User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch13

Peer review

Due to your excellent critique of the Mozambican War of Independence I was wondering if you could take a look at this peer review of the Russian-Circassian War. Would very much appreciate your input, but I understand if you ae too busy :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SGGH (talk • contribs) 13:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

B movie FAR

How much longer is that going to stay open? I say this because I 'd like to wait and see how he addresses Marskell's concerns before commenting as he has stated he will do so. If it is closing soon I'll comment, other wise I'll wait to see how he addresses those specific issues. Maybe Monday or Tuesday. Quadzilla99 16:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry About The Hulk Hogan Nom screw up

I did some things out of order so it ended up messing with the page. Wuthai 21:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't, but I was so impressed by the article I felt that it desereves the featured status. Wuthai 00:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

{{WPBeatles}}

Hi Sandy. This message relates to an old edit, but I'll tell you about it anyway for future reference :) {{WPBeatles}} mimics/imitates the templates of other projects who share scope with us, including the assessment categories, so only our template is needed. I would have thought that apparent from the html comment in this diff showing your edit, but you must have missed it. --kingboyk 13:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Kingboy, I'm not really sure what the message is here? What am I missing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You added a Songs template, when only WPBeatles is needed (with song=yes). No big deal, don't worry abt it! --kingboyk 17:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Venezuela

I just finished adding my opinions on Venezuela. As far as I can see the POV issues are by omission, the article just fails to mention a lot of stuff, specially in the history, government, and economy sections. And compared to the Spanish Wikipedia article (es:Venezuela), the English one is not very comprehensive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Enano275 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Agreed; the POV on the original Chavez FAC was the same—not so much error by commission as error of omission (telling only one side of the story). The article is also severely lacking in comprehensiveness, so I'm surprised anyone could consider it to be one week away from an FAC. I think it's months away, and won't make it unless we get more knowledgeable Venezuelan editors willing to work on it—which isn't likely to happen, considering the environment. It reads like it was written by someone who has never been to Venezuela. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Some low-priority items

There is some sort of article fork going on over at Chola Empire in relation to the FA Chola Dynasty.

Will try to catch up on that one when I'm home.

Placebo uncovered some drama over at Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask. Do you want to classify this as re-promoted? (As long as there is a FAR removal event, it will be so classified by the template.)

Strange stuff; yes, for consistency, it does look like we should add it to the repromoted FFA list.

Raul promoted 6 articles in the last set. I processed them only about 4 hours later, and 3 of the 6 ArticleHistories had already been updated. While two of those were OK, the other forgot to update the project assessments. Perhaps we need some clearer instructions that people can just leave the talk page for the bot?

What do you think about adding a line about the bot directly to the fac template? That should assure that both failed and promoted will take notice, and wait for the bot.

Facfailed and FACfailed are used about 1000 times. The difficulty will be the GA templates lacking dates or oldids. Gimmetrow 17:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I can begin to trudge through those when I get back, if that's the way we want to go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked at a few, beginning with What Links Here from template facfailed; yes, some of them are very old and finding the GA was time consuming, as edit summaries weren't used. Would it make more sense to work back through the archives, beginning with Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/December 2006? I left a few that are ready on the articlehistory work page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me think about this. I wouldn't spend any more time on this, if I were you. Gimmetrow 13:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree that working through the articles linked to the template will be unnecessarily time consuming, but if you want to start back through the archives, closing, tagging and archiving the FACs, I'll help look up the GAs. Also, we can think about adding to the fac template: When the FAC director promotes or archives the nomination, the article talk page will be updated by a bot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The fac template is a good place to note this. Gimmetrow 03:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I usually check all FAC nom talk pages and prep for GimmeBot; there are at least 30 now that I haven't been able to check since I've been traveling (add GA oldid, make sure old noms are archived, make sure templates are in place including peer review, etc.) I may be able to do some catching up over the weekend; not sure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

For example, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/August 2006 simply will not load from my dialup connection, so I can't correct the FairTax archive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sandy - I took care of the archive. Missed that one. :-) Thanks Morphh ^(talk) 16:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Morphh. I'm out of time for the day, but I just can't load large files, and it was bothering me to leave the job half done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ridge Route

Can you please comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Ridge Route/archive1 about the coordinates template? Thank you. --NE2 00:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Quick questions

You're more familiar with WP:DASH than I am, but I read through it and think I understand it. I see where the em dash and en dash links are on the edit box. Basically you use em dashes when displaying records such 30—3 and seasons such as 1985—86, correct? When do you use the en dash? I want to make sure I understand the policy correctly before I go through and start converting all of my articles. Quadzilla99 13:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I assume you just use the en dashes when hyphenating words right? Quadzilla99 13:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, there: no, backwards. Em dash is used for punctuation (The em dash is used in much the same way as a colon or set of parentheses—it can show an abrupt change in thought or be used where a period is too strong and a comma too weak); en dash separates numbers and ranges of numbers or dates (1931–1932); hyphen is used to join words (dash-like character). We also had a discussion on the talk page of either WP:FAC or WP:WIAFA (at the top of the page) about what to do about article names; have a look in both of those places (I'm on a slow connection). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Found it: [1]. The conclusion there was that you should continue to use the regular keyboard hyphen in article titles—even though that goes against the MOS—because accessibility issues in article names trump Manual of Style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I got it. Thanks. I'm working on an article, where I implemented the changes. Could you check and make sure I did it right? Incidentally I'm getting ready to nominate that article for FA and have requested a peer review on it, maybe you could also look it over. If you can't that's fine, maybe you could just make usre I did the dashes right. Quadzilla99 00:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I won't be able to PR while I'm traveling and on slow connections with limited time. I looked at the article; there are still some hyphens which should be en-dashes, on scores and on date ranges (for example, in the infobox and in section headings). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

About "Lament"

I was just reading the discussion here, and I was wondering: if you have these worries why don't you bring the issue in the talk page of WP:FAC. The essence of "consensus", and the way it is interpreted by Raul in WP:FAC is an issue that I've thought about many many many times! And this does not mean that he is necessarily wrong, but there are indeed some grey areas. Maybe the way some terms and procedures are interpreted and made should be discussed in WP:FAC. And I'm one of the first who says that the goal of WP:FAC is not to have more and more FAs but the proper FAS promoted the right time, because this is the only way to safeguard quality in Wikipedia. You know, if these issues are not discussed, I'm afraid that the final outcome will be a bitter and unfortute conflict between WP:FAC and WP:FAR. Cheers!--Yannismarou 14:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have, several times. The issue of "fan support" relative to actionable objections has always concerned me. Some articles go through no matter how many actionable objections because of support from "fans" or WikiProject members. It's pointless to Object on some article topics, as they go through even with prose or structural problems (for example, this was a problem months ago on the prose in Indian articles, but after Tony began to highlight the problem, they strengthened their copyediting before coming to FAC). I've seen very capable writers support articles with glaring prose problems [2] (question being, was the article really reviewed?), or cases where articles were headed for promotion in spite of numerous problems because of Project support [3]—both examples since corrected. When Tony isn't around, less people are examining the prose. It doesn't strike me that Raul is troubled by this issue, and my "reward" for discussing this problem is coming under fire from people who misconstrue the message. Sometimes, Tony is the only editor lodging prose objections, and I'm the only editor lodging "everything else" objections. If "fans" Support, regardless of actionable objections, Raul more often promotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

CSC FAC2

You posted an objection at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campbell's Soup Cans due to fair use. The back and forth is over with fair use. I hope you would reconsider. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 15:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation requests

You made a few requests for citations at Richard O'Connor not long ago. Could you be a bit more precise as to why you chose those specific statements? Preferably at Talk:Richard O'Connor.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

My Jan. comment on Firsfron's Talk—mea culpa

I've given this some more thought since I saw that you brought it up in your recent colloquy with Firsfron. Given that it (a) was posted on a third party's Talk page, (b) which you had never contributed to (as far as I could see), (c) never mentions you by name, but only by the letter "S", and (d) doesn't even link to the page under discussion (the DuMont FAC), it was clearly intended neither to make you feel bad nor to publicly malign your actions or general reputation. Nonetheless, it does constitute a personal attack and a very harshly stated one. I am sorry for writing it and for uploading it to a publicly accessible page where you or anyone else who might understand what it was about could read it. I am attempting evolution (if we might allow for that possibility) and it's the sort of thing I hope I would never find myself writing at this point—or, at least, would have the sense to delete before posting. Apologetically, Dan.—DCGeist 00:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

God's Son

Thanks for the heads up Sandy. I hope the guy who nominated the article can support my writing better than I can.Noahdabomb3 01:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Domenico Selvo peer review

Hey, SandyGeorgia. I'm just letting you know that I've finished this article that you helped me with and I've submitted it for peer review here. If you have any extra time and are interested in helping out, I would very much appreciate any input you have to improve this article that, though I would like to call it mine ;-), is ultimately Wikipedia's to improve beyond what I have done. To help guide the peer reviewers, I've posted a list of concerns I have with the article at this point. Helping on any one of these or suggesting anything on top of that would be a great help! Thanks a lot, JHMM13 07:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Mayan languages

Hi we have been doing extensive work over at Mayan languages: the article has been thoroughly copyedited, reformatted and referenced. I hope you will have a second look at it and that it will causre you to reconsider your stance in ita FA-nomination.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 09:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Hi, SG! I've been told to ask you about citations and citation templates. Can you explain to me why people (like yourself, apparently) don't use them? I'm confused, since I thought they were provided specifically to format citations correctly. Thanks!!! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

(Let me answer while Sandy's away travelling – hope you don't mind) Have a look at Archive 12 "Cite templates". If you think the templates don't format correctly then it would be good to make some suggestions on the template talk page. BTW: there is no requirement for or against templates for FA. How you format the wikisource is up-to-you. IMO it is a shame MediaWiki doesn't have formal citation meta data. That way, Wikipedia could appear on the "This article is cited by" on PubMed or a online newspaper. That would be cool. Colin°^Talk 22:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean we don't?!? That *really* surprises me! Where is this archive you mentioned? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Colin - quick moment from a slow dialup - it's here, SatyrTN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

So from that discussion, I gather there are three basic problems you've mentioned:

1. They terribly chunk up the size of the article, and slow down access time, while providing the same info that can be input manually.
2. Bugs — and by this I mean punctuation (like the antioxidant example you gave) and the foreign language icons.
3. Lack of consistency across templates — specifically parameters.

Number one I can totally understand. The time it takes the server to access the template would add to load time. Someone mentioned cacheing, but I don't know if that happens/works correctly or what.

The other two issues, though, are programming issues. They should be brought to the attention of someone who knows how to fix templates (and I don't quite count myself as one of those, though I have some knowledge and am a programmer).

And on the other side of the coin are the people that have no knowledge of what a properly formatted citation looks like. From my perspective, for instance, I'd rather tell the template "here's the author and here's the title - you figure out what it's supposed to look like".

And since you're traveling, I'm not really looking for a response, but if you run in to any of the programming issues, feel free to let me know and I'll see if I can help. Safe travels and thanks for the input on this discussion! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

For people who don't know how to correctly format citations, the advantages of the template outweigh the disadvantages, IMO. For those who do know how to format, they have a choice of using the templates or doing it manually. I haven't had time to take on the bigger issues of getting template programming errors addressed, as I've been traveling so much this year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There's some discussion going on regarding this topic that could use your input on Template talk:Cite news. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

FAC rename

See the current FAC on Boy Scouts (Boy Scouts of America). We need to rename this (see comments within the FAC). Is it okay to do so during the FAC? I think so, but want to make sure. When we do this, we want to be sure to move the history and talk too.Rlevse 11:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It can be done while at FAC, but it's important to move all the pieces correctly, fix talk page templates and archives, and rename the nom correctly. I'm traveling and on a slow dialup with limited access; Gimmetrow would know how to do it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks.Rlevse 17:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not going to bother to lodge an oppose on an article that obviously isn't ready yet, because the regular editors should know this article is nowhere near FA-worthy. As but one small example, can someone explain why Scout Motto isn't wiki linked ? If regular scouting editors allow this article to be promoted in this shape, I'm surprised.  :-) Sue Rangell also nominated Sonoma County, California for FAC, about here. If regular scouting editors want respect for their articles, I suggest they clean up this article, or oppose the nomination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• fixed the links. if you have additional issues, please be specific, I can't read your mind, what is obvious to you may not be obvious to us.Rlevse 01:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Poetry

I've been really impressed with Sam's patience and willingness to do the boring stuff. What do you think of the article now? Marskell 09:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I know there's still work on refs for Poetry(urls and page numbers in particular), and any comments for improvement are always welcome (I spend much of my life dealing with legal citation formats, which I can do in my sleep; the academic formats are thus a bit of a foreign language, and often counter-intuitive to me). While I'll leave the MOS comments to you guys, if in the future you need substantive comment on literary topics, particularly relating to poetry, or historical topics, especially in the areas of the Middle East, US political history, or women in history), please feel free to ask, and if I can I will comment. As you know, I found it frustrating not to get input on the substantive discussion in the article, and I'd prefer not to see others have the same issue.A Musing (formerly Sam) 20:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Sam - I replied on Marskell's page to keep the conversation in one place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Quick question

Hey Sandy. May I respectfully pilfer your Barnstar section design? No need to reply now, just think about it when you're back. Hope you're enjoying the trip, Fvasconcellos 22:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Help yourself - I took it from Kirill ! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Featured article on medicine portal

Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I replied on the talk page. NCurse _work 18:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Japan FAC

Sandy, I dealt with the blue reference and the one to wikipedia. So that just leaves formatting. Can you be more specific in the references that need changing, maybe even correct some of them? I know you're on holiday - maybe if you've got some time when you're back if the FAC isn't completed by then? John Smith's 23:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a few free hours tonight, but I won't be able to work on them for at least another week. Here is an example: Japan - City Population - Cities, Towns & Provinces - Statistics & Map. Retrieved on February 1, 2007. Who is the publisher, what is the date? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point. I have gone through as many citations as I can see need a publisher reference. If you could point out any more corrections/additions that need to be made, I would be very greatful. Please respond on my talk page. John Smith's 00:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sandy I am waiting for you to address the edits I made after your initial objection. I cannot see any more "japan-guide" citations or the equivalent. John Smith's 11:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Need feedback again - have responded to your points about copyright. Sandy, if you're going to list an objection can you check back on the page at least once a day please? John Smith's 12:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Kansas

Could you explain a bit more what the problem is with Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kansas Turnpike ? I'm sure I can deal with the facs next promotion cycle. Featured topics is a bit complex though, since they are including the original promotion in the fomerFT template even though it may or may not be in ArticleHistory. Gimmetrow 01:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw at least four (maybe more?) references that are actually links to Wikipedia - since publishers aren't indicated, you have to hover over them or click on them to realize that. Then you have sources such as this one (close to the end) that have no publisher info at all. I-70 west at exit 224, August 9, 2003 Here's another one - it's a Usenet Post - not a reliabel source: Ben Prusia, New East Topeka, KS Turnpike Exits Open Today SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

PS, that's all I can get done for a few days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

History of Sheffield FAC

Hi Sandy, thanks for your comments on the History of Sheffield FAC. I think that I have addressed all the citation concerns that you mentioned. Thanks again, —JeremyA (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

ooops

Ooops! I left incomplete messages in the relevant talk pages for FAR of Tamil language. Thanks for being vigilant and leaving complete messages. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem - the hardest part is finding where to leave the messages. When the links are there, I can easily add the message. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Re

I understand what you say Sandy. Probably it was my expression not accurate in the discussion you have in mind. I apologize for that, but I reaaly tried to say what you said in my talk page! Not in the best way proably! Best!--Yannismarou 13:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Referencing uploaded pictures

See my edit here. Raul654 19:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Carrying on the discussion here. Just trying to explore the issue. Some things can be explained far better by a picture than words, so clarifying how to cite an image is probably a good idea. Gimmetrow 22:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

TFA/R revamping

Please revisit proposal 2 at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/amendment proposal TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Metabolism FAC

Hi Sandy, did you have any other comments? Some feedback from non-expert readers would be most welcome. TimVickers 22:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist

Of course, I'm happy to reciprocate on Tourettism. I thought I had most of them in my list, but apparently not that one. Colin°^Talk 16:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Null edit

I just add or remove a space after a full stop. I think that works. Marskell 17:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

See Help:Null edit. If you use WP:POPUPS, then it is a menu option. Colin°^Talk 18:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of Poland (1945–1989)

Please feel free to add request for citations in the article, currently it has no outsanding requests (note it was also shortened by about 20kb).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Fix archives and ariclehistory

Note to myself, to fix, wrong in archives: Pulaski Skyway and Norse Mythology. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

MS

My apologies. I'm on a cruise control with FAR because of another issue that's driving my bonkers; not that that's a good excuse. As atonement, I'll help with any issues if you want to list them. I'm not agreeing with some of your requests, though. "Microsoft rose to dominate the home computer operating system market with MS-DOS in the mid-1980s"—I actually think this doesn't need a source and I don't like the double and triple sourcing in general. Marskell 14:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Notes:

• The first blog (ref 6) is published by a professional journalist through a reliable newspaper site; policy acceptable, IMO, but the way it's presented needs to be tweaked. (done)
• Ref 7 can probably be edited out of the article completely.
• Can MS be used to describe MS? On judgements of quality, obviously no. On general data (release dates, stock price etc.) I think it's fine. Marskell 17:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

On a lighter note, isn't the picture of Gates from '77 hilarious?

Update + Heavy Metal

A lot of the work is simply adding "publisher=Microsoft," but some things require more digging. Anyhow, I'm trying to move through it. What do you think of Heavy Metal music?

I also notice two adminship offers in 24 hrs... Marskell 13:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I should be able to catch up on all of FAR tomorrow (Sunday); not sure I'll get to all of them today. Yep, Yomangani got a chuckle out of my previous no, No, NO! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

When you go over refs like this, what date format do you like? Marskell 19:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

CiteNews and CiteWeb place their dates differently, AFAICS.

I've always liked non-numeric months. I like Science and Nature: 31 March 2007. Sorry, if I was only half-filling in refs on MS. I was trying to pull out publishers first. One good thing is that these new media publishers always have a Wiki page, so a blue link can be used. Marskell 20:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

As I say, I was just trying to get the publishers first (or at least see if there is publisher); I haven't looked at the prose much. I think it plodding, but I always think that with tech articles. Nothing has leaped out as terrible. My half-pass is done for now, as it's late for me. Marskell 20:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

adminship

It looks like you have at least some need for adminship. Have you ever considered running? I've seen your name around at FAC and related areas, and it seems like you'd be perfectly trustworthy with the admin tools. So I'm just dropping to note to say you should run! RFA is a bit ugly sometimes but once you get it over with, adminship isn't a really big deal and all responsible editors should have access to the admin tools if they're willing, it just makes things run more smoothly. Anyway I'd be happy to nominate you if you're interested, or you can always self-nom. I suspect a lot of people would be glad to see your name there. --W.marsh 18:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Kansas Turnpike

Regarding your questioning about verifiability, the link names are pretty obvious. The Turnpike is in Kansas, so "State Transportation Map" would mean that KSDOT published it, and "State" already implies that it's a Kansas map. You may look at the link name, as the year already answers that. Please do not question verifiability that is overly obvious next time.  V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions} 22:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Since it's so obvious, it should be easy to complete the references and list publishers on all sources, as well as dates. People from outside of Kansas wouldn't know, for example, that the publisher would be KSDOT, and international readers might not even know what KSDOT stands for. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not from Kansas, and I know all of that info. I don't really edit the article, and I would still know.  V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions} 22:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Another editor added the info; regardless of whether you know, what was there before wasn't sourced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn fac

On the withdrawn fac, I archived that and removed the link, so if the article is ever up for fac again it won't have a link to the rather uninformative archive. Do you usually note withdrawn facs on the article talk page? Gimmetrow 23:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Poll vote

Any chance you could compress that about 50%? I honestly fear that no one on any side will read it at that length. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll try—unfortunately, that's not my strength :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well now comments are being reverted because the poll may have started "prematurely". So you have time to condense your thoughts. Gimmetrow 02:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

What a mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Gumshoe request

Hi Sandy! Glad to see you made it back. Before being closed earlier today by Raul654, you had objected to the promotion of the article Armament of the Iowa class battleship. Your complaint from the FAC page read as follows:

References are not fully formatted in any consistent bibliographic style. For example, Do battleships move sideways when they fire? is a website link, indicates no publisher, last access date, or author/publication date if available. Examples of reference formatting can be found at WP:CITE/ES, or cite templates can be used. If footnotes are manually formatted, at minimum, publisher should be identified on all sources, and last access date should be given for all websites.

I took measures to adress the issue, but you didn't leave any further messages; therefore I am dropping a line to you here to make sure that everything looks good now. If you could take a look and let me know if the refernces are correctly formatted I would really apreciate it. Thanks in Advance. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Tom—I promise to have a look next week, after I've had a chance to catch up. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Tom, I had a look, cleaned up and completed a lot of references, and was troubled by what I found (in terms of missing publishers). It bothers me (a lot) that reviewers don't look at sources, and when publishers aren't provided, it's not clear if sources are reliable. The article seems to rely heavily on http://www.navweaps.com and http://www.factplace.com as well as a few other personal self-published websites which don't seem to meet WP:RS. It boggles my mind how articles which don't seem based on reliable sources become FAs. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Saw your note on Kirill's page. You're in the right here, definitely, and perhaps you ought to make more of a fuss about it. We shouldn't be promoting articles to FA if they have dodgy referencing! --kingboyk 14:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been making a fuss for a long time; I'm wondering if Raul overlooks my seriously-actionable objections, or if I'm not stating them clearly enough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC) Linking my note to Kirill, same happened with Kansas Turnpike, and same on Microsoft FAR, with the difference that Marskell recognized it and helped me fix it after the fact. [4] There were issues with the DuMont Television Network FAC, where I was (unfairly, IMO) singled out because I asked for publishers to be identified on sources.[5]All of them still have dubious sourcing, and no one else STILL seems to be reviewing sources. How can we have brilliant FAs based on personal self-published websites? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you look at the bottom of the page for the navweps site? The publisher outlined where he got his sources from, and some of these are big names - Jane's Ammunition Handbook: Ninth Edition 2000-2001 and U.S. Navy Bureau of Ordnance in World War II are among the sources the author sited at the bottom of the page. Given this, I fail to see why you seem to be so concerned about the navweps site. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did. The author "claims" those sources, but we have no reason to rely on his reporting on a personal self-published website. We should go directly to those sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Haven't looked at the others, but the Kansas Turnpipe article seems fine, as the wikilink in the references doesn't mean it's referencing Wikipedia, it's a courtesy link so the user can find out more about the source. I did the same in all The KLF featured articles: I feel that if a source is blue linked that a) bolsters it's credibility b) ought to be linked so folks can click through. --kingboyk 20:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That's because the Turnpike article has since been fixed :-) Gimmetrow corrected that reference. There's still the problem, for example, of http://www.okroads.com SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Back in full swing?

Hey Sandy. Sorry you had to come back to a mess, but there's been a lot of debating going on lately. It's January 2006 all over again :) — Deckiller 05:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorta back - still a lot to catch up on. I've had my eye on ATT for a long time, but thought I'd at least have the weekend to catch up. What happened in Jan 06? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Lots of debating if I recall, especially about RfAs, userboxes, and fair use. I also believe that was the time of the pedophile wheel warring, and the aftershocks of the Siegenthaler convroversy. — Deckiller 06:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I came along in Feb 06, but didn't get really busy until about May. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks

<< I undid this edit. >>

Good thing, too. Thanks. Now we're back on track.  :)) --Rednblu 07:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Good objections

Hi, I just wanted to say I responded to some of the points you raised in your vote against ATT. The thread is Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion/Archive 1#About the criticism, I propose a slight modification also. In essence, I do agree with what you say, except I don't think WP:NOR is such a good policy to show newcomers. I think WP:SYNT, which is the most difficult and important aspect of NOR, is poorly explained.

It is much easier to talk about ideas, conclusions and interpretations needing attribution when they are challenged than trying to understand where to exactly draw the line between good and bad synthesis. If you cite a source saying many deluded people see visions, and then cite a source saying many religious figures were inspired by visions. Even if you don't explicitly draw the conclusion, I'm still going argue that by putting these things next to each other, you are implying religious people are deluded, that's a controversial conclusion, could you please attribute that to somebody? It is clearly verifiable, but it is a synthesis, and I find the attribution vocabulary more useful in convincing people to avoid doing original research like that, but I understand your objections.

Anyway, I would appreciate you looking over the suggested change and see if that at least alleviates some of your concerns, or do you think merging these policies at all in whatever shape is a bad idea? Please respond there, I would appreciate it, as I think you had very reasonable things to say. Not to imply that other critics didn't have reasonable things to say, but I found your formulation more understandable. Thank you! --Merzul 15:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm still catchinig up from a lot of travel; I might not make it over there until tomorrow (Sunday), but I'll try. I wasn't really ready to weigh in on the poll, and wish it hadn't been launched so suddenly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Request

Sandy, whenever you have the time I would like you to take a look at Puerto Ricans in World War II. I would like your recommendations or thoughts, which I fully trust, before I put it up for peer review. Thanks, Tony the Marine 17:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I probably won't be able to get to it until next week, but I'll get there when I can. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoops

Thanks for catching my mistake. Raul654 21:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It was Rmky87's previous post (removing a FAC nom) that made me realize. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

On Pulaski Skyway, I archived as you wanted, but the original version had both nomination texts on the same page. I'm not sure why this needed to be split into two pages.

In fact, during the bot conversion process there were a few pages I didn't move/archive. Basically, I found it silly to "archive" a fac page that was either a link to the RBP page, or one of those early FACs that had little more than "Nice article. Seconded. Added by XYZ." So pages that were less than about 500 characters were not move/archived. If those pages ever get submitted for FAC again, my thought was the nominator would just leave the short old text, and add more, and it seemed OK to have one page linked from two archives. This may or may not be how a future nominator actually handles it, but considering this applies mostly to failed RBPs and some 2003/2004 nominations, if they haven't been nominated again yet, it may not happen. Gimmetrow 01:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I did it so I could straighten out the old archive file; I was reviewing it for any missed former facs, and saw the wrong dates there, so wanted to archive it correctly. You're right that it's probably not usually worth the effort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...

I just have to ask... Are you the same person as Sandydancer? You both seem very similar... Hm... Thanks, Spawn Man 03:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Tenacious D

Thanks for the feedback on the FA Nom for Tenacious D. Is the Tenacious D news archive an acceptable cite? I cannot find a publisher for it. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: I must be missing something

Well, there are a couple of issues that I see:

• Objections to articles are typically take at face value. Thus, objecting because the publishers aren't properly listed and objecting because the sources are unreliable are two quite distinct things; one is a minor formatting issue, the other is a major content-related one, and reactions to them are likely to be rather different.
• Our WP:RS guideline is a fairly blunt instrument, not really suited for subtle evaluation of "self-published" sources. Really determining whether or not some source is a reliable one requires a good knowledge of available sources for the topic and how each is regarded among those working in the field; sources which may appear unreliable may indeed be the best ones to use (e.g. Spoo). Thus, unless something truly egregious is being done, most reviewers realize that they're not necessarily in a position to conduct a thorough evaluation of sources, and thus tend to assume that the writers of the article know what they're doing (at least in the absence of evidence to the contrary, and particularly where those writers have a track record of good research). This is not, admittedly, the best outcome, and probably does lead to some unreliable sources slipping through; but I suspect it's a better approach, in the average case, than having nominations swamped with "I've never heard of it"-type objections to particular sources.

Kirill Lokshin 17:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Dinosaur Rock Guitar

I think the interviews might be fine, but they're not taken from a magazine or something similar (and other sources are not provided), so it's probably less reliable than other interviews might be. — Deckiller 20:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Puerto Ricans in World War II

Sandy, I did some work on the lead. Please check here:User:Marine 69-71/Workshop and tell me if it's O.K.. The reason that I have come to you is because I value and fully trust your opinion. Could you please point out which of the specific references need work? Thanks Tony the Marine 21:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• O.K., I'll look into the references. I changed the lead, could you look in my workshop and tell me how it looks now? Thanks again. Tony the Marine 22:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Soapbox

Hi. I understand that the issue about the reliability of sources is extremely heated and complicated, especially in regard to fiction topics attempting to explain more than just the plot (as they should, and I've been a major advocate of the out of universe perspective. I think we've hit a decent balance with our video game FAs up to now of sourcing the most reliable sources available to the topic. A lot of game development-related sources come from translated material from Japan, where magazines like Famitsu are the Time Magazine equivilants. Thus, while the reliable sources are clearly out there, so few sites and people have translated the material into English. I like what you said about the editors having the ability to describe why they used the source (I.E. why they think it's reliable), because there will always be gray areas. I'm thinking about proposing something called a "Source reliability rationale", sort of like a fair use rationale, which allows editors to explain why a source is reliable in relation to the subject at hand. Perhaps the site has an editorial staff and lists their sources, or translates it from a reliable magazine or something, as long as the edition is provided or something along similar lines. I think this will help clear the notion that it's not a matter of lowering the standards, but a matter of using the most available sources for a topic. I'm sorry if I seemed like I think RS is a bad guideline in general; absolutely not, because articles like Heavy Metal Music and Microsoft have so many reliable sources available that it's not a matter of a higher standard; heck, it's actually easier, because less digging and rationalizing is required (in principal, anyway; I'm surprised the Microsoft article is using as many gray-area sources as it is). Anyway, what do you think of the rationale idea? — Deckiller 22:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I should think more on it, but it could make sense. It could also open a can of worms, in terms of practical application. I do agree that you've reached a good balance, but SO many other editors continue to use shaky sources in areas that should have good sources. Here's my example: on Tourette syndrome, I list a blog in external links. I can defend that blog; the author is one of the most highly-respected, highly-published, highly-acclaimed researchers in the area of TS, director of an important medical clinic, and on multiple medical boards. (I include info about him along with the External link.) As a person who knows the TS field, research, and involved persons inside and out, I can substantiate that better than someone who doesn't know the field. So I can understand there are circumstances where explaining why a source is reliable should work—not sure about how to put that into practice, efficiently, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should merely be prepared to defend the sources if a question arises during a FAC or FAR? I'm also thinking that, once all the Final Fantasy articles have reached at least GA status, I'd like to start putting the Final Fantasy FAs up for featured article review. That will probably be at least 6 months from now, at a point where the Final Fantasy project would be working on maintaining our existing FAs and A-class articles. — Deckiller 22:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly my point: I usually ask editors to explain why a source is reliable, unless I strongly feel that it's clearly not. Many times, I back down, and accept the rationale. But I get into trouble on the step before that; when editors won't even identify the blooming publisher, which obfuscates the sources !! Why do you want to review the articles; they're fine? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Six months from now, the standards might be different in some way, and I'd rather do it on my own terms (or, rather, the terms of the WikiProject) so we're not blindsided in the middle of a FA push or a fancruft-reduction campaign. — Deckiller 22:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute, What?

Hi SandyGeorgia. The recent comment in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Song Dynasty has confused me a bit. So, in addition to providing the authors, publishers, creation dates, and retrieval dates for all the websources in the "References" section at the bottom, the "Notes" section, with all the footnotes for the entire article, need the websources to list the authors, publishers, creation dates, and retrieval dates too? It doesn't sound right to me, but that's what I'm getting from your suggestion. Could you help me out a bit?

I tried looking around to see what to do, using that link you provided me with, Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style, but it was contrary to your claim. At the bottom, at the section labeled "Combined with numbered footnotes", its main example for how one should cite websources in the footnote section is the article on Gymnopédie. This article does pretty much the same thing I do, only they cite their websources in the footnotes section like this:

Notes and references

1. ^ See The Letters of Sir George Cornewall Lewis to Karl Otfried Müller, reviewed by Wilfried Nippel
   Nippel, Wilfried (2003). "William M Calder III, R. Scott Smith, John Vaio, Teaching the English Wissenschaft. The Letters of Sir George Cornewall Lewis to Karl Otfried Müller (1828-1839). Spudasmata, 85". Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2003.01.05 (2003). Retrieved 2005-09-10.
2. ^ See for example Succès de scandale — Belle Epoque (Oscar Wilde and his Salomé play)
3. ^ ^a Fertiault, F (1854). Histoire anecdotique et pittoresque de la danse chez les peuples anciens et modernes. Paris: Auguste Aubry. pp. Pages 15–23.
4. ^ See Olof Höjer, Le gymnopédiste - An on-line article describing Satie's piano compositions up to 1890.
5. ^ See for example Cage’s Place In the Reception of Satie by Matthew Shlomowitz (1999) on Niclas Fogwall's Erik Satie website.

So, in light of this, should I put the author, publisher, date of creation, and date of retrieval all in the footnotes section? Or should it stay in the reference section where all the full titles of books used are listed?

--PericlesofAthens 22:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Allright, sorry for the delay—had to catch up with you. First, that's a really bad example—will need fixing. Here's what the issue (and the confusion) is. Most editors list books and hard print sources only in the References section, while fully expanding the websources used in the Footnotes section. What you've done is superior in some ways (listing full info on websources as well in the References section), but the reader (e.g.; me :-) doesn't realize that the sources are fully expanded below. This is partly because the entries below in References are listed by author—info not given in the Footnote about the websource, so one can't locate it alphabetically. This could be cleared up in several ways. You could do what most do, that is, list websource info only in the footnote, fully expanding it there, and leave them out of References. Or, list them at both places. Or, you could list the author along with the websource in Footnotes, so the reader will know to scan down to the Refs section to look for full info. It's your choice, but I prefer the first, simply because that is more common presentation on FAs and what most Wiki readers expect. The idea is to help the reader somehow connect the blue link in Footnotes with the info in References, which is more clear on the hardprint sources. Does this help? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"Does this help?" Immensely. Thank you. I will go and reorganize the references and footnotes according to the first way that you mentioned, listing the full websources in footnotes, and taking them out of references altogether.

--PericlesofAthens 00:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

A Question

In light of some of the websources being unreliable, I now want to use multiple books from Joseph Needham's Science and Civilization in China series.

The one that is currently used for the Song Dynasty article is Science and Civilization in China: Volume 4, Part 3. However, I now also want to use:

• Science and Civilization in China: Volume 1
• Science and Civilization in China: Volume 5, Part 7.

What is the correct way to cite with the "ref /ref" format when there is multiple books by Needham? If, for example, I cite from a random page in one book, and label it as:

• ref name="needham 180">Needham, 180.

How am I able to discern page 180 from any one of his volumes, 1, 4, or 5? By listing the volume number with the ref? Like this:

• ref name="needham volume 5 180">Needham, Volume 5, 180.

???

The only reason I am asking you is:

A) You're pretty good at this stuff, much better than I (lol)

B) Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style does not provide information on how to quote or cite from multiple sources written by the same author.

Thanks.--PericlesofAthens 04:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Pericles, I'm glad you're continuing to work on this; I'll revisit the FAC later today to strike any objections per your updates. Obviously, since I've been recommending WP:CITE/ES to people, I'm going to have to find time to get over there and improve it, since it's in dismal shape—something I've realized from your input. Yes, what you've suggested above will do the trick. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

The article is looking good now, as I've fixed those dash, date, and number issues. Feel free to check it out now. --PericlesofAthens 00:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Casino Royale FAC

To let you know that Casino Royale (2006 film) has undergone improvement in the last week and I have now nominated it for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. I would very much appreciate you taking the time to review the article and state your opinion. Thankyou. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 09:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

THanks. It would mean a lot to me if you could correct those faults as you appear to have considerable knoweldge about referencing. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 20:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can't re-source comments to reliable sources—it's not an area I'm familiar with. I can fill in refs, but I can't find the sources for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:Richard O'Connor

Hey, my assessment was based on the B-Class criteria adopted for use within WPMILHIST. Obviously, these are not hard-and-fast rules (and they certainly don't apply to other projects), but the general trend within the project has been to downgrade articles to start class if they were defeatured for citation problems. Carom 18:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I changed the MILHIST assessment back to Start-class, but I left the others alone, under the assumption that other projects are free to do what they like as regards assessment (except at the GA and FA stages). Carom 18:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

No prob ; ) Carom 18:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the heads up; I'm rather surprised at that, but it's what I get for clicking "edit", getting distracted by something else, and coming back half an hour later to hit "save". --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 18:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Adminship (again)

I thought I was going to be novel in asking you if you would like to stand for adminship, but I see that I'm not the first to ask you by a long shot. If you change your mind, I would be happy to nominate you, as I'm certain you would be a superb administrator. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking Jersyko :-) Three in one talk page; must be time for an archive. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Archiving is not the answer . . . adminship is ;) · j e r s y k o talk · 21:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You know, if "they'd" ever come up with a semi-adminship that allows editors to clean up a few kinds of messes (like cleaning up the messed up moves on FAC/FAR archives), I'd be game, but I don't think that will ever happen. I just can't sort out things like Fair Use and AfD for the life of me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I'd give a strong oppose. You're too good an editor. Leave the mop alone :-) Colin°^Talk 22:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

<grin> (By the way, I'm thinking of completing the history article over the summer; lots of spring travel on the horizon, when I can read Kushner's book.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Editors occasionally get admin tools for reasons other than AfD/IfD and anti-vandal work, for instance to maintain protected templates or the .cs/.js pages. Handling page moves and page history separations would be a reason for admin tools, if you wanted to do that. Gimmetrow 23:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Template

It seems fine now; it might be because I use FireFox. — Deckiller 23:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:Iowa class battleship

Thanks for the message, I apreciate the heads up (especially since I didn't know it was on the list to begin with). On a semi-related note, I will look into nailing down the authenticity of the information provided on the navweps site so we (as in Wikipedia) can determine whether the site is reliable or not; however, its going to have to wait a while because I have a test tomarrow that I need to study for. (Hello first all-nighter of the new year...) TomStar81 (Talk) 03:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Song Dynasty Article

Hey Sandy, since the last time you commented, I've significantly skimmed down the Song Dynasty article. I hope this is more acceptable now (if not, I have a paragraph or two that I don't mind removing). Have a look see...

--PericlesofAthens 15:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Update on Article

Hey Sandy. As you requested, I split the "Society", "Culture", "Economy", "Technology", and "Architecture" into separate articles, with one paragraph in the main Song article briefly describing each. However, with just the existing citations from the bulk "History" section of the Song article, there are now only 34 listed citations, far below the acceptable mark for the average Featured Article (50 citations, is it?). I can expand the history section a bit since there is much more room to expand, and hopefully I will be able to list about 16 more citations to meet 50 total for the article.

Anyways, I'm not quite sure what you're talking about with solo years now. I just checked the Wiki manual link you provided, and it says under the "Dates of birth and death" and "Eras" sections that the years for eras and dates of a peron's lifespan should be wikilinked (with the &ndash or "–" in between). From what I see, there are no more sole years (years standing by themselves, such as a year of a single event) that are wikilinked.

--PericlesofAthens 02:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no set number of citations; where'd you hear that rumor? What's important is that any text that needs to be cited, is cited. Heading over to look soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Sandy, Tony has just requested that I get the Song article reviewed by someone unfamiliar with it. Who do you think I should go to first? Being familiar with it, that would cancel out just about everybody over at Wikiproject:History of China. Hmm...I know! I should go and check for the Wikiproject:History of Iceland group, it should be a fair assumption that they don't know much about the Song era. Lol. Seriously though, any thoughts or suggestions?PericlesofAthens 20:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

FA vandalism

In prior debates about the TFA process, you mentioned that many editors are averse to having their articles placed on the main page due to the difficulty of dealing with vandalism. If any articles on the list I am working on at the TFA/R talk page, which will include all TFA eligible 2003, 2004 & 2005 FAs, has any such articles let me know.

Also please respond to my followup query on said page. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have responded on the talk page at Featured article requests; your incorrect strikes of articles in archives will create a future mess, and I'm beginning to see this work as disruptive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Moon

Thanks for the help on Moon. Sorry I hindered the bot, I didn't know he needed that. I also received your remark on my talk about the other bot thing. Apparently I don't understand this feature very well yet. Thanks, Nick Mks 18:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Moorgate

It is hard to tell who has been the main contributors here. However, a second person who i have left a message at is Morwen as she created the article. Simply south 20:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - add it to the list at the top of the FAR if you get a chance, Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you know who else i should inform? Simply south 20:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks good—I added a few. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

That was fast. :) Simply south 20:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I sorta have it down, but you're welcome to help with the notifications in the future; it gets tiring :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Actors; headings on FA page

Right now, it is not clear where to put actors. For instance, Vivien Leigh is in media, but she was primarily a stage actress, not a film actress. So, should she go in literature and drama instead? I think it is correct that she is in media, and it would make sense to put all actors in media. I don't think that making the clarification that I did would cause people to make long lists, because it seems like a pretty unique problem. Obviously, architects go up with architecture, etc. So, please reconsider. I'll leave it up to you, on the assumption that, since you sent me a message about this, you are a person who thinks about the FA page a lot, so I'll yield to your experience. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 22:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. OK, I'll raise the subject on the talk page. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 03:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Template

Hi Sandy. Feel free to add or remove from the FAC urgents template if you think articles need feedback/already have enough. — Deckiller 23:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering what criteria you use for adding, so I'll know what to do. For example, I only add FARs that are controversial, don't have consensus, or really need help. How will you keep all 70 FA candidates (sometimes) from being added? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been including FACs with fewer than three support, oppose, or neutral votes. Of course, there is some flexibility; if an article has three one-liner supports, or two major opposes, I'll adjust accordingly. — Deckiller 23:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you care if I add the ones that bug me; that is, the ones that get overwhelming "fan" support even when sources aren't reliable?  :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess, although I'd prefer to keep it a relatively small list (4-6 listings at a time would be ideal). Perhaps we can pick the six with the most issues or the smallest amount of feedback. — Deckiller 06:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. I also usually wait three of four days on new listings that are good, waiting for topic-knowledgeable editors to weigh in. Sometimes no input in the first few days is a good thing—it means no one finds anything wrong, but they might not know the area well enough to offer Support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

TS

I was surprised I got to it on my new high speed conneción de vapor de alta presión, there are normally a host of people jumping on that article the second a vandal dares look at it. Yomangani^talk 00:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

In my defense, I tried, but it was gone by the time I got to the page :) I did warn him, though. Fvasconcellos 00:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, FV. I'm troubled about a new development. Michael Wolff has TS. His sons, Alex Wolff and Nat Wolff have a band and a new Nickelodeon show: The Naked Brothers Band (TV series). They're little kids. I can't remember if the boys have TS or if that's public, but I hope my most recent revert at Michael Wolff isn't going to be typical. If you can, additional eyes on these would help. I'm going to google the boys. <sigh> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, glad to help. My watchlist is only a couple thousand pages long ;) Consider it done. Fvasconcellos 00:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, FV. Can't remember if it's both or just one; don't know which. So, until a source is provided, I'll revert per BLP. [6] Not sure by the age there, either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

IMDB gives "1997" for Alex Wolff, same as we do (i presume that's what you mean). You probably don't consider it a reliable source, but I generally find it accurate. Fvasconcellos 01:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I meant, from the TSA press release, I can't be certain which one it is (Polly Draper is their mother). I suspect the older one, but the math isn't right. I knew this info once. (Darn memory, where's my synthroid?) Since the show is new, I've been worrying about how they're going to get hammered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right. Well, the press release says "8-year-old", and it's from March 2003, so that would be Nat Wolff (born December 1994, so would have been 8 at the time of the conference). Don't worry, just watch, wait and revert... Fvasconcellos 01:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, FV. Will keep an eye on this one; that was particularly nasty vandalism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I've got both on my watchlist. And so it begins... Fvasconcellos 22:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, User:Nat Wolff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Care to elaborate ;) ? No longer that user's name (now User talk:Nickelodeon Rocks) and no edits since 2/22... I'd say no trouble there. Also, predictably not Nat Wolff. (BTW, if this is a "note to self", sorry!) Fvasconcellos 00:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, note to self. I have to put things somewhere so I can find them later :o SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Agh. I gotta take you off my watchlist :) Fvasconcellos 00:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the company! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, all right then. BTW, I was going to notify you of User:Natwolff56, but I see you're already on it. Fvasconcellos 22:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Go to WP:ANI; I decided we needed admin help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

<sigh> ... so much work to catch up on, and I'm feeling like an unpaid Nickelodeon babysitter. Thanks for the help, FV; this could get old really fast. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

knock knock

Liked your comments on Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll. KUTGW. Also, I recall we quarreled a little in the past. Please accept this as an olive branch. --Ling.Nut 00:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Casino FA

Please give it a few days for those references to be sorted. To be honest I can only see several faulty refereences the rest look fine. Many of the sites which provide info on the film are pleasure sites rather than strict bodies and I am have tried to use many "professional sources" as I mentioned in the candidate page. It is very difficult to write an article on a film using purely professional sources -reliability of those other sources is up to debate -mmany are topiv specific that disucss the film in detail but does this mean it isn't reliable. I gurantee you that if the producers of the film read the article they eould with a few adjustmnets here and there think it is a pretty good summary of the film. I'd hope you would have helped correct those faults that you see to help get in to an FA rather thsn strongly opposing it for precisely this reason. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 08:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've made what changes I can, but I can't source the article for you :-) Please keep me posted when you're ready for me to have another look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the faulty references this is why I touched your list ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 00:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Arbustoo

I'm not really sure what wild hair has worked its way up this guy's rear end, or why he is so hostile, but he appears to be threatening you with administrative action of some kind on his talk page. But hey, you're doing better than me in his book I guess. My civil remarks don't even survive there. - Crockspot 20:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hard to tell; it's just his way, I guess. I admire your civility and attempts to resolve it; I just have no patience for edit wars when I'm trying to work. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• ArbCom. [7]SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, User:Crockspot's first ever edit to me was this. You might "admire" that "civility," but it creates problems with other editors. Arbustoo 17:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Your frivolous complaint was dismissed. You have been either ignorant of the channels you are using or you are deceitful.[8] In either case back off. You would be better served to deal with content rather than linking-delinking dates. That is, don't revert material without compromise when you know the material is contested then continue to stir up trouble because of it.[9]

I do find your revert without explanation to be curious when you reported me to get me blocked when you knew I was engaging several editors on talk pages.

Yet, what confirms your maliciousness was I told you your complaint had nothing to do with the subject; TWICE. It was rejected now get over it.[10] If the lashing out at me with the reverting mess was a fluke the frivolous ArbCom wasn't.[11]

Indeed, your attacks on people's pages are getting tiresome.[12] Wikipedia isn't a message board to post derogatory things. Either say to me on my talk to remedy the situation or don't say it at all.

I am a long standing editor, and won't deal with this childishness. If you have an issue discuss it and give reason for it. This isn't a message board to play games.

Lastly, if you "don't have a particular dispute" with me the LEAVE ME ALONE.[13] Arbustoo 17:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Not frivolous (Arbustoo-Vivaldi ArbCom Case) and not "dismissed".[14] I'm sorry you've not learned anything from it. ArbCom Enforcement. Don't come to my talk page to threaten me again, or your posts will be removed. Have a nice day, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Funny, you didn't address my issues. Did you bother reading the ArbCom? Did you take the time to see I filed it and was the only person involved to enage in making statements?[15] If you did take the time you'd know it concerns articles of certain context. Did you know why I was active in it?

Before you carry on, read up on the case. View Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi/Evidence and Talk:Jack Hyles/Archive 2, Talk:First Baptist Church of Hammond, and so on.

If this is the best you got then this is harassment. LEAVE ME ALONE. Arbustoo 17:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Leave you alone? I'm pretty sure this is my talk page, Arbustoo, and it is you coming here. Have a nice day. (Your next threatening post will be removed, btw.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I am confronting you, the person who is making comments to others about me.[16] If you have a problem with me I am here to discuss it. If not, I am here to tell you to stop causing problems. Arbustoo 17:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:FA

Thanks for mentioning the March 12 move. I never would have noticed it! I left him a message on his talk page. If he's unhappy, he can move the item back to the Art category. BTW, did you like my/Ed's/our last suggestion about the headings, or do you still think they ought to stay as they are? I don't think it's a big deal either way, but I think it would be helpful. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 22:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool. BTW, I'd like to belatedly congratulate and thank you for an extraordinarily productive and generous year on Wikipedia. Your experience and energy in reviewing FA applications alone is a major contribution to WP. Without your suggestions to improve the quality of potential FA articles, WP would not be able to claim that it has a core group of such excellent articles. --Best regards, -- Ssilvers 22:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Japan

FYI, incorrect statement on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Japan; I corrected, in case it matters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Sandy, that's what I imagined. I was asking for the material to at least be sourced (and received an earful for my troubles). I'll let you take over the actual quality of the sourcing itself.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 22:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Out of Reach

The problem at Talk:Out of Reach was a bit subtle. The "gacat" parameter isn't documented, but it exists to handle what the former specialized GA templates did. These only existed for various biographies, geography, and countries. There was no GA-albums template. Gimmetrow 12:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles)

I saw that and started drafting an advert on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine when your message came through. Any other projects? I'd like something done about Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Reliable sources too. Either folded back to MEDMOS (though I do maintain that this doesn't belong in a "style guide", I won't object if consensus is against me) or more prominently linked from the project's main pages. Colin°^Talk 15:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've also been busy (and still am), but I'm certainly up for it if we're going to revive the call for consensus. Fvasconcellos 15:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to fold RS back in and/or make it more prominent, but also won't object if consensus goes against. Let's get busy; I won't drop the ball this time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping to kick start this again. The problem is getting folk to contribute. It would be great if more opinions were heard. Stevenfruitsmaak is away on holiday. This happened last time too.

My current thoughts are that we can get consensus for MEDMOS as a style guide. However, there is clearly a need for other medical-article-related guidelines such as for EL and RS. Perhaps we can create MEDGUIDE but keep it as an essay or some other informal "project work page" for now. I'm off to bed so you have all night to be bold. Colin°^Talk 22:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

When it rains, it pours; I'm up to my eyeballs. Will do what I can. But if there's any disagreement, we should go with what we agree on and get consensus. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar!

<moved to userpage>

Tee hee! Show them how to properly cite a ref! Or what a reliable source really is! ;-) Incidentally, you wouldn't happen to have an account in es:wiki, would you? Raystorm 22:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to lead a movement there to create more selective criterion for FA's, something like what exists here. I'm thinking your input, given your vast experience on the area, would be invaluable. Of course, I get that you are terribly busy here. :-) I'm kinda wondering exactly why you're not an admin yet... Raystorm 23:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thought as much. ;-) It's okay. See you around, and have fun with your articles (and refs)! :-) Raystorm 23:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

2003-5 TFA eligible FAs

I have assessed citations and images and taken your comments into account. I have noted my chart. Let me know if you have further thoughts. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)