User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[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] Request

I Sandy, I have re-written the intro. of Corsican immigration to Puerto Rico (No, I don't plan on working in an FA, smile) and I was wondering if you could check the prose for me. Feel free to make any changes. I'm going over some of my older articles that may need an overhaul. Thanks. Tony the Marine 20:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ronald Reagan article

Hi. You were involved in the Reagan FAC. We could use your input on a problem we're having with an editor, who's constantly inserting an item into the lead when we've all decided by consensus that it doesn't belong. Please see the Reagan talk page for my suggestion, and please comment appropriately, however you feel it should go. Thanks. Info999 01:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been traveling, and there's a lot going on there. Can you point me to specific edits and talk page sections that summarize the problem? The talk page is overcome with verbosity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoo

As you requested, here is the deletion nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spoo Punctured Bicycle 08:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves

By the order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of the instrumental role you play in the featured article process, both by checking the project's featured article candidates to ensure that the citations are formatted correctly, and by helping clear out the backlog of featured articles that no longer meet the criteria. For the coordinators, Kirill 22:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carnivàle FAC

You opposed the FAC of Carnivàle at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Carnivàle because you didn't agree with using forum posts of the show's creator as references. I have addressed this issue as best as I could (see the FAC for my comments), but I'm not sure if you're still actively reading the progress of the FAC. Since the article is now in the last 5 out of 60 open FACs and moving to close, and since rarely anybody comments/supports/opposes it anymore, would you now consider changing your vote to support, retract your oppose vote, or at least state what still needs improvement? Thank you in either case. Greetings, – sgeureka t•c 00:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] peace, or else.

It has been way too quite and placid here recently, so I have been making wild, reckless accusations on Yannismarou's talk tonight. You might join in on the fun...if not, well we'll have too see about that. (Just trying to cheer you up). Ceoil 01:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh ... You terrible backbiter! You involve others in this diabolic plan of yours! Thank God some people have the mind to understand that this is a serious site ... By the way, I still cannot overcome this: "If anyone says a word against this lady ... " So, Sandy is a "she"?! I think this came as a shock to me as strong as the shock Ceoil suffered when he realized that I was not his choices 1 and 2! A lady with an iron fist in Wikipedia ... And it took me more than a year to see the obvious! OK ... Then I deserve Ceoil's humiliation. Come on! Shoot me!--Yannismarou 08:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Whatever; its good to see you back and on form. Ceoil 23:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Sent a short mail. Ceoil 19:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renewable energy

Many thanks for your patience with this. I am most grateful and it seems to have passed muster without too much controversy. Ben MacDui (Talk) 14:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The list

Hi Sandy. Do you want me to update the citations list from now on? I don't mind (although it's still a monster, even with 60% done). I was looking through some of the "Few citations" articles today and noticed that in most every case reference work had been done. So that's good. Marskell 16:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC filed against User:Epbr123

I noticed your discussions regarding the etiquette of User:Epbr123. Due to events that have occurred since then, an RFC has been filed and you are invited to participate in determining the course of action that should be taken regarding resolving the issues that surround the user and his contested actions. --Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 19:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improving AS

I can help with editing AS now, but will run lower on free time starting next week. There are few missing pieces; mostly what is needed is copyediting that removes and streamlines text. When I wrote the review I didn't realize "Diagnosis" had been munged; I have since attempted to edit the new subarticle for "Diagnosis" so that it is no worse than the "Diagnosis" section of the LRSV. I like having a shorter "Diagnosis" summary in the article, think the current summary is not a good one, but didn't tackle the summary since I wanted your opinion first. My main concern is that other editors won't agree. This is why I (mostly) wrote a review instead of just going ahead to edit. But if we can agree, I can just edit. Eubulides 06:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a close call, but that Klin passage sounds more like "Diagnosis" than "Epidemiology". A similar statement is in Autism #Diagnosis. Here's the quote from it. It's about all of ASD, not just AS, but perhaps you can use some of it:

Underdiagnosis and overdiagnosis are problems in marginal cases, and much of the recent increase in the number of reported ASD cases is likely due to changes in diagnostic practices. The increasing popularity of drug treatment options and the expansion of benefits has given providers incentives to diagnose ASD, resulting in some overdiagnosis of children with uncertain symptoms. Conversely, the cost of screening and diagnosis and the challenge of obtaining payment can inhibit or delay diagnosis.
The citation: Shattuck PT, Grosse SD (2007). "Issues related to the diagnosis and treatment of autism spectrum disorders". Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev 13 (2): 129–35. doi:10.1002/mrdd.20143. PMID 17563895. 

Eubulides 15:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I can have a go at editing User:SandyGeorgia/Sandbox2#Diagnosis_summary but it might be a bit extreme; I have the feeling I'll want to move some into the subarticle, which is a bit tricky from a sandbox. I have a few other things to do right now but will come back to it when I can. Eubulides 20:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parapsychology is now a Featured Article

The Paranormal Barnstar
I'm awarding you this barnstar for your having worked hard to help me get Parapsychology to FA status. Congratulations. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corsican immigration to Puerto Rico

Sandy, thank you for all the copyediting of this article. My family is from Yauco and of Corsican descent and that is why I wrote it. When I was a kid my cousins used to tell me that we were Puerto Ricans of Italian blood and I could never understand that until I uncovered the rich history of my roots. After writing this article I followed it with the French, German and African immigration and then then asked an Irsih friend to do the Irish immigration. It is amazing how many people of Puerto Rico themselves were unaware of thier rich culture until I started the series. The common believe has always been that PR's were only mixture of Spanish, African and Tainos. It is not so, the immigration from non-Hispanic country's to PR has also played an important role to the formation of that country. Just wanted to share this with you. Cheers! Tony the Marine 05:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hispanic Americans in World War II

I have tried to add {{rs}} tags to many of the sources in this article (see diff), but Tony the Marine is removing them because he says you said the sources are okay. Do you actually think these flagged sources are reliable? They're all self-published by non-professional sources and amateurs. 17:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sandbox

Yep, its been done placed on the site and ripped apart so all finished. --Michael Johnson 22:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC) BTW thanks for pointing out sandboxes to me. I've now got my own, and can work on my alterations there. Cheers. --Michael Johnson 22:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Carnivàle

Can you please revisit this nomination? The issue of the Yahoo groups comments by its creators (which I'm still undecided on) aside, are there any other outstanding issues with this article? Raul654 01:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fixes done to Battle for Henderson Field

I believe I've completed the corrections you identified were needed in the FAC for this article. Thank you. Cla68 01:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAC reply:

Hi, I've replied to your comments at the Andre Kertesz FAC - All requests have been fixed apart from the endash thing, which I'm unsure of doing. Thanks and hopefully once those are done, you'll be able to support. Cheers, :) Spawn Man 05:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

All done! I hope you'll be able to support, but it's okay if you don't want to - The tasks were pretty easy, but thanks for showing me how to do endashes. Thanks. :) Spawn Man 02:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: FA criterion

As I said, I don't see this as having much practical effect on the process. Project guidelines are followed because the editors that wrote them are the ones actually writing the articles, not because one of the more obscure FAC criteria actually requires doing so; it's not like MILHIST members are suddenly going to stop using infoboxes because there's no longer anything to that effect in WIAFA. It's just that it's very upsetting to see people dismissing the role of WikiProjects quite so callously, and with so little discussion.

As far as the MoS issue, I think one of the comments on the WP:MEDMOS talk page just about says it all:

Hi, this is great! I've always wondered about a guideline page on writing medical wikipedia articles and only recently found this page via Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine...

The problem with having all the guidelines—and, more importantly, the associated discussions—on an out-of-the way style page is that most editors working on those topics simply aren't going to show up (except to complain). It's difficult enough to keep a crowd gathered on the main WikiProject page; a MoS page is pretty much out of the question.

Admittedly the MoS approach may seem more reasonable among the medicine editors, as there are still several distinct viable WikiProjects in that area; but for MILHIST, which has spent the last two years ruthlessly absorbing its children and neighbors precisely to ensure that all discussions could be properly centralized, moving a major chunk of them to another page merely to make something "enforceable" isn't really worth it. It might be different if we could simply use a particular portion of the project page, or a transcluded subpage, as the official "MoS", or even if we could redirect the MoS talk page to the project one; but I rather suspect that the sort of people that get up in arms about WikiProjects using the term "manual of style" without having proper permission to do so will kill that idea. Kirill 03:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I recall that at one point—can't quite remember where—I proposed that the community have a process (something like RfA) for "certifying" WikiProjects as functioning as expected. My original thought there was related to AfD—I was advocating splitting AfD by project—but a similar approach could have worked here.
Needless to say, there wasn't very much support for the idea. ;-) Kirill 03:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:TROP comes to mind as well, as does WP:FF, at least as far as article production is concerned; I am admittedly unfamiliar with how well they function internally. Kirill 03:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations in bird

I'm inching my way through bird trying to get it to FAC, and I'd like to elliminate as many problems as possible beforehand. At peer review the article was thoroughly peppered with citation needed tags to a point that to my mind was a little over the top, nether the less I have endevoured (and continue to) add them in as required. I'm slightly concerened it will get to FAC and comments raised that there are too many and too few (God I'm dreading submitting it) and I was hoping you could have a look beforehand (bearing in mind it is almost there but not yet) since you are pretty much the last word in references around here and if I can get you happy I can get it through. Cheers. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Caps are currently used for species common names (but not generic names) in ornithology articles (liek this one) per the arrangenment thrashed (literally) out at MOS. As for your edits they are very welcome, I'm more interested in content than formatting and there has been no sustained copyedit for style as far as I am aware. I have to say I am completely in the dark about the dash thing, I've noticed it on occasion at FACs but really have no idea what the issue might be so i'll ask Brightorange for help for sure. One last thing; you made some edits to a citation formatted in the complicated cite format that for the most part the articles does not use - I added 90% of the citations and I hate it but I haven't changed it where other people have added it, is that a problem? Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Your edits are fine. I merely was saying that the cite template isn't used universlly in the article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Done now, moved on to general comments at the peer-review. All the best Tim Vickers 00:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FLC

Doh! Thanks :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: GA Passing

I'm sorry - my problem is that a lot of the time when I pass an article, there isn't yet an oldid to refer to. What should I do if this is the case? Cheers, Corvus coronoides talk 01:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parapsychology

Thanks, that was a great solution (: And to Colin. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

At least until someone else comes along and doesn't like it :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: FAOL

There are 155 FAs with the FAOL template. I can remove them all by script if Raul wants.

I've been thinking about the GA oldid field. Although it helps the bot run faster, it doesn't provide a clear date for the review. All it says is the review happened after that version. I would rather have the date/time of the review for the ArticleHistory, and have the bot grab the oldid. This is pretty straightforward if the reviewer left a useful edit summary. In other words, if the javascript can find a review date easily, so can the FA bot. Gimmetrow 18:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, removing them would be good. Raul654 19:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Script got a bunch except for a handful inside a banner template. These don't seem to be updated regularly. When the template was removed from Anne of Great Britain, only la:Anna Britanniae Regina was listed, but sv:Anna av Storbritannien has been featured since May 2007. Are these ever updated? What if an article fails FAR? Gimmetrow 00:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know any of those answers; I say we not worry about it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AnnieTigerChucky

Sandy, I noticed that have been having to revert User:AnnieTigerChucky again and she has notched up more warnings since I last looked at her talk page. Do you think a block might be effective in getting the message across? Also, when you originally posted on ANI asking for assistance with her, I thought that you were an admin. I replied that I thought that you might need to give her short block to get her attention, not realising that you are not an admin. My apologies for that, it wasn't very helpful of me. Cheers, Sarah 03:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Sarah, thanks for inquiring; it's getting pretty frustrating. Here's what has changed since I posted to ANI. She (he?) has briefly tried to communicate at Talk:Autism, so we now know she can read talk pages. She also indicated she has a son, so she doesn't seem to be a minor. I also think she's using an IP (forgets to log in?); I posted a note to her talk page about that, just to make sure she's aware of 3RR and sock puppetry issues. I am really at a loss for what to do here, since I do believe there's a communication problem rather than a vandalism intent, but she's taking too much time from other editors, and has now uploaded a lot of copyvio images that need to be dealt with. Maybe a really stern warning (at the *top* of her talk page, since she might not read the bottom?) from an admin as a next step, to see what happens? It's a tough situation, but much too time consuming, and more than half a dozen editors have now tried to communicate with her. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment, Sandy. I agree that she doesn't appear to have malicious intent, which makes it very unfortunate to block her, but on the other hand, I don't think it is fair on the other editors who are having to follow her around to clean up after her. And other editors are becoming increasingly frustrated with the situation (Pilotboi requested a premature community ban last week [1]) I noticed that she commented on the Autism talk page, which would suggest she is ignoring the messages left for her, rather than being unaware of talk pages. I think I'm just going to go ahead and block her. She has ignored all other warnings from administrators and editors alike and I don't think it would be any different if I were to leave her a another warning message. It would just delay this further. So I'm going to block her for a day and leave a message on her talk page explaining the problems. If you noticed any suspicious IPs pop up in her areas, give me a yell and I'll either block or s-prot the articles as necessary. Thanks for your input. Cheers, Sarah 03:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar Alert!!!!

You're such a credit to the site for both your work and your personality. Regards, Spawn Man 07:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC).
You're such a credit to the site for both your work and your personality. Regards, Spawn Man 07:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC).

The caption says it all; you truly are someone one can look up to. I hope you continue to contribute and produce the excellent work you've been doing. Sincerly, Spawn Man 07:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC). :)

[edit] Quick request

It is a quick request, honest! You've previously been kind enough to provide helpful feedback on Brabham - I have a question on a related article, for which I need a view from someone with no interest in motor racing. (Your previous comments lead me to believe this is the case! ;-)).

The first para of the first section ('Concept') of the main text of Brabham BT19 includes a sentence which explains what Formula One motor racing is. A couple of editors from WP:F1 have suggested that it can be cut, since the term is wikilinked. I felt it might be useful for a reader not familiar with the topic to have a one-liner to introduce it a little more - it also helps establish notability. Do you feel the senetence 'Formula One is the highest form of single-seater racing defined by the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), motor sport's world governing body.' is useful in its current place in the article? I'd be very glad of your view.

This isn't an edit warring point, by the way, it's just that all those involved are WPF1 members and I'm wondering if we're too close to the subject! Cheers. 4u1e 11:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC) {P.S. That is an impressive collection of barnstars!)

Thanks for that. I've asked a few other (non-F1) editors and will see what they say, but if they feel roughly the same as you I'm inclined to leave it in. Cheers. Keep up the good work. ;-) 08:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4u1e (talk • contribs)

[edit] Therapies for multiple sclerosis

I posted this article at the good article candidates category almost 15 days ago and nobody has reviewed probably due to its specificity. I would greatly appreciate if you could review and vote if you consider it fullfils the criteria. I would also like to know your oppinion on what it needs to become a FA. I have asked for help in the medicine project and clinical medicine project with no answer. Thanks for your efforts in improving wikipedia.--Garrondo 16:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/110th United States Congress

I'm doing a lousy job nominating this. (It's my first time nominating an FAC/FLC.) Thanks for your diligence. Can we keep the FAC nomination up for a couple of days to get other editors' opinions? —Markles 17:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Also, where does it say that subheadings aren't allowed?—Markles 19:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:FAC, Do not split a FAC page into subsections, which will cause problems in its archiving (if necessary, use bolded headings). Raul654 is the FA director; he's already opined that it's a list. You can leave it if you want, but I don't think you'll get any further feedback there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, I'll keep the subheading off. Now I see what I was missing. I was looking at the FLC rules, but (as you rightly point out) it was on the FAC rules (which are incorporated into FLC rules. But what do you mean that "Raul654 is the FA director"? Does consensus no longer matter?—Markles 21:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, consensus matters, but two people (Raul included) have already clearly called it a list. If you want to maximize your chances of it being featured, it will help to pick one direction and go that way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for that

Thanks for correcting my mistakes on Six Moments Musicaux (Rachmaninoff)'s related nominations pages. I hope I didn't screw up the archive and script process for all eternity. ALTON .ıl 23:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, everything is fine. Whenever we do cleanup, we run scripts to find dangling FAC pages not in archives, and by labeling them withdrawn and not including them in articlehistory, we avoid problems. Only "failed" facs are archived. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
It's that complicated? Makes me appreciate it even more. ALTON .ıl 11:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AS status

I still haven't finished with "Epidemiology" and need to review the trimmed-down "History", but will make time to do both in the next few days. I hope that suffices and that our efforts can wind down. My own feeling is that if the article were proposed for FA now, it'd be reasonable to oppose it based on prose being disjointed (much of that prose was mine, alas…); I don't know how FAR treats this sort of thing though I assume there's some hysteresis. I have the naive hope that higher standards in citations now will encourage higher standards later. Eubulides 17:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What's the FARC deadline now? If I need to comment now I can, but I'd rather wait until after going through "Epidemiology" and "History". I read WP:FAR but couldn't see any deadlines. Also, what constraints do I have on commenting on the FARC, given that I've made so many changes? Eubulides 17:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I shook free some time today to work on this and now would like to declare the page "done", at least, as done as anything ever is on Wikipedia. Eubulides 22:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] my antiquated signature

Sandy, I like your multicoloured signature. I tried to colour mine, but it wouldn't work (via my preferences). And I want a direct link to my talk page, too. Perhaps I'm techno-dumb; can you point me to the easy-guide for this? Tony 10:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! How's this? (Speak your mind?) Tony (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, or this: Tony (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:AnnieTigerChucky

Hey, as you know, I read Sarah's talk page. I'm not an admin, but I agree this is a problem, so I'll take a look into it and see if I can work out how best to proceed. It's rather tough when a user doesn't answer talk pages notices. — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 22:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grunge music

While grunge music passed [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/Grunge music/archive1 |FAR]] over a week ago with it being kept as an FA, you did mention in the FARC that you wanted to be contacted when work was completed so you could give it a look. Having been rather busy I finally finished what I hope are my final fixes just now. Make any tweaks you feel are necessary and if you have any questions or comments please leave them on my talk pages. Thanks for your help. WesleyDodds 04:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Football (soccer)

As per the FAR of football User:Oldelpaso has done a cleanup/copyedit/trim to the article. I have checked what he has done and then corrected the references to follow WP:Citation templates. Could you please check what has been done and have another look when you can? Thanks. Woodym555 13:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mozart

Hello, thanks for cleaning up the mess involving Mozart and Tourette's syndrome. I think the solution you found (link to an internal section of another article) is very good. Yours sincerely, Opus33 17:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military brat

Someone moved Military brat (US subculture) to Military brat but failed to move the talk page. I think the move is ill-advised, but in any event we now have a featured article marked as a stub.

The bot looks at more than the top of FAR/FAR archive pages to find closed discussions. Gimmetrow 19:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That's going to create a big sugar-fest; let me go have a look. Without having looked, I bet it will get moved back, knowing the article's history. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hello. This is a group thanks to all of you for your many comments and help in making the Bruno Maddox article reach FA. All the copyedits really helped polish up the article. I hope to work with you all once again. Best of luck on your own projects, BillDeanCarter 00:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stuttering

I don't know what to tell as I have no clue about the subject matter myself. I am opposed to wholescale reverts going back that far; too much gets lost. I would suggest selective cutting of undersourced info. Place it on talk and wait and see. At least people are responding on the FAR (if long-windedly). Marskell 11:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reference conversion script

Here you asked for a script to help convert references to cite.php format. Although I do not know of a pre-existing script, a one-off client-side perl or python or (fill in the blank) script should handle much if not all of the work that would have to be done manually.

The basic strategy is, I can hack together a script, download a copy of the article and run the script against it on a desktop machine, and then upload the article again (perhaps in user-space first, just in case) and then you can look over the uploaded version of the article. If things go right, there should be no "breakage" and a lot fewer items to have to modify manually. If you want to give this a try just reply here. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 19:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It's VERY kind of you to offer, but I already started, so I may as well finish manually; I've got a system now, and I think I can finish in under an hour, so if this isn't a common problem, it may not be worth the effort. On the other hand, if you want to develop the script anyway, the same issue exists at Anti-stuttering devices, as it seems to be one editor using this system. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chennai

Hi, Thanks for fixing MoS issues with Chennai. I've gone through the article to fix other occurrences of the issues you had sampled. Could you take a look again to see if there are other problems? Thanks. Lotlil 19:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome‎ archival by consent

If you had any objections to this strategy, why did you not mention them on WP:AN/I? That omission totally bewilders me. --Zeraeph 21:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

1) I don't know what "strategy" you're referring to. 2) Please use the talk page as suggested. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Why did you withold your objection to the archiving of inappropriate personal speculation by consent, while posting so much on WP:AN/I?--Zeraeph 22:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
If you want the FARC refactored, let an independent party do it based on consensus; it is not appropriate to remove someone else's Strong Keep, and A Kiwi clearly objected to the "meat cleaver" and the weakening of her keep. "Withold my objection"? "Inappropriate personal speculation"? Please make yourself more clear, and please do so on the appropriate talk page. I am not interested in this tangle between the two of you, and I need to ask you to confine it to the talk page of the article in question. The two of you should read and understand WP:TALK and work it out on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I certainly did NOT remove her "Strong Keep" as well you know, I left it with it's timeline, related to her later, more objective, arguments. If she request that I restore specific text, at ANY time, I will do so, along with the redress.
You still have not answered my question, why did you not raise the slightest objection to the archival of irrelevant personal discussion on WP:AN/I and yet find plenty of time to discuss my Yorkshire terriers? --Zeraeph 22:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
PS, the idea that some kind of personal tangle between two individuals should be "confined to the talk page" of any article is original, to say the least (and I doubt if it is policy), but my problem here is with your obstruction of civilised resolution. --Zeraeph 22:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hi, since I was the only other person to comment at WP:ANI on this I have looked over the last few comments and diffs. It appears that Zeraeph and A Kiwi did reach some sort of agreement over some content, which Z appears to have taken as permitting removal of A K's text. I realise that it is inappropriate for Z to refactor someone elses comments, but I feel it was done in good faith. Perhaps it would be best if A K were to refactor (or not, I am not convinced that what Z believes was said is what A K meant - but both parties are discussing it in good faith). I don't know if you feel that confirming with A K that Z's understanding is appropriate, since I have noted comments regarding A K's health, but I believe efforts in encouraging both parties to come to an agreement/conclusion is worthwile. LessHeard vanU 22:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
You and I "crossed in the mail", Less Heard. I just responded on the talk page in question. Yes, A Kiwi has mentioned repeatedly over the last few days that she isn't well, and she clearly asked that her commentary be restored and objected to the "meat cleaver".[2] She has appeared increasingly fragile and ill over the last few days. As I said on AN/I, it would be helpful if they would both use talk pages, and follow WP:TALK guidelines, but Zeraeph is a more experienced editor and since A Kiwi objected and is too ill to do it herself, it would show good faith if Z would put the original Strong Keep back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I am, understandably, not willing to replace irrelevant personal speculation about who my personal physician is or, how familiar he is with my home, Equally, I refuse to edit User:A Kiwi's comment down to relevant objectives because, I am human, and disagreeing with her, am certain to cheat, however, if anyone else, including User:SandyGeorgia is prepared to edit User:A Kiwi comment to present her objective arguements, and exclude personal speculation, as soon as User:A Kiwi endorses that I am prepared to endored it myself. --Zeraeph 23:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Work it out on talk please; my concern is the disruption of the FAR and the general disruption of editing of the article by inappropriate chatting on the talk page. If you two come to an agreement on the appropriate FAR talk page, I'll be glad to help effect whatever refactoring you choose, but I'm not going to be following six different talk pages to figure out what you decide. You're still asking that personal information added to a Wiki talk discussion by you be deleted; that's hard to understand. I will ask you for the last time, and then stop responding here; A Kiwi has indicated she is ill and she is not as experienced as you. Please confine the conversation to the appropriate talk page to make it easier on her and everyone else. It is not good practice to spread a conversation all over the place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
So, to recap, you want to restore personal (erroneous) speculation about who my personal physician is and how well he knows my home to an FARC?
Why? --Zeraeph 23:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Sandy, can you supply Z with the diff where A K requested the content be retained/returned? Z, can you work with A K and Sandy to get to some sort of consensus? Cheers. LessHeard vanU 23:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Less, I really would prefer to keep Sandy out of this, because, whatever she intends, she is simply exacerbating the situation. As Sandy is fully aware, A Kiwi knows me for many, many, years, and knows perfectly well that I will tweak and alter the text until she is as happy with it as I am, though I feel it unseemly for me to do that with her objective argument and would prefer someone more neutral did it.--Zeraeph 23:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
No, I am not fully aware of those facts, and your actions contradict the statement. Here are all the diffs (she has asked repeatedly on many pages, and I'm trying to encourage them both to go to the appropriate talk page and confine the discussion to one place). [3] [4] [5] I've also offered to help them negotiate (in sandbox) a refactoring and I think I know what they each want and think it should be doable. But, since Z rejects the offer to help, someone else will need to restore A Kiwi's comments on the FARC;[6] it doesn't appear that Z is understanding that A Kiwi's comments must be restored and A Kiwi doesn't know how to do it herself. Uh, since Z doesn't want me involved, I'm done. Over and out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
As for the rest, see WP:BLP "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material – whether negative, positive, or just questionable – about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia". I think that is pretty final? Unless I suddenly drop dead? --Zeraeph 00:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Zeraeph, someone who has also known both of us for a long time just wrote me privately quoting you from above and asked me just WHEN this had happened --

  • Your quote to Sandy above - "Kiwi <snip> knows perfectly well that I will tweak and alter the text until she is as happy with it as I am..."

This is so NOT TRUE that it boggles the imagination. You have never done anything of this sort, not a single retraction of your publishing of my private letters to third parties, not a single claim of my being all sorts of pathological monsters, not a single slur or lie for a period of some 7 or more years.

It is ONLY this, and only this time, only here at Wiki, have I submitted my altered words to you for review, then you submitted a rewritten paragraph for my consideration.... Don't you EVER lie about me again on these pages here at Wiki for your attempts to sway opinion and make yourself look good.

I did this, on this occasion, for I WAS out of line to post it where it had zero relevance... And, your having deleted the ENTIRETY of my valid arguments for my Strong Keep, then refusing to reinstate any of it, did I then do a rewrite. You DID want to repost it in a grand lady gesture, looking the better person, but I post my own posts. But I did cooperate fully with all your suggestions, but with more of my own input - but I do not regret that. It made a weak support into a much stronger support statement. Kiwi 17:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

WHOA! Watch the WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and try to stay in the same county as the facts please? [7], [8], [9] and MAYBE keep your off-Wiki correspondance, er, "off-wiki"? --Zeraeph 18:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
PS I am in a place BEYOND certain that this doesn't belong on Sandy's talk page, so if she wants to shift it to mine I have no objections at all (where is doesn't belong either, but I'm easy *shrugs*).--Zeraeph 18:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
My page? I lost the right to peaceful editing, even on my own page, since the day you decided I was someone I'm not. But I'm easy *shrugs*

A Kiwi has said she is ill and she is not an experienced editor; if she posts in the wrong place I don't think it's intentional in her case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ConoscoTutto

I've posted something asking for feedback from other admins re ConoscoTutto & SFTVLGUY2 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:ConoscoTutto. I wanted to let you know in case you think I left anything of particular importance out of if you just wished to take a look at it. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 01:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nancy Reagan

Hey Sandy! I know your a very busy editor but I was wondering if you could take a look at the Nancy Reagan article and give me your thoughts. You were a huge help in Ronald Reagan's FAC passing, and I think Nancy's is just about up to standard (being well referenced, well written, and a GA) and could rally only use a little more in the "First Lady of California" section. Anyway, if you have some time that would be great. Thanks, Happyme22 19:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PMID - very nice indeed !

Thanx for the PMID tip! CeilingCrash 01:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fun's over now

User:Zeraeph Over and out --Zeraeph 03:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD for Controversies about functioning labels in the autism spectrum.

In view of your contributions to the Asperger syndrome article, would you please comment at this AfD (if you have not already done so). I'm looking to close that AfD, but it seems to need more comment. Thanks. -- Jreferee T/C 17:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I need some time to study it; can you wait a day? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll wait a day. I posted about eight requests to others to participate in that AfD discussion so perhaps we can get a clearer picture of what to do. -- Jreferee T/C 17:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MedRS

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I did look at the discussion but it seemed to have steered back to peer-reviewed journals, followed by a discussion on judging the merits of an article by citation count. I'm not sure I've got anything to add. Colin°Talk 13:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help (again)

Sorry to keep bugging you! I've just dropped Brabham BT19 off at WP:FAC. Could you have a look and comment some time? Sports, and particularly motor sports, articles tend to get an easy ride at FA I feel, and I'd rather someone I know to be thorough (and merciless! ;-)) voted one way or the other on this one. It's not a particularly long article, if that's any help! 4u1e 19:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix

I was wondering whether you could look at 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix article as it is currently up for peer review. I would be very, very greatful if you could make comments on the article here. Thanks, Davnel03 19:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psychiatric abuse

You thought the ADHD page was bad, checkout Psychiatric abuse. The original editor follows few Wiki conventions and I am frustrated.--scuro 04:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychiatric abuse SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New script

Hi Sandy, Thought you might be interested in my latest script, which basically allows you to edit the <references/> section without having to hunt through the whole article for the particular <ref></ref> tag. More info at User talk:Dr pda/editrefs.js. --Dr pda 05:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peterborough

Removing overuse of wikilinks will be my next job. Thanks for pointing it out. Chrisieboy 17:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Have you time to look at a template?

Hello there. Awadewit and I are working on a talk page template, {{MoSElement}}. She suggested that I ask you, an "MoS guru", to have a look and offer suggestions. If you have some time, could you take a peek?

I also wonder if you know if there is a method for proposing templates like this to the community? Any direction you can offer is greatly appreciated.

Finally, we'd like to get the opinion of one or more math/science editors who might add their thoughts on what would be useful for people in that world. Do you know any such individuals? Thanks in advance. – Scartol · Talk 13:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the contact. I'll follow up with it. No rush on looking it over. Thanks again! – Scartol · Talk 14:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I can respect your objection, and the last thing I want to do is add another headache or cluttering element. But I think it would really help things get standardized across an article, especially things that can be time-consuming to hunt for, such as em vs. en dashes, and serial commas.
Insofar as internal-article consistency is so frequently demanded on Wikipedia, it seems to me that this could be useful indeed. – Scartol · Talk 21:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA

FYI. Marskell 13:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks again!

I don't suspect any of them will bring forth anything. It really looks like we have a combination of people who have a fear of weapons combined with ultra-leftists who think anything written about a company must be an advertisement. Where were they during the FAC review, peer review, etc? Probably complaining that he corvette article was advertising for GM.Mike Searson 16:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Wallace

the story was on ESPN prerace of the Busch race yesturday about Steve wallace that his only symptom according to Rusty Wallace that his eyes twitch due to his tourettes. Rusty stated that that is his only thing and that he gets angry when others say he was other symptoms. Rusty & Kenny Wallace then talked about Steve eyes do not twitch during race showing video proof on in board camera. braandpantiesmatch —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meetup in Minneapolis

Minnesota Meetup
Sunday, 2007-10-07, 1:00 p.m. (13:00)
Pracna on Main
117 Main SE, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Map
Please pass this on! RSVP here.
Spam delivered by -Susanlesch 19:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psychiatric abuse

How do I report a 3RR abuse (reverting) on the article Psychiatric abuse? The editor removes all my edits and returns POV language. For example, I reworded to say that a certain percentage of the respondents to a survey claimed ... This was changed back to the language: The study shows . . . Regards, --Mattisse 21:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll go have a look; hang on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh my gosh, there's a lot to get through there. If you can show me the four diffs where your edit was changed back, I'll submit the report at WP:3RR for you. They are very tricky and have to be done right, but finding the diffs is hard for me with all that editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I will go look. The same thing happened yesterday. I actually worked hard to clean it up and he removed it all. Plus, have you noticed [[Category:Anti-psychiatry]] and all the articles in it? Plus (pertaining to the Psychiatric abuse article):

--See also--

This guy is busy. --Mattisse 21:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing up the 3 revert rule, I had thought it meant that you could not use 'undo' to go to an earlier version three times in 24 hours.S. M. Sullivan 22:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] diffs

I have never done this so I hope this is right. These are the last four, I think. The edits go from most recent to less recent:

Most recent is first.

  • [11] this is my edit he is removing
  • [12] same edit as above he removed earlier (I added it back thinking I was going nuts and not realizing what was happening.)
  • [13] here I comment out a link that goes to recent newspaper page and does not reference the material in the article. He returns the unsourced material plus the link.
  • [14] here it looks like I am changing your words. Maybe I should just stay out of this.

Yesterday, he systematically removed everything I did. I didn't realize what was happening at first, and I didn't realize today either until now.

--Mattisse 21:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the article history, you can see what is happening. He is doing it to someone else right now. --Mattisse 21:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I can see he's doing it, but I need the proof in a way that can be presented to 3RR, and the editing is too fast for me to keep up with. I need four *different* diffs within 24 hours showing him returning the article to a previous version.
  • An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.
Some of your diffs above are to the same thing, so I'm still having a hard time sorting it out. I haven't yet even figured out who undid my WP:MSH corrections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psychiatric abuse

Usually articles do look this crappy when they're owned--3RR away next time, your MOS editing at least made it readable. I can see why people are nominating for deletion--although this is not the proper venue for a truly enclopediac topic. KP Botany 01:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General review

General review

The General review is intended to encourage and identify competent content with a minimum of bureaucracy. It has no subsidiary pages outside of template space. If an editor feels that they have updated a page to the point that a general reader would be reasonably satisfied with the coverage, they may nominate in one of the categories below. The article should not neglect major aspects of a topic, have sound prose, and cite its sources. Nominations need only a blue link and a summary sentence.

Any editor may choose an article from the list: remove it from this page, start an article talk thread, and leave a user talk note with the nominator. Reviewers are encouraged to edit the article directly if they see room for improvement. Once the reviewer and nominator are both confident that the coverage is competent, the successful General review template may be placed at the top of article talk. The template should be linked to the thread where the review took place.

Where an editor finds a page that has passed General review but feels the coverage dissatisfying, he or she may reiniate the process: start a thread, leave a user talk note, and attempt to improve the content. If this fails, the template may be removed.

Currently there #### that have passed General review. There is no canonical list. Ideally, every article on Wikipedia will one day be able to pass General review.

What GA could have been? Marskell 09:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lung cancer

Hi, Sandy. Thanks for your constructive comments about "Lung cancer". I am surprised to see that it passed FAC when there were still some outstanding issues. In any case, I have expanded the "History" section. Also, I note that you (and others) say that the article is too short. Perhaps I should move relevant text from "Non-small cell lung carcinoma staging", "Lung cancer screening" and "Manchester score" over to "Lung cancer"? Thanks. Axl 14:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Laika

Well, I couldn't find "ten days", and the rest doesn't need a cite, so consider it fixed. :) –Outriggr § 22:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S I couldn't resist. More embarassing for some than others, I think. –Outriggr § 05:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TV recommendation

I don't know what your TV watching habits are, but you might want to make time tonight to watch the South Park season premier. Given how funny the commercials looked, and (from your editing habits) your interest in Tourette syndrome, I thought you might get a chuckle out of it. Raul654 05:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Nancy Reagan

Hey Sandy. I have been working on the Nancy Reagan page for a long time, and as a well referenced, well written, neutral, factually correct GA, I think it is ready for a FAC. I was wondering if you could take a look at it, fix anything you like, and contact me on my talk page. I contacted you a few weeks ago regarding this matter, but you were probably too busy which is totally ok. Anyway, if you have time this would be great. Thanks, Happyme22 00:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ernie's ad page

Another editor provided examples of the peacockery, advertising, etc. for me before I got a chance to. --Orange Mike 15:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I've Got A Golden Ticket

I've Got A Golden Ticket

I have absoultely no idea as to how is the information about "I've Got A Golden Ticket" appearing in Michael Moore's movie more "encyclopedic" and/or "relevant" to the article than the information about the song appearing on "South Park". Could you please expand on that and prove that the former is encyclopedic enough to remain in the contents of the article and the latter one should be removed, just as you did? Thanks indeed. - My.life.is.muzik... 01:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it appearing in Moore's movie is encyclopedic either; if that's there, I hope someone will remove it. I'm just following the South Park situation, so didn't notice anything about Moore. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'd rather leave them both :)

Seriously - it is trivia indeed, but that what the articles about songs are for, more or less, isn't it? I mean, someone goes to the website, reads about original artists, and oh-wow! there are some additional bits about cover versions or whatsoever. More so, I think that my bit about an actual cover version was more encyclopedic than the Michael Moore bit (the song in its original form prolly appeared in an infinite number of movies, but it has not been covered that often, has it?), that got wasted. -- My.life.is.muzik... 02:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Trivia should either be sourced and added to the article as significant content, or removed. And, pls see WP:NOT. I can't imagine anything about Michael Moore being encyclopedic, so that's a whole 'nother topic. Trivia sections are discouraged on Wikipedia, and are a waste of editor time. If the fact that he sings that song is so notable, it should be added to the plot section. And by the way, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Part of the charm of South Park is that it often references off the beaten path pop culture references. I feel it is completely valid and important to the history of this song that it appeared on South Park and in a Michael Moore film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfs3 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

South Park, charm? I must get out more often :-) If the song was important to the plot, it should be worked into the plot, not included as trivia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More input needed at Hillary Rodham Clinton FAC

Hi, thanks for your comments in opposition at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hillary Rodham Clinton. However, you only gave one example of where you thought the prose was 'regrettable' and the sourcing lacking. That area has been fixed up, but we need to know what other areas you think suffer from these problems, so we can fix them too. Thanks ... Wasted Time R 03:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the heads up!

Thanks for the heads on up ATC and her sock puppets. I'll be keeping an eye on it as well. I haven't been doing as much Wikipedia stuff as a few weeks ago, but when I'm on, I'll be sure to check in on the situation. Thanks agian. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 05:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ernest Emerson FAR

I have started a featured article review for Ernest Emerson at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ernest Emerson. Your contribution would be appreciated.--Nydas(Talk) 17:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)