User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch31

Ima Hogg

Sorry for not getting involved this year. I've been too busy with organizing meta:Wikimedia New York City events. Still, it looks like you folks are doing a fine job. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people helped, but the main kudos go over there and there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Thanks for volunteering to write next year's entry" was a perfect response. :) — Omegatron 01:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those armchair quarterbacks ... they getcha every time :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be legitimate. He blames the wife!Ferrylodge (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fa closure

Doesn't really make any sense. It was closed just after the first opposes came in, without giving time for responses. I don't get the point of reverting me, I'm entitled to nominate anything when I like. Anyways, no big deal, will just leave it ... but really, makes no sense. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing/archiving a FAC gives you an opportunity to address serious concerns raised and come back for a clean pass after you've consulted with opposers, addressed issues, and perhaps requested they visit a peer review to resolve concerns without time pressure. Re-opening a FAC within hours of it being archived may alienate and discourage reviewers from supporting, since they may have just put a lot of work into a critique of the article and feel their work was disrespected. Leaving nominations at the FAC page indefinitely just isn't practical, as other articles deserve equal time; when an article is archived, time should be taken to address the issues before bringing it back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it had been closed yesterday, it would have closed with 3 supports and no opposes. I think there's a difference between giving the nominator time to respond to points and holding an FAC page indefinitely. Seriously, there's a big difference. ;)Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yesterday it had one support and two slight/conditional supports, which is why it wasn't promoted; more importantly, pls take time to resolve all of those issues so that you can come back strong; I'm sure that will result in the best outcome. At minimum, resolving issues from the previous opposers will be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The conditions of one were met, and the slight I dunno, as the editor didn't [have time to] respond. Sure, it's always great to have time to resolve issues, which seems to me reason not to close the FA as soon as the oppose quorum is met when the nominator is sleeping. FA noms are supposed to be discussions after all, not votes. I think it's pretty much there already, honestly, and wikipedia won't benefit by me diverting time from other articles to word-juggle on an obscure unimportant article like this one. FAs aren't such a big deal to me these days, and there are other things needing done. I think the real problem the article has is that it isn't interesting and has to deal with a lot of technical stuff, which means no-one (including myself I may add) will enjoy reading it, and it will either be technical [initial review complaints] or "verbose" [later complaints]. It had been given another copyedit by malleus post-oppose votes, who is pretty top class at that. What do the opposes think of it now? Who knows, was closed before they had a chance. I don't see why the FA should have been closed while that was happening. But as it is I will only re-nominate it if it gets more prose copy-edits from third parties, as I am happy with the prose (if anything I'd want it to return to pre-review prose) and it has pretty much all the detail input it could ever get already. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think people will read it and enjoy it; at least six reviewers did last time, while Blue Iguana is sitting there with almost nothing. At least you've got Opposers to work with, which is better than getting ignored :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, any attention is better than nothing, I agree. But, hey, Blue Iguana has Ealdgyth and Tony on it, which is pretty good. I tried to get Tony involved in this article before the FAC, but to no avail. :( Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ah, that may be new since I last looked. You've got Malleus, and Graham and Karanacs; you'll be fine :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey now, I didn't review Blue Iguana, just looked at the sources. I DID review Walter! Gotta love the bishops, otherwise I'll be all by myself out here in bishop land... Speaking of... get thee hence and review Augustine, Deacon! Us medieval-idiots have to stick together....Ealdgyth - Talk 03:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, yes, I should, shouldn't I. Lemme look ... Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don Tallon

Gawd, next time I offer to help out, remind me I'm a glutton for punishment! Lucky for me Blnguyen is a lovely chap - plenty of others would go bonkers at the number of comments I've made, in addition to the edits. Can't promise to respond quickly at the moment, but do drop me a note at my talk if other cricket jargon issues arise. --Dweller (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, BInguyen is a gem and I appreciate your effort. Are you done there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am now. Appended my support because I trust him to deal with the issues that stand up to scrutiny. I think I'm the only one with outstandings, so if I were in your shoes, I'd wait for his reply at the FAC saying all done and then give GimmeBot a green light. Or do you need one more S? If so, I'll drop someone a line. (And do you need Tintin to return?) --Dweller (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at it and it seems fine, has no opposes, so unless you see something that would cause me to wait a day ... on the other hand, I'm not a prose guru. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ah, I see you posted today 27 questions, so I'll hold off :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Just 27, lol. Actually, to be fair, some of them (9?) have already been dealt with, so it's "only" 18. --Dweller (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Sandy. I've responded to Dweller's probes and made the necessary tweaks. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, BInguyen; I'll look tomorrow, unless the mainpage is crazed with vandalism, in which case I might not make it through FAC tomorrow :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Smith

I found a ref for the Per Nørgård composition here which I think will work, but am unsure what reference style to use, especially after your comment about ref, so maybe you can add it for me if you think it works. (I reply where the discussion starts, so I'm watching this page!) Cheers ww2censor (talk) 04:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Warnaby (June 1992). "Per Norgaard: Remembering Child for Viola and Orchestra; In between for Cello and Orchestra by Pinchas Zukerman, Morton Zeuthen, Danish Radio Symphony Orchestra, Jorma Panula, Per Norgaard" (Review article). Tempo. New Ser., No. 181 (Scandinavian Issue): 35+37–38. Retrieved 2008-04-01.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, thanks. ww2censor (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did some reformatting of the articles biography and history information and left some notes about what I did on the FAR page. Revert if you don't like it. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 04:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Today

An administrator blocked you for indefinite. I'm sorry. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 05:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darn, that admin hit the wrong button !! I've been vandalizing and personal attacking all morning !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good that you're back. --Efe (talk) 06:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Call me a crumudgeon

But I really dislike April Fool's Day. I'll leave all candidacies until tomorrow, no sense in trying to figure out which ones are jokes and which aren't. Luckily, it'll all be over in 11 hours... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think our Ima Hogg collaboration was a success. I just logged on this morning and saw that most of the talk page commenters really believe the article is fake. Great job on the mainpage blurb! Karanacs (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I haven't caught up yet; I take it from the message above that there are joke noms at FAC? Karanacs, pretty please (if you haven't already) drop a note to the fat man about the blurb; he gets most of the credit for that, and you for the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, there's a joke FAC about some imaginary Archbishop who supposedly brought Christianity to Kent (as if there are any Christians in Kent!) Yomangani ^talk 15:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(bops Yomangan) Hey, it's a change from video games and rock stars! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caught up on the talk page of Ima Hogg; looks like the Uncyclopedia folks are venting their wrath :-) Well, heck, they had two full months to bring their article to standard, and they didn't even try. Now, I need more coffee before I venture in to my watchlist or FAC :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Looks at watch* So when are the March FAC reviewer statistics coming out? --Laser brain (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I haven't done my taxes yet, I was kinda thinking of skipping this month ... would that be awful? And it doesn't look like I'm going to get over to FAC today either ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*GROAN* Oh, I suppose.. geez. I'm kidding of course. Take the day off, heck the week. Thanks for all you do around here. --Laser brain (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were last, Laser brain. Very poor, must try harder. Sandy, I called the IRS, they said just keep it. Yomangani ^talk 16:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that for me, Yomangani. Note to self: be more careful about putting your social security number on the internet. Yomangani took my money. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is this IRS thing people keep talking about every year around this time? I never figure it out. I keep getting these registered letters and guys in suits and sunglasses knocking on my door, but whatever. I'm too busy trying to complete my "Vodkas of the World" circuit. --Laser brain (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it's over. Did Ima survive? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think she did quite well. And no one stuck an infobox on her :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ima Hogg (again)

I read the main page blurb. Thought "what the...?" Read the article. *Still* couldn't decide. Read the talk page. Hadn't made up my mind. So I looked at the article history, and while the article was created several years ago, there was a flurry of activity recently which had me doubting. Then went and read the archive of the talk page before I was finally convinced! What a job, and an awesome collaboration. Well done! --Stéphane Charette (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, Stéphane; since you read the talk page archives, you know that (other than cattle prodding) my role was very small. Karanacs did most of the writing and research, The Fat Man gets most of the credit for the blurb, and many many editors pitched in to help. The only intelligent thing I did was to archive the talk page before mainpage day :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire, Madame Sandy, Miss Ima owes you a great deal of thanks!. You were the one who picked the article, picked the contributors, browbeat said contributors into contributing (including rearranging my wikischedule ;) ), kept discussions focused and on-topic, wrote some of the text, made sure the article was MOS-compliant, etc, etc, etc. The archival idea was pretty smart, too. It is really nice to hear that we've managed to bamboozle people on this scale. Karanacs (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually ... Corvus cornix gets the credit for kicking it off. After we wrote the Dispatch, and I put out notes to many editors, WikiProjects and article talk pages, nothing happened; I was getting nervous. Then, while browsing WP:RSN, I happened to see this post, which kicked it into gear. Corvus was the first editor to show an interest in any of the 4/1 ideas. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

Hydrogen

How do you feel about this one? Marskell (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Busy day; is it OK if I check tomorrow? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Ima

Look like you're working overtime with all the vandalism! Hang in there :) Cheers, Postoak (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three more hours :-) And Miss Ima has come through fairly unscathed :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry wasn't sure how best to put it. With portions of the blurb mentioning she had to pry chewing gum from furniture...its hard to make connections between the truthfulness of the article and that of the blurb. Just wanted to put something there that may resolve some confusion.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that's true, too :-) No prob, but we must not let anyone think the main page blurb isn't all true; that would violate our policies, and there is nothing in it that is untrue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sandy, bloody well done BTW. Graham. ;-) GrahamColm^Talk 21:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Graham, but I don't get the credit; I was one small part. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had to check a few of the references before I was convinced that the article was real, so I think it worked as an AFD choice. It sure puts Texas higher on anyone's list of places to see, and in any case, it definitely generated a lively discussion! :-) -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walter de Coventre

I didn't mean to cause any ruktions over the Walter de Coventre article. When I added my support it wasn't obvious to me that the article had already been archived as having failed. I guess that there may be a lag between you flagging the article as failed and the bot marking it as failed? Anyway, I believed that I was contributing to an active discussion. I would never try to edit an archived one. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, Malleus; not to worry :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for keeping Malleus' comment. I think the present state works well. On a substantive note, Malleus seems to have cleaned up the outstanding prose issues as the nomination was being closed; would it be in order to renominate? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't recall who the other two opposers were, and don't know if they've been contacted; if they have, yes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not too late here, I would leave it for a couple of days for the dust to settle and allow time for second looks. We are watching. Graham. --GrahamColm ^Talk 23:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No rush. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick van Bloss

Hi again - just checked the article over - the book reference I think is still not quite right. Should be: Published by Fusion Press, a division of Vision Paperbacks. That's what it says in my copy...

To be consistent with links etc I tried putting NvB on the list of Famous alumni of the Royal College of Music - I thought maybe he should go there - or, even just in the Alumni section of the Royal College of Music . I had no luck putting his name in either section, though... Could you possibly help with this, if you think either is appropriate? Many thanks Anaconda451 (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the publisher, but I'm confused about the Royal College of Music, since I see him listed there already. I'm not sure what you're asking? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the publisher info. This is strange - I double-checked on the Royal College of Music page - you're right, he was/is there, except, when I refreshed to double-check he, was gone.... Maybe a browser prob or something. thanks again Anaconda451 (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the First Lady of (April)-Tomfoolery

The Fat Man is pleased to present his favourite taskmistress with this vile, pungent wheel of wriggling Casu marzu in recognition of her heel-nipping, whip-cracking, arm-twisting, irrefutable-offer-making illustriousness. The product of her beneficent tyranny is evidenced here and, like, a zillion other places. Please age this cheese in a cool, damp place (away from direct sunlight) until a suitable occasion arises for its reemergence. Enjoy responsibly.

This made my day, and I totally mean it. Your friend, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy :-) But it's a good thing tomorrow's Wednesday (spa day). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC Promotion

I thought it was an April Fool's gag on me! Thanks for all your help and advice, again!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celine Dion

Grrrr ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 12:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Early 2006 promotion: I guess you're referring to images ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, "beating the Cobbola". Main date tagging the French-Canadian harpy had been a life-long dream. Although there are indeed image problems, ironically enough. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, darn; well, I can revert myself so you can do it :-) I can't remember why I was there, but the talk page clutter needed clearing, so I went ahead and added it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noooooooooooo! ;) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My deepest sympathies :-) But it won't be hit as badly as Miss Ima. Darn, I'm still recovering from yesterday, and now I'll have to help you vandalwatch ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does MoS advise against this? I know Tony wouldn't be happy... ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ima Hogg

Original reply: : "They are real people; see the references. Bzzzzzzzzzzt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

Because one enters their name as such on a census does not neccessarily ensure that they are telling the truth. The reference in the article says that that the researchers scoured censes (censuses?) for bad baby names, but those actually interviewed had names such as "Candy Stohr" and "Mary Christmas." For a well known (and much more widespread) humourous attempt at skewing census results, see Jedi census phenomenon. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Review

Hiya Sandy. If you happen to have moment could I bug you to look at the article Montana class battleship? Its undergoing a MILHIST peer review at the moment and I would like to make sure that any MoS and citation format issues get brought up and adressed at this stage before I take the article through the GA, A, and FA reviews. Any input you can provide would be great. Thanks in advance. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request

I know you're out this afternoon, but when you get back, can you do me a favor and help with some issues I'm having with the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Muppets' Wizard of Oz where the nominator is continuing to alter/hide my comments (and others)? I reverted once, but I'm tired and cranky, and might bite. Better to let Mama Sandy say something polite too. Also I want to do a copyedit run on Richard Mentor Johnson to help out, so I'd rather spend my energy there. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm home. Will look (so much for the relaxing massage and facial :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And to Limetolime, I knew you didn't mean anything bad, I'm just really cranky today so figured it was better to get someone else who wasn't cranky to help you out with the FAC customs. (By the way, I'm a female (grins) Look up Ealdgyth Swan-neck sometime!) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Limetolime

Yes, I will admit I deleted his comments, but I kept them when they were added back. I only put the comments in a collapsible so I (and others) could see the other main things and slow down the page load time. Sorry for any inconvenience, Limetolime ^{talk to me} ^• ^{look what I did!} 21:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muppets FAC

Hey this is Limetolime.

All of the changes you have requested have been done by me, but you have stated that there are more. Could ou please state them ALL here so I can do them? Thanks! Limetolime ^{talk to me} ^• ^{look what I did!} 23:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any changes there; none of the sites that remain unstruck by Ealdgyth have rationale for what makes them reliable, and none of them appear to meet WP:V to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Muppets' Wizard of Oz

Hey, this is Limetolime. Could you please re-review the article for me? Thanks! Limetolime ^{talk to me} ^• ^{look what I did!} 23:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Israel-Venezuela relations

Hi Sandy

Regarding the Israel-Venezuela relations#Accusations of anti-Semitism section, wouldn't it make more sense if it were in the History of the Jews in Venezuela article? Also, shouldn't the History of the Jews in Venezuela discuss this? I'm interested in your thoughts. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm, first I've heard of the History of Jews in V article, I didn't realize it had been created. April Fools Day took a lot of my time yesterday, and I'm behind today, will need a day or two to look at all of that after I catch up. As I last recall the I-V relations article, I was left very unsatisfied at its unfinished state, and realized long after the fact that I had been enticed to help there by someone who later turned out to be blocked for sockpuppetry ... anyway, perhaps the unfinished state of the I-V article can be solved by a better rationaliation between the two articles. The police raid had been covered once in the I-V article, and should still be there unless it's been removed since I unwatched. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it's a new raid; the previous one was at the Jewish school, this was at the main Jewish club. I'm going to move the material to the proper article for now, and perhaps I'll be able to work on content in the next few days. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I missed that; then I really need to catch up. I should get there by tomorrow latest, but I've got to read the Venezuelan press first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I read that now; sorry, I completely missed that when it happened. It probably got swallowed in all the other news out of Venezuela in December. I need to do some digging, but yes, the two articles need better rationalization. The problem is, this is not Venezuela and not Venezuelans, who are as un-anti-semitic as any of several cultures I've lived in; it's Chavez and his foreign policy. It's hard to do business anymore in Caracas if you're not Arab or Russian or Libyan or ... and so on. I have a lot to do today before I can look at those articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've sorted out the articles in terms of material and fixed the broken refs for now; the stuff about Israel is in the Israel-Venezuela relations article, and the stuff about the Jewish community is in the History of the Jews in Venezuela article. Both still need work. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the I-V relations article and did some basic cleanup. It's still a lousy article, parrots some biased unreliable sources, but with all of the text related specifically to Chavez moved to the other article, it should satisfy those who called it POV, so I removed that tag. It will probably come back, but since the Chavez articles are owned, I don't have much interest in trying to do any more work there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Media

I'll get through the History article in a day or two, after I've had time to look for more sources. I suspect that raid got overlooked because 1) it was announced to the press a few days after it happened and 2) the news of the Chavez defeat overshadowed it. The international press doesn't seem to have picked up the news. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some English sources that discuss it:

Regarding the copyvio, I see what you mean, but I'd have a hard time re-wording it myself - it's difficult when the text is in front of you. Perhaps most of that section should just be deleted for now, aside from a couple of summary sentences. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not hugely interested in dealing with that copyvio issue, created by an IP, because any work I do on Chavez articles is likely to be reverted and it just leads to headaches. I try to stick to cleanup. The broader story is covered in the haaretz article at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/908072.html ; I've not seen much mention in the press of the school curriculum issue. If you can make any copyvio cleanup stick and if the articles remain stable, I'll try to work on them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dead refs

What happens to web refs on incumbent FAs that go dead, and don't have a hard copy anywhere? Are the refs still legitimate if the source doesn't exist anymore? Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try the internet archive, at www.archive.org ? Usually you can find something there. Or a google search on key terms from the old site to see if the info can be located elsewhere. Otherwise, see the info here; usually, if a ref goes dead, and the info can't be found in the internet archive or on another website or from another source (hardprint or otherwise), reviewers argue that the info must not have been notable, significant, reliable, relevant anyway. Hey, congrats on Tallon, too !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was talking about Note 6 on Kazi Nazrul Islam by Professor June McDaniel CV here. The work appears to be an informal workshop presentation that was never formally published so I'm not sure it's a notable scholarly analysis yet, and the other thing is that the link was only to nazrul.org, teh front page of the site and not any specific page. The essay doesn't seem to exist on the web or in a formal academic outlet, according to her CV. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monthly update on MOS changes

Sandy and others have requested regular updates of substantive changes to MOS (not just copy-editing). I hope I haven't left anything out that's substantive. Here's the whole-month diff.

3 March to 3 April

Added: Do not use an asterisk to represent multiplication between numbers in non-technical articles.
There were minor changes to the advice concerning the direction of the face or eyes in images, and concerning the size of images.
Quotations: "punctuation" was added to the requirement that "Wherever reasonable, preserve the original style, spelling and punctuation".
"Em dashes are normally unspaced" was strengthened to "should not be spaced".
The multiplication sign in exponential notation (2.1 × 10⁸) may now be unspaced, depending on circumstances (2.1×10⁸). Previously, spacing was always required.
"Clearly" and "actually" were added to the list of words that are usually avoided in an encyclopedic register.
Removed: Pull quotes are generally not appropriate in Wikipedia articles. Added: Block quotes can be enclosed using {{quotation}} or {{quote}} (as well as the existing specification, i.e., between a pair of <blockquote>...</blockquote> HTML tags).

Tony (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, changed this section, not MOS. Doesn't seem to matter now. This is what I've posted. Tony (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish and English

Sandy, would you have a chance to take a look at this discussion and add any comments based on your experience at FAC? This is part of the WP:MMM project, and there may be several of these articles coming to FAC in the next two weeks. It would be good if we can be as clear as possible on this issue before the FAC nominations start, as it will be relevant to all of the twelve articles being worked on (though I doubt all of them will make it to FAC). Mike Christie (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a tough one, Mike; I'm going to have some more coffee and ponder it for a few hours, vis-a-vis Shut up Chavez. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tenacious D

Sorry, I didn't mean this FA Nom to be a April Fool's. I should have checked through it a bit more. Thanks for the info on the cites. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Har har

At least you didn't mention psychos...anyway, did you see Yomangani found a nice photo with a man and his two pet penguins [1]....oh maybe he's not going to be so nice to them after all.....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ewwww ... on that note ... back to the psychos! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second FA nomination

When's an appropriate time for a second FA nomination? I've got one going right now, but it hasn't had much activity lately. If I nominate another article, I have full confidence that I can respond to that one as well. Gary King (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Gates has yet had a thorough look, and I'm concerned you're going to need to put a lot of work into it when it gets more reviews. It's only been up three days, and its support so far is tentative; you might be better off to hold off for a few more days before diving in to another one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Comments on FACs seem to be moving slower than usual lately. Gary King (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dispatch April 7

First draft is up. I started getting sleepy at the end, so it kind of trails off. I'll check on it again tomorrow, and then I will be sans computer until at least Sunday night. Karanacs (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read it over, and saw nothing to change (not even a single comma or typo). It looks good! Karanacs (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prague Spring FAC

I've changed the citation style, do you have more concerns, you mentioned that there are many MoS mistakes, can you point out some more please, I'm really not to experienced with the MoS. Thank you for your time. The Dominator (talk) 03:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever I saw, I would have mentioned on the FAC, or in my edit summaries as samples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get straight to work :) By the way, are you planning on closing and archiving soon? The Dominator (talk) 03:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not tonight. NO hurry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you think of it now? can you give me more specifics. Try to look at it from my POV, you've been reviewing articles for FA for some time, but this is the first one I'm ever nominating, so I'm not totally sure what you mean by "glitches", and at any rate you're certainly better at spotting minor problems than I am, so can you give me a few examples as to what is still wrong with the article. I've fixed the refs to the best of my ability. Is there still something keeping it from achieving FA? you're the boss, just tell me and I'll fix it up :) The Dominator (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cassandra (Metaphor)

Sandy, I'm wondering if you can take a quick look at the Cassandra (metaphor) page, which is undergoing problems with the title. Last year there were many teething problems around what title to use for this article, because although many people have used the mythic figure of Cassandra as a metaphor since at least ancient Greek times, people are attaching secondary adjectives to the term such as 'Cassandra syndrome' 'Cassandra complex' 'Cassandra dilemma' and so on which may each have a slightly different usage. When only one of these secondary adjectives is employed in the title it leads to confusion because the terminology may apply to only a limited user sect (eg. "Cassandra dilemma" may refer only to partners of Aspies.... a too idiosyncratic slant to be employed as a neutral title). Moreover, 'Cassandra complex' may refer to the experience of a different group of people than does 'Cassandra dilemma', meaning that Cassandra complex is not a neutral, transferable phrase. Therefore the problem was circumvented by naming the article simply Cassandra (metaphor) with the bracketed "metaphor" serving disambiguation purposes only.

A new user Rlue has recently reverted the article title to the old 'Cassandra Complex', which unfortunately leads to only those writers who have employed 'complex' to refer to their particular idiosyncratic use of the metaphor. This new user Rlue has also slotted the bracketed disambiguation phrase "metaphor" into the body of the definition as an adjective he/she assumes is attached to the term Cassandra, but which to my knowledge such wording has never been used except on Wikipedia for disambiguation purposes. This is messing up the article bigtime and I actually don't know how to revert these big changes.

Rlue also claims that the philosopher Gaston Bachelard "coined" the "Cassandra complex" (which is true) BUT this article is not attempting to be an elaboration of Bachelard's use of the metaphor...... the mention of Bachelard's phrase was merely to provide an early usage of the metaphor (I unearthed the Bachelard reference and originally added it to the article).

I would like to discuss these suggested alterations on the discussion page before making them, and ask if you could revert the changes with a comment that it needs to be discussed first. I tried to 'Undo' but for some reason was not doing it properly.

If you can help save this article before it degrades into meaninglessness it would be much appreciated.... we just need to discuss it first. Thanks Goddessculture (talk) 04:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its ok, I managed to figure out how to revert the title back to the original, and added a note directing the issue to the discussion page. Regards Goddessculture (talk) 06:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kannada literature-Images

Hi Sandy. I am trying to work out an image issue with user:ЭLСОВВОLД who has objected on the basis which is at best confusing to me. He wants me to explain how the images of poets I have used add value to the article and why it should be included in the article. Can you please point me in the right direction? What is the best approach to resolve this issue.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elcobbola understands our image policy much better than I do, and far better than most editors. I wouldn't know where to direct you other than to the places he has. Have you gotten a copyedit yet? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Dinesh, Elcobbola is fighting mainpage vandalism today with Oliver Typewriter Company, so it's not a good day to get his full attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, because of a real shortage of copy editors, Michael Devore, Sarvagnya and Myself are doing the best we can. I left messages for several established users who I felt could help, but got no direct help so far.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message about copy editing for Dineshkannambadi on his talk page. Risker (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am waiting for Risker to start his copy edits. he mentioned he would start over the weekend.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will search through the article tonight and make the dashes consistent.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Risker is currently reading the article.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Risker would have been done by tonight. Each copy editor sees things from his/her own viewpoint making it difficult to gauge how much is necessary. And then when there are reviewers who are trying to distract the attention from the real issue-Copy edits, it gets harder. Can this article be re-submitted after Risker's edits and perhaps one more round of copy edits? Thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed opposes don't cause me an issue, but ce issues continuing to come up after a month need to be addressed, and nationalist detractors would have less ammunition if you got an independent copyedit and other issues like image licensing sorted out first. Yes, you can re-nom as soon as Risker, Abcedare and Elcobbola are satisfied on copyedit and images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the images that Elcobbola complained about have been removed from the article. I will request Abcedare to re-look and see what he thinks the prose looks like tommorow. Thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh, in general terms, when you know the article has likely detractors, try to come to FAC from a strong basis of having gotten an independent MoS check (example, User:Epbr123), copyedit, and image clearance (eg User:Elcobbola) first. It will make your FACs much easier and smoother and give you a better chance at success. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

user:SandyGeorgia: I don't usually drop in on other people's talk page conversations, but I came here to ask you a question (which is now moot) and couldn't help but notice, your reference to "nationalistic detractors." I don't know who you have in mind, but if it was me, which "nation" are you referring to? "Nationalism" (albeit of the Karnataka variety) is precisely the accusation against not only the Karnataka literature page, but also a number of other Karanataka-related pages, some of which have even become FAs. For example, the Kingdom of Mysore was really masquerading as a "kingdom" until I discovered it last week, and pointed out that for half its life it was really only a princely state, a "puppet sovereignty" (not my words) that the British created as a part of their system of indirect rule on the subcontinent. The Wikipedia Karnataka-related articles are the only places I know where the kingdom has been awarded a life of 500 years, and where much is made of its rulers, the Wodeyars. Here are fifteen of the standard history references on India (with searchable pages); the Wodeyars find not a single mention in any of them. For the record, I have no interest in Kannada or Karnataka; wouldn't know Kannada if I heard my mother speak it. My sole interest in India is in British India, and I started out on Wikipedia with the modest goal of creating pages for British naturalists who had worked in India (see user:Fowler&fowler). However, as an academic, I also have an eye for shabby scholarship, and the prose is the least of the problems of Kannada literature. If you think I am being unreasonable, I am happy to request an independent scholar like Colin P. Masica, Sheldon Pollock, Vinay Dharwaker, or Prithvi Datta Chandra Shobhi weigh in on the quality of this article. user:Abecedare himself has interacted with me on India and other pages; whatever else he might say about me, I don't think he would consider me even remotely "nationalistic." You are welcome to send him a private email if you'd like. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't conduct FAC business via private e-mail, please don't make assumptions about words I haven't written, and I first became aware of nationalist issues on these articles via a post completely unrelated to FAC, you, Dinesh, or this article. Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you did say "nationalistic detractors." Why are you assuming that the detractors are nationalistic and not the authors of the Karnataka literature article themselves? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

Yea, the trick is I use Wikipedia:Huggle which is a simply amazing anti-vandal tool. I'd suggest you get it, but I much rather prefer me spending an extra hour reverting "poo" and you doing FACs than having it the other way around. MBisanz ^talk 16:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Savant syndrome

Hi, and thank you for your work on the Savant syndrome page. It's good to have a more experienced editor helping out because Aetoss (who wrote most of the material on the page) and I are both fairly new to Wikipedia. As he said on your talk page earlier, he isn't completely familiar with formatting and citations, but he does know a lot about savant syndrome, and his information is all correct. I have been working on some citations for the page, but I only know how to add the link to the page, and not all the author information and so forth, so it is nice to have you doing that. Just try to bear with us and give us time to work on it; we are learning, and we are happy to hear any advice or comments you have. I have been looking for other sources but Dr. Darold Treffert's page seems to be the best, so feel free to add anything if you want to. Thanks again. --Mansley (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the talk page, about.com is not a reliable source, so that text should be sourced to Treffert. Also, the fact that it is not a recognized diagnosis is continually removed; if that is reinstated again, something will need to be done (example, proof that it exists in DSM-IV or ICD-10). There's a lot of WP:MOS cleanup needed, but I'll get to that tomorrow maybe. Most importantly, the fact that it is not a recognized diagnosis needs to be dealt with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad day

Got into a pretty big collision with a highway barrier today...hydroplaning and all....might find myself spending more time on Wikipedia, as I won't have much of a life until I get a new car...— Deckill er 20:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oh no, DK, I'm so sorry, but I hope you're physically intact. I'm out for the evening (someone's birthday), but will be thinking of you, and hope you're well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm lucky to be alive, but very fine :) Bus the next few months!

Another car hydroplaned down the road and rolled over. I believe there was a death in that one. I saw another 3-4 accidents along the way to my own...another was 100 yards away! Maybe there IS a god for me! — Deckill er 22:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so glad you're well, DK, and sorry that you came so close to tragedy. Take care of yourself, there; those kinds of brushes can give you a bit of post-traumatic shock. Hugs from here, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have an uncanny ability of turning a positive into a negative; I think I'm going to do that with this incident. Bus passes mean no gas money or temptations to go to the drive thrus :) But then again, it means I'll have to bum the occasional ride at work - especially for closing shifts. Oh well. I'll probably get a second job this summer devoted to a nest egg for a new car. — Deckill er 02:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monobook tools

Sorry about that. I didn't realize other people were importing my scripts. If you bypass your browser's cache it should work again. — Omegatron 23:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check it out

I've recently ventured over to the Obama page; I participated in the FAR outling some of my concerns, but not-technically voting to delist the article. Instead, I compiled a list of concerns and POV phrases that need to be reworded or removed. You can check out the list here. Many of what I know to be POV phrases/sentences on that page are being defended or overlooked because of some wacky (and fake, in my opinion) BLP concern; another issue is quotations from the senator, which is also defended by clearly pro-Obama editors. Right about now, I'm actually reconsidering my stance on whether to keep it featured or not. This kind of stuff never would have been tolerated on Reagan's! Any thoughts or suggestions? Happyme22 (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts about articles about active politicians on Wiki ? Drink often and heavily, and approach with caution :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha glady... It's just honestly insane because there is too much POV and hardly any editors willing to face the facts and remove it. And I honestly don't see a solution to this. Happyme22 (talk) 01:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could waste a large part of your life trying to tackle POV in political articles on Wiki, and not even make a dent. That's why it's so amazing that you were able to write a balanced, appropriately sized, neutral article on Reagan, incorporating views of critics. And the closer we get to November, the worse it's going to get. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oye ve! Hey just a side note: if you ever get bogged down and need help on Wiki, please do not hesitate to let me know; I would be glad to help you out. My best as always, Happyme22 (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I always need help :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I sadly voted to delist the article, because it is clear that there is POV and the editors aren't willing to tackle it. It's really a shame. Happyme22 (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err... I'm confused. Have we closed FAR and moved on to FARC already? Barack Obama has only been reopened for editing since 17:34, 3 April 2008. Sandy, would you kindly review the most recently added comments and help clarify for myself and other Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama participating editors the current phase of this review? Thanks! --HailFire (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake with Barack Obama FAR; I'll strike mine and notify editors to do the same. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified all editors who have placed "keep" or "remove" on the page, told them to strike the comments and wait until FARC. Sorry about this. Happyme22 (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that, Happy; that's kind of you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I got your message at Marskell's page. I'm really confused on what to do now. All the Obama editors and myself have apparently screwed it up at the FAR page; I asked them to strike their keeps and removes, but none have. As for the review phase being there to identify deficiencies and address them, I honestly don't think that will work. I've tried and gotten little accomplished. Just a few minutes ago, I was labeled as being "anti-Obama" because I fixed a statement dealing with his Wright controversy. What, if anything, should we do, and should we just wait to go into FARC (because that looks like it will be happening soon) and thenour votes will already be there? Happyme22 (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a cottage industry in explaining FAR to the Obama editors :-) It's all in the instructions; no one listened. FAR is not dispute resolution, it takes at least a month, more likely six weeks, and none of the Keep/Remove declarations will matter if/when it moves to FARC. No, the "votes" won't already be there; they won't count. The review phase is for review, identification of issues, hopefully addressing them. If/when it moves to FARC, there will be at least an additional two weeks where deficiencies can be addressed. FAR, even more so than FAC, is not a vote. It can have ten Removes, but there will still be at least two weeks, maybe more, allowed to address issues. If deficiencies are eventually addressed, it can still be a keep. They did not want to understand that FAR will not resolve their dispute; it will only decide whether the dispute carries a star or not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh* Okay, thanks for everything. Let's see what happens :) Your a huge help to me, always, and I thank you. My best to you, Happyme22 (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment at the page. Thanks for alerting me to that. Happyme22 (talk) 04:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prague Spring FAC

Sorry, not sure if you saw my comment above (section with same name), I know you're talk page is really busy so I just wanted to make sure you didn't miss it. The Dominator (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been out all evening, Dominator, but I think Epbr went through and did some cleanup earlier. I'll catch up on FAC tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. The Dominator (talk) 01:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm blushing

But thank you. Now the real question.. are the nominators banding together to hire a hit man? Ealdgyth - Talk 03:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation templates

Hi Sandy. What is the right template for magazines? ty --Efe (talk) 06:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cite journal}} is for magazines and journals. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sandy. --Efe (talk) 01:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tel Aviv

Hi SandyGeorgia. I have given Tel Aviv another Peer Review and think all the points there have been addressed. Do you think it is neccessary to get another Copyedit? It had one in early February and some reviewers still didnt feel it was up to scratch after that. If so, I dont know how to get it done - theres a problem with the box for the talk page. Also, Im conscious that the Peer Review just saw FAC reviewers who I made aware of the review, and no outside comments were made. Thanks, please advise. Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what problem you're referring to on the box on the talk page. Are there two LOCE requests? If so, someone over there will have to fix the templates. Have you followed the tips on WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 to locate peer review volunteers? Have you invited all the old opposers to comment on the peer review? As I recall, the article had both sourcing and copyedit concerns. It would be best to invite all old opposers to the peer review page to assure that all previous concerns have been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Yes, I invited all old opposers to comment (and a couple of supporters with comments) as well as contacting a couple of the peer review people. Its almost there now, I think. Most of the sourcing has been cleared up - im a little confused though because a disagreement broke out between a couple of the reviewers as to whether the referencing is ok and it never ended with a consensus. How should I address this now? Someone has just started to do a copyedit and I have asked whether they are doing it all. If they're not I shall go through those mechanisms for finding someone. Thanks again for your help. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 08:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure if you saw my reply there. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 12:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which reply where ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I asked above what I should do about the sourcing because there was a dispute between two peer reviewers about whether what is there is ok. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ah. Well, after several difficult FACs, you want a smooth FAC. You do that by addressing as many concerns as possible, not hoping one reviewer will prevail over another. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources; the news media is often wrong. If you want a smooth FAC, it's not wise to overlook any reviewer concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im now trying to find someone to do a new copyedit. It had one at the first FAC, although the same issues were still brought up. How do I find a good copyeditor to do this? Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hijack your talk page, Sandy, I'd like to comment. First, for collaborative exercises, it's best to woo potential contributors. Good copy-editors - people who will make radical but sensible cuts and effectively peer review at the same time - are as rare as rocking horse poo; maybe twenty or so in total on Wikipedia. Second, it helps to write to thank people who have contributed and to make them feel appreciated. For instance, Maralia (among others) has put a load of work into this article at various times and deserves better than veiled accusations of anti-Israeli bias. Bagels and barnstars etc are a better option. Third, specific criticisms raised at FAC usually reflect a general underlying problem: it's best to fix the core problem (in this case indifferent sources and sloppy writing) rather than half-heartedly firefighting the symptoms. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. If good copyeditors are so rare, how do I get a good copyedit? I aplogized already to Maralia. Its a bit late for a thanks now I think but I was never sure if anyone could give out barnstars? Obviously yes...what are bagels in this context? To be perfectly honest, I feel sometimes that Israel articles are often treated differently due to their potential POV issues which editors often look for in the text. Im no expert on referencing and didnt have much help editing that article up to FAC and during it and so had problems addressing the last 5% of issues brought up. I dont really understand whether FAC reviewers are allowed to go in and implement things but like in that article I kept on trying to fix the referencing issues especially, and some would say it was fine others wouldnt but I never knew what was ok. Anyway, I do truly appreciate all comments no matter how positive they are but sometimes I think there is a lack of support to the editor of FAC's. Onto the third point, are the referencing issues solved now? And how shall we get this copyedit. Many thanks once again. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, anyone can give out WP:BARNSTARs, and it's never too late for thanks. Precisely because good copyeditors are rare, you get their attention by collaborating, helping out others whenever you can, returning favors, being grateful and helpful to those who assist you, and developing a network of people you collaborate with. There are thousands of articles wanting for attention to come to FAC, and few people able to do the work; people by nature work where it's most rewarding, productive and pleasant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - I understand. How can I approach it? Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may have a major problem here. The cavalier approach to the first peer review, and the less-than-appreciative approach to the umpteen people who have worked on the article during three FAcs, means that much goodwill has been squandered. Leaving someone a note of very belated thanks (weeks after the event) while asking for the next favour is unlikely to cut the mustard. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I have to say that I felt a little overwhelmed during those FAC's due to umpteen reviewers making the same point. Some accepted changes, others said it was made worse. What do you do in that situation to please everyone? Although I know it isnt required for a solution to be given, it would be apprecitated in this sort of situation for the reviewers to collaborate to some agreement. Whatever I did, there would still be 4 opposers for the 1 person who was satisfied but I can see what you are saying and know for next time. I do have to say though, that the peer reveiw between FAC 2 and FAC 3 had NO comments whatsoever which gave the impression to me that it was all ok. Now, for example, there are no responses on the Peer Review page as to whether the changes are ok and it puts me into a situation where I have no idea where to go. Thanks for your help. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually talking about people who actively edited this article to help you out during FAC.

Anyway, here's a way forward. I'll do a critical peer review/copyedit to get this through FAC. This will take a couple of weeks (maybe more, I'm horribly busy right now). However, there's no such thing as a free lunch so this comes with conditions:

You don't re-nominate until I reckon it's ready. We'll do it as a joint nom.
You make a list of all opposing comments from all three FACs, sort them by article section heading, and stick them in a separate page, here Talk:Tel Aviv/FAC comments for example. (This can be archived afterwards.)
I decide whether an oppose has been resolved. If we don't agree - ie you think it is and I think it isn't - we cut the offending statement from the article.
In the meantime, you conduct a belated charm offensive. This means giving bagels or barnstars (templates on your talk page) to all the people who have actively edited Tel Aviv during the FACs. Just as a belated thank you, without any "could you just give Tel Aviv a peer review if you've got a moment" comments added on :)))

Do we have a deal? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, that sounds great - we have a deal. There isnt any rush - I think its better to take time to get it right. I'll get onto that comments page and do the charm offensive (is it to all reviewers? and what is the best one to give?) and I might also be very busy over the next few weeks (but I should still be around most days). Sounds great. Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 10:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FA nom of Richard Mentor Johnson

I just noticed your comment on Ealdgyth's talk page that the RMJ nom "is not failed" but "archived." I guess the process may have changed since the last time I had an FAC. What does this mean? When I nominate it again, do I bring all those comments back to the nomination page? I apologize for my ignorance; guess I've been spending too much time on GAs and DYKs lately. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The process has not changed; I was referring to language. The old template labeled FACs that were not promoted as "failed"; articlehistory lists them as not promoted and I refer to them as archived. We don't need to consider archived FACs as "failed" just because they haven't yet been promoted and may be promoted on their next try. No, you don't have to bring back old comments, but you should make sure all of those issues are addressed before you re-nominate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting FAC withdrawal

Sandy, I'm requesting withdrawal at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Early life and military career of John McCain. Thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your note there; will do it shortly. See WP:FAC/ar about leaving the template on the talk page until GimmeBot goes through. Please bring it back as soon as you're ready !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walter de Coventre

I'd say Religion, as he's principally a bishop/ecclesiastic. Some bishops fit better in politics (espcially some of the ones I'll be bringing up to FAC later) but this one probably fits best in Religion. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Clement of Dunblane and Jocelin are already in that section, as btw is Augustine of Canterbury and Pope Pius XII. Best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stimming

I don't know of any scientific research connecting the two topics. The connection is a topic of speculation of course, but not among reliable sources as far as I know. Eubulides (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling sites

Okay, I'm on uncharted waters for me here. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling seems to regard this list Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/PPVguidelines of sites as reliable. I have looked at most of them, and I can't see anything that says what their standards are. I do appreciate though, that the project has obviously set up some standards, and it's not like we're going to see a lot of coverage from the London Times about Professional Wrestling, nor from Oxford University Press. What are your thoughts? I hate to keep saying the same thing, over and over and over to the guys there (besides which, I get tired of looking at the sites, I'm not a wrestling fan!). I think we need some sort of decision here since the PW project is nominating quite a few articles. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We had a similar problem with the Aviation WikiProject on FAR; basically, what a given Project may think is reliable, without having actually studied WP:V, isn't very useful for FAC or FAR. The aviation articles had to be completely resourced once we explained to them that their common sources were self-published personal websites owned by non-experts. We don't take a WikiProjects' word for it; we go by WP:V, WP:RS. I'll look over that list as I have time. I see many nominators respond to your queries about reliability by saying, "it's reliable", without having any knowledge or justification of what makes it reliable :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed that trend. And generally I will try to respond to them if they are genuinely bewildered, but often times I'll just leave it sitting there if the response doesn't resolve my concerns. I do actually go looking around the sites, checking for information on the sites reliablity, etc. I'm generally more relaxed about reviews and/or interviews, especially interviews with the interviewers full name on the interview. I do love the "So-and-so site has a Wikipedia article" response though, that's pretty classic. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.wwe.com/ World Wrestling Entertainment, would usually be fine
http://www.tnawrestling.com/ Total Nonstop Action Wrestling Entertainment, LLC, never heard of them, but apparently a legit corporation
Findarticles.com archives legit magazines, usually.
http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Wrestling/home.html I believe Canoe is a legit Canadian news source? http://www.canoe.ca/Help/about.html

http://www.411mania.com/terms.php doesn't sound like even they claim reliable, perhaps useful to document certain event happened on certain date, but little more http://www.411mania.com/about_us This doesn't impress me; started out as a personal, Geocities website, so what if the press mentions them, what is their reputation for fact checking, editorial oversight, etc?
http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/ can't find anything there that justifies its use
http://www.thehistoryofwwe.com/ looks like a personal, self-published website
http://www.100megsfree4.com/wiawrestling/wiamain.htm looks like a personal, self-published website
http://www.wrestlingobserver.com/wo/ personal website, they would have to justify what makes Dave Meltzer a published, acknowledged, recognized expert in the field, per WP:SELFPUB. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a precedent?

Is there a precedent for a WikiProject nominating an article as an FAC? Maybe there's a bot somewhere that likes to tie up nominations with individual editors that would make it difficult, but if not there's an article that I'd like to do a project nomination for, the Peterloo Massacre. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so; give me a minute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oxygen. But according to articlestats, you are hugely the principle editor there, so you should be mentioned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've certainly done a lot of work on that article, but so have others from the project. I tend to edit in the mainspace, in bite-sized chunks, so my edit count is greater than those who choose to work in the seclusion of their sandboxes, free from the world of edit conflicts. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I wasn't motivated to ask this question in an attempt to try and hide the fact that I'd contributed significantly to this article, so that I could then support its nomination. Rather, I'd expect that no member of the project would offer a support !vote. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to make sure that you get noticed at WP:WBFAN :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Life's too short to worry about stuff like that. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that true. — Deckill er 02:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest, can you advise where articlestats might be obtained? --Jza84 | Talk 00:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a link on my userpage in the Useful links box. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama

Seven months of this? And maybe four to eight years to boot. Hm. Marskell (talk) 11:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heading out for the afternoon

Have fun at the funny farm here. I'm off to do some research (going to try to collect some more sources for the folks at Richard Mentor Johnson) on some exciting bishops! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment RE: S Club FAC/LOCE

Hi there! The reason I added the S Club article to the FAC page without having a LOCE review was because I have been waiting since January 13, 2008 which, being fair, isn't as long as some of the articles on there (some have been there almost a year), but I think the article is written to a good standard and quality (albeit this is not an objective view) and so I went ahead and nominated it. Is this bad practice? - ǀ Mikay ǀ 18:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does raise eyebrows to anyone who visits the talk page. LOCE doesn't work expeditiously; you're better off seeking out copyeditors independently, perhaps via WP:PRV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, I'll leave a message on a couple of their Talk Pages. :) - ǀ Mikay ǀ 18:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question on The Orange Box FAC

I'm probably being a bit stupid here, as I'm not familiar with the AFC process, but I thought we'd managed to resolve all issues raised at The Orange Box's FAC. I'm not sure what there is that still needs to be carried out. Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Orange_Box is now just a blank page, while the to-do notes on The Orange Box ask that previous FAC issues be dealt with, but I can't see what's still outstanding. I think the process was closed by a bot, so it might be completely automatic, but I'd really appreciate some guidance on this one. I can understand that you're a very busy person, but any help you can offer on this would be greatly received. Many thanks! --Gazimoff (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, a bot doesn't close FACs, I did, see WP:FAC/ar. The previous fac is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Orange Box/archive1, and it got no Support, only opposition, after more than a week. The next step would be to contact all previous opposers to find out if they are satisfied, or to open a peer review and ask them and other peer review volunteers to comment there, to prepare it for a new FAC submission (see WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 for helpful tips on how to get peer review repsonses). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the advice and the swift response, it's very helpful. I'll contact those involved and see what we can do about turning this around swiftly. Thanks again! --Gazimoff (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banner shell

FYI: Talk:2008 Super Tuesday tornado outbreak. Hopefully someone who watches this page feels like adding the nesting code to the one project. Gimmetrow 20:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe someone already did it? Everything there appears nested. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[2] Apparently. Gimmetrow 22:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Professional wrestling sources

Hi Sandy. I noticed your comment on the PPV Guidelines Talkpage. Apart from the official websites, most other websites are "created" by someone and expanded. It would be very, very hard to find a totally reliable source concerning professional wrestling. It isn't like NFL where it is recognized hugely in the outside media, therefore finding sources can be difficult. Most of the sources in the list contain "in-ring results", and are very useful in professional wrestling articles. Removing all the sources you mentioned would mean virtually every professional wrestling article would be heavily unsourced. The official websites don't have a huge archive of results, where as the other websites do have a bigger archive. Please also see this. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriateness of a source depends on the information being sourced. I didn't say those need to be removed; their use needs to be explained and justified specifically in terms of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:SELFPUB. On the surface, none of them looked reliable for most purposes, but you may find info that conforms to WP:SELFPUB if you all dig deeper, or you may find that some of them are useful for some purposes, if not all. Wiki's core sourcing policies can't be overlooked anywhere, but particularly not on FAs. The use of sources which appear on the surface may not meet WP:V needs to be examined and explained; "that's all we have" isn't a sufficient explanation, particularly for FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right

Just to be clear, I was talking about what SEWilco said about linking or not linking languages, which seemed to me to have the flavor of "is it fair to link one and not the other?" The "fairness" issue may move it "outside MoS" in some sense; we don't need that headache. - Dan Dank55 (talk)

Prosesize problem

Thank you Sandy for helping me out (on Ealdgyth's page). I've got it working OK now, it's just that I'm a slow learner. Brianboulton (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure :-) (Ealdgyth announced above that she was taking the afternoon off.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opine

What do you think about this as a reliable source? (and where are those cookies I was promised?) Yomangani ^talk 00:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't argue with her CV, even if she is published by the OAS. What is the OAS role in her book? Translator, excerpt, republication? Has anyone seen the book? Would the OAS misrepresent it? Cookies ... on a Sunday ... going to have to get into the kitchen myself and see what I can do :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's the problem. Who are the OAS? They sound a little too like the OSS to be trustworthy and aren't very forthcoming on their website. The book is out of print and not in any libraries local to the people writing the article.Yomangani ^talk 00:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is the OAS; not sure if that reassures me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My!

I seem to have hit a nerve on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1995 Japanese Grand Prix. I actually have more concerns, on looking deeper, but I think I'll leave it alone for now. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're hitting notes all over the place; didn't you ask me recently about a hit team? Look out! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My little IP friends seem to have given up. Oh, well. No clue if it was random, related to the stupid Franco-Mongol alliance brawl, or FAC. Could even be GAN, I bombed a few the other day. Such is the fun life on Wiki! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the stage of the moon? Everyone seems cranky lately....If I didn't know better I'd say it was a full moon. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a regular day I guess. Twenty minutes to remove a driveby, half an hour to deal with multiple noms. Normal day at the office LOL ! It's a good thing that you're still reviewing articles in the meantime :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK article for the Signpost

I made a draft DYK explanation for the signpost User:Royalbroil/DYK overview. Would you proofread the article? Does it answer the basic questions? After reviewing, please place it in the Signpost schedule. I have linked the thread that you started to the current location of the article in my sandbox.

Good job with helping guide/coordinate the Ima Hogg article for April Fool's! By the time that I was ready to help, it was already done, so I choose to review it against FA criteria instead. Royalbroil 05:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

quarterly done, sort of

Let's see how it pans out. I've asked Dank55 to consider taking on a few pages: it's an easily divisible, and thus delegatable, task.

User:Tony1/Monthly_updates_of_styleguide_and_policy_changes Tony (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there

How's everything going? I was a little surprised to see you reverting TFA vandalism—don't you have more important work to do? ;) Anyway, I decided to stalk your contributions (mwahahahaha) and was a little puzzled by this edit. Since Commons is basically a media repository (and the only other project I'm fairly active on), I was wondering what sort of inaccurate, non-reliable info you found over there that concerns you. Best as always, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<sigh> ... type, erase, retype, erase ... never mind :-) But I do want to watch out for Graham in the free time I do have :-) Anyway, after preparing my long answer to you about the problem we had at Stuttering over non-reliable info moving off of Wiki over to Wikibooks, I realized my mistake! I meant sister links, not commons ! Will go revert myself. I'm honored that you're stalking my edits, which aren't very interesting any more :-) I keep trying to find time to go help out on the benzos, but haven't gotten there ... not that I know anything about benzos. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dispatches:FAT

Hi Sandy, I agree that if the FA-Team gets written up in a dispatch it shouldn't be for some time, until after we've had a chance to evaluate. I personally think the FA-Team was a little overly ambitious in setting our sites on this classroom project, simply because so many of the students are likely not going to become regular Wiki contributors. The original idea was to help established wikiprojects get an article to FA so that they would then have the experience to get more of their articles promoted on their own later. I think we got a tad too excited about the concept, and that combined with the fact that we didn't know what we were doing anyway led to a fun but overly time-consuming endeavor. We ought to have a post-mortem in a few weeks to see what should be changed. Anyway, I only put it on the list so I wouldn't forget about it; feel free to remove the topic - we can decide later if we want to write it up or not. A better topic might be a note about how an educational project with students who had never edited WP before created The President (novel) from scratch and got it up to FA status (provided it's promoted). I think we ought to try profiling interesting FAC/Featured List noms more often (and likely present a few interesting ones in one article rather than full articles for each).Karanacs (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we need to get you a bodyguard, Sandy. No beating up of the FAC director deputy! Karanacs (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"ocial aspects" article section in MEDMOS

Hi. I think this needs serious discussion in the MEDMOS talk. You might want to refer to the recent Alzheimer's talk regarding it. I find the comment on MEDMOS at the moment actually belittles the aspect (and has been confusing for people). Remember what Wikipedia is all about -"general reader" etc. What is a topic like Alzheimer's about to a general reader? --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hyperbole or reality?

The messiest article you have ever seen on wikipedia? Also are those the only reasons that lead you to find it so, because that is not very numerous. So Font size and notes make something the worst ever ? Redthoreau (talk TR 22:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also can you please provide for me an explanation for "font size" guidelines on wikipedia articles? For me the smaller font is big enough to read, and more aesthetically appropriate, although I of course will accept alteration if the change is in accordance with Wiki policy. Thanks. Redthoreau (talk TR 06:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I think I will stick with your idea. I appreciate you telling me this. Thanks.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 01:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do know that. I now only add important links. Thanks anyway.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 02:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that user voted twice. I thought that wasn't right? Is it?--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 02:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will do that from now on. Thanks again.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 02:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple FACs

I wasn't aware of that policy. But Walt Whitman was nominated on behalf of three different editors so it's not a solo project. See Talk:Walt Whitman. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for other editors so I'm not affixing their names. Regardless, I feel reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed on Griswold's nomination. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, because Griswold has not had the word "Support" added the nom seems to be going nowhere? My understanding was that FACs weren't about voting. I would also suggest that the whole "break all rules" thing seems to work just fine here as I'm sure I can handle whatever comments I receive. I don't see the need to withdraw either FAC at this time so I'd request both stand. In the meantime, I'll also ask my collaborators to add their names to the Whitman nom. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I currently have no intentions of withdrawing either nomination... I'm not worried about being stretched too thin on Wikipedia. Elsewhere, well, that's a different story... --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologize

I'm sorry for misrepresenting your position. I did preface it with 'I think' but should have said nought. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Wassup, your note is much appreciated. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buckingham Palace

Seriously all you had to do was state what I was doing wrong etc and not come down heavy with threats of being blocked! Im new to wikipedia and not sure of the rules yet so hope you understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.19.104 (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kicking and screaming on hold

Okay, okay, I'll stay just so that you don't have to spend your valuable time tracking me down (although I doubt it would be that hard) ;) I never make it longer than a few days before I get curious again and come running back to FAC. As long as Mike Christie and Awadewit keep writing I'll at least be assured of finding an excellent article occasionally. Karanacs (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whew. Remove my stalking alert :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April fools jokes

First, many congratulations on Ima Hogg. It was fantastic: I loved all of the comments on the talk page from readers who thought it was all bogus, and some of the press really appreciated what you (plural, I know many were involved) acheived. Great work!

But I had to chuckle that it was you an Raul who responded to the DYK section of the April GA Newsletter. Given all your efforts to produce such a fantastic April fools trick, did it really not occur to you that the DYK might be a joke? Or did you really think that these ridiculous suggestions were simply a sign of poor editorial control? I know the joke was late, but really, I'm fascinated that experienced editors took seriously any of the three dumb DYK suggestions in the newsletter! They were all complete nonsense!

As the press say, it is easier to state a lie and make it seem like the truth, than to state the truth and make it seem like a lie. You (plural) achieved the latter, and hats off to you: I was deeply impressed. We only achieved the former, but it is also fun to fool the foolers. :-) Geometry guy 20:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confessions: I found it by stalking Raul's edits, and it didn't occur to me that it was April Fools until I read up on it elsewhere. And I'm always multi-tasking :-) Heck, April Fools is ancient history by now !! I would have really enjoyed it if I had come across it differently ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know, it was a shame it got delayed. Anyway, the jokes have been removed now. I found this revealing, however: even though GA has many problems, the presumption that it has problems is not helpful. I know you look to the reviewer when judging GAs, and that is completely sensible. The same spirit applies to the entire GA process. Sometimes it produces good results first time, sometimes it needs more time. Geometry guy 20:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd get along just fine with GA if I didn't have to see editors asking FA to act like GA :-) So, are you divorcing me for my hurried read of the jokes ? <grin> Divorce will cost you big :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a team of heavies who will advise those editors that it is not in their best interests to persuade FA to act like GA (as in "We can guarantee you that not a single armoured division will get done over for fifteen bob a week.") I'm sure they will understand. Geometry guy 21:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geometry Guy, I've read that it is contrary to tradition to make jokes after noon on 1 April; what would making jokes a week later qualify as? I fear that the outcome is both unexpected and probably unfunny—in these cases aborting an operation is probably the way to go, even if that means that an otherwise good joke will be wasted (or simply postponed for next year). Waltham, The Duke of 02:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea: your username is now being aborted until 1 April 2009. Geometry guy 08:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon?! My name is no joke; I even have my own article, Christopher Chandler, 5th Duke of Waltham. It is only B-class, but is well-sourced and has great potentials. I could expand it a lot, but there's always that dreadful COI to consider.

(muttering) Abort my username... Hmph! Disrespectful ignorants... I should use my sword on them, they wouldn't speak without thinking then... Waltham, The Duke of 18:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:-) On my browser, the false title is a bit too high and doesn't completely cover up your user page title: maybe you need to add a disclaimer that "This page is best viewed without using Mozilla Firefox"? Anyway, no disrespect intended — you could always abort your personality instead, but it would be a shame now that it is nearly finished. Geometry guy 18:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That often happens in my talk page. A disclaimer, however, would ruin the image of a perfectly normal article which is supposed to be conveyed to readers. In any case, my personality I can always do without, especially an incomplete one. :-D Waltham, The Duke of 21:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyen Ngoc Tho FAC

Just a status update that I have copyedited it in full and am waiting for Tony to re-check - I have notified him. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Preity Zinta/archive2

Hello dear Sandy!

As you know, I'm enormously impressed with your work on Wikipedia.

You know how my history with the Preity Zinta article has gone. The article is now a GA (as you know, after a GA reassessment). In order to make the planned FAC easier, I thought to take it to PR once again. That's what I did. I would therefore be very grateful if you commented on there once again (if you have something to add:)). Also, I would like to know if there are other experienced editors like yourself, whom I can ask to do so.

Thanks and best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 06:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Shahid; I will try to look tonight. There is a list of people you can invite to the peer review at WP:PRV, and see WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hippie peer review

I'd be happy to start on the citation problem, but I'm a little confused about using Bette Davis as a template. Bette Davis doesn't have an actual notes section (which hippie has mixed in with refs) and Davis uses a "notes" section that isn't notes but actually footnotes. Do you have any objection to me using the Notes/References/Bibliography style instead? Otherwise, what do you recommend that I do with the actual notes in the references section? Take another look to see what I mean. —Viriditas | Talk 07:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just start separating them and if you have further suggestions, I'll implement them as well. —Viriditas | Talk 07:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the problem; the sections as they are work fine. ??? The only difference is in the naming. Bette Davis Notes = Hippie Notes and references. Bette Davis References = Hippie Bibliography. It's just a matter of how they're labeled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll make the preliminary changes in the next 24-48 hours and go from there. Viriditas (talk) 01:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newton FA?

Hello SandyGeorgia. How are you? Please look at the article Isaac Newton. I think the article doesn't meet the featured article criteria. What do you think? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was promoted in 2005 and could probably use a review, but before submitting an article to WP:FAR, it's best to list the deficiencies you see on the talk page and give time for regular editors there to address them, hopefully avoiding FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Che Guevara

Hello, SandyGeorgia. Re proposed changes in citation format at Che Guevara, your comments are welcome at Talk:Che Guevara#Summary of (proposed) changes to citation style. --Coppertwig (talk) 11:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Coppertwig; I've already had one trip to ArbCom with a difficult editor on a difficult FAR and I'm not interested in another. That article is headed for trouble, and the ownership and editing issues there are the worst I've ever seen (as another editor told me, "I'd rather eat powdered glass"). I offered to help once, and my participation wasn't welcome.[3][4] My motivation was to help preserve Zleitzen's efforts, as he was a scholar, but I realized afterwards that the work wasn't largely his anyway, and even the original featured version was deficient. The article needs to be de-featured as soon as possible as one of Wiki's worst examples of instability (and I haven't looked lately, but the POV was pretty serious, too). Hopefully you can clean up that messy system of long explanations in named notes, which only highlight how poorly written the text is. Good luck; you're a brave soul! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article has been more stable over the past couple of weeks. I'm trying to help with some of the other problems you mention. It would be helpful if someone would list specific examples of POV problems in the article. I gather that you would prefer less text in the named notes. Thank you for providing that more specific comment. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you've felt you weren't welcome editing the article, and I encourage you to try again if you're interested. The situation may have changed; and Wikipedia is partly about figuring out how to get along with people who are very different from ourselves in POV, personality type, expectations and preferred styles of interaction. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

quick MOS question

hi - are publications supposed to be wikilinked in the references? I can't find any consistency. thanks Tvoz |talk 16:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some do, but overlinking there can just create a sea of unnecessary blue, so use your discretion ... no one notices or complains one way or another. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And thanks for your clear head on the Obama FAR - the art of compromise and consensus is sorely missing in some quarters, and in the process what was an engaging and well-written article - whether one likes him or not - is being disfigured. This is a biography of the man, not the candidate, but this point appears to be too subtle for some. Eventually the partisans will move on to something else, I imagine. Right now politics is motivating too many, in my opinion. Tvoz |talk 17:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting dicey, though; to salvage the article, the regular editors are going to have to give some ... it's a long ways 'til November, and entrenched positions will only lead to problems. Happy's a good editor; hopefully everyone will work with him, and the handwaving from other quarters will subside. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some longtime regulars are already working with Happy - and I hope reason will prevail. Tvoz |talk 17:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Kemp FAC

Sandy,

I see you seem to be in the middle of processing pass/fails. It looks like Jack Kemp is going to be failed. In the wee hours of this morning I finished responding to two belated discussants with this set of edits. The three opposes were notified of my cleanup in just the last 24 hours. You may have seen the final commentary I posted. I am debating about an immediate restart. Is there any way you could be convinced to let it stay active for 48 more hours?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I just finished archiving/promoting, complicated by an edit conflict caused by a unilateral change to WP:FA in the middle of my work, which involves having seven tabs open at a time. As you've probably noticed in the past, a clean start with a new FAC a week or so later, having addressed all opposers issues, gives the article a much better chance of success at FAC, and lessens the work and pressure for everyone. Archiving a FAC is never a decision I take lightly; I still hate hitting that button and haven't gotten used to it, and I only archive when I'm quite sure it's the best way forward for that article. It could be that someday I'll accidentally hit the wrong button and make a mistake, but until/unless that happens, it's not likely that I will undo an archive, as the decision is one that I never take lightly and is never easy. Good luck with it ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you are advising that I renominate in a week. O.K. I will nominate something else right now and renominate that next.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm advising that you re-nominate when opposers issues are satisfied; could be a few days, could be a month. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Janet Jackson

Ack! Wrong FAC...hold on... BuddingJournalist 22:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to archive Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thriller (album)! My bad. :( BuddingJournalist 22:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Sorry again for messing things up! BuddingJournalist 22:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the instructions. Makes sense that "premature" FACs shouldn't be included in the articlehistory. BuddingJournalist 00:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad something makes sense today :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC subsections

The instructions state: "Please do not split FA candidate pages into subsections using header code, as this causes problems when it is archived (if necessary, use bolded headings)." Well, it only causes problems if the subsections are level 1-3. Level 4+ subsections will not cause any problems. I don't suggest you change the wording, but please tolerate those of us who understand how wikimedia software works. Geometry guy 23:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish that there was a standardised format for FAC reviews. One that everyone could understand. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those instructions are kinda off, aren't they :-) There are much better reasons for not sub-sectioning, but spelling them all out there is another issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allright, that has always bothered me too, so I fixed it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, that's not a fix, it is a removal of justification: I look forward to you providing further explanation, dear :-)

Subsectioning can be very helpful for navigation (and may mean fewer restarts), but I completely understand that it can also be used for marginalization of user comments, or other nefarious purposes. However, if director's nominees can remove entire threads to talk, they can probably cope with badly created subsections :-) Geometry guy 23:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subsections have no affect on the reasons I restart. If you're troubled that I removed a tangent to talk, leaving a link, and if you think it would be helpful for Raul to read all that, I'll gladly bring it back. My interest is that Raul be able to sort through the issue if needed, and that discussion isn't even part of whether the article can be promoted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not troubled at all and agree completely with your decision to move that section to talk. I'm just interested in making it easier for editors to navigate long discussions, and reduce edit conflicts. Subsections help because they provide extra edit links. Geometry guy 00:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TFAR question

Can requests be made for any date within a given month—e.g., ask for the article to be featured "in May" and leave the date at Raul's discretion? I couldn't really find any guidance on this. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't mind someone requested a range of dates, provided they are in the next 30 days. Raul654 (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of questions

Hi, Sandy. Just a couple of questions re. El Señor Presidente...

If we take the images off (I'm actually trying to remove the Arévalo one now, but I dunno if it's wikipedia or a problem my end but it's taking ages) how long do you think it'll be before you can make a decision on the FA promotion?
How long would it take Raul654 to look at the issue? You said a long time... is that hours, days, weeks, months?
Could be take the images off and still ask him to review the question at some point in the future?

--jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NB you may want to take a look at this. :( So kind of relatedly... a fourth question (sorry for being greedy!), if the article passes FA, what would be the best way to request that it goes on the front page as soon as is reasonably possible? The would really make the students' day (week, month... even). --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. That the article is promotable is not in question; the only holdup is the images. Without the image issue, I could promote it now.

2. Raul seems very busy; I can't answer that for him. He could look immediately; or it could take a very long time. I tend to assume worst-case for planning purposes, and so your students won't be disappointed :-) But I haven't even asked Raul to look yet, as I was hoping some consensus would develop.

3. I'm not sure Raul would be interested in weighing in later, and the truth is, we do need to settle it now, because your students have other potential FAs in the pipeline that may have the same issue. This is an issue that goes beyond your classroom, and is a hotly debated area on Wiki; unfortunately, understanding of image policy is a weakness for me. Of course you can always add images back in later if consensus changes, but it's in everyone's interest to get this figured out now.

I'm not sure my answer is any help; I'd best ping Raul on this sooner rather than later. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On your final question, main page scheduling is strictly in Raul's court, there are many articles waiting (some for years), there are many factors Raul has to consider, and there are no guarantees. The process is at WP:TFA/R; Awadewit and Wrad both follow that page and could be helpful there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the swift replies. Yes, we're a little caught between slightly competing imperatives. I understand the importance of settling the issue and establishing precedent. On the other hand, I'm concerned if this final hitch leaves a bad taste in the mouth of the MMM editor who has by some distance put in the most work to date.

NB Raul was pretty much the first person on Wikipedia to express interest in the project. (It's only recently I put two and two together on that.). --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jbmurray, subsequent to my post to Raul, I looked again at the FAC, and it appears you went ahead and removed both of the images of concern. Is that a solution you're all satisfied with? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with it. I don't perceive the need for urgency solving the FU debate "right here, right now". The policy is so reliant on context, I'm not sure the outcome here is even going to be applicable to other articles, to say nothing of the fact that we often have to remind folks to keep FAC comments germane only to the article at hand. Moving the discussion to the talk page will give us a fresh start and, more importantly, give the MMM folks closure. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Raul has spoken. Never mind. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Arévalo pic altogether, as there was certainly consensus about that. I have merely hidden the second book cover. I don't want to pre-empt the discussion if you think that the discussion should continue now. I'm in your hands on this. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, heh, thanks. It's still the 9th, here! :) Also thanks so much for your advice and encouragement with this article as well as with the project as a whole. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 03:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC comments

Argh. I can't figure out what's going on with the Navenby FAC nom. I hesitate to ask you to clean it up, but perhaps a friendly notice to not mix things up that much? Just not my day. The only bright spot was I got to write about unchaste living by clergy, which always makes me smile. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, Ealdgyth; just finishing up the 2000th excitement. Ack, what a mess. I had to step through the diffs, but I think it's only that the nominator added comments above yours, so I'll move them down. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Given my day, I didn't feel up to it. I'm doing routine maintence on my GA articles, making sure they haven't had stuff creep in while I was traveling. Blech, what fun. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weather front FAC

Hi. I see that you removed Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Weather front from the main FAC page, but the discussion hasn't closed or been archived. Is the FAC still active? Thanks, Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FAC/ar for future reference. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. GimmeBot just hadn't gotten around to closing it. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 11:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Field and Company Building FAC sources

Sandy,

Let me know if my dubious ref will pass on this Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marshall Field and Company Building.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if I have none, one or many failing refs. I can't determine if I need to find an alternate source or two or if I need to restart my research. Please advise.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy

Could you take a look at this if you've got 5 - 10 mins of time Sandy? I created it to combine what two different pages said into one, and have received a lot of backlash for it (but some support). It would really be appreciated. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 05:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor has placed two merge tags on the article (to two different locations), has supported merging the content into both (?) and placed a POV tag. Can there be two merge tags to two different locations? Happyme22 (talk) 01:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this charlatan?

[5]!? Please note that, unlike my good friend[6], he didn't get indefinitely blocked for "user impersonation." Is there no justice?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 10:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, there isn't; I think you should consider admin attention and possibly ArbCom for the important issue of fat discrimination. I'm sure The Fat Man can out argue The Thin Man even on a bad day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prague Spring

My unresolved comment is for me an Oppose until fixed, as it seems in my ignorance I've stumbled on something important. --Dweller (talk) 11:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've also asked Raul to watch that nom, you should enter that Oppose then, in case he decides to close it. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing preemie renoms

Hi Sandy, I saw your comments on WT:FAC about potential help fixing premature renominations. I'll be happy to help with this, but you'll have to stop noticing them so quickly! I don't tend to notice which FACs have been withdrawn very often (maybe it just doesn't happen that often?), but I'm willing to learn how to help with that too. Karanacs (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FA-class nomination for 11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment is now open

Sandy, an FA-class nomination for 11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment is now open. I was the principle contributor to this piece and would appreciate your input. Regards, Daysleeper47 (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it can be found here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment --Daysleeper47 (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time frame on references for Hydrogen?

Sandy, How fast does this need to be done? Where do we all communicate about the Hydrogen article? - Doug Youvan (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Navenby

Sorry Sandy - just so keen to carry out the changes! I'll try not to mess things up any more. --seahamlass 23:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gary_King#Oppose

I've responded back at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gary_King#Oppose. Cheers! :D Gary King (talk) 08:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you could respond back so a few things could be cleared up in the RFA? Thanks! Gary King (talk) 09:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not right

I do not disagree with you - but as Brianmc (talk · contribs) stated my main contributions to that Wikinews article in development so far has mainly been minor copy-edits and not content contributions to the article. You should probably message n:User talk:Brianmc instead, he's taking the lead on the content of that article. You'll notice I previously brought your comment to his attention, in a prior FYI post on his talkpage. Cirt (talk) 09:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I'll let Brianmc (talk · contribs) know. I also posted a note of clarification there as well. Personally I don't really care which article is considered "2,000th", and defer to the comments by Raul654 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 09:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notified n:User talk:Brianmc. I understand you may have your own feelings about Wikinews, and may or may not have time, but really we would always love new contributors over there, especially one as experienced as yourself. Sometimes the best way to improve something is to jump in and contribute, and/or comment. Cirt (talk) 09:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Office FAR

I responded to your comments at FARC. Yes, many of us are still working on the article. I do feel a bit of concern at your comments because I've put a lot of energy into fixing what I found when I started a while back. However, I saw from your edits that most of what I did seems to have been necessary; you didn't really change much of what I did except to improve the punctuation and bring it into MoS conformity.

I'd like to hear more from you regarding places where sources were needed or where sources were't reliable. I either sourced or got rid of a great deal of unsourced info that I couldn't find reliable sources for during the edit (mostly done except for uploading a new title screenshot and rewriting the intro so it summarizes the whole article). So naturally if some other editor says these problems still exist, I'd like to know about it (granted, I didn't vet each and every source that was already there). I do take some responsibility for the image layout, since I took three of them last October in Scranton expressly so this article would have some free images ... what issues do you have with it? (I'm actually thinking of getting rid of that cast photo ... it'll cut down on the fair-use images, but more importantly it's out-of-date and really can't be useful at that resolution. Plus it's a distraction at that point). Daniel Case (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's very far from MoS compliant; I only did a few random samples, there's a lot more to do :-) If you're still actively working on it, I'll dig in and help as I have time (which I don't right at this moment :-) You can also ask Epbr123 (talk · contribs) to run through, as he may get there before I do. I'll weigh in on the FAR as soon as I can. For now, I remember seeing blog sources (not just the cast member blogs); check those out for starters. And drop a note to Elcobbola (talk · contribs) asking him to check the images, because I won't declare Keep on that article unless he approves. The problem with image placement was text sandwiched between images (see WP:MOS#Images). And the biggest job needed for now is that citations aren't complete (see WP:CITE/ES, all need publisher, last accessdate, and author publication date when available). More later ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I meant that you brought what you had worked on into conformity, not the whole article.

I know the images you're talking about and frankly that image of the musical notes for the theme music is one I'd just as soon get rid of. I'd rather have a sound file instead.

Will contact the other editors. Daniel Case (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry for replying to the question. Guess i'm cranky after dealing with the GENUKI thing all day. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, a heads up. Going to be out of town Wednesday through the following Monday. However, I should have internet access enough to keep up with things, although perhaps not as fast (or as well typed) as at home. Will be on the laptop at a spiffy hotel in Vegas, watching oil sheikhs show off their high priced horsies! No grooming for me THIS show, I'm going first class. If I don't return it is because some filthy rich man swept me off my feet or something like that... Ealdgyth - Talk 03:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm jealous (not about the filthy old men, about the horses :-) Have fun !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but if he's filthy rich, I can afford more horses....Ealdgyth - Talk 03:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Dear Sandy, thanks for those kind words and the good joke yesterday. You really cheered me up. I'll be back at FAC soon, at the moment I am working on a review of Colin's Ketogenic diet. His biggest problem is his strange spelling:-))). Best wishes, Graham. GrahamColm ^Talk 15:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops!

Thanks for correcting my improperly placed "support" for the Bezhin Meadows FAC, I'll be more attentive to that in the future. I wasn't entirely sure if I should be formally supporting a candidate article in which I took such an active role. Since copy editing is one of my preferred activities here, I suspect I'm going to run into this situation again, so I'd appreciate if you could let me know the general thoughts on this. Feel free to let me know if I get to be annoying! Best, Risker (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do wish people would put their bolded comments first per the instructions :-) I read the full FACs regularly, but when I read through on my final pass before pusing the buttons, it's reassuring to know I didn't miss one. I don't consider someone who copyedited during FAC to be a "partisan voter" :-) You have high contribs because of the ce, but clearly aren't the principle contributor. The opinion of a person who has been immersed in the text is valuable, as long as you declare that you were the copyeditor (and then I go check your contribs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, this is a good point about copy-editing, and prompted me to clarify something in the instructions. Is it OK? [7]. Tony (talk) 03:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

n:Wikinews:Water cooler/miscellaneous

I think it is like anything else, it can vary, but Wikinews is only as good as its contributors, obviously. As far as being "Wikipedia's Watchdog", I have no idea on that one but I'd have to say that is not an applicable term. And as far as that particular discussion, (you appear to be referring to n:Wikinews:Water_cooler/miscellaneous#Wikipedia_Review_Discussion) - well it looks like David Shankbone (talk · contribs) was the one that brought up this idea of "watchdog", so he'd probably be the one to ask more about that. But again, I am just one individual, I'd encourage you if you have feelings about this to create an account at Wikinews - if not to spend lots of time writing stories than at least to contribute a comment here or there in those sorts of discussions. Cirt (talk) 01:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is an interesting idea, however. I mean what they are basically asking themselves in that thread is sort of like: "How does CNN report on news related to Time Warner, or NBC on news related to General Electric?" Cirt (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbify?=

That's worse than a redlink - it's a promise without a reward. Yomangani ^talk 01:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

Quote from WP:WIAGA

It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it: (a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;[2] (b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;

I think that the sources thing should be undertaken at GAC, not FAC. I'm struggling to work out how many articles passed GA despite not having reliable sources. RS are not checked at GAC, and it really should be. It shouldn't be discussed at FAC IMO. D.M.N. (talk) 09:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, one, not everyone checks sources at GAN. (I do, but I don't do all that many reviews); two, FAC has the same requirement in its criteria; and three, not every article goes through GAN and/or PR before going to FAC. The article I just took through FAC didn't go through GA, although I take a lot of articles through GAN. Unlike Sandy, I don't mind GAN, but it's a totally different system and while it could use some improvement, it's what it is, and we have to work with what we have. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "sources thing" has to be checked at FAC, whether or not it's part of GAC, as it's one of the FA criteria. Even if an article had gone through GAC, which many don't, anything might have happened to it in the meantime. Sources may not receive the same level of scrutiny at GAC as they do at FAC, but to claim that they're not checked at all is very far from the truth. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Israeli Barnstar of National Merit
		In recognition of your tireless contributions especially to the Tel Aviv FAC. Thank you Flymeoutofhere (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
		_{this WikiAward was given to SandyGeorgia by Flymeoutofhere (talk) on 12:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

Diplomacy skills

Lol! I'll see what I can do :))) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I should have waited for the coffee to kick in; I'd only been up about half an hour. (Gruesome gray London dawn.) I've emphasised the missing steps here. Please add any comments you think apposite :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, revised again. This has the makings of a "how to" :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best then surely to have it as a /Withdrawn (or /whatever) hanging off your user space so it can be transclude? Then it's always up to date? I hate having bits scattered around because it takes ages to find them :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure if you hit the roof if the wrong people do it the message will very quickly sink in. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page has been sorted (the strange withdrawn was not of my doing). You must have been looking at it while I was fiddling with its innards :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Chuckle!] I've done the opposed one. That was so easy I've probably done it wrong :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted, I think. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see you're responsible for the edit conflict at 00:23 this morning. I just went to bed, to deal with it later and see the malformed one has been removed :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in this.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal question

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Navenby has a withdrawal request from the nominator. I'm happy to do the withdrawal "paperwork", but given the addition of this comment after the request, I'm not sure whether the nominator might just need a pep talk to see it through? Thoughts? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 22:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed and thought I'd wait a day to see if it works out. I saw a comment somewhere else that the editor preferred the GA version and wasn't happy about changes requested at FAC; may feel differently in a day or so, in case anyone wants to give a pep talk. I'm not withdrawing in a hurry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I'm optimistic that the nominator will reconsider and stick with this FAC. I bloody well hope so anyway, after all the work (s)he persuaded me to do earlier today. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sitting on it Sandy, I appreciate it. I have just withdrawn the withdrawal - couldn't let all User:Malleus Fatuarum's hard work go to waste - nor the work of other editors. Have slashed and burned the pics etc, as suggested. (Sob). Only half the article it once was - guess it looks more encyclopedic, rather than picture book now though.--seahamlass 11:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Labyrinth

As you noticed yesterday, it's not perfectly ready. FAC is not supposed to be a peer review, I know: but I think with all the people attending to that one and wishing it well, it should wrestle its way to a star eventually. I'm conscious that the students have finished their course and that continuing to prepare for FAC ad infinitum might lead to a fizzling out and Wikipedia's loss of a potential FAC. qp10qp (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will be patient :-) I just left a note on the article talk page ... I didn't get to check yet if you got to my inline comments about places where the plot was vague. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the plot bit for a while. I'm beat for the day, now. I'm sure we won't ignore your suggestions. Thanks for your help. qp10qp (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Size of FAs.

Is there a lower limit? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No; has to be comprehensive. See here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I asked for a reason. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New York State Route 174 where I'm getting not quite flak, just stiffness on putting in information on stuff not directly connected to the road. And some jargon issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Standards; FAC isn't responsible if Project guidelines aren't comprehensive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, that's not part of MoS; Wikipedia:Manual of Style (U.S. state and territory highways) is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ridge Route is good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bezhin Meadow

Thanks for your help on the article, Sandy. Seriously appreciated. Lawrence § t/e 04:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure; congratulations !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General at FAC

I am sure you are aware, but I thought it was noting anyhow... that the person who put in a super-speedy "oppose" to The General in His Labyrinth, and who has meanwhile decided to question my own support comment, is also someone who has had issues with both myself and Awadewit here. In my case, those issues spilled over to my talk page, Wassupwestcoast's talk page, and the user's own talk page (since deleted: see the section "What basta means").

Given the circumstances, my suggestion is that I will recuse myself from responding to this user's comments at FAC. I hope that that's OK. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 06:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't miss much on the FA pages, jb; I was tempted to weigh in with a translation of basta, but decided best not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I figured, but thought I'd say something in any case. Thanks! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 06:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jmurray, I've already been beaten up by the same nominator on my talk page. You're in company. Tony (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA...

Thank you...

...for your participation in my RFA, which closed with 85 supports, 2 neutrals and 1 oppose. I'm extremely grateful for all the the kind comments from so many brilliant Wikipedians I've come to respect and admire, as well as many others I've not yet had the pleasure of working with, and I'll do my best to put my shiny new mop and bucket to good use! Once again, thank you... and you win the award (when I've found it) for the most alliterative comment I've seen on an RfA ;)
EyeSerene^talk 16:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dispatch

Yeah, tomorrow morning. I've got till 15 May, fortunately. Tony (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of Talyllyn Railway FAC

My mistake - I misread the times and thought you'd removed it because the bot had closed it rather than the other way round. But the question remains: Why did you close it? There was one objection, requesting a number of changes (see archive). Some of which were done, one was an outstanding query awaiting feedback from that user, and I had passed on printed copies to a couple of independent (off wiki) reviewers who are reading it and making comments. This obviously takes time, and I was not aware that there were any timescales involved. My apologies if I've misunderstood the process (this is the first FA I've dealt with), so could you advise me (and the other editors who've worked hard on this article) where we should go next? — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 17:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy SHOULD be doing her US Income taxes (deadline is tomorrow, so it's kinda important) so I'll try to fill in. Probably the best next step is Wikipedia:Peer Review as well as taking in whatever objections were still outstanding on the FAC page when it was closed. After you've dealt with them, contact the opposers and check that all of their concerns are addressed, as well as any that arise with PR, you would normally renominate for FA. If you'd like, before you do that, drop a note on my talk page and I'll be happy to read it over and double check things. I'm not the greatest copyeditor, but I can usually spot serious issues. FAC is stressful, and I'd like for your second nom to have a better outcome! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taxes!

Get thee hence and complete thy taxes! Shoo! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for a phone call ... two late accountants, and one erroneous 1098. On hold. <grrrr ... > SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh—Tax Day is coming up here as well <sweats> :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NB

On similar lines, there's something here that concerns me a little. You can perhaps guess what it is. Again, I'm a little torn at what is no doubt a clash between cultures and expectations. Or put it this way: WP:MMM has tried hard not to ask for any favours (though we grateful acknowledge that we've received many). But hopefully that's a bridge we can cross when we get to it. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ... I had concerns about nuances and issues from the beginning ... it's more complex than it perhaps looked initially ... a bit tricky on everyone involved. Unfortunately, because it's a Wiki, you just never know what may happen; not easy. We should talk in more detail after all the FACs are through; I'm sure there will be a post-mortem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, indeed. I look forward to the post-mortem. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar of Mayhem!

		Barnstar of Murder, Madness, and Mayhem
		On behalf of Murder, Madness, and Mayhem, this barnstar is to thank you for your hard work and patience in motivating, mentoring, and moulding the work of student editors, and helping them to achieve excellence in research and writing. For all your hard work, here and generally at WP:FAC, but especially perhaps now for your homesick moment at a taxing time. Thank you so much! For the entire class of UBC's SPAN312. --00:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

was trying...

...to help. :( --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

restart

Thanks for the clarification, and for moderating. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 04:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]