User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch30

Miss Hogg photo

Dare I say this... Ima Hogg is sort of hot[1]! I just finished composing a polite, vaguely slick and somewhat professional sounding email to several contacts at the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston (including the people at the former Hogg home, Bayou Bend) inquiring about the origins and copyright status of the photo. It's Saturday now, but hopefully someone from the museum will reply to me by early next week, if only to tell me to sod off. If I find the information I need, I'll formally ask for licensing permission. It's very possible that the photo is in the public domain; I'll let you know what I find out. Cheers, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're the best; would it help to get Raul involved to make it happen faster? Also, on the talk page, there's some other sites that have a whole ton of other images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I heard back from a lady at the museum today. She forwarded me the phone number and contact info of the museum's "Rights and Reporoductions" department. Maybe a very experienced Wikipedian like you or Raul should give them a call. Shall I forward you the info?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She also sent me a link to their general reproduction policies. The "Fair Use Permitted" section might be relevant here...--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.mfah.org/policies.asp

I wouldn't know what to do with it if you sent it to me, since I'm a wreck on images; sending it to me would just slow things down. Raul654 (talk · contribs) has gotten very active on images lately, and he can probably expedite. Would you mind summarizing to him on his talk page, and asking if he can help expedite? Alternately, if Raul can't move on it, perhaps Elcobbola (talk · contribs) will know what to do; Elcobbola follows my talk page, so he may weigh in before we have to bother Raul. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. For now, I've dropped a note on Elcobbola's talk page.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I’ve always considered a case for fair use of this and the existing image to be valid. The only hang up was NFCC#1, which requires “no free equivalent is available, or could be created”. Unless you have a shovel, “could be created” is out, so the question seems to be how strict one wants to be in analyzing availability. It appears that reasonable efforts have been made to locate free alternatives and have been unsuccessful (impairment has been lack of author/publishing info.) That being the case, I’m satisfied that the FU criteria are met and that either the … ahem … “push up” or existing image could be appropriately used with a FU license. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images give me a headache. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just be glad you don't have to read Title 17. Bad pie. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have happy news. An archivist from the MFAH emailed me today to say that this image is in the public domain. She also made an offer to assist us in researching the article. I forwarded the email to you--and I'm sending Elcobbola a message as well. Perhaps s/he can advise how to upload with the proper tags.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You 'da man !! (Well, you and elcobbola, but he wears stilettos to work :-) Can you drop the good news on the Ima Hogg talk page ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done[2].--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work, indeed. I'll get the image uploaded to the commons (although I'm going to have to make a brand-spankin' new PD license template; I scoured, but apparently no one has utilized an image with the particular PD criterion I have in mind before). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 23:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FA?

Are we ready to nominate Ima Hogg for a FA? Corvus cornix_talk 16:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not even close; Karanacs has been working mostly alone, there is a lot of content on the talk page that needs to be included, and she mentioned on the talk page that she had started a sandbox of her notes as she read, but she needs other people to work the text in. Also, images still pending. Others need to dig and help Karanacs, as she's reading the sources and trying to add the material at the same time; she's been doing a lot of it on her own. Once she gets everything in, it may need to be massaged for final flow, so a FAC nom this week is probably premature, unless a lot happens really fast. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I hadn't seen the comment about the sandbox. I'll take a look at that and try to incorporate it. There are images of Ima when she was young which are probably out of copyright, but we don't know who the photographer was, so we can't really say when they died. I'm going to go over to the Houston Portal and ask if anybody can get some photos of Bayou Bend. Corvus cornix_talk 17:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we assume that http://www.cah.utexas.edu/exhibits/WinedaleStory/blue1/blue1b.html is out of copyright? Corvus cornix_talk 18:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak images, can you run it by Elcobbola (talk · contribs) (including the page where you found it). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ima Hogg

I don't know what happened here. I meant to add the Dallas Morning News source, but I don't know how the other bit got jumbled up there. I fixed this and the book referencing as well. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 18:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind if I try re-writing the lead? If it's not up to snuff, we can let The Fat Man Who Never Came Back give it a whack. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 21:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I will do it today or tomorrow. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 17:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There. I have a history of writing lengthy leads, so you might want to consider trimming it. I also picked up Bernhard's bio from the uni library today. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 20:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maria de Lujan Telpuk

I see you made several edit to Maletinazo and thought you might want to contribute to Maria de Lujan Telpuk before it appears on the main page as part of WP:DYK.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had hoped to see you add some of the spanish sources that you did here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find anything in the reliable Spanish-language publications about her; in fact, I had never heard of her. I'm also not enthralled with the idea of writing about an Argentine Playboy model ... maybe if she were Venezuelan, I could manage it :-) If you have any Spanish-language source you want me to look at, pass them over and I'll try to add something, but if I had my druthers, she'd be AfD'd as completely consequential to the event :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RCC FAC

I tried to resist replying, but gave in eventually. I think my responses don't detract from readability, but if you think they do, I give you carte blanche to do as much radical cutting/moving as you think necessary.

Thank you for all your hard work. Relata refero (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That thing is a monster. I have my opinions on the article, but I just don't have the energy to wade in and deal with the whole situation. I don't need another editor after my blood (I have the fall out from the whole Franco-Mongol alliance Arb-Com to deal with still). If it's still hanging around FAC when I get back from the horse show, I might wade in. And kudos to the folks still sticking in there... I'm impressed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy the horse show; herding cattle vs. herding cats :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cite templates

As I understand Wikipedia:Citation templates, the publication date is bracketed but not the accessdate, right? Thanks, Amerique^dialectics 23:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to tell, because every type of cite template is different, and they keep fiddling with them. Point being, look at the bottom of the article and you can see when errors are occurring. I may have gotten them all, not sure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy,

I don't know what happened, bu the reflist at UCR seems to be broken. I first noticed the issue after I added some citations today and found that clicking the in-text cite link redirects to another references in the reflist rather than the numbered one. Cites 80, 105 and 106 were giving me this problem specifically, but I've found others since then. I went back into article history and determined that this problem didn't exist before the {{Citation}} templates were replaced with citet tags. I don't know what to do short of re-replacing all the citet templates with citations. Amerique^dialectics 21:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking now ... the unnecessarily long and complicated ref name tags don't make it easy. Give me time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started a thread on the issue here:Wikipedia:Help_desk#problems_with_reflist._citations_at_University_of_California.2C_Riverside (sorry for non-MOS formatting;-) Some suggestions have trickled in. Amerique^dialectics 21:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to go off-line. Thanks for helping. Will try to work on this tomorrow. Amerique^dialectics 21:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I pinged Gimmetrow; he'll know what it is.[3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UCR - maybe it was me :)

I messed with the UCR article for awhile, I finally copied the whole thing into my Sandybox :) and it worked fine, so I went back and added the ?action=purge, then went to, umm, brush my teeth, tried again & it was OK. Checked at VPT and Steve Sanbeg has already said it's OK now and recommended the exact thing I'd tried. I don't have the exact timeline but I wish to stake my claim for credit ;) And yes, that ?action=purge helps a lot of things, it re-indexes the wiki search engine, updates images, all kinds of stuff. I'm gonna ask in a squeaky little voice "I think I fixed it, mayn't I have a cookie?" :) Franamax (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You want a cookie after you brushed your teeth? Has your mother not spoken to you about that? ;) Risker (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's wonderfully kind of you, Franamax; I hope when Amerique checks back in here tomorrow, s/he will give you that cookie, since you solved his/her problem !! I simply don't have time to go over there and look, but if you say it's fixed, I take your word for it. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c oh how I hate that:) Risker - Yeah she has, but that's why every time I go shopping now I stand on the cart and go whipping down the aisles riding it. I have really serious problems with authority. SG - In any case, I see now that AWeenieMan did a major cleanup on the UCR references in-among my actions, so I guess I'll have to give him what's left of the cookie... Franamax (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any indication there of anything anyone did that fixed it, so it's all a mystery to me. I'm glad it's solved; it's not what I need on my plate at this particular moment, but I felt obligated to help since the article is at FAC. Whatever you all did, I'm glad it's fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all, for helping me out on that. I thought I had broken the thing somehow. Amerique^dialectics 20:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the further learning department..

You said on the University of California, Riverside article (in an edit summary) "this incorrect date linking *still* needs to be fixed throughout, scroll to the bottom of the page and see the errors caused" .. Do I need to edit the page to see these errors? What exactly am I looking for? (In other words, I'm not seeing anything...) The clueless one...Ealdgyth - Talk 23:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed them all, so you can't see them now , but they had done this:

[[2008]]-[[03-04]]

which was coming out looking like this:

[[March 4]] [[2008]]

when it should look like this:

2008-03-04

If you looked through the citations at the bottom you could see that, although if you have your user prefs set different than mine, you might not have seen it the way I did. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. That's probably it. I have mine set to show day-month-year (it's what I had drilled into me as I was training as a historian) so that's probably it. I don't think I'll be able to catch that one for you, sorry. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never before encoutered that particularly odd way of (mis)formatting dates, so I don't think we need to worry about it. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't happy with the color either, but I was trying to make my stuff look different than yours so you could distinguish easily. Suddenly I though "Gray!" (the other color, yellow, was going to be just as bad) No problems!Ealdgyth - Talk 00:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I think I got them all. I don't see any other issues in the references, they all look fine to me, but I also wouldn't have noticed that issue in the first place. Best, Amerique^dialectics 01:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elderly

Well, this has turned out to be a fine mess. It's probably good for me to know how the nominators feel. :) --Laser brain (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was just looking at that and pondering the best course of action. It would be best if an uninvolved (that is, not you, not me) party would drop him a note and explain why he's off-base and how to cap comments. It's best for a third party to do that. It's probably better if you try not to engage invalid commentary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'll probably choose a... less commercial topic as my next target. --Laser brain (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully someone will drop him a note; in general, it would be helpful if the FAC community would help manage some of the invalid opposes, premature supports and any other issues at FAC, so I can remain neutral and not get into any tangles on FACs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would, but I'm err... still tying up Franco-Mongol stuff. And I stepped into the RCC FAC again (I couldn't help myself! Bainton's OLD!). I wanted to review the Elderly Instruments article myself, but got bogged down with the 8/9/10 or so FACs that started, so I didn't get a chance. It looked good though Laser Brain! Ealdgyth - Talk 03:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, Ealdgyth; not sure how you're doing all you're doing! Unless someone else drops a note to that editor by tomorrow, I'll do it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a summary of the FAC process [4] on his talk page. Hopefully that will help. Karanacs (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Karanacs; very nice, and hopefully will help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might try to incorporate that into some of the guidelines, that was very well written and gentle but helpful for new reviewers. Me, I'd save it somewhere in my userspace to copy/paste if I needed it again (but i'm lazy and do that a lot) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to see the instructions become too complex/overwhelming (not WP:FA and WP:PR) just to account for the rare exceptions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look

Hi Sandy. I am gearing up for "Irreplaceable"'s FAC. Do you have free time to take a look on the article if there are any problems and/or issues? Thanks in advance. --Efe (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the peer review, and I see that Lucifer and M3tal were there; if you've satisfied them, you should be FAC ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They do not answer directly. Anyway, thanks for the reply. If they'll have no objections anymore, I'll proceed then. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 06:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources at RCC FAC

I don't know if you can do this, but I would appreciate other opinions regarding some source issues I have raised at the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 05:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't go there; just keeping the FAC on track is a full-time effort anyway :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I'll try to find other cool heads. Awadewit (talk) 05:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Church

Hi Sandy, I saw your comment on the FAC page about not being able to find the issue about capitalization. This is the comment I copied and pasted from the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami FAC page - It was Karanacs comment. The Miami FAC is here: [[5]]

"diocese and archdiocese should not be capitalized unless referring to a specific one (see first sentence of history section). Not done. Karanacs 13:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC) OK now it is done, sorry I missed all the dioceses thanks for following through.NancyHeise 18:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC"

I'm out

This new generation of Wikipedia editors is full of egotistical wikilawyers who have no concept of two things: a.) realism and b.) history. It's come to the point where their lack of common sense, maturity, and respect has driven me away from the project. Just reading the crap across the Wikipedia, as well as my own experiences, has turned me off from this project more than any vandal could ever do. 70.188.165.96 (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darn it. I just saw that, and I'll miss you. Please e-mail me anytime. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a slow death. I guess my recent minisurge of activity was just my last gasp. My Wikipedia character died a fairly lonely death, but alas, that is the nature of this cyclical beast. 70.188.165.96 (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could sense that your heart didn't seem to be in it; I wish we/I could have done something differently. Have some fun in real life; things may change ... the weather is starting to turn :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oba-mania/phobia hits Wikipedia

It's become pretty frenzied over at Barack Obama these days, especially now that the cat's out of the bag that the article has become one of Wikipedia's most popular. It would be easy to remove excesses and restore FA quality, but it wouldn't last more than a few minutes under these conditions. Would it be useful to poll other FA reviewers for their advice on this? Or is it better to just relax and enjoy the show taking comfort in your advice that the article's long-standing FA rating can't come unstuck so easily? I've been hanging out more on the article's talk page. That's a change of approach for me after a year and a half of hands-on editing, but moderating discussion and steering consensus is no less challenging and can be just as fun. --HailFire (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You already know the answer to that :-) If it comes to FAR, it will be there for about six weeks, and by then, this will have blown over. But you could ask Marskell (talk · contribs)'s opinion. FAR does not solve transitory issues :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry to keep pestering you, but I'm running out of ideas. How to deal with stuff like this? --HailFire (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go have a look now, but general question: considering all the recent news, do you need or have you posted somewhere asking for general help on the article? For example, at ANI or the BLP noticeboards? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I looked at the talk page. First, considering all the recent news, it's not as bad as it could be :-) Looks manageable. Second, the current readable prose size is 41KB, which is reasonable, and the article could even grow a bit if needed, so I'm not sure more needs to be moved to daughter articles. On the other hand, WTR's arguments against summarizing content to daughter articles hasn't convinced me (he used same argument at McCain, and I believe we have to remember we're writing an encyclopedia, not a book, and we have to keep article size within reason -- it's "not our job" to worry about click through). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try your suggestions. But it's this element that has me really worried. If the FAR process means nothing to an editor, just where does that leave our community? I mean, what choices are left when an editor states stuff like Time to stop leaning on the FA broken reed. It's well established that it's bogus, but to open another FAR? Would you forgive me for going that route? I don't see how else such extreme levels of disregard for our established processes can be addressed. --HailFire (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC and FAR are community processes; they are only as good as the input the community provides (just like the rest of Wiki). Of course you can initiate a FAR anytime you want, but I'm of the opinion that it won't solve the issues there. What you really want are more eyes on the article during the election, and I think there must be better ways to achieve that. A well-written, well-cited article is not de-featured because of minor disagreements that will inevitably arise during the election. You can open a FAR, but I'm concerned it won't generate the help you need. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly think all we need are some FA quality control experts to reconfirm that the article isn't total crap. It worked the last time. There really is only one editor now editing the article who is hellbent on ignoring consensus and getting his own way at all costs. Nobody else comes close, not even me. <joke!> I think FAR can help, and perhaps a high visibility article like this one (the most read article on Wikipedia according to compete.com), requires a FAR every 6 months? --HailFire (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's your only goal, a FAR could work, but it could be there for as long as six weeks; seems like overkill for dealing with one editor, so make sure that's what you want. Try to remember that the fun has only just begun; we're not even close to November. Are you sure things are bad enough for a FAR now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the previous FAR lasted three weeks, and the article's content hasn't changed much since, except for some very recent and excessively detailed additions that (to me, at least) aren't very subtle in their purpose of frightening white people. It's seems a shame to see so many long hours of consensus building getting torched when lots of people are visiting and probably judging the quality and potential of Wikipedia generally by what they find in this article. I'll sleep on it. Thanks again for listening. --HailFire (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The previous FAR lasted only three weeks because 1) it was nommed by a sockmaster, and 2) the article wasn't attracting as much attention then. Pls remember that FAR is not dispute resolution, and doesn't work well as dispute resolution. There are other venues for addressing the issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The situation appears much improved following some radical surgery by another editor. Perhaps this was my biggest stumbling block--having been such an active participant in developing the article over the last year and a half, the prospect of starting over a key section seemed more like amputating a limb than getting a badly needed haircut. Actually, the reality was probably somewhere in between, but the end result after a very short interval is a substantial improvement over what was there early yesterday. Thank you, as always, for your expert guidance and calming influence. --HailFire (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA thanks

		Thanks for the support
		Thanks for your support on my request for adminship, which passed 92/2/2. Though I have the mop now, you'll still be seeing plenty of me around, as I intend to reach #1 on WP:WBFAN. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, while I'm here, I notice Effects of Hurricane Ivan in the Lesser Antilles and South America was put on the urgent FAC list. Is the FAC on hold until there are more reviews, or are you just giving it more time? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hink, I'm hoping for a review from an experienced reviewer, just to solidify the support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS, don't look now, but you're already No. 1 at WBFAN :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. Oh, and I know I've been the unofficial #1 person at WBFAN. I just would like to see it official, meaning reaching FA #59 :) ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I asked three people for their opinions. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That works. I asked two people from that list. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC, Sources, and you (otherwise known as the part where the beautimus damsel rides off into the sunset for a bit)

Okies, I think everything that's been addressed by nominators/editors on the FAC page is either struck out or been queried. You may assume that if i have capped something but left stuff out, I'm not yet convinced, except for the Rokeby Venus where it's a support vote even though they are sorting out the quotations. Anything from now on, I'll try to deal with while I'm on the road. If not, that's why I left "comments" and not "support/opposes" (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 02:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I hope you have a great time, but I really hope you're back soon !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah. If something gets dealt with and resolved and I've not struck it yet, I trust you to know that I'd prefer that the article goes ahead and gets promoted without the formality of me striking. Or in other words, I trust you to interpret my meaning of my concern. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks; now go have fun !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Readable Prose

Sandy, is readable prose something you calculate yourself or is there a place to click on the page and just see the number already calculated?NancyHeise (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's explained at WP:SIZE; have you read the page? It tells you how to calculate it manually, or you can go to Dr pda (talk · contribs)'s userpage, where he lists the prose size script that you can install to your monobook. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cannon

No, I'm nearly done with the section on modern artillery now, and I'll take care of the lead in a few hours (unless someone has done it by then). Maybe taking it off WP:FAC until then would be better. · AndonicO ^Hail! 13:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that already. Cheers, · AndonicO ^Hail! 14:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. · AndonicO ^Hail! 14:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The General in His Labyrinth

Hi Sandy, and thanks for looking at the refs. Some of them may be incomplete, and at least one looks suspect, but if anyone can get them sorted it's you ;) EyeSerene^talk 20:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't trouble with that article again. The inuse template has a purpose -- so an editor won't lose a lot of work to edit conflicts. I let Wassup know before I put the article in use, he still persisted, I lost my work, I got tangled in numerous conflicts, and I'm not even sure the refs care correct now. Over and out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate everyone decided to jump in at the same time. I honestly believe it was a genuine misunderstanding though; you're both excellent editors and I can't believe there was any slight intended. Thank you for your help all the same; your time is much appreciated. Best regards, EyeSerene^talk 21:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, ES; I just get really frustrated when that happens. I'll get over it. Eventually :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell - we've all been there ;) It's only Wikipedia... have one on me.

EyeSerene^talk 21:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm totally confused. I mean, surely, we're not expecting the inuse template to stop people from editing in the midst of heavy flow? Marskell (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not in this case, even when someone just wants to help out with some quick cleanup. :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sandy. I just got out of class with all of the fellow members of the WP:MMM project. I was very sorry to see all the confusion that had taken place, ironically at the same time as we were discussing the novel itself in class. I can quite understand your frustration and disappointment. I do hope that you don't tar the whole of WP:MMM with the same brush. I can tell you that our student editors, though as novices they of course do make the odd mistake, are astonishingly appreciative of what you and everyone at the WP:FAT have been doing. We are deeply in your debt. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 21:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, just a quick question... I noticed at some point that you'd mentioned that there were lost of violations of one particular MOS rule on The General in His Labyrinth. I thought I'd find where you said that and look up the rules and try to put things right. I'd vaguely remembered you'd mentioned WP:MOSBLOCK, but that can't be right. But the conversation got so dispersed earlier today I can't find where you said this. Can you point me in the right direction? (NB I think I've pretty much got the references under control there. Though I think the point is going to be to reduce the reliance on quoting the book, and that in part by reducing the large number of minor characters named and described. But that's for a little further on.) Many thanks. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

No, I didn't see it. I just saw Wassup's last edit. There's a lot of new editors on this articles, so I'd edit in small chunks. Marskell (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes!

Sorry! I just realized what I've done. I'll clean up the mess. Cheer! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a half hour to repair what I messed up. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I totally apologize. This whole mess is a complete misunderstanding. Seriously. Totally apologize. When you wrote to me:

"I can't bear to look at the failure there to use named refs; are you working in there now, or can I put it in use to clean up the refs?"

I thought you put the {{inuse}} tag for me ...as I said I would work on the reference name problem. This is obviously self-centered of me ...I didn't mean to be rude at all. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your hard work will be replaced!. I know it doesn't help but this sort of thing has happened to me too. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The General in His Labyrinth

I believe I've recovered your effort and did further copy editing at The General in His Labyrinth. The ref name problem is more or less resolved. Please, don't say 'never again' with this article. I only started to edit this article today. The regular contributors shouldn't lose the experience of someone like yourself just 'cause I blundered through. I'll remove myself from editing the page from now on. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what goes-around-comes-around. All my editing work on the page has been undone. All of mine and your careful edits of ref names: Gone. At this juncture, you're allowed a bit of schadenfreude on my part. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS needs work

I finally got around to modifying AIDS#Epidemiology (and the epidemiology part of AIDS's lead) up to a state where the stuff that was wrong has been either fixed or moved to another (more-appropriate) section. A lot of problems, remain, though:

AIDS#Epidemiology doesn't cover a lot of topics that it should, including changes with time, risk factors, and comorbid conditions.
The brief part of the other sections that I read carefully also seem to have a lot of problems. Much of the material is outdated or repetitive. For example, until I just now fixed it, AIDS#Prognosis did not even mention basic details like mean survival time after infection. I have the vague sense that this article hasn't seen careful attention in some time.
HIV seems to be a fork of AIDS; what's up with that? For example, HIV#Epidemiology appears to be a copy of an older (and buggier) version of AIDS#Epidemiology.

From what I've seen, AIDS is no longer of featured-article quality, alas, and it'll take quite some work to fix it. Eubulides (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am too busy to start a FAR on AIDS right now, but it's ripe for FAR if someone else has the time. I did put in an "oppose" for HIV, based only on a review of HIV#Epidemiology; thanks for mentioning that. Eubulides (talk) 08:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to volunteer to FAR it. I've been working on the article with others, but it needs some clean up. If may opine, did it get to this state because our standards for FA have increased over the years, or because it wasn't carefully watched and a lot of cruft crept in? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both. Here's the featured version; five-second flyover shows multiple MoS breaches (check out WP:MSH), loads of uncited text, and a massive external link farm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

maletinazo

will do thanks for the tip. I do not have a citation at the moment just a source. Will wait for that citation to reveal the rest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angeluz222 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Ima

Sorry about that!! I saw that you were doing ref cleanup and hoped that if I worked on one paragraph at a time there wouldn't be big issues. I have a few non-Wiki things I have to take care of now, so I'll be out of the article for at least a few hours. Have fun! Karanacs (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good! My prose is awful, especially in the first draft. Karanacs (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've kept my nose to the grindstone, and I think I've got the bulk of the information out of my notes and into complete sentences in the article. The sentences, however, are probably awful. I'll log on as much as I can this weekend to try to massage it, but any help that you can find is greatly appreciated :) Karanacs (talk) 02:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Giants: Citizen Kabuto

Just saw your articlestats note. I had previously posted this - should I put something like that out of order at the top, in the future? Maralia (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should be up top when there are differences like this, and stats should be updated when the FAC is close to closing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. What's the idea behind updating stats near closing? Although in this case it's obviously demonstrating that the nominator did nothing, I've not heard of updating stats once a nomination has begun. Maralia (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes that stats change dramatically during the nomination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS

AIDS has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I'm supposed to state that I notified everyone? I'm an FAR-virgin, so please forgive me. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Komodo dragon

I know you're busy, but might I ask that you read the aforementioned article, which I have been working on and give me some feedback? I think it's pretty much ready for FA, but I'm very cautious. bibliomaniac 15 Midway upon life's journey... 02:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing publishers on many sources so I can't evaluate reliability of sources, punctuation problems on image captions per WP:MOS#Captions, WP:DASH vs. WP:HYPHEN issues throughout (example: ... In June 2001, a dragon seriously injured Phil Bronstein -- executive editor of the San Francisco Chronicle and then-husband of film actress Sharon Stone -- when he entered ... and Megalania prisca - A huge extinct Varanid lizard), endash issues on page ranges in citations (ask Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to run his script), more endash problems in the text (example: ... There are approximately 4,000-5,000 living ... ), I didn't check the prose because your prose is better than mine :-) Maybe you can ask MikeSearson to read through it, since you did Blue Iguana? Biggest problem is your citations are not complete: see WP:CITE/ES. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE Operation Igloo White

The following is the answer given last year to another editor wishing to push an article of mine to FA:

The answer is emphatically no (see my comment on my user page). Have had two articles pushed up the FA ladder by other editors, neither of which made it because: the prose was not up to the editor's opinion of "excellent", they were too long and too detailed (and, therefore, should be split or shortened), they were not geared for the "average" reader, blah, blah, blah. I won't waste my time on rewriting an A-Class article to suit them. That's not what I'm doing this for. I have better things to waste my time on, like writing new articles. I don't have an opinion on the process because I refuse to participate in it, all I can say is that it seems too much like "ticket punching" and ego stroking. RM Gillespie (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC status

Sandy, just wanted to let you know that I may be another day or so responding to comments on the Æthelred of Mercia FAC. I have been incredibly busy at work and am traveling today; I may get to it tonight but it might be Friday or Saturday. It does have three supports and no opposes so I am not too worried about it, but two of the supports have made good comments that I will be addressing. I don't know if you'll promote or wait, but either way I wanted to let you know I'm not ignoring the comments, I just can't get to them for a day or so. Mike Christie (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about link

A while ago you provided a link to a page where, if you filled in the article name, you could retreive the number of edits each editor had made to the article since it's inception. I copied that link but now it does not work. Could you provide that link again? Thanks! Mattisse (Talk) 17:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the infobox on my user page, called article stats. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It doesn't work when I move it to my page. I'll try again -- or maybe it immovable! Mattisse (Talk) 05:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I thread regarding your work on Autism Speaks

I think you're the nicest "wikipedia troll" I have met so far. Have a nice day! Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't even live under a bridge :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not with that attitude... ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saving diffs here about ongoing personal attacks on me at AN/I:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive390#Wrong Planet on autism articles again,
Fenric notification,
- Removed attempt to discuss attack
- Second discussion removed
Alex Plank notification. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI diff SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem

What seems to be the problem? --Shark face 217 19:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa whoa whoa. I followed the link you posted on his talk page. I strongly, strongly suggest you get some formal dispute resolution instead of waiting for a reply. --Shark face 217 19:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far, I'm giving him a chance to retract; I was hoping you could get through to him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do. But I have a bad feeling that things will get much worse before they get better. --Shark face 217 20:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check his talk page. --Shark face 217 20:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, deflection of everything raised to strawmen, and apparently no intent to retract. Next. Thanks, anyway; I was hoping he'd listen to someone else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I suggest you disengage on his talk, there are a lot of eyes on this one now. I think if he carries on like this he will be blocked - actually he's bloody lucky he's not blocked now. Guy (Help!) 20:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Guy; there's doesn't seem to be much else I can do. I appreciate your efforts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider me an informal arbitrator in this case. See his talk page for my argument. --Shark face 217 02:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Guy's advice to stay away from his talk page is best and I believe I should follow that advice; Alex has shown so far no inclination to retract. Striking the false claims is a simple matter, SOP; that he won't do it is interesting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be what concerns him ...

As I'm sure you're aware, the word 'lying' implies a purposeful deceit. You have no reliable way of knowing what I nor any other of wikipedians believe to be the truth. Consequently, to claim that I would knowingly state something untrue not only shows a lack of good faith but also demonstrates a certain amount of prejudice against the validity of what I have to say.

... so I've acknowledged that he may have believed it at some point, and apologized if he felt I was calling it a willful intent to deceive.[6] I can't find a case where striking anything will be more helpful than an apology about implications of his intent, since the fact remains that the statements aren't true, regardless of word choice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have done what I can. It's now up to the both of you to settle it yourselves. See his talk page and put down specifically what you are willing to strike out, as well as what you wish him to strike. --Shark face 217 19:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Shark, but one of us seems to be missing something, maybe it's me. JzG advised me to stay away from his talk page; I think that's sound advice. He's not listening to anyone, and he's not going to listen to me on his talk page (and this has taken me away from my FAC duties for two full days now, it's time for this to end). There's nothing new on his talk page since yesterday, and he has (at least as of the last time I checked) still not stricken the untrue statements about me, which I've made plainly clear many times on the An/I, yet he ignores. So, I'm just not clear what you're asking. I did see a comment by you on his talk page that confuses me; you seemed to be saying the dispute is about a particular article, so I'm concerned that you might not have followed what's really going on here ("move onto improving Wikipedia, not fighting over an article"). It's not about any specific article (rather tendentious editing on a series of articles, COI, and off-wiki canvassing); it's about him believing and repeating things that were said about me on his board by a now banned Wiki user. The COI editing issues are resolved by extra eyes on those articles, so I can disengage, considering the campaign against me that has been waged on his website, Wrong Planet, and now furthered by him on Wiki. This is simply him bringing his off-Wiki beliefs to Wiki, not about a particular article. I was hoping he would listen to someone trusted about the importance of not making unfounded statements about someone on Wiki, and not dragging off-Wiki beliefs to Wiki, but it doesn't seem that he's heard that message, from you or from anyone else. I've extended an apology to him on AN/I, so I've certainly done my share, yet he refuses to budge (as of the last time I checked, and this is becoming an enormous timesink). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of neutrality, I will say both sides of this issues have made mistakes in their campaign. Some errors are, of course, much more egregious than others. I will say this: if you feel that there will be no progress made, drop the issue and move on. This is eating up the time of myself, you, Perl, JzG, and several other users who I am sure are monitoring the goings on here as well as the original post at WP:ANI. If there is no headway to be made, I suggest the entire thing be dropped. If you wish, you could always lodge a formal complaint, but personally I find that petty and not worth the effort. It's best both parties just move and return to what we are here for: improving and editing Wikipedia so that every human can access the entire sum of human knowledge. --Shark face 217 20:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; the entire sum of human knowledge now includes the untrue notion that I'm a banned Wrong Planet user. Let's just move on and let the attack stand; I really shouldn't worry about petty things like my character or integrity. Thanks for trying, Shark. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried my best, and that's the most you can ask for from a mere man. --Shark face 217 22:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Day of Spring!

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Re: Signpost Dispatch for the 24th

I've added some material on the shells and their different features, but I have no idea if it's the sort of thing you were looking for; so comments would be welcome (particularly if you wanted something different). Kirill 01:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dispatch: list punctuation

Reads better when punctuated as a single sentence. I left a note on Broughton's talk page. Tony (talk) 02:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advice requested

I'm not sure what to do with this comment. It smells like a troll to me but I don't want to be dismissive of any legitimate comments. --Laser brain (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've been busy! (I have a question abt citing Enc. Brit.)

Sandy - It's been some time since we've chatted, and you look like you're having a lot of fun! I have a question from the dim dark past ... I seem to remember a reluctance to use the on-line Encyclopedia Britannica as a cited source, but before I spend time roaming around WP policies, guidelines, etc., do you happen to know/remember what the current policy/guideline/suggestion is about citing to the on-line Enc. Brit.? All the best, NorCalHistory (talk) 09:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, especially where a citation is to a "premium" article (I think that means you've got to pay to see the article).NorCalHistory (talk) 10:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, NorCal; how are you? I know it's not optimal; I'm not sure what the reasons are. Perhaps you can inquire at WP:RSN? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent thought ... glad to see you're having so much fun! NorCalHistory (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hey Sandy, I know you are one busy gal, but I was wondering if you could check out this discussion regarding this diff. Thanks a lot, Happyme22 (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go look, but 1) I have no idea what that edit summary is trying to say, and 2) the edit introduced a real mess of incorrect punctuation and grammar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that was one of my points. My version is the most NPOV and well "put together". Thanks for the input as always, Happyme22 (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again, but Arcayne and I have worked out the content up to one single word. Can you give us your opinion? :) Thanks so much, Happyme22 (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Happy, I'm sorry to let you down, but today I just can't. Between trolls, vandals, spam, my regular watchlist, my regular duties, and personal attacks on my integrity and character, I am fresh out of time to actually work on articles. I'm sorry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it's okay. The discussion has pretty much died down, and I'm working some other articles. If you need any help with anything, please feel free to drop me a line. Good luck to you, Happyme22 (talk) 06:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RandomImage

Image wasn't random ... was there as a playful attempt at gaining attention for content that many will find too obscure and boring. :) Best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we want every FAC doing that, and the reason we eliminated graphics per the WP:FAC instructions is that they horribly slowed down the load time on the page. It was cute, though :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unregistered FAR

Sorry about creating the extra work; I should have thought twice before initiating an FAR. But now that the process has started, I'll let it reach whatever conclusion the community thinks is best. I figure the worst that is likely to happen is that people will remove the unsightly {{unreferencedsection|date=January 2007}} template from the article; what I am hoping for, though, is that the section in question will be augmented with inline citations. Demotion of that article from WP:FA to WP:GA should only be used if the consensus is that a problem exists but nobody knows what to do about it. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, articles don't get demoted from FA to GA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

All right, I'm sorry; I was hasty. Would you mind looking next time to see if there is discussion before you claim there ain't any? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, PMA; two things, though. Have you noticed my last four posts at WT:MOS, about discussions that can't be found and AFACT were never had? Also, discussion doesn't equal consensus; if the "rest of the world" is to be able to keep up with MoS, it can't be indiscriminately changing from one day to the next. Some sort of paradigm where changes are discussed and noticed would help (it's not like any of it is day-to-day urgent); I keep having to hear about them by chance at FAC, and by the time I get over there to check, I find no discussion, no consensus, just daily changes. That really should stop. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you are making unnecessary work for yourself. MOS is not a finished product; it is very far from perfect; and criterion 2 says that FA should follow it. Articles should follow any guideline, with the caveat of {{guideline}} about common sense and occasional exceptions. If an article seems well-written, it should be supported, and if MOS seems to deprecate what the article does, we've probably found one of the exceptions. If an article seems badly written, the writing should be questioned, although it's probably a good idea to check that you haven't met an idiom with which you are simply unfamiliar (see the FAC for Flag of Germany for an example or two). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to remember to tell you if I propose any material changes. The next, after this exponential notation business, should be WP:ELLIPSIS, which looks completely accidental. If you know of any discussion resulting in the present haphazard ordering, please let me know. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have had to change my mind; the rule against periods in captions is just too silly not to dispute. I believe the discussion is WT:MOS#Periods in captions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. That guideline makes perfect sense to me (assuming you're talking about not punctuating sentence fragments), but I don't have time to get over to a MoS discussion today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly another WP:ENGVAR case.

It is unidiomatic to me not to end the preceding phrase with a period, and I would feel so even if it were a caption by itself. (But all I have done is to tag and begin discussion; and all I want is for the punctuated style to cease to be a FAC oppose; we have better things for FAC to do.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been said before, but I'll say it again; to my knowledge, a FAC has never failed strictly on MoS issues. If someone seriously opposed only on punctuation, it 1) could be easily be fixed by anyone, hence 2) wouldn't hold up a nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Claiborne/archive1, which was so failed. This exemplifies two real problems with MOS: it enshrines views on punctuation which are not universal, and the effort to repunctuate against the Sprachgefühl of the author wastes everybody's time. Second, there are genuine, if minor, problems with the article; if the MOScruft had been fixed, it would have been promoted with them unfixed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've discussed that article about four times at WT:FAC; it was not failed on MoS, and it would not likely have been promoted if MoS issues had been corrected. It also failed its second nom six months later, when other issues were uncovered, and the nominator bailed out for the second time. PMA, we've been over this many times at the talk page of FAC; why do you persist in that idea, when the issues in the second nom can be plainly seen? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it had not been for the MoScruft, we could have gotten directly to the second FAC, which did expose real issues. My objection to the first FAC is that it was a waste of time, which did not improve, or relevantly evaluate the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which happened because the nominator stopped responding (twice); no fault of FAC, and no fault of MoS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I had gotten what he did, I would have stopped responding too. You have Carcharoth's intelligent criticism to blame for my still hanging around (and your own efforts to make FAC a respect-worthy process, not yet successful). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advice requested (short advice)

You were right right right about the morass of POV in Che Guevara. Now I am being told by an admin to write up specifically all my complaints about the page as part of his "intervention". I am unwilling to do all that work again as I did that in many places plus the FAR comment page should be enough. However, when I suggested the FAR comments page (and gave him a link to it), plus sent him your stats link, the Admin templated me for improper response and said the next time I would be blocked. Is it proper if I just bow out and say I am not interested any more? Or will I get template and punished for that?

You can just answer yes or no. I know you are sick of me. Mattisse (Talk) 23:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC withdrawal

FYI, the actual page is still there, so I'd assume it could be archived without impacting the bot (but you'd know better than I). ;) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 13:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Elcobbola; a mess for cleaning up. When a premature FAC is withdrawn, I handle it differently than this, but ... When a FAC with significant opposes is withdrawn (which must be by the nominator), it has to be moved to the archive file (which triggers GimmeBot to botify it to articlehistory), and the talk page has to be checked (the fac tag has to be left there for Gimmebot. IF they're removed it, as they had in the case, they need to be reminded of WP:FAC/ar. Also in this case, I found a wreck with the peer review files ... did what I could for GimmeBot, decline to sort it out further, ditto for GA, but that is the norm). You can check my contribs if you want to see the steps to put all the pieces back where they should have been for GimmeBot. Thanks again ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

resolution

I've made a proposal on the noticeboard [7]. I suggest we make further comments on the respective talk pages. I have a feeling we'll be able to work out any misunderstandings that have lead to both of us becoming upset at each other. Perl (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I responded there; I don't like to split discussions, the discussion is there and on your talk page, please don't split it into three places. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re:FAC notes

Thanks. I kind of got mad at myself on that one. I have the article prepared but I don't have the copyediting done. I need to do that before I take it to FAC. I only have one FAC planned right now but that is currently at GAN. I think I just got by really easy on Godsmack. If you looked at the text, I wasn't a big part of the debate of the sources for Opeth, it was mostly Indopug and Skeletor, just to clarify. I'll be sure to have the text combed through really nice next time. Thanks again, Burningclean _[speak] 19:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding. For some reason nobody really gets into the deep text in my PRs. If you look at the one for Opeth, Indopug didn't say all that much. Burningclean _[speak] 19:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC for Southern Vectis

Thank you for contacting me about this. I had seen that Southern Vectis had been nominated for being a featured article, but I didn't really know what to do with it as I am not familiar with the FAC process. I read the FAC page, but didn't really understand what to do under the circumstances. As you say, the nomination was made by a new user who has only made 15 contributions to the article. In fact, they tried to nominate the article a while ago but did it wrong. They probably don't yet have enough experience to realise that the article is not yet ready at all!

As for withdrawing the nominations, as I said above I'm not familiar with the FAC process, but if you think it's the best opinion then go ahead!

Meanwhile, I'm going to take some of the advice under given by other users under the FAC entry, and fix it anyway, regardless of the FAC! -- Thanks, Arriva436^shout! 12:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate Covered Bannanas as a sock of Felipe Garcia?

Hi Sandy, you may not have the energy to care, but the user that called you a racist is probably a sock of another user, Felipe Garcia, who, in various incarnations, has been blocked for five or six vandalism only accounts. I have filed a report here. I just saw his attack on you in his "contributions" and thought that I would let you know what I've been finding out today, following up from the Kyle Petty page, which was on my watchlist. I think you're a great editor, and I'm sorry you recieved that sort of attack. If you'd like to comment, any additional evidence would be great. Edhubbard (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words, Ed ... good to see you. I don't know the fellow; I saw vandalism on an article I watch, reverted, left him a warning, and got attacked. Standard stuff. I don't know the profile, and I've got my hands too full of other issues; let me know if there is something specific I can do to help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy, I think that AngelOfSadness and I have this covered. It just makes me angry to see someone I really like and admire here get attacked. So many of the good people I first interacted with here have been driven off, or have driven themselves off. I think you've got a tough enough skin to deal with some angry vandal (angry sock vandal) but I wanted to let you know what was going on. Cheers Edhubbard (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for thinking of me, Ed, and for your ever kind words; that one caused me no problem at all, not even a second thought. Random vandalism, as far as I knew, revert and ignore. If there's more to it and you need my help, please let me know. Now, personal attacks on my integrity and character are a whole 'nother story; in the end, the failure of AGF is what drains our time away from joyful work on articles and will chase away so many of us, much faster than trolls and vandals. Vandals are not a problem for me; established editors who violate AGF and NPA are Wiki's biggest problem, IMO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bing

Mail. Ceoil (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plans for 4/1 DYK

So what are you people going to do for the April Fool's day Did You Know section? I have some (possibly lame) suggestions (although surely you know I'm far too lazy and unskilled to contribute any writing). I do, however, have a wiki pal who can churn out, like, a zillion DYKs per week. Maybe she can help...... --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC) Incidentally, an article about you people is on one of my DYK ideas. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about DYK, and don't even know where/who to ask ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 21:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have commenced spamming that page with my silly ideas.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't understand why "The Dispatch" in "The Signpost" didn't link to the discussions. You didn't know about them. The discussion mechanisms were carried over from last year at the same place. You didn't place the Featured Article comment in the right page. I'll copy it there. I glanced at Ima Hogg. Is there anything that I can do to help? Royalbroil 03:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Royal, I was in the dark until Nishkid's post today :-) If you want to link it in to the Dispatch, go ahead !! Yes, we have some questions at the bottom of Talk:Ima Hogg, which should be to FAC by Wednesday ... would you mind peeking in there? We're not certain if the article needs to have unusual content, or if it's just the TFA blurb that will be written hoaxish. Ima Hogg has been a quick collaboration, all assistance welcome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tel Aviv FA

Hi SandyGeorgia, Ive replied to your query at the Tel Aviv FAC. Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie Toshack

Hi Sandy, I've left some comments at the FAC. The article reads like it was written by a cricket fan for cricket fans, (i.e. non-encyclopaedic). On my first read through Clem Hill is the better article, but sadly I have no time to write a review now. Will, Monday afternoon, (England) be O.K.? You'll be having your breakfast then. Best wishes, Graham.--GrahamColm ^Talk 21:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've added an explanation for the stats like 4/69 the first time it is mentioned, eg "took four wickets for the loss of 69 runs (4/69)" before using the shorthand. hopefully things are better now. Feel free to continue probing for incomprehensible things. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments in getting the article more accessible. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Naked Brothers Band episodes

Dear SandyGeorgia,
I have a question. On the wikitable for the list of Naked Brothers Band episodes, I want to add -- the Writer, Producer, Director, Executive Producer, Music Supervisor/Producer, and Composer (Music Score). I tried adding -- !Writer !Director...etc. in the appropriate spot and previewed it, but it did not work. Can you explain to me how to do so?
AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be able to get to that today, Annie; maybe someone else who follows my talk page will help or I will get to it tomorrow or the next day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Annie, I had a look and I don't see an easy or attractive way to do what you want to do. I suggest you browse here for another article that does something similar, and copy from there. Good luck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

The least you can do is reply to me and say you don't wish to be involved. Your complete and total ignoring of my request is very dissapointing. I worked really hard to comply with all your requests about that article, and you basically just blew me off. I'm pretty sure I don't deserve that. Take a look at Marskell's page...I've laid out all the evidence that shows he is completely mistaken. If I sound upset I'm sorry, but I am. I expect more from Wikipedia. pschemp | talk 04:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pschemp, I am sorry for not replying and that you feel slighted; the problem is that I really can't start down the slippery slope of responding to e-mails about Marskell's decisions at FAR. That would be unkind and inappropriate of me. Now that you've raised this on-Wiki, I will join the conversation on Marskell's talk page (after I catch up on my watchlist today). I'm sorry you felt ignored, but I hope you understand that it wouldn't be right for me to respond to e-mails about Marskell's FAR decisions, and that puts me in a very bad spot. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Ask me on wiki" would have been enough. I wasn't asking you to go be unkind or inappropriate, just to join in on the on-wiki discussion. sorry if that wasn't clear. When you spend 3 months of your life researching an article only to have it defeatured, its hard to remain calm. Take your time. I know you are busy so I appreciate your input.pschemp | talk 20:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm more than busy; I'm swamped :-) Your suggestion for how to handle such situations is a good one, and one I will use in the future. I've found myself several times in uncomfortable positions wrt e-mail, and being somewhat new to this, was unsure how to handle it. Thanks, and I'll catch up tonight, have some real life appointments today, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The FAR was closed under an erroneous assumption. Therefore it should be restarted or voided. Thank you for your input though. You really didn't need to do that in the middle of the night though! O_o I'm in no rush. pschemp | talk 05:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kannada literature

Hi Sandy. I am the author of this FAC. I am particularly concerned about the attitude of a reviewer user:Ncmvocalist who seems to be up to some sort of propaganda on this FAC. He has already provided his views and objections. But not being satisfied with this, he seems to be coming back again and again to the FAC and may be trying to create a fuss, hence damaging the opinions of other prospective reviewers. I request you to leave a message for him to move on and delete his comments (with the exception of that which has his objection). His attitide and mud-slinging is nothing short of FAC obstruction. I will notify an admin about his behaviour because his attitude seems to be an unnecessary distraction to the FAC process.Thank you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are six Opposes on that FAC; you might try to avoid too much focus on only one of the Opposers and focus instead on satisfying the other five. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must point out that the opposes by Aadal and Anwar are frivolous. Aadal says some things are misleading but the sources emphatically suport what is written in the article. Anwar asks for something (focus on Muslim writers) which is grossly UNDUE and which none of the sources on the subject consider important enough to discuss. Neither Aadal nor Anwar have any sources of their own either to back their claims. Both simply flew in (Aadal especially, who made an appearance on wp after several months), made some noises, slapped their predetermined opposes and left. Sarvagnya 19:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's great to have FAs awarded, however, they should be to a high enough standard. There is no consensus by the broad Wikipedia community, particularly on the content of this article, as well as other criteria. The issues raised by editors outside of the particular ethnic working group are valid as far as the criteria are concerned and is not something that can be overlooked based on the group's desire to have another FA added to its stats. Overlooking such issues is how sub-standard articles are prematurely awarded FA, and the standard drops across the board when these substandard articles are cited as an example of an FA. The above editor continues to attempt to show authority over the FAC process, as the group's desire may not be satisfied as a result of the lack of consensus by the broader Wikipedia community. I therefore request you to take care and come to your own conclusions by looking into who has voted which way, and why, and how the criteria are satisfied/unsatisfied as far as that vote is concerned (and not be unduely influenced by the biassed opinion of the editor above). Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here for the admin response. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi Sandy. I just want to thank you for that bit. I now realize that I should become more familiar with Wikipedia before I start nominating articles and such. RedBaron5142 (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The President (novel)

I just wanted to say thank-you for looking over our article. I'm sorry if past edits you have done have been reverted, i was unaware. We appreciate any help with cleaning up you can give us as we are very new to wikipedia and don't quite know how to do all the things that you do, especially when it comes to the better article. We, the MMM team are really just trying to compile information out there on this book and make it accessible to other people searching for information on it. I am aware that a lot of work still needs to be done so any technical work with references and citations and wikipedia rules would really be appreciated if you have the time. If you have any spate time, we really appreciate your input. The link to the page is: The President (novel)--Mfreud (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, just a follow-up to User:Mfreud's query, and regarding this diff: as far as I'm aware none of your edits to this article have been reverted (this was your first one); and it might be helpful to know which other edits have been reverted, as I can't find an example, beyond the edit conflicts over The General in his Labyrinth that you had with User:Wassupwestcoast. Many thanks. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 04:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, it's the first time I've worked on The President, but I had worked on two of your articles (can't remember which was the other one). I like to work via sample edits in edit summaries, so others can learn by example; my sense is that's not working here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Mfreud isn't working on those other articles, though she's certainly very keen to learn what she should be doing. And I have them all on watchlist, but must have missed the other revert you mention. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And here I did ask you about what may have been in one of your edit summaries, so I could follow up on your suggestions, but I haven't heard back from you. I know you're busy, of course. I'm just pointing out that we have indeed been trying to follow your advice! Again, I'd remind you that nobody in this project except for me had ever edited a Wikipedia article before, let alone been involved in a Featured Article nomination. We have a whole bunch that are on the verge of GA status. I'm beginning to worry that the demands of the Manual of Style may mean that we have bitten off more than we can chew by thinking we could bring an article to featured status. And this even with the help of the FA-Team. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not too much; you just need one person whose time isn't as fractured as mine is :-) When I have a few moments to work on an article, I want that time to be instructive so it can benefit other editors, who can learn from my edit summaries. That's why I got so frustrated about that situation on El general, because the little time I had to give all of you that day was lost. This is also why I've recommended you seek the assistance of Epbr123 (talk · contribs). MoS fixes are easy; you only need someone who knows MoS, and to allow them time to instruct your editors. Were my edit summaries on The President instructive to your students ? I try to work in short steps so they can see each item as I'm addressing it, and learn from it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Irreplaceable

Hi Sandy. Ive addressed some of your concerns in this FAC; but please state to those remaining unresolved objections why they fail to meet WP:RS. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for crashing/hiding comments; I am not aware of the policy. Thank you Sandy. --Efe (talk) 05:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy, Im done cleaning up the page; please re-check if you have time. I've also responded on the FAC page. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC "credit"

Hi - I added FightingStreet as a co-nom with Jappalang. I don't think there's any particular reason not to, and the reason to is a WP:AGF-based assumption that he was intending to help at the FAC before he decided to leave. Are you OK with this? -- Rick Block (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I could throw in my .02 cents, I do think there is a particular reason not to: he continued editing regularly in the two week interval between the nom and his retirement, without ever editing the article or the FAC page. I would agree RE AGF if he had gone inactive, or if there was less of an interval between nom & retirement, but short of someone opening a nom with 'This is a drive-by nom!', I don't think there could be a much clearer case for one. Curious to hear what Sandy thinks. Maralia (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a chicken on these cases :-) I'm clear when someone needs to be added, but less clear on the slippery slope of leaving someone out. Maralia and the stats make a very strong case for this particular situation (I can't recall another quite this strong), but I believe this would be a precedent-setting first ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turn this around. Even if it was a "drive by", so what? Would the article have been at FAC if he hadn't taken the time to nominate it? Does listing him as a co-nom cause any harm? -- Rick Block (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cricket fa jargon

If you get more probs, drop me a line. Happy to help if it's not a weekend. --Dweller (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller, thanks so much for the offer; I'd be so pleased if you'd help out on BInyguyen's nom, with any jargon that went over my head. I haven't looked yet today, and won't sit down to review FAC until later tonight (spring cleaning yard work beckons). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On it now. --Dweller (talk) 11:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting support/oppose comments on FAC

Hi Sandy. I have a question concerning getting comments on a FAC. The last FA that I worked on was stuck for a while at two "support" votes. I tried to get out the vote (without canvassing) by posting neutral messages on related (but not directly connected) Wikiprojects. That resulted in no response at all on the FAC, although it got someone from Milhist to promptly tag the article under their umbrella! Compared to what I see on other FACs, my articles don't seem to attract much interest. So how do I get people to vote without canvassing? I thought about asking people I know, e.g., people that have reviewed my articles in the past. Is that considered ok? --RelHistBuff (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano handles that topic well at User:Giano/A fool's guide to writing a featured article; really, it's OK to let editors knowledgeable in the content area know that an article is at FAC, no different than, for example, so many WikiProject announcement templates like {{MCOTWannounce}}. The problem is when a nominator, for example, pings 100 people and enthusiastically asks them to support his article :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another place to go fishing for reviewers is by looking at who reviews similar articles at WP:GAN and ask if they might be willing to review your article. It's worked for me in the past. Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or, even better, consider the most active FA reviewers, since GA reviewers aren't necessarily good judges of FA quality. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've started leaving a note on my talk page asking for comments on my FACs (see User_talk:Karanacs right now). That will get the attention of anyone coming to visit you, or anyone who watchlists your page. I don't mind taking a look at this article - which one is it? Karanacs (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article made it to FA; fortunately two more reviewers came by as the FAC slowly approached the bottom of the list. But, thanks anyway! I will drop a note on your talk page if my next FAC attempt starts to look like it's being ignored. Your talk page message is a great idea as well. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC urgents

CAn I put my own stuff on that template? Is that allowed? Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Double Seven Day scuffle isn't getting much. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I try to keep the urgents list a manageable size by only including articles that have been up the longest and don't have enough input for consensus; a lot of the newer noms don't yet have feedback, but since they aren't yet close to being closed, I'd like to get reviewer attention on the older noms needing a decision. If we add all the newer noms, then the "urgents" list could grow to include most of FAC, and would no longer be "urgents". Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think reviewers are reluctant to comment on this article because of its nature, and length. Assessing whether the criteria have been satisfied isn't as clear-cut as certain other FACs, I think. More participation from some of the more experienced editors of WikiProject Vietnam may help - as this may settle the issue of whether the article is comprehensive enough. Contacting such editors from the project may be a good place to start, and while waiting for a response, something that can be fixed further is prose - particularly for an article of this length, you'd need really outstanding prose (similar to the professional standard you'd expect to see in an encyclopedia) to reflect Wikipedia's best work. I think I'd seen a typo or something (lated?) in the lead itself when I briefly looked at it again. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, most of the guys in WPVN aren't inerested in minding other people's business... That might be a good thing for FAs in some ways because there won't be an auto-block vote, but it could conversely allow people to sneak in hoaxes if they wanted to. It's ok, there's a bit more traffic now. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back from hols

Do you have a bell that rings when your watchlist changes? How do you respond so quickly :-)? I only noticed Genetics a few days before my hols and I was just so busy that I couldn't spend the time. I'm still busy with work/home but should find a little more time to work on KD over the next few weeks. Anything else happening in MED/FAC land? Colin°^Talk 18:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Removed, sorry for not reading through the talk page. --Kakofonous (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)== Confusion ==[reply]

The proposal:

{{WikiProjectBanners}} - deleted
{{WikiProjectBannerShell}} - will have |collapse= parameter.

Posting {{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapse=yes}} will post a collapsed template, consisting of one line, just like {{WikiProjectBanners}} always was.
Posting {{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapse=no}} will post an expanded template, just like {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} always was.

Does this clarify the situation at all? Equazcion •✗/C • 02:26, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Several issues, questions. First, it was certainly rude of that melon person to do this just when the Signpost Dispatch article about banners was published. Anyway ... second, when s/he briefly installed collapsibility on the Shell, it resulted in always collapsible on my browser, unless I click it open. That's what the Projects don't want. Third, more complex installation, already an issue on the Shell; not what editors want. Fourth, those of us who have featured articles that get spammed with all kinds of crap put everything and the kitchen sink in to the banner. The Shell only allows you to put in those that have the nested option; I don't think you can dump everything in there. We want to bury it all. Honestly, besides the fact that Melon Doesn't Like It and put up a TfD just as the Signpost Dispatch article explaining banners was published, what is the benefit to Wiki of modifying 12,000 templates that editors like? This is irritating make work, for no good reason. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... Firstly, I'll ask that you try not to let your anger at HappyMelon to influence your judgment of the basic idea here. To be perfectly honest that guy tends to piss me off too, but try to judge the idea on its own merits.

Now, the posting of the shell with collapse=yes would mean that the template is collapsed when you first open that page. But, leaving the parameter out entirely, by posting {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, will mean it stays expanded by default.

The point about what can and can't be contained in the shell template is valid. Not everything can go in there -- however, everything that should go in there can. There are certain templates that never will be able to simply because they're not supposed to be hidden, such as articlehistory, BLP warnings and other notices. The only things these templates are meant to group are project banners.

The point about the amount of work it'll take to make the switch is also valid, but no one who didn't want to do it would be forced to. I imagine the deletion would be put off until it was removed from all pages -- which could be done gradually by anyone who felt like volunteering. Although, I think this will be a moot point, because in all probability a bot will be created to handle the task. Happy-Melon has a bot account so I have a feeling he'll take up that task. Regardless, creating work for people who don't mind doing that work shouldn't really be a concern, in my humble opinion at least.

Anyway I'm glad we cleared up the confusion (I hope we did indeed accomplish that). If you're still unclear about anything please tell me. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:44, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Glad we got the first point out of the way :-) Melon seems fond of clutter.

About putting everything and the kitchen sink in there, look at Talk:Tourette syndrome. No one who has tagged that article helped write it or maintain it; I put everything in the banner, I don't need all the clutter. I'm not talking about BLPs, etc. If Kirill tells me that can be solved, that point is addressed. But we've still got 1) make-work to convert something that is working fine, and 2) more complicated installation. Melon turned his bot loose on another goofy task recently (still trying to sort out all those changes at peer review, which haven't resulted in more peer reviews, but have resulted in more complicated instructions), and even if s/he doesn't mind the make-work, what about the tax on the servers? Do we really need to fix something that isn't broken, leaving a bunch of complicated code on talk pages, including nested parameters? Thanks for taking the time to work through this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think adding "|collapse=yes" qualifies as "more complicated installation". I frankly find that claim a bit silly.

Again, Melon's possibly-inappropriate behavior shouldn't have any bearing on this issue.

There is almost no tax on the servers. People can't make the edits fast enough to amount to a significant added burden on the servers, and bots have rules for number of edits per minute specifically to address that concern.

This isn't a fix. Not every implemented proposal is a fix of a problem. This is an attempt at improvement -- in this case, uniformity, and even simplicity. It's simpler and more intuitive to have one template that can accomplish two nearly identical tasks via a parameter, than to have two separate templates that do almost the same thing. But this is where the subjectivity enters in, so these are things to discuss at the TfD. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:05, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Banners doesn't require a nested parameter; installation is easier/quicker. Thanks for educating me about the servers. Agree with uniformity if we can do the same things, and I don't believe the Shell accommodates everything the Banner accommodates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't accommodate everything, but that's for a reason. It's not supposed to be used on everything. Aside from that, though, I think the rest of this is really just a matter of opinion, and it'll come down to how many feel one way vs. the other. I'm glad we could sort out the miscommunication. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:31, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)

It banners is deleted, someone will end up recreating something to do exactly what it does; eliminate useless clutter on talk pages. We'll just change one banner for another. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And one set of alleged (I've not seen them since the debate was settled) edit wars for another. Still looks like drama and make work to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a template that implements Banners through (a slightly modified) BannerShell: {{WikiProjectBanners/Test}}. No bot substitutions, no parameter changes, no changes in appearance; only two template edits, and we're down to one underlying shell. Kirill 19:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I doubt Raul will care all that much, so long as the appearance remains the same; but please feel free to take it up with him if you prefer. Personally, I don't really feel like wading into the firefight at TFD at the moment. ;-) Kirill 02:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All that's needed to implement this is to replace the code in {{WikiProjectBanners}} with that in {{WikiProjectBanners/Test}}, and the code in {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} with that in {{WikiProjectBannerShell/Test}}. I suspect, however, that doing so while the TFD is running will cause no end of screaming about how we're gaming the system and so forth; but I'll follow your lead in the matter. Kirill 02:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose leaving a note that the problem has been solved couldn't hurt, although I doubt it'll get much attention in the general shouting. I think that what's most likely to happen is that the TFD will be closed without consensus, and we'll be free to implement the changes afterwards. Kirill 02:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Action potential

I'll look it over, but that's getting pretty far from my comfort zone I'm afraid. Hope you are well and happy, all the best. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look, but I would have to both re-write it and source it from scratch - it is not close to FA level at present. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: clarify

If you really want to know what I meant, you'd have to go through the history and read my more heated rants about Wassup and other things which I later removed for the sake of peace. Trust me. It's not worth knowing. Wrad (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expected return

Would have been home tonight except for an issue with the wheel assembly on the car that necessitated a six hour visit to a dealership in Arkansas to have the whole thing replaced. So we are on the road another night, but at least with internet tonight. Will be back editing Saturday. (Have to do a rush photography order Friday night and Saturday morning). What exactly were you wanting me to do about the discussion you mentioned on my talk page? (I'm all excited, I picked up a great book for the article on D. Wayne Lukas and caught a great shot of a pelican catching a fish this morning, so even the car breaking down hasn't dimmed my good mood!) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothng really; I just parked it there to see which way that develops. Hopefully we'll adapt the wording in the instructions at WP:FAC so that it will become less of an issue. Have a safe trip home! Do you have time to review the FAC for Ima Hogg tonight? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow night. I'm pooped and we're going to be up with the chickens in the morning. Sitting around a car repair shop for five hours is exhausting but boring! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Ima

Thanks for making those tweaks to Miss Ima's article. You beat me to it by just a few minutes :) Karanacs (talk) 01:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are too hard on yourself—your prose is fine. I'm treating myself tonight to wikifun in the evening, so let me know if anything else needs doing. Karanacs (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- and.. thanks for the invitation to the party. Graham. --GrahamColm ^Talk 02:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fight or scuffle

I don't see the difference... Does "fight" imply that it was intended on the parts of both parties? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me (I could be wrong) fight is a significantly stronger word thn scuffle. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I changed the description in the lead to be a physical altercation. IS there anything else that you are looking for? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's late here, BInguyen; I can't remember if there's anything else off the top of my head. I'll look in the morning; pls don't hesitate to ping me if I forget. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

I've started drafting an RfC that you might be interested in here. Please feel free if you'd like to participate in adding anything to it that you feel might be relevant. Cla68 (talk) 02:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External link checker

So is this now being added automatically to new FACs for articles with previous trips to FAC? See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2005 ACC Championship Game. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 04:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need to doublecheck with Gimmetrow; will look tomorrow when I'm not so tired, trying to hit the sack here. Thx for letting me know :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I checked; yes, GimmeBot is now adding them when he clears the redirect[8], but older ones would still have it missing, since this is new. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sniff - there goes one of my side projects. You're going to need to think of more things for me to do. ;) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 04:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That won't be a problem :-) And remember, that's new -- all the older FACs are still missing it. You can note a new task currently on this page. Very tired, gotta hit the sack here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there FACs I've missed? Your page is basically a village pump; which task needs tending? Perhaps I'm not seeing it due to lingering retina damage from the Fat Man's page? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to start a new section: I was bold and did this; let me know if you'd rather I leave that sort of thing to you going forward. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK as long as you are very cautious and very certain that what you move won't start an edit war. More importantly, when running through the entire FAC page, one doesn't see the discussion tab links, so it takes a lot of clicks to see what was moved to the talk page. You should always link to that talk page in your move commentary (see how I did it on the Roman Catholic Church FAC). I don't mind you doing it when you're certain, but just be aware that if the nominators disagree with the move and move it back, it's best left alone rather than disrupting the FAC. In this case, Raul has already clearly stated at WP:FCDW/March 3, 2008 that the 4/1 article had to be featured, so the query was pretty far off-topic, and didn't belong there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2005 ACC Championship Game

May I ask why this article in particular is being held back after a single failure with no supports or opposes when all the previous FACs I have submitted also suffered the same fate the first time around, yet still managed to pass with no problems on the second time? American football is a difficult subject on Wikipedia, mainly due to the low level of interest among editors, and it's really frustrating to have to go through another level of bureaucracy unnecessarily. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed he did. He also indicated "I think it's decent now." after the latest round of revisions. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yet those copyedit needs were addressed, as per his comment above. I've got no problem fixing things when people ask that they be fixed, and I know that you're trying to help, but I'm familiar with how Wikipedia works. I've asked anyone who cared to contribute comments to give a support or oppose (as you suggested last time, when you advised contacting commenters). Most people simply don't have the desire or time to post support or opposition to an FAC even with an in-person request on their talk page. The FAC board itself remains the best place to solicit those comments. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll still ask for comments and come back in a few days/weeks. I, like you, am disappointed that I have to put something on the FAC page to get any comments at all. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Autism Speaks

I gave it a shot with this little edit. Eubulides (talk) 05:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PR archiving

Hi Sandy, thanks for your concerns. Could you please provide several examples of recent FAC noms with peer reviews that were closed too early? FYI, PR requests with no new responses have been closed after 2 weeks for over a year (see this diff). In case you did not know, at PR we have made sure every request added since Feb 22, 2008 (that I have archived) has gotten a human response. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch, not ignoring you, I just haven't had time to catch up on this yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Putting together pieces as I have time:

First, here are the old instructions (picking a date I last edited, July 2007):

In accordance with the Peer review request removal policy, you may remove to the current archive any ... inactive listings or listings older than one month, ...

In the past, a month was allowed. I'm not sure when that changed (don't want to step back through all the diffs), but someone told me recently somewhere (perhaps G guy on his page, but I'm not sure) that the reason the time had to be decreased to two weeks was to accommodate the extra overhead due to the new archiving system. That's one part of my concern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second, regarding the change since Feb 22, it's a good step forward to make sure every PR gets at least one human response, but one response isn't always adequate, and two weeks still isn't enough. I'd like to see the instructions actively encourage nominators at PR to 1) let them run for a month, and 2) actively seek out reviewers by the methods explained at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008, so they won't give up and show up at FAC prematurely, having gotten no feedback at PR because they know they will get feedback at FAC (converting FAC into PR). But we couldn't say that in the Dispatch, because PR has changed to disallow a month. FAC is increasingly being used as PR; the goal should be to do anything we can to increase utility of and feedback from PR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third, recent changes: since the Feb 22 date you mention, I haven't noticed if things have changed (now that I know that date, I'll keep my eyes open for that). From memory, Soprano Home Movies was closed early; that doesn't mean you all archived it early, it could be the nominators in this case. Which comes back to the point that I want to be able to encourage nominators to understand that a few days doesn't do it, they need to allow a month, and they need to actively seek out reviewers. It may be the nominators closing them because they get no feedback, or don't get feedback as soon as they expect, where they all get quick feedback at FAC. This is what I want to address, by explicitly making sure nominators at PR understand that time is needed, they need to seek out reviewers, and they should give it a month. (I'll keep my eyes peeled for examples for you, but don't really want to go back through archives to dig some up now, I recall Soprano Home Movies from the top of my head.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks Sandy, I checked Soprano Home Movies and the peer review was opened on February 23 and archived by the nominator on February 26 diff. I agree we need to make it clearer that PR takes some time. I am not sure if you have seen the PR talk page, but User:Allen3 wrote that he archived requests that had had no new responses in two weeks from July 1, 2005 (to Dec 2007, when I took over). The two main problems I see with allowing all PRs to go a month are 1) most PRs that do get feedback do not evolve into conversations, but just have a response or two and stop (so I am not sure extra time helps), and 2) the PR page breaks when it gets too big / full (so the March 2008 PR archive is already broken and it is less than a months worth). I am also fairly busy, so I will stop here for now. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - NO, I haven't yet gotten back to the PR talk page. Is it the transcluded template limit that's breaking the archives (we had that problem at FAC)? And even if you can't let them run a month, can you add something to the instructions (along the lines of what we said on the dispatch) to get nominators to understand that three days doesn't do it, and they should aggressively seek reviewers? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collecting samples as I come across them being mentioned at FAC:

Noting this was before Feb. 22, Wikipedia:Peer review/Richard Mentor Johnson/archive1 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After Feb 22, two weeks, a problem: Wikipedia:Peer review/Tel Aviv/archive2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I believe it is the transclusion that is causing the problem. The instructions currently say to seek out reviewers. WIll try to add something on it taking some time. As for the two examples, Richard Mentor Johnson was my archive after 2 weeks with no response, but as I said in the not so old days it was not uncommon to archive 2 or even 3 requests with no responses each time. As for Tel Aviv, that was archived by the nominator after 2 weeks - it was in the transition, so we were not getting to no responses very quickly then. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiousity

Figured I'd float this by you since you spend a lot of time on Feature Articles and they have a habit of getting bloated by references and the cite templates. You wouldn't happen to know of a script that can convert citations that use the cite template into a manual format would you? 90% of the cause of the long load times on the Obama article (and now the Clinton and McCain articles) is the use of the cite templates and if those were converted into a manual style the articles would probably be about 3/4 the edit byte size and about half the total page size (HTML and all), so they'd load a lot quicker. Call me lazy, but I don't want to go through the article and change 190 articles into manual formatting by hand.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We had this conversation somewhere about John McCain, can't remember where, same issue. And Hillary was severely impacted last time I looked. Yes, this is part of why I hate cite templates, I wrote manual citations at Tourette syndrome, I wish someone would write a script to convert cite templates to manual citations as they HUGELY reduce load time and make a mess of the text in edit mode, but no, there isn't one yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of the earlier conversations that Sandy mentions but compare the following two complex references from Autism (one using templates, one formatted manually to match)

Myers SM, Johnson CP, Council on Children with Disabilities (2007). "Management of children with autism spectrum disorders". Pediatrics. 120 (5): 1162–82. doi:10.1542/peds.2007-2362. PMID 17967921. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysource= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Myers SM, Johnson CP, Council on Children with Disabilities (2007). "Management of children with autism spectrum disorders". Pediatrics 120 (5): 1162–82. doi:10.1542/peds.2007-2362. PMID 17967921. Lay summary – AAP (29 October 2007).

The template wiki source is only a bit longer in this example at 424 chars vs 370 (a citation with less URLs and DOIs and such would be proportionally longer due to fixed overhead of the template parameter names). The HTML (do a "View Source" on your browser) is also very similar at 1087 chars vs 1024. The big extra in the HTML is the COinS bibliographic metadata that the various citation templates generate. That adds another 561 chars in this example and is potentially useful data that isn't present in the manually formatted version. However, IMO the presence of this COinS data should be a user preference that is off for 99% of all readers who don't use it (and certainly off for non-logged-in readers). For a given version of an article, the generated HTML is cached so the templates shouldn't affect load time for normal readers of a stable article (if one ignores the COinS issue). I suspect the mass conversion of templates to manual formatting would be rejected by the community due to the loss of this metadata.

Did those earlier discussions come to a different conclusion? Should we perhaps be requesting the removal of COinS metadata per user-preference? It adds about 10% to the total page size (html+images) of autism which shouldn't be noticeable to an individual reader but would affect the servers.

Having said that, I'm manually formatting the article I'm currently working on because I dislike the inconsistent citation format that WP has invented. Colin°^Talk 17:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of the earlier conversations came to any conclusions at all. The rest of the technical stuff is over my head :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies

Sorry, I thought the FAR page was like any other talk page.--John Foxe (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We did it, SS Chris is a Featured Article!

yaay!

Thanks for your help in getting the good ship SS Christopher Columbus to Featured Article status. The nomination went swimmingly, it was clear sailing all the way, no one turned up to torpedo it, and she passed easily.

that's the ticket!

Thank you for the promotion, but also thank you for the guidance on process, and the suggestions for improvement, and everything else you do round here! ++Lar: t/c 22:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Well, it's true, it IS a GA... that just also happens to have been a DYK and now is a FA :) As for the fix, I'll get my bot on it right away. ++Lar: t/c 23:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Savant Syndrome

I appologize for the Savant Syndrome page status you said it was a mess and it is. I just started wikipedia today and I am still learning about citations and all of that stuff. One thing that I can promise though is that the information is ALL correct. The article is still a work in progress and I hope to get it to the point it has all of the basics of savant sydnrome. Just know that I am trying to improve, and I will try to have an more experienced wikipedia editor help me out in making it. The thing that got me to start writing it in the first place is that whenever someone typed in savant syndrome it automatically went to Autistic Savant which as you must know is not always true (only 50% of savants are autistic). I edited some stuff with that page before getting so tired of the mediocrity of it that I decided to fix the Savant Syndrome one. Thanks for helping me out! :) Aetoss (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

van Bloss

Many thanks for the help - I'll consult the book by van Bloss and put the relevant page numbers in - probably tomorrow, if that's ok. :)

That's fine. Interesting, and sad, story. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to 'clean it up' a bit - and have put page refs in. Hope it's OK now, or getting there. Yes, a sad story that captured my interest as he's a fellow musician. On the radio a few weeks ago he said he may yet play in public again - so I might update this.... :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anaconda451 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks again - I checked the book details - only one edition available as of now and it's Fusion Press - apparently a division of Vision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anaconda451 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Dawkins

Hello SandyGeorgia. How are you? I nominated the article Richard Dawkins for the FA ststus. It was unsuccessful. How soon can the nomination be resubmitted? I need your advice.

And one more thing: I am a little surprise that you are not an admin! Would you like to be an admin? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship; no, No interest.

I looked at Dawkins. Generally, you can renominate after you've satisfied the opposes raised (have you contacted Moni3, Tony1, Ealdgyth and Finell, who all had significant issues with the article, to ask if they believe it could succeed now)? I still see enough issues there that I'd suggest you submit it to WP:PR, and follow the instructions at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 to seek out others to review, and invite those four FAC opposers to the peer review page to help sort out the remaining issues before re-nomming at FAC. You don't have to submit to peer review, but the path I recommend is likely to achieve the goal you seek; issues are best sorted out at peer review, where there isn't time pressure as at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful suggestions. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoohoo!

FAC is caught up! Yay! Now to review a few... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is an awesome amount of work you do. You put me to shame; I used to only spot check 'em. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAR removal

WP:FAR is for review of articles that are listed at WP:FA as featured articles. If you want review of a non-featured article, peer review is the place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i read your comment in the diff. --MisterWiki talking! :-D - 21:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Son Rise contributions

Sandy,

I do believe this link is active, maybe I logged the edit incorrectly. I am very new to making contributions so please help me out. Also as I read the guidelines the introduction should be representative of the subject. The Son-Rise program has lots of anecdotal evidence of success and that seems to be worthy of the introduction.

I also added a BBC documentary post that was removed, because of no sighting but its featured and distributed by the people at Son-Rise. I am new to Wikipeidia and trying to contribute in the most productive way I can so I am open to input from you. I looked for a reference or pub date but could not find one. I have the documentary and again its distributed widely by Son-Rise so what is the nest way for something like this to be represented in the article?

Warm regards, Ezrah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezrah 001 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the link you listed; there's nothing there. Also, that content wasn't appropriate for the lead. Anecdote is almost never appropriate, but without seeing the source, I can't guide you in how to write something encyclopedic, or in which section to put it. Please use Talk:Son-Rise for further discussion, as my talk page is a very busy place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Autism edit

My mistake, I'm so sorry about that. I was RC patrolling, and I didn't actually read through the whole paragraph when I was making that edit (I think I only glanced at the beginning of the first line). I saw that an anon removed a section of the article, and, since it was a FA, I figured the block of text was something carefully added in, approved of by others, etc. So unfortunately I wasn't being careful and did not really read what I was doing. Again, I'm sorry about being too hasty - I'll try not to make mistakes like that in the future, especially when RC patrolling. Thank you for letting me know about that. JamieS93 23:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA?

Milk's Favorite Cookie would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Milk's Favorite Cookie to accept or decline the nomination. A page will then be for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SandyGeorgia . If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

I will create the page if you accept (Hope you do) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NO thank you; thanks for asking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I swear Sandy, it's worth watchlisting your talk page just to see your responses to these perennial proposals! :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping Yomangani will wordsmith a template :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XD	This user doesn't want to be an administrator, now, or ever. But feel free to offer anyway.

Oh, and GA delisted a few sections down. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ah, but the things Yomangani could do with the wording :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Came here working through my do to list for this evening and find myself pipped, not once but several times, in offering to nom :-) Hmmm I wonder if there is an article somewhere on those who have most often declined the mop... SandyGeorgia please note we offer a most clean, bright, shiny and unused mop - so you really don't have to worry that you will get your hands dirty. Oh well, but I suppose I've added to Dihydrogen Monoxide's pleasure in watching your talk page :-) However do take care, your contribution rate is stupendious - you have that rare achievement of being able to overload the Wannabe Kate counter(here) so don't burn yourself out :-) David Ruben ^Talk 01:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I just said on the med talk page ... important to know one's limits. If I had the mop, I'd have to step into the shower for my brain to explode :-) Just leave me doing my thing in my little corner of Wiki :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SadminyGeorgia sounds silly, anyway. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 02:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides (she said green with envy), the real fun talk pages on Wiki are over there, there, there, and there; I don't hold a candle :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double Seven Day scuffle FAC

Sandy, I definitely wouldn't take the Talk page comments to be a criticism of the promotion of the article. If anything, it's a criticism of those of us who reviewed it. I didn't dig as deep on that one and I should have. You are doing terrific work! --Laser brain (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But prose is my weakness :-( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Super Bowl XXXIV

Dihydrogen monoxide just delisted Super Bowl XXXIV from GA status. Should the FAC be closed now? I have directed the editor to go to peer review for reviews. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 00:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good faith nom; I've got to leave that decision to the community. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[9]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MFC has withdrawn the FAC. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 17:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I archived it this morning, but GimmeBot hasn't been through yet; he usually runs through in the evening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Ima 2

You did a great job of ramrodding this through. Corvus cornix_talk 03:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed you did! And those silly people (above) need to stop suggesting a mop and bucket; a cattle prod would be more appropriate, although you're mighty effective without either :) Maralia (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did an excellent job as well, Sandy! It was a pleasure working with you. I can't wait to see people's reaction to the Main Page on April Fool's Day. :) Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 03:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Ima Hogg; gotta write the blurb now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She was an ostrich-rider, and rode from Austin to Honolulu in 1893 where she met the Queen. As First Lady of Texas, she became a doctor in 1971. When asked her name, she was heard to say “I’m a hog”, which was the unfortunate truth.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of my version? DS (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like some of it, but since Raul already put something up, and it has some of the errors from the FerryLodge version, and I can't edit the page, I don't want to change too much. I'm afraid we ran out of time, and just need to fix what's there, since it's too far off the truth for me now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

How does this sound?

"Oppose The composition needs more cohesion, integration, internal logic, and clarity. I have provided on the talk page examples from a single paragraph in the lead to illustrate some outstanding problems. The independent copy-editor who next edits the article will need to pay especial attention to these issues."

If you think it is reasonable, I will add it. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 05:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the talk page includes actionable items, that's fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 05:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An April Fool story for next year.

It was fun watching the group turn Ima Hogg into a feature article in just 3 weeks. I work an old computer articles and most are done by one editor. (Two editors start an edit war.) Ever hear of a TV Typewriter. With my limited writing skills, I just try to create a good start class article.

I have found a good topic for next year, the sixtieth anniversary of the iPod. Radio Hat The Radio Hat was covered in several magazines but I don't think it is feature material. It would be a good "Did you know…". -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 05:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spyro Year of the Dragon FAC

Could you (or whomever was responsible for awarding the FA to this nom) please refrain from archiving an FAC as a matter of such urgently in the future? It was barely even 5 days since the nom was opened (with only 3 real comments), and it's already been archived before any further comments could be given by other editors. If FA status wasn't the highest grade achievable, this wouldn't be a problem - but it is, and keeping FACs open for a little longer would be more beneficial, particularly to avoid prematurely awarding FAs (so that the entire standard of Wikipedia doesn't gradually drop). While I would've given a vote of support once I'd made the comment, and the relevant concerns were addressed, but there was no dire need to FA the article as a matter of urgency, given the relatively small amount of time, and comments that have been made. I'd think keeping a nom open for a little longer, to ensure that the high standards are maintained and agreed upon by (more) other Wikipedians, is more valuable/important than adding a weekly FA stat. Anyway, this is just a request for any future FACs of a similar nature. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you want to check with Raul; he might agree to ping your talk page each time he's ready to promote/archive henceforth, just in case you meant to enter an oppose on a FAC but didn't yet get around to it after five days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your opposes will be overlooked if they aren't actionable and don't provide specific examples of items that could be fixed per WP:WIAFA; your last four opposes are not actionable.[10][11][12][13] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the oppose uses the same reasoning as another oppose, it doesn't mean that these votes are disregarded. I've elaborated wherever necessary so if the opposes are still on the page, they are actionable or are valid as far as re-endorsing (the need for the editors to look into) the points raised by another reviewer. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In re: to your comment, it was removed purely as it would seem almost senseless without my comments. These cannot be striked out when they have not been addressed as such - they've just been withdrawn temporarily until an occasion arises where more substantial focus can be given by the reviewer - myself. In the case I do reinsert such a vote/comment, of course, this would be re-added too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then you can strike your comments, indicating below that they are not addressed but you don't have time to follow up so you are temporarily withdrawing them, but under no circumstances should you removed other editors' commentary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, ok then. Seems likely I will have to get in touch with the FAC director soon anyway. Thank you - Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC on Kannada Literature

Please do not delete content or commentary from FAC pages on Wikipedia, when they are directly relevant to an oppose. Such a removal was not wholly constructive, and has been reverted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC restart

Why was the FAC page for the Orange Box restarted? -- Sabre (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for Raul,[14] but probably because it had been up for a while, and was stalled at equal support and oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curly brackets

Re:[15] - ASCII includes several types of quotation marks. The curly ones pop-up on-wiki occasionally because that's the type used by default in Microsoft word. I'd say 99.999% of them are there because someone copied and pasted from a word document into Wikipedia. Raul654 (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ... it looks like The Fat Man is going to come through :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings

Note: Always remember to substitute user warning templates. For help on user warnings, see the WikiProject on User Warnings.
Older warnings may have been deleted, but are still visible in the page history.
[Admin: block | unblock / Info: contribs | page moves | block log | block list]

Another Comcast IP, 70.90.98.54 (talk · contribs) doing same over here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

warning
warning

block

warning

April 2008

warning
You are being warned about moving content that does not belong on a page or is factually inaccurate
I added inforamtion onto the autism spectrum page, but it always seems to have information that is not cited added back on. I would appreciate if oyu could desist from doing so.
warning

block

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.78.52 (talk • contribs) 18:35, March 30, 2008

What's this bloody nonsense? Sandy, should I revert? Graham.--GrahamColm ^Talk 19:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's from a Comcast IP (no surprise there). It seems to be referring to autism spectrum, which isn't in great shape anyway. Eubulides has access to the highest quality sources, and he will surely catch up there soon enough, so I wouldn't give it a second thought. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I didn't know it was April yet, did you ? :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, still March even in the UK :-) GrahamColm ^Talk 19:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I wonder if I was blocked in March and didn't even know it :-) That's what happens when you spend too much time in Hogg Heaven. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Passed FAs

I believe you and Raul are responsible for passing articles to FA status or otherwise. I am just wondering that Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Irreplaceable is not yet 100% completely resolved but GimmeBot already updated/promoted it. Any thought? Thanks, BTW. --Efe (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FAC/ar; GimmeBot doesn't promote. It was up for two weeks, all Opposes were struck; it had four Supports with no Opposes. If you want further review, you might seek out volunteers at WP:PRV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake; what I was trying to say was GimmeBot already "archived" the page and updated the article. Anyway, I'll probably seek further reviews before nominating this to be featured in the main page, hopefully. Thanks for the help. --Efe (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused; you put it up at FAC, but now say it's not featured quality? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No; It is of featured quality. I'm a bit perfectionist, so I was anticipating very close scrutiny about the writing of the article as well sourcing. Hehe. --Efe (talk) 01:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Well, when Tony strikes his prose oppose, that's good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yah. Tony is awesome, as well as you Sandy. =) --Efe (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Ima

	Nice job on "Miss Ima"!
	To SandyGeorgia, who originated and organized the collaboration to bring Ima Hogg to featured status; thank you for your encouragement and even your prose :) This was a really enjoyable project which produced an excellent article about a great lady. Best regards, Karanacs (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Kemp

Oh. My. Goodness. 207 footnotes. (whimpers) 101 KB of prose size. (whimpers some more). Ealdgyth - Talk 03:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should hold off and see how the rest goes; that's a lot of work you're doing :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I beat some basic citation protocol into Tony the Tiger, he's got most of them right. A third in and not that many issues. I'm actually kinda impressed. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to hold off on Bill Gates since it might be a drive-by. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't think you should feel like you must hit them all right away, lest you burn out :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Kemp sat for a good chunk of the evening, while I piddled with other things. I don't feel that I'm burning out ... I'll confess, I COULD have found internet while I was gone, but took the time off instead (grins). I know, I know, bad girl, but it's good for me to take breaks. Now... do YOU follow your own advice and watch out for burnout??? Ealdgyth - Talk 04:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was getting dicey there for a while, but now that spring's here, the garden beckons :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Must be nice. Spring is thinking about it here. And then it ran away and left us with rain. Blech. And the deer are eating all my tulips! Bad deer! Ealdgyth - Talk 04:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deer fencing. (But then the woodchucks eat them anyway :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tulips? I still have two feet of snow in my front garden! Risker (talk) 04:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ah, come on, you hockey fans just love that stuff ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ach, I think I've had enough of hockey for a while. Perhaps I'll cruise the FAC page looking for something different to copy edit. Any suggestions? Risker (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oh, my, where to start :-) If you're offering to copyedit, look for FACs that get stalled with lots of supports, but copyedit and prose opposes :-) There are always a few; you could look from the bottom up, where decisions are needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 31 March 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]

Diocletian

If Augustus went into Royalty (which he should) Diocletian should also. Emperors are manifestly royalty. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would semi-protection quickfail an WP:FAC?

Would semi-protection quickfail an WP:FAC? Gary King (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No (and I don't know what a quickfail is anyway). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Failure before a thorough review (see: WP:QFC). If there's anything you dislike more than images, it must be GA stuff. ;) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So that's where the idea and terminology comes from. Sheesh. When will people understand that GA has nothing to do with FA? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised you hadn't seen that. Perhaps FA should have stuck with the "Brilliant Prose" name after all. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to see anything on the never-ending convoluted GA pages :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, vampire was certainly semi-protected and I think lion was most likely as well when they were at FAC as both have always been vandal magnets. I am generally liberal with my semi-protecting of large articles that are popular with vandals...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember we also had Asperger syndrome semi-protected at one point during FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:FCDW/March 31, 2008

Thanks for your message, and for clearing up my typos/misplaced dashes. I'm uncertain whether you are refering to those or the additional content (although I obviously wouldn't edit to something worse!). I would normally have discussed the matter properly before making the chnages. However, given the exsistence of a deadline (unlike normal WP articles), I decided to be bold, make the changes, and leave a suitable message on MER-C's talk page. Tompw (talk) (review) 19:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm extremely grateful to you for catching my typos before I had even chance to click the edit link. (Though I wouldn't class the number as "a lot", personally). I was unaware that MER-C has explictly mentioned he would be going offline. I agree the changes are significant, but it is material I feel should be included - hence why I added it. Tompw (talk) (review) 19:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions

I had recently nominated PlayStation Portable for FA and it was not promoted on March 30. (I didn't notice this until now because I have been crazy busy for the last few days in RL and haven't had much time to spend on Wikipedia.) Anyway, I think most of the issues that were raised shouldn't be too hard to fix so my first question is: is there a time limit required before an article can be renominated for FA? My other question is in the case of the article in question, there is a section (this one) that would be difficult if not impossible to cite with reliable sources. Would this preclude the article from ever attaining FA status? Thank you for your help. Regards. Thingg ^⊕^⊗ 20:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to the second question is yes. I see the article has not had a peer review. The best way to prepare the article for a successful candidacy is to follow the instructions at the bottom of WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 to list the article at PR and actively recruit knowledgeable reviewers and previous Opposers to comment there. FAC is not Peer review, and isn't the best place to sort through a large number of issues. At least a couple of weeks is typical to sort out the issues, preferably via peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok. *sigh* thanks for the answer. Thingg ^⊕^⊗ 20:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metroid series

Unless you are passing or restarting the nomination of this article, please un-archive it, as I was in the middle of doing its corrections, as I have for all its correction since I nominated it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Church again

I appreciate your efforts to inform me of the appropriate way to discuss items on FAC - I was not aware that there was a certain procedure to follow. I have asked certain people to come comment on the page as a result of Karanacs advice. These people were people who opposed the nomination before and had specific areas of concern that I had addressed and wanted to know if my efforts met to their satisfaction or not. Ealdgyth kindly left me a small list of his concerns and I had hoped for others to do the same - at least then I would know if the previous concerns had been adequately addressed. I will submit for a peer review when I am done addressing these current comments related to the last FAC. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perfunctory "supports"

I'm glad you are requiring the "opposes" in FAC reviews to be actionable. What about the "supports" though? Shouldn't they be held to some standard as well? No doubt you've thought about this long and hard. :) Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't require FAC Opposes to be actionable; the WP:FAC instructions do. Perfunctory supports become self-evident by subsequent well-formed opposes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]