User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch22

Youngstown, Ohio

SandyGeorgia, if you wouldn't mind, please take another look at Youngstown, Ohio. I believe that we have met most or all of your requirements. I would appreciate your reassessment. Thanks!--Daysleeper47 11:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on my userpage. I did not in fact create it, but modeled the template off of another user (as is common, I suppose). Again, thanks for your efforts with Youngstown, Ohio and Happy Holloween! --Daysleeper47 13:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to let you know that I am out of town until Sunday evening, maybe Monday morning so I won't be able to keep up with any article changes or to assist the FA nom. Twelsht should be able to continue his work on the citations. Thanks for your efforts in getting this article passed. I wish we would have had comments like these during the two peer reviews. I imagine it would make this process easier. Have a great weekend. --Daysleeper47 02:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo RfC

I was considering nominating the RfC for MfD. What do you think? Good idea, or just another venue for more drama? - Crockspot 14:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

At this point, it's serving as a beautiful example of how messed up dispute resolution is on Wiki, and how abusive all of these processes can become. I'm starting to view it as a good illustration, and hopefully Jimbo will see what "regular users" live with. I don't have a strong opinion on whether an MfD would be a good thing or not, and I trust your judgment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The down side would be that it would guarantee that the RfC would live on for a week, until the MfD process completes. I'll take a wait and see approach for now. If it ends up "certified" improperly, however, I am inclined to request arbitration. - Crockspot 14:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I am very concerned about the lax approach to certification of RfCs, the lack of good faith attempts to resolve issues before an RfC, and how the entire DR process lends itself to abuse of process so that everything has to end up at ArbCom. All of these processes lend themselves to "voting" not discussing, and groups use that to their advantage to railroad users they don't like (note, I am *not* saying that is what Elonka has done here, as she seems to be operating in genuine good faith—I just disagree with the thing being on multiple fora. AN/I is an RfC). The whole thing needs fixin'. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in this case, the first remedy being sought (resysop of Zscout) is already moot. The rest of the remedies are a wish list of those who have a "question authority" bumper sticker on their rusted Volvos. It isn't even clear who the "bringer" of this RfC is. (A banned user from a year ago?). It isn't clear who exactly is in the dispute with Jimbo, other than Miltopia and Zscout (the latter of whom has already resolved their dispute). Totally messed up. I think a certain segment of the wiki community has gone insane. - Crockspot 14:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hate to fess up to my memory default here, but it was brought by a legit user IIRC; it's just that the original post was lost in the delete/reconstructs. I remember it being legit; it *may* (I say *may*, because my memory lost it here) have been Elonka to begin with. I don't own that bumper sticker, but I sure would like to see some reform in the dispute resolution process, some recognition of the fundamental problem on Wiki of harassment by admins and abuse of admin powers, and some leadership by example to stem the tide of admin abuse of process to promote POV. I'm not convinced Jimbo's desysopping of ZS will address those fundamental issues; I'm concerned it will only lead to further pre-emptive strikes by others with lesser intentions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Do bear in mind that the issue of certification isn't usually determined until 48 hours have passed. At the moment if I were called upon as admin to evaluate whether the RfC was properly certified, my response would be that it has not and to delete it accordingly. At the moment one of the 2 purported certifiers is clearly well below what we would we call "trying to resolve the dispute" - indeed they seem to have made only post and I think that was part of the dispute rather than an attempt to resolve it. Elonka's validity as a certifier presumably depends on what off-wiki steps (alluded to here) she has taken. Nevertheless as two cerifiers are required, it seems to me that if no one else is in a position to certify it once its been up for 48 hours it should be deleted. WjBscribe 15:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, WJB, and this case is far more convoluted than the norm (how do we even measure the 48 hours when it's been closed and re-opened more than once), but the bigger picture is that we should discuss, not vote. RfC is too often a rush to pile on votes, just exactly as CSN was. Users who have no protection (which Jimbo does) are too easily railroaded by votes in these processes, and the RfC is redundant to the discussion on AN/I. The "process" may work out fairly for Jimbo. This time. The question to me is, how often does it work out fairly for "regular users"? Again, I don't want it to appear that this is a question of Elonka's good faith, because IMO she is clearly acting in what she believes to be the best interest of improving Wiki's processes. I just want to shine a light on the issue of how easily dispute resolution is abused to advance group-agenda POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have thought about the MfD, and since the RfC has been closed (for how long, we'll see), I think that WP:RFC/U is what needs to be sent to MfD. WJBscribe's good sense notwithstanding, there are other admins who seem to see RfC's as a free form discussion, which is very troubling. I'm not convinced that all admins make as reasoned a call on opening as WJBscribe would. - Crockspot 20:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If you MfD it, I'll Support (it *is* the same problem as CSN), but after having read Jimbo's response, I'm not encouraged on the big picture. The problems he highlights are real, but once again, he makes no mention of the other equally significant problem: abusive and uncivil admins who contribute to—evem lead, sometimes—the very culture they claim to lament. Without recognition of that problem, I'm not convinced that it matters what forum or manner of dispute resolution is in place as long as good editors have to be afraid to present evidence. Even better than MfDing it, IMO, would be to consult someone like Elonka about a more effective dispute resolution process on Wiki, so that everything doesn't have to end up at ArbCom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth (if anything) I endorse the closure and would support deletion. It did not need to be undeleted after ZScout was resysopped IMO. Mr.Z-man 21:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, thanks for the kind words and the acknowledgement of my good intentions. I do agree that there are problems with the current dispute-resolution process. As for the RfC, I am very glad to see that Jimbo posted a response, and I agree with much of what he said. It's my hope that this will lead to some positive changes that will benefit the entire project as a whole.  :) --Elonka 22:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

(followup) I'm not sure if it's on your watchlist, but I'd be interested in your thoughts about my recent post at User talk:Mr.Z-man#Good question. --Elonka 23:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sweet ambrosia...

Praise from SandyGeorgia is worth a dozen barnstars from mere mortals. 40k edits in a year and a half? I thought I was an animal... I've been dabbling on pages related to creationism and ran into the same thing - the re-revisitation of issues addressed in the past. Is there a protocol for establishing a 'best of the archives/frequently raised issues' (similar to WP:PEREN), but for high traffic articles that tend to get a lot of recycled complaints? WLU 23:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Why, thank you :-) I've seen a lot of very convoluted talk pages with archives of perennial questions, but none that have impressed me. If you find one, let me know! Creationism, huh? Venturing into Wiki's darkest alleys, are you ... good luck ... don't let it change your good nature ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That'd be a worry had I a good nature; I've a thin patina of civility atop a seething sea of resentment and inferiority complexes (yes, -es, I'm a complicated man). Fortunately I make judicious use of the preview feature. Actually to date it's not been that bad - a good edit is worth a dozen talk page edits and a good source worth a dozen good edits :) WLU 00:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Know thyself is a good mantra; if you're going to dabble over there, civility may become relative and maintaining it will be a constant challenge. Don't lose your stuff; an article isn't worth it :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

skipto

Hi - I reinstated the skiptotoctalk tag on Talk:Ron Paul - don't know why you said it's useless - in fact it's helpful on smaller screens (like my laptop for one) where all that's seen initially is the boilerplate on top - what's the problem with having it there? Tvoz |talk 16:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Whenever I do talk page cleanup, unless there's a mass of templates on the page, that's one I routinely kill ... usually, after all the article history-related templates are replaced by ArticleHistory (following a FAC), the talk page becomes manageable without the skipto. But if regular editors prefer it to stay, that's fine :-) I went there to see if things were settled, saw a template dispute-ish discussion, but couldn't figure out which template was being discussed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

OK - no prob - I just find on my screen that I have to scroll too much and it's easier with the tag. The template they're talking about I'd like your take on: it's a template for "political positions of ron paul" or some such wording (go to the edit screen and you'll see it) and it turns the section that is in the main article into boilerplate that is then repeated in the separate article Political positions of Ron Paul as its intro. I don't like the use of a template for actual article text in that way - it distances the text from editors who aren't totally familiar with the piece, and has the effect of reducing editing. I totally understand why that can be a good thing, but I think it's misplaced here and we have to just suck it up and live with it. New editors may have good ideas, and this to me smacks of trying to protect the article to read the way supporters want it to read. (The template can be edited, of course, by anyone - but I think it is off-putting.) That's not what templates are for: they are for things like the repeated boxes on the bottom for lists of candidates, for advisories, and the like - uncontroversial things that are repeated in many articles and by necessity should be boilerplate. This is text. Also, I think the section is too detailed for both a main article section and an intro to the daughter article, nor do I like having identical wording (especially of that length) in two articles. I'm probably not in the majority there, but I think that this is problematic for these two reasons and maybe others. But I'm interested in your view on this, and have asked that this question be brought to a wider audience, but so far hasn't happened as far as I know. Tvoz |talk 17:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I still haven't found it: maybe it's my headcold, or maybe I'm just stupid. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Found it by looking in what links here: {{Ron Paul political positions}}. That's stupid: it's an article, not a template. I'll see if there's a policy or guideline anywhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Found. Wikipedia:Template namespace. "Templates should usually not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." So, they should delete it, or you can TfD it. It's hard to read that article; it has so many basic MOS issues that it grates on my eyes and nerves. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Asperger's Syndrome-related articles

Hi Sandy, I noticed you sometimes edit Aspergers/Autism-related articles. You might be interested in commenting at Wikipedia:Deletion review about Darius McCollum, an individual with Asperger's. Hope this helps! --Solumeiras ^talk 16:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

45.000 edits (not that that's a good thing). Putting up with... more than anyone should for your trouble.
'Nuff said.

For the beautiful gesture :) Aren't these supposed to be "prizes", though? I've barely been around! Hope everything's going fine your way, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Mark Geier

Sorry, I'm a bit overloaded to take that one on right now. Eubulides 02:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Back to the workshop

Sandy, I've been too busy to do more on WP than keep up with my current FAC for most of a week, so I've been unable to post to the workshop or in response to the essay you posted and that I had planned to talk to you about. It looks as if you're now an integrated member of that workshop, so I thought I'd ask whether it would still be useful for me to comment on your notes. Let me know. I still plan to get back to the workshop, but life is still looking hectic for a few days, so I don't know how much time I'll have. Mike Christie (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Mike, since the essay hasn't yet generated a large amount of either concern or interest, it's probably not worth taking your time on. Onward and upward, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Preity Zinta

You have provided very good points for the Preity Zinta article. Watching your edit history, your work is of a very high quality. If you could help me copy-editing it a bit, I would be extremely grateful. Please do it if you can. Plus, any suggestions are greatly appreciated. Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 06:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Shahid, I would if I could, but I just am not a good copyeditor. Have you tried WP:LOCE? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh that's ok thanks, I'll check that. I'm just really afraid now. Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 06:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to be afraid: it's fixable. I'm just disappointed that no one pointed it out sooner. FACs can take a long time, and Raul allows time for issues to be fixed. You could also try Outriggr (talk · contribs) or Malleus Fatuarum (talk · contribs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I see now in the previous link you gave me, Blofeld, the nominator, requested there to copy-edit the article. But I'm really grateful to you for your forthright oppose, because whilst I want it to reach a featured status, I want it to be good, well-written and as encyclopedic as possible, so your comments, as well as your very nice talking manner, is much appreciated. Thanks for the help. Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 06:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you asked Girolamo or BigNole or Nishkid or anyone else who was participating on the FAC talk page if they could copyedit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I have. I asked the former. He said that he was a bit busy, but he added that maybe he would make some copy-editing in the evening. I don't know what an evening is for him, because I think we are not living in the same countries. Regarding the other editors, I just don't know them, so I'm not really sure whether I should ask them for help or not. Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, don't be nervous; sometimes Raul leaves FACs open for a month or longer, so you'll have plenty of time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeh you're right and actually we have received some good contributions from editors who've seen Blofeld's request here. I didn't know about it, and noticed it only now when you sent me the link. So I guess it's good that people will be aware of it. As I see now, prose is the main problem in promoting an article to a featured status. It is specifically mentioned there, and there are special sections there for FACs which are in need of copy-editing. Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know I have had a chance to structure the article somewhat and give it a copy edit. In my experience if one of two negative quotes are added into the career section to make the tone appear completely neutral I believe with only very minor editing most notably any outstanding grammar or reference issues the major issues highlighted have been addressed and this is now virtually there. I've asked Shahid to check each reference for reliability something which he usually does an excellent job on with other articles also (he is always quick to revert shoddy references or info) and check for any possible dead links. I hope you can help as you suggested earlier and can see the article has improved considerably. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

echolalia, palilalia, or something else?

I originally sent you this message as an email because it's kind of embarrassing but after 5 days you havent replied so I'm hoping you just didnt see it:

If you have a kid who calls out the names of people and/or objects when he sees them, what is that? I shouldn't say "call out" ... it's more like he's imitating the object itself, and saying its name in a voice like what that object might have if it could speak. Different tones of voice for the same object depending on how it looks. Or with people. If his mom is angry he'll go "MA!!!" in a voice imitating what she might say if she were to talk to him. But if you shw him a pic of her holding him as a baby he'll go "mawwwwwww" in a very sweet voice. He likes one syllable words. I've heard him say "ntarct!" when looking at a map of Antarctica. I think he likes the shape of it.

Please help me if you can. Haplolology ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Haplology, for some reason that went into my Bulk folder. Echolalia is repeating the words or phrases of others. Palilalia is repeating your own words or phrases. What you've described fits neither. Because the brain doesn't follow the strict man-made definitions of the DSM, it can be unhelpful to get caught up in labeling by code or man-made boundaries, and no one can say what the child has without observing the child. It could be a compulsion (OCD), it could be impulsive (ADHD), it could be generalized echophenomena related to a tic disorder, or it could be related to an autism spectrum disorder or stereotypic movement disorder. I'm not a medical professional, so I really couldn't say even if I could observe the child, but one question to ask is whether the child has other tics or fits within the general framework of autism spectrum disorders. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

=) It's actually a familial trait that is stronger in me than in my siblings, but I didnt want to sound too weird and then not get an answer. Sorry to have deceived you initially. Yeah it runs in my family, and I'm pretty sure it isn't just one sibling picking it up from another because we have always been embarrassed about it and therefore a younger sibling would never catch an older one doing it at a young enough age to want to start mimicking that older sibling just to fit in. So I'm pretty sure it's some genetic thing. Autism runs in the family, but not everyone who has this behavior has autism. So it has no name. Thank you, that's all I wanted to know. Haplolology ^Talk/_{Contributions} 10:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

When nothing else fits, sometimes stereotypic movement disorder fits the bill ... but again, I wouldn't worry too much about fitting into man-made DMS boundaries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:AS

I'm surprised to see a move and not a deletion with a warning on their talk page. Is there a reason, or are you just a kinder, gentler person than I? WLU 20:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

What did I miss? A warning for "not a forum"? I didn't want to WP:BITE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I put up a welcome and a warning; I'm glad we've got standard warnings (and they're pretty polite) otherwise I wouldn't bite, I'd chew and spit out. My normal reaction to something like that would be messages on the talk page and user page, possibly erasing the message were I in a foul mood. Too much? I always like to hear more experienced wikipedian's reactions in case I'm out of line. Plus, I usually learn something new. WLU 22:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It was literally his very first post; I'm more inclined to not say anything just yet about the "not a forum", and quietly remove "not a forum" posts later. If the editor sticks around, we explain it then; if he doesn't, it won't matter. It appeared to be in good faith, with good intent, and many people with neurological differences on the internet are more accustomed to support message boards, and might not realize how inappropriate a post like that is on Wiki. I don't think, on a first post, it's that important to point out the "not a forum" aspect. When I think back to my first month of posting to Wiki, I just shudder at some of the stupid things that came off the end of my fingers; if I knew where to find them all, I'd go back and fix them. I'm sure I self-annointed an article I was working on as a GA somewhere, and I made some utterly stupid comments on a peer review. I try to hold on to that memory with new editors who appear to be posting in good faith, and I remember with gratitude some of the kindest people I met first. If you're inclined towards chewing and spitting out, you'll be right at home on the creation/evolution articles, where I'm afraid most editors are built for escalation. :-) On the other hand, Fvasconcellos (who is up for Sainthood) was kind enough to redact the e-mail address so the new editor wouldn't get spam; Fv (and others) are the kinds of admins I look to for guidance. Had I not been in such a hurry to finish my morning watchlist and get out the door, that might have occurred to me as well. You could also consider the way TimVickers handles issues on those articles compared to some of the other editors there. Tim gets the job done without ever saying things he would need to be ashamed of some day. But I guess shame and graciousness are relative in Wiki's dark alleys. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Lovely advice and an excellent reminder, thanks for the lengthy reply. If there was a more accurate hit than bulls-eye, you hit it with your creation/evolution escalation comment! WLU 13:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Good luck on those articles, WLU ... as you get involved there, remember to check every now and then that you're still the considerate, ethical, responsible, concerned editor you started out as, and remember the old adage about the company you keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately I still have sufficient humanity left that on occasion the behaviour of other editors raises my eyebrows. Considerate, ethical, responsible, concerned... your optimism makes me blush. WLU 23:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Raises your eyebrows ... if I edited regularly over there, I'd have to get botox injections to keep my eyebrows in place :-) Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

I loose perspective sometimes. Thanks for being reasonable and soothing while I had my meltdown. I'm over it now. I appreciate that you exist. Mattisse 21:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Again Zinta

Hello! Thanks for working on Zinta's article, and sorry for messaging you here, and not replying on the FAC page, but I think that it's good to explain that to you here.

"Unusually for Indian cinema standards, her debut role was a full 20 minutes long. However, it was eventually noticed for Zinta's unique role, in respect to the forthright character she portrayed of a middle class Delhi girl."

By Indian standards, having a 20 minutes role is a terrible launch for a newcomer. However, it was eventually resulted as a very good one for Zinta, as she was widely recognized for her forthright character of a straightforward girl, which was, again, very unusual by Indian standards (She is generally known for playing distinct and even controversial characters). If you have a good idea for it, please change it.

Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Shahid, there are too many sentences there that I just can't decipher at all; someone who knows the topic needs to sort them out, working with someone who doesn't know the topic to show the places where the text doesn't explain things that people outside of India don't know. I think the article is going to need a long collaboration of copyeditors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I personally think that it has shown a lot of improvemnt today, so I think it is not as terrible as before. Blofeld is also unfamiliar with the topic, he is not an Indian, yet he's improved it today with a major copy-editing. Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You've left a lot of comments on the article. If I adress your complaints, can I remove your comments? Or should I wait you to check it? Shahid • ^Talk2me 03:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please do; that's only a shortcut method to avoid having to go back to the FAC to type out a comment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I'm not Indian and I agree that I couldn't fix some of these which I know little about such as Indian actor debuts. Thanks for your help anyway ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 11:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:GA and articlehistory

Thanks for the tips. I was in a rush, couldn't find the right code, and just had to leave it. But now I know for the future. Thanks again!--Esprit15d 00:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Stuttering

I see it's received a lot of recent work. Is it improving? Marskell 10:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

José Galisteo

Hi, Sandy. Though we've had our differences in the past, you are probably the person I trust most when it comes to quality assurance in articles. That you also speak Spanish is a plus in this particular case. I recently wrote an article about this guy, and he (or someone claiming to be him) has emailed me, demanding we remove all references to homosexuality and the military, even including that he has gay fans. he has reverted both the English and Spanish articles. Before I posted the article, I had it vetted by several editors, including an admin. All content is sourced. I was wondering if you could read the article (it is short) and look at the refs to see if they meet WP:BLP. I will not be editing the article further until this is resolved, out of what I perceive as a conflict of interest (I am both the article's creator as well as a big fan of his music). Thanks for even considering this. PS: I have also posted this on ANI, the BLP noticeboard and the LGBT Project talk page, since I have gotten more than one letter and am getting stressed about it. Jeffpw 10:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I'll work on it later this evening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy. It seems fully supported to me, having been worked on by both the English and Spanish projects, but I would appreciate your objectivity. Jeffpw 15:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Stanley Cup

I've been kinda semi-active lately, and I've gotten around to making the fixes you talked about. I also created a page, User:Maxim/Articles, which is sort of a to-do list for the article, although you don't have to use the page, it's something you might be interested in seeing. Is the article ready for FAC? Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 13:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Maxim, I'll try to have a look tonight or tomorrow; I've got a list :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'm not in a massive rush, or any at all. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 12:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan

Hey there. I think you will know the answer to this. Reagan's getting hit hard by vandals at least five times a day. I'm not saying that we need protection, but it could help. Can a FA apply for protection and have it granted without coming under fire for violating FA criteria about stability? And can it be delisted? The other editors and bots seem to have reverted it all, but it's pretty dang heavy. After what we went through, I'm not even going to chance anything that might delist it. Happyme22 16:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverts due to vandalism are not a disqualifier for FA status; yes you can ask for semi-protection (registered editors can still edit, IPs cannot) at WP:RFPP. Many FAs are semi-protected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

And that answers my question. Thanks. --Happyme22 16:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Problem with mark-up

Hi there, thanks for your review and advice on Virus. Would you have time to look at Rotavirus which I have adopted today. I have a problem with the referencing the < ref > tags aren't working for me and I can't work out why. Graham GrahamColm 17:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You had not installed the referencing mechanism, {{reflist}}. See WP:FN. Also, if you will just supply a PMID to Diberri's template (using the PMID dropdown), you will get a complete standardized journal citation, including the PubMed reference. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy help, I feel really stupid now. Best wishes GrahamColm 18:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No need ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Stuttering 2

Hello, and thanks for your message. And also for your editing of the article today. I have watched and learnt and won't put you to the same trouble in the future! Finding where that long dash is on my keyboard is going to be task one.

I personally would like to start what I have finished, which is to try and save FA status now, if at all possible. I think it is possible, and that a week or two could do it, especially if there is some help in the offing!

My approach has been to rewrite and cite the main sections, thinking that the lead should come last. I have questions about the need for/extent of the cultural aspects section, and would be glad of some input and discussion on this topic. I agree that the classification is not classification and in the addition the collection of other disorders mentioned there seems extremely random. Looking at other similar articles will help focus what should be in that section.

Re: the books I have used.... they are not really textbooks but scholarly books written by leading academics and researchers in the field. While there are probably some citations that I could narrow down to a specific research paper as you suggest, I personally feel that in many cases the books are actually the best sources for such an article. We get the benefit of the distillation of knowledge, based on thorough summaries of the research literature, and published by reputable academic publishers. Before I drop a note, as you suggest, I would like to get this issue clarified, since if this citing from these books is going to be frowned upon, I will likely give up the project. --Slp1 21:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Lost a big long response to an edit conflict, computer issues here because of a storm, will start over in a bit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Trying again. On dashes, see WP:DASH for a description of the differences between WP:HYPHENs (-), endashes (–) and emdashes (—). Hyphens join words, endashes are used on page, date, number ranges, emdashes are used for punctuation. If the WP:DASH article doesn't help you figure out how to enter them directly from your keyboard, you can find them below the reply window, in the line that begins with a bold Insert (the first character after insert is an endash, the next is an emdash). Alternately, you can just copy-paste one of mine. If you don't want to mess with them, I don't mind fixing those sorts of things so you can focus on writing.

I agree that the WP:LEAD can be written last, after the rest of the content is nailed down; I just wanted to make sure that was the plan.

On cultural references, the best info is at WP:MEDMOS, and it references the article I wrote, Tourette syndrome, as an example. I already moved a lot of that content out, but more could be moved. Cultural references should include only things or people that have made a lasting impression upon perception of the condition; anything else can go to daughter articles.

We need to make sure all recommended content sections per WP:MEDMOS are there, and sections like Classification need to be rewritten.

On the books, generally other FAs refer to the highest-quality peer-reviewed sources, usually recent reviews printed in the highest-quality journals. In this case, since I don't know the topic matter, I would have to rely on your judgment on the books. The problem with books is that they aren't peer-reviewed, and some can be self-published quackery or be biased towards the author's opinions. I feel better when I see the highest quality medical publishers (like Wiley) and I don't recognize those publishers. If you are convinced these books reflect a review of the most up-to-date, comprehensive, peer-reviewed, journal-published literature, I'd have to trust you, as you are the only subject matter expert on board. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, and I expect I caused the edit conflict that caused the loss of information, so I apologize!

Starting with the book issue, I certainly take your points, and could certainly cite more directly to peer reviewed journals in some cases. The problem is that peer-reviewed overviews of stuttering of the "basic information" sort needed here are rare, and those that qualify tend to be overview articles written by doctors for medical journals, and frankly not that great in quality, for all that they are peer-reviewed! The SLP peer-reviewed journal literature assumes the basics are known, for the most part. I do believe that these books are good, solid reliable sources, as shown by the fact that they are very much in agreement, one with another on the areas I have used them.

Do I get the feeling that you think this is a hopeless task? I am not really willing to go to a lot of time and trouble if that is the case. I certainly can't save the article alone. I would very much value having somebody go through the text I have written and improve the prose, flow etc. I would also appreciate somebody else cutting the cultural aspects back to what is required and desirable, since I don't have any special knowledge in this area. Are you up for it? No worries if not, as it will just be one less thing to worry about in an already busy life. Slp1 23:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It's doable, but it's very discouraging and disconcerting that in all of Wiki-land, it's only you and me, and I know next to nothing about stuttering, so I'm only good for formatting cleanup and MOS stuff. For example, I just cut back the Cultural stuff, but I don't know what to fill in it with, since I don't know who has made a lasting difference. If those books are high quality, we can argue for them, but can we get the rest done in under two weeks? That is, if I check the MOS, writing, and the non-content stuff, can you write everything that is missing per WP:MEDMOS (history comes to mind, do we have comprehensive info on diagnosis, etc.)? For example, you shouldn't worry at all about dashes, ref formatting, whatever -- I can do that stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is discouraging, when there are plenty of people available to squabble about other things! I think I can do the writing and sourcing, if you can take care of flow, copyediting etc. Re: History, having just done a journal search, there is little reliably sourced information about the history of stuttering, though there is the one article (by two German ENTs, I think, go figure) that I had already found. I could even email you the pdf, if you were interested in giving that section a go. --Slp1 00:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's check with Marskell first and see if it can be extended two weeks, or if he thinks that's asking too much; I'll post him a note. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

After some overnight reflection, I've changed my mind and think the delist route is the way to go for now. Then I (and hopefully others) can work on things more slowly and reflectively. Thanks for your help and advice along the way though.--Slp1 13:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Article history

Perhaps you could show me how to do use the article history template on Joseph Priestley? There are some peer reviews that need to be added. What is the script I need to add to my monobook? Awadewit | talk 21:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Awadewit ... do you want me to do it slowly, step-by-step, so you can see each, or do you want me to watch you do it? The script is only to automatically locate the oldid, so for illustration purposes on the first one, we could do it manually, without the script. The script is from Dr pda (talk · contribs), it's articlehistory, and you can find it on his user page. Normally I would go ahead and process Jason Priestley as a new FAC, but I'll wait for you on this one. Let me know if you want me to step you through it, or wait for you to get the script, or if you want to do this one manually. Also, I'm having computer access problems due to a storm right now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Joseph! Joseph Priestley ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

ok, ok <grin> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I always want to do that too (and on purpose!) I've been having trouble with the articlehistory script—nothing happens when I click on oldid. Sorry, but I completely missed the end of your comment above—I just added the scipeerreview to ArticleHistory... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing happens when you click on oldids in any talk page articlehistory? That's not right; you don't need Dr pda's script to click on a diff ... I'm not following? (That image really needs to be on the right ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No, when I click on (oldid) in the script output (to get the oldid). I'm really, really not keen on flipping the portrait. That's just... disrespectful (not that Ellen Sharples would mind, what with her having died a hundred and fifty-odd years ago :) Maybe Awadewit will have more to say? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

ah, sometimes I have to click more than once; I'm sure it has something to do with cookies or pop-up controls on my internet security software, fiddle with that? I don't see anything wrong with having Jason/Joseph facing outward; I see a lot wrong with introducing images on the left, since every pop culture article will want to start pulling some cutesy layout if we let one by. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

What's this—our resident MOS maven is suggesting an illegal change? I don't think the current placement interferes with navigation (and I'm not really concerned about setting a precedent), but I guess if others feel strongly about it the nominator will have to consider changing.</end point-making> In all fairness, Priestley is facing right but looking outwards. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, ya learn something new every day! That solves the pop culture prob; did you point that out on the FAC, or are you going to let me cover my own arse? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks good, Awadewit; did you get the script, or did you do it manually? Let me know if you need any more help, Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't do anything, unfortunately. Perhaps you could undo it all and show me? I just installed the script now. If you want to wait for another article, that's fine, too. Awadewit | talk 02:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• ack, I didn't realize Fv had done it,[1] and I didn't understand why you hadn't gotten back to me after waiting all this time :-) If you're online now, we can look at it now. Or we can wait, since that one is already done. If you have the script, you should be able to run the script now and see where Fv got the oldids and dates ... do you want to just try that? Learning how to make the script work is half the job. Let me know; it's bedtime here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Why don't we just for the next one, then, eh? Sorry - I was torn away from the computer. Pressing engagement. Awadewit | talk 03:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

On the portrait

• By the way, it is a very firm art historical principle not to place images in books so that they are looking into the gutter or off of the page. This was grilled into me when I was undergraduate art history major. You could say it is dogma in that discipline. It leads readers away from the text and from the image itself. So, for example, Priestley's eyes would lead me to my phone, not to the article, and that is not what we want - we want to keep readers focused on the article. I don't think the positioning sets a bad precedent, because there are excellent aesthetic reasons for it that academics themselves use in page layout. I don't view the decision as arbitrary. It is one of those well-thought out exceptions to the guideline, in my opinion. Awadewit | talk 02:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yea, I'm fine with that. I don't know where the make or break idea came from or who Jayron is calling petty, so I'm going to stick my head in the sand and ignore that comment :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, I don't know where that came from, either. I was just trying to explain my reasoning since you invoked the MOS on images at the beginning of articles being on the right. Good night. Awadewit | talk 03:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

FAC advice

My apologies about the recent FAC, I was not aware of that point about multiple ongoing FACs. I'll wait a bit to post this last one, but what is the proper way to withdraw? Can I simply remove it from the main page and from the talk page of the article, but let the FAC subpage for the article exist, and just repost it to WP:FAC once concerns from my last one are addressed? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC).

Yep. If you want to withdraw it right away (with no comments on it), it's ok to just remove the template from the talk page, remove the entry from the fAC page, and overwrite the FAC when you re-submit. It's probably only me you'll be overwriting, right? If anyone other than me has commented, I'll have to archive it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it was just you, and my initial nom comments, which I would like to save for the next FAC, is there a way to do that? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC).

Just delete my comment, and re-add your new sigfile when you resubmit it. The same FAC file will be there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Great, will do. Thank you for your help, SandyGeorgia, I appreciate it. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC).

• Users are asked not to add a second nomination here until the first has gained support and concerns have been substantially addressed. - This does seem relatively subjective, but I guess in the future I will try to just wait a safe amount of time in between FAC noms for different articles. Hopefully there will be many more FAC noms to come!  :) Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC).

• Yep, if you've gleaned a lot of Support and are just waiting for Raul to promote, it's usually OK. But with three up, it's borderline, and FAC is really jammed up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Seems like everything is jammed up at this point: WP:GAC, WP:DYK recently had a backlog of not being updated for about 15 hours, and before that 17 hours for the previous update, and now WP:FAC... Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC).

User:Shshshsh

Per your comment on his talk page, he was blocked for a 3RR violation yesterday morning. Apparantly he has been evading the block by using his sister's PC. I have therefore reset and extended his block. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ganesha FAC

Please take a look at Ganesha again to sort out any issues that still compels you to oppose the article in FAC. You had expressed some concerns, most of them sorted out. Thanks.--Redtigerxyz 07:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have not Opposed on that FAC ... ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You left this comment on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ganesha : "Concur with Karanacs (who opposed) about work still needed, and I was surprised to find a basic WP:MSH fix still needed after all these reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC) "

Is the work done? Express your views at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ganesha. Thanks.--Redtigerxyz 05:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Surprised

Hi Sandy: I'm hoping you can answer a question for me. I was surprised to see that Turkey Vulture has already been approved as FA, despite the fact there was an actionable error in the information presented. Since it was only nominated on 28 October, that seemed a bit hasty! (I was going to ask Raul685, but noticed your posting on his page that said he was busy...) Thanks, MeegsC | Talk 07:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Meegs; it could be because you entered it as a comment rather than an oppose? Maybe Raul thought it wasn't a big concern? You could ask Raul, but since the article is already promoted, I'm not sure that would change anything. October 28 is six days, which is within the threshold Raul uses for passing without opposes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Guess I'll have to research it and put it in myself! :) MeegsC | Talk 15:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Peace
		Your dispassionate review of the Galisteo article, and your calm, diplomatic comments on the review talk page, de-escalated a situation that was verging on the explosive. Your review also improved the article, and thus Wikipedia, immeasurably. Thank you. Jeffpw 08:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Though it was obviously not the desired outcome, I remain grateful you reviewed the article, and am objective enough to know that Wikipedia is improved as a result. Coming to you for help on this was one of the best decisions I have ever made on Wikipedia. Thanks. Jeffpw 08:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sara Sidle

I was actually looking for someone that might knew if i can't just delete the peer review as no one took a look at it except a bot. Now i know it has to be archieved. Thank you, it won't happen again.Yamanbaiia 16:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm back :)

Hey dear Sandy! I'm unblocked. While being blocked (for a 3RR violation), I couldn't help and edited with my sister's PC, and my block was extended to 72 hours. I felt really offended. It was such an extreme and I really wasn't aware of this being a violation. I was improving the article, removing unreliable sources etc. It was just to clarify.

I came to you for a little advice. One editor whom I really appreciate toned down Zinta's lead and removed the so much talked about 65%... Do you think it's really unnecessary in the lead? Should we satisfy with this fact being mentioned in "In the media" section only? Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I eventually caught up on all the goings-on. I'm not concerned with where it's mentioned; I just want to know what it is. What is a 65% success ratio, and how is it measured. I have no idea what that is referring to, and the source doesn't explain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Nancy R FAC

Ya, I disagree with Raul on that one, but User:Outriggr is continuing to copyedit and I'm taking what little good advice there was on the FAC page and trying to do some of it. Thanks for your help; we'll get 'em next time! --Happyme22 04:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sandy

Again, dear Sandy.

The Preity Zinta article was not promoted eventually, but I'm not upset, I think it was a learning experience. Wasn't it?

I just dropped to say, that out of all these users who opposed - you were the nicest, the most polite, and helped more than every other editor, and I'm happy that we have collaborated together to promote it, even if it eventually resulted in a failure.

Much appreciated friend. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Shahid, although I, too, lost patience a few times :-) It's not a "failure"; it's feedback to help make the article better for the next time. I hope the issues are addressed soon and we'll see Preity back on FAC; I've enjoyed getting to know "the only man in Bollywood", who must be quite a woman. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:WHEEL

This policy has been updated. Take a look and see if you like it. We essentially have 0.5RR on admin actions. Generally, don't do it, but some common sense exceptions are allowed. Hopefully this will reduce the amount of battling.

That done, how would you like to be an administrator? I recently helped convince User:Athaenara who held out on us for 12,000 edits. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Typed, deleted, retyped, redeleted my response on adminship. I'll look at Wheel as soon as I get a chance. I have been of no help on the SC case; is that humming along? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The main highlight is that Physchim62 has gone sanction happy, requesting that I and another party be banned. Read the case for the humor. Fortunately a few people, including Newyorkbrad, Sarah, and Durova, came to my defense. I even put in a PFF that Physchim62 had not abused sysop tools, hoping that he might realize that this case wasn't about him. He's got some odd ideas, that fellow. So, do you accept the offer of adminship, as you've deleted your refusal? - Jehochman ^Talk 20:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

oh for gosh sakes, are you pulling my leg ?! Last I knew, you two were on the verge of a compromise. What I deleted were my views on the institution of adminship (better stated, no effective method for desysopping abusive admins :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No, unfortunately not. It's become a spectacle. Well, you're not abusive so let's hand you a mop. Then you'll be able to look at deleted pages, and maybe protect a page here or there when things get surreal. There's no need to actually block anybody, though once in a great while it may save the trouble of filing an AIV report. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

<type, delete, re-type, re-delete> Many years on the internet of learning to sit on my fingers when they are the most itchy. :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

ok, I glanced at a few pages of the case: time for a brisk walk through the autumn leaves. Adminship is broken, dispute resolution is broken, and ArbCom turns into a trial of the innocent. Now do *I* have to join the case to explain that the edits to WP:BAN were very much based on respectful consensual editing? The day I have to join an ArbCom case will be the day I stop sitting on my fingers, which will be the day I have to quit. 20:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have confidence that they will take a dim view of the circus that has been created. I am doing my best to lighten the mood and reduce tensions, but if I were an arbitrator, I wouldn't be the least bit amused. My efforts to improve policy have been successful, so I am happy. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, now I've looked at WP:WHEEL, and I see that this has always been there:

• An admin deliberately ignores an existing discussion (often at WP:ANI or WP:DRV) and implements his or her preferred action or version of an edit.

So, this would seem to cover the case when an admin indef blocks even though two other admins had expressed disagreement with the block, willingness to overturn, and consensus about topic bans was beginning to form. But the "deliberately ignores" clause would be hard to prove, as the blocking admin claims "consensus" based on "votes". So, we're back to the pre-emptive strike concern at WP:BAN, and the need to clarify that you don't indef block when another admin disagrees. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If there's a discussion and the consensus goes against a block then (1) you shouldn't block, and (2) if you already have blocked, another admin can unblock based on that consensus. The only time things change is if there is no consensus. Then the user remains blocked and Arbcom has to decide what to do. Hopefully they aren't so stupid that they would leave in innocent user blocked. Presumably somebody could make a preliminary motion, and an Arbcom member would unblock.

Given the way things work around here, if somebody was innocent, I think there would be a huge consensus to unblock them. We tend to err on the side of leniency most of the time. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

FLC subpage questions

Hi Sandy, I am involved in WP:FLC and another editor has just made a subpage of the discussion, see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of municipalities in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania/circeus. I have never seen this before in any Featured candidate page and wanted to check and make sure it did not break the bot or cause other archiving or technical issues. If it is OK, technically, please ignore this. If it is not, I wanted to ask before the subpage got too massive. Thanks and sorry to bother you, but I know you are knowledgable about such things. Thanks in advance for any help, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe (not sure) that the problem with that method is that the subpage will not move with the page in a page move (as in, archiving of the page). Those kinds of comments should have gone to the talk page of the FLC in question, because the talk page moves with the page when it's archived. On the other hand, as long as it's linked to the main page, it might not hurt. You should ask Colin (talk · contribs) and Gimmetrow (talk · contribs) to weigh in here to make sure I'm giving you the right info, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much, I will ask them too, and appreciate your pointing me in the right direction and input. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have moved it to the Talk page. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Will you be an arbitrator?

You'd be superb!! Then you can really begin watching the watchmen.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 01:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin?

Hi Sandy, have you ever wanted a few more buttons on your toolbar? Tim Vickers 01:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please. Of course she doesn't[2], or she would have been one a long time ago.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 01:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Dammit. Tim Vickers 01:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

will you be Jimbo, please?

(See the two threads immediately above this one for some less facetious requests). ;-) --Ling.Nut 01:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

you'd have my support.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 01:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Some tips

Look --> that way and --> that-a-way, too, oh, and there's a couple more over there and there and there, too. And how about this chap and this one, too? Did someone say admin shortage? There's more where those came from. (And no one will call them bad mothers, either :-) This message will self-destruct in five minutes. Oh, drat, it's a Wiki. Now back to work on the autism articles spreadsheet. If I forgot anyone, it's because I'm up to my eyeballs in Data Sorts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ha! "Hey, I thought I was already an admin!" –Outriggr § 02:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've asked them all if they would think about being nominated. If anybody replies, will you write their recommendations Sandy? Tim Vickers 04:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

oh my goodness, only if they all copyedit them :-) I think they all know my prose sucks, and they have better ce skills than I do LOL!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. If we get replies I'll set up the nomination pages and deal with formatting stuff. All you'll have to do is paste in your description of their qualities as editors into the nomination page. Tim Vickers 04:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

okey, dokey, I have all their pages (and yours) watched; I can describe them well "from the heart", but not with brilliant, compelling prose :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've had precious little interaction with most of these guys, but I'd certainly help co-nom one of them :) Damn, if Sandy's recommending, I'd support without even looking at the username! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to co-nom? Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gimmetrow. Tim Vickers 04:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Tim Vickers 04:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The latest cabal

As you were one of the editors who agreed to defeature Principality of Sealand, I feel obligated to tell you that you are now an official member of the anti-micronation cabal. Congratulations, and down with the Principality of Hutt River! Pagrashtak 05:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have such a problem with underdogs, the little guys, 'ya know :-) I think the new Anti-micronation cabal needs an official seal, or motto, or something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Autism article priorities

A quick brain dump as I have to run. I pretty much agree with your assessment. My top priority right now, when I find the time, is Autism therapies. About 2/3 of it needs to be rewritten; a good, recent, and free review is Myers et al. 2007 (PMID 17967921) which is currently listed under "Further reading" but which I haven't yet had time to read carefully. 2nd priority for me is Thiomersal controversy; that one is not too far from being half-decent, actually. I am probably not the best to tackle Autism rights movement or Controversies in autism, as I lack the patience. So for me, Autism (incidence) and Heritability of autism would be 3rd and 4th priorities. The former is a smaller task; the latter enormous. Aautism genetics is a field whose half-life is about 3 years now; a lot of that article is woefully out of date, and more important it's currently an article that talks a lot about trees but mentions no forest. Eubulides 17:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, please go ahead and run with it. And thanks! It's a big swamp, but somebody's gotta drain it. Eubulides 17:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It has been added to my "to do list", which doesn't include becoming an admin any time soon ;-) Colin°^Talk 22:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Regressive autism is controversial. I don't know of any good free sources just on that topic. I just now searched and found that PMID 11331734 (a free article) has 4 paragraphs on it. That's a bit dated. PMID 17967920 is free and is more recent and does talk about regression in several places, but the regression material is not contiguous. Although it's not free, PMID 15362172 is a good review of the subject; even its abstract should give some real help. Eubulides 23:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Poliomyelitis

File:Poliovirus.png

Sandy,
Please accept this humble poliovirus as a token of my appreciation for all of your fabulous suggestions and improvements to Poliomyelitis.--DO11.10 01:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, as I mentioned a while ago, User:DO11.10 and User:MarcoTolo have been working on poliomyelitis for some time. DO11.10 is close to nominating at FAC. I'm partway through reviewing and copyediting but I'm not good enough to get it up to FAC quality (despite what you say). I'd really appreciate it if you could help to ensure it is well prepared for FAC. I know you are particularly good at spotting MOS and reference issues. Regards, Colin°^Talk 22:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

On my way now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The article, Sandy, not the talk page :-). BTW: I think DO11.10's about to move some of my review from his talk page to the article talk page. Colin°^Talk 23:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't you know I process linearly and cannot work on an article that has a messed up talk page :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Sandy!! So fast... I will get to work on your suggestions right away. Cheers--DO11.10 02:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits and suggestions. Colin°^Talk 11:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Stanley Cup

Thanks for you review. I've decide to be bold and nominate it at FAC. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 23:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

In Remembrance...

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 01:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The first poem I ever had memorized. Marskell 07:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

White House

If you have some free time, just wondering if you could look this, because it's kind of important. Thanks, Happyme22 02:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Happy, I completely missed this message for some reason; I will look after dinner. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha it's ok. Thanks a lot. Happyme22 00:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. One quick question: which would you say is more definitive of the White House: this, this, or the current page? I know you said you don't like prescribed infoboxes but liked my sandbox because the info in the box was kept to a minimum. Thanks, Happyme22 ((talk)) 01:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again! Happyme22 (talk) 01:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Any FAC hope for Battle of Red Cliffs?

Hey Sandy, I've never FAC-nommed one of my pet projects, Battle of Red Cliffs, because (reasons withheld to avoid causing you to pre-judge)... does it have any hope? Can you offer comments? But ONLY if you're not busy... thanks! --Ling.Nut 03:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

A "thank you" letter

Dear Sandy, thanks once more for helping an old man out with Rotavirus without my having to ask. It is very kind of you. I seem to be generating "white space issues" in my contributions, but I don't know what they are, (well, to be honest, I don't understand much Wikispeak but I can just about guess what "FAC-nommed" means from my enlightening experience with Virus!) Rotavirus looked better after you had applied your skills - how is it done? Best wishes from England. --GrahamColm 22:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

White space just means you left more than one space where one would suffice. How is what done? Any help you need, feel free to ask! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Reducing the list

A couple of comments here. Marskell 07:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Vultures

Hi Sandy: I just wanted to let you know that I'll update the Turkey Vulture article's breeding season info when I get back, if nobody's done it beforehand. I suppose I could have fixed both articles myself, but I was trying to prove a point! :) And I'm off for two weeks of field work in three hours, and still haven't finished packing—so I can't do it now. MeegsC | Talk 09:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie

For The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie under neath Cast it says the cast were 11 in the movie they were not 11 in the movie they were 9 in the movie and Alex Wolff was 6 in the movie. The reason why the band members are 12 but 9 in the movie is because the film was filmed in 2004. I wanted to address this info to you since you did a lot of edits on this artical and The Discussion Page is practically empty - I wanted to address the info with you to make you aware - So I don't create miss communications as I did in the past and was blocked for a very long time. Please answer me back on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AnnieTigerChucky. --AnnieTigerChucky 00:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

missing text

Sandy, I agree entirely, but I'm under a lot of pressure at the moment from clients, and was hoping just to dip in and out of WP. I wonder whether you can identify the text that needs to go back in, and dump it on my talk page. Tony (talk) 02:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know you were referring to stuff that's in the "Article title" section just above. The very first point is "The guidance on the wording of article titles also applies to the wording of section headings." Now there's lots of repetition. I'm confused. Tony (talk) 12:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

There was almost an edit war with someone I'd never heard of (MOSHEAD person, probably) over the structure of the rationalised sections in MOS; this was part of the process of getting rid of MOSHEAD. He insisted on the current structure, and in fact I like it, because it's consistent with the structure of articles, with article titles first, then section titles. The solution was the first point in Section titles, referring everyone to the Article titles points, which, conveniently, all apply to section titles. What could be neater? I really don't like the repetitions, and they worked so nicely before. So people you refer there simply fail to comprehend the first point? Should it be bolded? Tony (talk) 23:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

How's this? Tony (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Dismantling of political figures controversies articles

As an experienced voice in such articles, I invite you to comment at Talk:Controversies of Rudy Giuliani about the dismantling of political figures' "Controversies" articles and sections, which I've now done twice. I don't actually remember if I've seen you take a position on this question, so I don't think I'm guilty of WP:Canvassing. Wasted Time R 12:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Volunteer!

Trying to save the world again: Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers‎. Marskell 12:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

A thankyou

Thankyou for supporting my successful rfa which closed with 58 supports. If i am honest i am rather humbled by the unanimous support and i hope to live up to everyones expectations. If you ever need any help, don't hesitate to ask. Thanks again. Woodym555 13:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

clarifying re Ethics Resource Center

Thanks for the editing help. The organization this link references drafted this material quite recently, and asked me to post it for them, so I need to clear up the assumption that there is a copyright violation here. Advice? You help very, very much appreciated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seabrightman1965 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What's this?

Are you a newpage patroller now? Enjoy your weekend :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

TimVickers is worried about the issue, so I thought I'd peek in and see how bad it is now so I'd have a base of comparison when IPs can create new articles. Based on what I saw in just one hour, I'm worried, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

MoS on headings

Hey, thanks for moving over the info on headings from WP:HEAD to WP:MOS. ENeville 18:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

and sorry for the whole trade routes WP:FA thing. It was complicated and I guess I made a fool of myself notifying people and thinking that I was "nominating it for FA."
Thanks for the corrections,
Havelock the Dane ^Talk 19:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If you did the notifications per WP:FAR, that's a step ahead of what most people do :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ty, I'll try and be more careful from now on. Havelock the Dane ^Talk 19:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Default image size

Are all images supposed to be default size? Last time I was over at FAR, it seemed there was disagreement over this issue. (I am trying to help Trade routes and was wondering about the images there, as they seem quite large.) Thanks! --Mattisse 20:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOS#Images lists some exceptions. I believe we should uphold the MOS, but others disagree. At your own risk :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The "writers strike"

Polly Draper is a writer and actress and "the writers strike" begun, I am curious on how this was going to effect the 2nd season, is their going to be a 2nd season, had trouble finding out this info, because this would be a good thing to add on The Naked Brothers Band episode. --AnnieTigerChucky 03:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason why I am letting you know this is because, I already added this to the discussion page, but it looks like no one had been on the discussion page for a while, so I don't think anyone will look, and help the problem. --AnnieTigerChucky 03:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Fight Club

Sandy, I've noticed your critical eye at FAC processes, and I was wondering if you could impart a quick opinion about Fight Club (film) in terms of structure and sources used. I still have some tasks to complete for the article, such as an expanded Critical reaction section. Also, I have a subpage in standby for writing about interpretations of the film. My impression is that with so many different academic studies, a second article would be warranted, seeing the current length of the film article. I'll preempt you with one of the obvious items -- MrShowbiz.com, which is unfortunately a dead link that had an interview. I'd appreciate your thoughts on addressing this or anything else. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Erik, I have a full day and might not be able to look at it until tonight or tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand. :) There's no rush. I look forward to hearing your feedback! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Click there to open your card! → → →

Dearest SandyGeorgia,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 137 supports, 22 opposes, and 5 neutrals. Your kind words of support are very much appreciated and I look forward to proving you right. I would like to give special thanks to The_undertow and Phoenix-wiki for their co-nominations. Thank you again and best regards.

Lara❤Love 18:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Credits: This RFA thanks was inspired by The Random Editor's RFA thanks which was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks.

Blyth, Northumberland FAC

Thanks for your comments, the article's been promoted now, but i'll still try to address them. I think the Keys to the Past website is a reliable source but I think there are some instances where it might be better to use the website mentioned in the disclaimer instead, so i'll go through that at some point. Again, thanks. Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Controversies of Rudy Giuliani

Sandy, when you said "I've also learned over the years that politicians' articles are an enormous timesink," you weren't kidding! Anyway, FYI this particular issue is now at AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies of Rudy Giuliani. Wasted Time R 22:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Smile

SJP:Happy Verterans Day! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

The Tic Code (film)

Thanx! But what about the headline titles I have talked about earlier. --AnnieTigerChucky 03:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I found a reliable source for the plot http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/tic_code/about.php, can someone add this info without copy and pasting it that is copyright, I cant think of another way of typing besides how it says it. --AnnieTigerChucky 04:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I added the plot title. --AnnieTigerChucky 04:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you help add some info back that was deleted whenever I go to edit page it still shows but it does not show on the artical. --AnnieTigerChucky 04:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The Carpenters

Opposing featuring an article because others opposed it is a bad reason. Tell me some constructive ways I can improve the article instead of telling me, "Three others opposed it, so I'll oppose it too." Karen Carpenter's Biggest Fan 07:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit request

James Milner. Trying to get it to FA status. Give it a look when you can find the time. Buc 21:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Alyssa Riggs

You are 10 and I am 10!!!! Do you really like Jesse???? I'm your #1 FAN!!!! I think you are cuter than Nat!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.103.194 (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, 24.176.103.194. I'm not 10 and I have never heard of Alyssa Riggs. I don't know who Jesse is, but since you're 10, I'm guessing you're referring to Nat Wolff. I have never seen The Naked Brothers Band (either the movie or the show), so I can't say I'm a fan. I'm sorry I can't be of more help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh. What a fascinating discussion. Your fan, :) Sarah 03:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Please join the discussion at the talk page of Abraham Lincoln

I could use your help in convincing User:Gwen_Gale that these links should go per WP:EL. Thanks, K. Scott Bailey 05:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

FAC Oldham

Hello, you passed comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oldham. I've addressed your point regarding the closure of peer review and wondered if you had any further concerns or appraisals? Hope so, -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I just received your message about posting regarding my daughter, Jennifer Ann Crecente. Unfortately, my ex-husband, Jennifer's father, keeps deleting my portions of that page.

I don't know what I did wrong on my post and I just saw your msg when I was searching my daughter's name of Google!

Could you help me?

Thanks, Elizabeth Crecente —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizabeth Crecente (talk • contribs) 00:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)