User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Trivia

Good afternoon, Sandy. I know this guideline is a hornet's nest and that you tend to avoid unnecessary drama, but one of your areas of focus seems to be MOS-related improvements, so I figure I'd come to you. Is this page really deserving of official MOS guideline status? I have a hard time with practically every notion that this "guideline" espouses; I was thinking of marking its status as disputed. But first I wanted your expert opinion.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a can of worms that goes beyond that one page; there is currently *no process* (as amazing as that seems) by which any guideline page gets added to {{style}}. I've been attempting to address this for several weeks, but a couple of editors/Projects have ownership issues, so no progress has been made. To address an individual guideline problem, you'll probably have to 1) join the broader discussions at WT:MOS and 2) have patience. It's a huge issue that needs to be sorted out. There are currently almost 70 pages at {{style}}, with no means of sorting out which of them enjoy consensus or by what process they got added there. One proposal on the table is that we need a MOS WikiProject to coordinate and rationalize the current mess that exists among all these guideline pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh my goodness! This is much more depressing than I feared. I'll check out WT:MOS, to be sure, and will do my best not to issue any violent rants.
As far as the specific, abhorrent Trivia guideline is concerned, the page starts out sensibly enough with "Trivia sections should be avoided." But this where I start to gag and recoil. That's part of or Manual of Style??? And no one knows whether, how or why consensus was determined? Sheesh. Thanks for the reply!--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that part is particularly awful, and could probably be disputed. I suggest you raise it at WT:MOS as an example of the issue of how things get added to MOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MEDMOS

Moved I have, but back to normal I am not :) At least the dust is settled, and I have web access again ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Hi there Image:Simonbc crop.jpg is a cropped version with increased contrast. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The unfortunate words in the original are "with his permission". That tends to mean "permission for wikipedia" and won't pass the image filtering. Without a clear statement of "cc-by" release, it's considered a fair use image of a living person. Gimmetrow 22:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Gosh, I wish I hadn't asked Tim to do the work.  :-( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry, it took me all of thirty seconds. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peyton Manning

Thank you for your help with the article. It is very much appreciated. Dlong (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

If I review one FAC or FAR a day, will that be okay? — Deckiller 04:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Will that cost me my first-born, my right arm and a leg, or just a barnstar?  :-) One a day would be wonderful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I reviewed one to break the ice :) But before I go too crazy, I need to brush up on my writing and reviewing skills. — Deckiller 03:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Brush 'em up on Randall Flagg; it's been stalled for weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I haven't gotten to Randall Flagg yet, I'm afraid. I have a couple girls all over me...and we're short staffed at work, so I've been staying late. — Deckiller 19:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
All over you, all at once? You'd better take that to the Fat Man's talk page, and please don't let Wiki interfere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Not right now, but at the college...we'll drop that right here, because I'm ending it on Monday :) I have become a little flirtatious as of late... Who is "Fat Man"? — Deckiller 20:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk · contribs), shield your eyes :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Not that scary :-P — Deckiller 20:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: WP MOS proposal

Mine (and some others') is linked from WP:MILESSAY. I don't know how applicable it'll be here, though; my experience is essentially with projects that do article work, rather than projects that exist purely as an internal coordination forum. Kirill 18:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Further to this, as you have seen, I've started a thread on a proposed new WikiProject to coordinate Manual of Style pages. I think this might provide a mechanism to address the problem without raising concerns about centralization of authority on the main MoS page. Your comments on whether and how such a WikiProject might work would be very valuable. See WT:MoS#WikiProject Manual of Style.
I've notified a number of editors using essentially the above message, but I may have missed out many interested parties, so I'd be happy if you (and anyone reading this) fill in any blanks. Geometry guy 19:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I've now initiated a draft at WP:WPMoS. Sorry for the delay. I hope you will want to add your name to the list of participants. Thanks, Geometry guy 21:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Antarctic articles

Hello, Sandy. You've been very patient with me in the past over my lack of skill with MOS issues. I've given myself a good talkng to and am now a lot more careful. I am working on a series of Antarctic exploration articles, trying to improve the general standard. You know about the Ross Sea party, now FA, and the Terra Nova Expedition, now FAC. When you have a moment, I wonder if you could look at the third in line, which is Discovery Expedition? I've put it up for peer review, but it has no comments as of right now. I think it's much better MOS-wise than either of the others, but I'd welcome confirmation of this, also other comments. I'd really appreciate it Brianboulton (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at the MOS issues as soon as I can; another person you might ask, who is very thorough about MoS issues, is Epbr123 (talk · contribs). He might get there before I can. By the way, I saw your query about PR on Yomangani's page; the person to ask is Gguy (see the post above yours here on my page). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A request

I have had enough of your personal attacks, and I am asking you once again, and this time as part of dispute resolution, to stop. I don't do this to you, though I'd certainly have reason to, and so I'm similarly asking that you refrain from doing it to me. It has been going on, on and off, for well over a year, always involving the same people, and the behavior during the Zeraeaph case was the final straw for me. Please either stop the barbed, disrepectful comments, or be aware that I will take this further. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 05:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

She's right, Sandy; you were way out of line to suggest alternate wording on a Manual of Style guideline and, later, to point out one editor's inclination to edit war on policy pages. SlimVirgin has never been anything less than perfectly polite[1] and rational[2] when addressing you and, well, pretty much everybody else. I think all of us should take our civility queues from her. If you can't show SlimVirgin the respect that an editor of her stature is due, kindly "stay out of her way." Slim, if she ever acts up again, let me know, and we'll march her straight to ARBCOM or, at least, to WP:WQA.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Ha! We can march her anywhere we like, but there's still no prison that she can't escape. Marskell (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I can't believe you're continuing with this:
"I'm also concerned that SV's change to this guideline arose out of a content dispute she was having at Keith Mann;[3] it's a concern if someone edit wars to alter policy and guideline pages to gain an edge in a content dispute." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
That was Threeafterthree going around removing links from multiple articles, citing that guideline. He was even removing links that he thought ought to be in articles, though they weren't and likely never would be. If you look at the LAYOUT talk page, you'll see the discussion -- not just Keith Mann, but multiple articles going back many months. But you'll also see that the current discussion about changing the guideline was started quite independently by several other users some time later.
Look, you and I are going to end up at the ArbCom over this. I am asking you again to keep your bad-faith assumptions to yourself, stop making personal comments about me, and stop looking for excuses to get another dig in. There comes a point, Sandy, where it will become clear to everyone that it's gratuitous and unjustified. I'm not Zeraeph. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, Slim. I don't do this terribly often, but I'm going to (temporarily) drop the obligatory Fat Man insolence and speak to you relatively plainly. As someone with 134,000 edits to my 4,000, you should be familiar with the cliché, "comment on the edits not the editor." Did Sandy insult your mother? Did she wish cancer upon your children? Did she speculate as to your mental health or your intelligence or your blood pressure or any other aspect of your person that is not directly evidenced online? Or did she suggest that your edits are frequently inappropriate?
My dear, you do you edit war on policy pages; it's a ugly habit, I suppose, but we've all got them. Gurch makes odd jokes and leaves meaningless votes on RfA pages, but he writes beautiful, ingenious scripts and delightful graphics and makes Wikipedia a fun place to be. My wikifriend (and yours) David Shankbone tends toward aggressive self-promotion, but he takes irreplaceable photos and captivating interviews and donates them generously to the project at his own expense. Jeffrey O. Gustafson treats people brusquesly and refuses to have a user page or a talk archive, but he can spot and delete an inappropriately uploaded image of a professional wrestler faster than Marcus Bagwell can issue a Buff Blockbuster. The Fat Man, for his part, is the author of far too many mean-spirited talk page rants but will write you a sweet email or talk page message if you're feeling blue. There's nothing wrong with pointing out these or any other flaws in a user's edits.
Listen to what people are saying. It's just possible--even probable--that you're wrong here. Though you may not recognize it, it would be a monumentally silly idea to approach ArbCom with this SandyGeorgia nonsense. If the worst of Sandy's "personal attacks" and "assumptions of bad faith" are exemplified in the quotes you've provided above, you are in for a very, very disappointing Arbitration experience. The Fat Man heartily recommends that you stop threatening nice people--especially if the rather extreme actions with which you're threatening them are only going to leave you unhappy, bewildered and unsatisfied.
Sandy--and other editors you dislike--are not going to part like the Red Sea and flee in terror from all the pages you like to edit. I've learned that it takes all kinds in this world, and especially on Wikipedia. People who irritate you are going to edit the pages you find interesting, and they're going to speak up if you make an inappropriate edit. It happens to me all the time. Sometimes they go away. Sometimes they come back. But, somehow, somewhere, I find the fortitude to deal with it all. Perhaps you can too.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
"you were way out of line ... to point out one editor's inclination to edit war on policy pages" - I'm sorry, I just want to be doubly sure you said that. Under what possible rationale is a user out of line to, as you said, "point out an ... inclination to edit war"? "the respect that an editor of her stature is due" - again, just to be sure, some editors are more equal than others? And finally, "let me know, and we'll march her straight to ARBCOM" - you may wish to consider the POV that you are not actually some kind of "enforcer" on WP. Achromatic (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure the Fat Man was merely using hyperbole and humor in response to the obviously ridiculous accusations and threats aimed at Sandy. --MPerel 02:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh my, I might have forgotten to filter for sarcasm in my original ... Achromatic (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've taken some time to ponder whether I should respond to a charge of "personal attack" when there has been none.[4] I'm not sure any response is warranted, but I do have some advice. Slim, my first suggestion is that the practice of backing your accusations with diffs would be helpful; I realize that you most likely believe the things you type to be true when you type them, but your interpretation is often at variance with the diff-supported facts.[5] I can't reply to something that hasn't happened, so if you think a personal attack has occurred, in the future, you might supply diffs. My second suggestion is that your respect and credibility would be enhanced if you would refrain from personalizing disputes and discussions about edits; you often show a tendency to turn differences into personal matters or attacks.[6] [7][8][9][10][11][12][13] Sticking closely to Wiki policies on assuming good faith, talk page guidelines and no personal attacks will help avoid these kinds of discussions in the future.[14][15][16][17] The respect you seek could also be earned by refraining from writing demeaning commentary to or about some of Wiki's finest editors and featured article writers—particularly editors with well deserved reputations for working collaboratively with others on controversial topics like evolution.[18] [19][20][21] On the matter of the meatpuppetry charges raised by Schmucky on ANI, I believe Marskell has already given sound advice to help you and Crum375 avoid these situations in the future,[22] so I won't repeat. And finally, on the Zeraeph matter: I highly suggest, if not demand, that you stop dragging old issues into current matters. It is not in Wiki's best interest for you to continue to drag up such a troubling episode. You made a mistake (we all do), it's history, it's water under the bridge, and although you may not have any empathy for how dearly this costed A Kiwi (talk · contribs) in real life, I did and do care about what she went through for years, being unfairly accused as a stalker and then having to go through that again. [23] A Kiwi is the reason I was willing to put myself on unfair footing with Z to avoid an ArbCom; had you not given Zeraeph false hope that her editing practices were acceptable and had you supported reasonable sanctions, the ArbCom (and Zeraeph's inevitable ban) might have been avoided.[24] Please have some empathy for the real life implications of on-Wiki actions. You were the first to personalize the issues in this matter, by again bringing unfounded accusations and incorrect allegations about the Zeraeph matter into the current issue:[25] please stop. In my view, it was your actions that led to Zeraeph's ban and to extreme stress for A Kiwi: I wanted to handle the matter by putting a block structure in place. I strongly request that you refrain from continuing to bring up old history; let bygones be bygones. I am specifically asking you to have some empathy and concern for A Kiwi and refrain as much as possible from any future discussion of Zeraeph on Wiki. The community and ArbCom have spoken on the matter: please let go. Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Her Majesty's Theatre

Thanks for the advice, Sandy. I’ll drop those folks a line. By the way, do tell me if you feel I’m being too harsh/strict/etc. It’s certainly not my intent to cause discord or friction, so I’ll lay off, if needed. As they say, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” :) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dispatch

Hi Sandy, it didn't look like you had had time to put together a Dispatch yet (although maybe I just didn't see it), so I threw one together very quickly. It's not linked at the Signpost yet because I didn't know if this is what you intended (or if you'd actually written one already). Karanacs (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I left discussion at WT:FAC, but please ping Marskell asap, since he's in a different time zone, and may have already done something on PR. So glad you jumped in! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alzheimer's Disease

Pinging you. Also, you suggested someone else who might help out, but I can't find where you told me his name? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll look later today; still getting through my watchlist. The best medical content reviewer I know is Colin (talk · contribs), the epidemiology expert is Eubulides (talk · contribs) and another person who reviews medical articles is Casliber (talk · contribs). Did you initiate a peer review where you can invite all of these editors, and notice the peer review at WP:MED? That's the best way to assure a smooth FAC; get complaints/issues out in the open pre-FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
It was Colin that you had mentioned before. I do not think it's appropriate to peer review it right now. I think it needs some cleanup first. It appears that there have been 4 major editors (myself included) over the past few months, and someone like you can help merge the writing styles. IMHO, it's got some work, but I prefer your help on the front end rather than at the FAC stage, because your editing sets a standard for future edits. However, I know you're like one of the busiest people around here, so if you can't, I understand. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I can help on MoS, citation and MEDMOS issues, but I'm not good at cleaning up prose or content issues; really , a PR is never premature, and is a good way to get everyone involved early on. I'll look in later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Villa history

I was away at Pompey for the weekend. With regards to the archiving of "my FAC", no problem!! I could see the way it was going even if I disagreed with most points, and had dealt with the majority of the comments. If I were in your shoes, I would have done the same thing. I have now asked for status updates from the reviewers and will try to find an outside reviewer. I will see where to go from there. Thanks and warm regards. Woody (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

We crossed in cyberspace once again. Yes I think guidelines should be codified somewhere. There was some discussion on WP:FOOTY a while ago if my memory serves me correctly. I will try and root it out now. Woody (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The last one that I can find was this discussion. (I have updated the user talk archive links). The summary of that discussion: the MoS needs fixing. Do you think it would be worth it to open a discussion somewhere? Where would be the best place? Thanks. Woody (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A citation

Is this a suitable source for a citation on a mobile phone? website -- Snowman (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't find anything on that page indicating it meets the requirements of WP:V, WP:RS: I can't decipher any indication of ownership or authorship on that site. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Articles

If you look way back at 2004, they were. THE KC (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC).

Oh, my bad. I meant well, but I can be stupid sometimes. Forgive me. THE KC (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC).

[edit]  :)

B110 communicate (that means talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hello. B110 communicate (that means talk) 03:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair-use

Which two are giving you problems. I have a bit of time and will take a look if you want. Woody (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Theres a question at Wii Sports and a problem at Her Majesty's Theatre. I'm pretty sure HMT can't stand as is, but I'm less clear at Wii Sports. I'm also not sure if I should hold up promotion over these, since I really don't speak Fair Use. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the Wii image should go and have noted that on the FAC. The phantom image is not used in the article at the moment, whilst discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:Fair use review. It has been replaced with another one which is better in my opinion. I would say that the Phantom should not be held because of the image, the discussion is going on in the right place and the article is stable. The Wii one though is different, I would wait for the issue to be resolved. (My opinions of course, but absolutely defer). Woody (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Woody; that's exactly what I needed to know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Butting in - causing trouble, am I? I still have reservations about the new image; I don't recall the article mentioning those actors, so the NFCC implications seem even greater. I think that, as in the Wii article, temporary removal while the issue is sorted out would be in everyone's best interest. Just my two cents. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 17:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
No, not causing trouble at all; we've long needed someone to check images, and I'm glad someone is doing it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) Not causing trouble, just being thorough, FACs need that. The actors are mentioned in the first sentence of the section that the image is in. It adds significantly to the article as it illustrates the actors in a decorated role, the longest run in the history of the theatre. It is a scene from the musical that illustrates what it would have looked like. Anyway, this is not the place, WP:FUR is. Woody (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
As a sidenote, image has now been removed from the Wii Sports article. Woody (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About your revert

On WP:Featured articles, you reverted my edit. Why did you do that? So it's a little more precise, that isn't necessarily a bad thing, is it? — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 21:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Because User:Raul654, who is the featured article director, has reverted similar changes in the past; I don't believe he wants the unnecessary precision (I don't care for it either). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spam/COI list

Thanks, I asked Beetstra to be whitelisted. Eubulides (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA

Just reviewed a Good Article. The sheer number of steps involved in tagging this and that has been enough to put me off repeating it. They do insist on complexity there. I hope for your sake the FAC procedures are more streamlined, or automated, than that! –Outriggr § 02:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

GimmeBot is my best friend :-) And now you know why I always resist "more process". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, GA has become a somewhat complicated process. I attempted to streamline the criteria a few months ago, and that succeeded to an extent; however, the process definitely needs oil. — Deckiller 19:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost mention

Thanks for the link Sandy. I am very flattered that Karanacs wrote about me that way, and I'm thrilled that my contributions are being recognized and my name is getting out further into the Wiki community. Thanks for all your help to me as well. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It was Raul's idea, but we all thought you deserved special mention :-) You've really done a fine job, and reading your articles makes one proud. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Emily Dickinson FAC

This is a cheek, I know, but if you have a minute could you take a fresh look at the Emily Dickinson FAC please? It has ten supports mostly from credible editors (exclude Maria and me, we're only there as ballast), a couple of comments which can be independently assessed as addressed, and no opposes. I'll entirely understand if you tell me to get lost :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have Roger's page watchlisted so saw it anyway. About this, what a shame, just about to head to the bookies! ;) In all seriousness, take as much time as is needed, I had the same issue with the Cunningham FAC a while back. I always sort of expect about a week anyway! Woody (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, but Cunningham had ten days; better not wait that long to comment :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Entirely understand. I wasn't sure whether you were currently basing things on volume or time. I must add, by the way, that you've dramatically improved FAC, for which I have nothing but admiration. Avoid burn-out: you're needed :)) --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Roger. I'm basing things on a *lot* of different factors, and actually, still finding my way. I'll continue to archive on the same timeline Raul used, but do want to slow down the promotion timing a wee bit, to the extent I'm able to do that without seeing the backlog grow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recommended to review Milton Friedman FAC (for MOS issues)

Hi, I nominated Milton Friedman for a FAC and you were recommended as a notable article reviewer, specifically for MOS issues. If you have a chance, could you take a look at the article and make any comments at the FAC page at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Milton Friedman? Thanks! Gary King (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Aah, I see, my mistake :) Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 20:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Her Majesty's Theatre

Hello, Sandy. Kb and I have now done all that we know how to do on the references. Please take a new look. If you have any further style/formatting changes that you want me to make, please let me know, and I will take a crack at it. Thanks, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

They look much better now. The support, though, is still thin. You have one weak support, and you and the nominator are both significant contributors (see the instructions at WP:FAC, you actually should identify yourself as a significant contributor support per article stats). Karanacs and Tony are both on the fence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I added an identification of myself as a significant contributor. User:Ealdgyth and User:Epbr123 have now also supported. Do Karanacs and/or Tony have any other comments? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good; I'll look at it on tomorrow's runthrough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GAR

The key to success at WP and the processes therein is participation. Ideally, we’d have a flood of “overturn failure” comments, but the process stagnates when only the involved parties chime in. GAR is a troubled process, to be sure; one of the reasons I moved from GA to FA. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

What I just observed was quite alarming; if that's at all typical, I'd advise editors to forego that process. One person shouldn't impose standards that aren't standards even at FAC, and aren't policy based. Those editors have worked their tails off on that article, and to have that obstacle put up when they were ready for FAC a month ago saddens me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The inconsistency amongst GA reviews is indeed stunning. The reviewer in this case is a good editor with meaningful insights to contribute, he just didn’t keep what he’d like to see and what policy/criteria require separated this time around. As I said, participation would cure some problems in these cases. I have other issues with the process. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I've always had issues with GA; I just didn't realize it was that capricious. I know they pass a lot of junk, but I'd never seen an excellent article fail. So, that's why most experienced FA writers forego GA, and why I resist all attempts to add more "process" to FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Well actually, one guy failed Ian Thorpe, which simultaneously was passing FA, saying that the article was too detailed and boring and not looking at anything else. I guess if I have more confidence in my prose, I would just jump straight into FACs, but since GACs don't take seem to take anything out of me in terms of effort, except waiting a while, then I'll be ok. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I’d imagine you get sick of “this passed GA so it’s ready for FA” comments. The process does have merit, but I worry it’s becoming more and more about decorating user pages with little green icons; thoroughness be damned. C’est la vie. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, well, that was my rant for the day. Now I'm worried the article needs to be put back together before it comes to FAC. (I unwatched so it won't make me crazy.) ElCobbola, I hope you've checked the images, and I hope it didn't get WP:OVERLINKed. Ah, Yes, BInguyen, now I remember the Ian Thorpe story. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I initially had concerns about three FU images when it came to GAR. The rationales, however, are uncommonly detailed, so I think I buy that they do provide significant understanding. If it were to come to FAC, the most I would do, if anything, is suggest that removal of one might really cement FU compliance (frankly, though, I very much doubt I would even do that). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 03:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(←) These issues with GA may stem from not understanding the process. The purpose of the single reviewer system is not to allow individuals to impose their own standards on articles: the purpose is to minimize the number of occasions when a multi-party discussion on the article needs to take place by allowing individuals to list and delist GAs, so that in clear-cut cases, a FAC/FAR/FARC-like discussion is not needed.

There is one set of standards: the GA criteria. As with the the FA criteria, some of these criteria have subjective interpretation and individuals inevitably interpret them differently. Individual editors also make mistakes. But this is precisely why GAR exists, so that when the individual reviewing process does not reach consensus on whether an article meets the criteria, that consensus can be determined by GAR. It is a bit like a court interpreting the law. It may look alarming, but imagine what FAC would look like if only the most contested discussions were there.

In this case, the system is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. GA has not failed this article. An individual reviewer did not think it met the criteria, this was contested, and so a GAR was initiated. It has only been going for 7 days and it is ongoing. Uninvolved editors often wait for the to-and-fro between involved parties to die down before adding their recommendations. Geometry guy 11:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Gguy, which makes sense. When I visited the talk page (wondering why that article hadn't yet re-appeared at FAC since the inquiry here), I saw an article that appeared ready to come to FAC a month ago tangled up in a GA situation since 6 February. I guess the system is working as it's supposed to, but I see potential for the article to deteriorate as a result of that system. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. This one snowballed into a "List as GA", which was a speedier outcome than I originally expected (many thanks to ElC for doing the honours). As an additional benefit, the original reviewer was kept on board. Geometry guy 20:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John McCain FAC

Sandy, fyi, I'm the main author of John McCain, but I had nothing to do with it being put up for FAC. I think it's generally in good shape, although it's not FAC-level up to snuff on style grounds. I'm interested in seeing what other people think about it, though, so I'm not asking that the FAC be withdrawn (not that I would be able to anyway). Wasted Time R (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, <sigh>, I wish peer review would be used for peer review, but I see it's backlogged, convoluted, and so people know they'll get more feedback at FAC. There's a sudden rash of articles coming to FAC that haven't been peer reviewed; victims of our own success at FAC or of the new structure and backlogs at peer review and GAC ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
By the way, according to articlestats you are by far the principle editor there, and there is talk page precedent for it to be withdrawn if you say it's not ready.[26] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Catholic Church

Thank you for your comments regarding the need for more info on Latin America and incorporation of more info regarding opposing viewpoints. I have made the changes to the article you suggested and would like to know what you think. I left a response to you on the talk page that will identify the areas where your proposed changes were incorporated. Thanks again. NancyHeise (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] newbie barnstar

* <-- This newbie barnstar is awarded to SandyGeorgia for her amazing mentoring while editing Venezuelan constitutional referendum, 2007. I wouldn't be the editor I am today without you!

But you never taught me how to use templates! :-D

I was planning on doing this a while ago, but it seemed corny :p Xavexgoem (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, X, how good to hear from you ! What are you up to these days? Thanks for the star :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Medcab, pretty much (started right in the middle of an I-P related article...oops). wp:Catalyst was an article recently spun off by them (tinc!); I figure you're a good candidate. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dispatch workshop

Thanks for putting out the effort to make the page. Really, we only need maybe four people. The oldest FAs idea is neat bit of history, and we have threads on it somewhere in the archives. I could probably write that. Marskell (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been so long out of article space, that that's all I'm going to do tonight. I'll write the oldest FA one tomorrow night as it's easiest. We have until mid-Tuesday, judging previous. Marskell (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] nutrition and mental health

I see that you are removing references/edits to a Nutrition Journal article since your claim it is "self-published, non-peer reviewed." However, this journal is 100% peer-reviewed, with an international editorial board of professors, and is regarded in nutrition science at the highest level, including indexing in Medline and published by BioMed Central. I will undo the edits in light of this information. Thank you. Gnif global (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GNIF

Hi Sandy. I certainly agree that Gnif Global's links to the BrainBlogger blog are inappropriate (spam, coi, not a reliable source etc.). I'm not so sure about the Nutrition Journal articles though. I don't see a connection between GNI and the Nutrition Journal - could you point me to it? Thanks, Gwernol 16:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Since the article is clearly a reliable source (peer-reviewed journal), I will add the right code using the Wikipedia template filling webpage you send me. Gnif global (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Dispatches workshop

Hi, I got your message, and I'm not famili9ar with any of it, so I was curious as to what it is, how it works and what exactly is it that you wanted me to do. -- Scorpion0422 18:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

So it's basically just writing articles about the featured process? I doubt I'd do any article writing, but I'll try and think of some FLC related stories one could do. I'll also see if any other FLC regulars are interested. -- Scorpion0422 18:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

[27] I've never nominated anything before... I appreciate your fixing my crap! :) Jmlk17 22:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John McCain FAC

Thought you should see this. It's quite clear what the article's issues are, and there's no chance they can be worked out in the near future. I saw the discussion above, and it seems like it would be appropriate to close the FAC at this time. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad Wasted made that entry. Driveby noms are frustrating, and FAC doesn't function well as peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I heard that Archtransit may be Dereks1x a few days ago. Pretty shocking! Nishkid64 (talk) 04:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
As for the FA, that's a shame. It's pretty evident that this is not FA quality, yet a number of editors have continued to offer their support. For starters, don't people notice that the article is 175KB long!? Nishkid64 (talk) 04:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I do recall you saying you a gut feeling that Archtransit was a bad apple. From my perspective, it's shocking, since I had dealt with both Mrs.EasterBunny and Archtransit on DYK, and I never saw anything out of the ordinary. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Milton Friedman FAC

Hi Sandy. I've just noticed your comments, but there are new neutrality concerns, which I admit I didn't notice when reading it. I can see where they're coming from, though, after a second read. I've abstained, is that allowed? My personal comments are addressed, but I don't feel I can support the article if it's biased. Best, PeterSymonds | talk 12:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem before was that you had entered an Oppose, but capped off your commentary, so there was no basis for the Oppose. What you've done now is fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Link Farm?

You state that the link farm is the worst you've seen ... why is that ? And how would you suggest improving it ? Redthoreau (talk TR 19:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather keep FAR discussion on FAR. But ... *EVERY* external link needs to be justified per WP:EL, taking into account WP:NOT. Anything more than about 10 raises questions. Look at the DMOZ category in the External links of Tourette syndrome and see if you can do something similar at Guevara, to get rid of everything else. Wikipedia is not a web directory or an advocacy site. Whenever you see an EL farm that big, you can guess there is a POV war going on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More Demi Moore

Sandy, I do not see any articles on important photographs listed at WP:FA or WP:GA. I am not sure what direction to go with More Demi Moore. Can you tell me if you know of a well-structured article on a photograph?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you do an article on Warhol? That's as close as I can think of, but you could compare to the art articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I have done a few other artwork articles (Featured article Campbell's Soup Cans (painting), Good article Man Enters The Cosmos (sculpture), and several architectural structure FAs and GAs). However, I was wondering how to move this article forward. Right now I am going forward as a generic artwork, but was wondering what kinds of things would be important for a photograph. E.g. for a painting you must say oil on canvas or some such, give dimensions, say where it hangs, possibly describe past owners etc. to be FA. I am not a photographer and don't really know what things I should be researching. Thus, I thought if there was a really good photograph article I could look at it. I guess I should just do what I know and not worried about describing technical photography things. I think a photographer would want to know something like what is in the Metadata section at an image like this. I truly do not know how to find this out any ways so I don't know why I am asking. I am wondering if a photo buff could determine what the metadata are though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
FYI, the Wikipedia:WikiProject History of photography guys and gals found Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima for me. It appears that the metadata stuff is not as necessary as I thought it might be.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] question

One of the problems on the Che Guevara article is that User:Polaris999 is the only editor left. The newest editor only recently became an editor (14 November 2007) and has exclusively edited this article and another Che article. My interest is more in memory of User:Zleitzen, a former editor of the article who was my editing friend before he left. What is a way of getting more interest in the article? Since User:Zleitzen left, the Caribbean and Cuban portals are neglected and have been warned about their continued existence. Can you think of a way to get others interested? And is there a way of getting a monitor or supervisor, as apparently there is an editing war between, User:Redthoreau and User:C.J. Griffin. Regards, Mattisse 22:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anyone who can take over where Zleitzen left off, and getting involved in trying to solve other editors' edit wars never bodes well. The article has fallen into disrepair; how to fix it is kinda beyond FAR if no one can fill Zleitzen's shoes (although Zleitzen's version may have had some POV as well). I witnessed once a sad event, when Yomangani proposed a reasonable lead, that didn't work out very well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, you are right, I know. Best just to let it happen I guess. Mattisse 22:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAC

I'm pretty sure you must get asked the question all the time, but what went wrong? With due respect, I've already gone through a Peer review, and got zero comments. I then went through FAC, and addressed all the concerns raised, but again got minimal input. I think any hope of getting any input on another Peer Review when noone bothered to show up for the last one, or to an FAC, is asking a bit much. Should I just resign and head back to WP:DYK? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 00:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that last bit sounded a bit petulant, which I didn't mean it to. If the article doesn't make the grade, so be it. It's more that after a month of waiting in vain for someone to comment (PR+FAC), combined with the rather depressing fact that more people are looking at the article on panda pornography than the article in question is starting to get me a bit down. Maybe I need a break :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 01:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand the frustration; I hate closing FACs only because they get no commentary. I've been maintaining the Urgents list, hoping more people will review, but I can't make them review. Giano had funny things to say on the topic, too. I suggest that you browse WP:FA for similar articles and look for editors there who may be willing to personally peer review the article for you. And sometimes, a fresh start at FAC a few weeks later can be all it takes. Try knocking on doors of some WikiProjects. Please don't give up ... your next approach will be stronger :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Problem is, there are no similar articles, really. The folks at Good Articles ended up creating a separate section for the marketing/advertising articles I pushed through the process. In any case, there're plenty of other things to write about. I'll think about re-applying in a few weeks. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 01:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Please do. And know that you're not alone; there are several in the FAC pipeline that are in the same position (no Opposes, but little Support). I've always thought the best way to get more reviews on FAC is to give more reviews. Good luck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sea otter FAC

Hi Sandy,

I'm wrapping up Sea otter and hope to have it ready for FAC within a few days. Do you know what to do with the comment that was made here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sea otter? E.g. would I put the nomination statement above it or below? I don't know how Collectonian found the page, which seems to have been created as a by-product of an article move. Best, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 23:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Weird. Well, I'll just revert it to the closing version, and then when you're ready, just add your new comments. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 00:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I can't wait to read the uppercase lowercase debate again (Sea otter, Giant Otter :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Heh, I just hope we don't have a repeat of Cougar! Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 04:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the welcome

Wow, it's nice to be missed! Real-life got crazy busy last week, but hopefully I'm getting everything under control again. I usually disappear on the weekends anyway in an effort (I'm too tired from chasing a toddler around to log in :)). I'm beginning to think that there must be Sandy-clones around, as you seem to be so incredibly on top of...well, pretty much everything. I need a clone too! Karanacs (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Done

Wikipedia:FCDW/February 25, 2008. I think that's enough for a dispatch. I will tell Ral315. Marskell (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you just have to add it that page linked at WP:FCDW, and he picks it up from there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Social Stories

Hello,

I am in the middle of rewriting the short existing article on social stories. And, someone placed a message at the top saying it was a candidate for speedy removal due to lack of variation in citations...I am able to add the section on research, etc. Is there a way to place some sort of message at the top stating that it is in the middle of a reworking??? Thanks for your help! --Svernon (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No, those templates don't say it's a candidate for speedy removal, just that it relies on one source (Carol Gray) and appears as an advert for her work. There are journal-published, independent reliable sources from which the article should be written. Social stories is a notable topic, it won't be deleted; it just needs to be written from independent sources, diversifying away from over-mention of one particular author, her books, her website, etc. You should be using journal-published reviews of social stories, not relying solely on one author (Carol Gray). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion. I had many webpages opened, and perhaps I undid something? I am trying to concentrate on writing the "Effectiveness" section, and am adding additional references when I come across them. I will look at all of the formatting suggestions shortly. --Svernon (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Preity Zinta comment

I don't want to edit your post, or blur it by posting beneath it; could I suggest you add "and yet was not promoted" within the parenthesis to make the point quite clear? Mike Christie (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article vs. list

Do you have any thoughts on the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/List of counties in Delaware? I suppose I'm curious as to whether you know of precedent for a list article going through FAC. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If you read through the long discussions at WT:FAC, I generally subscribe to Colin's views, but I'm still listening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The outcome seems to have been “well, it depends”. How strangely appropriate. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I suspect it's going to take some long discussion between both groups to work that out, and since I've not been involved in lists, I have to listen to what others who have been involved at both places suggest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAC criteria failure

Hi Sandy. The most recent FAC, Pascal (Programming language), fails the basic criteria by having no inline cites, MOS errors etc. For FACs that fail to meet the criteria, would it be appropriate to leave a note on the nominator's talk page suggesting its removal from the noms list? (Nominator is new, made only one edit to the article.) I can do this, but I thought I'd clear it with you first. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 20:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider it inappropriate to point out to a nominator that they might want to withdraw a nomination, by entering a request to withdraw on the FAC or by dropping me a note saying they want to withdraw. I prefer they don't withdraw the nom from the page themselves, as that creates archiving issues (see WP:FAC/ar). Of course, the suggestion needs to be made with a lot of care, discretion and politeness. I've seen pointy noms of completely unprepared articles go on to become featured. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, and I agree with the delicacy with users who work hard on FACs. I've left a polite note on the nominator's talk page, explaining why it doesn't meet the FACr, and suggested that if he wished it to be de-nominated, he should get in touch with either you or the FAC talk page. Thanks and best, PeterSymonds | talk 21:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wiley Protocol

We've more or less rewritten the article under my name [[28]] and I would appreciate it if you'd take a look at it as well as the discussion at the bottom of the article. Things are calm over there now, but I can't get User:WLU to give it any attention at the moment. Thanks. Neil Raden (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I probably won't be able to look until tomorrow or the next day, but will as soon as I can. I'll tell you I'm reluctant to invest a lot of time unless the environment is significantly improved from what it was in the past. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
You'll find it's vastly improved. The rewrite is under my User page at the suggestion of User:WLU and User:Cheeser1. I believe that there are many sections in the Wiley_Protocol and T.S. Wiley articles that are factually incorrect, there is not enough information to actually inform a reader. We haven't had an editor, myself included, who has been able to distance themselves sufficiently from our biases to write an acceptable article because the subject is controversial. Some of the changes I made include rewording like, "The WP is a controversial form of BHRT," to "The WP is one of a number of controversial BHRT..." for example. I have numerous comments about the existing article sprinkled in User_talk:nraden, User_talk:WLU and the discussion of the article itself Talk:Wiley_Protocol. Would you like me to compile them for you in one place, perhaps a discussion page of the rewrite at User talk:Nraden/WP re-write.
Sorry, I got distracted last nigth with a sockpuppet situation and forgot; I'll look later today. If I forget, pls ping me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Query

*Sigh*, he doesn't give up his crusade does he? I think the this diff is acceptable, it is his opinion which he is allowed to express. The other one is more complicated. The edit summary is most certainly on the wrong side of the guideline. The actual comments seem to stay civil to my eyes, though the comment is a loaded statement: how do you respond to that without inflaming the situation? Personally I think he is getting more and more disruptive as time goes on. I would leave a word on his talkpage but somehow don't think it would help? Woody (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. To the wikilawyer they stay on the right side of guidelines, to everyone who watches MOS pages and FACs it is increasingly annoying and in truth, depressing. I think he is too stuck in his ways for any comments to be taken onboard though and for him to tone it down a notch. Some of the MOS pages seem to be in a War of Attrition at the moment. Woody (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAC disruption:Bingo

Confirmed. Ineversigninsodonotmessageme (talk · contribs) = Gabriellerosey (talk · contribs) = LucyLawlessXenaFan (talk · contribs) = Glitter1959 (talk · contribs). Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 01:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

+Bigandbeautifulgirl (talk · contribs). Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 01:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
yes, the IP is him/her. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 01:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again, BInguyen; now I don't know what I'm supposed to do with this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I blocked Inever... and the IP for a week and the rest indefinitely. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 01:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, BINguyen, and for getting on it so fast. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, nah, thanks for keeping all of FAC running so smoothly. I'm usually so quick on CU requests as it can be quite dull work, but FAC is super important. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 01:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
You're too kind :-) Adding the IP here so I'll have it all in one place: 71.192.59.22 (talk · contribs) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks Sandy - have also added templates to all indefinitely blocked pages. Great work BInguyen!--VS talk 01:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Good catch on this one. I always hate to see users blocked, but having looked over everything, you were right. Clearly disruptive and clearly immature enough to believe that we wouldn't see through her. Well done. AniMate 02:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm disappointed it came to this, though not surprised at all. Inever was clearly behind some vandalism and always claimed it was someone else. Hopefully after the week ban she can come back and be productive. I considered mentoring her, and even proposed to work on an article with her but time constraints and doubts about her sincerity prohibited me from following through. Sigh. Thanks for the note about the strike. You have no idea how much of a relief this is. While not my primary job, I'm in the WGA so I'm happy not only to be back at work but I'll be getting more royalties now too. Hee! AniMate 03:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

One more for the archive, XenaAmazon (talk · contribs) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MOS

I have taken a look and will give it some thought before commenting. And since the houseguest is leaving tomorrow, I should actually get more time on my computer! --Slp1 (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Info

User talk:Blnguyen thinks that User:Redthoreau is a sock puppet. I do too. If you look at his contributions, you will see. Mattisse 04:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RS as it pertains to imdb.com

We have had previous discussions on the propriety of imdb.com. I have had experience making submissions to imdb. My cousin was in Ray (film). He was a specialized extra in Rays band (2nd trumpet- Edward Anderson). It is in no way a wiki. Submissions are reviewed for accuracy and propriety. When I submitted his name for an imdb page based on his role in the film it took about a month for them to review and edit my submission.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That question should be directed to the reliable sources noticeboard (I, too, know people who have made submissions to IMDb, and I would definitely argue it is not a reliable source). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FCDW question

Is the spelling "Wikipedida" in the name deliberate? That might be part of what attracted the speedy template. Mike Christie (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike, I'll check (I copied it from this week). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Mike, I see the error, need to go fix them all. Yikes. More in a minute, cathcing up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was a mess. One random typo, the rest were OK. All sorted now. Thanks, Mike. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion

Hello, please slow down, and have a look at WP:FCDW. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:FCDW is where we write the weekly dispatch. The April Fools version of the featured article is a two-year tradition; it is the subject of the next dispatch. That page is where we work on the dispatch in advance, before submitting it to the signpost. A review of the page will show all of this, including discussion of the next dispatch. Also, please don't HOLLER on my talk page. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I actually (Accidentally, more or less) posted that before i should have been posted, since i saw a new message template pop up. Since I was fairly sure that would be the articles creator, i wanted to exit edit mode and go to my talk page, as i was fairly certain this would be an useless question. Yay for the fact that Speed and Accuracy don't really match. In case you are interested, what i wanted to type was I can just ask one thing: What in the WORLD is that page? Oo. I admit, this is in no way the most Civil line ever, but this page really startled me. It looked to much like a legit page to call this vandalism(It was actually formatted), and on the other side to weird to actually classify as normal. Of course, my apologies for yelling at your page, but be assured that this was more out of sheer speed and surprise, then that it was intentional :) Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 19:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
By the way, Ex, I'm sorry if I seemed to give you a hard time; I tried to do NPP for a while, and decided it was the hardest job on the Project :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Naah, you didn't. You gave a polite explanation what the project has, and the holler comment was not more then true :). Believe me, i had much and MUCH worse when being on vandalism patrol. In fact, i like new page patrol a lot more for the time being, as i deem it easier. However, that might just be because i had the uncanny knack that i wanted to revert Each And Every Vandal no matter what. Believe me, my current patrol is so relaxing compared to my previous 20 edits a minute rate.
Also, thanks for stopping by for this. You made my job by no means hard, but i of course appreciate the thought! Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 21:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portal (video game)

You de-capitalized a word that was intentionally capitalized, claiming you "shouldn't be finding these errors". [29] You're right; you shouldn't, since they're not there. The Source engine is correctly spelled with a capital S. Coreycubed (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for all you are doing. We would be a hopeless mess without you. User:Jmabel turning up is wonderful and a sort of vote of faith. I realize how busy you are and what this represents in terms of a chunk out of your life. Thank you. Mattisse 01:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be stupendous if people remember, when the going gets rough, to stay on topic on the talk page. This morning I was tearing my hair out every time it popped on my watchlist :-) I don't imagine it will stay this easy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MOS and ABA

Is the ABA article an egrigious mistake in MOS? That's where I've been focusing most of my time...I've not added to the professional practice article, once I began it - I'm going to move to clean it up soon, but want to make sure ABA is at least decent? Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll go look; as I recall, it's not as bad as the others. I was hoping to nip things in the bud on the new articles, since they are in really bad shape. Do those folk know how to read edit summaries? I often leave links to the relevant guidelines in my edit summaries, hoping they'll learn from those, but since that wasn't happening, I added a long talk page post on the professional practice article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I just cleaned that up this morning. Ongoing WP:MSH issues (repeat words, long titles, incorrect use of caps), ongoing incorrect use of bolding, strange list formatting, lack of list punctuation, ref cleanup, ongoing insertion of extra white space between sections, and lots of short stubby sections, leading to a convoluted Table of Contents. Sections need to be merged and TOC cleaned up. Far less problems than on the professional practice article, but still cleanup needs. Same sort of editing now carrying over to social stories. Weird indentation on lists (you only need one asterisk for a list), and a lot of listy writing instead of prose. Ongoing issues with faulty capitalization, example: Conceptually Systematic: the s isn't capped. Since I re-correct these same sorts of issues daily on all of these articles, I'm beginning to wonder if editors haven't read talk page, edit summaries, or guidelines I'm providing. Also, ongoing correction needed on footnote placement, with punctuation all over the place, and frequently finding missing punctuation at ends of sentences or missing spaces between sentences. Also frequent issues of WP:MOSNUM, when to spell out numbers vs. use digits, and endashes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

ok -- am reading MOS and such...will get better - promise! Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any idea why this Carol Gray social stories lady is suddenly all over Wiki? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Not really -- not familiar with the history of social stories -- kinda looks like someone from her company started the article -- is she in other articles besides that one? Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 06:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Che

Replied on my talk page, lets keep the conversation there to keep track. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ::poke::

Anything you want me to do for my daily labor? — Deckiller 04:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tropical cyclone

Thanks for your input and the changing of that one passage. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 05:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reactive attachment disorder

Hey there. I hate to ask, but could you or Raul hold off on closing this for a couple of days? I'd really like to review it properly, and I just can't for the moment (at least until the 28th). Best as usual, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering that Wiki has so few content experts in psych areas, it makes sense to allow ample time for review. But it will help my memory if you leave a note on the FAC :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A matter of pressing utmost importance (not)

Hi Sandy, if I have ambitions of helping WTR get John McCain into FA status, do I have to use "first= and last=" template options in the footnotes, or will "author=last,first" suffice?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I use author for the simple reason that it gives you more control over consistency in punctuation and formatting (between the different cite templates) when there is more than one author. What's important is that you end up with a consistent final result. If *I* were working on an article as long as McCain, I'd get rid of the damn cite templates all together, since they clunk up the article and add so much to the load time, but changing cite method is against WP:CITE unless you get consensus. I did citations manually at Tourette syndrome, which results in a heavily referenced but still fast loading article. I can't even access McCain or Clinton most of the time because the references are killing them on load time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
PS, I wish some brainiac would write a script to strip those awful cite templates out of articles as long as Clinton, converting them to straightforward manual citations like at Tourette syndrome. Then people might actually be able to access and edit long articles like McCain; right now, they are both hard to edit and to download. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. I didn't realize that the cite templates contributed so much to the load times. I hate cite templates myself, and never use them when I add refs. Is the load time a factor in deciding if an article will be FA?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
No (except to the extent already covered in WP:SIZE), but it's a factor in whether people will read and edit the article. Even when I'm home on a fast connection, I hesitate to load either of those articles. When I'm traveling in remote areas and am forced to dialup, there's no chance I can download or read them. That means half the world probably doesn't read them. See WP:SIZE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Someday, I want to know what the heck you DO, Sandy. Maybe Tim Vickers had it right.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
What do I DO? Well, today I had a fabulous facial and massage and it's always nice when someone else does my hair; tonight I'm paying my bills; tomorrow I'm working on Che Guevara; and Friday I have jury duty. Isn't it a shame to waste a perfectly good facial and blowdry to go sit in a courtroom? Tim Vickers has been wrong twice in his life: 1) he likes cite templates, and 2) I'm not at all complicated  :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, converting a cite template to a manual citation still leaves a bunch in the wikitext. Wouldn't it be better if we could define all the citation content in a references section, and just use named referencs in the text? Also, having two-column references adds considerably to load time compared to one-column. Gimmetrow 23:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You're the brainiac I was referring to :-) Whatever you say. Should we delete reflist|2 on those long articles? Outriggr had a program once that calculated load time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Gimmetrow, if you would help me fix the footnotes in John McCain so that the article loads faster, that would be great. Maybe you could give me instructions? In order to prepare your instructions, please imagine that I know nothing and am stupid.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem, Ferrylodge, is there is a big deal made at WP:CITE that you can't change citation method without consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll get consensus, no problemo, but first I need the instructions. And I pity the poor defendant.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
There are no instructions; we're talking about whether a new referencing system could be devised or a script could be written. Neither would happen soon. Gimme suggests that removing reflist|2 will help (use straight reflist). I'll access McCain later tonight via a dialup, experiment with that, and see if it makes a big difference. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
That would be great, thanks. In the mean time, I'll discuss with WTR how we can cut down the article's size.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I tested from a dialup, and changing the reflist|3 (ugh!) to reflist made no difference. In either case, it takes the article 55 second to load (and even editing to change reflist takes 55 seconds). I have a sneaky suspicion that the images chunk up the load time more than the refs. Outriggr had a program that broke down the load time by text and images. A minute is too long to wait between edits and for a download. Someone added a citation on WP:SIZE claiming that half the world still uses dialup; I dunno. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I've suggested at the John McCain talk page that we immediately get rid of the cite templates, and also chop out 3000 words from the article. I'm sure WTR will be reasonable about this, and will do exactly as I tell him.  :)Ferrylodge (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
"Immediately" getting rid of the cite templates is a manual chore that would take days of work on an article that size; that's why I was asking Gimme if a script could be written. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the best plan would be for me to work on cutting the 3000 words, and by the time that's done then maybe the script will be written. If not, then perhaps I'll get rid of the cite templates manually. And then I'll just bask in everyone's gratitude.  :) Gimmetrow, do you think a script would be workable, and if so would it take long to write?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Gimme works his buns off; have you seen his extensive collection of gratitude barnstars? For that matter, have you checked your own box of chocolates (® Giano) for the gratitude sticker you got for restoring Roe v. Wade to featured status? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean to pressure Gimmetrow. Sorry if it sounded that way. I don't expect to get any barnstars, but I would like to get this article fixed up. It's kind of you to discuss it, and I do appreciate your advice and help.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Ferrylodge, you totally missed my sense of humor :-) There is no gratitude on Wiki; you should know that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, okay. But, I'm grateful, Sandy.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I started work on a de-cite script once, but didn't finish it. The problem is, from a software engineering perspective (that's my day job) cite templates are the "right" way to do this. That way, you can have Wikipedia-wide common formatting of references, and if you decide to change your formatting style, you can change the template and have a global effect across all articles. Same rationale as for using templates in other contexts. And once you de-citify an article, it's much harder to ever redo it in the future. On the other hand, the current cite templates don't seem to be implemented very well ... they take a long time to process, they generate too much HTML to the browser, and the human-readable output isn't that attractive either. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, I suspect Gimmetrow's other plan is a more likely option. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
They could write a template for biographies too: {{Title|Lede|Early life and education|career1|career2|personal life}}. But that wouldn't give people enough flexibility. I find that not using cite templates allows for much more freedom in writing footnotes, and it also allows people to write footnotes without the difficulty of learning how to use the cite templates. I didn't even know about the additional advantage (faster load times) until today. So, are people really going to object to get rid of the cite templates at the article in question?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Let me put it briefly: You Don't Want To Go There :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I've had issues with these stupid cite templates...let's start a petition!! Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
You Don't Want To Go There Either :-) Some people are very attached to their templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Ferry's "freedom" in writing footnotes means that every article in Wikipedia ends up with footnotes that look different. For something like journal cites (which I just added a bunch of to the Hillary article), common formatting is really a benefit; that's what separates academic-looking work from what we see all too often here. I completely agree that the current cite templates have major problems, as I said above, but the goal behind them is sound. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that the footnote templates are not even used uniformly already (see first comment in this thread). The main thing (seems to me) is that within an article the footnotes should be formatted uniformly, and should contain the basic needed info, but I don't see any problem with variations from one article to the next. How about if we de-template the John McCain footnotes, and I give you my personal anonymous word of honor that I will re-template them if and when Wikipedia ever requires it?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to visit the old controversial cite template discussion on my talk page. People who believe in cite templates simply don't see what a mess they are, and they aren't going to, and as I've tried to say, You Don't Want To Go There because it divides people. WP:CITE has clearly spoken, and sadly, you're stuck with them once they are established. Cite templates do not necessarily render more consistent or more professional or more correct citations than manual citations do simply because most people use them incorrectly, and there is no consistency between the different (book, web, news) templates. I spend most of my days cleaning up messes that result from incorrectly applied cite templates, and many articles using cite templates do not have the clean, consistent, professional biblio style that I've provided at Tourette syndrome without touching a cite template. Obviously, I disagree with WTR, this is an old debate that has been had many times in many places, I suggest dropping it (especially since Tourette syndrome isn't "academic-looking" enough :-)). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, it's dropped, for now. But I will be insisting that both McCain and Obama (and Nader) take a firm position on this.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Yea, Nader probably will, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, my remark above was definitely not in connection with Tourette syndrome, where the references look great. It was in connection to the average article as it's maintained over time by several people; use of the cite template gives some chance for journal and paper and book cites to keep a reasonably steady appearance, whereas in my experience manual citing is more likely to end up in an inconsistent jumble within the same article. But this is based on my particular experiences, and you may well have seen it in the reverse. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I know, WTR, that's why I added the smiley :-) But MANY articles (passing FA) use cite templates to disastrous effect. They are typically, IMO, no better than manual citations. I've been a complete pest on the astronomy articles lately, trying to get them to fix this (in their journal citations, which are formatted all over the map, even with cite templates), but no one else notices. Articles using cite templates have no better citation formatting than most manually cited articles do. Take a closer look sometime; I'm the only person raising this at FAC, because most people don't look, don't notice, don't check, don't see it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
You've looked at a lot more serious articles than I have, so I'm not questioning what you're saying. I may just be a creature of habit; I resisted cite templates for the longest time, then when I started using them, I found I couldn't go back to not using them. Not very flexible of me! Wasted Time R (talk) 04:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I probably use them far more than not, since most articles I work on already have them, but in my experience, ref cleanup with or without cite templates in place is equally problematic and the formatting inconsistencies are the same whether manual or citet. Most articles I have to clean up have faulty cite templates. Anyway, 'nuff about that :-) Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Anyway, for the particular case of the McCain article, Talk:John McCain#Article size options has my ideas on ways we might proceed. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think a benefit would be to be able to edit the reference section directly! Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
There's a monobook script for that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't want no scripts. I want to click and edit. Why won't they let us? I'm with Josh.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
You add User:Dr pda/editrefs.js to your monobook; one click, edit refs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
What's a monobook script? Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Is this right: User:Josh.Pritchard.DBA/monobook.css  ?? Thanks!Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Not quite. .css is for cascading style sheets. Scripts would go in monobook.js. Gimmetrow 01:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks good now, Josh. Gimmetrow 02:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Josh, the instructions are at User talk:Dr pda/editrefs.js. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding reflist|2, I was referring to WP:VPT. This is a rendering issue, I think, more than simply downloading the raw text and graphics. Dial-in would be mostly limited by the page download size. Twenty thumbnails adds up. Gimmetrow 01:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Gimme, I don't understand any of that, but perhaps switching to reflist made no difference on my dialup trial because I don't have Firefox or Safari anyway? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, if you don't see two columns it probably doesn't matter. I checked your two versions of that article, and for me reflist|3 rendered in 11 seconds, while reflist|1 rendered in 5-6 seconds. That's after load time, which would vary with download speed. Gimmetrow 02:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow; that's a big difference, but it still doesn't help those folks on dialup and old versions of Internet Explorer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ArticleHistory template

Hi Sandy, thanks for your calm offer to help with my ArticleHistory templates despite my continued omissions. Unfortunately, I disagree with these omissions being labeled as "errors". I have and will continue to insure that my ArticleHistory actions always have either an oldid or a date, but feel that one or the other is sufficient for a useful template. If those monitoring the ArticleHistoryError category feel that the completeness of having both is important enough to work on, that's great and I sincerely support their efforts. I, however, feel that my wikitime is best spent elsewhere. --jwandersTalk 02:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RAD

You're right about the length, but it was improper before still. It was made artificially in to a block quote with bullets. I should've just removed the bullets and spaces, and just left the quotation marks. VanTucky 03:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel for them too, but you still never place bullets next to quotes to differentiate them. They're either block quotes, pull quotes, or in-line with proper quotation marks. And it needs to be cited. Not even a GA candidate would get away with uncited quotes. VanTucky 03:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I will do what I promised on Che Guevara and that is it - I do not like the tone this is taking on

I do not want to participate in this kind of atmosphere. You demand a certain type of citation. You demand other things. This is getting unpleasant. Although I know you like to joke at our expense on your talk page, I cannot wait for the day that I can take it off my watchlist. Sorry to let the others down, but I regret I ever started the Che Guevara thing. I will stay away from any further articles you are involved in. Mattisse 03:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Demand? Joke at your expense? Where? Mattisse, are you being oversensitive because you misread a response I made to VT as if it was directed at you, and misinterpreted? Since I am about to embark on a lot of work on CG tomorrow, please let me know if we should call it off. I'll respect whatever you decide; CG was your nomination, and I've no vested interest other than my offer to help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your slave is ready

What to do tonight? — Deckiller 04:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Have a drink? I'll look around. There was this dude named Deckiller who set up this FAC urgents template ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I poked around, and Crushing by elephant is split at FAR and could probably use a new set of eyes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'll stop with the slave and laziness jokes and start actually motivating myself :) — Deckiller 17:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reactive attachment disorder 2

Sandy, I've just completed a lengthy review of Reactive attachment disorder that took me forever but I'm positive I have not caught everything. I've started to go cross-eyed so I think I will stop there. Is there anyone else you know of that might read it over again and look for misc grammatical issues? If not, I will have a go at it again tomorrow. --Laser brain (talk) 04:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, Laser. Fvasconcellos said he would look at it tomorrow or so. But there are some areas of Wiki where we simply don't have knowledgeable reviewers, and I don't know what can be done about that. Karanacs (talk · contribs) is always thorough, but she's "overworked" already, reviewing so many articles. Do you suppose I should repeat my mantra more often, "To get more reviews at FAC, you have to give more reviews at FAC?" Or, my favorite Yomangani quote :-) [30] Thanks for all you do, Laser; it's kind of you to help so many articles become featured. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Haha, well it is definitely hard to "know what you don't know". There could be a glaring omission from RAD but I wouldn't know it. Perhaps a Christopher Guest mockumentary would bring more reviews? I thoroughly enjoy the FA-related processes; ultimately, I believe it's where our efforts are best spent. --Laser brain (talk) 05:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I just peeked in; nice, comprehensive review. Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether it would do any good or not, I don't know, but (in theory) someone who has brought an article up to a standard to even be considered for featured-status should be able to review an article to a similar standard, so it could be worth adding a line or two to {{FAC-instructions}} asking nominators to review an article once their own nomination has been completed, "paying it forward" for other nominators (and perhaps themselves in the future). This cry for help request could take a stronger form:

Once a review has been completed, it is considered good practise for FA nominators to review one other editor's nomination. Doing so will help to keep the review backlog to a manageable level and ensure any future nominations of your own are dealt with more promptly.

Or it could be a little less prescriptive:

Once a review has been completed, if you are able, please take the time to review one other nomination on this page [...]

As I say, whether it would do any good is debatable, but it wouldn't do any harm, and if it prompts just a few editors to take part, it may be worth it. All the best, Steve T • C 15:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

One could also make a case for asking them to review an FAC before submitting theirs to get a feel for the process. :) I will have reviewed many before my first article is ready for FA. --Laser brain (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Hi, Steve; that has come up before at WT:FAC, and there are pros and cons. It would be best to raise that there for broader input. There is some potential downside: a "bad" review can stall a FAC just as no review can, and quid pro quo Supports could become a concern. On the other hand, it does surprise me that common sense doesn't prevail more often; that is, if many thorough reviews are needed to help bring an article to featured status, it's nice for the nominator to return the favor and help out other articles. I've had to close FACs submitted by editors who regularly review and help out at FAC when their own nominations got narry a comment: frustrating to see some give so much and get nothing back when their turn is up, but I'm also concerned that requiring reviews could have some undesired effects. Your proposed wording could work, though; best to see what others say. (ec) Laser, I'd not like to encourage reviews from those with little FAC experience; not everyone has a knack for solid review as you do. I've seen dubious feedback even from experienced nominators. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess it can't hurt to ask the question, so I'll nip over there later today to see what others think. I just thought I'd ask you first in case it turned out to be a really stupid question. :) Thanks for your input, Steve T • C 16:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FA reviewer

How does one become an FA reviewer? Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Preferably or actually ? Actually, you can review an article at WP:FAC anytime you want, entering Support, Oppose or Comment. Preferably, you read and understand WP:WIAFA, read and understand the instructions at the top of WP:FAC, study a lot of recently passed WP:FACs to make sure you understand the expected standards, watch WP:FAC for a while before diving in, and preferably your first declarations are comments rather than strongly worded Opposes or Supports, in case you don't understand yet the standards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Capping

I saw that you reverted the edit I made to hide addressed comments from another user. Is there a particular reason that editors who do not write comments are discouraged from hiding them? The only reason I did it was that the page was getting rather long, and thought it might be more readable if they were hidden. Bit of a newbie at FAC, anyway—I just have a personal interest in Paleolithic-style diet getting to FA, so if I was out of line, apologies in advance. Thanks, Kakofonous (talk) 01:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No apology needed; it happens often. Reviewers may strike or cap their own comments, but other editors shouldn't hide something they didn't write in a cap; that has to be the original editor's choice. When I read through a FAC to see what is resolved, I need to know if the reviewer considers it resolved, so caps should be over that reviewer's sig file only. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfA 52 Pickup

Hi Sandy,
You had asked some questions of 52 Pickup that he had answered, but you have yet to place a vote (if you were going to). If you were planning on doing a late review of the RfA before casting a vote, his RfA closes today. (here's a link). Regards, —MJCdetroit (yak) 01:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, MJC; no, I'm satisfied. I only Support at RfA editors I know well (I hardly know 52), and I only Oppose when I have serious concerns. I usually don't enter a declaration unless I have solid knowledge of the editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Talk:Hulk (comics)

The article was elisted as a result of being a Failed article, not just delisted. As such, I have reverted your edits. If you wish to contradict this, please take it to David Fuchs, the administrator who overrode the pass with a Fail. thank you. ThuranX (talk) 12:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't help but note that you also restored the link at the GA page. Please stop interfering in David Fuchs improvement of the page. There is no need for the review you requested,David Fuchs does not need consensus to make changes. ThuranX (talk) 22:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advert

I put an {{advert}} template on: Cooperative_Learning_Institute is that correct usage? Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 14:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Advert, original research, doesn't meet notability, needs cleanup. I put a prod tag, if it's removed and notability isn't established, then you'll have to take it to WP:AFD. I unwatched. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Child Development and Behavior analysis

Hi -- the behavior analytic portion of the child development page is growing -- at what point is it best to start another article? Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 16:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

ugh. Josh, I really don't want to cast eyes over one more of those articles if the editors involved refuse to adhere to even the most basic issues of WP:MOS, like WP:MSH. Just from looking at the table of contents, and without even scanning the article, it probably suffers from the same thing all of that series of articles suffer from: short stubby choppy sections with absurd section headings that should be consolidated to meaningful paragraphs and sections. If you can get the people working on these articles to begin to learn and conform to Wiki writing style, I might be interested in looking at them, but this situation is really becoming irritating. WP:MSH is not rocket science. I don't mind cleaning up once or twice to help other editors learn, but when editors don't follow edit summaries and don't learn wiki guidelines and continue to create article after article with cleanup needs, then I'm just doing someone else's work for them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
will try -- I tried to cleanup that (even before you mentioned it) -- is it better as far as the headings are concerned? Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 17:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ext Linx

No worries. NSR77 TC 19:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hope I didn't cause any difficulties. Also, if possible, could you point out specifics on your note? Because I've been exposed to the article's prose for such a long time everything looks too common (if you know what I mean) and it's hard for me to pinpoint things like that. I'm happy to do it, though. NSR77 TC 21:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image question

I responded on my page, but here’s the summary: the image is by Gisèle Freund, dated 1935. Unfortunately, that means the “published before January 1, 1923” test is out. France and US have “life of author plus 70 years”, but Ms. Freund died in 2000. The PD tag does not appear to be legitimate. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)