way, I think my code should actually work with multiple declarations elements, e. g. one per section.) —xyzzy_n 04:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that’s an issue, but checking it would be outside of the scope of Cite.php. A script or bot for doing this should be easy. I don’t foresee this feature being used for more than a hundred articles (the ones where inline references make the code unreadable) and the accumulation of ref garbage should be slow, so the occasional human-assisted check ought to be enough.

I don’t know how to write Harvard references, ergo can’t write something to make them automatically, and I’m skeptical about any kind of automatic parsing (more complex than maybe grabbing PMIDs) without {{cite whatever}}. —xyzzy_n 04:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Automatic parsing works 100% if people check their changes once committed, and file bugs as they find them, and developers fix the bugs. If people don't do that, they should have the option of using the legacy system (this is a universal rule in design), or, failing that, things will work at whatever the accuracy of the parsing system is. Writing parsing code in perl that works for 90% of cases is trivial. Samsara (talk • contribs) 05:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FASD

I've not edited that page for a long time, Sandy. The new stuff does look scholarly, just a little too technical. Regarding the title, FASD is correct. FAS is a subset of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I noticed you hadn't been there in months, which is partly why I was concerned. Not sure why you say FASD is the correct name, though, since the article acknowledges the correct name of the diagnosis as FAS ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a spectrum disorder: Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder. FAS is the most severe diagnosis within the spectrum, but there are others, and the others are likely to be more common, though under-diagnosed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Alleged definitions of spectrum disorders are highly problematic throughout lots of realms of medicine (e.g.; Tourette syndrome); there is no medical defintion of such, and the current diagnosis is still FAS, as far as I can tell. The current name goes against naming conventions, MEDMOS, and hits on both names on any important search. Until a medical authority defines it credibly as a spectrum disorder, we should stick to convention—is there something I'm missing? According to what diagnostic entity do we call it Spectrum Disorder? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chagas disease

I just noticed this on your FAR box, and thought you might like to know I've been watching and reading it for months now, not knowing how to help. It is undercited, loaded with redlinks (I'd say "infested" but that pun would be too much) and the prose is achingly Portuguese-influenced in places. I really wish I could help out on this one, but I don't know how... :( I will keep it on my Watchlist, and if the time comes for FAR/FARC, I'll chip in. Fvasconcellos 23:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we can entice TimVickers, Colin and others to help us tackle it (in April, after I'm home from travel)? I think we can fix it; the one that's in really bad shape is Lesch-Nyhan. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be nice. Nothing like a team effort :) Fvasconcellos 14:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you can get Tim on board while I'm gone, with the idea of an April project? We can probably fix it without taking it to FAR. If Colin helps, and maybe JFW reviews, it won't need FAR. Maybe Opabinia will help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Tim's working on metabolism right now—I'll talk to him about it later,as something tells me he has a trypanosomic interest :) JFW is probably focusing on coeliac disease as it's on FAC now. I'll leave a note to him and Colin and ask what they think. Fvasconcellos 14:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't use those big words on my blonde-ish brain when I don't have time to look them up ;-) At least you could wikilink 'em for me ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You made me do it. Trypanosome SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

*Shock, horror* You used an external reference first? There's a search box right there on your left! Fvasconcellos 15:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Guilty as charged. And thanks for provoking the very bad memories of the awful time I spent in grad school, undiagnosed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC) (And, for your pharmaceutical interest, metronidazole did nothing; quinacrine worked after I threatened to do bodily harm to the doctor if he didn't give me some. He claimed it might make me deaf; I said, I'll take deafness over this ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh man. That is harsh. And thank you for that—I just noticed quinacrine has no structural formula. Woo-hoo! Fvasconcellos 15:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You're telling me. Completing grad school and starting my first job with a year of that, undiagnosed. And now Tony1 and Marskell are joking about same on their talk pages—not funny from over here! OK, go fix those articles; now you owe me twice ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

All done. Feel free to cash in the favors when you wish :) Fvasconcellos 15:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Watch

• User:Zenosaga/Neanderthal theory
• P.A.N.D.A.S.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAs

I saw your message on Tony1's page. Couldn't agree more. I was astounded at the lack of scrutiny of Banksia epica, which I took through a couple of weeks ago. Since then I've seen a number of articles go through with basic problems like spelling errors. Is this situation truly just because of Tony's absence? Hesperian 05:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

A lot of it is the lack of Tony; he often picked up prose problems, which freed others up to look at other things. The real problem is that articles get support from "fans", while no one seriously reviews the problems, so they'll end up promoted based on fan support. <sigh> .... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sandy - when working on my first article for FA I dreaded Tony taking a look, as if you have his support then you got a very brilliant article. He's very hard to please with an article, which is a great thing when you want to improve an article. LuciferMorgan 01:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias of Footnoted Authors

Hi Sandy, remember me from the nighmarish Roe v. Wade FAR?  :-)

I've got a brief question for you, if you don't mind. At the abortion article, one of the footnotes cites an author, but does not mention that the author is a pro-life activist. I inserted that info into the footnote, but now it's being deleted, here. Is there some Wikipedia policy I can cite that encourages Wikipedia editors to disclose info about people cited in footnotes? Thanks.Ferrylodge 02:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of any policy or guideline that will help resolve this. But ... the edit summary doesn't give a valid reason for the deletion: "breaking up the flow of references" is just a silly explanation, and you can put anything you want between ref tags. If that's the reasoning, another option is to add the content directly to the text. IMO, the footnote is a much more logical place for the info and that's where I would add it, but you can make the offer to add it directly to the text instead and see if that results in a more logical response. Another option: create an article on Elliott Institute (if it meets notability), and link to it. Since I don't follow abortion debates, I have no idea if that person or Institute is notable, but if so, you can create the articles to contain the text. I'm still not interested in abortion debates :-) Good luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thx.  :-)Ferrylodge 02:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poetry

Off already? Did you have ref format concerns you wanted to list on poetry? He's jumbled explanatory notes with source info, unfortunately. Marskell 08:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No, put the note up a day early. Will look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Had a look, thinking I'd just quickly fix them myself. Not so; what a formatting mess—I could fill in some of the missing info, but since I couldn't fill in page numbers or editions, no reason to even start the job, which is bigger than I thought. And since none of our literary experts bothered to comment, I can't see lodging a Remove based only on sloppy and incomplete footnotes—tired of being a punching bag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jordan FAC

The Michael Jordan FAC has been re-listed (which was probably a good idea). Thought you'd like to know, here's a quick link. Quadzilla99 14:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually joined in July 2006 so a lot of that stuff pre-dates me. I nearly had a heart attack because it could well have been true. Phew! Quadzilla99 22:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PANDAS

I had a look, tinkered with the prose a little and watched the page. TimVickers 17:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aspartame refs

I am hopeless at refs/cites, so if I make them wrong I apologise and please take charge. It's like I have dys-cite-ia:)Merkinsmum 22:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

lol yes I will have fun, you have a good time:)Merkinsmum 22:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)