User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch25

Top of the article

Here's the section I'd worked on (but was interrupted by a phone call, during which the deletion occurred):

Top of the article

• Lead: Briefly look at the lead for length, conformity with MOSBOLD, WP:LEAD#Bold title, naming conventions and MOSDATE (particularly in biographical FACs). Links should be avoided in the bolded title. After reading the article, return to the lead to confirm that it's a compelling, stand-alone summary.
• Table of contents: Look at it in relation to WP:WIAFA ("a system of hierarchical headings and table of contents that is substantial but not overwhelming") and WP:MSH (correct capitalization, no links in section headings, don't begin unnecessarily with "A" or "The", take care with special characters, minimum repetition of words).
• Size: If concerned, check the size of the article with Dr pda (talk · contribs)'s prose size script, or by calculating it manually per the instructions at SIZE. An article should be "of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail" (see summary style). If the article passes the guideline of 30–50 KB of readable prose (as opposed to the total size), there may be a need to apply summary style more rigorously and/or to shift some of the detail into daughter articles.

Tony (talk) 02:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

PS I think it's worth doing when you have the time. Please consider an optimistic, dynamic tone in the lead that addresses potential reviewers. Also, I like the idea of encouraging WPians to specialise in just one or two aspects of reviewing, such as you'd expressed structurally in that essay. More likely to get people on board when they can make an impact relatively quickly and without going the full way in acquiring the plethora of skills outlined in the essay. In fact, that might scare people away without the strategy of specialising. Tony (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: FYI

Thanks for the heads up about that discussion. In your opinion, should I comment over there? After all, all I do is click "save this page" a few times; you're the ones who actually promote it ;) By the way, slightly off-topic, but congrats on your duties there. From one devoted Wikipedian to another, I wish you the best of luck. --Hurricanehink (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the need to comment; just wanted to make sure you were aware of the fuss. I just wish all the folks in there complaining about FACs being closed with little review will ... um ... review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh, sounds good, and indeed that would solve the problem. --Hurricanehink (talk) 06:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

UNPA FAC

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United Nations Parliamentary Assembly

OK, I rewrote the lead and fixed all the attribution issues I could find. I have basically used a bracketing methodology, e.g.:

According to XYZ, blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah.

Everything between the XYZ and the footnote mark is attributed to XYZ, although it may be several sentences. That was the method my College Composition teacher said to use, back in 1997... Sarsaparilla (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll get over there a bit later today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello... here's a peer review

I have taken Sitakunda Upazila to Wikipedia:Peer review/Sitakunda Upazila/archive1, and so far recieved no comments, almost. Please, take a look, and be ruthless if you want. I have high hopes for the article. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Many WP:DASH, WP:MOSDATE and WP:MOSNUM issues; I left sample edits. Also, inconsistent date linking in footnotes. Also, have a look at WP:UNITS on conversions. Please identify PDFs in footnotes, so people like me who sometimes use old laptops won't get bombed out by inadvertntly clicking on them. Run through your footnotes to notice double punctuation; if you punctuate parameters in the cite templates, you get punctuation twice. I didn't look at content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

review page

Hi Sandy, apologies for linking to a page that wasn't ready for prime time. I understand your concerns, and certainly don't want to add fuel to any of the needless bonfires around this place... I do hope a similar resource is revived at some point. WP:WIAFA is short on specifics, and I found it very useful to have a checklist of items and tips to run through while preparing the article. --JayHenry (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow! (Capybara)

Thank you for all the help/improvements on the Capybara page! I fixed the two references that failed verification (the URL changed). The page really needed the help and care of someone extremely capable and you made so many improvements! Thank you (again) so very much! VigilancePrime (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem; I like the little buggers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yo Sandy. I was checking out the page as well. Do you think that list of every capybara in captivity adds anything to the article? I was thinking about zapping it, per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Also, I'm not big on large galleries. What do you think?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned both of those items on the peer review, so maybe we could wait a bit to see if VigilancePrime gets to it? Didn't want to overwhelm with too much at once :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Who is VigilancePrime, the guy who owns the article? ; ) I'll check out your peer review to see what you're talking about.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The guy who initiated the peer review :-) I wanted to leave something for him to do :-) I like to give it a few days, and then check back, so as not to disrupt the learning curve. I still acutely remember the newbie days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow... newbie days? After the first round of Peer Review changes, the article was in shambles; I was only able to make the article worse by spliting it apart, and after awhile it seemed as though I was getting little feedback, so I rolled it all the way back and incorporated only some of the changes. The gallery is there because, well, why not? It shows Capybaras in various different environments (mostly different zoos around the world) and is of general interest. Yes, the Where To Find is not particularly encyclopedic, but in WikiDragon form, I have expanded it and let it expand for the pure reader interest angle. Maybe the article isn't perfect, but I think that the general reader interest makes up some for the few irregularities. Besides, the article has very low visibility; even vandals don't tend to edit it very often! Anyway, I appreciate all the help and am continually working (slowly but surely!) to improve the article. Thank you all! VigilancePrime (talk) 04:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my newbie days were acute, so I try to respect other editors at peer review. To me, both the gallery and the list violate WP:NOT. They might survice on a low visibility article, but they wouldn't likely pass FAC, and that was one of your questions on peer review. If you are aiming for FAC, it would be better to lose the gallery, space the best images throughout the article, and spin off the list. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

I notice you do this quite often while you are copyediting. When there are articles that are in pdf format, I get a tiny little Adobe Acrobat symbol next to the article name, which tells me that it is a pdf article. Is that just my browser being very efficient, or is it Wikipedia being very smart. If it's Wikipedia, then wouldn't your "(pdf)" additions be superfluous? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I get the PDF icon on all of my computer configurations except one (my laptop); it has to do with either my browser or Adobe version, not sure which, since I have so many different computer configurations. And when I hit a hidden PDF, the computer hangs and I have to restart (grrrr ..). If I have this issue with semi-modern computers, it means it can be an issue for users elsewhere, so I selfishly add them for myself and for the little people in Venezuela :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

My dad used to tell me that I had to eat my broccoli because of those same little people in Venezuela. I'm now quite pissed at them.  :) OK, so it is an advanced browser. My browser also used to hang when a big giant PDF file would be linked, but I just upgraded my software, and it now rarely happens! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

When you were little, people in Venezuela were doing well; you got the wrong country :-) It's now that they have difficulty. What do I need to upgrade? Never mind, I'm never going to get around to it anyway. I'm at the bottom of the list in my household for laptops; I get the fourth or fifth hand-me-down, and it's not worth dealing with. I'll just wait until "they" give me the next hand-me-down. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Hi there, I deeply appreciate your input at that RfC, do say, is the subject of an RfC allowed to endorse particular view? I would also like to point to this, I'm not sure why that page was deleted or is such action appropriate? I'm having a really hard time since I've registered; you have my deepest and sincerest gratitude. Quantumentanglement (talk) 07:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about that issue. I've merely defended Wiki policies of WP:AGF, WP:DR and WP:BITE. Now go and do the right thing; edit responsibly and according to WP:5P. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Before you accuse others of WP:BITE

please examine the contributions of each participant at the RfC you commented on. The fact that this user knew about vandalism warnings, piping, and other WP intricacies makes it highly unlikely he is a truly new user. Additionally, great patience has been extended, and others have gone out of their way to attempt to educate this user as to WPian ways. I mean, he dropped a vandalism tag on Mongo's page for simply reverting frivolous fact-tags that he (QE) was dropping across various 9/11-related pages. Was an RfC the best option? Perhaps not, as it seems pretty clear this account is a single-purpose POV account, and as such should have been topic-restricted until he could demonstrate the ability to edit productively. Whatever the case, it would be the wisest course of action not to side with a tendentious editor against the established editors who have tried to help him, and are now attempting to force him to stop disrupting the workings of the encyclopedia. Mr Which??? 13:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the only person/thing/entity I'm siding with here is WP:AGF WP:DR and WP:BITE; unless you have CheckUser, you don't know why this editor knew about vandalism warnings, piping, etc. The day we start taking editors who've been registered for five days to RfC is the day we all start !! witch hunting, and kill the innocent with friendly fire. And just in case you don't know, I'm anti-fringe, pro-science, anti-conspiracy theory, but I also think the less-than-AGF approaches to some of these folk harm the Project more than the trolling does, because it causes good editors to leave in disgust. Trolls and vandals will always be with us; how we deal with them determines the health of this place, and the good editors that we lose because they tire of seeing bad faith is a bigger concern to me. Without the good editors, we'll all just be reverting trolls all day long, because they will be all that's left. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If you've looked at the Durova fiasco, then you know on which side of that issue I fall. ;) As for this editor, several editors have attempted to nudge him in the right direction. He refuses to be "nudged." I myself wondered as to the appropriateness of an RfC in this instance, as the abuse by QE was so blatant and disruptive that I felt it would have better been dealt with by a series of short, but escalating blocks, to prevent disruption, and to let him know that we want him to edit, but we don't want him to push fringe theories, and to place frivolous fact tags and vandalism warnings. As I saw him further and further ignore good faith attempts to help him, I became convinced that he was not acting in anything like good faith, which led to my participation in and proposal to the RfC. And for the record, I doubt we'll lose any good editors, even if QE manages to get himself indeffed for disruption. He's nothing like User:!! at all. Mr Which??? 15:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

oh, we've already lost plenty of good editors because they tired of abuse and cabalism. There's a probability that your instincts about this editor may be completely vindicated with time, but we're still all in a deep dark hole if we initiate RfC's after only five days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope you're not insinuating that any of those who either certified the basis of the dispute, or who endorsed various summaries are guilty of "abuse" or "cabalism." I honestly don't think you meant that to sound as accusatory as I initially read it. I can honestly say that I've never had "cabalism" raised as an issue in any of the many attacks that I've experienced in my year+ with the project. In this case, it seems that a few editors who watch 9/11-related articles saw the widespread POV edits by this user and acted on them. No "cabal" (at least from my side), just concerned editors. Mr Which??? 16:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not insinuating, implying or even remotely suggesting that; I'm commenting on a Wiki-wide problem and the things that I believe we *shouldn't* do when trying to deal with what we believe may be trolls or vandals. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

<---undent

I'm of a mind that when a person has been given many, many chances by multiple editors during their first week, that perhaps there should be some remedies coming into play. I don't know whether RfC was the best option. Perhaps a short block, to prevent his continued disruption would have been better. Who knows? But something needed to be done. Have you reviewed the "attempts to remedy" section thoroughly? At least three editors have tried (and failed) to stem the course this editor has seemingly set for himself. What would you have done, had you been in a similar position, pre-RfC? I for one, would have never started the RfC. But, after it was begun, I felt it only appropriate to direct my concerns to that area. Mr Which??? 16:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What I would have done; two examples. Review my (and admin Sarah's) efforts with User:AnnieTigerChucky. It took an immense amount of effort. Was the effort worth it? Time will tell, but a really problematic editor turned into a helpful one when she could have turned into an anon IP troll or vandal. Second, review the way good faith conscientous thoughtful editors like TimVickers and Eubulides deal with vandals and trolls on science articles that are equally subjected to off-Wiki canvassing, trolling and vandalism: AGF works. We reap what we sow, and the problem with treating everyone like a troll is that it only generates more trolls. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. The approach to POV (or suspected POV editing - sometimes it is the current Wikipedia article that is the problem) is to divert efforts to discussions on the talk page. New editors will soon run up against 3RR, and should be politely warned. If they show willingness to discuss on the talk page, that is fine. But treat them with courtesy there, and try and educate them. Nudging sometimes isn't enough. What is unacceptable is to get frustrated and use a block to deal with POV editing. I feel that page protection is best for NPOV disputes, while blocking is best for vandalism and nonsense edits and 3RR (after the appropriate warnings). Blocks rarely resolve POV disputes. Carcharoth (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Is not POV-pushing (especially after many multiple warnings) a classic example of blockable disruption? This editor even had the gall to drop a vandalism template on MONGO's page, warning him about being a "vandal"! Are you asserting that a block is never appropriate in such an incorrigible case? Mr Which??? 17:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave that discussion to you two (feel free to use my page to continue the discussion), but remember that POV is sometimes in the eyes of the beholder. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but sometimes (as in this case), it's blatant. Especially when the editor asks for references for a fact with multiple references throughout the article. He's pushing a POV that there were no Arabs on the planes. This is so far out of the mainstream that I don't even think the majority (or even a significant minority) of 9/11-conspiracists believe it. Sometimes calling a spade a spade is all you can do, after you've tried the "rehab" route. Mr Which??? 17:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

And my reply to that is that Wiki has processes and procedures to deal with such blatant issues while still allowing for AGF and BITE; it's the less obvious that is a concern. Blatant is much too easy; even less reason for an RfC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

(<---undent)

I agree about RfC. In my view, this editor was so recalcitrant in the face of helpful editors attempting to steer him along the way, that the more appropriate course would have been a short block, followed by further offers of help. If that didn't work, perhaps a longer block (again, preventative, not punitive, in that we would be trying to prevent disruption, and prevent an editor from disappearing down the wormhole into complete trolldom), followed by a probationary period. If the editor showed that he was unable to neutrally edit 9/11-related articles, a topic ban could follow, which, if violated, would result in a much longer block. I don't disagree that the RfC was (is?) overkill. But it's there now, and I felt that proposing remedies there was better than doing nothing. Mr Which??? 18:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, agree. But on a separate but related point, RfC has been abused of in the past as a means of railroading users with whom some groups simply differ, with both sides having equally strong POV issues. The point I want to be clear on is that shooting even one innocent !! is more damaging in the long run than trolls and vandals (we *can* deal with trolls and vandals), so we have to take care. Wiki can and will deal with those blatant abusers eventually. If not, we're all wasting our time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

He has now clarified at his talk page that he is not a newby, therefore it's impossible to violate WP:BITE with him. He's also displaying more of his typical stridency. Mr Which??? 00:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure it will be worked out to its logical conclusion. We still don't need RfC's on five-day-old accounts :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to get your opinion, what would you have suggested doing? By my count, I spent basically every day from December 11-17 trying to explain this editor what was wrong with their interpretation of guidelines, to absolutely no avail. Numerous other editors tried the same thing, again, to no avail. Instead, users trying to help this edited were greeted with incivility, unfounded accusations of cabalism and admin abuse, and name-calling. Literally every edit made by this user, well over 100, were made on exactly the same subject, trying to push a fringe theory in deliberate contradiction to our guidelines. Attempts to educate him fell on deaf ears. What is one to do? Apparently, dispute resolution is too "bitey" — what, exactly is the correct course of action to follow? How many edits does a single purpose account need to make before we can use the venues we've established to correct behavior? --Haemo (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you've had to deal with this, Haemo; I'm sure it has been frustrating. WP:DR offers a variety of options, not just RfC. Focus on content, stay cool/disengage, and it's rarely urgent stand out. Third party opinion, noticeboards and Wikiquette alerts can bring extra eyes to the situation. Backing off and letting someone else take the load for a while helps. If a new editor is violating civil and running up against 3RR, admins and 3RR reports can and will eventually deal with that. If s/he is only ranting on talk pages, that doesn't affect the article. Don't feed the trolls also comes to mind; disengage from talk page rants and focus on the actual edits and article content, returning conversation to content. Unless someone is affecting the article or violating WP:CIVIL or 3RR, it's not usually urgent. If they are affecting the article and violating policy, you present the diffs and they get blocked. This RfC didn't show any impact on the article; it showed talk page posts most reasonable people disagree with, but no violations. I would have viewed the RfC differently if it had demonstrated an impact on the article. It's unfortunate that it impacted editor time, but that's Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no dispute, the discussion ended, you speak thence, the discussion ended at the moment editors involved stopped with nonsense and showed some sense. I'm certain that you are well aware that this statement is verifiable. I'm not sure what are your concerns? I've accepted the consensus in the moment the reasoning behind it became logical. If I can make suggestions, I'd kindly propose you restrain from lobbying against me, especially because you're doing that without any basis whatsoever. Thank you for your understanding. Quantumentanglement (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

FA problem

An editor strongly feels that a section at the end, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747#Related_content, violates the manual of style. However, this section is prescribed per WikiProject Aviation. Furthermore, the manual of style is a WP guideline, not a hard rule.

I've started a discussion at the wikiproject aviation since this seems to be a policy issue. Heated discussion for every aviation article that a FA is proposed doesn't seem to be the best way to resolve it.

If you have advice, let me know! Otherwise, I plan to work nicely with everybody and try to resolve the issue at the wikiproject level, not the article level. This would also be more constructive effort as there is more participation at the wikiproject level and resolution would help all the articles, not just the Boeing 747 article. Archtransit (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I will answer generally without having looked at the specific discussions; in fact, I'd prefer not to look at the specifics so I won't be biased. Compliance with WP:MOS is part of WP:WIAFA: compliance with WikiProject guidelines is not, unless those guidelines have gained Wiki-wide consensus to become part of MOS. MOS has more weight at FAC than Project guidelines because it is based on broader consensus throughout Wikipedia than just a few members of a particular WikiProject. There has been substantial discussion of the issue on the various talk pages: I can't recall if it's at the talk page of WP:FA, WP:FAC or WP:WIAFA. Of course, there's also WP:IAR, so that doesn't mean an article that doesn't strictly comply with WP:MOS must fail. If you can point to a previous FAC where Raul promoted an aviation article over a similar discussion, that can be considered in the mix. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance. My goal is for WP improvement, not to win an argument. In fact, I am not for or against the issue. I only seek clarification so I can either leave the article the way it is or change it.

Your advice on looking at other aircraft FA articles is a good suggestion. I have found two and both use the WikiProject format (so I'm not cherry picking for the desired results, just reporting what I found. [1] and [2] The main difference is simply that there is a list at the end which lists comparable aircraft. To me, I'm very surprised that it is even an issue. Thanks again for your guidance. Archtransit (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that I've seen what you're referring to, I could argue that each of those articles needs review, and they aren't good examples. The problem with this messiness at the bottom of the article is that the Project structure guidelines should really find a way to work that content into the article without breaching MOS. If the content is important, Project guidelines should find a way to meld it seamlessly into the body, not stick it a non-standard appendix at the end. Or better still, put it in a navigational template. Both of those articles are, well, jarring, and have numerous MOS breaches, and don't look to be up to FA standards. The WP:MOSBOLD breaches alone are hard on the eyes. Then there's the external link farm ... and the WP:MSH issues ... and the unformatted references. But you've given me the example I asked for:[3] Raul promoted that over my objection, Trevor indicated on the FAC he would make sure that guideline was revisited, and Kirill indicated the article had not been through a MilHist peer review. I have not yet looked at the article at FAC; but these older articles have issues. Consensus changes, and FAC respects consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope that the Boeing 747 article will not be the sacrificial lamb. I think the best way would be to 1) work on everything else first, 2) make a suggestion on how to meld it without being a non-standard appendix and make that suggestion to the WikiProject. Archtransit (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Mind you, I've responded both times without looking at the Boeing 747 article. But as I indicated above, Trevor said a year ago he would work on those guidelines, so it's a somewhat old issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue is not that big but their is a potential for a big fight. On the wikiprojects, some have accused User:O of being disruptive and raising the issue article by article rather than seek a consensus at the wikiproject talk pages. So far, everyone else has support the current use (which is what the 747 article has).

While I'm not making a judgement on disruptiveness, I do think a wikiproject discussion is the most efficient way of discussion since the real question is editorial policy and style, not a Boeing 747 issue. Thanks for your advice. Your advice actually didn't need prior review of the article just an opinion on the styles permitted or forbidden. Archtransit (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if my input was helpful, and I haven't followed/won't follow all the other discussions; my role is to look at the FAC page and judge whether there is consensus vis-a-vis WIAFA. I have noticed, though, that there are some unfortunate Project guidelines (theatre comes to mind as not particularly useful). I also hope you won't use those other articles as a guide, because they both have noticeable deficiencies. (By the way, I hope you realize I wasn't talking about Boeing above, rather the other two examples you gave; I'll look at Boeing when the time comes.) Good luck with it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

< resetting indent Hi SandyGeorgia - on the FAR talk page, I asked where you see a conflict between the article's layout and the GPL, but you might not have seen the question. Reading through the above, it seems that you believe that WP:AIR's page content guidelines somehow conflict with the MOS. I wonder if you could point out where you see the conflict? --Rlandmann (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to make sure we're talking about F-4 Phantom II here (at FAR), not Boeing (at FAC). (As detailed on the FAR, F-4 has bigger problems than WP:GTL). I see the external links there have now been corrected (commons belong in External links, portals belong in See also, see WP:GTL). Articles included in the text need not be repeated in See also (see WP:ALSO), and this is another issue with the layout. But more, the recommended airline article structure is basically creating what could be a navigational template at the bottoms of articles; it includes See also as a subsection of the other Related content, but the other related content could be handled with a navigational template. Have you looked at some of the MilHist article series, for example Battleships? Have you looked at the MilHist guidelines? Perhaps they could be helpful wrt the Aviation guidelines. Why do you all not use navigational templates for the purpose of all the Related content; it lends itself beautifully to a template? I think you all now understand that portals are See also and Commons are External links, per WP:GTL? I'm asking because B-17 Flying Fortress has all the same issues as F-4 (Commons go in External links, WP:MOSBOLD issues, listiness and trivia, and uncited text). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - I should have clarified that it is indeed the F-4 Phantom II FAR that I'm asking about, and I'm specifically interested in your perception that the "Related content" section is problematic and/or in conflict with the MoS. If it's the former, then fine; but the latter is simply not true. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

We may be talking past each other then, because everything I responded above has to do with See also, related content, standard appendices, and WP:MOS, specifically WP:GTL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Simply put, GTL says nothing about mandating or prescribing these sections, let alone the ordering of them. Where's the conflict? --Rlandmann (talk) 05:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

(sorry to be following myself up here) - I just re-read my comment and realised that it sounded querulous. To provide a little perspective: I've seen this objection come up a couple of times from a couple of different directions; yet as far as I can see it's unsupported by GTL, and I'm wondering then where this perception comes from. --Rlandmann (talk) 05:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Good news! I am pleased to report to you that the Boeing 747 article, nominated for FA 7 days ago, has complete support and some enthusiastic support from FAC regulars who don't edit the article save for one editor. All the points raised by the objecting editor has been addressed; mostly by fixing. The issue of whether a WikiProject directed section should be moved higher in the article is under community discussion, though the current consensus seems to be to keep it (with only one editor objecting). I will be watching the article for a long time so if the consensus changes, you can be sure that I'll follow the new consensus to maintain FA status. Thank you in advance for your kind consideration of this article for FA. Archtransit (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist

Are you watching all my articles? They seem mostly unharmed (haven't check the embarrassing one yet though). I'll only be popping in and out occasionally. <gingerly>How's the mutt? Yomangani^talk 17:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That was very nice of everybody, probably explains why they are mostly unharmed. Even the inaugural games has been prevented from "getting worse". Arf. Yomangani^talk 18:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Mysore is FA

Mysore has been promoted to FA status. Thanks for your comments in its FAC -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 04:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Western Chalukya architecture FAC

Hi, I have just added my second set of comments to the WCa FAC review. In my comments, I point out that the second paragraph of the lead has errors in every sentence. I did the same yesterday for the first paragraph of the lead, and for a paragraph in another section. The main author of the FAC, Dineshkannambadi, to his credit, does respond in short order to the comments and sample copy-edits I provide, but I'm afraid his improvements don't extend much beyond that. It is my opinion that the article can't be fixed on the fly in the FAC process itself: it has too many errors of grammar (simple subject-verb agreement problems, dangling modifiers, ...), style (convoluted, discursive) and cohesion (things are said out of order, transitions are abrupt) for that. I am myself traveling now and will likely not have any internet connection for the next three weeks, or the connection might be unreliable (like the kind I managed to find for this post). I do understand that you don't really judge the articles yourself, but rather only whether consensus has been reached in the FAC discussion. However, I just wanted to state that my (likely) silence in the coming days should not be interpreted as a sign of consensus. user:Mattisse, who weighed in earlier today, pretty much echoed my verdict on the article. Perhaps some other editor should review the FAC. I noticed that user:Awadewit is a superb editor, perhaps she/he could be persuaded to review it. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I follow Mattisse's edits because of previous interaction. This is a concern. For these reasons, I'm going to be leaving this FAC to Raul. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I regret that entry to KNM. I know it is within his right to allow Dinesh to wipe out my weeks of careful edits by a cut and paste instead of a Move and not protect me as he does other editors. I tore my hair out over a span of many months copy editing several of Dinesh's articles so they would reach FA status and waded through the sort of prose that Fowler & Fowler is doing now. The copy/paste is why I know longer am willing to copy edit for Dinesh. It is not an excuse, I know, for intemperate language to KNM. However, I acknowledge my intemperance and very much seek to preserve your good opinion. Sincerely, Mattisse 20:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing further to say. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh no you didn't

Are you mad, woman? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Why? It's confusing everyone? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I am joking :D Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, you freaked me out! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. After the, um, rash of editing in November, I've given up on (closely) following the goings-on regarding this point. (Broke your fence?) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

No, smashed two of my fences ($$$$$). Rash of editing in November? I only recall one person wanting to change consensus, and yet I've never seen that particularly strange footnote method in practice, and I get around a lot of articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

{{Articlehistory}} deprecates other templates

I thought, given the pheomenal job you do maintaining {{Articlehistory}} you should be the first to see this. Your comments there would be very welcome. Happy‑melon 12:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Melon, thanks for letting me know. No, it doesn't make sense to deprecate them, because they still are used. First, there are still editors who don't understand articlehistory, and they can fall back on the old templates until GimmeBot comes through and rebuilds the ah. Second, articlehistory depends on GimmeBot, and if GimmeBot is ever hit by a tricky bot failure, all of us could end up falling back on those templates for a while. But I defer to Gimmetrow on this, if he disagrees with me. Third, some of the people who do DYK and afdmulti have told me they don't want to learn articlehistory, and they continue to add the templates as they always have. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Template talk:ArticleHistory/work Gimmetrow 16:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That reminds me -- are there backup copies of Gimmebot floating around with other Wikipedians, or some kind of Source code escrow? if not, we may want to start planning for it. Raul654 (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I have an old copy of the code somewhere (I can't do anything with it because I don't speak that language), and I think others have it. Gimmetrow can answer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Code from a couple months ago is floating around, though it's a little out-of-date now. Gimmetrow 16:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Please help with Reagan

Sandy, I know how much of a dedicated editor you are. You like to see articles well written, especially FA's. That why I need you help here. A few editors at Ronald Reagan want to pretty much get rid of the presidency section and replace it with a "summarized paragraph" which just cannot happen. Anyway, if you could please visit that it would be much appreciated. Thanks so much, Happyme22 (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Get rid of Presidency in an article about a President? Interesting. I'll peek in later today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in Sandy. --Happyme22 (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ha, I was expecting a real problem, not just people who don't read guidelines :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR / PSTS -- thanks

Hi SandyGeorgia - So glad you're talking on the WP:EVALUATE page. Cheers, Lquilter (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of time to get involved in an issue that has been hashed and re-hashed and defeated at multiple other pages. The "ask the other parent" aspect of having yet another page to discuss this issue caught my attention. The day that newspaper articles can be used to source medical and scientific articles is the day Wiki might as well close its doors and turn out the lights. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I got into this just for two reasons: one unrelated about proper use of editorials in a newspaper, but two, because I had seen asserted in multiple places variants of the idea that citations to the original peer-reviewed paper are improper and that content that might be sourced to those papers should only be included if it can also be sourced to newspapers, textbooks, etc. I thought that was bizarre & surely our policies couldn't say that. When I saw the unclarity & the discussion notices on WP:NOR I went to talk to try to understand more, and from there I slipped deep, deep into the current tarpit. ... Are you still working on WP:RS, or have you disengaged from these issues generally? --Lquilter (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite bizarre indeed. Peer-reviewed secondary-source journal-published review articles are exactly what we use in medical sources, and newspaper distortions should be avoided; they never get it right. But long term engagement at these pages is not good for one's health. If something like this becomes policy on Wiki, so many of us will leave that it will become moot, and POV will be standard. Heck, I've got all kinds of other things I can do with my time :-) Which reminds me, do you quilt? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

No, but I'd like to learn! It's on my to-do list for 2008. I practice law in an academic research / policy arena ("information" law, i.e., copyright, technology law, privacy, first amendment), I'm a former librarian (science librarian & technology librarian) with a background in history & literature. My partner is a biologist (postdoc) - hence the concerns over being able to cite properly in med articles & in scientist biographies. ... It sounds like you're in medicine or biology? --Lquilter (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

No, not at all: math and engineering, but I was initially attracted to Wiki to write Tourette syndrome, and I used to spend most of my Wiki time editing medical articles. When I first found Wiki, I liked the idea of being able to utilize my knowledge of the highest-quality peer-reviewed sources to write an accurate article to counteract the myth and misinformation on almost every internet source of information about TS. The only semi-reliable source of info about TS is the Tourette Syndrome Association website, but its layout is a negotiation nightmare, and I feel for anyone who wants to actually find anything useful in there. The Wiki article provides one stop shopping for everything you need to know. If I have to spend my Wiki days dealing with edits from every casual editor who has a newspaper article, a point of view to push, and an internet connection, I just wouldn't even be here; Wiki would become the same as every other source of misinfo on the internet, repeating the kind of half correct medical information you find in newspapers and magazines, all reliable sources. I have no interest in participating in a site that elevates newspapers to the level of the highest quality peer-reviewed, journal-published reliable sources. Learning to quilt these days is hard, because the true craft is being lost. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sandy. I had a read, and looked at the talk page. I can't see the point of the page, which from the title attempts to teach something one could write a book about. A mixture of rehashed policy; another attempt to explain PST that fails; and a bloated, naive and poorly written essay. Why was PST chosen as the framework on which to build a source-evaluation system? There are so many factors. I could sit and pick holes in it all day. What on earth is that Nutshell trying to say?

I'm reluctant to get involved as I'm hoping to do some stress-free wiki stuff for a while and as you say, hanging around such pages isn't good for one's health. If it looks like it is heading towards officialdom, let me know. Colin°^Talk 23:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll let you know if the scales are tipped; crazy place this Wikiland. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

Harrow school FAC

Hey sandy, thanks for correcting the nomination, could you take a look at the article and tell me whether you think it will or wont pass FAC. Your comments would really be appreciated --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 21:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Applied Behavior Analysis

Please help me help the ABA Page...I see that it needs cleanup, and I'm sort of understanding where (I think you put little tags in there on the history page)...would you mind kind of guiding me...I'm a very quick learner with this -- but will do so even quicker with some assistance..how do I know what needs to be refined, etc. etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk • contribs) 16:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Josh actually seems to be doing quite well, I've been helping him out as best I can and he's got diberry's ref generator and a whole stack of textbooks apparently. Feel free to look into it, naturally, but for now it seems to be under control. I may ask you the favour of reviewing the page after he's done though, as I respect your skills far more than my own. WLU (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Glad you're on it; I'll check in periodically. Has Eubulides (talk · contribs) been there? He's the most knowledgeable on the topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

S/He's the man on autism, is s/he a specialist in ABA too? I'll post him/her a message. Josh seems to be an actual expert on the subject and his knowledge of the literature appears to eclipse mine (I was a practitioner and had only a university course-level look at the topic). If Eub. is an expert here as well, s/he's quite the polymath! It's just as well that Eub. hasn't gotten around to this as well as his/her other prodigious outputs, I'd have to hang up my hat and leave wikipedia in despair of ever contributing anything useful :) WLU (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I already did :-) Don't you dare leave Wiki in despair; my mentorship success rate is faltering lately, after a few glaring disappointments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

As ever, I am a shadow on your coattails. No worries, I occasionally throw up my hands and decide I'm sick of the whole thing, but I always come back. WLU (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think what we need for Josh is to steer him towards a GA or FA-level article he can compare to, but I'm not sure which one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Judgement calls

See my comment here Raul654 (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Louis Slotin

Why was the article promoted? It is scandalously incomplete and even the main author said in the FAC that he wants to expand it. He said that he couldn't find more references, so last night, I added a number of references that he needs to incorporate into the article and I was just about to add 30 more references, when I noticed you had promoted the article. The promotion of this article is a sad commentary on how articles that are a little more than stubs, (11 KB text size), and are still full of inaccuracies, can become Wikipedia feature articles, only because the people weighing in with their support are themselves clueless. Here, by the way, are the 30 references whose content should properly have been incorporated into the text, which needs to be about twice its size (in the compressed box):

List moved to Talk:Louis Slotin#Additional references

Very disappointed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Raul promoted that article; I agree with the promotion based on what was on the FAC page at the time the article was promoted. I'm sorry you didn't have a chance to add the 30 new references; I'll post them to the article talk page unless you already have. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Done

Done and done. WLU (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Fun. Is he accepting? Did you make attribution clear in the text (that is, this is all according to them, right?) I don't want to go there unless I have to :-) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Still haven't heard... WLU (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ack, WLU, sorry, I've been distracted elsewhere, and I have app'ts all afternoon. I'll get back on this later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Sandy, I meant hadn't heard from Neil or Deb. Also since I didn't post a reply on your talk page, I thought you were due a comment to show I'd read yours :) If you've the time it would be appreciated but I know you've many, many important things to do. WLU (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I *will* get to it, but I have to be in a good and very relaxed frame of mind to revisit a page like that one :-) I know myself well enough to know I have to avoid some pages when I'm busy or pressed for time :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Wormshill FAC

Per your request, I have attempted to clarify the discussion by subdividing Tony's review by each issue raised, and putting the responses in chrono order and thread format. Perhaps all reviewers who raise multiple issues should place each issue in a subsection, for easier reading and editing (own "edit" tag for each section). I have made the same observation you did about multiple-issue discussions, e. g., at the Content Review Workshop. Thank you, Unimaginative Username (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought you were complaining of the format that appeared when I started the sub-divide. I thought I was answering your complaint. Sorry. Do you want only the sub-sections removed, or do you want me to revert all of the changes I made to re-order out-of-order comments chronologically? Unimaginative Username (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I added one comment, but I can revert to your version, then re-add the comment. Apologize -- I'm still somewhat of a newcomer regarding the many formatting rules, most of my time having been taken up with learning the MoS :) Unimaginative Username (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you beat me to it. When you're done, I can add my previous comment. For the record, I "followed the crowd" with the green and red, as it appears the nominator did also. Unimaginative Username (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if you could revert, please do. I interrupted the Real Job in the mistaken belief that I needed to "fix" the thread, and I need to get back to the RJ. My additional comment was not important. I can add it later, or not at all. Sorry to have caused so much trouble in a misguided attempt to do the right thing. Unimaginative Username (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the format fixing. Will avoid red/green checks in future...Now that's done, could I politely ask you to take a look at the candidate article and see if you have any comment of your own? Would be interested to hear other views. Cheers Dick G (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response and I understand your position. Will certainly take note of Tony's and other editors' thoughts but consider it vital to the effectiveness of the project to challenge editorial opinion and comment where appropriate - hope that doesn't come across as obstructive or stubborn and proprietary! Cheers Dick G (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

California sea lion

Mind reviewing this article and see if it's featured article material? Thank you. Bobisbob (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

A peer review can be most helpful in preparing for FAC; some sample articles for comparison can be found at Wikipedia:FA#Biology and medicine. You will probably need to expand the content significantly and thoroughly reference the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Emma Goldman

Thank you very much for catching my boneheaded mistake. I was trying to do six things at once and obviously forgot to complete the seventh. I appreciate your meticulousness. Cheers! – Scartol • Tok 01:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

After Midnight's talk page

In case you miss it:

To Sandy: One, I'm not the TSFC, I _volunteer_ for them. Two, you erased my work within 100 seconds of me posting it before I could even establish rationale, etc. (And that goes for you too, After Midnight -- don't either of you have lives? With you, Sandy, I suspect a disorder is informing your decisions. And the TSFC/TSA rivalry myth is sick - stop acting like such a war-drumming American) Why don't next time you take a deep breath, wait a few minutes, and see what the editor finishes with. And not caring about wasting NPO money, After Midnight? What's wrong with you? Are you listening to yourself? The power trip thing is so, so ugly, again going for both of you. - Mt Valley —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mt Valley (talk • contribs) 05:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

hmmm. Goodness, Mt Valley, you're off to such a fine start after the help I gave you on establishing Tourette Syndrome Foundation of Canada. I've never erased your work; I did help you establish notability months ago. I removed three or four words of WP:PEACOCKery so that, as discussed with After Midnight (talk · contribs), the justified COI tag could be removed from the article to the talk page.[4] I hope you've had a chance to read Wiki policies including conflict of interest, verifiability, notability, be civil and particularly, no personal attacks. Volunteer or not, the TSFC is editing their own article, and I've offered to help, explaining to After Midnight (after he justifiably placed a COI tag on the article, probably because you're uploading images improperly) that there had not been a problem so far. Of note, although I've helped you establish that article since the day you first edited, you have just lodged a blockable personal attack against me. I can't find After Midnight's comment about NPO money, so I don't know what that's about. TSA/TSFC rivalry; I have no idea what you're talking about, but I can say that the Tourette Syndrome Association isn't editing their entry. Ta! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I was tempted to block this person for the comment above but decided to let this run its course. If the behavior repeats itself I will block the person. Joelito (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Joelito. Because the user is so new, and has a low edit count, I'm inclined towards hoping it will work itself out, and I agree that a block might not be the best thing to do yet. Of course, it's a concern that this editor doesn't realize what I did to help the article, by advocating to remove the justified COI tag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, you initially attempted to remove the article, I would hardly consider that help. You did eventually acknowledge a need for notability, but that's not exactly insight: it's Wiki policy. My observations were were based on repeated comments (which After Midnight appears to have been erased) about you "keeping people in line" and others that are clear indicators, as with After Midnight, of a need for authority/power, however minor it may be. You stated that you had sources/connections where others did not. Again, your language demonstrated a lording over, a superior position, one of mockery and braggery. I apologize for my reaction and appreciate your recent edit. However, when established editors have these kinds of attitudes and jump on other, less experienced editors while they are in the middle of editing says a great deal about the climate here. User:Mt Valley —Preceding comment was added at 22:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that isn't correct, Mt Valley; I have never attempted to remove the article. I asked you to establish notability a year and a half ago, and even though the article's notability is still marginal at best, I helped push that along and never prodded or AFD'd the article (that is what it takes to remove an article from Wiki). Click on the History tab from the article, and you can see that I have never come close to "attempting to remove the article". I'm not aware of any comments erased by After Midnight, but since I'm not him/her and had never crossed paths with him/her, whatever s/he said or did doesn't involve me. Where have I stated that I have sources others do not? I stated I would try to establish the article's notability myself. I have now done that. I have gone through every source I have, and have found that Kushner's book devotes a couple of sentences to the TSFC; I can find nothing else, nor can I find anything else on a news search that isn't from the TSFC. I'm afraid I can't acknowledge having demonstrated any of the attitude you claim, because the *only* thing I have done with this article is to let Wiki notability and COI policies slide in your favor, as I personally recognize the importance of the TSFC. As I acknowledged to After Midnight, establishing notability for the TSFC is harder than for the TSA, because the press usually mentions the TSA. I hope you are able to reread the messages you seem to have misunderstood, and will come to see that I have only tried to help the article in your favor. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello from Ta bu shi da yu

Regrettably, I have retired from the project. - 211.30.82.214 (talk) 10:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats

I've now gotten back into the WP:FAC swing of things and finally realized that you appear to have been named deputy FAC goddess. Congratulations on a very well-deserved promotion! I learned a lot from reading your reviews when I first became interested in the FA process and I've always appreciated your comments and help on the articles I've nominated. I'm only scared that now that you won't be doing so many reviews I may have to step up and catch some of the more esoteric WP:MOS issues. May your (co-)reign be free from unmerited complaints :) Karanacs (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no "goddess" stuff here <blush>. I suspect there is little chance of being "free from unmerited complaints"; it goes with the territory :-) I really look forward to seeing you back in the saddle; good reviewers are always needed !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a confirmation

You nominated Gregory House for FA? I'm just a bit shocked. Although I did work extensively on the article, I wasn't sure if it was worthy of FA. mirageinred (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I read the talk page history incorrectly. mirageinred (talk) 23:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Wulfhere update

Sandy, just saw your query on qp's talk page and thought I'd give you an update. Yes, I'm working through qp's comments; I also need to respond again to Lurker. I think qp's copyedits (he did some extensive improvements) may address Lurker's points but that's up to Lurker to decide, of course. I also need to resolve what might be a slight conflict on advice on the lead between input I received from qp and input from Awadewit; that might take a day or two. If you decide to promote before that process is complete I'll certainly finish that off on the talk page. Mike Christie (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no hurry, Mike; when it's down to a few changes, I'm partial to the idea of having the best possible diff stored in the oldid in articlehistory, in case you're ever hit by a truck and someone needs to revert :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

MOS/MOSNUM inconsistency

It's about Wormshill.

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Metrics_in_UK-related_articles Tony (talk) 04:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's a mess. Is there any good reason for us not to ask for internal consistency at least? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Noob help

Hi! I was wondering what you meant by steering me to a GA FA level article...have you found one yet? I'm going to need all the help I can get on this wiki-editing as I am completely new! However, I'm finding it to be very fun and starting to become addictive! ThanksJosh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 04:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Any comments re: the discussions on the ABA talk page?Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Minor follow-up

Still several key issues to address obviously but can you have a look at this table in the Australian federal election article to see if the margins are better? It now looks okay on mine. I reworded some of the headings and shortened the party names to their common names. (Also, is it necessary to link a string of Liberals/Labor as we've done? I'd be quite happy to delink all but the first personally.) Orderinchaos 04:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I would consider that WP:OVERLINKing; that sea of blue isn't helping our readers. If the terms are linked once in the text, they don't need to be linked in the table. But back on the big picture, I am still having serious issues with those articles, specifically, South Australian general election, 2006. I'm still shocked that this slid by on the main page without anyone noticing. At first, I didn't complain loudly because I was on my older laptop, but now I'm in the kitchen on a newer computer with a different configuration, and the problems are still serious. Most of these issues are occurring on both of these articles, so I assume they are throughout. I'm concerned that all of the regular editors have same or similar browsers or settings, and just aren't seeing these problems.

• The first table, in the lead, runs into and overlaps the infobox.
• In the polling section, one table almost completely covers another, so that I can't even tell you what the title of the covered table is, but it's under the Political parties table.
• In the Post-election pendulum section, there are images completely off my screen; it's possible many readers don't even know those images are there. I only discovered them because I didn't see the "featured" star, so I scrolled right.

I didn't want to upset Timeshift while this was on the mainpage, and I assumed some other reader would spot these things and correct them. I'm still surprised at this, as it's the biggest mess I've ever seen on the mainpage. I suggest you all might temporarily alter your screen settings so you can see what some readers are seeing. Perhaps I keep my resolution larger than others because of my eyesight, but we do have to allow for all configurations.

On Australian federal election, 2007, the table in the lead overlaps and partially covers the infobox. Also, I still object to these tables in the lead anyway. If they came up at WP:FAC today, I would object on the basis that the WP:LEAD is a summary, and those tables present too much detail for a lead.

Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments :) I know it's a mess - that's in part why I was seeking your views on exactly where the problems lie so we can get to work on them. They do occur throughout - they'll be a problem on any SA and federal election at present - I think it's partly because a lot of the formatting is either fixed or dependent on quite long text. I'll have a look at those areas and see what I can do - it probably makes sense to modify the Australian federal election one first as it's being constantly updated anyway so not a lot is pinned down. Ideally I'd like to end up with an election blank which we can use for all future elections, and adapt our existing ones to, but I might be overambitious in that goal. Orderinchaos 00:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope you can get it fixed; maybe try altering your screen settings so you can see what I'm seeing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

How does Ontario general election, 2007 look on yours? I'm thinking of making a vastly reduced version of their infobox for our articles (we only need 2 parties on ours). Orderinchaos 17:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Yikes, there's a 700px image in there, in the Results by party section (see WP:MOS#Images). I got a new laptop (surprise), and the articles look much better on it, but they all still have problems on my kitchen computer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Interstate 355

Thanks about that, I missed that completely. I've modified my support because of your comments. Rt. 14:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Titoxd

His last post was on December 13th. Looking at his contributions, he seems to have taken a few unexplained breaks of five days of more, but recently he hasn't taken one this long. He sometimes goes on the WPTC IRC channel, but he hasn't been on there for a while. I'll leave him an email. --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

multiple FACs

Sorry, I did not know there is a limit on concurrent FACs. I did not manage to find any explicit rule on this. Nevertheless, I withdrew/deleted the Gregory House one. I will resubmit it later. Thanks for letting me know. Nergaal (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I archived Gregory House for you; please see WP:FAC/ar and wait for the bot to update the article talk page. Good luck with Oxygen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

United Nations Parliamentary Assembly

Thanks again for your review of UNPA. It might have made it to FA without your taking the time to tag those missing citations and showing me how to get those dates right, etc. but it would not have been as good of an article. Next time, I'll be much better prepared to get my FAC right the first time. By the way, it seems to be missing the star in the top right of the page, do you know how I can get that put up there? Or is my firefox malfunctioning? Sarsaparilla (talk) 05:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Sarasparilla, congrats on the star! You add the star yourself; see WP:FAC/ar. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks! Sarsaparilla (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Various

I see you've already noticed Musa Qala. Thanks. I didn't blue link article dates (they're in British format: 23 December, 2007). Must I? I don't know if I've ever shared this opinion with you, but if I had my way we wouldn't blue link any dates.

New MOS proposal; what you've done is now fine, as long as it's consistent.

I left a couple of comments regarding Ceoil. I sometimes think that when an Arb decision like Durove comes along, all admins should receive a template notice. I mean really. I hadn't heard about Outriggr, which is a shame. Marskell (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

An MoS discussion regarding no longer blue linking dates? Sign me up. I've never understood it: what reader pauses in the middle of an article and thinks "Gee, I'd like to read about December 11 throughout history right now"?

The 2,000 figure was, I assume, an order of magnitude error. 20,000 is almost certainly correct, so I dropped it. By foreign phrase do you mean the operation name? The source doesn't italicize. I'll try to massage the prose you've pointed out. I think you don't like the one sentence because, where two phrases are joined with the "and" conjunction and the first is more elaborate than the second, it reads badly :); not sure what's wrong with the helicopter sentence though. Marskell (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

	<font=3> Wishing you a "Feliz Navidad and a Happy new Year" Tony the Marine (talk)

FAC Question

How long can an article remain on FAC before it has to be closed? I never really thought about it before, but it is something that I should know so I can factor that into the planning for future FACs. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no predefined time; I've noticed Raul has said before he doesn't agree with "speedy closes", so I've followed that guideline even in "snowball" cases. Other than that, it's a matter of when consensus (or lack of consensus) is evident. I personally believe it would be rude and inconsiderate to give anyone coal in their Christmas stocking, so don't expect much action over the next two days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, Sandy. Merry Christmas/Feliz Navidad, and I hope that yours will be as good as mine. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Successful FAC

Thank you for providing comments on how to to improve the article at the successful FA nomination of Vasa (ship). Happy holidays and all that!

Peter ^Isotalo 08:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Season's greetings

Many thanks for your awesome work this year and for hanging in there when the going got tough. It takes a bit of character; and I don't know what we'd do without you. Have a smashing holiday, and I wish you a merry new year. qp10qp (talk) 11:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

A quick thank you

Sandy, thanks for jumping in at the "Imagination" FAC. I have faith that the FAC director will ignore non-actionable opposes, but it's a reassuring to see a note like that every now and then. I saw your edit summary -- please do jump the line if you can provide useful feedback to FAC commenters. Educating commenters about what is useful helps everyone whose FAC they comment on.

I find opposes like that less helpful than they could be, but a similar oppose by Kaypoh on a previous FAC, for Beyond Fantasy Fiction, did nudge me into finding more sources, so there's always room for improvement. In this particular case I think I've already done what research can be done, though. Anyway, thanks again, and have a great holiday season. Mike Christie (talk) 12:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful if FAC reviewers were watching out for the invalid opposes on all FACs, as it's not optimal for me to be the one jumping in and pointing them out (that gives the appearance of impartiality). I have no problem overlooking invalid opposes, but I'm concerned when there are so many of them and reviewers aren't highlighting them; that's something I used to do. It also troubles me when a review gets two of these, as other reviewers may scan, notice the opposes, and fail to review the article according to criteria. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Dear SandyGeorgia, I wanted to wish you a very Merry Christmas and all the best for the New Year! Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 05:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

May this season bring you success, good times and happiness. Looking forward to working with you in the future.
Hαvεlok беседа мансарда 07:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Alientraveller (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdo it on the fudge!

Spread the Holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaminglawyer/MerryChristmas!}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Season's Greetings II

Sandy, you have been consistently helpful throughout the year to me and many many others. Hope you have a great holiday season, and maybe even a well deserved break from this website (for a day or two, mind; no longer!!) Best, Ceoil (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Good news, bad news

Surprise. New computer for Christmas. Got stuck in never-never land on transition. Honestly, hours to defrag a brand new computer because that's what the tech said to do? Don't have all the pieces back together yet. Old dog, new tricks. Ugh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

When you get a chance, could you drop in over at Talk:Fasting and abstinence in the Roman Catholic Church#References. According to the edit history, you are the only other editor who has ever added a citation, so perhaps you have something to say about the citation system. A set of accounts, for no evident good reason, have chosen to impose footnotes and cite templates in an article which used parenthetic referencing. Gimmetrow 05:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Lots of catching up to do, but I will try to get over there for a look tonight. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Intermitten access

I'm visiting my girlfriend's family over the next few days. I won't have reliable internet access for 4 days. Please keep an eye on the place while I'm gone ;) Raul654 (talk) 14:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images at WP:TFA

What is the standard on this? Please see my question to Raul654 (talk · contribs) on his talk page in section Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 16, 2007 - he hasn't answered it in a while but he may just be busy, I'd like some feedback on this. Should be be going back through all the old WP:TFA subpages and removing fair use images, or is it okay to have them on the Main Page? Is there a consensus on this? Cirt (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC).

Hi, Cirt. I've never been involved in mainpage decisions, however, if Raul hasn't responded that may mean there's no problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. If you check though, another Admin came and removed the fair use image from Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 16, 2007. (I'm just giving that particular page as an example.) Cirt (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC).

I imagine Raul will replace it with another when he returns; there will be plenty of time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This concerns the January 2007 TFA page. There is often a fuss over fair use images while a TFA blurb is on the main page. Based on this, this and this, editors seem to acknowledge that some bot will eventually remove fair use images in old TFA blurb. Carcharoth replaced some deletions with free images. Gimmetrow 06:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but what about fair-use images when it's actually on the Main Page? Is that okay? Cirt (talk) 06:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC).

Do you have an upcoming FA? Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 9, 2007 was an article about a work of art, yet there was a debate (and many edits) that whole day over a fair use image in the TFA blurb. Gimmetrow 07:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I was more asking in general, but I will take a look at that discussion. Cirt (talk) 07:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC).

The relevant discussion for August 9 is here. You might also want to look at this which overlapped the March 25 Ian Thorpe TFA. Gimmetrow 07:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but I'm wondering: was there ever a community-wide request for comments on this? Or was discussion limited to those who happened to read Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 07:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, okay read the discussion, I guess it's best/less controversial to just use free-use images on WP:TFA, or not have an image. Cirt (talk) 07:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC).

Remember, you should read through the entire NFCCE discussion if you're interested (odd that's not a shortcut), but practically speaking, after the example of the August 9 TFA about a copyrighted work, it seems unlikely any fair use image would last long in the TFA blurb. And there was this edit... Gimmetrow 07:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to these discussions, interesting reading. Cirt (talk) 07:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC).

"Done"

I see that you're saying you don't want the big green ticks on FAC pages. Fair enough, but my bid to add a proscription to this effect failed a while ago. I think it should be added to the instructions now, if that's better for the process (and particularly for your part in it). Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/1988_Atlantic_hurricane_season Tony (talk) 01:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not know that this was not preferred in FACs? I use it frequently, but only to mark things that I have "done" or accomplished, not that a particular issue is resolved, I'll allow that for the actual person that posted the comment. But yeah, I use it in reference to my own comments, I hope that's okay. Cirt (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC).

They didn't seem to bother Raul, but perhaps his eyesight or attention span is better than mine :-) I intensely dislike them, which doesn't mean I can demand people not use them. I can ask though :-) They chop up the reviewer's original commentary, making it harder for me to get a sense of the coherence and significance of the issues originally raised by the reviewer. When a nominator edits the reviewer's commentary to add checkmarks, that's actually against WP:TALK guidelines (never edit someone else's post). They make it hard for me to know if they reviewer considers the item done or if the nominator checked them done, and in many cases, I've had to go step through the diffs to sort it out. And they clutter  Done the page for  Not done little good reason,  Done since something is not  Done until the reviewer says  Not done it's done; the  Done and  Not done checkmarks just make  Done it harder for me  Not done to figure out  Done what is actually done  Not done according to the reviewer. I prefer to read through every FAC, and I'd like to see what the reviewer said, how the nominator responded, and a clear indication that issues are addressed, unencumbered by graphics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

A simple measure is to require all ticks, crosses, whatever to have the four tildes after them. Why not? Tony (talk) 02:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd be much happier if they'd completely go away, and I could read dialogue. The tick marks don't do a thing for My Reading Pleasure :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but what if they are not used interspersed with another editor's comments, but simply at the bottom, to signify another user has addressed something? Cirt (talk) 04:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC).

A comment indented/threaded after the reviewer's comment, indicating items completed, is the norm and ideal, so the reviwer will know to strike the Oppose. The graphics could also be used, but they only clutter the commentary, which is what matters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. I guess in that case I use the graphics to highlight that I have addressed something, so that it is easier to make out. Cirt (talk) 05:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC).

touchpad?

OMG, you can't use a computer efficiently with a touchpad, Sandy. Whoever invented it should be horse-whipped and then shot. Is it some squidgy little laptop, this gift? You should be able to attach a mouse to it to get back to normal. I've found that you then can't turn the touchpad off, so I've gone as far as stretching sticky-tape or bandaids across it so my thumbs don't brush against it. Oh dear. You need a decent desk-top computer with a proper keyboard and mouse! On the tick/cross matter, I think you shouldn't have to check them yourself, but should ask the reviewer to check, or just do a quick spot check to ensure that one or two have been addressed. That should catch most sloppy nominators who are fudging.

I'm concerned that you might not be developing short-cuts and putting the onus onto others (sufficiently). Tony (talk) 02:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm so glad someone understands my misery with this new computer, when I'm supposed to be touched about the Christmas surprise. I hate this touchpad with a passion, and the rest of the family is looking at me like I have three heads. I Can Not Do This. The size is good, the screen is larger than I had before, but all new computers have touchpads, and I really really really hate it. I'm used to working fast, and I Can't Do It. I can go back to the desktops in the kitchen or study, but during baseball season, I like to be on the laptop, and when I travel, I have to use the laptop.

On the green and red mess, I'm hoping it will veer off if I mention it a few times; I don't want to make a fuss over something that's a fairly minor issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

FA criteria issue

Hello, User:Hurricanehink and I have been trying to figure out what part of the criterion does User:Brískelly is saying that it needs a bibliography. He's gotten into an argument with hurricanehink in the 2003 Atlantic hurricane season FAC over this and its gone nowhere. This has also occurred at the 1983 Atlantic hurricane season FAC. This guy seems to be relatively new and is demanding the section be added. He has not specified a reason to why in either FAC. Could you take a look? Thanks.^Mitch32^contribs 17:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have already noticed Briskelly's contributions across many FACs and I've noticed many FAC participants attempting to explain FA criteria to this editor; nominators should focus on WP:WIAFA and actionable items. If the issues continue, I'm considering moving unactionable comments to FAC talk pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Daijō-kan, Gemmei, etc.

ALARM: Most of the citations in articles I've created over the past year seem to have suddenly turned RED ... not only in this specific article but in several others I quickly checked. What happened? I'm guessing that this appears to be a sudden systemic change -- an error not attributable to me? something bigger than me? --Ooperhoofd (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe this was a Wiki glitch, as I've seen it on several articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Herpes zoster. See here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I'm pleased to learn that this is ----->>PROBLEM SOLVED

This was a site-wide error, now fixed. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#What is this crap? "Cite error"? You may have to purge your cache however to see the fix.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Mythology of Carnivale

SandyGeorgia: I was wondering if you might have closed the nom for the mythology of Carnivale FAC too early? No one Opposed or Supported, just a single comment. I'm waiting to finish watching season 2 before reading the article from beginning to end, but it looked pretty good. Well-cited, comprehensive... Either way, the nominator didn't get any real feedback.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Contribs

? Brískelly^Talk 08:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Reactive attachment disorder peer review

Ping. Fainites ^barley 15:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Dashes in St Kilda, Scotland

Sandy, I was the one who changed some en dashes to em dashes per what I thought was the standard defined at WP:MOSDASH. I was under the impression that unspaced em dashes were standard in text. Did I miss something? Mike Christie (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That one section (I think it was See also) had one of each. One item used an unspaced emdash, while the next item used a spaced endash. Doesn't matter which is used, but it needs to be consistent. Are you able to show the main editor how to complete the references? Thanks, Mike. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably, but I am out of time; maybe I can have a go later. Mike Christie (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike; there are almost a dozen FACs that are almost there, but slow going over the holidays. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Misconception?

You noted 4 significant oppositions on the Boeing 747 FAC. However, I can find only one and that one has been accused of bad faith by someone else. Fnlayson and I have addressed all of the areas mentioned. These are on technicalities but even they have been addressed. Others have found the article very interesting so that's endorsement from a global standpoint. One even said the article sits with the Pope!

The FAC process seems confusing because some FA are not well written, but might pass the technical hurdles (like having the correct spacing). This isn't a complaint. We have an interesting article and have fixed technicalities and all the points raised by others. I wonder if there is any bad faith and trying to trip up others? Even if true, I'm willing to fix those points.

I've address the issues on the FAC discussion page. I'm writing to you here because I'd appreciate your advice on how not to lose FA in spite of addressing everyone's issues?Archtransit (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The article has standing 4 Opposes and no significant support (the editor who made the pope comment appears to have spent 4 minutes reading the article); this needs to be addressed before an article can be promoted. I know you've made a lot of progress during FAC. Have you contacted the original opposers to see if their concerns are resolved yet? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I had another look, to see if I was missing something. The four Opposes are from Users O, 4u1e, Jayron32 and Tony1. I am not familiar with User O, but I can tell you that the other three are solid experienced FA reviewers; which of them might be acting in "bad faith and trying to trip up others"? I suggest contacting opposers to see if their concerns have been satisfied; all of them are well versed in FA criteria. 21:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It is User:O. He/she had a argument where about trying to trip up the FAC. Fnlayson and I, the two who edit the most, are uninvolved in that argument. I'm not fighting with anyone, just trying to improve articles. Archtransit (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

FAC etiquette

Sandy, I am a little confused. I specifically did not highlight my "support" vote at the bottom of the discussion of Imagination because I had done that before in addition to crossing out my "leaning towards" (leaving only "support" in bold) in earlier FACs and you had unbolded the lower "support's", saying they were confusing. Now I am confused as we are in a total reversal of that situation. Should I bold all of my support votes, no matter how many times I reiterate them or should I only bold one of them? Thanks for clarifying this. Awadewit | talk 23:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

nah, it's not you, it's me; Raul's eyes are younger than mine :-) It would be easiest for me to keep them straight if you clearly strike and unbold the earlier "leaning" and later bold and add the Support. It looks easy when you're looking at only one page, but when I'm reading through 50 of them at once, it adds up :-) It's easier to see one declaration of support rather than two. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 03:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem

Can people who watch this page please look into this[5]. I feel I am throwing dust into the wind. We don't want to lose Sandy. Ceoil (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Zeraeph again and still? That's not a surprise, she attracts a lot of commotion and thrives on it.[6] But I'm a bit surprised that LessHeard vanU (an admin) is telling people to fuck off,[7] particularly after I graciously accepted his apology the last time that happened.[8] Is there something more going on that I need to know here, because none of this adds up for me? Does someone want me off of Wiki? I thought I was fine with LHvU; is there something I don't know going on backchannel? And why did SlimVirgin unblock someone who has repeatedly attacked me right after everyone became aware on a WP:AN thread of an off-Wiki attack on me (not to mention the others not yet revealed)[9] and with standing attacks on me on that user's talk page?[10] And why is SlimVirgin questioning how Ceoil came to this matter, when that AN thread is clearly right below the AN thread dealing with the matter pertaining to the unfair block of Ceoil? [11] You'd have to be blind to miss it. I'm certainly missing something here, because it looks like 1) Ceoil is unjustly blocked, leading to an AN thread, at the same time that 2) another unrelated thread on AN draws everyone's attention to an off-Wiki attack on me, leading to 3) SlimVirgin's premature unblocking of that editor, leading to 4) LHvU telling Ceoil to fuck off for defending me. Gee, and I've always believed in WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:5P. Silly, naive me. I always thought it was possible to just write a lot of good articles by keeping your nose clean and working hard on Wiki. I guess I've got the wrong place, because there's so much drama here it's hard to get any work done. Thanks for defending me, Ceoil, but I want nothing to do with a Zeraeph tangle; you're a good friend and a good person and a good article writer. Are those the qualities Wiki seeks in its editors? More questions than answers here. I'm not venturing into that mess on LessHeard vanU's talk page, but I thought he and I were fine; he's welcome to address his beef directly with me rather than telling my friends to fuck off. I think if Jimbo wants me gone, it would be far more effective and leaderlike of him to just say so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, you're engaged in conspiracy theory here. I know nothing about this situation, nor any of the names, and if I have to be blind to miss the connections, then I'm blind.

My request to you is that you don't comment on Zeraeph anymore. Rightly or wrongly, she feels pursued by you, and you have been posting a lot about her. Rightly or wrongly, you feel pursued by her, and she has also posted a lot about you. You're both people who take a lot of pride in your work, and there has been a clash as a result. We can either have a full investigation with a view to assigning blame, or we can move on, and hope the situation dies away. My aim is to try to facilite the latter by sorting out the c;ontent dispute in a way everyone can live with. If it doesn't work and behavioral issues arise again, they can be dealt with later. But please, in the meantime, I'd appreciate both sides not saying anything else that might stir things up again. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Deflection, deflection, deflection. don't comment on Zeraeph anymore? That was the hope until you unblocked, with the back up rational: 'hoping someone can explain the dispute to me' and on Psychopathy's talk: 'not aware of the background'.?? Please have the guts to stand up and admit the unblocking was intended an arrow into Sandy. As I say, we are not children here. Have some guts. Ceoil (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Is my intelligence insulted yet (let me check)? No, still intact. SV, please don't come to my talk page to make false statements. I don't post a lot about her; in case you haven't noticed, I'm usually much too busy actually doing something on Wiki to concern myself with the Zeraeph issue of the day that always seems to land on my talk page whether I like it or not. Since I've never been the one to stir things up with her, your post here is flatly as insulting and malinformed as your sudden involvement in unblocking her. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Ceoil here, since it's well known that SlimVirgin isn't Sandy's biggest fan. Therefore, I feel the unblocking was a conflict of interest. LuciferMorgan (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean SV doesn't like me? Why am I always the last to know and what did I ever do to her? I wonder if anyone told her that mentorship of Z already failed once :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, now that the shock and awe has passed, I'm rereading some of the bile deposited on my talk page, and I'm frankly astounded. I'm here minding my own business, working my buns off for Wiki, and along comes SV out of nowhere to surprisingly unblock someone who has harassed and attacked me on and off-Wiki for more than a year, who then proceeds to have an immediate content dispute of the same type she was last blocked for and which she also did last August with someone else, all on articles I don't edit, none of these articles involve me, and then SV has the nerve to come to my talk page and lecture me and make false statements and inaccurate assumptions here and at WP:AN when I had nothing to do with the whole damn mess other than the fact that a friend of mine was told to fuck off and accused of being Z's gazillionth stalker after he noticed what was happening? AMAZING. Utterly amazing. Must be bedtime here; I'll sleep well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Zzz, Sandy. Mind you, the srongest retort from SV was that I posted (I think) 39 times on the same topic. Fairy fucking...ah no im too nice to say (Fuck off, fucktard.......apparently thoes words are now allowed). Ceoil (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Community ban discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Sandy, I just wanted to stop by and let you know that you are sincerely appreciated by the vast majority of editors for your good faith efforts to improve the project and your absolute grasp of policy. I have removed a personal attack against you from that person's talk page, and will continue to remove anything I think is defamatory. I hope you know that the majority of us....well, practically worship you for all you do, and would be appalled were you to leave due to some unstable editor harassing you. If I can ever be of assistance, please let me know and I will do all possible. Very sincerely, Jeffpw (talk) 10:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, Jeff, your words are very thoughtful and appreciated, and that was very kind of you. I won't leave because then they win, but I'm certainly not getting anything useful done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Just to say that I agree with Jeff 100%. Mattisse 16:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• LOL, she put them back. It's a time sink :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I sent you an email. Jeffpw (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who is sending me e-mail should recognize that I can't keep up with them all. I'm sorry my responses are terse, but I'm inundated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I've just discovered the Administrator's Noticeboard discussion and the Request for Arbitration regarding you and Zeraeph. I'll post my comments to the former once I've had a chance to read through it. As for the latter, I don't think that Arbitration is the best way of dealing with this matter, but I've contributed some links and will be contributing a statement for the event that it is accepted. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

An FLC related question

I know you aren't active at WP:FLC, but I was wondering if I could get your opinion on an issue. I recently discovered that an FLC nominator asked three members of his Wikiproject to go vote in an FLC, and they all went and supported it. Do you think that the nom should be restarted, or is it nothing worth worrying about? Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Scorpion. The problem is, it happens all the time. What I try to do is just look past it and focus on the article vis-a-vis the criteria. Either it meets criteria or it doesn't no matter how much fan support it gets. It's really hard to fail an article with fan support, but focus on the article, and restart the nom if it's gets out of hand. Look at two recent FACs: Preity Zinta and United Nations Parliamentary Assembly. Both had canvassing issues, Preity Zinta more egregious. The bottom line was that Preity Zinta (with 25 supports right out of the gate) didn't come to featured standard, while UNPA did, and that decision was easily justifiable in both cases. All the shouting and canvassing made not a bit of difference because at the end of the day, you make a call you can stand by based on teh article and not the editors. Good luck :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have one more question, what do you do when you have questions about a pages notability or whether the page is really necessary? At FLC, we've had several pages as of late that really aren't that notable and one questions whether they really need their own page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't had to face that yet, so it's hard to put myself in that position. I think it's harder with lists, because of the nature of lists. I'm not really clear on the guidelines for notability of lists? Have you checked with Colin? He's one of Wiki's wisest, and might have some ideas for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't really have guidelines for featured list notability, which is the problem. Colin's kind of disappeared from the FL scene in the last few months. I took over as the main FL closer back in August and I've only seen him comment on a few since then. And in case you are interested in leaving any comments, I started a discussion about whether the nom should be restarted here. Either way, thanks for your help, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Scorpion, as I know Colin, he's always willing to help with advice; I'm sure if you drop him a note you won't be disappointed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

FAC

Yes, I am. I feel that the FAC is not progressing only because there aren't any reliable sources; most are from fansites, and the only extensively used source is from Rolling Stone Magazine and surely that can't be used to site everything. So, that's why I (the nominator) am asking that the FAC be withdrawn, for now. Please don't see this as a form of surrendering, I am asking it to be withdrawn only because of the lack of "reliable sources". I hope you understand. Thanks for your time! (SUDUSER)₈₅ 05:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I will look into it tomorrow; I want you to be sure this is what you want. I viewed the FAC as just about there, but if you want more time to work on it ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

I have filed a request for arbitration where you are an involved party. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and add a statement if you wish. Jehochman ^Talk 17:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It's Christmas, JE, and my family is home for the holidays, and I will be traveling cross country in January, to an area where I have limited internet access. Uh, uh. Settle it now, or wait til February. Z has harassed me for a year; there's no hurry. Who is so anxious to get this before ArbCom, I wonder? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The dispute involves multiple parties, not just you. The committee will grant time if time is needed. I have very recent experience with that. I do not think this case will resolve before Spring. Jehochman ^Talk 18:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

By which time Z will have retired and unretired another dozen or so times, while I'm supposed to start gathering diffs and then really neglect my family? Right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Please put your family first. I promised justice, and I meant it. You can sit back and watch if you want to. Jehochman ^Talk 18:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be forgetting who asked for that promise, Jehochman. Certainly not Sandy. She has been quite articulate about her opinion that the form of "justice" you've insitited upon initiating is both burdensome and unwarranted. Now you behave as if it does her a favor to flout her wishes. That looks decidedly patronizing. Durova^Charge! 20:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what this talk of a promise is about; can someone point me somewhere? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Jenochman is suggesting he's committed to this. We could, in fact, wait 'til February. There's no clear and present danger. Should someone ask for as much at arb? Marskell (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

After wading through diffs and so on for more than 45 minutes, I see similarities to an ArbCom case I've just come out of as a semi-party (although it was a quite different case in magnitude and actions) - it concluded in under 2 weeks and the findings were really simple, clear and obvious. I don't doubt that would be the case again here as it isn't one of those disputes where there are two sides needing to be reconciled. The harassment and false allegations are all over the board - I've certainly had no real trouble finding them and I doubt the Committee will either. Orderinchaos 07:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That the main party came off the block and implied that an editor posed a physical threat to her is nearly evidence enough. Marskell (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

update

Nothing for you to do now. The Boeing 747 FAC had 4 objects that you noted. I thought we fixed everything and continue to fix minor things everyday. I asked the 4 people if they still objected because I'm willing to fix things more.

2 people have withdrawn their objects. 1 person hasn't edited a few days. The last person is a not a regular FAC commenter and has been accused of bad faith though I haven't made such accusation and simply take all of the comments into consideration and correct them. Please allow us a few days for the last person who objected to come back from the holidays. Have a Happy New Year! We are working hard to make the article nice and well liked! Archtransit (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I haven't been able to keep up, and I'm glad to hear you're progressing towards the goal. I'll look as soon as I'm able. Keep up the good work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Just an update. Nothing for you to do. All business matters are discussed at FAC, this is just social. All 3 regular FA commentators that opposed have withdrawn their oppose. One even said "Support Struck through prior oppose. In the last few weeks, the language and organization have been tightened up quite a bit. This is now a great article about a very signifcant aircraft, and everyone that has worked on it should be quite proud. --Jayron32"

Heh, heh! We'll still work on the article but that's progress! About the remaining opposer, we'll work with him/her, too. (fighting is not our goal!) Even he/she says "However, issues like editors favouring the aircraft project guidelines (which is not officially an MOS subset) rather than the MOS troubles it from reaching FA. That's one of my reasons why I'm still opposing. Other than that, it is pretty good, but can be expanded" This is really a policy fight involving WikiProject, something that I'll keep abreast and make changes as policy is changed. Perplexing is this editor's opposition that the article is too long (says it's 48k out of the max recommended 50k) but later said the article is too short! Can't be both! Still, always open to suggestions to things I can do! Have a Happy New Year!

Again, just a social note, not asking for special intervention. Archtransit (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ethical challenges to autism treatment--challenged

I've put a little template about the Neutrality of Ethical_challenges_to_autism_treatment...did I do it correctly? Could you check out what I've said on the discussion page...let me know if I'm all wet. I also put this on WLU's page...in the future, when i'm asking both of you something, should I post on one talk page and then link to it on the other[ie -- I post on WLUs and then on yours, I say -- could you reply to this post on WLU's] Thanks!Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it looks fine, Joel Josh; this is an issue across all of the autism-related articles. They all suffer from serious POV editing. There is no bot or people who review articles for neutrality; we're it. At least the tag warns readers. Eubulides is most knowledgeable about that article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

He looks like a Josh; I'm Joel ;-) Joelito (talk) 04:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

ah, heck. What am I doing in this country, anyway?  :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for fixing my error with Template:ArticleHistory, haven't updated those much. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

RAD

Many thanks. I'm really puzzled by the references thing though. We used to have one that looked like the one on Aspergers. Much neater. Then the GA reviewer said that because several refs had several citations with different page numbers we needed a seperate notes and refs sections so we could put in the page numbers. Which he helped us do. This meant all the papers and the books going in the refs and all the page number bits in the notes. I note that Aspergers doesn't do this at all. Is the current system that we're using OK? Most of the refs are in fact peer reviewed papers. Should all the papers go in notes and just books in refs? Fainites ^barley 13:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Best wishes

Dear Sandy, I will be working at the hospital over the New Year's celebrations, so may I wish you now all the very best for 2008 and thank you for all your kindness and support. Graham. --GrahamColm^Talk 23:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey there

Quite an eventful end to the year you're having, huh? ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Bad dress rehearsal = good show; 2008 should be spectacular :-) Happy New Year !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, I am 100% on your side and will never forget the kindness you have shown me. The current Arbitration does not seem to involve me, although for some reason I am a "named" party, so I have no relevant input to post there. However, I believe I see the situation clearly and I believe your many friends (including me) will stand by you to end. No worries there. Best wishes, Mattisse 17:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

David Lovering FAC

I had already gone through and crossed off the things that had been addressed. I think the article still needs a good copyedit, so I'm going to leave my oppose. Do you have a preferred method for how we should let you know about revisits. Sometimes I'll leave a note in an edit summary about what is still outstanding, but I know it's not easy for you to read through all of that. I hate to discourage a nominator, though, by posting several times, "I've looked through and still have the same concerns." Let me know if there's a method you'd like me to use. Karanacs (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

An indication you've revisited would help me, and let me know there is still ongoing work, so I don't prematurely close or promote. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead(II) nitrate, back to FA?

Hi, Sandy, I've copy-edited the lead(II) nitrate article from the Chemicals wikiproject, after it was recentely demoted from its FA-status. In this, you contributed to the voting process. Would you please be so kind as to provide feedback in its now running FA re-candidacy? Wim van Dorst (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC).