User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] I kind of need some help

Hey girl I see you have the same problems I do sometimesdo you think you could help me out with with my dispute http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/The_13th_4postle against JRSP and FlankerCarlitos 17:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improving Asperger syndrome article

I just quickly scanned Asperger syndrome and you're right, it could stand improvement. I'm afraid I won't have time in the next few weeks to do anything major. Do you have anything in mind? I could just write a quick review of the whole page, sort of a kneejerk reaction, if you think that'd help, and put it on the talk page.

Before doing major work, what do you see as the priorities in this area? I just now looked at (and reorganized a bit) List of autism-related topics. Wow. It's enormous. Eubulides 18:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I REALLY do see your point, but at the same time, if you are going to tag the article again, you really DO need to explain exactly what inaccuracies you see in the citations etc. I know it is a pain, but "guess the inaccuracy" is a game that could take for ever to play.
Wherever there are inaccuracies I am 100% with you, but I have a slow connection, clinical shock ($800!!! YIKES!!) and houseguests at the weekend, so help me out here and specify the inaccuracies?? --Zeraeph 00:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Task force for WP:MED

I'm hoping for some help from someone familiar with WikiProject Medicine. I would like to create a Pregnancy and Childbirth Task Force. Does WP:MED have any task forces? Would I be better off creating a child (no pun intended) WikiProject? I'd rather avoid the bureaucracy involved in that if possible. I would appreciate any guidance. If you know of a person better able to help me, feel free to steer me that way. (I first tried User:Eubulides, who suggested I contact you.) Thanks! --Ginkgo100talk 21:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleveland 2

Hi Sandy. Any last comments on this one? Marskell 15:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ronald Reagan edits

Hey thanks Sandy for helping out the Ronald Reagan article (again haha). You always do the little "behind the scenes" edits that are much appreciated by me and many other. Best, Happyme22 18:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. You know, if you want to get an article about a conservative featured on Wiki, it has to be more perfect than a liberal article. You really should fix the MOS stuff before bringing it to FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
My mistake, but I think this FAC is going to work! I just wanted to thank you again for registering a 'support' on the Reagan FAC page, for all of your tireless efforts to fix the article due to the MOS. Best, Happyme22 18:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sandbox goof

Sorry, Sandy! I wasn't planning to "promote" Fun Home myself — I was just trying to see if I could get {{ArticleHistory}} to work to combine the existing GA, peer review and FAC templates on Talk:Fun Home. I eventually decided to wait until the FAC closes, but didn't want to lose the info about the "oldid" fields, so thought I'd keep it in my sandbox for now. I didn't realize that would cause problems.

Does the FAC closrue bot automatically change the templates to {{ArticleHistory}}? If so, that's cool. If not, I'll make the necessary changes after the FAC closes (however it closes). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem! Yes, the bot updates articlehistory, and more (there's archiving of the FAC, clearing the old fac file, updating Project assessments, and tagging the FAC closed); best to let the bot do it all once the FAC closes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I think I was unclear: what I meant to ask is if the talk page doesn't have the {{ArticleHistory}} template on it, but does have things like {{GA}} and {{peerreview}}, will the bot replace those with {{ArticleHistory}}? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The bot will get them all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paracetamol

Hi Sandy! Quick question—what do you think of an unofficial review (perhaps posted at WT:PHARM) of paracetamol? It's in pretty bad shape, and we at the project (ooh! cabal!) would like to avoid FAR :P Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll help if you initiate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm working on it piecemeal, doing some very minor things; will probably be mostly off-wiki over the next few days, but I'll keep going whenever I get a chance (hey, the nights are young :) Perhaps we (and others) could work on a Sandbox version? Spam over at WP:CLINMED? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking frenzy at the Alexithymia page

Sandy, do you know of a way to stop Zeraeph from going on a "blanking rage" on the alexithymia page? I deleted an unreferenced sentence of his (the contentious one) and in return Zeraeph is blanking huge portions of the reference paragraphs as "not fully referenced". Is there some rule against that kind of blanking frenzy, or is it a matter of following him and restoring each point he blanks?

PS. I know you've got your hands full with the goings on at the AS page (where you are proposing some very worthwhile corrections!), but thought I'd run it by you. Soulgany101 02:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I see the article has been protected by an admin, so I'm not going to look further tonight; I'm disgusted enough about what went on at Asperger syndrome, and I'm up to my eyeballs right now editing another article, where I can be of more use. When things get heated, it's time to move on to another area of Wiki for a while. You may know that Zeraeph was upset by a car accident today, so leaving this for another day may be a wise course. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand. Maybe Zeraeph was going through something personal. I won't conjecture more but will say I'm pleased that the article was locked from further blanking. BTW, I note that Zeraeph has a problem with the way the references/citations are written, which may account for the blanking. I thought you had fixed most of that? Anyways, I've got nothing more to add to that article, and I think its in pretty good shape.... certainly the most comprehensive and well-referenced effort for that entry to date. Thanks again for all your tidying, I hope your work remains intact. I'm drifting away from that entry now too to work on more productive projects, as I suspect that Zeraeph would try and vandalize any effort at clean-up I attempted. Soulgany101 04:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, maybe he should spend more time trying to fix his own refs rather than expecting you to do it for him? --Zeraeph 04:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't brawl on my talk page; tomorrow's a new, hopefully better day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing contibution

Sandy, I appreciated all your valuable editing work on the Alexithymia entry, in particular the concise use of referencing for book references (which I will use in future!).

The Barnstar of Diligence
For your huge and selfless contribution in formalizing the references on the Alexithymia page. Soulgany101 10:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oh boy

I'm still pretty shakey today, but, after "settling my nerves", with a little "Australian Nerve Tonic" I KNOW I jumped to some conclusions, some of them were remarkably good, but some were...er...UNgood. Thanks for understanding.

I really DID flip at the appearance of surname + date (only) cites. Soulgany101 can be a bit slap happy with things like refs (he's new, and some of the citation formats ARE like crochet wearing boxing gloves). I have tidied up after him before, no problem, I just couldn't understand why he was refusing to explain what was going on to let me do that and was taking some kind of offensive instead.

Of course I now realise I was probably misunderstanding and wiping out the work I asked you to do myself, which I am REALLY sorry about, that must have seemed crazy, but I have honestly never seen citations done that way before.

Anyway, I think you will find that the AS editors have come to terms with your concerns and are happy to discuss them now. --Zeraeph 14:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MOSBOLD vent

Grrr. I inexplicably like using boldface for trade names when it is IMHO meaningful, i.e. the name under which a drug was first introduced or a distinct formulation (SR/XR). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Trickle Down Economics"

Sandy the coverage of Trickle Down Economics in the Reagan article is just fine - what do you think, and why was that user on the FAC page so adamantly oppsed to it? He just didn't like what it said, but he didn't know what to change it to, right? I don't think his opposition is going to have a huge effect, though. Happyme22 00:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

oh, I think folks will come up with anything they can to keep it from being featured :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I fail to understand Article size consideration (which you stated in its nom). Can you explain what actually is the the limit? Would also appreciate if you take part in this India article related discussion. New sections (Sport, Transport, Media) have not been created keeping in mind Article size limits (but now there seems to be a new dimension to it!?). Your opinions will give some direction to these debates. KnowledgeHegemony 15:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A few

Does the strikethrough on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Casablanca (film) mean you're happy with it? Also, there's Spoo up there; I realize the sourcing isn't perfect but it's the canonical example of IAR wrt using usenet posts. Also don't know what to do with Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sverre of Norway. Cheers, Marskell 13:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Publisher for newspapers

Hi Sandy, got a question for you. I noticed that you added publisher information to many of the citations used in Harold and Inge Marcus Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering. Some of the ones you added were for The Digital Collegian, which, while it is Penn State's student newspaper, it is run independently of the university, much like a local newspaper would. Should Penn State still be listed as the publisher in that case? For example, what would you put for the publisher of the work New York Times? --Spangineerws (háblame) 02:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Work vs. Publisher has never been well defined (to me, at least) in the cite templates, so I may have gotten them backwards from the way you're using them in the article. I wouldn't worry too much about what to put; I just wanted something to be there so readers would have an idea where the info came from. I always put newspapers as publisher and don't really know what to do with Work, but I could be doing it wrong, so whatever you want to do ... Saludos, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Normandy FAR

Further information: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Battle of Normandy

I just looked at my watchlist for the last time before I am moving (and taking my PC with me). Would it be too great a favour to ask, if I asked you to notify the contributors you meant of this FAR? Thanks :) User:Krator (t c) 20:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No prob, will do, good luck on the move! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Went well User:Krator (t c) 10:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maletagate, valijagate

Sandy, you are right. Most Argentinian newspapers are talking about the valijagate now. I think it should be best to redirect then. --Periergeia 09:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More Reagan FAC

Hi again Sandy. Sorry to keep bothering you about the Reagan FAC, but I have to get your opinion. There are 10 supports and really only one serious opposition (from User:Wikipediatoperfection). I was reading on the WP:FAC page and it said that the editors need to come to a concensus. Does this mean that even with 10 suports the article stands a good chance of not passing because of Wikipediatoperfection and he/she is still thinking that there is POV everywhere? Happyme22 21:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That really depends on how Raul reads the consensus and whether he deems the remaining opposes are significant. All you can do is respond to the best of your ability to the opposes, and wait to see how it develops. The POV-pushing Opposes are apparent, but that's what an FA will attract; it's up to Raul to decide if they're worthy. I think the best suggestion so far has been that the article should use more scholarly sources; if I were you, I'd go get those recommended books and start using them for citations. I'd help, but I'm up to my eyeballs trying so salvage Asperger syndrome, which is a trainwreck featured article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Sandy is precisely correct (of course), it depends on how big the flaw (or perceived flaw) is and what Raul654 thinks of it. Most articles Sandy supports make it to FA.Rlevse 21:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
But many articles I Oppose also make it :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm just gettin tired of dealing with Wikipediatoperfection and his opposition to virtually the whole page (the only serious opposition on the FAC page), but 10 users (not including myself) have registered supports. I just hope Raul thinks like us! Best, Happyme22 02:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
If the article becomes featured, it will only become worse :-) The POV pushers will be after it all the time. Be satisfied that you've written a fine article; don't worry about the star. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAR

Asperger syndrome has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Giggy Talk 01:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the talk page, yes, but working hard isn't the only FA criteria. Giggy Talk 01:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'll hold off. I wasn't actually sure what's meant to happen with repeat FARs - it doesn't really explain this on the instruction page. Giggy Talk 01:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hot water

I seemed to have put my toes into some hot water at Reagan Legacy talk [1] Brian Pearson 03:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't blind POV exhausting?  :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Blind POV? I haven't been around enough to know what that means, for sure. :) I just figured even a biased site could be right about one thing or another, and if an acceptable source backed up that particular point, then what's the problem? :) Brian Pearson 04:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Just remember, the New York Times, CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC are all "reliable". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Ahhh. And, one of them even has an eye. Brian Pearson 13:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
After reading the Reagan article and more comments in Talk, I've begun to wonder if we will need someone who is utterly apolitical... Brian Pearson 01:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you know where to find such a beast ? The talk page has taken a rather aggressive turn recently. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
It just occurred to me there was someone praised for his help -- I think on the FairTax article -- even though he opposed it. I'm trying to find out who it was. I may not know until tomorrow. Anyway, it's a thought... :) Brian Pearson 02:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Cielomobile and GeorgiaTex were two people who were opposed to the FairTax, yet they worked to make the article better. I wondered if such people might be able to transcend politics for a better Reagan article. It looks as if it has attained FA status, but at the same time, I'm not sure the shootin' is over. Brian Pearson 01:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Considering the recent talk page aggression, I doubt the shooting is over. I advised Happyme22 to get busy converting citations to the scholarly sources mentioned in the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asperger Syndrome in Belgium

Now that would be a real nightmare......cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

ohmigosh, you made me fall of my chair !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
But seriously..I typed some stuff on the talk page and was amazed at how much text then appeared. I'm a bit flat out this week but will post an idea on the talk page.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'm worried that "the path to hell is paved with good intentions", and they don't seem to understand how bad it is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Gawd - it's tough as I have a lingering cold/flu-thingy here in a sodden cold Sydney winter, so looking at all the Apsergers stuff makes my head spin...gotta do something less draining....coming along though...(cough cough splutter splutter) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
That FAR almost made me pop a cork; we'd just started working, and even though those journal articles give me everything I need to write the darn thing myself, now I'm going to be busy through mid-September. Timing couldn't be worse. Sure would have preferred to simply fix the lead and then work on the article without the time pressure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Valijagate

(UTC)| 13:07, August 21, 2007 (UTC)}}.

Venezuelans think that pintandose las caras reuniundose con los amigos y marchando al Parque del Este is going to restore their democracy, so I don't really think the truth in that article matters much. People in Venezuela are being murdered at world record rates and no one is even paying attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they do care. Not all are daddy's sons protesting in Sambil. It is not easy, though. Primero de Justicia had denounced crime X times to no avail (not that PJ were very efficient), they even had a press conference together with AI to show the murder rates. The whole government denies or obscures crime statistics, they explain the most stupid things (they compare one weekend with another and see what weekend last year had a higher crime than this year and then choose both weekends to show how crime has "dropped"... I had been thinking about creating an article with references about crime, statistics from UN, etc. --Periergeia 22:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Every paragraph in the article needs a cite; if you don't start adding the citations, it will be harder to find them later. Every direct quote also needs a cite. The information is all there somewhere; the cites need to be added. If they aren't added, the text may eventually be deleted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:DavidShankBone

Are you going to forever bring up the Hugo Chavez thing, completely over-looking ALL my photographic contributions? I asked you about thisbefore and I thought we had come to some sort of understanding on the issue, yet you bring it up again and I have no idea why. It completely ignores my contributions, and that I had a good faith argument that I still believe in for the Hugo Chavez page, it just wasn't particularly important to me to pursue. It would be nice if you "let it go" since it was a year ago, my photography is considered pretty valuable by most editors (apparently not by you) and since I felt I had an argument on the Chavez photo that was meritorious, but not worth pursuing. I'm just saying...it would be nice, Sandy. --David Shankbone 17:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Message

Hi! Could you leave me a message, I'm testing out my monobook.css. Thanks! --LifeloverElena 18:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AS table

Formatted perfectly, as far as I can see! I do wish people would distinguish between multisentence and single-sentence lists (as you've done here in the formatting—MOS needs a little fixing in this respect). There are variations—adding a semicolon after the first five points (very optional, and I'm starting not to do it for aesthetic reasons), and ", and" at the end of Point 5 (also very optional).

I'm concerned about "delay in language". Shouldn't "development" be added, just as in Point 5? Is DSM-IV quoted here verbatim (there are no quote marks to indicate that)? I'd be inclined to paraphrase via that addition—it would be a fault on their part not to.

My nerdy editor friends insist on a dot after "et al.". Personally, I prefer no italics, but many house styles (in influential APA included) insist on it.

I'll have a look at "History" tonight—daytime is busy at the moment, and, oh, Manderson's back at MOSNUM, so I guess I'll have to spend time fixing things. Tony 02:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Postage stamps of Ireland

I noticed an edit that Ms2ger made here and asked whether removing the en dashes and em dashes that were replaced still complied with MOS. The answer was that the – was changed to –. I don't know if this complies or not as I had never seen this coding before. Please let me know if this is ok as you seem to know this stuff well. To me it looks like the hyphens that I was told to replace with dashes to comply with MOS during the FAC. ww2censor 03:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The endashes and emdashes were merely replaced with real endashes and emdashes; they aren't hyphens. It's just a different way of doing the same thing. When you're in edit mode, look at the line below the edit summary box that begins with Insert; the first thing there is an endash and the second is an emdash. You can click on them to insert a real en or emdash without having to type out the HTML code. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Cool, so all is ok — I never noticed that before. Actually I saw them but never used them. Thanks indeed. ww2censor 03:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the new edit. ww2censor 03:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for assistance

As someone with whom I have reviewed or worked with on an article or talk page, I humbly request your assistance in reviewing the Aggie Bonfire page for Featured Article status. Any/all constructive input is welcomed and appreciated on the FAC nomination page, but please read the instructions for reviewing before you make a comment. Thanks in advance for your assistance. — BQZip01 — talk 05:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How is it...

That FAC always...rallies the troops?

Before and after. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stability of cites (or sites)

I began worrying about cites one time, after I posted a link to a study in the talk section of one article. After awhile, it didn't work anymore. I found out when I returned to it and someone else commented that it didn't work, so I had to write to them to find out what the new link was. I began wondering if we need to periodically check links. Or in articles, ask the source if a given site is going to be a persistent one, without going to archives or something. Is there a procedure for that? Brian Pearson 00:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Look for old sites in the internet archive; avoid links to news sites that are known to go dead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asperger's page "whats special"

Sandy. Just adding this brief note to let you know I'm in favour of your previous, and ongoing edits to the Asperger's page. The only time I intend to get involved is if others try to vandalize or dispute your fairly considered edits, ie., I am watching. I agree that previous edits overly emphasized the "WhatsSpecial" line, mainly as propagated by CeilingCrash". That's my position. Please continue your current valuable editing work. Soulgany101 01:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The lead is largely original research, speculation, and synthesis. Hopefully after the article is rewritten, regular editors there will understand how to build a summarizing lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Singling out another editor's good faith edits

I have to second that; it's troubling to find edit summaries and sections headings singling out another editor's good faith edits. That sort of thing shouldn't pop up on anyone's watchlist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

A statement of fact, "rm colloquialisms and errors introduced by editor so-and-so" is not against the WP etiquette. Note that I did not write, "rm stupid colloquialisms". Nor I ever doubted that the edits were done in good faith. As a matter of fact I left the reasonable edits (about a half) stand. The problem was that another half of them was outlandish. E.g. the editor in question replaced "approximately" by "roughly" and "because" by "so", which is a violation of WP guidelines recommending formal style. If you make a dozen of such edits you should expect your name mentioned. RegardsPaul gene 03:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem was the section heading on the talk page of Fvasconcellos, which he subsequently removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Why is it a wrong issue? The talk heading was "Outriggrs inaccuracies". How does that violates the WP etiquette? Besides, in your comment (see above) you said: "it's troubling to find edit summaries" I guess you mentioned edit summaries by mistake. Paul gene 03:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
When you start a section that singles out another editor, that heading shows up subsequent responses in edit summaries. If you think that was an appropriate heading and a mindful way of responding to another editor's selfless efforts to improve an article, good for you; I'll steer clear of you and articles you work on. It bothers me enough that I have lost interest in supporting or helping maintain that article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. First you leave a message on my talk page saying that when I mentioned an editor's name in an edit summary or in a summary in talk page of a third user it was wrong. Then, when I asked you how it was wrong, you answered that you did not mean the edit summary. Then, when I asked you to answer the question, you use ad hominem argument implying that there is something wrong with me: "I'll steer clear of you and articles you work on." Is that how you usually support your edits in the WP articles? All I wanted from you as a more experienced editor is the answer: "Here is what WP guideline XX recommends ..." or "It is not in the WP guidelines but a similar case was handled so an so". I would not see anything wrong if you head it "Paul_Gene's misunderstanding of Wikipedia etiquette" Just discuss the issue not me.Paul gene 10:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Please read the message on your talk page: "I have to second that; it's troubling to find edit summaries and sections headings singling out another editor's good faith edits." This "edit summary" issue is a red herring. If you don't see the problem in singling out another editor's good faith efforts to selflessly improve an article as you did on Fvasconcellos' talk page, it's not likely anyone is going to get you to recognize the rudeness in that post. I don't need further feedback from you on my talk page unless you want to discuss improvements to an article; as I said, I'll be staying away from improving or supporting articles where you are involved, as you throw sand in the faces of people who try to help. Goodbye. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and in case you need a social clue— bad response: "another editor's edits were outlandish, so I singled him out by specifically naming him in a section heading". Good response: "I see the point. Even if I disagree with someone's edits, I shouldn't single out the editor, and particularly not by naming him in a section heading". Is that hard? Focus on the edits, the content, not the editor. And when another editor selflessly attempts to help out someone else's FAC, don't look a gift horse in the mouth, or next time you may find no one willing to help you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
May I suggest that we all try to diplomatically put this behind us, for the sake of the project? Think of the children :) After all, what are we here for if not to make the encyclopedia a better place? Disputes are bound to happen in a...collaborative environment. It's how we handle them that matters. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 11:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
You have an odd definition of "outlandish". –Outriggr ♠ 04:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cautín Province

I created a number of links for Cautín Province. I think it needs work. Is there someplace where it can be posted for attention? I'm done for today -- the last day of my weekend. :( Brian Pearson 03:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chile; enjoy your "week"! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ol' 40k!

Congratulations Sandy!–I just saw your user-page update. –Outriggr ♠ 04:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Would you mind my replacing hyphens with interpuncts in {{Topics related to Tourette syndrome}}? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds nice ... but then, you're that kind of guy :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Why, thank you. How about adding it to Category:Psychology navigation templates? I'm not sure if it's the best choice, but it shouldn't be uncategorized. BTW, I've left a response at the bupropion FAC. What do you think of PMID 8428875? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Eek, no; neurological, medical condition, no reason for psychology. Is there a medical place to add it? Will look at bupropion in a bit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Category:Medical navigational boxes works for me ;) There are few navboxes on single conditions (the only other one I know is {{Crohn's}}). Thanks. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, that PMID is a good one, but there's a further problem that needs to be sorted out. Is the tic exacerbation natural waxing and waning, or is it truly due to the med? It needs to be placed in the context of subsequent research showing that stimulants don't exacerbate tics any more than placebo does. I'm not certain that has been sorted out on bupropion, but since it has the bad rap of exacerbating tics, someone needs to read the full journal article and figure that out (have a look at Treatment of Tourette syndrome on the stimulant issue -- I haven't followed bupropion that closely, I only know it has that rap so people won't touch it). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you have access to doi:10.1007/s00787-007-1010-8? (I don't) Seems.. right up your alley, to quote someone I know. States "no placebo-controlled data" on bupropion exacerbating tics or not and it states it may even be tried in ADHD/TS when other approaches have failed. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, just caught your reply. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Yep, prob is I don't have that study, and I don't have free access. I spend $$hundreds per year keeping up with the TS research, but I haven't followed bupropion. Someone has to get their hands on some journal reports, address the issue with whatever info is available, and I'll strike. If no one at Pharm can track down the studies; you can e-mail someone who is "outlandish" :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Heh. I've no time to chase this down at the moment (or re$ources), but will see what I can do as soon as possible. As for striking, you don't have to, you know—I'm not trying to sway your opinion! :) All I'd like to see is an FA-level FA. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, I tried to summarize it better on the FAC so that hopefully someone who does have the time/resources will track it down. I've got to finish up on Asperger. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I've sent off an outlandish email to FV (who I continue to assume doesn't mind the abbreviation). –Outriggr ♠ 23:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reagan fac candidate page

You might want to dial back the lack of AGF, Sandy. When you imply motives that others may not have, you make it more difficult for people to set any faith by your own edits. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine, accepted, but the same applies to the others making statements there questioning the motives of others and making outrageous statements about a "cadre" protecting the article. Happyme22 has pretty much developed that article on his own, and the POV pushing has come out of the woodwork only since he's gotten the article up to standard. Methinks if there had been a cadre of editors protecting the article, it wouldn't have taken him six FACs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
According to your own statements, you're not familiar with the editing of the Reagan article, so you're not in a position to characterize it at all, are you? I worked on the Reagan article also, and I know that Happy was quite partisan in his editing, and was cited for it by more than a few editors (sorry, not all of those editors were "left wingers" or whatever the current term of art is for those who disagree with you). Dozens of times we would have to point out to Happy that he was being partisan in his editing (early on, he didn't know what that meant; he said something like "I am not a Reagan partisan, not at all...though I am a conservative Republican and a Reagan follower and I like him very much and I think he was a great president"). To his credit, each time it was pointed out that his edits were heavily POV, he would go along with the factual correction. His POV was all over the article, from small things (like removing all references - ALL - to Reagan's first wife, and claiming that he and Nancy had been together since the 1930's; he called Reagan's state funeral a "major state funeral") to big things, like conflating policy with accomplishment (his said one of Reagan's early policies was to reduce inflation), mischaracterizing the state of the economy, both pre- and post-Reagan, claiming that "a few" scandals" were "experienced" but "only in his second term", and claiming that Reagan "narrowly lost a bid" for the Presidency in 1976.
The point of all this info is to counter - factually and logically - your claim that no one could have been protecting article, or it wouldn't have taken him (him? - it's not "his" article) six FACs; it is precisely because there was legacy-burnishing going on that it has taken this long. The article has not been stable nor neutral since Happy decided to "own" it, and that alone can be the cause for not being accepted for FA. Moreover, no "POV-pushers" have "come out of the woodwork" - except, of course, you. It's getting tiring to remind people who have an agenda that the only part of their agenda they can get into wiki is the part that conforms with the facts; of course, the further from reality the agenda gets, the harder it is for them to accept that. Interesting - there seems to be a correlation with party affiliation on that one. Info999 13:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
If you have a point that can be used to improve the article, can you summarize it to one sentence? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, if you're non-templating the regulars at FAC, how about applying the same standard to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event ? Or have a look at the stunning things personal attacks the wend down on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Intelligent design. The double standard on Wiki can wear down even the most experienced and committed editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me for asking, but I am unfamiliar with the term "non-templating the regulars". Could you explain that to me? As for why I spoke up on the Reagan FAC and not the others, those others aren't on my watchlist (252 articles and currently holding). As well, I would likely avoid like the plague any FAC debate on a religious-based issue like ID, unless someone asked me help calm down All The Crazy™. I am rather notorious for sending editors off weeping into a dark corner with their blankie after dismembering them via edits, and I am not proud of this at all. Thusly, I tend to avoid situations which are likely to bring that 'Meen Ol' Debbil' out of me.
I know you get worn down; I've been here for only a year, and I tend to get nasty to people who don't listen, or who act like dicks. However, engaging these folk personally on their talk pages, attempting to seek an equitable solution makes you look good if it escalates on down the Yellow Brick Road of Dispute Resolution, and it makes them look ever more like a choad if they fail to engage you likewise - it literally buries them if it escalates to the higher levels.
If you find yourself getting over-pissed, I suggest doing what i do: find an article of something that only children would be interested, and help that out for a day. It allows you to disengage from the argument for a bit, and will remind you what got you started editing for free in Wikipedia in the first place. If that doesn't work, write me. You can vent, and I will listen attentively. How's that sound? :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't consider myself engaged there, so don't really feel like I need to disengage. I run through FAC every other day or so to see how those that need feedback are going. It's interesting to see allegations that someone is protecting Reagan, since as far as I can tell, Happyme22 really had to go it alone. "Non-templating the regulars" refers to this recent fad that I find hard to understand; as far as I can tell, its implication is that you can template the newbies when you want to send them a message, but if you want to warn a regular, you're supposed to come up with your own wording. Seems really stupid to me, but my mind thinks in terms of efficiency, and why have a template if you can't use it :-) In other words, if you're warning me to assume good faith, goose --> gander to those alleging some cabal of protection. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] chromosome numbers

I don't understand the question. Are you asking whether they may all be numerals, even though some are single-digit numbers? Yes, MOSNUM allows for all numerals in the same context, which is clearly the case here. I'm unsure about the linking issue. Tony 02:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think they should be linked, and they look just fine (non-weird!). Tony 02:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Let me know if word-nerding is required—preferably one or two sections at a time. Tony 02:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
No problem; I'm expecting you people to modify some of the edits I make. Tony 14:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2007 Malaysian Grand Prix

Hi Sandy,

I was wondering whether you could re-review the article for us as it is getting very little comments. I would be very greatful as it could be going to a default fail if not many comments come. Thanks in advance. The article is located here. Davnel03 18:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reagan is FA!

Well Sandy, we've done it! Thanks a lot! The article wold not be at FA status without you! Best, Happyme22 21:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, Happy! You did it all; I just did cleanup. Your work has just begun; now you'll really have to stay on top of it. I strongly suggest you work to switch sources to those scholarly sources as recommended on the FAC; you'll constantly need to fend off POV now that it's an FA, and strengthening your sources would be a good thing. Judging from some of the aggressive tone on the talk page, you're going to have your hands full :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] zeds

AmEng, unless in a non-US quote. Zeds must be used. Tony 00:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimania Atlanta

Hi! I noticed your involvement on U.S. South-related articles, categories and WikiProjects, and I wanted to let you know about a bid we're formulating to get next year's Wikimania held in Atlanta! If you would like to help, be sure to sign your name to the "In Atlanta" section of the Southeast team portion of the bid if you're in town, or to the "Outside Atlanta" section if you still want to help but don't live in the city or the suburbs. If you would like to contribute more, please write on my talk page, the talk page of the bid, or join us at the #wikimania-atlanta IRC chat on freenode.org. Have a great day!

P.S. While this is a template for maximum efficiency, I would appreciate a note on my talk page so I know you got the message, and what you think. This is time-sensitive, so your urgent cooperation is appreciated. :) Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 21:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to be rude or anything, but I wrote you a message too, and it would be courteous to receive a timely response, especially since the end of bidding is on Thursday. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 22:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Mike, I was at a loss for how to respond since I don't think I've ever had anything to do with Atlanta, Georgia other than passing through the airport :-) I'm up to my eyeballs in working on a tough article here, trying to focus, and I responded to Fv because I knew he needed that info right away; I'm sorry for not realizing you needed a quick response. Also, because I only check diffs and it was a subst'd message, i didn't actually see the message about the bids or what you needed. Probably time for a break :-) Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I must have wrongly assumed you were from Georgia, by your user name. Even so, if you'd like to read the bid and give feedback, that would be appreciated too. :) Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 01:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Knock, knock

Hey :) What do you think of the following text, courtesy of some outlandish data?

It has been stipulated that bupropion, and stimulants in general, may aggravate tics. A case series published in 1993 suggested that bupropion treatment exacerbates tics in chlidren with coexistent [coexisting? both sound terrible, I can't think of anything more appropriate] ADHD and Tourette syndrome.[1] There is, however, no data from placebo-controlled trials to support this, and more recent studies indicate that stimulants may be safely and effectively used even in the presence of tic disorders.[2]

  1. ^ Spencer T, Biederman J, Steingard R, Wilens T (1993). "Bupropion exacerbates tics in children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and Tourette's syndrome". J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 32 (1): 211–4. PMID 8428875. 
  2. ^ Poncin Y, Sukhodolsky DG, McGuire J, Scahill L (2007). "Drug and non-drug treatments of children with ADHD and tic disorders". Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 16 Suppl 9: 78–88. doi:10.1007/s00787-007-1010-8. 

I look forward to your thoughts. If I don't reply soon, I'm simply too busy... sorry :P Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks good - the word you want is co-occurring :-) If you want, you can also wikilink "more recent studies indicate" to Treatment of Tourette syndrome#Treatment of ADHD in the presence of tic disorders. It doesn't sound like enough to "clear" bupropion over on TS, but at least the issue is covered. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Argh, thank you. I've been working all week on something completely non-medical (vaguely related to this, which is neither my favorite field nor my area of expertise) and my mind is still kind of reeling. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds familiar; I am *trudging* through Asperger syndrome; I'm determined to get it done, but it's turning into a chore rather than a joy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
You'll get there; don't we always? I've added the above to Bupropion. Let me know if I can do anything else. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
By the way, what's up with the French spacing throughout the article? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Did you have to tell me it was French? Like the article says, it started in the US with typewriters. You're looking at the high school typing champ, and "this user is old enough to remember what a typewriter is" :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Heh, sorry. I know, and I didn't read the article; just thought there would be a link. Well, at least it means you can edit Wikipedia faster; no wonder you get so much done :) I presume you won't mind me nuking them. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Nuke away! (Don't worry that my high school typing teacher drilled double spaces into my brain and my obsessive eye for detail will be tortured by seeing only one space, just as I am by seeing the wrong dashes :-) But doesn't Wiki software automatically change it anyway ? I thought I read that somewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
AFAIK all web browsers ignore double spaces. They do, however, add to the article size; that's my only problem with them. Maybe I'll just leave them be for now ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
ah, that's good to know; that will convince me that old dogs can learn new tricks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asperger's and travel

Thanks for all the work you've done on Asperger syndrome. I am still constrained for time but will try to hold the fort and maybe make small improvements while you're away. It's enormously improved so far, thanks to you. Eubulides 02:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

For Asperger's and neuropsychology, some other good sources are Sigman et al. (PMID 17716073) and Happé et al. (PMID 17001340). If I find the time I'll review Asperger's with them in mind. And yes, everybody cites themselves; if you don't cite yourself people might think you are casting doubts on your own results. Eubulides 13:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I should have more time available in the September 5 through 10 window. Not a lot, but more. Eubulides 05:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a recent reference you might want to take a look at. It's free and it's authoritative (for Scotland) and (wow) it gives explicit confidence ratings for its recommendations. At least one downside: it's not published in a refereed journal. I found out about it via a recently published editorial (PMID 17725771) by one of its coauthors along with someone else. I haven't had time to digest it but it may well affect Autism. You may want to search for the string "Asperger" in it. (Yes, I know, it's not like you're lacking work to do for Asperger's.) Anyway, here's the reference: Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) (2007). "Assessment, diagnosis and clinical interventions for children and young people with autism spectrum disorders" (PDF). SIGN publication no. 98. Retrieved on 2007-09-01. Eubulides 05:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soong Ai-ling

According to the article[2],"Her Christian name was Nancy." How would you deal with something like this? Brian Pearson 02:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

There may be something about this in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). Assuming that info is verifiable, I don't think there's anything wrong with the current wording. Certainly we wouldn't put her English name in the article's title. -- Ling.Nut 03:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Back from vacation? :) Just out of curiosity, I typed "Christian name" into the search box and got a redirect to given name. Brian Pearson 03:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
No, goofing off when I should be working.. and Christian name = given name only in some cultural contexts. I'm assuming this is not one of those. Ling.Nut 03:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Brian, I'm in a hotel and can't track that down today; it sounds like Ling.nut is on the right track. I've not dealt with this before. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I"d thought about retaining the wording but making it a link for those who won't know what "Christian name" means. Brian Pearson 20:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd hold off on that... IMO that redirect is a perfect example of systemic bias. Something needs to be done about it.. but I confess it's low on my priority list.. Thanks! -- Ling.Nut 21:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll leave it, as is. I was reminded of another discussion about how to go about listing a town or state, since most people in the world have no idea about what a state is, in the United States, not to mention where a given town was within a county, state, and etc. They finally decided on, "Paducah is a town in Cottle County, Texas, United States" as a standard way of posting (through the use of a robot program) this information, so people wouldn't be scratching their heads. Brian Pearson 21:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lion videos

You deleted an external link I added showing lion behaviour in the wild. I filmed it, I have rights to it, I shared it with the Wikipedia community. Yes, it's on an external site (that has by the way been around longer than wikipedia) because Wikipedia hasn't gotten it's act together enough to have a coherent video inclusion method (and dont tell me that hard linking to some guys free player on media wiki is a method).

I linked to a page with no ads, just the video. What's the problem?

page before you edited out links

Isewell 05:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's difficult to answer without a link to the site under question, considering I pruned External links on Lion per WP:EL, WP:RS and WP:NOT quite a while ago (and I'm traveling and on a slow connection right now). In general, pls read WP:EL, WP:RS and WP:NOT; no external article is linked unless its inclusion is justified, ELs should be minimal, pls explain your justification on the article talk page for consideration of all editors working there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
the links are
I read the pages you linked to, and I believe my videos add to the article (even though they are hosted on my own website) in a way that does not violate the policies. I will add to the article talk page a proposal to resubmit the links. Isewell 14:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Cas has done the bulk of the work on this one, so you can ask him about the status of the article in general. I'll reply on Lion talk re above. Marskell 14:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] good news

Hi Sandy, hope your trip is going well! Just dropped by to share some good news -- Ling.Nut 18:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool beans !! It must feel good; congratulations ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rule for list of towns

Does a town have to be incorporated in order to be on the list?[3] Brian Pearson 23:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about that topic but I'm sure there's a WikiProject on Cities somewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ABA

Hi,

Could you have a look at the following? Autism and applied behavioral analysis are closely intertwined. I'm fighting (for the third time) for the wording in Talk:Applied behavior analysis#Citations in violation of WP: UNDUE and WP:V regarding the use of wording on the article and am pretty tired of it. Would you mind putting in a comment? There's a chance I'm mis-interpreting WP:RS but I don't think so. However, I'm not going to be on-line for the next day to several weeks and I don't seem to be making a dent. I'm going to be posting this on Eubulides as well as you both seem to be working on the autism stuff a fair bit these days. WLU 01:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits to ABA, you are a machine. Thanks for the diberri link, very useful. My payback - were you aware you could opt out of SineBot? WLU 02:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I've thought about it, but at least it reminds me when I forgot :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd also like to thank you for the edits to Applied behavior analysis, the wording is currently much more acceptable to me. The word 'only' and the use of such terms as 'especially usefull' seemed extremely un-encyclopedic to me and you quite effectively managed to make the article more neutral. Many thanks. Robrecht 11:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The thanks go to Eubulides (talk · contribs); I cribbed the wording from his at autism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AS

No prob.—just change anything I do as necessary (no need to tell me). Tony 13:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rape of Nanking FAC

Looking at the Rape of Nanking FAC, it seems like most or all of the issues that have been raised are the content of the article rather than the style of writing or MoS problems. I expected this, since the topic has been the subject of controversy. But I wonder if you could give it a read and point out any MoS and style problems that need to be fixed. Also, I'd like to ask what your opinion is of the article ever getting to FA status. MoS and style problems are easy to fix - there are guidelines written to tell us what is the best way to edit the article. But the issues that are raised may be fundamental differences between editors on how the article should read. It's likely that it'll never satisfy all FA reviewers, and it would be disappointing if it never gets promoted because the 2 or 3 reviewers simply think the article should be written differently instead of having a problem with the writing style or MoS adherence. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hispanic Americans in World War II

FAC, It wouldn't have been possible without you and others. I am so happy to have befriended you. Tony the Marine 00:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MOS concerns

Sandy, you said on WT:FAC earlier that several recently promoted FACs had a lot of MOS problems. If Fantastic Universe was one of them, could you let me know? I'm not a great MOS expert and I know I do let things slip through, so if that article has problems please just point me at the relevant sections of the MOS and I'll make a pass. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 03:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Mike, I know you're thorough. I listed them in the box at the top of my talk page so I could remember to go back in a week and see if they had fixed them per my suggestions. It's just discouraging that FACs aren't getting thorough reviews. Some of it isn't overly serious, but with month-long reviews, you'd think someone would pick up the little/easy stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Dungeons & Dragons

In this edit you added an HTML comment requesting some fixes to an article. That seems like a good way to have the request overlooked. It's not visible to editors reading the page normally. It would be very easy for an editor to fix the problem, but overlook the need to delete the comment. It seems like a comment on the associated talk page would be a better way to communicate with other editors. — Alan De Smet | Talk 05:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

In this edit's edit summary you said "empty parameters chunk up the article size unnecessarily, ALL sources need a publisher, pls fix throughout" If there are guidelines for these (1. eliminate empty parameters, and 2. all sources need a publisher), they are ones I'm unfamiliar with, and I would be interested in reading up on them. I'm not turning them up in some searches. Could you direct me to them please? (I'm using two comments to make replies interleave more clearly.) — Alan De Smet | Talk 05:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RJH

Thank you for your feedback on the Dungeons & Dragons article. I'd like to think that most of your concerns have been addressed: (1) the bold text issue appears to have been modified; (2) the spaces around the emdash-es has been removed; (3) I've tracked down ISBN's for nearly all the books (I think the exceptions were boxed sets), and (4) the three references you identified appear to have been fixed up. In general the citations appear to have publishers present. If there are any outstanding issues remaining, please let me know.—RJH (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! I'll take your word for it, and cross it off of my followup list. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay I appreciate that. — RJH (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ready for your to review and strike

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aggie Bonfire — BQZip01 — talk 07:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Awaiting your review — BQZip01 — talk 07:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Support? or just don't oppose? — BQZip01 — talk 20:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
BQZ, I rarely support an article when I don't know the subject matter at least a bit; I'm not in a position to judge if it's comprehensive, for example. Please don't take it personally; you've got the Support to pass FAC. I just wanted a MOS-clean article. Good luck, and I hope it's smooth sailing now. While I have your attention, some of the things you said on Raul's page aren't true. I didn't go complaining to his page (you did), nor did I complain there about the long pages. I did complain there about my declaration being completely misrepresented in a tally box on another article (Apprentice); this is the problem I have with tally boxes. I didn't even lodge an Oppose there, yet I was misrepresented in the tally box. I also did not oppose any FAC based on size of the FAC; I merely mentioned the size of the FAC. I've never understood why you've got it in for me so much but it would sure be nice to get along with someone whose userpage statements I admire. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Apprentice (UK) FAC

The references are all formatted, are you ready for a support? Thanks so much for reviewing. Dalejenkins | 09:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added the publishers on the sources as you requested. Dalejenkins | 13:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Your comments have been addressed, please can you now decide wheter you shall support this article or not and update the table at the top of the article appropriately? Dalejenkins | 13:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I have now checked every single reference, and each contains at least a url, title, publisher and retrieval date. Dalejenkins | 14:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What?

only that you are a rock. Ceoil 00:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Me? Heck, and I'm too chicken to take the dare on your clean talk page :-)) I'm only a rock when I'm not a wimp (binary). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thanks for date formatting in Lage Raho Munna Bhai. Actually not linking the years was my mistake. Somehow I believed that while date with month must be linked (for reader's preference to work), years need not be linked (as reader's preference does not come into play here). Anyway, I am sorry that you had to undertake the painful process of linking all the years. Bye the way, how are you? I have become somewhat less active in Wikipedia these days. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAR archives + Nude celebrities

(How's that for a headline?)

Hi Sandy. Do you mind leaving the FAR archive for me to update? I have no good reason beyond a sentimental attachment to adding the total to the page. Being me, I'll be a day or two late sometimes but there's no harm. (Plus you don't need more wikignome demands.)

Also I just noticed Nude celebrities on the Internet sitting on FFA and removed it. It was there as far back as the beginning of the year but I haven't checked further. Have we been sitting on vandalism for months or am I missing something? Marskell 08:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. It was an FA for two months in '04. Marskell 08:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Thinking about it, I had read the words previously when updating the page. It was only just deleted yesterday and it was the redlink that threw me. A first: FA, FFA, deleted. (It was never a particularly good article, judging the deleted edits.) Marskell 12:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renewable energy in Scotland

Thanks for your note re 'Incomplete citations'. I will attend to this and let you know when I think its up to scratch. Ben MacDui (Talk) 09:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I am wading through the Renewable energy in Scotland references. As this is my first succesful FA venture I wonder if I could ask you to take a quick look at refs 106-118? As far as I can see they are now acceptable, but it would annoying if I have missed something crucial (e.g. linking the retrieval date, which I don't believe is a necessity). Ben MacDui (Talk) 16:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I have gone through the references a few times, and whilst I think it is probably close enough it would be a miracle if I had not missed something. I am aware of a couple of broken links, but please let me know what else may be required. Due to an unavaoidable clash of dates I am afraid will almost certainly be unable to access an internet-connected keyboard from about lunchtime on the 6th to early afternoon on the 8th. I know that the watchers will be looking afer things on the 8th itself, but if you can think of anything else I might need to do before then, please let me know asap.

With no urgency whatever if you could direct me to the answers to a couple of queries I have about this process I'd be grateful. My browsers show up a jaunty little Acrobat image indicating if a link is a pdf. Presumably the reason for adding (PDF) is that not everyone will see this? I have looked a couple of times, but even after a year of wandering about the highways and byways of this esteemed organ I cannot figure out what the purpose of linking dates is (or why someone has not produced a bot to do it).

Many thanks for your patience and help, and apologies for my wiki-fumblings. Ben MacDui (Talk) 14:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Nude celebrities on the Internet

If you removed the link, that's OK. As someone else pointed out this is a first for Wikipedia - a page which has gone through the stage of being featured, and has finally been deleted. I don't imagine there will be many more such cases, if any, in the future, but it's up to people and consensus to see how to handle this.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know. The talk page would right now meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but per WP:IAR I think we should keep it.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments for Therapies for multiple sclerosis

I would appreciate any ideas to improve or to correct any mistakes there may be both in contents and style. I'm thinking of nominating it for good article. Do you think it fits criteria? How could I improve it? Thank you very much for all your efforts to improve wikipedia. --Garrondo 15:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Garrondo, pls provide a correct link for the article and I'll have a look as soon as I have time. You also might consider setting up a redirect from Multiple sclerosis therapies to the correct article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry-There is the correct link... thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrondo (talk • contribs) 16:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I left some sample edits of things you can work on, but you don't have a peer review set up, so I haven't commented further. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I have asked for a scientific peer review first and asked for help in the medicine project. I think that after the scientific review it is posted for common review. Anyway; if its not I will post it myself. Thank for your advises. I will try to improve the article. --Garrondo 08:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I have just noticed that you suggested that I should change the format of all web pages to the following format: [1]. Did you use any tool to help you? Where did you get the first date? (2003-04-01)Is it correct that the dates appear with link? --Garrondo 08:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Scroll to the bottom of each of your MedlinePlus pages and you'll find a date the page was published (it's different on each one). I prefer doing web entries manually (you can just follow the format I used), but you could use {{cite web}} if that's easier for you. You can alse see WP:CITE/ES. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been working on the article with your help and the help of User:Fvasconcellos. I've made all the changes you proposed and I've also added some images. Is there any other thing that you feel I should do? (Only both of you have answered my call for peer-review; probably becouse the topic is not precisely of broad interest)so your help is being very valuable. Thanks for everything--Garrondo 07:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it's shaping up nicely. I'll be traveling and won't be able to help further; you're in good hand with Fvasconcellos, who is one of Wiki's most competent, thorough and caring editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MOS for measurements

I looked over some of the MOS pages regarding some things and don't see anywhere in which it is either recommended or not recommended that measurements, such as acre, hectare, gallons, etc. should or shouldn't be wikilinked in FA level articles when they first appear in said articles....do you know where i can find info on this issue?--MONGO 17:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Mongo, did you look in WP:MOSNUM? If you check there and still don't find what you're after, than drop a note to Tony1 (talk · contribs), who has put a huge effort into reworking that page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
It's probably there, but I read it twice and either missed it or suffer from selective reading...(which is entirely possible BTW)...anyway, in the 7 World Trade Center (at FAC), I went and linked the first occurrance of these measurements and have been told that Tony1 thinks they shouldn't be linked...so if this is the case and isn't stated, then we need to state it in the MOS. I don't really care either way, and only did the linking since in previous situations I was told they needed to be linked. Confused.--MONGO 17:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm up to my eyeballs in other stuff right now and don't have a clear head on this; I'll go look this up a bit later today. It should be there, unless PMAnderson finally succeeded in whacking out MOSNUM with tortured prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry, Mongo, I wasn't fully focused earlier. First, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you need to take a look at the first section of WP:MOSNUM regarding non-breaking hard spaces. Numerical and non-numerical elements need to be joined. The problem throughout your article is that the 7 can get separated from the World Trade Center by line wrap, or the 5:20 by the pm, or the 1 from the WTC, and it looks really goofy when that happens. You've got to go through and put nbsps on all of those. On the linking of units question, now I see what you are asking. It's probably not mentioned in MOSNUM because that would be redundant with WP:MOSLINK and WP:CONTEXT. Generally, common terms known to most English-speaking need not be linked. So, you wouldn't link "inch" or "foot", but maybe you would link a lesser-known unit of measurement, something that not all readers are familiar with. I hope that answers the question? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essjay Controversy

Is it me, or are the reviewers on the FAC treating it rather like an AfD? It doesn't seem to matter how many times I say being made FA doesn't mean an automatic place on the main page, people are still opposing based on that as if it'll fail anyway. And they keep claiming there are prose concerns and not elaborating what they are so I can fix them. Do you think we should put a notice at the top noting what FAC is about? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read that FAC and don't really have time to read it; as far as how to deal with Opposes that aren't actionable, you just put a note under the comment that it's not actionable, no examples given, whatever, and Raul takes note. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Something I Saw

I just saw this [4] it is absolutely horrible, and mainstream TV too. For personal reasons I am FURIOUS about it. Thank HEAVENS you managed to get a good, balanced TS article up to counteract it. GOOD WORK --Zeraeph 00:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AnnieTigerChucky

I don't know what to do with this editor either. Blocking him/her would restrict their editing to the talk page and maybe ... maybe ... they would read all the messages. A similar case of an editor who could communicate but in a quite unusual way can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SamuraiClinton; he was eventually banned as user:Nintendude. I can also remember Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Maoririder - he was eventually banned as well. Most editors who cannot be reasoned with are eventually banned. Graham87 06:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I think a wait and see approach is best for now. The editor seems to have a rudamentary understanding of what a talk page is so maybe they'll come around and notice all the messages piling up on their user talk page. I think you're right that the user is very young though. The Google results for the username seem to show the same writing style and interests as the user on Wikipedia, but they don't give much more information. Graham87 13:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Runcorn failed FA

Sandy. Despite your best efforts, and some of mine, Runcorn has failed again as a FA. I am grateful to you for your "tutorial" on how to cite references properly; most helpful, both for now and for the future. You may have realised that I am a Wikinovice and I am not an academic. So the whole Wikiexperience has been for me complex, stimulating, frustrating and often difficult to comprehend. I have learnt a lot. I shall not be going for FA again – but I do feel that the article far surpasses many others on GB settlements. At least I have the assurance that those who consult the article will have some reliable information about the place. And that's what an encyclopaedia is supposed to be about, isn't it?

As an aside, on the very day I was completing the details for the Runcorn references, the FA on the main page, John Millington Synge, had just one inline citation. I must say that the aspect I dislike most about Wikipedia is its inconsistency. Best wishes, Peter. Peter I. Vardy 09:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dead link on renewable energy in Scotland

I found it here. I won't add it myself, due to the major edit template Lurker (said · done) 17:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That should get you started; did it all make sense? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm fixing some refs now. Thank you Lurker (said · done) 17:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:AnnieTigerChucky (talk · contribs)

Thanks for telling me about it. I left a note there pretty much seconding your request. I just hope some of the editors will know what to do in this situation. AngelOfSadness talk 17:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SandyGeorgia

Will it be a blue link soon? --Boricuaeddie 18:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

About time :) Go Sandy, go Sandy... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Not a chance (thanks for asking, Eddie :-); when I'm swamped with work I want to do, the mere idea of admin hassles gives me the shivers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Too bad, man girl. You would breeze through RfA :-) Oh, well. If adminship is going to interfere with your incredible contribs and real life, then it's not worth it. Happy editing! --Boricuaeddie 19:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
It was kind of you to ask, Eddie ... Saludos, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for fixing my mess...

on the List of tall men milestones! I didn't realize I was supposed to list ending dates, as opposed to listing dates. I also commend you for catching the current "currentstatus = crap" joke I made (I didn't think anyone would notice!). Sorry for the goofs.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 23:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pyroluria and Porphyria

Regarding pyroluria and porphyria

You probably know that pyroluria has nothing to do with porphyria. Pyroluria in it self is a very controvercial diagnosis. I am a medical doctor, and work with porphyria patients. Lately I have been getting a lot of calls and emails from people who get confused by the Wikipedia information. The insinuation that there is a connection between pyroluria and porphyria is very unfortunate.

Sincerely, S.Mikalsen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.166.2 (talk) 08:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you leave a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine and hope that someone knowledgeable is able to help. Unfortunately, medical misinformation is rampant throughout Wikipedia and there aren't enough editors to deal with the growing problem. If you can't get the problem fixed, then you can choose a template from WP:TM such as {{disputed}} or you can use the {{articleissues}} template to highlight multiple problems. At least you can install a "reader beware" warning if you're unsuccessful in getting other Medicine Project members to help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup TS

They could at the very least be categorized, for example. It also wouldn't hurt if each entry had a one-line summary, telling the reader what to expect from the article behind the link. Imagine that you are reading a comment on a blog post about computer security, in which someone used the abbreviation TS. Would you then be able to find the right article on the TS disambig page? I certainly wasn't able to -- or at least, not without having to read through several articles of the articles before being able to reasonably determine what TS that poster was referring to. For a good example of what I mean, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Longer_lists. Would you be able to do that? Thanks! --The Wild Falcon 08:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Good luck! --The Wild Falcon 19:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, that looks pretty good. Excellent job! --The Wild Falcon 07:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Color template

Hmm. That's weird. I didn't touch the contents of the template. I just added its usage. I'll be looking into it. Thanks for telling me. --Boricuæddie 02:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Found it. Solving it as we speak. --Boricuæddie 02:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Eh, I'm going to leave it like it is for now. It appears that it's not supposed to be used as a template for that reason. I think the one who created it knew this and that's why he posted its usage on the talk page. Oh, well. Thank you, anyway! --Boricuæddie 02:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contacting

I'm afraid it's slightly more complex than that. Tony is trying to mandate using gender-neutral language by incorporating that in the manual of style (see the MOS talk page), and appears to be unhappy to find out that this is ineffective because the MOS isn't official hard-binding policy. >Radiant< 08:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Out of curiosity, what exactly is so problematic with PMA's recent edits to the MOS? >Radiant< 11:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Please see the note at the top of my talk page; I'll answer as I can but I've got to go half an hour ago. Tony1 works to build consensus and doesn't edit MOS without consensus. And he compromises when needed. MOS *requires* stability because people consult it daily; instability there affects places like FAC and FAR in addition to other editors doing their daily work and trying to conform to MOS. Pmanderson edits unilaterally, and almost invariably introduces indecipherable prose; I usually can't understand what his edits to MOS mean, which certainly makes my work at FAC and FAR harder. It looks like he's taken to simply opposing anything Tony1 writes, even if he has no basis, even when Tony's edits are based on consensus. I can certainly understand Tony1 reaching the end of his rope (if he has, not sure) considering the damage I've watched pmanderson due to the MOS over the last months, and the personal level to which he has taken to opposing Tony1's edits simply, apparently, for the sake of it. I'm just surprised that you would take a personal dispute to the Community sanction board, but I've long considered that something needs to be done to ban Pmanderson from editing MOS because his edits have such a bad effect there. Of course, that's separate from the gender-neutral issue, but I suspect PM is just out to get Tony1 now, no matter what Tony writes, and it's understandable if Tony1 was fed up with it by the time you came on the scene. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
      • My issue with Tony is really unrelated to this MOS/Pmanderson issue. I'll investigate this some more; at first glance, let me just point out that editing guideline pages is generally acceptable, that's why they're not protected; and that WP:RFC is probably the best way of resolving that problem. >Radiant< 12:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guidelines for autism spectrum disorders

I've pulled the following out of your recent archive:

Here's a recent reference you might want to take a look at. It's free and it's authoritative (for Scotland) and (wow) it gives explicit confidence ratings for its recommendations. At least one downside: it's not published in a refereed journal. I found out about it via a recently published editorial (PMID 17725771) by one of its coauthors along with someone else. I haven't had time to digest it but it may well affect Autism. You may want to search for the string "Asperger" in it. (Yes, I know, it's not like you're lacking work to do for Asperger's.) Anyway, here's the reference: Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) (2007). "Assessment, diagnosis and clinical interventions for children and young people with autism spectrum disorders" (PDF). SIGN publication no. 98. Retrieved on 2007-09-01. Eubulides 05:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify that although it isn't "published in a refereed journal", there is an extensive review process, which includes both specialist referees and various interested groups. "Each guideline is based on a systematic review and critical appraisal of the current scientific literature." Have a look at their web site. IMO, their guidelines are are at the very top of the quality spectrum wrt to WP:MEDRS. Colin°Talk 09:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I did look at it; it's excellent, and the methodology they use of highlighting the strength of each conclusion is awesome. But I didn't find anything there that wasn't already represented in the last accurate version of Asperger syndrome (it's already been taken apart again, includes factual inaccuracies, misrepresentation of sources, and weasly and choppy prose), so while I share Eubulides' enthusiasm for the source and their writing method, I didn't see where I could make use of the article. Considering the issues on AS, whether or not we have another or more reliable sources really isn't the problem. Only one of the regular editors of AS appears to even read the research and attempt to make edits based on reliable sources, the others openly reject consensus reporting of majority viewpoints, espouse undue weight, encourage unsourced and inaccurate edits, view the article as an advocacy vehicle rather than a source of accurate and comprehensive information, and let unsourced inaccuracies stand unchallenged in the article. Providing dozens of high quality reliable sources there will not solve the problem anyway, which is apathy from other experienced editors who do know policy in the face of an intense POV-driven agenda from those who own the article. I've removed myself from the Medicine projects and removed medicine and autism-related articles from my watchlist and consider that the aim of improving these articles on Wiki to a reliable standard to be a lost cause; there's no support from the Project and other editors for maintaining Wiki policies even on a featured article supposed to represent Wiki's best work, so there's little hope for other articles. I guess Wiki really mostly is a place for two types of editors and articles; those with a POV-driven agenda, and children who vandalize and write pop culture articles. There is little concern that most Wiki medical articles—a topic of some significance to real people's real lives adn where accuracy matters—are hitting number one on Google yet are blatantly, embarassingly and dangerously inaccurate and unreliable. If that's what Medicine editors allow to happen to a featured article, what hope is there for the rest? Shall I keep swimming against the massive tide of unreliable inaccurate medical information on Wikipedia's featured medical articles mostly alone? No, that would be just stupid and Pollyanna, wouldn't it. Read the message at the top of my talk page about pyroluria; that's what Wiki is good for (a fountain where medical quackery can water all day long), and I don't think anyone in the Medicine project, besides you, notices or cares much about maintaining even a featured article to Wiki policies of verifiability to reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jayne Mansfield

You have in the past done a quick review of the article, and I'm requesting you to take another look. I have read your troubles with internet connectivity at the moment. But, can you, please, do the article a big favor? I'd very much like to have {{fact}} tags slapped on to the critical information that really desperately needs a citation. And, may be then you can post a message to that end to Wikipedia:Peer review/Jayne Mansfield/archive1. That way it will be easier for me to get attention the really knowledgeable people who have worked on the article before. They may be weak in writing encyclopedic articles, but they know their Ms Mansfield. The article has come a long way, and I really want it to become a GA now. Cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship?

Hmmm... I see you everywhere on here - you'd make a good admin... :) Spawn Man 03:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ready for your review

Hello, thank you again for taking a look at 2005 Texas Longhorn football team, which is a Featured Article candidate. Over the last few days, I have worked on several aspects of the article including:

  • wikilinking - I took some redundant ones out and added some sports terms that were not linked before. I did leave a few duplicates in where it seems like the links are far apart in the article. This is a judgment call so I am not opposed to tweaking them further if there are any objections.
  • consistent formatting of footnotes
  • consistent formatting of dates throughout the article
  • correct application of WP:HYPHEN
  • correct application of WP:DASH

The FAC is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2005 Texas Longhorn football team. I would appreciate it if you would take a second look and offer your thoughts. Thanks very much, Johntex\talk 04:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note

Removed to: Radiant!, Tony1, Pmanderson conflict. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I should point out that you have no authority to bar users from your talk page. >Radiant< 13:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Take it easy. No-one is trying to "bar" anyone from anyone's Talk page. WP:USER clearly asserts editors' right to remove comments from Talk pages—even warnings!—although archiving is preferred. Let me just say I'm extremely disappointed at how this is turning out. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I am taking it easy. Please read up on Sandy's recent posts, where she is suggesting precisely that. >Radiant< 14:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)