User talk:SandyGeorgia

If you want me to look at an article or a FAC, please provide the link.

If you are unsure if a FAC is closed, please see WP:FAC/ar.

I usually respond on my talk page, so watch the page for my reply.
To leave me a message, click here.

About meTalk to meTo do listTools and other
useful thingsSome of
my workNice
thingsYukky
thingsArchives

FACs needing feedback view •
Five Nights at Freddy's: Help Wanted	Review it now
Roswell incident	Review it now
La Isla Bonita	Review it now

Template:FixBunching

Featured article removal candidates
Letters Written in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark	Review now
Rudolf Vrba	Review now
Michael Tritter	Review now
Middle Ages	Review now
Emmy Noether	Review now
The Notorious B.I.G.	Review now
Isaac Brock	Review now
Mariah Carey	Review now
Pokémon Channel	Review now
Concerto delle donne	Review now
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask	Review now

Featured content dispatch workshop

2014 Oct 1: Let's get serious about plagiarism 2013 Jul 10: Infoboxes: time for a fresh look? 2010 Nov 15: A guide to the Good Article Review Process Oct 18: Common issues seen in Peer review Oct 11: Editing tools, part 3 Sep 20: Editing tools, part 2 Sep 6: Editing tools, part 1 Mar 15: GA Sweeps end Feb 8: Content reviewers and standards 2009 Nov 2: Inner German border Oct 12: Sounds May 11: WP Birds May 4: Featured lists Apr 20: Valued pictures Apr 13: Plagiarism Apr 6: New FAC/FAR nominations Mar 16: New FAC/FAR delegates Mar 9: 100 Featured sounds Mar 2: WP Ships FT and GT Feb 23: 100 FS approaches Feb 16: How busy was 2008? Feb 8: April Fools 2009 Jan 31: In the News Jan 24: Reviewing featured picture candidates Jan 17: FA writers—the 2008 leaders Jan 10: December themed page Jan 3: Featured list writers 2008 Nov 24: Featured article writers Nov 10: Historic election on Main Page Nov 8: Halloween Main Page contest Oct 13: Latest on featured articles Oct 6: Matthewedwards interview Sep 22: Reviewing non-free images Sep 15: Interview with Ruhrfisch Sep 8: Style guide and policy changes, August Sep 1: Featured topics Aug 25: Interview with Mav Aug 18: Choosing Today's Featured Article Aug 11: Reviewing free images Aug 9 (late): Style guide and policy changes, July Jul 28: Find reliable sources online Jul 21: History of the FA process Jul 14: Rick Block interview Jul 7: Style guide and policy changes for June Jun 30: Sources in biology and medicine Jun 23 (26): Reliable sources Jun 16 (23): Assessment scale Jun 9: Main page day Jun 2: Styleguide and policy changes, April and May May 26: Featured sounds May 19: Good article milestone May 12: Changes at Featured lists May 9 (late): FC from schools and universities May 2 (late): Did You Know Apr 21: Styleguide and policy changes Apr 14: FA milestone Apr 7: Reviewers achieving excellence Mar 31: Featured content overview Mar 24: Taming talk page clutter Mar 17: Changes at peer review Mar 13 (late): Vintage image restoration Mar 3: April Fools mainpage Feb 25: Snapshot of FA categories Feb 18: FA promotion despite adversity Feb 11: Great saves at FAR Feb 4: New methods to find FACs Jan 28: Banner year for Featured articles

Reviewer Cup

I had propounded an idea for a reviewer analogue to the Wikicup, but have been told you are against the idea or at least had a good explanation why it would not work. I noticed that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/Spring 2009 was a successful event. It seems like people can be encouraged to review without causing the decline and fall of wikipedia. So, give me your thoughts.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure Sandy can write several pages worth of information here. As a fellow FAC delegate, I'm against any process that would increase the number of hurried and/or superficial reviews. We don't just need X number of reviews, we need X number of good reviews. Otherwise, it creates busywork for new reviewers, headaches for nominators who have to deal with poorly thought out opposes that may not comply with WP:WIAFA, and causes lots of extra work for Sandy and I as we try to figure out what is going on. Last year, Sandy and Maralia spent several months looking at the quality of reviewer comments and awarding barnstars and general praise. This effort was abandoned because it was a lot of work to compile the information and didn't really seem to change the behavior of the reviewers. I suspect most of the reviewers, like me, aren't motivated by contests and rewards - reviewing is a tedious job and we do it because we are interested in the articles or the process. I would not be opposed to any system that rewarded quality over quantity, but I suspect it will be difficult to come up with a good program that actually increases quality reviews. Karanacs (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That about sums it up. I really took great pleasure in acknowledging and rewarding the quality reviews and reviewers, but the bottom line is that the good reviewers continue being good reviewers with or without rewards, while the rewards didn't change other reviewer behavior. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I have already attempted to explain that the current scoring of WP:CUP does not really incent the betterment of WP properly. Obviously, I would want a reviewer cup also that attempts to properly incent improvement. My thinking is that in future years as the Cup grows (it has gone from 12 to 24 to 60) it will cause strains on all review processes. Having a reviewer cup could counterbalance this. I would prefer that the editor cup be scored differently than it is currently to motivate improvement more precisely. I have noted my objections to the current competition. E.G., I have noted that people running around nominating others work for GA get the same credit as people creating pages and bringing them up the quality scale to GA. The same is true for DYK noms vs. DYK creations. Similarly at FP people who take pictures, but need help editing them get the same credit in the current system as people who do all the editing themselves. The contest could incent people to put a burden on the editors of images. Furthermore the system seems not to have invited a cross section of the leading editors. People on WP:DYKLIST were not notified. Leading GA producers were not notified.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I had roughly stated that reviewers could be roughly credited by the number of edits on FAC, FLC, FLRC, FARC, FPC, VPC, GTC, FTC, GAC, GAR, PR, PPR etc. discussions. Suppose an FA review is 100 points to the primary discussant, 70 secondary, 40, 20 and 10 for the next three most active. Possibly an FL might have a 70/49/28/14/7 score. A GA review might be worth 50. PR might be 30/20/10. These are all just rough numbers. It is not clear to me that this would cause haphazard reviews. Only review credits would be given to top 5 edit count reviewer per article. Maybe it should only be top 3. This would incent people to review things that only have a few reviewers and to get really involved in complicated reviews. I think a 2009 cup could be ironed out and started in May or June if the kinks could be ironed out. I would welcome feedback that might help encourage desired reviewing behavior.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a hard time imagining any scenario whereby we want reviewers who are in it for a reward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Perish the thought that reviewers would be given different colored bytes on their talk pages for their opinions. I am skeptical of the WikiCup for having the potential to foster such an atmosphere. I think this attempt to score reviews is misguided. Surely these different colored bytes, rewards, barnstars, medals, ephemera, is not why we do what we do. Well...I hope. --Moni3 (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. Many people compete for the thrill of victory or dedication to the pursuit of excellence more than the pursuit of a barnstar. I don't know if you are an athlete or have ever competed, but it is not uncommon to compete for the thrill of victory or dedication to the pursuit of excellence. The point however, is that the Cup may grow by leaps and bounds in a way that causes a crushing burden on all review processes. Often people get on overly self-important perception of an award that they have the authority to bestow. I think you may be exhibiting that self-important feeling in your response that if people compete in my arena it is because of an award I might bestow. That is not the point. Well-intended reviewers may enjoy a friendly competition and feel driven to work harder because of it. A look at the friendly competition at Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/Spring 2009 is an example. I personally got involved without pursuing a barnstar. I have never reviewed two GAs in the same month in my entire time on WP. But in the spirit of the competition I did two, even though you have to do five to get a barnstar. Thus, I know personally, that the barnstar fear you have may be overblown.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for Sandy, but I am not missing the point. You seem to enjoy some friendly competition with some other editors. I don't know how far that extends, and your posting on the WikiCup talk page yesterday was confusing about how serious you are in pursuing your complaints about their contest, or, indeed...how obsessed you are. Featured processes, in my opinion, should remain only for those who enjoy writing about what they are interested in, and are rewarded only by the experience of learning more and bettering themselves. I do not see a productive outcome from attaching point systems to articles and reviews. As soon as that is done, the competition becomes more important than the quality of the articles. It's inevitable, because we are merely people, many of whom are taught that external rewards are the only goal worth striving for. Though you may keep the quality of your articles at heart, the system itself allows editors to bend the rules for the shiny things they may get. The WikiCup was created without consulting anyone at FAC to my knowledge, though there are FAC regulars who are participating. --Moni3 (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you've got it about right. Basic social hygiene would suggest that it's a poor idea to put a system in place that's open to abuse, as this WikiCup clearly is. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes the system is open for abuse. In fact, it probably promotes both abusive and constructive behavior. You surely have to take the good with the bad. The cup could clearly be structured to have more constructive incentive and less abusive incentive and that is my point. You are I believe agreeing in part with me on this fact. I imagine the Cup could triple in size next year especially if any story about it appears in Signpost. I doubt that alll featured processes would or could be withdrawn from the WikiCup. Sure, Featured processes should be for those who enjoy doing it. We have the cup. There is no evidence of a reason to shut it down and it will likely grow. If we operate under the assumption that if we have a cup and it is likely to grow what should we do. Should we wait until it grows to a size where it crashes many review processes. I don't think so. I think we should work to refine the Cup and set up complementary processes that ensure the integrity and viability of the WP review system. Do you see a problem with the competitive results of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/Spring 2009? As I pointed out above, it did not cause the decline and fall of WP. Is there evidence that having review processes be part of a competition would have deleterious effects on the review processes. I have seen no such result. Sandy herself said that barnstars do not change behavior. Even with this result you are against a process because of a fear rewards might change behavior. Are you trying to have it both ways? Given the empirical result that barnstars do not change behavior according to Sandy, what is your argument again?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

My argument is very simply summed up by the phrase "social hygiene". --Malleus Fatuorum 20:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand such an argument. What does the term "social hygiene". It sounds like a person who makes dirty jokes is what you are against, but I have no idea.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

← Let me try and put it more simply then. The way to eliminate crime is to eliminate the opportunities for crime. Not to put in place systems which encourage it. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Suppose you put in place a system that caused crime to increase by 10% and good citizenry to double. Would that be worth it. Surely you do not believe that every extra review by a motivated process would be a bad one. I know my positive review involvement doubled during the last GAN process. I am sure most good reviewers reviewed an above average number of articles (since the queue fell drastically). See thoughts below on good review query.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Anecdote is not the singular of data. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to Sandy's one-time study of ex-post reward?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger, I think you have not understood what what we are trying to say. I believe that rewards don't change the behavior of the dedicated FAC reviewers (as evidenced by the experiment last year). What rewards can do is encourage editors who are not otherwise interested in the process and who are not familiar with the review criteria to leave many half-hearted reviews that cause confusion amongst nominators and muddy the waters for the FAC delegates (I do not want to see half-a-dozen supports from people who have no idea what the criteria are, nor do I want to wade through a handful of objections that have no basis in the criteria). I am very interested in any method that would encourage good, quality reviews; however, edit-counting is absolutely not the method to measure that. A reviewer might leave a total of two edits on an FAC nomination - one that brings up a well-thought out argument as to why the article is not comprehensive and a second edit to strike his comment when the nominator has fixed the problem. Alternatively, a reviewer might have 15 different edits, because they a) opposed the nomination on the basis of too many redlinks, and then b) replied 14 times to argue with the 14 people who said that was not an actionable objection. Which of these reviewers should be rewarded? Obviously, the one who made only two edits. The only way I've thought of to figure this out, though, is to evaluate each and every comment on each and every FAC individually. It's incredibly time-consuming, and when we tried it last time it didn't change the overall quality or number of reviews. If you have an alternative idea that does not rely on edit-counting, by all means please propose it. If it relies on edit-counting, please keep it far, far away from FAC. Karanacs (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes no doubt edit counting is not a perfect solution. However, currently the Cup uses a very rough scoring system. The intent here is to seek guidance and support for refining the CUP scoring system and to pursue a complementary reviewer process so that the cup does not drag down review processes. I threw out an edit count based system because it is a better approximation of proper incentive than a binary participation scale like that which is now in place at the CUP for editor scoring. Clearly starting a reviewer cup with detailed review is a waste of resources. I guess what I need to understand is how you would measure a good quality review with infinite time and then try to work toward a process where a bot can measure a good quality review. Is this possible?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible that a bot could figure out which review is good and which review is bad? No. And if it were, we would have a bot that could determine whether an FAC nomination should be promoted or archived. Instead, it takes a person to read and evaluate the actual text to determine what weight to give to various reviews.

A good review must be made in lines with the WP:WIAFA criteria (and, for opposes, be actionable). A lot of that is relatively subjective (prose reviews). Some reviewers review only one portion of the criteria (such as images or sources); some review everything; some reviewers have harsher standards than others. Some good reviews are plopped down on the FAC page in one giant edit; other reviewers add comments as they read each section of the article. Opposes may gain higher weight if the reviewer catches something that several reviewers who previously supported missed; on the other hand, opposes can be disregarded if the other supporting reviewers have a consensus that the oppose is wrong. Seriously, last year it took Sandy and Maralia hours and hours to manually review each and every FAC nomination for two months and grade the various reviewers. If you search the archives for WT:FAC from last year you should be able to find the discussions over that attempt. Karanacs (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

O.K. no bot and no edit count. Manual determination prefered. Let's suppose the WikiCup is going to thrive and grow and eventually cause strain on all review processes while improving editorial contributions. What do you propose?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No need to take such an argumentative tone. The wikicup hasn't caused an FAC backlog. FAC has had a problem for awhile now that there aren't enough reviewers to go around; other review processes have similar issues. We haven't really figured out a good way to solve the problem. FAC reviewing is a time-consuming process with a relatively high barrier to entry (you have to understand what the criteria say and how to apply them), and it's hard to attract new reviewers. I have no objection to giving out barnstars or awards if that is what some editors want, but I am adamantly opposed to doing so based on edit-counting. Karanacs (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Should the WikiCup prove such a burden to the FAC process, I would consider an MfD for it. --Moni3 (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:F9T/WikiCup –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Reviewers should be reviewing because they want to make Wikipedia's best work better, not for the recognition. Similarly, editors should be writing FAs because they enjoy making articles as good as possible, not for shiny bronze stars to show off to their friends. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That pretty much sums it up. --Laser brain (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have read the MfD. It seems clear that the general consensus is that participation in the Wikicup is not for competitions sake but to market and motivate editorial activity. It have not heard anyone say that they are involved because a bronze stars so I am not sure why arguments against a Reviewer Cup based on aversion to barnstars is given any weight. Dabomb87 says that editors and reviewers should review to make WP better, not to pursue eMedals. It seems the Wikicup and a Proposed Reviewer Cup are intended in that vein. Correct me if I am wrong but the previous lack of results for barnstars was for ex-post reward as opposed to a system of ex-ante competition and reward. I think it is possible that an analysis of editorial review effort is really what we need. A true analysis of review quality is to resource intensive. I am not sure what to propose. Counting FACs participated in is not indicative, IMO. We need a general set of rules that map into editorial review effort, IMO. I do not intend to be argumentative. Most of the review burden will be at GAC and other more surefire point parts of the project for Wikicup contestants. FAC might not be a problem for some time. I was imagining growth like the World Series of Poker in terms of entrants. I am guessing 180 and 500 for the next two years. At 500 contestants, I could see it causing burden on review processes. However, we can not wait until it causes a burden to react. My thinking is that learning the foibles of a reviewer cup starting this year or next would enable us to be prepared for when the burden hits.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Sandy, I forget whether you are he or a she?

Sandy is female (for some reason, this sounds so impersonal). Dabomb87 (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

O.K. I was wondering because "tails" of my discourse at the WikiCup talk page has been mentioned here. Maybe it would have sounded less impersonal if I had asked whether she were a lady or a gentlman:-!--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

...if the WikiCup has a 60-participant limit, how can it expand to 500 entrants? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe you saw my Wikicup commentary that I never knew about the contest until this week. I knew of no limit on entrants. Personally, I don't think there should be an entry limit, but if there is one that will lessen the reviewer burden.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

What is going on now seems to be working out relatively well. I have absolutely no interest in participating in a contest, so I don't. Those who do, are doing the WikiCup. Allow, please, for a moment of candor: I don't understand the compulsion to rack up points for edits. I think it would be just as easy to ascribe a random number, call it points, and put it on your user page. In that case, I have a million points and I beat everyone. I am a winner at last (and, by extension, better than everyone). These systems do not allow for certain editors and articles who do things that are much more dedicated than skipping from one article to the next to ensure the maximum points. What about the editors who watch John McCain, Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, and Evolution? They got their bronze stars and stand at their articles to defend them, and it takes up a huge amount of time. What kind of points do they get? What about the topics so contentious and massive that they may not ever see a bronze star? I admire User:NancyHeise just for trying as much as she does on Roman Catholic Church and its related topics. How is that comparable to an editor who gets a dozen FAs for the same type of topic over and over? Whatever you're proposing to change the way editors approach FAC, I will say it again, is misguided, and I don't want to be part of any system that prioritizes quantity over quality, intellectual pursuit, learning something new, personal growth, and heart. Should that be the direction of featured processes, I will do whatever I can to oppose it. Should it become a reality, I will find another forum or outlet that honors the same attributes I do. --Moni3 (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind what you are saying when you say it is working out well is that it is not causing noticeable problems. I don't believe you are analyzing it in any way that says yes the people who are adding the most value to Wikipedia are actually "winning". I also do not feel you have assessed whether the current system is promoting quantity or quality. I believe you are just saying no problems are showing at FAC, which is a completely different thing. My objective is 1. to help develop a system that places greater recognition on value added to Wikipedia than the current system and 2. to develop a new reviewer process that helps minimize problems any review process may see resulting from WikiCup burden. If there are other dimensions of wikipedia productivity worthy of a fair competition aimed at promoting that type of productivity, we should consider them. I imaging there could be a vandalfighting cup. Maybe even an XfD cup. I currently am putting forth the idea of a reviewer cup merely because it would complement WikiCup in a way that would enable it to grow.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I have another response to Moni's comments on the producers and guardians of the most highly trafficked articles. I do think there should be a premium on taking a highly trafficked article to high quality. I think there should be a factor where an bumping an ariticle like Barack Obama from GA to FA counts more. Suppose Obama had a 2 factor and Illinois Centennial Monument, which seems to be my lowest trafficked article to date, had a .2 factor. That might also help promote adding value to WP.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You asked for a response, so I'm giving one as a courtesy. I don't think I'm convincing you, and I know you're not convincing me. I don't feel as if points belong as part of FAC, but you keep describing a potential point system. Thus, I don't know what else to say. --Moni3 (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You are not understanding me. My query was for the following. What is going on now seems to be working out relatively well. My response was I don't believe you are analyzing it in any way that says yes the people who are adding the most value to Wikipedia are actually "winning". I also do not feel you have assessed whether the current system is promoting quantity or quality. I believe you are just saying no problems are showing at FAC, which is a completely different thing. Am I summarizing you correctly? I want to understand do people think the cup is actually helping encourage improvement of wikipedia by encouraging adding value as it currently functions. Thus, I need a response to these points. Getting in to a proper reformulation of the WikiCup and a proposed Reviewer Cup is two or three steps removed from this basic issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

To put as simply as possible:

1. I don't care about the WikiCup.

2. I would start to care if it began to adversely affect the FAC system by promoting the nomination of poor articles, rapid nominations without significant revisions, taxing reviewers' time and energy, or exhibiting poor quality reviews from editors whose top priority does not seem to be the best quality articles.

3. When I say it's working out well, I mean it's not forcing me to care about it.

4. I have my personal parameters of what benefits Wikipedia, and part of that, I believe, is not "scorable". So in the sense that the Wikicup organizes some editors to perform certain tasks and rates them on those tasks, it gives the appearance that it is beneficial to Wikipedia overall. I don't believe that these editors, without this cup, would not perform these tasks anyway. If all it takes is the WikiCup project page to motivate people, I, quite honestly, believe that the tasks it asks people to do are probably not that substantial in the first place. I say this wincing at what productive WikiCup members are thinking while reading this. I have stated before that I respect the articles that the participants write, but I think there is much more room for personal growth that is not being explored due to the nature of the competition. I am a firm believer in internal motivation rather than external rewards. I do not believe external rewards truly motivate people to press themselves harder to go faster and do better. I think external rewards motivate people to go a little bit farther. It is, as I like to say poetically, the fire within that makes the best articles I have read: the thirst for knowledge, insatiable curiosity, desire to learn more and make oneself a better person, social justice, regret, love, frustration, anger, admiration, and all sorts of reasons why people write FAs. Half of those reasons I listed are mine. The other half I have read as motivations from other editors. --Moni3 (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I can distill your answer to a Yes. Yes in the sense that your meaning of it working means you believe it is not affecting FAC. Then, of course, you have a lengthy discourse about the merits of the whole system that is an aside to the matter of whether it works.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• I feel that this all is much ado about nothing. I have spent a lot of effort within the WikiCup to ensure that there is as little gaming of the system as possible. Any problems that were occurring before were dealt with quickly. TonyTheTiger's proposal seems unfortunate. The response likewise seems unfortunate. I stayed out of this because there is enough drama going on (here, WT:RFA, etc) and I have enough to deal with as is. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that so far the Wikicup seems to be running fairly well. As far as I have noticed, it does not appear to have had any negative impact on FAC. I don't really care what people's motivations are if the result is high-quality articles (with minimal disruption elsewhere) :) I suspect that limiting the number of entrants and filling many of the slots with people who are already very familiar with the review process has helped to keep out a lot of the nonsense. Karanacs (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes the WikiCup seems to be working in the sense that it is not perversely distorting Wikipedia in general. I am not convinced the "right" editors are at the top of the scoring system and that is another issue altogether.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Yeah, and similarly, the Yankees should have won last year's World Series because we all know they're the best. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Tony asked me to clarify my comments. I don't follow the Wikicup to know whether it is "working" (I'm not sure what its ultimate goal is, and I don't really care). It isn't causing disruption, so that's good. I think one key difference between the format that the Wikicup uses, and the format that you propose(d) for reviewers is that the wikicup relies on other processes to determine value (if you get an FA, you get X points, but the wikicup organizers don't judge those articles, the FAC process does). The original proposal here for a reviewer cup would have the cup organizers determine the criteria for what makes a good review. To do something like that right is a time-consuming process (because you have to essentially define what the right criteria are and come up with a process for measuring that). It may be valuable (in that it encourages more good reviews), it may be a disaster (in that it encourages more bad reviews) and it may have a null effect (no one's behavior changes but a few people get bragging rights). I'll fight any attempt to reward reviewers based on edit-counting; I'll be interested to hear any other ideas for enlarging the pool of quality reviewers. Karanacs (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The WikiCup is for fun. A lot of people are having fun. So, it is working. Other people aren't having fun or want to end the fun. so, it may not be working. I don't like the idea of reviewing cups, because the content cups have been regulated enough to ensure good content. How can you really ensure a good review? Any situation would be so drama filled that it would make my RfA seem like a peaceful get together. : D Ottava Rima (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it both Moni and Karanacs feel the WikiCup is working in the sense that people are enjoying the new process and it is not distorting review processes, especially FAC. Ottava Rima, seems to be saying it is working because participants are having fun. However, she has added that it is working because it is regulated to ensure good content. This last thought is ambiguous to me. Does it mean that it is working because review processes have not been distorted (in agreement with Moni and Karanacs) or does it mean it is working because the current cup scoring ensures that content is "good". I don't quite see how the latter is correct, so I am going to assume she is saying the former. Which means that basically people are in agreement with Cups that don't distort WP. The fear of all discussants here is that a reviewer cup might distort review processes. I believe that aside from Moni, who is against any form of Cup, a reviewer cup that could be designed to encourage more good reviews would be favorable. My thinking is that suppose a WP participant currently spends 20% of his WP time doing good reviews. If a Reviewer Cup could get him/her to spend 30% of his time doing good reviews that might be good for the review processes since that would mean 50% more time spent reviewing. I believe that the Wiki Cup gets people to spend a greater proportion of their time on content creation. This means less time reviewing, fighting vandals, evaluating XfDs, checing FURs, etc. I am just trying to get some consideration for a process that could increase the time allocation to reviews. Keep in mind reviewing is a learning process. Even more time by bad reviewers may help them to become good reviewers faster. I am also trying to get some consideration for reformatting the WikiCup process so that it encourages added value content creation more directly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as other reviewers go, Malleus Fatuorum is against the WikiCup and Juliancolton defends the Cup. SandyGeorgia, Dabomb87 and Laser_brain question the propriety/need/value of Cups. I think I am summing up the arguments herewith.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Tony, since Sandy seems largely uninvolved in this conversation, maybe you should move it to WT:FAC. There, you are sure to get additional feedback from people who might not monitor this page. You could even take a straw poll or something. --Laser brain (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well frankly, it couldn't get any worse at FAR really...I can't see how a WikiCup would mess anything up there, as there is basically no checks except to see that there are references at all. If a guy adds in most of the refs or even cosmetically, the reviewers will usually let it drop. Definitely a lower bar than GA.... Some unsourced articles have FARs that sit there for four weeks even though it is obviously unsourced, it would otherwsie get quick failed at FAC in about 3 days usually by a margin of 0-5 or whatever. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

YM, it's OK to ping editors for input when a FAR is lagging (I guess I've gotten lazy about checking them, because Marskell often pinged me to ask if I was OK with one). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Dispatch

Since there was no dispatch this week, how about using Template talk:FAC? Gimmetrow 22:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I can look at it when I'm home in a couple of hours ... will ask Ragesoss if he can hold off. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Holding. It looks like it's still in rough shape.--ragesoss (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I asked Maralia to have a look; I should be home in a few hours, and will let you know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

To butt in since I never caught wind of this before: the only change is that even successful FA noms will have an /archive nomenclature, correct? --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if we stick with the /archiveN form, all nominations will have that. Something about this should run next week. Gimmetrow 01:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Instead of a Dispatches, I'm putting this story in News and notes, with a link to Template talk:FAC User talk:Gimmetrow/FAC.--ragesoss (talk) 01:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Got a ton of edit conflicts on this; 'my' version is posted at User:Maralia/FAC template dispatch. Maralia (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

oops ! OK, what should we do? Do you want to look over my changes, incorporate to yours, and use yours? I like your bolding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I like your history and interim sections, and the restructuring. I'll work on incorporating those at my version and see what we come up with. Maralia (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll wait for you, then, so we don't ec. Let me know... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I've already published, but if you feel this merits a full Dispatches, we can run it next week. It seems like a relatively minor change, though. It is, of course, related to featured content, but beyond a brief description of the new archive format, I don't think it will be of interest to more than a handful of readers. Just my two cents. --ragesoss (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Allright, yes, sorry we missed the deadline. I can't find the link in News and notes? Do we need to update it to Maralia's version? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm done with edits at User:Maralia/FAC template dispatch (both my and Sandy's changes). Maralia (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-03-30/News_and_notes#FAC_rolls_out_uniform_archiving_system. Feel free to change the link to point where-ever (and update the attribution in that section if you think more than Gimmetrow should be credited).--ragesoss (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Maralia, your version looks good now. Can you move that to a better name (maybe WP:FCDW/FACRollout, link it to the Signpost News and notes, and we'll also use it for a Dispatch next week maybe ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the talk page of my subpage to Template talk:FAC. I will delete my subpages eventually. Gimmetrow 02:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC) I have to go for a while. Gimmetrow 03:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved and linked at News. Rewrote the section, too, as it described it as a new 'archiving system' when it's more like a new 'never-archiving system'. Please doublecheck there to make sure I've not botched anything. Maralia (talk) 03:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Except, see the note at User talk:Gimmetrow; I think you still have to delete the Article/archive (it goes straight to archive1). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I do think we should still run it as a Dispatch next week, so we'll have it in one place to reference in the future. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Great. Now this should make manual updates a lot easier for ArticleHistory after FACs close ... Gimmetrow 03:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't taken a breather yet to sort out what any of this means or how it is used. Maybe it will sink in tomorrow, when I think about what else needs updating (Template:FAC-instructions isn't quite right yet, they can't just copy the nom in now, they need to sub archive N). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

[1] That was never a copy-and-paste; the article name had to be changed too. But notice there is a nice copy-paste version in the {{Featured article candidates}} until the subpage is created. Gimmetrow 03:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

FAR

We have a problem with FAR. It appears that user:YellowMonkey has quit Wikipedia less than 2 weeks after being made my FAR delegate. With Marskell still away, and Joel31 asking to quit, there's no one to tend the shop. Raul654 (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I could be crazy (I am sure I am), but someone like Malleus has a lot of experience with GA and GAR. I think he could neutrally guide the standard procedures. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I say wait and see what happens with YellowMonkey. Ceranthor 23:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I was on vacation the past week. I will withdraw my desire to resign for the time being. Joelito (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism dispatch

Hi. :) Sorry I was not able to get it in shape prior to shipping, but I'm still plugging at it. Would you mind telling me if you think this is going in a good direction? I have restructured it and added a good bit. I have no idea how to find a good example of revision, since it requires finding a text based on a pd source that is well done. All of the pd attribution templates I know are for pd sources that are used verbatim with no revision whatsoever. :) The spotting plagiarism section could perhaps use some expansion, as well as a suggestion for what to do with it, but before I head there I wanted to just get a gut check on if you think this is going okay. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Just checking back. :) If my assistance is no longer necessary here since this particular dispatch deadline has gone, just let me know. I'm still working on today's copyright problems (and also some OTRS e-mail), but can get back to it later today if it would still be useful to you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Great. :) If it's not urgent, take your time. Today's batch of copyright problems took me longer than I anticipated anyway. :) I may ask around to see if I can find a good example of an acceptable paraphrase/summary. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I just have to note: I did not leave a half a response here out of some misguided April Fools sense of adventure. :) I accidentally hit save page whilst trying to hit "show preview"...and then accidentally hit "show preview" whilst trying to hit "save page." Which just goes to show that sleep is an important part of the human experience. (I've been nursing my husband as he recovers from surgery. Sleep has been scarce around here!) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Not to worry; I accidentally hit Rollback today at RfA when I was trying to view a diff on the next line of my watchlist. I might not get to that tonight; I lost my kitchen computer, which is where I have Quicken, so I'm scrambling ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry about your computer! (I take such incidents very seriously. :() I'll get to the dispatch probably tomorrow; realistically judging my timezone, I'm unlikely to finish it today. I would like to get feedback from others in the plagiarism department. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

We seem to be working at the same time. :) I can come back later. I'm in the "what to do about it" section and somewhat struggling, since we don't actually have a policy.... (I take it from your edit summary that we don't use third person? I wasn't sure, but went with it because some of the text was written so when I arrived.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll plug at it a bit more, then. I'm thinking I may ditch the "done right" example, unless the original writers have found one. Do, please, let me know if you think it's going all right. It all feels like such WP:OR. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

←I'm at a stop for today. I've tried to eliminate the royal we and 2nd person pronouns, though I've got a few more "him and her"s than I like. Is this shaping up in what seems to be a usable way, do you think? :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed a lot of the "he and she's" to "they's" - I prefer the plural as it is less wordy. Awadewit (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If you're comfortable with that, I have no objection. It's an old hang-up of mine; I have a hard time bringing myself to do it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

*Ding dong*

• goes into →
  goes into →
• 
  then add
• 
  which equals
• 

<snicker>

*runs away*

Where's my five bucks? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

In the poop. --Moni3 (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy the music !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That fire is releasing carbon into the atmosphere. Shouldn't Al Gore actually be crying? Эlcobbola _talk 14:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Elc, you've exceeded your funny quotient for the day already (ref User talk:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, looks like Gore is doing the 20 degree lean. --Moni3 (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

So close to a fire? That's dangerous. (See what you started, Moni?) Kablammo (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Methane has a CO2 equivalent of 21, so he wouldn't be laughing at that either. Yomangani^talk 14:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yoman, I'm counting on you to add the best image caption from Lion to The Fat Man's talk page; he might like the 20 to 40. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Fat Man can hide, but he cannot run. Kablammo (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If Yoman can turn his Lion image caption into a killer post to His Corpulence, I may have to dig out Moni's five bucks and pay him. (TFM cannot run at that pace; do the math.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he needs to stop eating jalapeños. Hemorrhoids are no laughing matter, you know. --Moni3 (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you want WP to be a no-flatus zone? We already have enough uptight people around here. Kablammo (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Your username should be nowhere near a flatulent Nobel prize winning ex-vice president and an open flame. Shame on you. --Moni3 (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I am well-rebuked. Fat Man and I have something in common. Kablammo (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Conclusive proof of global warming: http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/01/conclusive-proof-of-global-warming/ -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Fooled again

Happy April 1 everyone. I was fooled by an April Fool's posting to Savoynet which prompted me to add this External Link to The Mikado. I was tempted to leave it there for the rest of the day, but decided to let y'all see it here instead:

• Poster for Michael Jackson's forthcoming "Hot Black Kabuki Mikado" -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Friday the 13th

Can I ask why you closed the FAC? There are three or four reviewers who have not yet returned to acknowledge the changes made to the article in response to their concerns. I would respectfully like to request an extension be made so that these editors can return and either say "my concerns are not met...'oppose'", or "my concerns are met...'support'". Given that the number of editors that haven't commented on the changes made to the article could significantly sway the consensus of the FAC, I think it would be beneficial to extend the time.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Please forgive my butting-in. There are still too many problems with the article's prose and I stand by my first comment in that a thorough copy-edit by a third party is required. I know this can be difficult to organise, but FAC is too congested to allow articles to stay on the list while they are being fixed. Graham Colm ^Talk 09:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Empathy#Merger_proposal

Did you ever come across mind-blindness outside Baron-Cohen's work? Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No ... some pieces of his work are similar to Fitzgerald. Is there not a better merge target than empathy? Did you ask Eubulides? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I have and yes there might be...Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Slovenian presidential election, 2007

Hi. Can I ask you why you have closed this one already? The only person opposing didn't even have time to comment back on my comments. Given the fact that there are candidates even longer on the list, can you give it a week more because I really don't want to nominate it straight again? Thanks. --Tone 08:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Please take a couple of weeks to work on issues; the FAC page is backlogged, and there should be a few weeks between nominations to work on issues for articles that haven't gained any support or have outstanding issues. Once a FAC has been up a while without gaining support, it has a better chance if it comes back clean in a few weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll contact Karanacs via talkpage to fix the issues separately from FAC. Greetings. --Tone 14:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Zaprešić FAC

Could you please explain your closure of the Zaprešić FAC discussion? After four weeks of waiting the article had to get almost to the end of the list for someone to have a look at it, I acted upon half of the suggestions by JKBrooks after coming from a short wikibreak and decided to review the rest today. And now I find out you archived the nomination mere two hours after my edit. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

California State Route 78

Somebody has decided to revert your fixes - [2]. Not exactly sure what to do about this one. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems that he reverted only the incorrect use of WP:ITALICS? If that's all, it's not worth disrupting a FAC over ... but it's certainly strange. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Obesity

Incredibly fast response. Many thanks. Do you think on should actually state all weight in both kilograms, pounds, and stones? Cheers --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't add stones :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay I just add notes to myself as I go along to make sure I get all the issues. Not good with grammar but will try to figure it out. Thanks --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking an interest in this page. It has been just me for quite some time.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I have gone through all the changes you mentioned.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You'll be proud of me

[3]. — Deckiller 03:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm always proud of you! (And I think of you every time it rains, and every time my basement floods ... which is entirely all too often :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Aww, shucks. :-P — Deckiller 04:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Stick around this time ... FAC and FAR are really lagging. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if I'll spend a ton of time around the FAC room; I'll probably review 2-3 a week. Plus, there's that glaring ongoing Final Fantasy FAR; I have a slight personal stake in that one, though it's looking good. — Deckiller 04:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Two to three per week would be HUGE ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hue chemical attacks

Hmm, pity about that, there weren't any opposers and I changed Sasata's points, YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

YM, since you weren't editing, I archived; feel free to bring it back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, a few FAR nags will be in order as well. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Necrid FAC

I think I took care of all the overlinking issues. Could you please take a gander and make sure I haven't missed any? >_<--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Dear Sandy, You did not promote the article on homeopathy as a Featured articled (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Homeopathy&redirect=no), can you please tell me why? Was it because users like Lykantrop and me said that it's extremely negative? The contents of the article have really disturbed me (a homeopath). Thanks in advance for replying.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus to promote the article. In addition to the two opposes there were reliable source concerns, and disputes over neutrality and fringe theory issues. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ha

I really should pay attention more to things. Sandy, have I told you lately how amazing you are? Well, you are! If I can just get Johnson's health page up to GA or FA level, then there will be a nice little featured topic with Johnson, early life, health, and TS. Yes, it would be -your- Featured Topic showing off -your- amazing work. And yes, you will have to deal with its awesomeness. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

We seem to be still encountering resistance to his TS, although it enjoys wide acceptance in medical publications. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Where now? It has been published blatantly in 6 biographies and hinted to ("tics" mentioned often) in most of the others post 1950. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Prod in Template:ArticleHistory

I saw your edit at Talk:Shana Zadrick where you undid my ArticleHistory edit that was awaiting the new parameter. You and the legions that follow you should be aware that there is now a PROD parameter for {{ArticleHistory}} as per Template_talk:ArticleHistory#PROD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Anything that shows up in the Articlehistory error category gets my attention; as long as any additions don't generate an error, I won't know about or revert them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ping!

FYI, I just emailed you a question of a personal nature that I think you might have some insight on.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:FLC Dispatch

I don't know, that might be pushing it a little. How about the week after that? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Sure, I think I'll be able to have something whipped up by then. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

FAC numbering

Sandy, I just went through all the archived FACs from April that followed the old system and moved them to their correct archive numbers (e.g. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Release the Stars to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Release the Stars/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Slovenian presidential election, 2007 to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Slovenian presidential election, 2007/archive3, etc.). This will make potential future FACs for those articles easier. I'm here to ask you whether I can do the same for current FACs that follow the old system; for example, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John L. Helm would be moved to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John L. Helm/archive1. I know it would cause havoc temporarily, but I would make it quick. Let me know if this all right and I will do it; if not, no problem. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 01:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you doing that. I can't see how it would matter unless the one currently at /articlename should be at something other than articlename/archive1; then it would make sense as it would keep them in chrono-numerical order. Am I missing something? Maralia (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I suppose not. However, it may be confusing if an editor put {{FAC}} on an article's talk page, and nominated on archive1 even though there was a previous failed nom at /articlename. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

So in a nutshell, it's not worth the effort while the FACs are active. I may return and move them after they are promoted. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb87, thanks for the work you've done, but there are some issues now. Can you hold off a bit while I catch up? At minimum, the articlehistories on all of those that you changed need to be updated, but please don't do anything else until I have time to catch up. I may not be able to finish this morning, as I have an app't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

Sandy, Hue chemical attacks is not promoted but left up on the FAC page; an oversight? Jappalang (talk) 04:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, never mind, MBK004 fixed it.[4] Jappalang (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually ... it was correct until everyone started changing things. I have a lot of busy work to catch up on now, to figure out what has been done with all of these archives (Hue isn't correct now). Can everyone hold off on making changes until I catch up on this and make a list of fixes needed? Several articlehistories are off now. The situation of FAC files with no archives was a temporary situation, only involving those that were active on the page when the new system was started, but now I've got to sort back through everything and figure out what's happened. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like the /archive1 needs to be moved over the redirect, and /archive2 moved to /archive1. Gimmetrow 15:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot going on everywhere, including articlehistory updates needed ... I have an app't this morning, and may not be able to sort through everything until this afternoon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Gimme, how about if we go ahead and eliminate the non-archived versions, as they seem to be confusing people? Move everything on the page now to an archive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to be away from my computer for at least three hours in a bit. As far as I can tell, based on a quick look, all of the archiving changes done overnight need to be reviewed for at least:

• Update articlehistories to point to the correct archive
• Check for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/article (with no archive) that were left as redirects that need to be deleted
• Check that the FAC archives point to the correct archived versions -- there were changes on top of changes.

I do agree with Dabomb87 that we may as well eliminate the non-archived FAC files and move them all to an archive, but it has to be done completely (meaning, including the articlehistory and removing redirects and checking of what links here), and this should be done systematically, all at once, so we're all on the same page. We've got a lot of cooks in the broth, and this work should be coordinated with at least Maralia or Gimmetrow to get it all sorted. I could have missed something, since I'm only quickly checking before I head out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

More still: should we also db-g6 files like Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Han Dynasty, now showing up with the tools? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Just finished catching up on my watchlist. Will start cleaning up now. Maralia (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the most important stuff is done now; corrected the Archive listings, and have updated ArticleHistory where necessary for each moved nom. The only remaining problem is that when pages were moved and the redirect deleted, other links weren't updated first; now there are a slew of redlinks on WikiProject, Usertalk, etc pages. Would be helpful if Dabomb/Julian could start fixing those.

While looking around, came across an old {{FACfailed}} template! Could have sworn I killed all those with prejudice :) I also noticed that {{FACfailed}} wasn't marked as deprecated, and Category:Wikipedia featured article candidates (contested) still described the category as being populated by FACfailed. Have updated accordingly. Noticed that there are still all kinds of links to FACfailed and other deprecated templates in Wikipedia space; will start cleaning those up. Maralia (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Still wrong:

• Talk:Terri Schiavo case has an archive5 that was/should be archive1.

OK, I think we're all done now. Thank you so much, Maralia !!! Perhaps dentist app'ts are better than the alternative after all.

Should we begin moving current FACs under the old system to archiveN? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I am still off on my template tangent; don't look at my contribs unless you are feeling extra hearty today :D Will propose 'official' deprecation etc once I'm done looking for bad/old/unused stuff. Not too concerned about the current FACs under old system; we can always move them at closing. Maralia (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought we kept those old templates in case we ever had to wing it without GimmeBot? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

What are you doing?

I just nominated Han Dynasty as an FAC because History of the Han Dynasty failed its nomination. These are not the same article, yet you placed a notice at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Han Dynasty saying it should be deleted. What is going on? There's no FAC rule which says I can't nominate an article soon after another failed. The two are unrelated.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You nominated it with an old file. Do you want to resubmit it correctly, or do you want me to go through all the machinations to correct it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I did? I was not aware. How do I go about resubmitting it correctly?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Give me a minute to catch up on it, and then I'll walk you through it ... there was no template on the talk page, and it was an old file. Hang on ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I might have to leave my house very soon, but I'll check your talk page in the next five minutes.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Caught up now, and there is no problem; the correct archive is at FAC, and it is only the old page that is to be deleted. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Han Dynasty/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for resolving this.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Pericles, this issue will affect all of those FACs that you had created and have waiting in the wings. You may want to delete those and start over. Karanacs (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I got all of those. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Not that it should be encouraged, but people can use {{featured article candidates}} directly to link to a pre-existing page. Gimmetrow 21:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

I had no idea that I caused so much trouble; I fixed article histories and FAC archive links last night and thought I addressed everything. Evidently not. So sorry for all my trouble; thank you Gimmetrow, Sandy and Maralia for cleaning up after my mess. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem, no need, Dabomb87 ... the new system archived plain FAC pages (with no archiveN), something not done before, and that confused several people along the way. It was an issue that was going to surface eventually! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I know, but I could have coordinated with more experienced users first (Maralia, you, Gimmetrow, etc.). Anyway, I fixed most of the redlinked FAC links. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No, Dabomb87, your help is welcome and needed, and your actions were correct !! Wiki can't be broken; the parts you did were helpful, and I'd much rather have you being bold, helping out wherever you can, than worrying about getting some minor little part of your work (that can be fixed) wrong. Please keep up the good work, and don't sweat the little stuff !! It was a temporary, confusing sitatuion-- an issue waiting to happen. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

FA reviewing

Sorry I haven't gotten to any yet; it's an extremely busy time for me now, and I haven't had a solid block to devote properly to it. I still intend to do so, but it will likely take me a few more days. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA oppose

Well...it was about 6 months ago. I'm thinking of reapplying, but I'd like to see if I've addressed your concerns from the last RfA. Please comment, when able, on User:BQZip01/RfA4. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, BQZip, I'm a bit pressed for time this morning; it would be helpful if you gave me a link to the RFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Hi Sandy, thanks for your message! It is good to be back but right now I'm trying to discover where to pitch myself. How are tricks with you? There's a brewing kerfuffle at User talk:Jimbo Wales with Mr Sanger popping out with an open letter re:"foundership"... worth a read... anyhow, hope all is good in your world. Take care. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Protocol question

I see you've been leaving lots of MOS mini-reviews on FACs. I left a few in-depth reviews on some of those and then started wondering if that was appropriate. I know you left similar reviews when you were our sole delegate, and I just wanted to make sure that you aren't considering yourself recused if you leave the MOS issues list. Karanacs (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a new issue with both of us being delegates, and with Epbr123 (talk · contribs) no longer editing. I've noticed that very few other editors do MoS reviews. I used to do most of the MoS work at FAC; after I became delegate, for a long while, I could always ping Epbr. Now I'm finding that I have to do most of the MoS work myself, since few other editors have stepped up to do that. I don't consider it a conflict because I'm unlikely to archive a nom over MoS issues—instead, if no one highlights or does the work needed, I leave a note, and if necessary, just do the work myself. Not thrilled with the situation, but it is what it is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought was happening, but I wanted to make sure you felt the same. Karanacs (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

FAC question

See my comment here.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Typhoon Tingting FAC

In a recent edit you made to the article, you said that there needed to be hyphens in places but, I only found one other place that needed one. Are there any other technical issues in the article? Thanks, Cyclonebiskit 19:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The Raft of the Medusa

I noticed you removed my statement about the Pogues using The Raft of the Medusa for an album cover. Works like the Mona Lisa, The Last Supper, and The Scream all have their noteworthy pop culture references at the end. Why not this one?--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The Raft is a featured article: those aren't—they haven't been reviewed for WP:TRIVIA. You can propose the addition on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It was proposed on talk. One unnamed contributor asked for it, then you denied it, then another editor asked for it, then I included it. So that's three people who think it's noteworthy. Why do you feel your opinion outweighs ours?--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sing a song

Sandy, I saw your comment on Rufous-crowned Sparrow, querying the use of italics for bird calls. Up till now, this has been standard for bird article, and I've had several bird FAs passed without any comment on italicising bird calls — see Red-billed Chough for one example. This raises a number of questions

• Why is italicising bird calls wrong?
• Since it is standard within the project, would that make it acceptable?
• This usage has never been queried before even at FA level - is the non-italicisation a new policy or one that every has overlooked until now?
• What is the correct formatting for bird calls?

thanks, jimfbleak (talk) 06:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll second Jim - I recall most bird articles having the onomatopoeic sounds italicised - think of them as foreign words in bird language :) - but seriously, they are italicsed for emphasis - eg Words as words. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem, that's why I asked, but can you add that as an example to WP:ITALICS? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You people lure me to this talk page with a subheading referencing The Carpenters, and I get a thread about bird songs? Cheap shot, guys. Very mean. Get me all excited then break my heart. By the way, why do birds suddenly appear every time Casliber is near? I think y'all should be able to answer this one. --Moni3 (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

They're looking to poupon ArbCom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Best. Reply. Ever. --Moni3 (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol - will amend as advised jimfbleak (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, SandyGeorgia. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nevermind the WikiPolicy, here comes the random linkage!

Srsly. Watch this and tell me if you laugh.

I shall listen without judgment, holding a clipboard. If you watch and laugh so hard you think you just might die, you are gay. It's a new lavender litmus test.

When you close your eyes, I want you to think of me. Which one am I? No hints.

Could be me

Is not me, but Chuck is thinking: "This cheezburger... how cheezy is it?

Maybe this too, but perhaps with less sexual imagery.

In my dreams, because that's where I imagine as much crochet as I can.

Mmmmm. Goodness Perhaps I'm not as gay as I thought...

Nevermind. I really am... --Moni3 (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I just moused over these links and saw all kinds of "sexy people" URLs. What are you trying to do to me? This is going to be more than five dollars, and may have to wait until I dare look !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not what you think... although I have no idea what is going on here either :P --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I winced at the destruction of the vegetation, but laughed only when I thought of remote controls. I mostly looked at clothes, hair, fingernails and makeup? Did I pass? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, how does one explain that video? That someone spent all that time editing it and setting it to ABBA. I found the corresponding images to the lyrics specifically significant. "Because...I'm...NOT...ONE...OF....YOUR...FAAAAAAAAANS!!!" I thought, surely, this will be the end of my life. "Don't fuck with me, fellas! Don't fu fu fu fu fu" Verily, I wept.

As for the images...they are works of art in themselves. Enjoy them. Enjoy them all. --Moni3 (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		Thanks for organizing the plagiarism dispatch and prompting us to make it such a good document. Projects such as the dispatches always need a leader and you are doing an excellent job. Awadewit (talk) 00:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)