Jump to content

User talk:SandyGeorgia: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Akradecki (talk | contribs)
24,127 edits
barnstar
Line 228: Line 228:


:I posted a question at [[Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks#Correction .3F|mirrors and forks]] because I'm not sure what's next. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 12:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
:I posted a question at [[Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks#Correction .3F|mirrors and forks]] because I'm not sure what's next. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 12:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

==Barnstar==
{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[Image:Barnstar3.png|100px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Barnstar of Diligence'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | This barnstar is officially for, among other things, "extraordinary...community service". Our community extends beyond our keyboards, and I know you're still shaking from your phone call, and having second thoughts about making it, but I am fully convinced that you absolutely did the right thing. What we need more of is for folks to take the concept of "citizenship" and make it personal. There's just too many instances in life of people ''not'' making the call because they "don't want to get involved" (and if you'll notice from my user page what line of work I'm in, you'll understand why this matters to me so much). Maybe it was 99.999% sure to be a hoax...that doesn't matter. ''You did the right thing,'' and I want to commend you for it. '''[[User:Akradecki|<font style="color:#62BB32;">AK<font style="color:#006400;">Radecki</font></font>]]'''<sup>[[User_talk:Akradecki|<font style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh</font>]]</sup> 18:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
|}

Revision as of 18:23, 16 October 2007

If you want me to look at an article, please provide the link.
I usually respond on my talk page, so watch the page for my reply.
To leave me a message, click here.

Re:Nancy Reagan

Hey Sandy. I have been working on the Nancy Reagan page for a long time, and as a well referenced, well written, neutral, factually correct GA, I think it is ready for a FAC. I was wondering if you could take a look at it, fix anything you like, and contact me on my talk page. I contacted you a few weeks ago regarding this matter, but you were probably too busy which is totally ok. Anyway, if you have time this would be great. Thanks, Happyme22 00:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I umderstand completely. Thanks for getting back to me, though. Happyme22 03:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More input needed at Hillary Rodham Clinton FAC

Hi, thanks for your comments in opposition at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hillary Rodham Clinton. However, you only gave one example of where you thought the prose was 'regrettable' and the sourcing lacking. That area has been fixed up, but we need to know what other areas you think suffer from these problems, so we can fix them too. Thanks ... Wasted Time R 03:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firefighters' unions praise is in footnote presently numbered 169 at the end of that sentence - it was always that reference, and that reference does include praise of her efforts regarding health issues facing 9/11 first responders. Did you mean some other reference problem? Tvoz |talk 20:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the problem, like

I'm going to hold my ignorant hands up here and plead that i did'nt know what I was doing. I though it was an independant checklist, I did'nt realise the might of FAR would reign down. Pity the fool ;) Ceoil 01:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"my numbers won't add up". I'm an accountant bty, there is always a way to 'make them add up'. If you know the answer, i can find the question. Ceoil 01:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its funny you should say that because what the cabal lacks is a gal. Outrigg's ok, but you know. So your in. Your code word is 'no. 3'. Ceoil 13:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never understood the rules of baseball, though it looks great to watch. Anyway, Outriggr's out of favour after last night. Congratualtions, no.2 Ceoil 15:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Lady is fine. We don't want to formalize removals there though we might add a note about the stats. Laika's OK too. I've been busy on my trip though I'll do some catch up edits tonight. Marskell 17:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lol! Mild mannered during the day...Ceoil 17:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And

Not sure if you noticed Wikipedia:Content review/workshop. The first section is a list of review processes. Do you know any others? You strike me as the editor to ask... Marskell 18:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second that. Guidance here (along the lines of Tony's how to write guide) could help raise the bar and maybe dissuade the perception of FAC/FAR as a MOS bearpit. The people to invoive, imo, are Awadewit, Hoary, Sandy, Qp10qp, Geogre, AnonEMouse, Outrigger, Casliber, & Piotrus. Thats a fairly tangled web though. Ceoil 18:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but. As soon as I show up there, so will someone else, who has a retort for everything I say. Not going there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could go there quietly, just to add the review processes that exist but aren't mentioned, and then sorta watch... And hey Ceoil, comments welcome. Marskell 20:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no such thing as quiet in my contribs; just watch Tau Ceti. Mark my words. Twenty bucks ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marskell, no, all my reviewing insights are recieved. I've seen many FACs in the last few months that I'd like to comment on, but I don't have the tools to dissect them. Which is why a 'how to' like this is so attractive. Ceoil 20:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are other Iriah overlords? I need to act quick; but have not yet found anything from you last 1000 contributions. Humour me with a diff. Dont worry; I am all mercyful, no harm will come of them. Ceoil 23:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine; but can you explain me this - why can't I page move H.D. to Hilda Doolittle. Its really bothering me.Ceoil 23:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, so thems the reason. Do you reckon I'll get in trouble for asking such quetions. Many of them are watching us, you know. Ceoil 23:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should I moon someone ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not now, hold still. Their day will come (Leben der Anderen). Ceoil 23:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is I'm a simple person and I type what I hear. I'm listening to TV on the Radio at the moment, so im typing what they tell me to. Ceoil 23:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And and

Would you have any formatting concerns with Tau Ceti? It's FAC hasn't had a lot of traffic. Cheers, Marskell 18:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I et al. things after two—I don't know if there are discipline specific rules for secondary mentions. Your semicolon is fine. Thanks! Marskell 20:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How'sit going?

Just thought I'd say hi. :) Spawn Man 09:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries

Not a problem. I can see at least one ongoing and apparently personal feud being prosecuted via FAC, which is a misuse of the process and annoying if yo've got an article up for consideration. BT19 does seem to be going fine. I'm worried - everyone's being too nice! :-) Cheers. 4u1e 09:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Tom Hawkins (footballer) - Template:ArticleHistory

Hello there. Thank you for correcting my template. I looked at the talk page, and will do it that way. The WP banners were on the talk page in that order, but will nest them if I again see multiple banners listed separately. Thank you for your note. SriMesh | talk 01:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

You recently commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychiatric abuse, which was closed as delete. The article has been nominated for a deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 5#Psychiatric abuse. Please feel free to comment on the decision there - as a contributor to the original AfD, your input would be welcomed. -- ChrisO 09:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yomangani

You're right about that I probably should have signed the edit myself. Sorry about that, and thanks for catching the error. John Carter 15:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; I think of Yomangani as somewhat modest, and I don't think he'd want it to appear that he added that statement himself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ticks are...

arachnids! :D Mac OS X 16:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting for that (in the "learn something every day dept). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Favor

Could ask you for a favor? When you get a chance, could you look at the refernces cited in the section "Mastiff" in the article Iowa class battleship? I only did the basic citation becuase of school constraints (I am allowing myself a few minutes on here as a reward for finishing an assignment), however I am certain that some of the citations could be expanded upon with the inclusion of author and publish date and the like. I would handle it myself at a later date, but I have no idea when I will be back on, and this is a featured article, so I feel like it needs to be done soon so as to keep with the FA philosophy here on Wikipedia. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tom; I had a look and did some cleanup;[1] I can't convince myself that Isreali-weapons.com and vectorsite are reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not worry too much about it; when the opurtunity presents itself I intend to do some hardcore research into the drone and its role with the U.S. Navy. At the moment the sources provide are only for the benifit of article's FA-class status; I do not want to see {{cn}} tags on an FA class article becuase FA-class articles should have evolved past that point. After winter finals (early December probably) I will look into to the larger history of the Mastiff and see if I can improve the section in the Iowa class article with better info and more reliable sources. Given the nature of the drone program, I suspect that there may be reports from the Governemnt Accountability Office on this issue, and GAO reports are a goldmine of information since they cover costs, implimenation, R&D, and other relevant concerns. Thanks for the help with the formatting, I apprieciate it. :-) TomStar81 (Talk) 03:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cite template bloat

Thanks for the tip on Obama about empty fields - I knew that, and promptly forgot it. Will work through the article. Tvoz |talk 09:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MoSElement

Hey there. I hope I'm not being annoying (feel free to tell me so or just ignore me if I am), but I wanted to run this by you. Because you mentioned that the {{MoSElement}} template has the potential to clutter up talk pages, I learned how to make it collapsible. Maybe this will make it less problematic? (The folks at Talk:Harold_Pinter are using it to positive effect.) I certainly respect your objection, but I'm one of these "let's find consensus whenever we can" people – and I like to address everyone's concerns when I can. (As ridiculous as it is for me to try to please everyone, it doesn't stop me from trying, heh.) Thanks in advance for your time. – Scartol · Talk 17:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that Galileo talk page is a nightmare; but isn't that more a function of projects competing for space? I also never understood why the {{talkheader}} template is so popular..
We did indeed check in with Tony1 – he responded, and I implemented most of his suggestions. I really do want to make this as unobtrusive as possible, and only give a positive tool which can help (as impossible as it is to remove all the negatives on WP). Thanks for your feedback! – Scartol · Talk 17:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAR and away

Please check on Talk:Monopoly (game). [2] [3] [4]

Apparently two established editors have removed the FA tags, though neither said anything on the talk page first. Gimmetrow 19:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Master Editor Award

I had to remove the master editor award from your award page. You do not meet the criteria for a Master Editor Barnstar. You must have 40,000 edits and 5 years of service to receive or give yourself this award. You have only been a member since February 2006. You are eligeble for the Experienced & Established Editor award. I have informed User:Marine 69-71 in case he would like to give you an alternative award.--Dr who1975 23:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, you are a stickler for requirements. I think you should make Sandy an honorary whatever, because she is the greatest!!!!!--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 00:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the greatest too. Except nobody seems to recognize it.--Dr who1975 15:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there Sandy. Hope I didn;t offend you. It was a simple matter of criteria.--Dr who1975 16:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fill-the-hole contest

Well this is awkward. I'm launching a contest to fill the new hole here with the funniest cartoon commentary on this screwup. Dr. whoever you are, you're welcome to strike the words "or give yourself", since I certainly dont' give myself awards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, an entry for you. I don't know anything about the situation so it is pretty neutral. May the best cartoon win. -Susanlesch 17:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't thought of a cartoon, but the "screwup" made me consider the possibility of an Ineligible Award:
The Ineligible Award may only be given to editors who do not meet the criteria. Enjoyment of this honour is brief, as it is usually bot-reverted within 24 hours. The Ineligible Award image is copyright; placement of the award on an editor's talk page is a violation of WP's non-free content policy. Editors who frequently award ineligibly may therefore be banned.
Colin°Talk 22:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like all of them, but I think I'm going to have go with TBSDY's "clam down" as the winner, since it refers to the funny deletion debate I find myself in the middle of; have to keep it funny without pointing at penii. Well, at least I think it's funny; I guess not everyone does :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Ta bu shi da yu. Clam Down deserved to win. -Susanlesch 22:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Sandy, you clearly have more friends than me to stick up for you. I truly didn;t mean to offend you. You know, I once had an award taken away from me for criteria reasons. I don;t recall throwing a rant like this when it happened. Clearly I showed a lot more maturity about it.--Dr who1975 19:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Stick up for me"? "Throwing a rant"? I'm so confused. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that you had the barnstar removed from you is because you gave it to yourself. Dr who1975 is going very close to a slap across the back of the head with the cluehammer for the ungrateful and nonsensical tone shown above. Sandy, regardless of what criteria a bunch of users who are worth 1/100th of you try to set, I consider you a master editor, and I would suggest for you to add yourself to Category:Master editors if you so desire. Arbitrary criteria are silliness, really. Daniel 09:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness, I certainly did NOT give myself an award; Tony the Marine gave it to me, and I didn't even check out what it was. If I had checked, I would have realized it was a silly editcountitis thing, and I would have addressed that myself. Thanks for the kind words, anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, my apologies - I meant the reason why Dr who1975 had his award removed (which he whinges about above as justification for his removal of your award) was because he gave the barnstar to yourself :) My apologies for the confusion - having followed Tony's edits closely for a while now, I saw him award it to you in the first place. If there are 'sides', I'm most certainly on yours :) Daniel 02:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. No "sides"; it's just embarrassing (probably for Tony as well). I'm glad I've got TBSDY's clam to fill the hole. Thanks for letting me know, Daniel! Saludos, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Architecture of Windows NT

I think there are more issues in that article than just referencing. Could we please get it delisted? I'm not going to be able to work on it for the time being (my wife is pregnant, and I'm busy at work). It's degraded anyway. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Sandy... for the record, I think the whole award is counter to the spirit of Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Atlantic University

I saw that you did a nice peer review for Ohio Wesleyan University and was wondering if you would mind taking a look at the above article. It is currently undergoing peer review here. If things turn out well I plan on taking it to WP:FAC next.

Thanks, KnightLago 20:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for the review. I had one question, can you explain this:

Wikify full dates in the date parameter on cite templates for consistent display according to user prefs, example: Bandell, Brian (2007-09-18). Inconsistent date formats when date parameter isn's wikifed, example: "Weeks of welcome: What's happening on your campus", The University Press, 2004-08-12. Retrieved on July 22, 2007.

I am confused as to what you mean.

Thanks, KnightLago 23:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see what you mean. Thanks again for the help and the review. KnightLago 00:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asperger Syndrome

I suggest that you google for "asperger serotonin APA" and reconsider your deletion, leaning towards citing one of the publications that comes back in a way compatible with your views on serotonin. Jok2000 16:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Aggie band

I saw your comments in the FA discussion on the Fightin' Texas Aggie Band article and was wondering if you could weigh in on a current dispute over the article. I was attracted to the article while on anti-vandal patrol and saw edit warring over the addition of a "primary sources" tag by several users. Apparently, one side feels there is too much pov content from a single source. Since I have no knowlege in this matter, and from the seemingly large amount of content from a single source and the manner in which that content was written - I became a bit concerned over potential copyvio issues. I stepped in to stop the edit warring and started this query. If you could weigh-in on the discussion, I think it would be enormously helpful. Thanks! Dreadstar † 18:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argh. I think you're right..I'm going to have to order a copy...<sigh>...;) Thanks much! Dreadstar † 21:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Auckland

 Done Nishkid64 (talk) 04:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:GA and articlehistory

Thanks a million Sandy. I do usually get it right with the template, but - as I copy and pasted the list of actions - I forgot to change some of the numbers on the parameters. Thanks for catching that, I owe you one. VanTucky Talk 18:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still on my watchlist, but I've been ignoring it a bit since it got off the mainpage. I can check in on it, as I have plenty of experience with dog breed articles. As a side note: Yomangani is gone? Did I forget some fortuitous event? VanTucky Talk 19:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for my error fixing as well. I think I have the hang of the template, but it's still slightly confusing. Regards, :) FamicomJL 17:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo DS

Why was the Featured Article Candidacy for this article removed? I feel that this article was not fairly given a chance. We only received a few comments for change, but we were working on the changes and just about to update the page. Zomic13 02:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Zomic. The decision to promote or archive is made by the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). I just looked at the FAC page, and it looks like the article was up for 10 days, it got one Oppose for citations, and there was no more feedback about ongoing work. If you're actively working on the article, it's best to give Raul feedback so he knows not to close it. Don't worry about a failed fac; you can finish up your work and bring it back in a week or so, and it will be a stronger candidate. If you're still concerned, you could ask Raul if it can restart right away, but it's usually best to take some time to really make sure everything is ready for the next round. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I guess I was a little concerned (which I should have mentioned) that this would prevent the Nintendo DS article from being able to be nominated again for a long time. But if we can still work on it, work on what was commented, and re-submit the improved article soon then I guess it really doesn't matter. Thanks. -Zomic13 02:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casino Royale (1967 film)

Hi,

Would you review this film for GA Status ?

It's been outstanding on the GA nomination list since 12 September 2007.

Thanks,

Tovojolo 10:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Wolff family

The article I protected needed it, but the other articles have not had enough activity to justify it. --Eye of the minD 03:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have watchlisted the other articles, and if the level of attacking increases, I will semi-protect them. --Eye of the minD 03:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marcus Trescothick

RE: your removal of the heading-break thing. My bad, I didn't know you couldn't do that. Apologies SGGH speak! 17:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Punk rock/archive1

Hi. I was reviewing this which you contributed to back in January in the light of an argument I am currently having about some style issues at Talk:Punk rock. I wondered if you would have an opinion on:

  1. Whether the images as currently used are in compliance with our fair use policy?
  2. Whether the use of terms like "seminal" is good practice in the light of WP:PEACOCK?

I'm sorry to ask about something from so long ago, but another editor is using the FAR (in which you were a major participant) to justify reverting my modifications to the article, which centre around these two areas. Thanks in advance for any help you can give. --John 22:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Santorum (sexual neologism)

I intentionally left the current status empty this time, as the article is on hold for a second GA nom. There is no currentstatus parameter for a nom on hold, so leaving it blank is imo better than perhaps leading people to think I failed it. VanTucky Talk 02:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I found the solution. Just leave the articlehistory temp complete as FGAN and add the separate hold template. Thanks Sandy, VanTucky Talk 02:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, lost my response to edit conflict; the template only supports completed processes (and when there are old peer reviews and AfDs, they have to be added). If a nom is on hold, it's not failed, and shouldn't be added. Is it failed or on hold? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

about Psihologie Solutii psihologice

Hy! I am webmaster for Psihologie Solutii psihologice http://grajdaru.3x.ro . About Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Pqr topic on "Psihologie" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Pqr#Psihologie

I made the modification and now on all my pages with wikipedia content is a notice about copyright and GFLD license. Contact email: oxus.e107user@gmail.com

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.102.117.1 (talk) 09:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a question at mirrors and forks because I'm not sure what's next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Barnstar of Diligence
This barnstar is officially for, among other things, "extraordinary...community service". Our community extends beyond our keyboards, and I know you're still shaking from your phone call, and having second thoughts about making it, but I am fully convinced that you absolutely did the right thing. What we need more of is for folks to take the concept of "citizenship" and make it personal. There's just too many instances in life of people not making the call because they "don't want to get involved" (and if you'll notice from my user page what line of work I'm in, you'll understand why this matters to me so much). Maybe it was 99.999% sure to be a hoax...that doesn't matter. You did the right thing, and I want to commend you for it. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SandyGeorgia&oldid=165002274"