User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] GA & ArticleHistory

I'm finalizing the next issue of the GA Newsletter, and there's a section in it about the {{ArticleHistory}}. If you want to take a look at it, here it is. Feel free to make any changes that you might want to add. Thanks! Dr. Cash 01:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Very nice; I'll ask Gimmetrow to have a look. Some changes:

  • Also tracks AFDs, other featured processes like lists and topics, ...
  • Missing word: Although the template is pretty complicated ...
  • " ... go to the article's history and click on the date of the most recent edit." (click on the version of the article review or GA listing ... not necessarily the most recent edit)

Thanks Derek! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I've implemented your suggestions. Dr. Cash 01:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiley Protocol

Hi SandyGeorgia,

There's been an ongoing...discussion between myself and another contributor at Talk:Wiley Protocol. Discussion is pretty charitable as we've both gotten rather hot under the collar over the issue. Words were said, sarcasm unleashed, extremely polite insults hurled. Anyway, the other editor (User:Nraden) is the husband of T.S. Wiley, for whom the protocol is named, and in obvious COI, but since being warned has been very good about engaging on the talk page rather than edit warring. He is now attempting to provide a more thorough description of the protocol, and is currently adding sources to a draft on the talk page. I've some concerns about the reliability and validity of the sources as it is a page about a variant of hormone replacement therapy (bioidentical hormone replacement therapy). But given the history of acrimony (one of the more polite disputes I've had on wikipedia, but still a dispute) I'm not the best person to make a judgement. In addition, you've a much better mastery of WP:MEDMOS and the requisite sources than I, so I thought you'd be able to provide a more nuanced analysis and discussion than I.

Would you mind having a gander? It'd be doing me a huge favour, which I could never repay... I'm not sure how that's supposed to entice you.

The page doesn't get much traffic, and User:Wikidudeman has also been dragged in to a certain extent, but I haven't seen him there in a while. Otherwise, any suggestions would be good.

Thanks,

WLU 02:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

p.s. I'm not sure if you're a he or she, or would rather not say. So I've referred to you as they/them on the talk page. Hope you don't mind.

It may be a bit over my head, but I'll have a look tomorrow and try to lend a hand (it's a bit late here now). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I have the utmost respect for the height of your head. WLU 03:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I went ahead and looked because it's so short; you got nothing there to work with, and you need not exert so much effort on a self-promotional article :-) Without any sources, it's just another person pushing their product. If someone doesn't cough up some reliable sources, the article needs to be reduced to what can be reliably said, which is very little. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Goodness, this has already been solidly dealt with in the New York Times; the article gives undue weight to the claims, and needs to deal with the issue raised here. Google is your friend.

[edit] Wiley Protocol 2

I'm just trying to get a description of Wiley Protocol into the article. I've given up fighting Wiley's detractors, I don't care how much criticism they level. There are thousands of women doing very well on the protocol and there is an observational study running at U of Texas, and two of the principal investigators from the Women's Health Initiative are ramping a full-blown clinical trial. This is notable.

Please see my comments in the Talk page for Wiley Protocol

Neil Raden 05:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think yuo've made some questionable revisions to the Wiley Protocol article without discussion. The spirit of this thing, because it is so contentious, is to discuss first, edit second. I wrote two paragraphs about the WP, with footnotes, can we please get back to that. And why you would cite Dr. Taguchi as an unreliable source is beyond me. Please explain or I will revert it. Neil Raden (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

For the words of assurance. The article is shaping up so well, that I am thinking of taking it GA in two weeks or something. Cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 06:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The usual subject

FAR is still quite overloaded but it's hard to close many of them because of few comments. The Ashes and Anno Domini could both use an extra comment in FARC; I notice you were working on the latter. Marskell 08:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

What does "Those ref labels are still dead and need to be fixed" mean wrt Shoe polish? Marskell 19:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Referencing advice

Thanks for dropping by the Swedish language article and for the edits you made to it! I wanted to ask you for some advice about referencing. If an entire section of the article is based on a single reference, how do you cite that? Also, do you add that reference to the beginning or the end of the section? (Would it be a good idea to ask for additional sources so that the entire section is not based on a single reference?) –panda 18:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that a very similar question was just brought up in Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#References for article sections. Sorry to bother you. –panda 18:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you certain everything in that section is sourced to that book and that one page? That's a lot of info from one page. If so, I also suggest a one-line introduction: so-and-so's book, such-and-such discusses blah, blah, blah. It wouldn't hurt to use a named ref on each paragraph. (See WP:FN.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually I'm not sure. But since the primary editor seemed to have claimed in the article's talk page that he normally only puts a reference at the end of a paragraph that applies to the entire paragraph, I was assuming that it might be true. He's on wikibreak so I can't ask, nor do I have access to all of the books listed. Maybe the safest thing to do is to tag the section with citation requests...? –panda 00:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what he will respond best to; I've not had luck in the past. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cap

I felt that since the cap is between two now signed comments, adding my name in the header was redundant. I wanted not to hide the entire discussion anymore. Circeus 01:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goings-on archival

Looks like you did it correctly. Thanks for investigating about a bot further. — TKD::Talk 04:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi. Thanks for working on the article. I didn't know that you now had the extra responsibility of being the FA director too. Congratulations. You have my full support. - Aksi_great (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem! I am not the FA director; I'm just a delegate to help the director :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notice

Your talk page appears on this list. See this and this for details on the issue. Your archive subpage uses {{archive box collapsible}}, which uses {{archive list}} and {{archive list long}}, both of which use a lot of #ifexist calls at the moment. Gimmetrow 05:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Gimmetrow; I have absolutely no idea what any of that means :-) I installed collapsible archive boxes on some article too? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
My take from Tim Starling's comment about the new preprocessor in Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) #.23ifexist_limit is that we can wait for a couple of days before worrying about this. There seems to be a good chance that the new preprocessor will fix our problem, without our having to do anything. Eubulides 06:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] stuttering COI

Hello SandyGeorgia. I'm afraid I know nothing about the stuttering issue you raise...sorry. Best wishes, Robinh 09:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ambulance as FA

Hi there,

thanks for your comments on the Ambulance article. I have done some of the suggested fixes, but still had some questions, qhich i posted back on its FAC page. Sorry to post them here, but Peer reviewing appears to be chronically under 'staffed', with most articles only getting the automatic peer review. Most of the appropriate editors seem to gravitate to FAC instead. Therefore, I would really appreciate if you could help, as i don't think sending it back to Peer review will be helpful.

The questions or comments (copied from FAC page) are:

  • WP:DASH – All the dashes in the lists are En dashes, which I believe is correct, although I have reinserted them all just in case. Was this what you meant?
  • Captions – Fixed so far as I think is correct for capitals and WP:MOS. Anything I missed?
  • TOC - Is your issue with the TOC itself (if so i can suppress the hierarchy) or with the headings themselves?
  • Cites - all refs use the CITE template, so are in the correct format, and i have now added publishers where missing
  • See also - cleared up and reduced to directly related articles
  • MOSBOLD - I can't see the incorrect use - it is used in the lists, which is one of the reasons you can use it
  • Offending 'sentence' - must of missed that, now fixed
  • MOSNUM - I have reread this, and i'm not immediately seeing the problem, any further advice?
  • 'Listy' article - I'm not sure there is any way round this given the variations which occur worldwide. If this was entirely rewritten to prose, it would be much harder to read, and more difficult to find salient information.
  • Subject focus - I think this does stay quite well focused, given that sub headings, such as lights, are integrally linked to ambulances to the majority of readers.
Thanks in advance for your help. Owain.davies (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

based on your comments of: The peer review is quite old, not very complete, and there is a lot of basic MOS cleanup needed. Without even reading beyond the lead, I see incorrect capitalization in image captions, WP:DASH issues, WP:MOS#Captions punctuation issues, a rambling out of control Table of Contents (see WP:WIAFA), and the article is very listy. There is a separate section created for numerous one-paragraph issues; perhaps something like a War heading could be used to tame the TOC. Oh, I see you already have a Military use section, which makes all the other sections even more confusing. Citations are unformatted (see WP:CITE/ES) and almost no publishers are identified; See also is out of control (see WP:GTL). There is incorrect use of WP:MOSBOLD. The article doesn't stay tightly focused on its subject, verring into the technology of the flashing lights, for example. There are numerous short, stubby paragraphs. The article has broad sections with no citations. A copy edit is needed (notice this "sentence": The scene was very popular, and its fame spread — During the year 1870, the ambulances attended 1401 emergency calls, but twenty one years later, this had more than tripled to 4392 ... which also has WP:MOSNUM issues). Commons links belong in External links. I don't recommend trying to bring this article to status during a FAC because there is frankly a lot of work to be done, and I suggest a more thorough peer review would be helpful. A lot of these kinds of issues should have been addressed via peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Owain.davies 12:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gender neutral language

It seems odd that Tony and you could not get that included in the MOS. It is sure helpful, and I doubt it gets read very much where it is. MOS is the logical place to put it. If you ever decide to open a discussion on MOS about it, please let me know so I can support you. Jeffpw 21:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hi, SandyGeorgia. Quick question. I see Raul654 has given you some new delegation in the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates process. I believe you are a very hard worker but are new to Wikipedia. May I ask please 1) what role you will be assuming? and 2) If you know Raul654 in "real life"? (This can make a difference sometimes I realize). Just a question from another newbie (about 1.5 years here). Thank you. I understand Raul654 is appointed by Jimmy Wales to select featured articles and to select placement on the Wikipedia home page. I guess I owe you a barnstar for your role whatever it may be. -Susanlesch 21:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Susan. No, I don't know Raul/Mark in real life, and I've never been to any Wikimania or other Wiki gatherings where I might have met him or other Wikipedians. The role is explained by Raul here; as he explains it (and I agree), basically, Raul is the FA director, and I "serve" at his pleasure. I don't feel new to Wiki :-) I won't be involved in mainpage selection, but I will be helping with promoting/archiving of featured article candidates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your reply, SandyGeorgia. So you agree Raul654 is the FAC Director, even though he is appointed by no one. That's fine with me. I did have a question about some of your edits while Minneapolis, Minnesota was in featured article review as you know. But I guess I will live. Are you for example, a Wikipedia administrator? Are you a former sysop from another online service? (For example, one could say a long term sysop on America Online has some demonstrated credentials.) Sorry I have never had the pleasure of meeting you or seen your photo (I have seen Raul654's photo on his user page). -Susanlesch 22:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree that the community has conferred and affirmed Raul's position as FA director and his broad discretion over the featured article process several times, and I believe that arrangement works well (I hope you've read the discussion at WT:FAC). I am not an admin at Wikipedia and have not had such a position at another online service such as AOL. No part of the FA process requires the admin tools, and since Raul can boot me if I ever I go astray, I don't feel a need for the admin tools, and it would be strange to apply for them if I don't intend to use them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Well I do object a bit to an editor with limited knowledge being advanced over me. But I will think about it. Good work for applying for the job. Did you request your new position? -Susanlesch 22:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • No, she did not. The first time Sandy knew my plans was when I emailed her to ask if he would be willing to take the position. Raul654 22:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weird. A link to email. Well let me catch up a bit and come back to this thread. Maybe some new things happened in the last month or two? Could be. One never knows. -Susanlesch 22:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
What's weird, Susan, are your questions. Why, with FA related edits that are in the tens of thousands, should she not be approved over you (or me or the guy down the street)? And no one here has to answer questions about what they do off-site. Anyway, Tim Vickers has provided the best description over at Raul's talk. Her tomb raiding is particularly prolific. Marskell 17:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi, Marskell. I think you calling my comments weird is going a bit far. My use of the word "weird" above was not in any way related to you or to SandyGeorgia. It was related to a link in a reply from Raul654. But that is fine. You have helped me (I think once, don't recall) in the past. No problems here to speak of except that I feel it necessary to reply to you. But again, that is fine. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 08:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Naked Brothers Band Navigational Template

Dear SandyGeorgia, Could you add a cast column and just add Polly Draper since I think she should be on the navigational template since she is "the brain child" of the show and is their real-life mother, I think she should be indicated there. AnnieTigerChucky 21:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the current template is only characters, and I'm not sure it's a good idea for it to grow beyond that. Are you aware of other TV series templates that include that level of information? If so, perhaps propose that addition on the article talk page to see what others think. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Michael Wolff article

Dear SandyGeorgia, I understand why you erased that Michael Wolff picture, because that was horriable. But why did have to erase the info box? AnnieTigerChucky 23:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with removing that image (although it was truly awful); it was deleted from Wikipedia by someone else. I disagree with the need for infoboxes on many bios, and particularly on that bio. There was no info in the infobox which isn't included already in the article, and without an image, the infobox makes no sense. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naked Brothers Band album and songs

There's both a Naked Brothers Band (album) and List of The Naked Brothers Band songs

Dear Sandy Georgia, There's a problem, The Naked Brothers Band (album) falls underneath List of The Naked Brothers Band songs and The Naked Brothers Band (album) article should be deleted, since there is a lot work to do on that article and it's practically a duplicate anyway. How do you delete an article? AnnieTigerChucky 00:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, only an admin can delete an article, and it would have to fail notability, be submitted to Prod or be submitted to AfD. You can start by reading WP:MUSIC, and then see WP:PROD or WP:AFD, based on whether the article meets notability. Hey, Annie, it would be really helpful if you'd shorten up your section headings; something like "How to delete" would work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gettysburg Address

I read MOSDATE, and took this to mean DON'T wl dates unless there is a specific point, and then I delinked most of the instances of November 19 in the article: "Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic." I take it I am misreading this part of the MOS? Also, I will review MOS for captions as you suggested, but my recollection is that using sentence fragments as photo captions is reasonable English practice; for example, "The Hay Draft" would stand on its own without a verb. As someone who is crazy about the serial comma, among other things, I don't see the problem with the fragments under a photo. Your view? Kaisershatner 14:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOS#Captions - "most captions are not sentences, but extended phrases..." Kaisershatner 14:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
There is no problem with sentence fragments in image captions; the issue is the punctuation. WP:MOS#Captions:
  • Most captions are not complete sentences, but extended phrases, which should not finish with a period.
  • Complete sentences in captions always end in a period.
On WP:MOSDATE, solo years are not linked; month-day combos are linked so that user preferences on date display will work. Full dates are also linked. Month-year combos are not, since those aren't affected by user prefs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
You are removing retrieval dates from Amazon and Google book searches. Please see Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style#Electronic_equivalents. If you think the citations were incorrect, the right way to fix those is to add the hyperlink, not delete the accessdate. Kaisershatner 15:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you're misreading or misunderstanding; you add a retrieval date when you add a URL. No URLs were given. I'm trying to help with the sourcing so the article can pass FAR, and that article requires a mountain of work to correct the citations (by the way, many of the citations are not reliable and do not verify the text they are associated with). I don't have the time to go dig up every missing URL and add them, but someone else is welcome to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re:Final Fantasy

Hiya. I think it's in pretty good shape; however, the bottom two sections could use some polishing. That could be done easily, and it's mostly minor tweaks. — Deckiller 18:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Content review/workshop

Hi Sandy - I don't know if you're still interested in the goings-on there, but having taken the PR topic as far as we can for now, we're currently deciding on which issue to tackle next. Your input would be welcome... ;) EyeSereneTALK 09:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations!

I hear you've finally (almost) succeeded in your nefarious scheme to dethrone Raul654 and replace him as featured article director! Congratulations! He couldn't have chosen a nicer evil mastermind of indeterminate gender! :-)

Seriously though - will deciding whether to award the little star get in the way of your commenting on FACs? I hope it doesn't; that was one of the best things you did in the FA process. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You are so funny; the $64,000 question :-) Where there's a hole, someone will fill it; when an over-producer steps away, someone else usually steps up to the plate. Eventually, another editor will start to review sources for reliability, make sure text is verified by the source cited, and jump in with sample edits to show editors how to comply with MOS and correct ref formatting. If that never happens, we'll find a model that works—Marskell at FAR has managed to work so well with reviewers and nominators and express his own concerns while still making sound and neutral interpretations of consensus on closing FARs. The same model can't necessarily be applied to the higher volume at FAC, so for now ... while I'm still green, I'm starting very slow, planning to help hold down the backlog by running through the clearcut noms often, and leaving the messy ones to Raul (isn't that unfair to him? :-) There are a few kicking around that concern me, and SG the reviewer would love to just dig in and get them fixed, but there aren't actually so many of those. If I see anything really problematic, I can get involved and leave it to Raul to close. The time it takes to read through and sort out where each reviewer stands on a nom is surprising, and I've developed an appreciation not only for how much Raul has had to do, but also for people who thread their responses correctly, make their objections and supports clear and intelligible, and strike concerns as they are met. The bottom line is that if no one eventually does what I did, it means that what I did wasn't that important. Time will tell :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Autism problem

There is problems with autism scientific peer viewed journal articles that will help correct the autism article

The only thing is scientist say there is no cure, I refer to call it "completely better", and scientist don't explain it clear enough they are trying to say that you can't get completely better from the "Autistic Spectrum", but not necessarily "autism", but the spectrum. The truth is scientist do not know enough information about autism compared to a certified analysis who works with the kids through Early Childhood Intervention, they know so much about autistic's brains but so little about how they think and process things is the problem, that's why this is very tricky to find a peer viewed article that explains this, but I will continue to do so. AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Take Temple Grandin as an example, she had autism when she was very young but got completely better from autism but she did not get completely better from the "autistic spectrum", she has Aspergers Syndrome now. AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Annie, I saw the changes you wanted to make to the autism article, but the truth is that the article already makes it very clear that some of those treatment methods are effective, so I'm not sure why you're concerned that we don't cover that. Also, we can only report what reliable sources say, and we must avoid anecdote in all articles, but particularly medical articles. Temple Grandin has the same brain wiring she was born with; it's the diagnoses that change over time, and Asperger's didn't exist as a diagnosis when she was young. Also, the lines that divide one diagnosis from another are fuzzy. If you find any reliable sources that the autism article misses, it would be good to post them to the talk page for discussion, but remember to shorten your section headings :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay thanx! But just for more info, that Temple Grandin was not diagnosed with autism when she was younger she was diagnosed with brain damage. Which she said, when she was being interviewed once, and she improved and developed her language at age 4, which aspergers does not mean brain damage or problem delays with language. She had autism until she was 4, and then was diagnosed with Aspergers later on. AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats!:

Congrats on your appointment. I couldn't think of anyone better for the job. :) Spawn Man (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Spawn Man, it's nice of you to drop me a note! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

From me, also. So they finally got you. :) —xyzzyn 19:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

xy, where have you been lately? I've missed you 'round the TS article. Thanks for kind words. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Bryan Jepson

Hi Sandy. As planned, I've nominated Bryan Jepson for deletion. Please add your thoughts here. Regards, Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Will do after I finish some other things; can't remember who he is :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keli Price

Dear SandyGeorgia, There is a problem with adding Keli Price, before the last time I was blocked I created Copyright when I created the article, but I learned my lesson now and it's under protection, meaning it's disabled to create. And I found a reliable source at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2802157/?fr=c2M9MXxsbT01MDB8ZmI9dXx4PTB8dHQ9MXxteD0yMHx5PTB8aHRtbD0xfGNoPTF8Y289MXxwbj0wfGZ0PTF8a3c9MXxzaXRlPWRmfHE9S2VsaSBQcmljZXxubT0x;fc=1;ft=20 that will work to create it. But how do I enable the block. AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Annie, here is the log for that page; you can contact one of those two admins on their talk pages, explain to them that you found a reliable source and you now understand copyright and other Wiki policies better, and ask them to re-create or allow you to re-create the article, showing them your sources (do you have others?). I can't help any further than that, because I'm not an admin. Good luck ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanx! By the way I do have another reliable source, but I am going to start with this one for now. AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

But your case to the admin for unprotecting will be stronger if you show more reliable sources and explain that you now understand how to use them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I added these two [1] and [2], is that good? AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That should help! Thank you so much for the kindness below :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Insight

Sandy, I posted some comments here; perhaps you can offer insight. I have posted the same inquiries to the other users involved. Thanks, --Daysleeper47 (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An Award

Image:Barnstar of Diligence.png
This award is for helping me and a lot of other users on Wikipedia and helping make Wikipedia a great place! AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NBB Film and NBB series

Dear SandyGeorgia, Could you please check the naked bros film and tv series article. I did some changes, wanted to make sure you approved and the same thing for the thirtysomething (TV series) article. By the way I found out how to edit a navigational template. AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the midst of a lot of work tonight, Annie; I'll check those as soon as I have a free moment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Annie, you've made a lot of progress there, and have turned those into real articles !! I left a lot of little manual of style changes; if you sort through each one of my changes by looking at each diff in the history tab, you can see changes you can do to other articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UNPA FAC

I was having trouble figuring out how the dates in your example violate WP:MOSDATE. As for the violation of WP:MSH, could that be resolved by getting rid of the "Support and Opposition" heading and just having "Support" and "Opposition" headings (rather than subheadings)? 65.205.60.17 (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Both Support and Opposition are very short, and they seem to split the text unnecessarily; would it work to just have one heading and two paragraphs without sub-headings, which don't seem necessary? Full dates (month-day-year) should be wikilinked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Merging it into one section does seem like a good idea. But in reference to the dates, are you saying that the date ranges should also be wikilinked? Sarsaparilla (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:MOSDATE explains that autoformatting doesn't work on date ranges, but my understanding is that you can do it like this:
  • [[December 5]]–[[December 6|6]], [[2007]] to get December 5–6, 2007. I could be wrong, but that's what I usually do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, OK. Thanks. By the way, I notice the citation page says "There is currently no consensus on a preferred citation format for Wikipedia"; do I have to include these "retrieved on" dates? I just think it's redundant since the time of retrieval is implied by the date of the edit in which the reference was added. Sarsaparilla (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, websources need retrieval dates; no, we can't expect editors years from now to sort back through old diffs to find out how to replace a dead link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, I added those and attempted to follow examples from Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style and Template:Cite web. What do you think? Sarsaparilla (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, now what do you think of it? I think the 1c and 2 issues are pretty much dealt with. Sarsaparilla (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I made some further revisions in an effort to address your concerns. Sarsaparilla (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, I chopped up that snake in the lead. Perhaps a {{snake}} tag template should be created for such situations? Sarsaparilla (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I just chopped up a few more snakes. (Tastes just like chicken!) Sarsaparilla (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey!

I sent you an email.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date question

SandyGeorgia, hi, thank you very much for your help with Pauline Fowler.  :) A question that I had though on date-linking. Sorry if I seem confused on this, but sometimes I have trouble getting my head around the subtleties of some formatting issues. My understanding of date-linking, is that we should only link dates that were "important" dates to the topic of the article, and that we should avoid linking all dates on the page. However, from your edit here, it appears now that all dates should be linked, even if they are simple "date of publication" in a reference?[3] I can definitely accommodate either method, I just wanted to make sure that I'm clear on what the current practice is. Thanks, Elonka 02:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Almost all of your dates in references are linked, yet there are inconsistent, sporadic misses. When I see an article that formats *no* dates in references, I assume it's a strange user preference, and I leave it alone, although I disagree. WP:MOSDATE says full dates are linked so user preferences will work. What probably happened in some of your dates is that there was a recent change in the cite templates. Accessdate is automatically linked when you use the yyyy-mm-dd format. While the date parameter previously was not automatically linked, but it was recently changed so that it now is automatically linked when you use the yyyy-mm-dd format, but not when you use Month day, year. That could be part of the difference. Go back and check the date parameters, as well as check if you missed any dashes. Trivial stuff; not that important, but might as well get it right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll go take a look and see if I can get things cleaned up.  :) BTW, do you think that these little formatting issues were the main blocker at the FA nom? I noticed that the page has been at the nomination page for nearly two months now, and I was wondering if there was some major issue I was missing! --Elonka 04:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
It's hard to tell why some articles don't get a lot of review, but it may have been the tense issues and questionable sourcing. I hope you can deal with the one cite tag I added. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I think we've got it all squared away now. We have consensus on the tense issues, the sources have been tightened up, and the punctuation and dates have been cleaned up. And I added that cite that you requested. Any other "gotchas" that you can spot? And thanks again for the help! --Elonka 06:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Be sure to drop a note to Tony, as he has many FACs to revisit all the time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Good idea! Thanks and done.  :) --Elonka 06:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the variations in the cite templates:

Gimmetrow 04:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL, it makes me crazy, but few seem to notice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Adding author just to make it really look crazy ;) Gimmetrow 05:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I can never figure why it doesn't bother some editors. Or why the templates aren't consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • You have mail. And your favorite bot helps maintain WP:GA, so don't diss it too much. Gimmetrow 03:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Sweet Escape (song)

I heard you're Raul's second in command, so congratulations. Can you weigh in at this FAC, and restore order? The discussion has gone from whether the article meets featured status, and is now all about whether people should be allowed to make multiple nominations etc. etc. Of course, the discussion should be about whether the article merits the star. My personal opinion is that the commentator can debate the topic via the talk page of FAC if he wishes, though you're welcome to express your own there (or not express anything). Thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan (talk) 04:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems the user has taken my advice somewhat. Anyway, thanks for your time none the less. I hope all is well. LuciferMorgan (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine; I hope all is well with you, too; have hardly seen you around lately? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Knut (polar bear)

Hello, I wanted to thank you for taking the time to clean up the citation templates at Knut (polar bear). I also noticed that you left a note regarding a support at the article's FAC. This is my first time going through FAC and I wasn't aware that users had to have a certain amount of edits to take part; or is that just a precaution against sockpuppets? Does input similar to that have the ability to harm consensus? Can there be consensus with one longstanding oppose, for example? I apologize if I'm hounding you, but I'm still very new to this process and I'd like to be well aware of the little intricacies before beginning my next one. :) Take care, María (habla conmigo) 13:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hola, María. Many factors have to be accounted for, and an editor supporting an article as their first contribution to Wiki may or may not be given the same weight as an established contributor or reviewer, depending very much on all of the circumstances (that particular editor has made no other contributions to Wiki). Yes, we have to consider sockpuppets, sleeper accounts, outside canvassing, etc.—I'm not saying that is going on with Knut, just that I made the note as I went through to remind myself next time I read through. Yes, there can be consensus to promote even over a strong object, particularly if that object is not founded in policy or WP:WIAFA and others disagree, but it is better for the "long term health" of the article if strong objects can be dealt with by establishing a strong consensus, so issues don't come back to hound you in the future :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments; the explanation for new users makes perfect sense, and it's wonderful that so many things are taken into account in order to promote an article to FA. Oh, but I was afraid you'd say that about consensus! I'll see what I can do. :) María (habla conmigo) 22:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured articles director names deputy

I came across this announcement just today. You're far the best person for this job! Congratulations, but please don't stop working on medicine-related articles! NCurse work 18:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Piłsudski's nomination

I find it rather unpleasant to have been accused at FAC discussion of 'improper nomination'. I hope we will not allow the FAC discussion to turn into a place one can flame FA creators. In any case, I'd appreciate your comments on P. article. I know you cannot vote, but if you think there are any concerns I should address, do let me know. The copyediting have finished around Dec 3 and the article should be relatively stable now.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching. There are some unfortunate reviews and comments being made (not only on those FACs) that I trust will get sorted out. It may not be possible to prevent unfortunate discussions and comments, but I do hope my message at the bottom of that discussion is clear; if I thought a nomination "improper", I'd remove it. I haven't; neither has Raul. Hangeth in there! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Again, if you think that I have not address properly any of the issues raised, do let me know! -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My talk page

Dear SandyGeorgia, I was wondering if you still have my talk page on watch. I posted a comment back on my talk page, click here. [4] AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes I do, Annie; I will get to it as soon as I can, I'm just very busy :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Barnstar of Diligence
for taking the time to make detailed and precise notes to a new user (User:AnnieTigerChucky) who needed your help. This action exemplified the best of Wikipedia and you are to be congratulated! - Philippe | Talk 03:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Belfast

Hi, just to clarify, if I don't formally Oppose, I don't need to revisit, do I? PS Having trouble with my email system. Tony (talk) 05:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that wayward italic comment. Sounds like you're hyper-busy. Tony (talk) 12:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FACs and Diocese of Miami

Hi Sandy, thanks for reminding me about the FAC for the Archdiocese of Miami, I've reexamined the article and was suitably impressed to strike my oppose. I haven't abandoned the FAC process for good, but the holidays have made everything a little crazy. If I don't have time to wade back in over the next few weeks, I hope to be back up to speed by January. Have a wonderful holiday! Karanacs (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussing featured image eligibility for animals, with possible repercussions on FAC process

Sandy, I wanted to alert you individually of this discussion as you are one of the people who best understand "the best of Wikipedia". Discussion here. Permalink is here. Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poking for peer review ;)

Hi, Sandy. I unfortunately missed the announcement when you were given the keys to WP:FA, so I'd like to congratulate you belatedly. That's a much-deserved promotion.

Also, I was wondering if it was possible for you to comment on Wikipedia:Peer review/Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale? I want to eventually send that article to FAC, but I have no idea what I need to do before that. So pointers as to what to do would be much appreciated there. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hah! That's definitely Tony... :)... btw, you missed all the fun tonight... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I actually noticed it when I went to do the unit conversions in Dashboard... I have WP:ITN as a page there, and it was giving me the "We have technical difficulties" page that occurs only when the MP is deleted... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I left a couple of questions on the peer review page. Mostly, I don't know how I can add information about damages to life and limb, as the scale doesn't measure that, and those damages really depend on the position of landfall of a storm... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! :) I've also added  s throughout the article to "Category #" statements (except in section headers, where they break incoming links). Aside from that, do you think that the article could be in shape for an FAC run? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two FARs

I closed Anne Frank partly on the strength of your "Formatting looks good so far"; I didn't realize you still had issues.

Swedish just seemed to be a talk page dispute that had spilled into another forum and with FAR being so disputatious lately, I thought I'd shut it down. Note it wasn't actually Panda's nom, so I hope s/he isn't personally put off. Marskell (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NumaNumaDud

Thanks for fixing his edits. I was going through them as best I could, but it's hard on dialup to do it very quickly. :) kmccoy (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Some might suggest that rather than waiting for an admin to notice, you could just become one. Is there a reason you're not? :P kmccoy (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes; I don't want to apply to that club until/unless Wiki develops a means of dealing with abusive admins; hauling through ArbCom isn't my idea of time productively spent on Wiki :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative stuff

Hi Sandy I hope you weren't referring to me as a POV pusher. The article Alternative therapies for developmental and learning disabilities has been a hard one. I think the subject is really important, but it's difficult to make an article that all sides are equally happy about. Anyway, thanks for the cleanup! (You're welcome back anytime ;) Piechjo (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not, Piechjo, not at all; it's been a long day and it's only afternoon here :-) On that article, I think ya'll just need to diversify those sources, because a lot of that really can be sourced to peer-reviewed journals so it won't come across as an advert for one book. Have you seen the Diberri PMID template filler in the userbox on my userpage? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Now I have, thanks, and I've added it to my Explorer Favorites Center. I'll try and find better sources. It's actually a pretty new subject and some "expert" sources aren't very scientific. Piechjo (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
But they're out there, and you can avoid problems by setting a *strong* citation standard from the beginning; if you over-rely on one book, it looks dodgey :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, I will. After a good night's sleep. Piechjo (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, the list will be a tricky thing to redo. I think that's where secondary sources are really needed. There are now about a hundred therapies, and there are more out there. We need both a source to state that the therapy is not a standard procedure, and that it's used as an alternative therapy. Chiver's book, for instance, is not scientific, but she knows a lot about alternative therapies and has been the first one so far to write a book on them from a neutral point of view. If I was making a list of pseudoscientific concepts, I would use the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, for instance. I don't see it as an advert because very few Wiki-readers actually check the sources. If I can't used Chivers, Reid, Silver and Jacobson, I'll have to delete all the references. But then the advocates of these therapies start deleting their products from the list because it's unsourced. Piechjo (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you good at searching PubMed or google scholar? I'd wager you can diversify a lot of that list with some time spent in search engines. When I first saw the list, it read like Chivers had written it; lowering any of the amount cited to one source that you can will help the article, and a peer-reviewed source is stronger than a book. I know some sources are out there, because I've come across them in my Tourette syndrome research. Get some sleep first :-) And, if I don't get time to get back to the article soon enough, feel free to remove my advert tag as soon as you've gotten a fair amount of diversification. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Auspicious moment

I just stopped by as a result of the content review business and found Tim Vicker's quote: absolutely priceless! Thanks for sharing! Also, amazed that you are not an admin, I checked out "wannabe kate", and found that your last edit "Me neither" at the content review workshop, was exactly edit number 45000. If you'd like a shot at RFA, I'd be delighted to nominate/support etc., although I would guess Tim has already asked. The admin tools are occasionally useful ;-) although they don't need to take over your wiki-life: this was only the 4th time I used them, I think. Geometry guy 21:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Erm, I found the thread where Tim asked. Also, "wannabe kate" gives up after the 9th batch of 5000 articles: you actually have an even more impressive 50152 edits. But I do think your reasons for declining are mistaken: I've had absolutely no admin hassle. Anyway, enough said. Geometry guy 22:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Tim is something :-) Don't be too impressed by my edit count; I'm a famously inefficient editor. How did you find the 50152 number? I don't know how to find edit counts after Kate craps out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Wannabe kate craps out, but Kate is fine: see [5]. And please think again about going admin ;-) Geometry guy 01:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
You can also easily find your own edit count by looking at Special:Preferences; it was added a while ago. Dr pda (talk) 02:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
But that's too easy ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
50,203 edits... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
That's weird; I don't know how I got an edit on the German wiki if I've never registered there, and I don't know how I got edits on Wiki books when I only registered there very recently to discuss a COI problem. And, I don't recognize those edits, but my memory stinks. I don't know anything about Canadian Geese. hmmm ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Possibly a transwiki content transfer. Edit history must be preserved for GFDL. Gimmetrow 04:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protests & Students

Finished a little more. Tell me what you think.. I know it still needs improvements. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Huckabee Merge Proposal

Please comment on merging Mike Huckabee controversies into Mike Huckabee here [6] Jmegill (talk) 10:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like I was too late? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] tutorial

By "MOS review tutorial", I guess you were following up my earlier comment (last week?). I think I'd rather integrate MOS things into the advanced editing exercises instead, where it's a more ecologically valid environment.

I'm more interested in a tutorial for the 1c thing, or at least important aspects of referencing in FACs. Tony (talk) 13:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

What aspects of 1c need a tutorial? Gimmetrow 04:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I dunno; it's so plain to me that I can't always understand what isn't plain to others :-) You scan the citation list, check the quality of the publishers, watch for missing publishers, click on any you've never heard of to check for reliability, make sure that sources are properly listed and formatted, look for sources that claim one source but are actually copyvios, randomly click on a lot of them to see what you find, and spot check that sources are what they claim to be and actually verify the text. I need to write that up, I guess, but I can't understand why more reviewers don't do it. Checking sources should be one of the most important elements of FAC and FAR. Tony and I need to do a tutorial like his editing exercises, to show others how to quickly spot issues, I guess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, Sandy, if there's a problem with the Wiley articles let me know. Looks like NR is sticking to the talk page for now. Gimmetrow 04:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I unwatched there; I just don't like the tone and it really has me uncomfortable. I keep hearing I should become an admin so I don't need to seek admin help on issues like that, but being an admin wouldn't help in this case. I wouldn't be able to do anything differently even if I were an admin because 1) I don't understand the BLP/COI/possible legal issues so it wouldn't be appropriate to act, and 2) I'm an involved party now, so I couldn't/wouldn't act anyway. I went to the BLP and COI boards asking for extra eyes and over five days, got nothing; same thing that happened on the COI at stuttering and anti-stuttering devices to poor Slp1, who is having to deal with that mess by herself, literally as the only content expert on Wiki, as far as we can tell. Something is wrong; Wiki is stretched too thin and good editors have to spend too much time fending off craziness. Frustrated, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Also drawing your attention to this; relevant historical discussion is here. Gimmetrow 04:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Idle thought

Partly out of boredom, and partly because I've spent far too much time out of the mainspace recently, I jumped into a recent event on Battle of Musa Qala today. Pleased, many edits later; I'll be checking BBC in the morning.

Now, I shouldn't look at everything here through FA glasses, but I had a thought: supposing this page roughly triples in length (it probably will, as the battle is significant and on-going, and I've taken it to ITN) and I continue to scrupulously source it, would it be good or bad to bring it to FAC? I don't mean the day after the British (or whoever) declare victory, but after a week's news cycle is done?... I hate recent event articles. Most of them are spike-then-suck, IMO. But perhaps, with a conscientious editor watching, the idea of taking an article from creation to FAC in a week or two is not impossible. (More accurately: "isn't dead" as an idea—they used to do it in '03 and '04, AFAIK.) Marskell (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Idle thoughts as well. Going to FAC fast is doable; Yomangani did it, but not on current events. I can't think off-hand of a current event that has gone to FAC fast, but 1) keeping a current event page in FA shape if it hits the main page is difficult (recently I worked on Venezuelan constitutional referendum, 2007 which is still on the main page, so gets hit by a little bit of "everyone knows something and thinks it's important" without developing the big picture, which still isn't developed on that article, and I'm not even going to try while it's on the main page, how's this for a long sentence?) so that's a factor, and 2) whether others perceive an issue is settled also becomes a factor, because there are the random "there is no way this can be stable or comprehensive" opposes raised at FAC every time a semi-current event hits there. Do you have the historical perspective and context to turn it into a comprehensive article without having it come out looking like a BBC news summary? Here are two that came through on the heels of the events that I can recall: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/South Australian legislative election, 2006 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. I can't think offhand of a recent event that failed, but there have been albums, DVDs and such that are new that get complaints. Considering my experience with current event Venezuela articles hitting the main page, I think your biggest obstacle will be the "everyone has something to say and is convinced it's of vital importance" issue, so it's hard to get it stable and to develop perspective and context and also stay on top of MOS issues when everyone is putting their hands into the pot. I think you'd need a cadre of editors knowledgeable on the topic to help fend off the POV edits and MOS breaches and non-reliable sources. Doable, but not easy. You could try if you have nothing better to do (who has nothing better to do? I'm going to have to abandon cleanup of that walled garden of autism-related articles :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed an unfortunate fact. Because BBC and the other news stories are being updated constantly, what was verifibiale yesterday may not be so today where they drop particular sentences. Marskell (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of The Naked Brothers Band episodes

There is a problem it says that the beginning of the second season, episode "Been There, Rocked That" is an episode, but I realized it was only a half-hour special. The second season doesn't start until January. Is there a way we could make a headline saying special. AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet claim by Zeraeph

Sandy, Just thought I would fill you in on the recent sockpuppet affair. I did open a new account Goddessculture as I thought this was allowable on Wikipedia. I stopped using the Soulgany101 account before that as I wanted a fresh start after my fumbling beginings on wikipedia, and have not overlapped the use of those accounts (nor double-voted or whatever it is called). I have further placed a note on the soulgany account saying the account is permanently disused, and have contacted WP. management informing them of same.

Put it down to me being a wiki-dunce, but I wasn't aware of the rules on this subject. I literally assumed that old accounts would become defunct and could be deleted, but as they were both still there it seemed to cause confusion for Z. But I'm now more aware and will take care to stick to one account. Apologies for any confusion, and thank you for the comment on the Sock page Goddessculture (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC) (was Soulgany101)

Yes, I could see all of this, and I didn't doubt your good faith. A problem occurs when multiple accounts are abused; that doesn't seem to be the issue here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your understanding. To add to Z's suspicions I also forgot to sign in several times, which has also been taken as sockpuppetry. I will be diligent with the sign-in from this point. Goddessculture (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, people forgot to sign in all the time on the AS talk page, and I never saw CeilingCrash accused of sockpuppetry for posting from an IP, which happened *all* the time. Goose, gander, all that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dead link tool

I just noticed the dead link tool you installed at {{FAC-instructions}} and left some questions at WT:FAC. I also tried to install it at {{FAR-instructions}} for WP:FAR, but I'm not sure I've done that correctly. If you have time, would you mind checking? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The automatic job are currently programmed in. However, I've added to the list with a massive update today which fixes 40+ issues. And your question about running on a specific article just shows that I suck at interface design :-) as there's a link right next to the title atop of each group. Feedback on this point is much appreciated. —Dispenser (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mumia

He's being deliberately disruptive. I'm uncertain how to take the article from here. Do you think I should nominate the article if the image issues (Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#Image:Gov Ed Rendell.jpg) are resolved? I can't decide whether it would kill off one of his outlets or spur him into even more disruption. DrKiernan (talk) 09:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't watched the edits closely enough to have an opinion on the best course of action; I'm only aware of the issues because I kept the fac watchlisted after the last nom. I haven't actually looked at the article, either. Is Raul aware that the disruption continues? Usually with editors committed to disruption, there's no course of action that produces a logical result. I usually fall back on the old adage about not making a decision when you don't have to make a decision; maybe the decision of whether to nominate will become more clear with time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gettysburg Address 2

Have you finished pulling your hair out over this one? Marskell (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No; the last time I looked at it, I worked a bit on the top and the bottom, but I didn't get to the middle of the article, and there was so much work needed that I had to take a break. I'll work on it some more later today after I do some holiday preparations. It had some sources I need to look at closely. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
We've never policed nominations and I wouldn't know where to start. I've been frustrated that, despite closing better than one per day this month, the total remains stubbornly high. I have thought the total increase in FAs would be offset by how many have already been gone over from '04 and '05. That's still true to a large extent, but we may have to live with a higher FAR volume in general. Marskell (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
We shouldn't police nominations but can encourage people to extend certain courtesy on the process, reviewers, and main authors such as nominating one at a time per person, and main author. Joelito (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dubhaltach Mac Fhirbhisigh

Hello. I think Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dubhaltach Mac Fhirbhisigh could be closed without stretching WP:SNOW in the least. The author is unlikely to be enthused by further enturely negative criticism. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Angus; I will look at it on my next pass, unless Raul gets there first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External jumps in Swedish language

Could you let me know which part of the text in Swedish language previously had external jumps that needed to be removed? I thought I was fixing the external jumps you were referring to,[7] but that was reverted by Peter.[8] Anyway, since you commented that they're now gone from the article,[9] I was just curious what they were since I was obviously fixing the wrong thing. Thanks! –panda (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Panda, I misspoke; they are still there in the Dialects section. I suspect you've done all you can with that article, and you may be at a point of diminishing returns, considering the resistance to improvements. Is it worth it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Definitely not when the same editor keeps reverting text that I add, which seems to be the general strategy to make opposing editors want to go away from the article. At any rate, I'm on my way to the library to get some missing page numbers, which hopefully won't get reverted. Considering the resistance is only coming from one editor and his friend, outside opinions would probably be more useful at this point. –panda (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PMID

So, are you saying I can use that template and create a citation? This I've got to try. Too bad there's not one for doi's. Thanks for pointing that out (not to me, but to someone else, I just happened to notice). OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh my. I just tried it. I think I just had a heart attack. If I had only known about this 6 months ago. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
You mean you were doing cite journals on PMIDs manually! Oh My Gosh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
YES!!!!! I never knew!!! It's like I found the Holy Grail of citations.  :) My only issue with the tool is that a lot of science articles aren't on pubmed. How can I do it with doi numbers? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know of a DOI generator, and I'm pretty sure there isn't one. TimVickers may know. I can't believe you typed all those manually. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
It's so sad, that it's funny. I really never knew. I had PubMed on one screen, and Wiki on another screen, and I would cut and paste back and forth. It was exhausting. I need to figure out if PubMed searches work for all science articles. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Tim would know; and now you've met Colin, one of the nicest, most thorough, and most conscientious people on Wiki, so the headache was worth it :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, now that I have the PubMed tool, I'm going to go after every single medical article. Muahhahahahahahah. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
That's what I like to hear; Colin, Eubulides, Tim, Fvasconcellos and I can't do it all ourselves :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Although controversial, I've started to clean up Pregnancy and make it into a more useful article. It's amazing how bad some of these medical articles are. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) In somewhat related news, I think User:Geometry guy wants to do CPR on WP:FACT. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You think I can find some time to get involved in that? <grin> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Life, the universe and everything

Indeed, and I totally understand. No worries at all. I have been very grateful for the support and advice thus far, and will slowly work on things at my end, as my own time permits. It is great that others have taken an interest, and I will certainly be in touch if need be. And I do hope your dog recovers soon. Poor dawg, poor owners  :-( --Slp1 (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sorrier still, and hope that your wishes for a peaceful end comes to pass. And that the pouring rain stops soon too. I'm optimistic enough to believe that the sun will come out, eventually! --Slp1 (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Green Tree Frog

I've looked at this article, one of our shortest FAs, a couple of times and thought "not quite." I decided to just do it myself. The prose is a bit wordy, but for the purposes of the citations list I think it's fine and can go. Marskell (talk) 12:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and on the BBC: on-line news orgs do, it seems, drop content on developing stories. There may not be a static copy of the page you were once looking at. That's what I've deduced, at least. Marskell (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you with me on the frog :)? Maybe we cheated a little with Riel, but if you look at it's history, it's actually a good example of the hivemind keeping a page in a reasonable order. Marskell (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I haven't gotten there yet; I just finished dealing with Gettysburg Address. And I haven't bought my tree !!! And I owe Kablammo a response below ... and ... and ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
PS, yea, we did a great job on Riel :-) I hope we can do the same for Gettysburg, because, wow, what a lot of work ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation format question

Sandy:

Like a puppy, I will be returning to an article I worked on earlier in the year. It uses the footnote/source citation method. Before making format changes, I have two questions on citation:

  1. Where there is no author stated, should an underscore __ be used when listing the work in a sources section? (as here) And where in an list of sources alphabetized by author should such works appear?
  2. Repeated use of internet sources with the <ref name = "x"> method results in all uses linking to a single footnote, with superscripted letters to mark each occurrence. Where the internet source is paginated, I see no reason not to cite to the page in question, in order to avoid things like Hurricane Katrina, an excellent article with 25 uses of a single footnote (fn 1) which links to a .pdf document. This requires a reader searching for a specific point to read the entire 43-page report. Consequently I list paginated web resources in a Sources section, with inline cites to specific pages, but with the url also appearing in the footnote so as to allow the reader to skip a step and go directly to the url from the footnote, rather than going from text to fn to source. Examples are here (footnotes 23 and 25) and here (2, 4, and 8). This method seems particularly useful where a book now in the public domain has a separate url for each chapter; the title page or index url can be given in the Sources section; links to specific chapters can be given in the inline cites. Do you see anything wrong with this format?

I've let it languish for 6 months so there's no great hurry.

Regards, Kablammo (FOS) (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gettysburg Address FAR

You left a message on my talk page asking me to address your concerns at the above article's FAR. I just nominated the article for review. I think you are looking for Kaisershatner who is the article's primary contributor. KnightLago (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I figured you were looking for the main contributor to the article. I have been keeping an eye on the FAR and all of your comments so far have been right on. I agree that the sourcing is a problem even though it should not be. There is a nice bibliography, and the subject is extensively studied by American historians. So I don't really know what happened. I just hope Kaisershatner can keep working on it and address our concerns as this is a very important article. Happy Holidays. KnightLago (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

You are now my go-to person for citations, especially now that I've saved myself a case of Carpal-tunnel syndrome by using the new PMID tool. I'm still in shock. What is the cleanest, best way to do citations for a book. Usually, a science book makes a poor reference, because you might take information from page 22, 37, 125, etc. Without re-writing the reference 4 or 5 times, how can we use something like WP:CITET, but refer to individual pages on the footnote? I watch your page, so you can respond here. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Cite the book once in a general reference section (whatever you call that section in your articles, or at the top of your footnote section) using the cite book template. Give all the info there, including ISBN, but no page numbers. Then cite the individual page numbers when you source text by placing them in between ref tags, like this:
    • <ref>Author (year), pp. x–y</ref>
  • (Don't forget that's an endash, not a hyphen.) Exactly what was present on History of evolutionary thought before someone told that poor bloke to do all that work converting the references to a mass of blue links, when what he really needs to do is massive MOS cleanup :-)) If you like all those blue links at the evolutionary article, you can do that too, but what a massive amount of needless work :-)) I'm so glad you asked; did I overuse the word "massive"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Unnecessary, but it was partly converted. Anyway, I finished making the sea of blue for the guy. Doesn't it seem a bit strange to put formatted Harvard refs inside ref tags? I would just put them in the text, so you could click once to get to the full reference rather than twice. Gimmetrow 19:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I dunno; I'm a simpleton :-) Careful or Orange will start asking as many questions on your talk page as I do!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
        • PPPPPPPPPPPP to all of you!!!! BTW, I battled the editors on the MOS of that article, and I gave up, since I was all alone for that MASSIVE project. So I complained (or was it whined) about the references, which annoyed me. I do like the click on footnote number, go right to the reference, and find what I need to find. That's what bothers me about the Harvard references. Oh, one more thing. I didn't tell him to change it, I said it might be nicer. Sooooo.  :PPPPPPPPPPP OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes, the clicks are nice, if you want to do all that work; like I said, I'm a simpleton I guess :-) Nice to see a sense of humor 'round here! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
            • As you know, I don't really care about the clicky links. What are these horrible MoS issues? Gimmetrow 01:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Premier League

Is this what you were thinking for Premier league? Thanks for the suggestion in FAR. I had been wondering about how to tackle it, and your suggestion seemed to be the best way to deal with it. Any other problems? Thanks again. Woody (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I like that, but I think a,b would like better than ab. I didn't see anything else, but I haven't read the article, so didn't enter a keep yet. It looks keepable to me if no one has anything else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Present

The Content Review Medal of Merit  
I Woody do hereby award this Content Review Medal to SandyGeorgia in recognition of the plethora of reviews that you have conducted in the WP:FAC process. Always civil, always helpful, your contributions are invaluable. Thankyou!!! Woody (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Will you help me?

On the article Psychopathy, the editor reverts me. I have attempted to discuss. He reported me to ANI. They say to discuss but he will not. Just says I am wrong, disruptive, etc. He removed sourced material. I did not know what was happening at first. I tried to report him to 3-RRR but I don't think I did it right. Besides, ANI said it would just make things worse. They said I was 3-RRR also, but as soon as I realized what was happening I stopped. (All of this was just this morning.)

Cap 3RR report, Zeraeph blocked

Please advise. I am getting so discouraged. Mattisse 20:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

oh, not Zeraeph again, groan. I need to go buy a Christmas tree, Mattisse; I plead with anyone else who watches my talk page to help you, as I have a long history with Zeraeph, and really do Not Want To Go There Again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I just looked at what happened there, Mattisse. Dispute resolution on Wiki is broken. Something needs to change; this is wrong. I hope someone else will step in to help, but this has been going on for a very long time, and the only advice I can give is to stay away from any article that Zeraeph edits, and try harder to avoid 3RR yourself (I haven't checked yet, but if you also violated 3RR, you should have sought help sooner. Two wrongs never make a right.) Anyway, Z went on a massive blanking spree last August, removing referenced text from another editor in an hours-long revert war, and she wasn't blocked then, so I don't hold out much hope now. The only thing I can say is that when Z was after me, at least conscientous and involved admins took the time to study the issue before opining, and really came to see how bad it was. Times have changed I guess, and admins these days are pressed and quick to pass judgment without full information. Good luck; it is discouraging, but you also must avoid 3RR yourself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Mattisse; I'm back. I know you have turned to me before in good faith and I apologize for letting you down. Wiki admins have been either unable or unwilling to deal with Zeraeph for well over a year, so in the interest of not wasting time or incurring unncessary stress, I encourage you to avoid any article she edits. She will always be in a dispute; let it be with someone else. She has a history of tying up other editors in forum shopping and illogical complaints, and you are better off finding another area to edit (to wit, this issue at psychopathy is now raised in 3 different places, after she had another issue at AN/I yesterday with another editor, all while "retired"). After near unanimous calls for a community ban over serious violations against me and others a year ago, another editor offered to mentor her, and I agreed with that course of action.[23] Her mentor kept things in check for many months, but now that he appears to be less active, she goes on these sprees, and then forum shops her way out of them; she is accomplished at convincing others, and it is hard to sort out her claims and sort through the diffs. Since the community ban discussion a year ago, she has tangled with at least four other editors (you, Psychonaut, Soulgany101 and A Kiwi besides the false claims against Keyne and me, which she never retracted). Nothing has been done in any case, and it ties up a lot of valuable editor time. She and another editor asked me to help settle an issue in August 2007 over citations; I looked at the referencing on Alexithymia, cleaned it up, got the article to a point where I believed the two of them had an agreement and the article was stable with only one cite tag, only to see Zeraeph come in a while later on a blanking spree and edit war, removing the text that was completely cited and checked by me, an outside party, with the amazing claim that the text wasn't cited. She was not blocked for that in spite of surpassing 3RR by a long distance, and when she was blocked for forum shopping and harassment sometime before that in an incident with Psychonaut (I think—there have been so many cases with her that I get them mixed up), she appealed directly to Jimbo and got the block removed. I'm partly to blame because I ultimately agreed to the mentorship over near unanimous calls from uninvolved parties for a community ban, and worse, none of those well reasoned, careful, thoughtful admins seem to be around on the admin boards any more. I've looked briefly at the edits to psychopathy, and from the few I checked, I saw that you were commenting out references that did not in fact appear to source the cited text (that is something I see constantly on the articles Z edits), and that Zeraeph engaged in a revert war to undo your work and to remove your tags from the article. I've never encountered productive editing from Zeraeph. It is your choice as to whether the time invested in those articles is worth it; I don't believe it is, and I am disappointed that Wiki forces the innocent to spend inordinate amounts of time jumping through ArbCom hoops to deal with disruptive editors. I saw the report at AN/I that was archived in only two hours, disallowing the opportunity for others to comment and passing premature and partial judgment on the situation without a careful analysis; the last thing we need is someone on ArbCom who doesn't take the time to seriously understand these complex issues and editors. If she's back on Wiki, at least someone should get her to take down her Retired tag; that tag has a story, too. The admin overboards are overworked, admins are not taking time to carefully sort out these situations, and good editors have to wade through the muck as a result of disruptive editors. I'm sorry to let you down, but I'm not willing to try to sort out a Zeraeph issue again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Struck per AN discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Sandy please do not make personal attacks upon me at variance with the facts as they are known to you. If you have an issue with me, let us please take it to arbcom in accord with policy and have it resolved once and for all. Thank You --Zeraeph (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I endorse SandyGeorgia's summary above of Zeraeph's pattern of disruptive activities. I have posted further details on Zeraeph's talk page. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Posted to [WP:AN/I]] again

[24] Knock yourself out causing me trouble Sandy, I am SO TIRED of your malice and scheming it is unreal. I made a genuine error in mistaking you for A Kiwi, and I made that error because in many ways you are exactly like her. --Zeraeph (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Sandy, I just now saw your message. Thank you for the support. I feel much better. Thank you. Mattisse 01:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, Mattisse, but I hope you will heed my advice on two counts. First. I am strongly advising that you simply avoid any article that Zeraeph edits, period. It is not worth it, and you will only bring yourself problems. Second. There are (and you can look at the WP:FA and WP:GA stats to back this up) essentially no quality articles in the area you edit, psychology. The reason for that is that it is an area rife with POV editing and editors, and poorly sourced essay-like articles. It is a hard area in which to work, cleaning them up is almost impossible because they attract inexperienced and POV-driven editors, and you must strictly adhere to Wiki policies if you want to edit that topic area. Your block log is a concern. I haven't followed your edits closely, but I really recommend that you read and understand WP:3RR and WP:CIVIL, particularly if you edit in those areas, and seek advice and counsel from other editors whenever you are uncertain about something. If you find yourself tangling with Zeraeph again, it may be better to go find another article to work on. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I have also just seen your sockpuppet list in Z's new AN/I complaint (that's three in two days); can you explain to me what that is about? I hope that is an old issue, and that you have sworn off of using mulitple accounts, and that you have an explanation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Found, a year old; I'm still interested in hearing an explanation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you actually look at what she is trying to do to the Psychopathy article which is a fully sourced medical article before providing any more encouragement based upon your personal animosity to me. --Zeraeph (talk) 02:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, you are right about no quality articles in Psychology and the reason for it. And this is the very reason I so rarely edit those articles; I image most psychologists feel the same. Just to kick Scientology out of Psychiatry and the AfD's for Psychiatric abuse was a major effort—two AfD's in a row to get rid of it. And an effort to revive it just cropped up a few weeks ago again! A sad commentary though, isn't it, on Wikipedia. This is why I mainly write legal articles now, as strangely enough (not like real life), the attorney's on wikipedia are not obstructionistic. They are not the interfering type or maybe they are too busy. Thank you so much for your straight arrow clarity. Mattisse 03:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Mattisse, you didn't answer my query about the previous sockpuppetry. You aren't obliged to answer me, but I spend a lot of time trying to mentor and help new editors and defend underdogs against abuse, so I would like to be assured that my effort is well spent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I just did and it got lost in the edit conflict. I don't know if I have the energy to rewrite the whole thing right now. Mattisse
I'm patient. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
found lost edit
The sock puppet issue explanation: Basically I cannot explain it. My attempts to account for it were ridiculed as "the granny defense". So there is no point now in even trying. (Although I will if you sincerely want me too.) Probably if you google the "granny defense" you will find it! Basically I was told that "by accident" someone stumbled over it—there was never a check user that anyone I know saw. The list of names I was given as my sock puppets, some had barely edited, most did not edit the same articles, some wrote good articles, it was hard to make sense of it. I am convinced that wikipedia is fundamentally corrupt. After over six months of harassment, RFC/Mattisse, endless Mediations in which the mediator turned out to be a sock puppet, the whole thing went to ArbCom in December 2007 -- the Starwood case. Here everything was blamed on me, but one arbitrator recused himself from the case and found that six sock puppets had been in unison harassing me since June of the year before and filing endless sock puppet accusations, AN/I's and check users against me! So I turned out to be irrelevant to the whole thing; Arbcom did not decide anything meaningful anyway. But now I have a bad reputation from all of that. So, that much more I appreciate your help. Thank you. Mattisse 03:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Mattisse, it is important to me to know that someone I help will not engage in sockpuppetry, personal attacks or edit wars. I found the case in 2006, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood. I'll look at it. What did you learn from that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I learned basically to trust no one and try to interact as little as possible with others here. For a while I would give it a try every now and then (to be normal, that is) but very fast something bad would happen and I have learned to stop. It it never worth it. I used to do a lot of copy editing for FA but no more. The sock puppet incident was of a month or two duration a 1 1/2 years ago (July, August 2006 or so) -- few edits -- I looked through them at one point trying to figure them out. I think it was a set up, although it is possible someone used my computer but not to do anything serious, as for that period my grandkids were living with me. The sock puppets, if that is what they were, did no damage. And I have done nothing remotely wrong since, except weather an exceptional barrage of nasty coordinated attacks from a sock puppet ring for six months. Every once in a while I go over board, like nominate for deletion all the articles I wrote for the last month or something stupid like that because I am fed up, shooting myself in the foot. That is my worst sin— shooting myself in the foot. Those are my sins. Mattisse 04:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the case, and I do not envy the arbitrators who had to wade through that mess; it's a good example of why ArbCom members must engage in careful and tedious examination of the evidence. However, you said "there was never a check user that anyone I know saw", but the checkuser is linked and was confirmed. I am inclined to not reject your "granny defense" out of hand because I have had the same occur in my house, and had a huge fright when I saw guests on my computer, editing Wikipedia, and may have to take precautions next time I have a house full of adolescents. Also, you said, "I am convinced that wikipedia is fundamentally corrupt". Well, maybe it is, but if we're not here to make it better, we shouldn't be allowed to stay here. Trusting no one is always wise advice on the internet, but if you are consistently a good faith and productive editor, you can make friends with some exceptionally good people on Wikipedia. I still feel that the AN/I thread came to hasty and premature conclusions and was closed precipitously without careful investigation and consideration of the pot-kettle-black, forum shopping and ongoing long-standing issues, leaving you labeled because of past history. I hope to see you in the future as an editor in good standing with no personal attacks, no revert wars, and no tangles with Zeraeph. I will not be willing to get involved in a Zeraeph-Mattisse affair, so I hope it doesn't happen. I will give you the benefit of doubt and assumption of good faith, Mattisse, unless you show me otherwise: please don't. Because Zeraeph is now blocked, you can start showing an extra measure of good faith and good intentions by *not* editing those articles in her absence. There are plenty of articles to edit in other areas, and you can always regain a good name by helping with the daily tasks that always need doing, stub sorting, disambiguation, things like that. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, thank you. Whether I am a editor in good standing or not is becoming less important by the day. In fact, I would say it is not important any longer. This is despite the fact that in my real life, good standing is the essence of the profession. I have done everything I am humanly incapable of to be a good wikipedia person, done endless scut work editing for other people's glorious, been very giving in my work. All this to be constantly abused. I just don't care anymore. I am certainty not going to do stub sorting and such because it was trying to be helpful in those sorts of tasks that got me in trouble to begin with. You open yourself up for abuse by wikifying and such, all those so-called helpful tasks that give others a chance to leap ugliness on you. That is how the sock puppet ring started after me -- because I was following the directions for wikifying articles. I fine it strange that Zeraeph is blocked as I have been abused by editors much more tenacious and ugly with no one willing to intervene, and so this is a pittance and actually laughable. I am sorry you did not come along a year and one half ago. But now I can never think of wikipedia as a good place, but only one where I watch my back and move on if someone like Zeraeph edits. What sort of place is that? In my own profession, as you have stated, it is impossible to edit. How horrible can it get. Not much worse. I am certainly not willing to "try to redeem myself" if 36,000+ of almost uniformly good editing and article production is not enough -- especially since I have been abused harshly for wikifying, for stub sorting, for categorizing, for merely trying to help in any way I could. So no, redemption is a road to hell. I see very little good would happen here if I followed your counsel: to scrub the floor to be "redeemed". It did not work before, so why should it work now? If I have not earned more than that by what I have done, then no thanks. I will just write for myself here. I don't feel like I owe anything to wikipedia. Mattisse 05:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I understand, and agree it's frustrating. I've been a target for most of my time on Wikipedia, it has been most unpleasant, and I feel largely unprotected. That's why I try to help when I see others in trouble. But the good people make it worthwhile; you don't have to follow my advice, but it was geared towards helping you build a network of the good people, so you can withstand the days of dealing with all that other stuff, like today, when I had so many more important things to do than to see Zeraeph's name pop up on my user page again <sigh>. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Mattisse, I have just investigated your contributions with Kate's tool, and examined your DYKs and barnstars, many from editors I know. I was completely out of line to suggest that you need to change your editing focus, and I apologize. You are correct; there is no reason for you to change your contributions because, like me, you had the misfortune to cross paths with Zeraeph. I still recommend you try to avoid editing the same articles she edits, but I sincerely apologize for suggesting you need to do any more than that or for in any way making you feel that your contributions haven't been valuable and shouldn't continue status quo. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Sandy, I am very grateful to you because you have been, besides the one recused arbitrator who ferreted out the sock puppets after me, the only admin who has ever helped me. As I said, Zeraeph's blocking is laughable in the face of, for example, being stalked to 39 articles in one day and having my editing reversed -- result of complaint: nothing. Or being told to stick a razor up my ass and twist it by the same editor who stalked me. (And I am sure he had an admin sock puppet account or he could never have gotten away with what he did -- the admins always protected him.) This was a typical day for six months. Falliff (or whatever his name is) will probably get elected to arbcom (already filled with back scratchers -- one arbitrator voted to keep an article by the person being accused of COI in an AfD while the arbitration was active) And, as you may have noticed, the Starwood arbitration was not even about me, yet my name is the one that was passed around and passed around through the mud. Probably 20 AN/I's were filed against me by the sock puppets before I even knew AN/I existed. I changed my name once to make it less feminine because I have experienced that females, by and large, are treated worse. I refuse to do it again. It would not do any good anyway, as Wikipedia only protects its own (the admins who get to deleted their bad publicity) -- although the sock puppet incident was over 1 1/2 years ago and was of short duration, it is dragged up at the slightest provocation. For example there was an RFC/Mattisse2 a month or so ago because of one edit another editor did not like and it was the focus of the RFC. I have been advised by an admin (MONGO) that my reputation is so bad that I should start over, drop this account, and start from zero. Pretend I have no past history -- as if that would work.
Quick note: Mattisse, I am not an admin, and have never wanted to be one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
As for the network of friends and good people, all the ones I bonded with and worked hard with on articles are no longer active, save one whose view is to use wikipedia to play around for yourself and be sure not to respond to anything, do not vote for anything, do not enter discussions with anyone. In fact, he and I only talk on IRC now, as he will not post anything but trivial comments on Wikipedia -- and he is a highly respected Wikipedia member but refuses to become an admin. I still have not gotten over the losses of all the good people I knew. All have left Wikipedia. I am stubborn so I hang in -- but only to entertain myself, per my friend's advice mentioned above. This current episode, even though it brought out the goodness of you -- clarified there is no point to any other attitude. I would never get involved personally in an Arbitration -- I never posted anything in the Starwood none, but if Fassiff gets elected, then all hope is gone. And it is clear he will. Thank you for taking the time to respond. It is most appreciated. Mattisse 12:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sandy. Could you please have a look at the answer and my opinion i have just provided here? Thanks in advance. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse and FayssalF, I promise to catch up later in the day, but this unexpected appearance on my talk page yesterday of yet another Zeraeph event overtook my editing time just as I was beginning holiday preparations; I must catch up and get some other things done before devoting time to the never-ending Zeraeph saga. I promise to review and respond before the end of the day, but I must set a priority of not letting Z disrupt my routine Wiki editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I have replied on the link above; my concern is amplified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re Check Links tool in FAC

Hi Sandy,

Thanks for the comment, but I can't claim credit for it! Gimmetrow added it to Wikipedia:Featured article preload yesterday morning (UTC). I guess those who nominated after me just removed the link from the preload, but I thought it worth keeping there. So the credit is all Gimme's :) And there was me hoping the "beautiful" was a comment on the article <grin> Carre (talk) 08:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I should have known; that Gimme is everywhere all the time, never misses a thing :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link

Could you show me the link to checkuser? I have spent many hours searching for it during the last year. All I received was posting on my talk page from someone listing sock puppets, but I never saw the check user. And since then I have learn that many, even admins have sock puppets. And it is condoned. In fact three of the six sock puppets chasing me were originally caught in spring of 2006, but because they said they were three friends driving to Austin in the same car, using the same laptop, and editing the same articles, they were not sock puppets, so they were let off and allowed to continue. So I do not understand. The sock puppets attributed to me did not all edit the same articles. Mattisse 16:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is the link; I'll respond more later, after I catch up in other areas. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date formatting controversy

Hi! I read your comment at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Linking full dates:

I doubt that I'm the only editor who frequently goes between languages and countries, where different date formats are used in the different sources I read, so yes, date formatting to allow for user preferences is essential for clarity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Further down the page, I proposed that we consistently use a date formatting system such as "December 25, 2007". If we spell out the month, then the date in question will be obvious to English speakers of any nationality, without having to resort to using date preferences to force the date into an understandable format. As many users stated, the date wikilinking is confusing to new users, gives the appearance of overlinking, and clogs up the "What links here" pages for articles such as 2007, so it's not a desirable solution anyway.

So, would it be OK with you if we started putting all dates into a format like "December 25, 2007" or "25 December 2007", and didn't worry about wikilinking? —Remember the dot (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for Sandy (who I suspect is happier with the consistency of the linking/autoformatting thing, although it works for only a fraction of one percent of readers). Please see my suggestion that we treat date formats rather like varieties of English: use one consistently within each article and avoid the linking. Now I'll button up on Sandy's page! Tony (talk) 12:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
That's a great proposal, but will it fly? Imagine all the work converting all those different formats within an article to one... and it would involve getting the programmers to redo the citation templates, so it would be quite an uphill battle to get the community to accept it. This is a problem seeking a solution, but the solution may be hard to come by. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep as is in citations, then? And the work of converting formats to one in an article: do you mean simply undoing the double square brackets? You'd hope that the autoformatted dates in most articles were reasonably consistent already. Tony (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
They're not; with all the cleanup I've done at FAC and FAR, I can tell that with the exception of the few articles that are written largely by a single editor using a single style, most articles are a mish-mash mess of different formats added by different editors. I was up all night with a sick pooch, so I'm not thinking straight and I'm going to go take a morning nap, will look at this later, but (as always) Gimmetrow is the go-to guy on how to implement something like this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
In that case, whoever takes it upon themselves to delink full dates had better be prepared to make them consistent. More importantly, from what you're saying, the autoformatting function is hiding from us regulars the hotch-potch of inconsistent formats used in our articles, which almost all WP's readers endure! Please see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#A_way_forward Tony (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we can't fix all the articles overnight with a bot. A bot can't tell whether an article should use the British-style "25 December 2007" or the American-style "December 25, 2007". This decision must be made by a human editor. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
A bot could, however, systematically eliminate all date wikilinks from Wikipedia. For example, we could make a bot that changed dates that are clearly unambiguous, such as [[December 25]], [[2007]] to simply December 25, 2007. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
We could also make available a JavaScript tool where the user would decide whether an article uses British or American spelling, and the tool would automatically reformat all dates according to that convention. This would probably be the best solution. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

←It will take time to implement this new proposal, but there's no rush. We can slowly transition articles to using the new format. The citation templates will be easy to fix; I can personally make the necessary protected edit requests. In the end, it will be simpler to make articles conform to this simple format than unifying an article's inconsistent date formats and then wikilinking on top of that. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not an admin

All the better. Makes me like and trust you more! Mattisse 23:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] T206 Honus Wagner FAC

Hi, I just saw your comments here. I just wanted to let you know that the minor issue has been resolved. I have added the appropriate citations from Bill James, who is widely recognized as the premier living baseball scholar. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Step ahead of you; posts crossed in the night :-) I had already seen that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
(ec) Ah okay, I just saw this. Thanks! Nishkid64 (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-Meiji Period: Use of Japanese era name in identifying disastrous events

Would you consider making a contribution to an exchange of views at either of the following:

As you know, Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management came up with entirely reasonable guidelines for naming articles about earthquakes, fires, typhoons, etc. However, the <<year>><<place> <<event>> format leaves no opportunity for conventional nengō which have been used in Japan since the eighth century (701-1945) -- as in "the Great Fire of Meireki" (1657) or for "the Hōei eruption of Mount Fuji" (1707).

In a purely intellectual sense, I do look forward to discovering how this exchange of views will develop; but I also have an ulterior motive. I hope to learn something about how better to argue in favor of a non-standard exception to conventional, consensus-driven, and ordinarily helpful wiki-standards such as this one. In my view, there does need to be some modest variation in the conventional paradigms for historical terms which have evolved in non-Western cultures -- no less in Wikipedia than elsewhere. I'm persuaded that, at least in the context of Japanese history before the reign of Emperor Meiji (1868-1912), some non-standard variations seem essential; but I'm not sure how best to present my reasoning to those who don't already agree with me. I know these first steps are inevitably awkward; but there you have it.

The newly-created 1703 Genroku earthquake article pushed just the right buttons for me. Obviously, these are questions that I'd been pondering for some time; and this became a convenient opportunity to move forward in a process of building a new kind of evolving consensus. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Noise health effects and sundry

Hello Sandy, worshipful[1] editing machine that you are. I just gutted and re-wrote noise health effects and would love your kindly and wise counsel. If you compare before and after, I think you'll see why, but I'd love your comments.

Incidentally, as a generally odious way to curry favour, allow me to say that your approach to editing and wikipedia is my new best standard, and I'm currently considering a permanent, or perhaps merely long-term denial of adminship. Your example has shown me that adminship is a completely unnecessary step in being a valued editor of wikipedia. Thanks!

The Special Barnstar
For being the way, truth and light in non-admin excellence of contribution, I heap yet more laurels upon you; consider this official notice that you are being worshipped. WLU (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

And could I ask a final favour? Have I already requested for a comment on this essay? I'm trying to help noobs ramp up to the community and though it's already had some comments, I've tremendous respect for your opinion. WLU (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

WLU, I can hardly believe this praise after the outcome of that last, um, affair where I failed to achieve a good outcome, but I appreciate the kind words :-) I will try to catch up tonight or first thing tomorrow on those items. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, if there's fault to be found in the last 'affair', 'tis not with you. I've lost my patience with both parties and have grown snappish as a result; I believe I'm now disliked by both sides of the dispute rather than just one. I'm surprised you're still talking to me after I asked for you to get involved :) As always, it was a learning experience for me. That no-one else learned anything is not my problem. WLU (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, I got to the essay: great start and much needed! But I'd eliminate the whole Jimbo/WP:DEAL business, which I think is overemphasized, particularly in terms of what newbies need to know. Too much information, keep it focused on the usual newbie mistakes without taking positions that not all may subscribe to (WP:DEAL can be debated, and a newbie could get into trouble by taking it at face value). You might consider shortening the section headings for readability. Will look at the noise article next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, when I re-work it (when I have the time, HA!) I'll keep these comments in mind. Others have said also that it's quite long, so my first action may be to break it up into multiple shorter essays, tailored to differing levels of experience.
I like my WP:DEAL sections for two reasons:
  1. I think they're my funniest bits
  2. It emphasizes that adminship is less important than cooperation.
Perhaps I haven't made it clear enough, and one day I'll re-work with this in mind. I like the emphasis on adminship not being a big deal because it was a bit of an epiphany that dialogue works better than blocking and is a far better way of building consensus. Editing well, not adminship, should be people's goal on wiki, adminship is just a stacked series of tools that is accompanied by an enormous bag of hassles. I've added a qualification, comments are welcome as always.
I'm curious about your statement regards the headings - I deliberately used overly long headings because I thought it was funnier; is there a good reason for shortening the titles (i.e. code, programming, etc.)? I pretty much ignored the MOS in the essay 'cause (again) I thought it was funnier. I ask the question because I'm always finding out new things in areas I'm weak - wikicode, subtleties of formatting, referencing and the MOS, etc. and you're a uniquely helpful resource in this area, for me at least. But I know you're busy (an editing MACHINE!), so feel free to pass. WLU (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree they're funny, and maybe your newbie experience was different than mine, but I recall being completely desperate and having something on my userpage to the effect of "who wrote the user manual for this thing anyway". I was looking for short, brief, concise, where do I find what I need to know, and finding everything I had to read utterly frustrating, long, and difficult to find and sort out. Of course, just when I thought I understood something, I'd get back to the page and find it changed. The *only* thing that summed up something digestible for me and helped me keep moving was WP:DICK, and someone gave me the advice the most important thing I needed to know to avoid trouble was WP:3RR. Those two pieces of advice got me started. So I'd argue to make it as navigable and concise as possible. On WP:DEAL, "It emphasizes that adminship is less important than cooperation", again, that info could get newbies on a lot of topics into big trouble. There are admins to whom cooperation is not part of their editing, and they will quickly block a newbie who doesn't toe their line, so I'm afraid it could be deceiving to tell newbies that adminship is no big deal, and to pretend that there aren't abusive admins who will WP:BITE faster than a Rottweiler. The only reason I stayed on Wiki is that I had the good fortune to run into some of Wiki's finest in my earliest days; these days, I know and appreciate how special and unique they are, and I try to watch out for newbies and underdogs. Don't set up the newbies; newbies still believe that NPA, AGF and CIVIL apply to everyone equally, and they may be surprised to find that some admins have immunity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Raul654&diff=prev&oldid=175521229
Noted. My essay represents my experience, my understanding of the ideals, and the gaps between them. Perhaps the best way to address the disparity between the two may be for you to write your own essay, which I would link to, or (if I may be so bold) for you to include a short counter-point to any and all sections you feel do not accurately represent wikipedia. Ultimately, as much as we support WP:NPOV, we all have a POV and the reality is either indifferent to our experiences, or made up of the summed total of all. Either way, a counterpoint is always valid and will get us slightly closer to the truth than my beautiful (and funny) prose alone. Unfortunately, it's somewhat disengenuous and artificial for me to argue two separate positions in the same essay (particularly because I've only limited experience with 'your', or any other version of wikipedia) and I doubt I could do it justice. Anyway, if you think there is merit to the essay, feel free to make comments either directly on the page, or on the talk page - it's an essay in my personal sandbox, so it's not like it's getting a lot of mainspace attention. If it ends up messy, I am quite willing to clean it before presenting it to a larger community. The reason why I ask for your opinion is because I have tremendous respect for it, and it often represents a more nuanced and higher quality experience than my own. WLU (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I don't think it would be wise of me to write up my experiences with WP:DEAL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL :-) Some things are best left at rest.  :-) You've got a great start, so go with it and see what happens. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, your stamp of approval and encouragement means a lot. I have made a point of qualifying my position when I think it's warranted (usually through footnotes) and I think you've pointed out a lot of the realities that I've glossed over in my idealized depiction of things. I keep forgetting that wikipedia is just as full of douchebags as it is of noble, self-sacrificing, perfect people (like myself). I'll try to pursue this next week, when I should have some time. WLU (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Milner

Hi, could you please take a look at the article James Milner for me? The article was previously an FAC, but failed because the prose wasn't good enough. Could you please take a look when you can find the time? Thanks you. Buc (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Buc, how are you? Now that I'm helping Raul close FACs, I need to take care with too much pre-FAC involvement in articles so I don't have a COI at FAC. On the fairly straighforward MOS issues, I saw some attention to all caps needed in the footnotes (see MOS:CAPS#All caps), I saw some missing info (e.g.; date on Milner plots Leeds deal. BBC. Retrieved on August 23, 2007.), and the ref right above that one is to findarticles.com, but you should provide the full info about the original article archived at findarticles. I also saw a reference to everything2.com; isn't that a Wiki mirror (not sure)? Prose is not my strength anyway, so you might ask Tony1, Epbr123 or Malleus Fatuarum to glance at the prose to see if it's FAC ready. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll get thoughs things right away and sorry I forgot to title this message. If you don't have the time to copyedit it that's fine (I'll ask another one of the user you suggested) but if you can find the time to read it a and inform me of any problems with the prose you noticed I'll be happy to fix them myself. There is no rush though. Thanks again. Buc (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Holidays

You got a Christmas card! → → →

[edit] Herpes zoster once more

Can you come back and help with some copyediting. We had one editor, a very good one, who seems to be confused about what seems to me an obvious point. However, since it appears I might be wrong, the article needs a bit of work from someone who might be able to come in at the 40,000' level. Also, I think editing amongst several individuals has made the writing a bit difficult to read. Anyways, I know you're one busy editor, but I think a few clicks on your keyboard can get the article in shape! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked, but other than straightforward MOS cleanup items, I prefer to stay out of the nuts and bolts of content and prose so I won't have a COI or a cloudy vision when it's time to close the FAC; don't worry, even if it takes time, I'm sure it will get sorted out. Also, prose and copyediting aren't my strengths anyway. The good news is that you're getting input and review, so you're more likely to end up with a fine product. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Orange, I peeked at the edit history, and see all Wiki's combined brain and copyediting power is in there, so I hope it gets worked out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ping

mail. Ceoil (talk) 04:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sent a note, bedtime here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quick copy-editing question: names of British pubs

Should the name of a British pub be italicized? Quotationed? Neither?
The "Pig and Whistle" was esablished in 1876...
The Pig and Whistle was established in 1876..."
Couldn't find mention in the MoS. Thanks, Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Tony1 answered me on this. Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for supporting my RFA


Thanks for your support, my request for adminship passed 62/0/0 yesterday!

I want to thank Snowolf and Dincher for nominating me, those who updated the RfA tally, and everyone for their support and many kind words. I will do my best to use the new tools carefully and responsibly (and since you are reading this, I haven't yet deleted your talk page by accident!). Please let me know if there is anything I can do to be of assistance, and keep an eye out for a little green fish with a mop on the road to an even better encyclopedia.

Thanks again and take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USS Illinois

Its not your fault Samdy; I should have made it explicitly clear that I had every intention of returning to finish the job. Murphy's law dictates that someone will always through a wrench in the best laid plans; in this case bacuase of the late nomination I could not adequaltely split my time between the FAC and my collage finals without letting one or the other die. I choose the finals only because the Aggie said he would support keeping the nom open until 31 December at the earliest to allow for time to get the improvements off the ground. Since I seem to the battleship go to guy I think everyone was waiting for me to make my move and rewrite the article for FAC complicity. For the moment I think the best thing to do is wait and see what Raul654's reply is; if he reopens the FAC (thats a long shot at best, but it could happen) then we can move from there; otherwise I will refile a second FAC before the end of the day and start the whole thing over again. The thing that concerns me about rapid firing FACs is that if the FAC editors are anything like the rfa contributers I am going to here about how this is a bad faith nom for the "rapid firing" of the FACs, and that may do more harm than good. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"Deputy Direct", eh? I didn't know we had sucha position, but if you're given me the green light to refile I'll take it and be damn happy for the opurtunity. Thanks, Sandy; this means a lot to me. :) TomStar81 (Talk) 21:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure that in time you will acquire a "sixth sense" about these things, and will be able to tell when an article will be recued or when it must be abondoned to its fate. On the other matter: I could scream and yell and shout and kick and all that, but I wouldn't do me any good; whats done is done. More importantly, you have endovoured to meet me half-way on the issue; it would have been just as easy for you to have said "sorry, try agaion in 30 days" or something along those lines. The fact that this article failed its first FAC is something that will likely always stay with me, even though it was not my nom I feel responsible for the loss and and will likely think about it for the next few days; it is the first time that I have every had an article close to me fail FAC. At any rate, the new one is up and running and I can work on that one to make up for the first one that failed. On an unrelated note, congrats on making deupty FAC director! As far as I am concerned, you are probably the most qualified person for that job, and the only one I would trust to deal with our finest articles. Keep up the good work. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Deputy FAC Director SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs)
Deputy FAC Director SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs)

[edit] Hindu-German Conspiracy

Hi Sandy, I know the Hindu-German Conspiracy FAC is now closed, but looking at the point you make about article size, here's what I have to say. I have just deforked the Impact subsection into a new article, which seemed to be the only way to reduce the size. The events of the Conspiracy itself were over an eight to ten years period of time, and I have shrunk it as much as I could. But shrinking the Impact bit and making a new article makes the new article stand out in isolation and the new subsection in the Main conspiracy article not very informative or engaging. The events of the conspiracy are otherwise not notable enough to either engage or inform in a meaningful way (ie, lacking the context of the many events of the Hindu-German Conspiracy itself). I was wondering if taking these into consideration the article can be considered one of the exceptions that WP:SIZE talks about, the article itself is 94 KB at the monet, down from nearly 102KB, (62KB readable prose 10184 words, from 67 KB 11400ish words). Otherwise the quality of the main Conspiracy article seriously goes down, and would be quite different from the version for which other editors have suggested only language and MoS problem. Regards Rueben lys (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Several current featured articles pass the size guideline; it's not a hard and fast limit. I'm experimenting with adding comments on FACs when I close them to cover issues that weren't raised by any of the reviewers. I hope this will help nominators as they ready the article for its next submission, so they won't be surprised if something new is raised. This doesn't mean that the article can't pass FAC with a prose size higher than the recommended guidelines; I just wanted to mention it as something to be aware of. If reviewer consensus is that an article can't/shouldn't be made any smaller, so it is :-) Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)