User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch26

Problem

Can people who watch this page please look into this[1]. I feel I am throwing dust into the wind. We don't want to lose Sandy. Ceoil (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Zeraeph again and still? That's not a surprise, she attracts a lot of commotion and thrives on it.[2] But I'm a bit surprised that LessHeard vanU (an admin) is telling people to fuck off,[3] particularly after I graciously accepted his apology the last time that happened.[4] Is there something more going on that I need to know here, because none of this adds up for me? Does someone want me off of Wiki? I thought I was fine with LHvU; is there something I don't know going on backchannel? And why did SlimVirgin unblock someone who has repeatedly attacked me right after everyone became aware on a WP:AN thread of an off-Wiki attack on me (not to mention the others not yet revealed)[5] and with standing attacks on me on that user's talk page?[6][7] And why is SlimVirgin questioning how Ceoil came to this matter, when that AN thread is clearly right below the AN thread dealing with the matter pertaining to the unfair block of Ceoil? [8] You'd have to be blind to miss it. I'm certainly missing something here, because it looks like 1) Ceoil is unjustly blocked, leading to an AN thread, at the same time that 2) another unrelated thread on AN draws everyone's attention to an off-Wiki attack on me, leading to 3) SlimVirgin's premature unblocking of that editor, leading to 4) LHvU telling Ceoil to fuck off for defending me. Gee, and I've always believed in WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:5P. Silly, naive me. I always thought it was possible to just write a lot of good articles by keeping your nose clean and working hard on Wiki. I guess I've got the wrong place, because there's so much drama here it's hard to get any work done. Thanks for defending me, Ceoil, but I want nothing to do with a Zeraeph tangle; you're a good friend and a good person and a good article writer. Are those the qualities Wiki seeks in its editors? More questions than answers here. I'm not venturing into that mess on LessHeard vanU's talk page, but I thought he and I were fine; he's welcome to address his beef directly with me rather than telling my friends to fuck off. I think if Jimbo wants me gone, it would be far more effective and leaderlike of him to just say so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, you're engaged in conspiracy theory here. I know nothing about this situation, nor any of the names, and if I have to be blind to miss the connections, then I'm blind.

My request to you is that you don't comment on Zeraeph anymore. Rightly or wrongly, she feels pursued by you, and you have been posting a lot about her. Rightly or wrongly, you feel pursued by her, and she has also posted a lot about you. You're both people who take a lot of pride in your work, and there has been a clash as a result. We can either have a full investigation with a view to assigning blame, or we can move on, and hope the situation dies away. My aim is to try to facilite the latter by sorting out the c;ontent dispute in a way everyone can live with. If it doesn't work and behavioral issues arise again, they can be dealt with later. But please, in the meantime, I'd appreciate both sides not saying anything else that might stir things up again. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Deflection, deflection, deflection. don't comment on Zeraeph anymore? That was the hope until you unblocked, with the back up rational: 'hoping someone can explain the dispute to me' and on Psychopathy's talk: 'not aware of the background'.?? Please have the guts to stand up and admit the unblocking was intended an arrow into Sandy. As I say, we are not children here. Have some guts. Ceoil (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Is my intelligence insulted yet (let me check)? No, still intact. SV, please don't come to my talk page to make false statements. I don't post a lot about her; in case you haven't noticed, I'm usually much too busy actually doing something on Wiki to concern myself with the Zeraeph issue of the day that always seems to land on my talk page whether I like it or not. Since I've never been the one to stir things up with her, your post here is flatly as insulting and malinformed as your sudden involvement in unblocking her. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Ceoil here, since it's well known that SlimVirgin isn't Sandy's biggest fan. Therefore, I feel the unblocking was a conflict of interest. LuciferMorgan (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean SV doesn't like me? Why am I always the last to know and what did I ever do to her? I wonder if anyone told her that mentorship of Z already failed once :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, now that the shock and awe has passed, I'm rereading some of the bile deposited on my talk page, and I'm frankly astounded. I'm here minding my own business, working my buns off for Wiki, and along comes SV out of nowhere to surprisingly unblock someone who has harassed and attacked me on and off-Wiki for more than a year, who then proceeds to have an immediate content dispute of the same type she was last blocked for and which she also did last August with someone else, all on articles I don't edit, none of these articles involve me, and then SV has the nerve to come to my talk page and lecture me and make false statements and inaccurate assumptions here and at WP:AN when I had nothing to do with the whole damn mess other than the fact that a friend of mine was told to fuck off and accused of being Z's gazillionth stalker after he noticed what was happening? AMAZING. Utterly amazing. Must be bedtime here; I'll sleep well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Zzz, Sandy. Mind you, the srongest retort from SV was that I posted (I think) 39 times on the same topic. Fairy fucking...ah no im too nice to say (Fuck off, fucktard.......apparently thoes words are now allowed). Ceoil (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Community ban discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Sandy, I just wanted to stop by and let you know that you are sincerely appreciated by the vast majority of editors for your good faith efforts to improve the project and your absolute grasp of policy. I have removed a personal attack against you from that person's talk page, and will continue to remove anything I think is defamatory. I hope you know that the majority of us....well, practically worship you for all you do, and would be appalled were you to leave due to some unstable editor harassing you. If I can ever be of assistance, please let me know and I will do all possible. Very sincerely, Jeffpw (talk) 10:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, Jeff, your words are very thoughtful and appreciated, and that was very kind of you. I won't leave because then they win, but I'm certainly not getting anything useful done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Just to say that I agree with Jeff 100%. Mattisse 16:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• LOL, she put them back. It's a time sink :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I sent you an email. Jeffpw (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who is sending me e-mail should recognize that I can't keep up with them all. I'm sorry my responses are terse, but I'm inundated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I've just discovered the Administrator's Noticeboard discussion and the Request for Arbitration regarding you and Zeraeph. I'll post my comments to the former once I've had a chance to read through it. As for the latter, I don't think that Arbitration is the best way of dealing with this matter, but I've contributed some links and will be contributing a statement for the event that it is accepted. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

I have filed a request for arbitration where you are an involved party. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and add a statement if you wish. Jehochman ^Talk 17:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It's Christmas, JE, and my family is home for the holidays, and I will be traveling cross country in January, to an area where I have limited internet access. Uh, uh. Settle it now, or wait til February. Z has harassed me for a year; there's no hurry. Who is so anxious to get this before ArbCom, I wonder? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The dispute involves multiple parties, not just you. The committee will grant time if time is needed. I have very recent experience with that. I do not think this case will resolve before Spring. Jehochman ^Talk 18:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

By which time Z will have retired and unretired another dozen or so times, while I'm supposed to start gathering diffs and then really neglect my family? Right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Please put your family first. I promised justice, and I meant it. You can sit back and watch if you want to. Jehochman ^Talk 18:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be forgetting who asked for that promise, Jehochman. Certainly not Sandy. She has been quite articulate about her opinion that the form of "justice" you've insitited upon initiating is both burdensome and unwarranted. Now you behave as if it does her a favor to flout her wishes. That looks decidedly patronizing. Durova^Charge! 20:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what this talk of a promise is about; can someone point me somewhere? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Jenochman is suggesting he's committed to this. We could, in fact, wait 'til February. There's no clear and present danger. Should someone ask for as much at arb? Marskell (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

After wading through diffs and so on for more than 45 minutes, I see similarities to an ArbCom case I've just come out of as a semi-party (although it was a quite different case in magnitude and actions) - it concluded in under 2 weeks and the findings were really simple, clear and obvious. I don't doubt that would be the case again here as it isn't one of those disputes where there are two sides needing to be reconciled. The harassment and false allegations are all over the board - I've certainly had no real trouble finding them and I doubt the Committee will either. Orderinchaos 07:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That the main party came off the block and implied that an editor posed a physical threat to her is nearly evidence enough. Marskell (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 19:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I will not be responding to queries about this case or discussing it or Zeraeph now or in the future. Thank you for respecting my wishes not to engage this topic on my talk page, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article

I want to get an article up to the highest standard of quality (I think that's Feautred Article, am i correct?) -- what is the process to get that status awarded...I followed tot he FAR page...and it seems that when I feel it is up to snuff, I just nominate it...is that correct? Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That's the same mistake I made when I first tried to nominate an article. What you actually want is the featured article candidates page, which has instructions at the top. The WP:FAR page is for articles that have already reached featured status but need to be reviewed to see if they still meet the criteria. Mike Christie (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Josh, are you talking about Applied Behavioral Analysis? It's not ready for WP:FAC yet. I suggest you read autism, Asperger syndrome and Tourette syndrome and WP:MEDMOS, go for a peer review after you've brought it closer to those standards, then incorporate the peer review comments, then work with Colin (talk · contribs) and Eubulides (talk · contribs) on further tweaks, then apply for WP:GAN, and then consider WP:FAC. It's a long process, best to be prepared before approaching FAC. Another thing you could do, to learn the FAC curve, is to follow the progress of another article currently in peer review, reactive attachment disorder. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I realize that ABA is nowhere near ready--I'm just trying to look at how it will work to get it there...I'll follow the RAD. Thanks!! Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Best wishes for the new year

Ni!

Hope this one goes better than the last ended.

Discovered a little bug with the dykdates in {{ArticleHistory}}. Dates of the form "1 January, 2008" don't work exactly right. There are probably quite a few of these over the last few months, so something to watch for. The bot will now convert {{dyktalk}} parameters without the comma ("1 January 2008"), though that means "January 1 2008" will occur too.

Is anyone doing maindate anymore? Not a big deal, a script could put in the maindates later. Gimmetrow 04:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Gimme. Happy New Year to you as well ! Epbr123 was doing maindate for a while; is he not keeping up? I haven't checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

OhanaUnited did the last bunch up to 2 January, but I noticed Talk:Fin Whale doesn't have it for the 3rd. Gimmetrow 04:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Raul may have just added that today, so maybe he hasn't gotten to it yet. I'll remember to check tomorrow, or I'll ping Epbr123. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism at FAC?

I gave a support to a FAC with reservations. The FAC then received some opposes. The nominator asked me for help. I agreed to help re-write the article. Upon rewriting it, I have found what I think to be plagiarism. The article's talk page describes it.

I don't want to accuse anyone of anything. I hope that I am mistaken. In the meantime, I plan to re-write and look for citations. After it's done, it should be free of any hint of plagiarism. The article is Seton Hall University. Is this the right thing to do? I mean, mention it on the talk page, FAC page, and also help to fix it?

If this teaches us anything, it should be that more citations is good. I have seen FAC arguments about having too many citations (don't remember which FAC). Having "too many" citations practically eliminates the plagiarism problem.

I don't want to make too much of a fuss but plagiarism can ruin your education and can possibly ruin Wikipedia. Congolese fufu (talk) 04:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think you've done the right thing. Hopefully it's text that wasn't added by the regular editors. You might want to search the history, see who added it, to find if there are other problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

IP added it. Gimmetrow 04:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The above is really terrible. I found plagiarism before and fixed it. Thanks for the FA for the Boeing 747 article! I plan to continue tweaking it so that the article will not rest on it's laurels. What a way to begin 2008! Archtransit (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review

I've added a peer review template to verbal behavior talk page...now do I just wait for the process? Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

happy Mango season

'TIS MANGO SEASON....
Have a shlice of mango cheek...well, I am up to my armpits in the things. Yuletide means lots and lots of mangos, as well as turkey and ham and ice-cream and pressies. Were on special so I bought 3 crates for AU$20 and now I have both crispers in the refrigerator full and even with everyone eating two of the ##$@& things every mealtime... I am a bit mangoed out so I thought I'd spread the goodwill around....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Hello Sandy, I hope you had a pleasant New Year's Day, and that 2008 brings further success, health and happiness! Thanks for all your hard work in keeping the FA program running. Here's to another big year of quality prose! ~ Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC page suggestions

As a fairly regular (OK, "recently more regular") FAC reviewer, I'd love the congested FAC page to be easier to navigate, so I can devote my time efficiently. Can I suggest someone clever works out some clever way of highlighting the oldest FAC that has yet to receive any comment and perhaps FACs that are unopposed? I'll drop Gurch a line to see if he has any ideas, as he's excellent at these kind of things. --Dweller (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You could use a system similar to that used at editor review, whereby requests that have not yet recieved comments have a * appended to the section title, which shows up in the table of contents. There's no way to do such things automatically without involving a bot; such a bot wouldn't be particularly complex but it would require someone to write, operate and maintain it – Gurch 16:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Both of those are excellent suggestions. Thanks Gurch. I'll direct Raul's attention to this thread too. Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Queluz National Palace

This article, to which you contributed, will be featured on the Main Page on January 5, 2008.[9] Risker (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC source question

If you have a moment and think it's appropriate, could you answer the sourcing question at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emma Watson‎? It regards whether a subject's official website should be relied upon as a primary source. Thanks! Happy New Year, Melty girl (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wiley Protocol

Hi Sandy,

Sorry to bother you on your holidays, and no hurry to get to this! I've made some more revisions at Wiley Protocol in response to some comments by Raden, thus. Could you let me know what you think? I'm particularly uncertain about the category I put the page into - is it endocrinology when it's not really science?

Happy Holidays! Happy New Year! Happy Kwanza, Ramadan, Eid, Christmas, Chinese New Year, Buddha Day (sure, why not), Hanukkah and everything else I've missed! I'm also asking the cat question of User:Jfdwolff, if it's redundant I'll come back and erase it.

Thanks!

WLU (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Apology

You're very kind but I do owe you an apology for not at least answering your messages. Thatcher 12:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Here and there

I'm still around, more or less, but my Wikipedia hasn't held my interest as much lately... I've been reading more, leaving less time for editing. I'm not going anywhere, and who knows, maybe I'll drop into FAC a few times in the coming months. Hope your wikibreak is going well.--Spangineer^ws (háblame) 20:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Gimme More FAC

Thank you for you support on Gimme More's FAC process. The result was not promoted. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 09:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

For being you

GrahamColm^Talk 18:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I was going to send you a similar message of support, but I can't beat this. Enjoy the break: you really deserve to replace the holiday time that was cruelly and unnecessarily stolen from you. I hope I can look forward to the pleasure of working with you again soon. Geometry guy 23:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, enjoy the break, Sandy; you deserve it. Take as long as you need and we look forward to your return. Mike Christie (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence page

See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Evidence#SandyGeorgia.27s_request_for_clarification_of_parts_of_my_evidence and adjust entries accordingly. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm I found a non NPOV page - "Armenian Forgeries"

Armenian Forgeries - I was wondering if you could inform me as to proper procedure.

Thanks

--Kiyarrllston 19:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

e-mail

I don't respond to e-mail from users I don't know. If you're emailing me under an account I don't recognize, don't expect an answer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I e-mailed you -- but I don't remember what I said --I see the edit comment is autism sandbox...I created an autism rights movement sandbox on the talk:autism rights movement page...you can see the discussion that ensued prior. Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Eubulides is following those articles and he is more knowledgeable than I am anyway. Thanks for the note. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback for dummies

Wikipedia talk:Rollback feature#Rollback for dummies. If you don't want the tool (it's more a tool than a user right), just ask Gimmetrow to remove it. Carcharoth (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Support forums

Sandy, do you know if it is accepted WP practice to include support/discussion forums under an 'External Links' heading? I notice there are links to several Yahoo and MSN forums placed on the [Schizoid entry]

I have no problem with them being there, providing it does not contravene policy.

Thanks Goddessculture (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:NOT and WP:EL. I usually add a DMOZ category that covers it instead (see the DMOZ category at Tourette syndrome). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Goddessculture (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

		Thanks for your support
		Thank you SO MUCH for your support in my unanimous RFA. Take this cookie as a small token of my appreciation.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI

I thought I should let you know that I mentioned you in a post about User:Orangemarlin to "Wikiquette alerts". You may remember analyzing his user RFC against me a few months ago. I referred to that analysis in order to illustrate Orangemarlin's history with me. Hope you don't mind. Regards, Gnixon (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

The events of yesterday cost me the time I intended to use to finish thanking everyone who helped sort out the issues in a painful incident. I pass along these beautiful flowers, kindly given to me by a completely uninvolved party, as thanks to all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph

This arbitration has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The case was renamed upon closing from "Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia" to "Zeraeph". User:Zeraeph, including any socks and future accounts, is banned from Wikipedia for one year. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

award

	The Trial by Fire award
	For enduring a piece of wikipurgatory and still shining, as gold refined by fire. Gimmetrow 17:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Special Thank You Award

		The Special Barnstar
		For being a compassionate human being while upholding the true values of Wikipedia. You have taught me more that you will ever know. Thank you! Mattisse 18:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong, resilient and fun!

		Strong like an oak.		Resilient like a willow.		Bendy and yellow like a slinky.
I may be barking up the wrong tree, but I think this exemplifies SandyGeorgia. WLU (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Er, she may be slinky, but yellow? I'd say Red Hot, like Wonderwoman.  :-) -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Your input requested

You are more of an expert than I with regards to the goings on at WP:FAR. Can you please weigh in at Wikipedia:Featured article review/A Tale of a Tub regarding two issues: (1) - People expressing a "Keep" sentiment way too early in the process, contrary to what's stated at WP:FAR "In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "remove"." and also (2) - Your thoughts on what I have laid out as numerous WP:OR violations in the article's present state. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

A note of thanks

Thank you, Cla, for your supportive contributions during this unpleasant incident; I am most grateful and appreciative. Kindest regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that the case is closed now and I'm sorry that you were put throught that. I hope that it's over. I note, however, that the admin who contributed significantly and unnecessarily to the trouble apparently didn't deign to respond to your questions on the evidence talk page (if she did, please point me to where her response is). Anyway, I hope we'll see you back on the FAC page again very soon. Cla68 (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You bored?

Can you help me review Introduction to evolution. I like it, but after being pushed by you during a couple of FA (and I mean pushed as in making it much better), I think you can help me out. This article is important, but I have some reservations especially with regards to the quality of citations. Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know SG is on a wikibreak right now. She might respond when she comes back, but she'll have a lot to deal with then, so please be patient. Geometry guy 23:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Should have read above. I'm old. Bad eyes. Whiny excuse :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to be able to get involved in editing that article, but I think this is one of the most surprising comments I've ever seen on Wikipedia:

The decision was made to minimize the number of references in the article to make it more accessible. ... --Filll (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't had time to look, but I hope that issue has been resolved, and I won't even attempt to understand how citations decrease accessibility. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out SG. I'm a stickler for proper citations (as I know you are). BTW, I'm so in love with that automatic citation tool, I actually look for articles to clean up!!!!! Thanks so much!!!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC promotions

If you're feeling up to it, I could really use your help busting the log-jam on FAC. I'll be doing the next round of promotions tomorrow night. Raul654 (talk) 06:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I hope you are enjoying your holiday. Woody (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

We just edit conflicted on FAC promotions. Finish doing the ones you just did, but don't promote any more for the next few hours; in the meantime, I'll resolve the diff. Raul654 (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Raul showed me this comment of yours. I appreciate the support, but I was a little confused, since G-bot checks the FA and FFA counts but doesn't update anything on-wiki. Gimmetrow 23:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I know. Without going into too much detail there, you always catch errors before I do, and the bot doublechecks the numbers, which I track really closely. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead(II) nitrate

Hi Sandy, thanks emphasizing just now that the Lead(II) nitrate is not merely a former FA, but also one which made mainpage in the early WP years. Would you care to comment about the content of the article now, e.g., by adding a Comment or Support to its voting page? I'd appreciate your experienced feedback. Wim van Dorst (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alice in Chains

I got rid of one link, but what in God's green Earth is a connection timeout? —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 01:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It means that the computer timed out before it located that site; it could be that the site is down, or is dead. One thing you can do is try to locate the old link at http://www.archive.org SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

When I looked at the links, they went to where they were supposed to right away, so I don't know what is wrong with them. Are those bad or just kind of a "whatever" type thing? With four supports (five counting me) and only one official objection (one struck out a support, two struck out objections, so I don't know if those count if they did it would be 6 (or 7) support, 2 object) would it still be promoted to FA? —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 02:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Then it could be a problem with the tool timing out; you can just indicate that you checked those links and they all linked fine, and Raul and I will recognize that when we run through FAC. I haven't had time to read through all the FACs yet, and Raul is going to run through next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

that must be what happened. Thank you for your help. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 02:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you know when he will be? I know a bach were promoted yesterday. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 02:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Raul ran through a batch yesterday to lower the page size; he indicated that he hadn't gotten through everything and that he would run through again tonight, but if he doesn't get to it, I will by tomorrow or the next day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. This FAC has been a nightmare, for a while I lost hope for it, now I have hope it sstill can be. Why aren't you listed as a FA director? —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 03:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

U2 FAC...

Hi Sandy. I don't understand your comment on the U2 FAC regarding unresolved external links. here. Sorry if I've missed something really obvious - a dumb question?

There are 3 links in the EL section - is that what you are referring to? My personal preference is just for the official site. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 01:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't refer only to external links; more importantly, some of the references have problems. Check the external link checker on the FAC page. [10] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

OK - thanks. Looks like it may have been done, but i will double check. regards --Merbabu (talk) 12:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Pitti

Ya, I sometimes get Ceoil and Casliber mixed up because of the C's; thanks for noticing. I don't deserve much credit there. (Except for digging up the research paper.) Marskell (talk) 08:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to have some way to formally list saves, but it's largely a judgement call. Many people have been involved in more than two.

I think Macintosh is good, speaking of which. Marskell (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yay, you're back!

Welcome back! :) Xavexgoem (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, X, how's it going? Yes, I'm back; what doesn't kill 'ya makes 'ya stronger. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Or prolongs the inevitable. Gimmetrow 21:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't scare me like that :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Working with WP:MEDCAB :) Xavexgoem (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, glad to hear you're "gainfully employed" on Wiki :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If I might be so bold, I would like to echo the above 'yay'. Yay! WLU (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

WLU, thanks for the nice slinky and oak tree -- among my favorites. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I had hoped to appeal to your sense of whimsy. I stuck with yellow rather than Ssilver's red hot, beause the sun is yellow. Like the sun, you are warm, illuminating (though I won't give you 'source of all life on earth - there are limits to poetic license unfortunately), and a thermonuclear furnace producing energy that results in work. I estimate your total output at 3.1415926 megajoules - the amount of energy produced by pi(e).

Math jokes. Hilarious! And now I've got to go. Happy editing! WLU (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I like yellow :-) And math jokes, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you back again, third the above "yay" (as I believe it's already been well and truly seconded :) Orderinchaos 08:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Wicked (musical)

Hi. I noticed that Wicked was not promoted to FA. I agree with that result, but I think the article has come a long way, and I wonder if you or Raul could drop a few notes on the article's talk page regarding the issues that you still saw there? Also, I agree with the above: "Yay, you're back!" All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Ss; I never actually had time to take a solid look at that article. Raul did that round of archives, but I see it had garnered no supports in 3 weeks. I only remember that the Fair Use issue wasn't resolved to my satisfaction; I suggest you all get a serious image person to take a look. I heard this weekend that Stephen Schwartz is doing an opera. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I have no idea who good image person would be, though. The only reason that I am working on this article is because it is the muscal theatre project's first important FA project, and it would be nice if it got good comments that might guide us in the future. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC

After two consectutive days of promotions and archiving, the FAC is still too large. Are you going to do a round tonight? If not, I will. Raul654 (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind doing it tonight, I don't feel I've had time to catch up adequately on them. I'm concerned about the number of bad citation links in PlayStation 3; other than that, I'm not yet up on each FAC. I'm still catching up on some of the "bookkeeping" (talk page) work. I've noticed that if I archive a FAC with a few opposes, I get jumped on, while you don't :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Golden Film

Thank you for your comment on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Golden Film. I tried to fix all erroneous links. – Ilse@ 10:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

FIFA world Cup

Can you stop with this for a second please, I have consistently formatted all of the dates in the references, just keep conflicting with you. ;) Woody (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That is the dates done. I know it is Tony's pet hate!! ;) Woody (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Kirlston:FAC comments

Dwarf Kirlston, I was just reviewing the Emma Watson FAC, and saw that you had commented in four or five different places. I see that you often oppose, strike, later oppose again, strike, and later oppose again. This makes it very hard for me to keep up with where you stand on an article and how many reviews it has had; if you can keep all of your commentary together in one place, even when you change your mind, it would make my job easier. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you say and I will try to do so in the future. - Thanks for the heads up. ---Regarding why I did it: I have previously found it useful to start all over again, both with different objections and with a different attitude, as through I were a completely different reviewer. I thought this might be useful in that specific FAC as my previous oppose turned into a confrontation with my actions being referred to as "POV pushing". In other FAC's my previous objection had been crossed out long time previously. ---I also agree that I should put all my comments together. I think a step towards that would be defusing confrontations before they reach that level.

Thank you for contacting me on my user talk page. I hope you find my contributions to the FA process and to Wikipedia "good". I hope also that you will not fear that politeness is the opposite of civility, and will let me know where you believe I could improve.

Sincerely,
Kiyarrllston
[Message posted on 02:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)]

Yes, starting over several times doesn't create a problem, but if you can keep it all together, it will help my simple mind :-) Reading through 50 FACs at a time is harder than it looks. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It is tough. - I believe you.

Methinks I have seen a glimmer of the difficulty of your job, when I attempted to comment on every FA Candidateship.

Please feel free to use my user talk page to contact me.

Regards,

Kiyarrllston

[Message posted at 03:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)]

Mainpage date

Yes, I've been updating the mainpage dates whenever I can. Epbr123 (talk) 08:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

RNAi FAR

To be honest I had completely forgotten about it! Not much seems to be happening though. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What do I need?!

Summary

(Goodness, you're lovely for even asking)

I need a section that describes human interactions, mythology, culture, etc. I think it will have to be Spanish and Portuguese based, if it's to exist at all on .en. I have some interesting descriptions from Duplaix (the main source) on interactions with Native Americans, but nothing that can create a full section. Can you find anything with your Spanish?

This raises an interesting question: if a particular subject area can only be satisfied in another language, should we hold it against the English article? Giant Otter is complete. It's at least as good as Jaguar and Cougar were, when I brought them to FAC. But it lacks that humans/mythology/culture section. And I don't think I can provide one without Latin American googling skills. It's raised an interesting puzzle in my mind: this is only an English FA, if we have a Spanish and Portuguese speaker? Hm.

(All of this said, Clayoquot is raising the bar on animal articles with Sea Otter. Truly excellent. The Giant Otter is comparatively under-studied, though I'd like the article to be as good.) Marskell (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Working on it, while listening to TimVickers podcast. Gathering what I can find: [11] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember to search on Diane McTurk: her e-mail address, she may have some folklore:[12][13][14][15][16][17] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sort through this: [18] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Confirmation on other names, including nutria and perro de agua: [19][20][21] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sort through these: [22][23] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A children's book: [24] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Biblio on giant otters and people: [25]

In captivity: [26] Bolivian freshwater protected area: [27] Peruvian preserve: [28]SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Locate? DIANA MARCELA VELASCO. "VALORACION BIOLOGICA Y CULTURAL DE LA NUTRIA GIGANTE (PTERONURA BRASILIENSIS) EN EL AREA DE LA INFLUENCIA DE PUERTO CARRERÑO, VICHADA, COLOMBIA (RIOS ORINOCO, BITA, CAÑOS JURIEPE Y NEGRO)". 2005. Curso (ECOLOGIA) - Facultad de Estudios Ambientales y Rurales SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Loch ness monster: [29] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the load of checking. Lontra I believe is the Portugese and Nutria the Spanish. Of those provided, three summative sentences on the Colombia field reports would be great. ("to calm people who have some problem with a fish" would need unpacking :). You might add one sentence from the BBC in Peru and I can add something from Duplaix and we'll have a section. And some of the links to McTurk can be used. The Naming section can be done after the Humans section. Thanks! Marskell (talk) 08:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and where's this podcast? Marskell (talk) 08:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I had seen Otterjoy before but skipped it, as I wasn't sure if it met RS. I see it's maintained by an academic. If she's been published in the Specialist Group Bulletin, I think her website is acceptable. Marskell (talk) 09:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Rather than exhaustively listing everything in the other two languages, I created a short naming section with a ref I already had from the UN: Giant_Otter#Naming. Marskell (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"to calm people who have some problem with a fish" - I just had to have a look at that. Disappointingly I think you mean this bit? uso del pelo de la especie para desatorar a la gente que se atora con una espina de pescado. which is just "use of the fur to cure (unblock) people who are choking on a fish bone". I was hoping to see the fish and person distracted from a dispute by somebody showing them an otter. "Ahhh look at the cuddly otter. Come on you two, no need to fight". That article is quite interesting though. The indigenous peoples couldn't give a stuff about the otters. Yomangani^talk 03:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, so how does fur help when you're choking on a fishbone? What do you do, suck on fur? I can't figure out what they mean. You put the fur on your throat? Weird, I didn't know what to do with it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say, but my best guess is that it is naturally oily, so swallowing some of the fur might lubricate the throat enough to allow the bone to slip down. Of course, if it doesn't work you'd have a fish bone and a big ball of otter fur stuck in your throat, but hey, you should have checked for bones in your fish if you didn't want that to happen. Yomangani^talk 04:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

ROFL (gross). So how do you think I'm going to summarize that for Marskell :-) Now you know why I fought with an aircraft article all day instead. (Have you ever seen nutria fur? I can't imagine doing anything with it for a fish bone stuck in my throat.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Gaaaak! Help! Gaaaa.....akk. Urgh, not otter fur, gaaaaakk haven't you got anything els....<thud>. Oh poor Sandy, if only she'd taken Chokeaze, the new otter-fur-based choking solution from Nutriasco. Yomangani^talk 04:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Nutri-asco: clever, clever :-) I'll sleep on this; a ball of otter fur and a fish bone stuck in my throat should sum up the good nights' sleep I had during most of the month of January :-) Night ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Weird turn of events. I found a dictionary that said that a fishbone is espina de pez, while espina de pescado is a herringbone pattern in fabric. Arrrgh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification request

Hi Sandy, glad to see your back. By now I assume that you have noticed that the refiled FAC for USS Illinois (BB-65) was succsessfull, and that I personally filed the afd now running on the page. In the spirit of consensus could I bug you to expand on your keep comment here? Thanks. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Cont'd

Don't hesitate to simply start an Interactions with humans section. As I say, even four or five sentences would be helpful. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

On a different subject, how do you feel about James T. Aubrey, Jr.? Marskell (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll look later; trying to get through FAC. We need more reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

F-4 Phantom II - question about references

On your latest comments in the FARC discussion, you have commented on the use of "blue link unformatted citations to personal websites" (and mentioned Joe Baugher's Phantom website. I have commented on the FARC page on the fitness for purpose of tis website - re the formatting of the reference, what would count as the publisher for such a website? Would something like:

Baugher, Joe. McDonnell F-4K Phantom FG.Mk.1 McDonnell F-4 Phantom II Retreived 25 January 2008

be appropriate?Nigel Ish (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll do a couple of sample edits as soon as I get a free moment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I know, Sandy, that a page can seem unencouraging. But you know the tightrope that needs to be walked at FAR. FAR closures are, sometimes, much harder than those at FAC. Nigel is still here, commenting. I want to be fair, even if it's extra generous. Can we do those publishers based on the example edits?

(Same thing happening at Macintosh, incidentally.) Marskell (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It will take me hours to clean up the citations: every one of them needs to be rewritten, and I don't know what to do about all the non-reliable sources. It's hard to know where to start. This Joe Baugher fellow is not a reliable source, nor is vectorsite.net, and they are cited extensively, along with other personal, hobby sites. <sigh> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Then don't fix them. I'll wait another week; if nobody else starts to fix them, then it will be removed. Marskell (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll chip away at them as I can, but it's a full-time effort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the use of sites like vectorsite and Joe Baugher's site here. You may want to comment.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

One thing worth coming back for

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For protecting Wikipedia by proving you really are SandyGeorgia by having more class and grace than anyone should ever ask of anyone else. Sometimes, when bad things happen to good people, the good people show who's who, and everyone wins. KP Botany (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

PS You're still wrong about the Lassen article. Geologists study not only the sedimentary record, but the absence of the record--it's every bit as important to discuss where the stratigraphic column goes absent, as it is to describe the sediments and their history. Being wrong in this instance or any other doesn't subtract from your immense contribution to quality on Wikipedia. Thanks for showing everyone how it could work and how it should work if only you weren't the only SandyGeorgia. KP Botany (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

U2

Don't. Give us 24 hrs. Its fine. Ceoil (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually brought up my concerns on the U2 talk page and the editors are receptive to further cleanup. So while I don't plan to clean it up in 24 hours like our Irish friend promised, you shouldn't worry about it. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Tomorrow, or they the day after, or whenever, whatever. The main thing is nobody dies. And I'm thinking of you paticular WesleyDodds, when I say that. Ceoil (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool beans: I can work on Marskell's Otter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I propose we move Sea Otter to Marskell's Otter. Or better yet, move U2 to Marskell's Otter. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Move F-4 Phantom II to Marskell's Otter, Giant Otter to U2 and U2 to F-4 Phantom II. Then my day will be perfect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Who makes bad articles good and good articles awesome?

SandyGeorgia, of course. It's so great to have you back; the project literally suffers without your involvement. I don't have any pretty pictures or awards to bestow upon you, but I admire your resilience and energy, and I'm happy to see you doing what you enjoy once again.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

aw, just seeing your name grace my talk page makes my day !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thirtysomething (TV series)

Dear Raul654, There is a problem with the Thirtysomething (TV series). The name was chosen as "thirtysomething" not "Thirtysomething." WP: MOSTM state that it should be always capital when it's a Proper noun even if it was accepted "officially." I object that rule and changed it, because it was causing too many problems. I saw back-and-forth discussions about it on the talk page from a year-ago. The majority agreed with it being lowercase. I changed everything in the article that said it capitalized -- from "Thirtysomething" to "thirtysomething." But, there is a problem I can't fix, the title. I tried changing it and it said that it was typed the same and it didn't work. So I tried typing "thirtysomething (TV Series)" instead of "thirtysomething (TV series)." I was thinking maybe Wikipedia would pick "t" up and then I would of just changed "(TV Series)" back to "(TV series). But, it came out like this --> "Thirtysomething (TV Series)" so I had to change it back. Do you know why it isn't working? AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem someone reverted the edit on WP: MOSTM. AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 04:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey ATC, how are you? Raul is pretty busy, so maybe I can help you on my talk page? I think Wiki articles have to start with a cap, even when the actual word doesn't; I had the same issue with the song by Nirvana, "tourette's". I don't think there's anything you can do about it, although correcting it within the article is the right thing to do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear SandyGeorgia, Check out the article, eBay it's not using correct grammer and was accepted. "Ebay" would not look right. AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 04:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, good point, ATC. It's late for me to work on this tonight; will see what I can do tomorrow. Probably someone else who reads my talk page will have the answer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Found the relevant MOS page here. Annie, this Manual of Style page explains the difference between something like iPod or eBay and k.d. lang or adidas, where we do follow normal capitalization rules. It looks like the cap on Thirtysomething has to stay. Will see if someone else differs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thirtysomething should remain capitalized due to the MOS paragraph found by Sandy. It is reasonable for encyclopedia style to rule even when the inventors of trademarks try to create catchy anomalies. We even have the poet E. E. Cummings with capitals. I think that each occurrence of thirtysomething within the article should be changed to Thirtysomething. EdJohnston (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand. But if I made a book or news article on "thirtysomething." I would do it lowercase. But, I understand your point if view and will change it back. (P.S. A lot of articles on this TV series would normally write it like, "Thirtysomething", but every now and then I saw it written like, "thirtysomething", "thirty-something", and very rarely like this "thirty something.") This looks like news article journalists even made these mistakes. Thanx everyone! AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I am going to add this section to the Thirtysomething talk page. AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to copy it all over (you should say where it came from). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The Dones

I think I cleaned up the dones on the FA page for Introduction to Evolution. It certainly is easier to follow now. The mass transfer of text to the discussion page was done by an admin. because it was impossible to separate article issues from allegation against the editors. Sorry if that created a problem. If I was FA director I would take one look at that mess and flunk it. I am very much a newbie at this; all 10,000 edits have been on that one page. I would walk now, but I invested way too much time to bail and a lot of very good people have contributed so much. I am amazed how one negative force can create so many confrontations with so many different individuals. A wall of supports reflecting numerous compromises; yet it reads like theres been a bloody edit war since it started. Many good editors have left; rather than bog down in the constant strife. I can't wait until this is over so I can get out too.--Random Replicator (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It reads fine; it's decipherable now, and I've seen worse. I thought a summary was better than a restart in this case. Any progress on the page nos? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

An interesting change in formating on the books. Havard style? I trust my peers to the citation department; but I'm not certain, in that the new format is so different. I did track down all the page numbers for the books I used; unfortnately, there are still 3-4 which came from other editors. I've asked. All of the cited sections with books and no page #'s could be validated through other sources, which is my last option--- but I guess its getting close to mid-night on this FA. I'm personally biased toward web sites for accessability as the initial goal was to be a gateway. Not many visiting our place will be tracking down Journals to expand their horizons. Well off to address the undones!--Random Replicator (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What an inspired idea

[30] I had been wondering where these kinds of articles were hiding - the ones that are important but need improvement - and now I know! I see a few that might well be within my scope of competence; they may not wind up achieving FA status again right away, but it gives me a chance to focus on something a bit more intellectual than the children's books and popular music I've been spending my time on. Thanks! Risker (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Great; I always like to see an FFA save. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan

Please accept my apology for attack post .

I still believe this article was written in a Non NPOV and that you can accept my sincerest apology for the attack post in order to move forward in addresing the more relevant issue at hand: the Nancy Reagan article. Multiple Non NPOV's have been detailed on that discussion page.

Thank you. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 07:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia: please see these notes regarding your comment. Thank you. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Question prior to real FAC

Hi SandyGergia, so glad to see you back and active. Sorry to bother you, but Awadewit and I are going to nominate Joseph Priestley House at WP:FAC on Monday or Tuesday and there is a small potential problem. The article was already nominated once (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joseph Priestley House). The nominator was a user who had never edited it, but was later banned as a sockpuppet of the banned User:Kitia, who started the article and made one more edit.

Both Awadewit and I asked that the nomination be withdrawn and Awadewit removed the {{fac}} tag from the talk page (which took it off the FAC page). Since the "drive by nomination" was withdrawn, we have expanded the article considerably and cleaned it up too.

My question is what should we do with the old nomination? I see two possibilities: 1) blank the page (perhaps moving the current content to the talk page?) or 2) delete the page (I am an admin now and could do this). There may well be other options here, but I thought it best to ask you before doing anything and before we nominate the article for real. Thanks in advance for your input here, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I archived it in the standard way premature withdrawn FACs are handled; normally I do that when they are withdrawn, but apparently this one was withdrawn without my knowledge. I'm not sure how I missed that one, but if withdraws are left to me, I can archive them correctly. It's good to go now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much - I believe that you were on Wikibreak at the time and we did not want to bother Raul with it. Sorry for any extra work and thanks again, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Tel Aviv

Hi. I nominated this article last week and was working on it along with those who commented on it, and it was refused. Other articles have been in the FAC status for longer. I dont know why it was rejected so quickly. I have now managed to address every issue which the comments came up with so feel it is ready. Im not sure what to do.--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Other articles which have been at FAC longer have garnered some support. On just a quick glance, I see that Tel Aviv is still sparsely cited, has reference format issues and MOS issues. I suggest you take a few weeks to work on improving it with another experienced reviewer or writer, and re-nominate when it's closer to ready. It's normal to take a few weeks between FAC noms. Best of luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks-Flymeoutofhere (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Quick word of thanks...

...on Interstate 355. As you can see, my flailing attempts to MOSize the article haven't been altogether too successful. :-D —Rob (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It's too bad no one jumped in to help you :-) Done now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think I'm about ready to take a break from that particular article. Just in time to get into two more controversies! —Rob (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Otter

In a happy coincidence, Pharos has just added a mythology paragraph. It was the only real absence. I'll check the sandbox. Marskell (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm almost done, just have to add the Surinam woman (forgot her name). A lot of it may not be usable, and you'll have to massage my prose. It is what it is; copy over whatever you want as soon as I'm done, although you may not want to use it all. Almost done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask a stupid question that I should already know the answer to: why does & nbsp; matter? I have yet to open the browser where it makes any difference whatsoever.Marskell (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Go back to a very old version of 7 World Trade Center and see if you pick up any of those 7's on one line, rest of the address on the next :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. I just went back to five early versions of 7 World Trade Center and I see absolutely no difference in the numbers versus current. I know I should do it; but I often forget, because I've never noticed a visual cue. Maybe it's my eyes!

Your sandbox is excellent! Thank you. I need to wait 'til tomorrow to process it. Marskell (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Confused

Sorry, Sandy, I don't understand what the friction is over in Introduction to evolution. I suspect a POV. One thing is for sure; no article on Evolution can ignore that Nature paper by W&C. I seem to have caused a problem.--GrahamColm^Talk 23:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC) PS. Nice to have you back.

Hey. Several things happened there. It appears from a distance that the article just wasn't nearly ready when it came to FAC (remind you of another recent article?), and while Raul and I weren't looking, things got really out of hand and people got bruised, so there's a lot of tension. It looks like people are trying their best now, and people are listening to suggestions. There is consensus, and I hope they'll all get along and work together to iron out differences so we don't see the article at FAR or AN/I, as often happens in that editing area, which isn't known for exemplary civility. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

re porque no te callas?

Why on earth was my entry removed? It is better sourced than most of the rest of the entry, and less biased - imagine using Time magazine as the sole arbiter of the motives of Chavez, ignoring what he actually said, and regarding this as 'neutral'! Bizarre.

manning53 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manning53 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Please use the article talk page, thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Done/Template:Not done

Would it be appropriate for someone to nominate these for deletion? It seems like more and more these days the consensus is not to uses these at all in FACs, Peer Reviews, etc. One can just make their own bolded "Done." manually, if so desired, but since as you say, the graphic clogs things up - why not have a discussion to delete it? Cirt (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe they're used elsewhere. I tried to reduce their size once, and someone screamed. You'd have to check what links here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh Boy, you're right, it's linked to from lots and lots of pages. Oh well, just an idea. Later, Cirt (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to evolution

I will try to, but I only have blocks of time on weekends that I can look at it. It would help if there were a general area on Wikipedia where a science article can be reviewed, instead of relying upon individual drop-in editors. A lot of what needs corrected is basic evolutionary science, or fundamental misunderstandings about the importance of certain events in the timeline of science. This might be what concerns the poster above (Graham), namely dropping the Watson and Crick paper, when it's an event in the timeline as big as Darwin, Mendel, Morgan, Huxley/Dobzhansky/Mayr/Simpson/et al. I don't think the proposal was to drop the Watson and Crick paper, but it's sometimes hard to figure out what is going on when the Wiki article mentions the double helix shape but not Watson and Crick's bombshell, A-T, G-C. It's like an A-bomb going off over your city and someone asking you to look at a flame. It is difficult maintaining a certain level of discussion about the article when editors keep throwing in omissions to that are fundamental to science, and every mention of the problem is either dismissed or attacked or seen as personal criticism. That sentence I quoted from Watson and Crick's paper is one of the most famous sentences from all of the 20th century's scientific literature. There's not an evolutionary biologist alive today who would not recognize its importance to their work. So, having to correct it is frustrating. But I tried to do it in a straight-forward manner, and when it was corrected, I accepted the correction, although I thought it was a bit complex.

I disagree with some parts of the format or topics outline, but I don't know enough about Wikipedia articles or have the time to correct that myself. And I'm not sure it matters as long as there is an excellent article that introduces evolution in a scientifically accurate manner. So I haven't posted these issues.

My concerns about basic science in the article, and references matching sources should be addressed, imo, before it goes on the main page. I've read some of the main page articles over the past month and they tend toward rigorous referencing. They're well done, in fact, even the popular culture articles.

The writers of this article are also at a disadvantage because of the one commentator who requested primary sources, which won't work well for an article of this nature. The attempt to appease everyone won't work.

I will try to check the use of primary sources, but I won't have time until next weekend, I work and go to school 72 hours a week.

I like the idea behind the article, and it looks like it could be rather good which is the only reason I'm putting up with the pile on shit directed at me every step of the way. Please don't include yourself in that. I raised an issue, it was addressed adequately, I crossed it out, RR indented to indicate he was addressing the same issue, after you had chided me about improperly indenting, and you obviously sided with him. I assume that everyone will side against me as has been happening. But Wikipedia has a lot of influence in web search engines and needs to be accountable to this. And, Wikipedia won't be publishing crap about evolutionary biology if I can help it. --Amaltheus (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Help with Matanikau Offensive

Thank you for correcting the hyphens in the article. I'll try to ensure that the articles I edit in the future are correct in that regard. Thanks again. Cla68 (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh well

No more User:Random Replicator. I am pretty sure I know why.--Filll (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It's too bad it got so heated. I've left a note for Raul. Darn, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I knew better than to be too involved. And I warned RR as well by email, but oh well.--Filll (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Back - comment on intro to evolution

While I cannot comment on the scientific accuracy of introduction to evolution (I also asked TimVickers for an opinion on that matter - I guess he doesn't want to get involved), I can offer my opinion on the state of the debate on the page. There seems to be a push and a pull between those who want greater accuracy and those who want greater accessibility. These goals are rarely commensurate. It is difficult, for example, to use scientific terms accurately as well as to explain their meaning precisely in an introductory article. I think that initially the editors of the article had envisioned sacrificing accuracy for accessibility (I always thought of the article like the planetary model of the atom - in many ways wildly inaccurate, but a good heuristic). However, over the course of the article's development, it became increasingly sophisticated - partly as a result of some writing choices and partly as a result of some additional material. During the FAC this came to a head as even greater accuracy was demanded and other editors pushed back, demanding that the accessibility be at least held at the current level or increased. In my opinion, this tension is the root of the problem. Each editor has a different idea of how much accuracy and accessibility they are willing to sacrifice. I don't know if this helps you at all - perhaps you realize all of this already. If you have any other questions, feel free to drop a note on my talk page or email me. Awadewit | talk 04:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is time to put Introduction to evolution up for deletion. Enough is enough. It was never wanted anyway, to be honest.--Filll (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A lot of editors worked very hard to get this far; it's time to have a beer :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe it would be for the best, given what I have learned.--Filll (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been hesitant to make any comment on this since I've been editing this article for some time, and have a conflict of interest. However, I think it is currently too technical for a simple overview, but too simple to be a comprehensive overview. Due to the amount of passion around this FAC, I don't want to launch into making sweeping edits to "fix" it to my version - which might not fit other people's ideas of what would be best. Currently conflicted - Tim Vickers (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Tim I would agree with you that we are contending during the FA with many forces that are pushing the article out of the realm of an introductory article, and "threatening to hold their breaths and turn blue" if we do not give in. And so we give in, over and over, and sophistication creep sets in. And there are still many dark hints about reems of other horrendous errors that are impossible to find, and doom the article to failure:[31] What I hope emerges from the discussion is some community agreement and mandate about the need for introductory articles, and what introductory articles are by necessity; they are not sophisticated. And we need to keep that in mind and reject all comments to the contrary, with no exceptions. Comments?--Filll (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a good community discussion is happening, unfortunately detracting from the FAC, but hopefully will yield some clear direction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That is my hope. The article was stable for about a year, until we decided to try for a GA and then an FA. And now many people are angry that introductory articles even exist, or misunderstanding what an introductory article is, so we need this clarified, or else there is trouble ahead, not just for this article, but all introductory articles. And we need a mandate and consensus we can point to so one person cannot dictate to many.--Filll (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Miserable time

I have never had as miserable time on Wikipedia as these last few weeks. I saw Introduction to Evolution on the FA Candidate page and 'supported' it. I then contributed my time to tweak it further. I have never experienced a page go sideways so badly. I believe that the artilce should be deleted because of inevitable content forking as the article is constantly under pressure to converge to the sophistication of the main article Evolution. There is - almost - no natural constituency on Wikipedia to maintain - let alone to write - a simple straightforward explanation of evolution. 'Introduction to Evolution' is not supposed to duplicate 'Evolution'. I think we are re-writing 'Evolution'. I can not see this article ever being stable. It is unnecessary and grief causing. Wassupwestcoast (talk) 06:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sandy can you please block my IP address. This is like going through drug withdrawals. I feel an overwhelming desire to defend. It can be pre-emptive on your part! I can't stand it when I see a user page that has edited out every positive comment; encouraging --- no begging to them to join in; Despite the F*** list at the top. This is like some weird movie... did you every see the good son? So much blame to go around --- so many bad decisions. If you cannot block --- then can you delete my account? I'm foaming at the mouth!!! Help me pleasssseeeee! Delete me... --Random Replicator (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

RR, I'm not an admin. I do know exactly how you feel, and how truly rotten is, as I went through Wikipurgatory last month. A serious vacation helped me regain my enthusiasm. If you're really not able to just push back for a week and turn it off, you might ask Marskell? Good luck; I know it's a hard situation, and I emphathize all 'round. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This page might help Random in his/her predicament. Jeffpw (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jeff! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks as well --- it is encouraging to see that I'm not the only addict with a weak will --- this will indeed solve the problem. I must leave Oz now! --Random Replicator (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

RR, I'm certain things will look better to you after a brief break, and look forward to seeing you back, whatever you decide. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, use that script, though it won't prevent editing by IP. Blocks for wikibreaks are not appropriate, see WP:BLOCKME. Gimmetrow 20:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Translation

		The Rosetta Barnstar
		For the second time, you have come to my aid at FAC with your Spanish language skills. For this and your many other efforts, please accept the Rosetta Barnstar. Marskell (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Better times

I hope you are feeling happier now. Jehochman ^Talk 15:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I survived. I wouldn't have returned if I couldn't do it with the same good faith and belief in WP:5P I've always had. Even if admin abuse occurs all too often, even if incivility and failure to assume good faith are more rampant than not on Wiki, even if dispute resolution is broken, even if nothing is done about those things, and in spite of the fact that none of that ever needed to happen (to any of the parties), I'm always encouraged and motivated to continue by the exemplary, civil, kind, patient, courteous, scholarly, knowledgeable editors I share most of my editing time with—people who really just want to collaborate on writing excellent articles. They make me proud; they are why I'm back, why I stay, and why I got over it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Preity Zinta

Dear Sandy, Hello!

I would greatly appreciate it, if you told me your opinion on this article. As you know, it has gone through a lot of improvements, copyedits, reliability issues, the peer review is closed, now it's nominated for a GA again. Do you have any comments? What do you think? Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, I see you're very busy. Sorry for bothering you. Please let me know if you are going to comment. If not, I'll turn to someone else, no problem. Thanks anyway,:) Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Shahid; I only had time for a quick glance, and it looks ready for FAC. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Intro to

I made my oppose official. Hope that doesn't make it harder to decide. Marskell (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Since it appears headed for DR, I'd best leave it to Raul at this point. I hoped to get the parties talking amicably; I failed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A Quick Thanks

Hi Sandy. I just wanted to say a quick thanks for helping me get the Nottingham Panthers article up to FA standard. Very much appreciated. KimThePanther (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Confusion over sources

Sandy, when you have a moment (!), could you explain your philosophy regarding sources at FAC to me? I, of course, would like all FAs to have only scholarly sources, but I know that there would be a mini-revolt if such a thing were suggested and I've tried to adapt myself to the rules Wikipedia has set up, but I find it hard to do so. Popular culture articles seem to be granted a lot of leeway that other articles (for example, Oliver Typewriter Company) are not, when it comes to sourcing. If you could explain to me in a little more detail what the "unstated FA rules" are for this, I would appreciate it. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 15:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not an "unstated FA rule"; personal hobby websites aren't/shouldn't be used to source any articles and don't meet RS. We use the highest quality sources available; there are high quality sources available for that article (listed in the hobby websites); they just haven't been used because the research wasn't done. The GA on that article needs to be revisited; it has almost no sourcing. This isn't a pop culture issue; sources are available.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

But the problem is there is a disparity between articles like Aldfrith of Northumbria, which is sourced to academic sources, and Monkey Gone to Heaven, which is not. Even though "Monkey" may be sourced to the best sources available at this time, there is still a resulting disparity in the quality of the sources. This is what I am trying to understand. When do we allow "lesser" sources? If we allow "lesser" sources on one article, are we not obliged to allow it on other articles? The FA criteria has only the slimmest language on which to hang a justification for demanding the best scholarship ("represent the relevant body of published knowledge"). I'm really not trying to be difficult - I'm just trying to make sure that the criteria that have been laid out are applied consistently and fairly. If they can't be, perhaps the criteria need to be tweaked. Awadewit | talk 16:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the Monkey article in detail, but on a very quick glance, it appears to be reliably sourced. I didn't notice any personal hobby websites. We use the best reliable sources available; not all topics have scholarly sources. The problem with the typewriter article is not the old scholarly vs. not debate; it's personal, hobby websites when better sources are available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently I can't make myself clear today. I'll try another day. :) I have to go teach. Hopefully I'll do better there! Awadewit | talk 17:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(if I may join in) Highbrow articles attract greater scrutiny due to the reviewers they attract, not because WP has any formal exceptions for pop culture. However, there is, as you notice, some informal relationship between the erudite nature of the subject and the quality of sources required. Whether that is fair or rational, I don't know, but it does seem to exist. The music article is based on the music press, who are paid to write, edit and publish and their career depends on a reputation for quality work. If the article was built on fan sites (as many of our weak music articles are) then it would fail FLC/FAC. I wouldn't expect a medical, literary or biographical article to depend on anything less than a high quality publication. The closest WP:V gets to this is "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". There's clearly a thought that the more important it is to be correct, the better the source needs to be. The issue with the Typewriter article is that we have a policy that says self-published sources are unacceptable with very few exceptions. That policy exists because of the fundamental way WP is edited, and is unlikely to change. Colin°^Talk 17:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What V says, and has for some time, is:

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."

The objections on the FAC are perfectly acceptable. Hobby websites do not meet V, regardless of whether they list their own sources. (Sorry to dramatically quote the whole thing, but I'm surprised Awadewit would raise this. I mean, geocities?) Marskell (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to make a larger point - a more philosophical point, actually - using this example, but apparently I was totally unable to get my meaning across. It is not necessary to quote policy at me - I know it quite well. Thanks anyway. Awadewit | talk 18:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Many bytes have been spilt on the point (I have nightmares!). As it stands, policy doesn't grant anything. Marskell (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Transformers (film)

Your view of date linking is in question. Thanks for most of your other tips though. Alientraveller (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Date linking in general is controversial, but that you need to be consistent within the article is not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Accessdates

I'm eventually going to stop using those stupid cite templates completely but haven't done so yet. They're more trouble than they're worth, because of reasons like that. I fixed it sort of, by just doing the accessdates manually. Eventually I'll just switch out of the cite templates on that article, when I'm in the mood for something tedious :) For now I'm going to go review Mumia Abu-Jamal. Surprised that such a lightning rod topic hasn't drawn more attention at the FAC. --JayHenry (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Project MOS Guidelines

I sense the sudden creation of more hoops for MILHIST to jump through in 3... 2... 1... ;-) Kirill 02:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The obvious place would be within the main MoS itself; just have a statement outlining the overall hierarchy in the introductory remarks, similar to how the "optional styles" rule is explained there.

In the long term, though, we shouldn't rely on precedence rules to deal with contradictory guidelines; the project's guidelines and the MoS need to be made consistent somehow. That's really something for each individual project to deal with (though I suspect the only ones motivated to do so will be those with significant FAC/FAR activity). Kirill 02:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

that was fast!

• thanks for defending my privacy. :-)
• I have been putzing around on WP for a few hours now. Bad teacher! <slaps own wrist> I must quit. I won't even look at it tomorrow.. thanks again! Ling.Nut (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• • <grrrr ... > SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Caps at FAC

Ok, took a moment or two to work out what "Caps at FAC" meant but got there in the end! I will do my best. Those two US football FAC's, what did you want me to do? I probably couldn't support, but even if I did they wouldn't get promoted, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. Coming from WP:FOOTBALL it's difficult to judge why a US football article is being studiously ignored, we tend to look after our own as I'm sure you're aware. Having said that, on an individual match basis we probably have very few rated FA while the US football crew are trying to get all "bowls" to FA so perhaps it's overkill. I don't know but do the US football project notify each other of this kind of thing? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way for Wikiproject College Football to set up a posting bot or something to notify others if an article covered by the project is up for FAC? Right now, I'm just posting on the project's talk page, but I'd like to know if I can do more. Thanks. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ernest Shackleton

Hi SandyGeorgia, I saw your comments on Shackleton's FAC and I believe that your concerns have been addressed. I've not been an editor here on Wikipedia for too long, so I can't be 100% sure, but I think they should all be reliable now. Also, I spiffed up the image captions. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to improve the article. Thanks again for taking the time! Lazulilasher (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll check on my next run-through. By the way, I saw something else in that article that made me crazy; apparently I missed it when this change was made at MOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh...well...yeah. When the article went for GA that was (is?) the requirement. I wholeheartedly agree with your comments that it might be overkill--it makes the text more difficult to read whilst editing. And I just checked on my blackberry--it would not have wrapped then, even on the minuscule screen. But, well, that's the rules...and I learnt a bit about nbsp in the process, so that's not a bad thing. Thanks for the comments. Lazulilasher (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That change was put in to MOS during the last month while I was, um, otherwise entertained elsewhere, and I'll fight it; it's a ridiculous burden on editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

George Washington

I did not try to add anything to the FAC page for George Washington, but a deletion notice, for I saw another article that was closer to FA (I listened to the last notice you put on my page). I have since changed my mind, and decided to go on with Washington. Thank you. Basketballone10 23:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I did want to continue. Sorry for the confusion. Basketballone10 00:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

When do FAC's close? Basketballone10 23:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

When there is consensus one way or another, or not enough input for consensus, after enough time has been allowed for consensus. Currently, consensus at GW is that it's not FA, and it should probably be archived unless you've done massive work in the last 24 hours. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alice in Chains

I replied to your comment on the FAC. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 02:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Burning (no need to let me know, as I revisit all the FACs often). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. Are you an official admin, I don't see it on your page. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 02:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not an admin. Why? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I was just wondering, because you do some of the FA stuff. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 02:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

ah, yes. Nothing about the position as Raul's delegate at FAC requires admin tools, and I've never wanted to be an admin; I'm just a long-time FAC/FAR participant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Honest mistake, I've seen many articles where one to ten is named, and 11 onwards in numbers. indopug (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I see. One person replied. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 03:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Skeletor2112 and I worked on it just this last day and I truley belive everything opposers wanted has been taken care of. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 01:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Xena: Warrior Princess

Why are you deleting the articles I'm nominating?

Glitter1959 (talk) 04:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Glitter1959

That is what I am doing wrong? I really don't know how to do all of the stuff you told me to tell you the truth. I'm new to all of this.

Glitter1959 (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Glitter1959

Thank you

This user helped promote Lisa del Giocondo to featured article status.

• Just a thank you for your comment that led to finding a good map in the commons and for your oversight. -Susanlesch (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Pest

Reminder about this reply, if you haven't seen it. This template approach is implemented at WP:PPREV (portal peer review) and soon to be at WP:PR (thanks to Geometry guy). Some issues will need to be worked out, but this is where FAC should go eventually. A user just subst's a template on the talk page. Bots take care of most everything else, but if the subpage is chosen as a fixed location to start with, it eliminates all the moving and log updating.

You can let me know if there's a FAC without any review if that happens again. I might have been able to look at those sports articles. Gimmetrow 05:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer: I actually have been prodding a lot of people to do reviews, and am making a pest of myself, with little result. It's embarrassing and frustrating to close a review because no one bothered. I'll look at the other in the morning, bedtime. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to pester me if you'd like. I'd consider it a good deed. Jeffpw (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Michigan State University

Look OK? Marskell (talk) 12:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh. I just pulled up CNN to find a picture of Dubai. I hadn't had clue all day. Marskell (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Reactive attachment disorder

Hi. Extensive peer reviews undergone. Do we need to go to copy editors next? Whats the next step? Fainites ^barley 15:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to go through and clean up all the refs. The ref formatting is all over the maps, there are missing publishers and retrieval dates, there are unlinked DOIs, etc. Do you have Diberri's PMID filler? It's in the userbox on my userpage. Then you might post a note to WP:MED, the Psychology group, and WP:LOCE if you think it needs copyediting. Let me know when you've finished cleaning up the refs and I'll have a look. Look at the refs in autism or Asperger syndrome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Bother. I've spent hours cleaning up the blasted refs. I must be missing something basic somewhere.

• All the ones in PubMed have been done with Diberri. Anything not PMIDed isn't in PubMed.
• The others have been done with citeref.
• The doi's don't automatically link. Are they supposed to? I don't know how that is achieved.
• I was also told not to link to abstracts but only free content so I went through removing all the links to abstracts.
• Does everything PMIDed or doi'd need a retrieval date? Fainites ^barley 22:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• On consistency, if you did all the PMIDs with Diberri, then just try to make the author fields on the other sources look just like the Diberri citations. It's mostly the authors that are out of whack, mostly punctuation and name format, eg, Leckman JL, Cohen DC

• Not to link to abstracts? We always link to PMIDs and DOIs, in the PMID or DOI field. We only link to free content in the article title.

• PMID and DOIs don't need retrieval date; other URLs do. I saw some URL links that didn't have access dates (unless it was that you linked the DOI to the article title).

• I'll do a few to show you how to link DOIs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I put the doi's in the relevent citeref box but it doesn't always create a link. Fainites ^barley 22:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting through some of them; follow my edit summaries to see the changes I make. I'll work from the bottom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ta.Fainites ^barley 23:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've refreshed all the doi's that don't work and all the ones that still don't work I've reported to ScienceDirect. All but one are the Infant Mental Health Journal funnily enough - none of which ever have PMIDs either. Fainites ^barley 00:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

FAC Urgents

Goodness, you notice things quickly! I thought about pinging you about it and then decided I'd be bold and remove it myself. I'm working my way through some of the other urgents as we speak, so hopefully they won't be lonely anymore ;) Karanacs (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The Naked Brothers Band (TV series)

Dear SandyGeorgia, I need your help... Someone messed up the Cast list in The Naked Brothers Band (TV series). Daniel Raymont's character in Season 1 was "The Director": Directs some of the band's videos. However, in Season 2 he stars as "Wing": The tour director and he also dresses different. Someone tried to make that clear, but it's messy. I was thinking of making a section, !Cast-Season 1 and !Cast-Season 2. The problem with that is all the characters besides Wing/Director is the same as Season 1 and it would look like a duplicate. Do you have any ideas??? AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Please awnser back on my talk page. Thanx! AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)