User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch35

Dispatch 2

SandyG, do you want me to follow up on this? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That ball was dropped, and my big toe still hurts; we almost missed our first Dispatch ever and Tony scrambled to fill in by throwing something together over night. In other words, I can't keep riding herd on these Dispatches to get something through every week, and it's been really a stressful timesink for me, because it involves deadlines, I've been the only one riding the deadline, and it ruins my weekends (family time). We need to start coordinating these through the talk page at WP:FCDW (not through me), and if people who have committed to a slot don't have something up by Friday, we need to have a backup plan (interviews and things that we can pull out in a pinch). I believe Tony's monthly update is on for the 2nd, the Mike/Laser notability thing is on for the 9th, and the Assessment people can have the next one (16?) if they commit and follow through this time. It seems they didn't fully understand that they need to write it, or at least rough it out so you and Tony can ce it. You can follow through with them if you want, but I don't want to be left Dispatchless again, and we really need to take all of that discussion to the talk page at WP:FCDW to try to get more people on board. I'm starting to resent these Dispatches because of how they put me into a scramble every weekend and detract from family time ... need for others to take more responsibility to make sure they are scheduled and that they happen :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. I've dropped a note, and will also follow up at FCDW. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Dropped notes around on talk pages, and set up for discussion at FCDW. I'm sorry if I was part of the ball-dropping last week; I think I didn't fully understand what was involved. I'm sure we can start taking the weight off you when it comes to this. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it appears that I wasn't communicating well. <shrug ??> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think things are moving along; I suspect that we need to get up to speed still, but I hope progress is being made. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jb, I really appreciate the efforts you've made there. The Dispatches were beginning to weigh me down. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

News Letter

Hi Sandy, Just a quick question, do you know where I could go to get information on creating a newsletter? I would like to create a newsletter for Admin Coaching/coachees. I do believe in the program, but I also believe that most people don't do an adequate job in preparing coachees. It's always a disappointment when I see somebody who went through coaching, but is clearly not ready for adminship.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 01:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Enochlau (talk · contribs) coordinates the tutorial series for the WP:SIGNPOST, and they're looking for topics. I guess you know I'm now an enemy of admin coaching; if I cared enough (I don't), I'd put up a standard question on every RfA about coaching and oppose any candidate who came to RfA via that route. You can't coach character, maturity or quality content contributions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I'm a little disappointed that a certain RfA is doing as well as it is... I honestly thought it was going to fail and even shared the specific reasons why I thought it would (privately) via email. I was hoping that by running again, against my advice, that it would be a learning tool... instead... oh well.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 01:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you overlooked the power of advertising. I'll say no more. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey MF... I don't think you're the most hated person at RfA anymore.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I hold RfA in the same contempt that it holds me in, so I wouldn't worry about if I were you. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Two things: 1) as evidenced this week, structural change is urgently needed at RfA, and 2) Balloonman, it takes real courage to publicly state when you were wrong. I'm sure this is most unpleasant, but kudos to you for that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

My mistake was in making the nom---not in supporting him. I think he'll be fine as an admin. But I messed up in noming him despite not getting to where I would have liked him to be... it was a place where I should have stuck to my guns. But I didn't want to hold him back because IMHO he acts like an admin... and is better/more committed than most. It was in making a nom-without disclosing my concerns that bothered me. If I had shared my concerns and explained why I still supported his candidacy, it would have been a different story. But I failed to do that. I presented him as a completed product---not as a solid product who needed a little more cultivating. I also made a mistake in posting when/what I did... I should have waited and structured my thoughts better. That would have cut down a lot on the drama and backlash to both me and him.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Part of my latest action was a result of this.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Need your opinion of the Lyme disease article

Hi SandyGeorgia. I was wondering if you could take a look at Lyme disease, which is currently a Good Article. I'm thinking that it should be delisted, but I would like someone experienced like you to look at it. I noticed that you reviewed the article a while ago when it was up for Featured Article status. I feel like the article has been slowly degenerating for the past few months, and I don't think that there are any experienced editors following it anymore. Among other problems, there seems to be too many assertions in the article that are unreferenced or poorly referenced, especially some of the more controversial ones.

I think that the main issue here is that there are opposing views of just about every topic in the article, including the frequency of the erythema migrans rash among those infected, the reliability of serological tests, and the recommended length of treatment with antibiotics of those infected. I am especially concerned about the Controversy and politics section, where there is strong disagreement by editors whether to include a description of the supposed link between Lyme disease and biological weapons research. If you look at the Talk:Lyme disease pages (including the archive), you'll see that someone always seems to raise a POV issue regardless of how the section is written. I was hoping that you would have some suggestions for resolving this issue. NighthawkJ (talk) 05:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I will get to this next week; traveling now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That's fine (sorry for the late response). NighthawkJ (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

ok

yes but it is good article no? How do i find criteria for feature? i would like to also know what featured articles you have written. and just what you do in the process of 'vetting' prospective featured articels.

raison I myself ax is that can you give me any tips on how an article about a US Supreme ct (SCOTUS) opinion can be a FA? Are there any existing FA's on supreme court opinions? Thank you! JeanLatore (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes but what about my other two questions -- what featured articles you have written, and just what you do in the process of 'vetting' prospective featured articels? JeanLatore (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Christ! There is only ONE united states case listed as FA and its the predictable "Roe v. Wade," which is more a political topic than a legal one. My question was how do you get your average, non-controversial SCOTUS opinion (like Lo Ji Sales) to featured status. Can you help? If you cannot just tell me.JeanLatore (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Why are you not answering my questions? You are simply regurgitating canned lists and telling me to "look at them." I am asking YOU for your opinion and insight, madam. Do you know any more about FA's than to tell someone to "look it up yourself"? If so, then you should not bill yourself as such a guru. JeanLatore (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello? Hello? If you cannot answer these simple questions I have no choice but to find you have no credibility whatsoever in the field of featured articles, finally having been exposed much like the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. You seem to only know how to cite "look at these list pages" rather than understand what they mean. Thus you have no basis for reprimanding other users, especially ones who have been here a fraction of the time you have. Now piss off! JeanLatore (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Please control your language on my talk page; further language such as you've now used twice here will be removed or brought to the attention of WP:AN/I. I am still getting through my morning watchlist; many people can help you understand the processes by which articles become featured, although I've already told you the most important step (begin first by working an article through peer review and good articles, so you can get your feet wet and become familiar with content review processes). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, the comments you received on the FAC page will help point you in the right direction to get started on that article. The biggest objection is that there are no citations in the article. Check WP:CITE for help getting started on that. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

One thing i wondered about is if "images" are required of a good article or featured one, how can a case opinion article meet this requirement? Like how can I ever have "images" on my Lo Ji article? The vast majority of us supreme court opinion articles will have no images of value to add, save the major cases, and those only in the last 50 years or so. JeanLatore (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Images are not required for feature articles; if images are available, they can be used in accordance with existing image policies.

I concur with Sandy's words above. Please go back and read WP:WIAFA carefully, and perhaps read several existing featured articles and their FAC nominations to get a sense of what is expected. Risker (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The featured article criteria is for images "where appropriate". It seems very likely that there would be no appropriate images for articles on US Supreme Court decisions. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok thank you for pointing that out. JeanLatore (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Following up

So I'm slogging through the WP:RS issues for the Halo (series) candidacy, and I remember on WT:FAC you were talking about shunting off those concerns once rectified so they didn't clutter up everything (correct me if I'm wrong.) What I was going to do was when Ealdgyth was satisfied all the refs met criteria, to shunt the discussion off to the talk page and then link to the discussion on the transclusion page. Does that float your boat? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ealdgyth usually caps them once they're resolved; no, I'd rather they not be moved to the talk page, since they do pertain to WIAFA (I usually move off-topic things to talk). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Thanks for clarifying. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I usually cap when things are more than three or four concerns. If I only point out one or two concerns, I don't cap, I just strike through. Something like Halo, when they are all resolved, I'll cap them. That help? And thanks David, for all the helpful replies on FAC, it's nice to have polite replies! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawal request

FYI someone has given a withdrawal request. Gary King (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ditto with mine, seen here Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Seth_MacFarlane. Thanks. miranda 19:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I can deal with these. Thanks for letting us know :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, as long as it gets done... :p Gary King (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Roger ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Another withdrawal request Gary King (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Gary. FAC is starting to feel like a peer review, revolving door, but I guess there's not much can be done about that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep—I don't know how I should feel now, considering I've contributed towards both sides of the process. Gary King (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry :-) I didn't intend that meaning at all ... shouldn't type when I'm packing :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I just meant, generally speaking; naturally, early on, I was learning about the process, and I think I'm only improving. I used to be part of the problem, and now I'd like to think I'm slowly becoming part of the solution. Honestly, though, I think that it helps if reviewers submit their own FACs every once in a while because it helps reviewers understand the process that much more. It's always easier to criticize someone than to be criticized.

Oh, and it just hit me for a solution on how to maybe "warn" editors before submitting FACs that their submissions will be lambasted to heck. We could use a preload template; what this does is it show some text at the top of the edit form; here is an example. Gary King (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary, you might want to run this idea by Gimmetrow (although he did mention somewhere he would be unavailable during some part of June). My own experience is that many nominators don't read most of what we already offer, so adding more text to the instructions might not help, but Gimmetrow and you may be able to come up with something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think something loud and obtrusive like this will get people's attention. It's already in use at both PR and GAN, both arguably more popular than FAC and it hasn't been a problem. Gary King (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, except that I've noticed that a lot of the malformed FACs, or FACs from inexperienced nominators (that is, those most likely not to understand criteria or read instructions) somehow manage to also avoid the preload, so it might not reach them. Anyway, I trust you can sort this out with Gimmetrow, since he generates the preload. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As I've posted at User_talk:Gimmetrow#User_talk:SandyGeorgia.23Withdrawal_request, I've created a first draft at Template:FAC/editintro. Gary King (talk) 05:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The template is not in use yet. If you would like to test drive it, it can be put into play immediately and we can gauge reaction. Or we can discuss this further at WT:FAC? Gary King (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time to mess with it, it doesn't need to be discussed at FAC since it shouldn't include wording not already part of FAC, and Gimmetrow knows what to do with these things. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay; it just needs to be added to Template:FAC by adding "&editintro=Template:FAC/editintro" to "action=edit&preload=Wikipedia:Featured+article+preload". Gary King (talk) 06:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Check it with Gimmetrow; I don't do that techno stuff, and I trust him to keep all the templates working right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

FAC Review History of Indiana

Hi SandyGeorgia! You removed History of Indiana from the FAC Review page earlier today with comment that it was being archived. Does this mean the review process has been closed? Thanks. Charles Edward 19:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I'm sorry for the delay and I'm sorry no one else answered; I'm traveling, and having a hard time maintaining an internet connection. The information at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 about soliciting input at peer review may be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Black Death FAC

Hello. A user recently nominated Black Death for FAC, but failed to complete the nomination by listing it on the main FAC page. I was about to do it for him/her, but noticed that this seems to be drive-by nom, and that, in my opinion, the article would need significant work before it met the criteria. Thus, I'm leaving it in your hands :). BuddingJournalist 21:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have left a note on the nominator's talk page suggesting they consider withdrawing as well as a note on the article's talk page. However, it looks as if the nominator logs on infrequently so it may be some time before they respond. I'm not sure whether my brief extends to malformed noms so I'll withdraw it only if the nominator requests it. I'd appreciate clarification on this later point, when you've got a minute, Sandy :) All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 21:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

A few minutes online only ... when I find one like that, I move it to the next archive, add previous FAC not submitted, and leave a note on the nom and the article talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, done :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 23:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Lo Ji Sales

I want you to help me do a "peer review" of thsi article please. Thank you. (sorry about this morning, I was a little high and thought you were evading my questions. No hard feelings)JeanLatore (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I cannot do a peer review on that article, but the instructions at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 should be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Viet Nam Quoc Dan Dang

Hi there Sandy. I've responded -everything is sourced but I will spread them throughout the para some more anyway for some of the more qualitative comments. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Sandy. I've asked for copyeditors, but have done another round myself in the meantime and informed Tony. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

MOS change for TOC/images?

Sandy—I've searched for "Where the lead image ..." in MOS, before and after the monthly window, and can find the phrase nowhere. TONY (talk) 04:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This edit is missing in the updates; the April update give incorrect info, since the TOC issue was adjusted in May after the accessibility issue was raised at WT:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I can fix the April edit then, but the May diff for MOS just doesn't show it.

Is your larger point that this exception has been wrongly lost and should be reinstated? TONY (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I don't know what the disconnect is, but I just looked at the diff you list above, and it does show the change. We now longer advocate the use of TOCright. The change is correct, the diff shows it, MoS is correct; the Updates should mention that the April recommendation to use TOCright was removed in a May update. It's in the diff above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I can't fix the April update, since the April diff doesn't show it either. I can only bring up changes between snapshots of the end of every month. It appears that this point was inserted and removed within a month. Why not add it now? TONY (talk) 05:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, somehow we're talking past each other. TOCright was removed in May; the Updates don't state that. The diff shows it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The April update says to use TOCright. This text was deleted in May (see the diff above):

**Exception: Wherever possible, images of faces should be placed so that the face or eyes look toward the text, because the reader's eye will tend to follow their direction. Portraits with the face looking to the reader's right should therefore be left-aligned, looking into the text of the article. Where this is the lead image, it may be appropriate to move the Table of Contents to the right by using {{TOCright}}. Since faces are not perfectly symmetrical, it is generally inadvisable to use photo-editing software to reverse a right-facing portrait image; however, some editors employ this controversial technique when it does not alter obvious non-symmetrical features, such as Mikhail Gorbachev's birthmark, or make text in the image unreadable.

We need to make it clear in the May Update that the April info is now outdated wrt TOCright. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Untranscluded premature FAC

Can you tell me (probably for the umpteenth time, sorry) how to handle a premature driveby nom that was never transcluded but has one response of some merit? Can I treat this essentially as a withdrawn FAC, just moving it to the monthly archive so Gimmebot can do its thing? The situation is an editor put a {{fac}} on the talk page of home computer, created the FAC page at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Home computer, and it got one response. I don't have any clue how I failed to notice it since May 16 - upsetting. Maralia (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

And another: Monarchy of Canada, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Monarchy of Canada, untranscluded, less premature but still obviously a driveby with no further nom participation. Significant opposes. Another withdraw scenario? Maralia (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Normally, I don't add those to the FAC archive; I move them to the next open N archiveN, clear the redirect with "previous FAC never submitted", and leave a message on the talk page and to the nom recommending peer review first. If it very obviously should have been submitted, I add it to FAC, but these should just be moved to archiveN and redirect cleared, with notes left to the noms and on the talk page. Don't worry about missing them; I was traveling, and I usually check the category several times a week. With both of us checking, it will be fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'll take care of them. I feel less bothered about having 'missed' it for so long since I learned that {{fac}} does not add to Category:Wikipedia featured article candidates if the template is placed on the article page instead of the talk page. I'm not sure what the reasoning for that could be; while the template should be on the talk page, if it isn't we still need some way to find that article. I wonder how Gimme caught it (he's the one that moved the template from main to talk) - I bet he noticed it on the VeblenBot list. Maralia (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know that either. Since I've just returned home, I'll track this down later; still getting through my watchlist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Still trying to catch up; Maralia, are you taking care of those two or am I? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm on it; my son is just being particularly 3 today. Maralia (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Maralia (by the way, not much difference between particularly 3 and particularly 13, 23, 33 or 53 :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely he will be somewhat less intolerable in between those, yes? If not, I beg you to lie to me. Maralia (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Six to eight is good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Citing books

I had a look at the various guidelines for citing sources at WP, but couldn't find an answer...so I figured I would ask the expert. I am currently writing an article for Wikipedia which uses a wide range of books as sources. I am using the Citation template, with the list of books under a 'References' header, and with the footnotes under a 'Notes' section.

So, an example footnote looks like: "Flink, James J. (1990), p. 79" (with the full book title, ISBN in the References list). Everything is going well, except...What happens when you have the same author with two different books, published in the same year? I have:

• Bryan, Ford R. (2003), Henry's Lieutenants, Wayne State University Press, ISBN 0814332137

But also,

• Bryan, Ford R. (2003), Rouge: Pictured in Its Prime, Wayne State University Press, ISBN 0972784306

I don't want to cause confusion in the footnotes. Suggestions? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 15:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Just add the book title to the shortened footnote ( I would use only last name, btw):

• Bryan (2003), Henry's Lieutenants, p. 70
• Bryan (2003), Rouge: Pictured in Its Prime, p. 123

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll make sure to only use the author's last names. I will add the book title, but only when needed, as there are no other clashes. Thanks for your help. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I would use 2003a and 2003b. You can even use this with Harvnb templates. Look at the "Ford" entries in Peter Wall for an example. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a really good suggestion. I don't recommend muddling the references with the publication title and would also instead prefer the 2001a method. Gary King (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Good idea! But would this make it necessary to link the shortened footnotes to the related book in the References list? ...Unless I add an "A" and "B" next to the listed books in the References list? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you'd have to list the books as 2003a and 2003b in the References list, too. You may or may not link them... but y'know, I love Harvnb. ;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, what he said. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright thanks for the help everyone! I didn't know of Harvnb before, but I think I'll stick with {{Citation}}! — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but Harvnb and Citation are like two lovers: made for each other! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

talk page comments

Sandy, I do not feel that my comments are in any way improper. I just searched on Tony's talk page and did not find a similar note there from you. His manner as well as Jb's were provocative and unprofessional. They should be instructed in proper reviewing skills and professional manners. It seems that all the opposes on my page are from a group of editors who all regularly work together and know each other - unlike the supports on my FAC page. Tony's comment denigrating all of the people supporting my page was so rude it is deserving of some kind of message from you. I do not feel that you have been fair in conducting this FAC and have been overly sympathetic to those with whom you seem to have worked with often, like Tony, and JBmurray whose mannerisms do not nothing to help improve Wikipedia but are cementing in the minds of all the people at Wikiproject Catholicism that spending any kind of time on Wikipedia is a futile effort. NancyHeise (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have just returned home from a week of travel and am starting from here forward, sorting through diffs on that FAC. If I see similar commentary from another editor, personalizing an issue rather than focusing on content or the process, they will get a similar message. Your personal commentary made overnight (my time) stood out in the diffs as I caught up on the FAC this morning; I did not see similar commentary from anyone else, but just keeping the FAC on track, threaded, and signed is a large effort, and I could have missed something. By all means, if you see an inappropriate, personal comment, please bring it to my attention, particularly as I'm still catching up from travel. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Your note

Thank you. If I seem shirty, please don't think that it is directed at you, since I see you didn't have an alternative course of action, but are doing as instructed. The demand is extremely disrespectful to reviewers: if someone isn't willing to plod through the arguments, the answer is not to ask people to make them again in the hope that they will reduce the number of such arguments - the necessary implication is that the arguments were not relevant in the first place. Ridiculous. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

A gift for you

Chocolate ... yummy

As thanks for doing the tedious work of keeping threading on track, please accept these small bites of pure bliss. We may need to hire someone to bring you goodies every day! Karanacs (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It helps. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit Conflict RCC

I'm trying to put the missing bits back. not sure how it happened. Xandar (talk) 02:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. The missing bits on the old edit are all back now. Xandar (talk) 02:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this okay?

Hi Sandy, I was concerned with this post because it identified the potential employer/location of one of the supporters of the article [1]? Is this okay to leave or is it something that needs to be removed? I checked the user pages of the supporters, and none of them have self-identified this way on their user page, and I'm not sure whether to worry or not. Karanacs (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I just redacted. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Was just following all of your contribs on this, and I see the concern. I think you did the correct thing by redacting it, certainly in terms of good faith. I'm not sure what else I can do about the remaining personalization of issues in that same post. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

RCC FAC

Sandy, I saw your summary on the project talk page. I think it is a very inaccurate summary. While we have answered these reviewers comments extensively even in the past two days, none have returned to follow up on their review. We have made significant changes in text and concessions yet none of these people have taken the time to come and finish the job they began. That is neglectful and I dont think their opposes should stand when they have not finished doing their job after we have finished ours. NancyHeise (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

How is it inaccurate to say there are 9 (now 10) unstruck opposes? It may be helpful for you to go to the top of this page and read everything through to the first FAC listing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Xandar has answered you below. I agree with him. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I did go to the WP:FAC page and posted a note on each opposers talk page per the instructions. Thank you for directing me. NancyHeise (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a good step in the right direction; if you can keep things moving in that direction, and work with the opposers, things should go better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

personal comments need to be moved

Sandy, Tony keeps posting personal comments on the FAC page. These are disruptive to what I am trying to do. I have not posted anything on his talk page. If he wants to send a message to someone, he should be telling them directly, not posting a message on the FAC page. Can you please remove his message and ask him to stop? Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 03:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

RCC FAC 3

The bottom of the page has a new and negative personal message. NancyHeise (talk) 05:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see my persistent efforts to keep this FAC focused, to encourage participants to refrain from personalizing the issues, and to steer the FAC back towards WP:WIAFA haven't worked; it's probably best that I leave it to you all to work it out amongst yourselves from here forward. It's unfortunate that a tone of personalizing the issues was set early on and that my attempts to re-orient the FAC more positively were not heeded; I'm not sure what else I can do now, or that it's my role to be doing this (which I've never had to do on any other FAC). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Roman Catholic Church and FAC

Tony has made some extremely IMPROPER and provably FALSE allegations about several editors and reviewers on the RCC FAC page. He has adopted an arrogant and sneering attitude from the start (something that has been complained of by other editors on other projects) Now it is QUITE clear that he has made THREE false and personalized allegations on the FAC page. This is beyond dispute - as is the falseness of each allegation. I shall enumerate for clarity:

1. He accused supporters of the article of voting improperly, and being "in a club." he had no evidence for this false allegation other than his own rancour.

2 He then publicly on the FAC page, accused Nancy of going around touting for votes, linking to a message she sent to one editor. Not only did he insult the editor, by not checking his facts before he posted, he made slandrous comments about the nominator. As explained by Nancy, she sent reminder messages to ALL previous commentators, as she had been advised to do so. However, when this was revealed there was no sign of withdrawal or apology from Tony. He was asked to apologise, but refused to do so.

3 He then posted other remarks on the FAC page, accusing editors of thereatening him - again something that is totally untrue, and rather impossible over the internet.

This is the background to what has gone on on his page. I believe he archived his page to suppress the complaint, and then placed a slanderous allegation on the new page. This is why I posted my message on his new page, demanding an apology. Instead he reverted it, apparently three times, himself breaking the 3 revert rule.

On the issue of review of articles for FA, I am quite aware of the importance of factual accuracy. I am also aware that some rigorous examination of an article is a good thing. However if this is not done in good faith, then the whole purpose becomes corrupted. If people make vague and unspecified objections, refuse to discuss or negotiate, and constantly accuse editors of bad faith and POV, then this is not helpful. Nancy in particular has worked tirelessly on this project and made literally thousands of changes, amendments and re-citations to the article in response to FA reviewers comments. So far, through 4 FAC processes, I am not aware of one falsehood or serious error having been found in the article text. The prose compares well with other articles, and has been constantly pared and refined. As for POV, the article compares well on all issues to something like Britannica. I am left with the unhappy sense therefore that continuing vague and unspecified claims of POV and bad prose are simply blocking attempts. Compare the sort of objections we have faced, with those on FAC London. There, we see reviewers providing itemized lists of specified points that can be quickly addressed and checked off - and not a lot of vague refusals to specify exactly what they seek changes on, and how. Anyway, that's that off my chest. Many thanks. Xandar (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

These links should be reviewed: Wikipedia:User#Removal_of_comments.2C_warnings and Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments. And the article is more likely to progress if all parties addressed the concerns rather than each other. It is a subject which is worthy of the FA star and it will not attain it the way things are going. Kablammo (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Newsflash to Xander: <... yawn>. TONY (talk) 08:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

RCC again

I'm cracking down on personal attacks on me; you overlooked this one when removing others to the talk page. Since it says nothing about any point at issue, it can easily be detached and sent there. Johnbod (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Johnbod; I'm sorry for all the troubles on that FAC and that you feel attacked. I'm no longer going to "police" that FAC; I've never had to do this before on any other FAC, my efforts to nip the adversarial tone that was set several FACs ago have not been successful (and have even resulted in accusations aimed at me, which is why it's probably best that I let others do the "policing" of civility, and have passed that FAC to Raul), and that particular comment does in fact address an actionable item, so I couldn't remove it anyway (the reviewer disagrees that something is resolved on talk as stated). Jbmurray is usually quite reasonable about refactoring comments, so I suspect if you showed him exactly where you consider the problem is, he may refactor. Again, I'm really sorry to see what has gone on throughout those FACs, and continue to hope that the focus will remain on resolving actionable opposes rather than discussing editors' motives. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I don't blame you keeping away from it now. Johnbod (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

RC +

Can you help? --Dweller (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Responded on the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

RCC Article

What's happened with the RCC nomination? Suddenly archived and a virtually blank page appears where it was. Xandar (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

See here. (NB it does seem that when FACs are archived, they are dropped from user watchlists. I suppose that's unavoidable?) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Help

Hi, I know that your involved with closing FACs so I thought you'd be a good person to ask. I nominated Doggystyle as a FAC and have taken care of all the things brought-up but it has been requested that the page receives a copy-edit before some reviewers will alter their oppose. I was wondering if you knew any users who could help me out ? I don't really know what to look for when copy-editing, so I think I would need an experienced copy-editor to fix the prose and grammer up. So, do you know any copy-editors ? Please get back to me soon :) Thanks - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It can be very hard to locate a good copyeditor during a FAC; some are willing to engage when an article is not under the scrutiny of a FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll just try and keep looking for someone who is willing. Thanks - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Checking Wikipedia:Peer_review/volunteers#General_copyediting is a good place to start, Guerilla. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Catching up

I think I'm caught up from travel on my watchlist, and will sort through FAC later today or tonight. If I missed a query from anyone, or if I owe anyone a response, pls holler. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Define:holler (Google)

1. shout out; "He hollered out to surrender our weapons"
2. shout: utter a sudden loud cry; "she cried with pain when the doctor inserted the needle"; "I yelled to her from the window but she couldn't hear me"
3. gripe: complain; "What was he hollering about?"

Graham GrahamColm^Talk 22:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I was born a coooaaal miner's daughter. In a cabin on a hill in Butcher Holler. We were poor but we had love. That's the one thing daddy made sure of... - Loretta

I think that should be FAC's theme song. Who would be our daddy?

A few times I've been around that track So it's not just gonna happen like that Because I ain't no hollaback girl I ain't no hollaback girl - Gwen

Hollah! - Missy

--Moni3 (talk) 12:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

contribs

Big stuff going on. If you're bored, look at my contribs. Ling.Nut (talk) 05:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Risker is right (my policy is and always has been the same); you can't control what people do or divulge off-Wiki. Strange times, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I also can't control it if you buy a gun and shoot me. But there should be consequences. Ling.Nut (talk) 05:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:FAC

Does " FAC director", which links to User:Raul654, need to be changed to you? It's really not doing much use linking to Raul when he hasn't promoted and/or archived FACs in a while... Gary King (talk) 05:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Raul is the director, I'm a delegate, and I wouldn't say he hasn't promoted or achived in a while, since he gets all the hard ones. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Main page requests

I wanted to request that Winfield Scott Hancock be today's featured article for July 2 or 3 (the anniversary of his actions at the Battle of Gettysburg), but the new process confused me. It's now 30 days until the preferred dates, but there are already 5 requests on the page. Do I have to wait until one is rejected and jump in with my candidate before someone else does? I'd appreciate your advice on how to proceed. Coemgenus 13:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The current system at WP:TFA/R is based on points; if the article you want to suggest has more points than a current article on the page, you can replace one of the current suggestions with yours. If not, you have to wait for an opening. For some reason, the current process doesn't allow the community to reject proposals (I think it should); the only mechanism is to replace them with higher-point articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I see. Well, the anniversary is relevant, but I'm not sure it counts as a "notable topic." I mean, I certainly think so, but I'm the one who nominated it for FA, so I would say that. Hancock was a well-known general and a major-party U.S. Presidential candidate. If you don't think I'm out of line, I will nominate it as a two-point article in place of that Superman one that everyone's opposing. Coemgenus 13:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't much get involved with that page, but if the article has more points than another one, that's what you do :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Coemgenus 14:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama archive

It didn't seem important at first, but now I think it would be better if Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive3 were included in the Talk:Barack Obama {{ArticleHistory}}. This week at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)/1 we have had debates about instability and everyone is looking for established precedents. Obviously, the most famously dynamic page right now is Barack Obama. It would be better for the paper trail permanent record if his article history was all-inclusive. Please reply at my talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That decision was made by Marskell and Joelr31, Raul's delegates at FAR; neither Raul nor I disagreed with it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn requests

Here is another one. Gary King (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. Karanacs (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sandy wins ;) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 17:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Y'all are too slow on the draw. Gary King (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

<karanacs watches baseball fly through the air and land just in front of her outstretched glove. sniff> Oops, I missed. Karanacs (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Baseball kid here :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Baseball? Go Marlins!!!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk to me in September (aka FAT LADY). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, but I'm seeing Fish swimming in the world series! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

A fish with a sting, you mean ? Or a ray of sun? Sure !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

More sharing

My sharing thread is archived... bummer. But I wanted to share this with you since I was thinking of you while I wrote it, though I wrote it for myself. From my fussy fuss on your talk page RfA thread several weeks ago, finally it fleshed out into English. Pretty darn fast, too. It's been stewing for a while. I linked it on Balloonman's talk page too. --Moni3 (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting; I don't think It's A Good Thing that you were thinking of me when you wrote that :-) I wonder how many editors have carefully thought out why they're here or how realistic are their goals and vision of Wikipedia or the internet or internet connections; anyone who covets what they get from a website should spend some serious time doing something deeply meaningful like ... shopping or navel gazing. Or better, reading Moni's edit summaries !!! I guess it's the old strategic planner in me, but I know why I'm here, and for now, I'm content to be batting .500. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't make my inspiration clear. Not that I think you fly the banner of my wonderfully named theory, but you seemed at the time to be frustrated by the same thing... at least here. I am frustrated by it in all walks of life, almost everywhere I look. If I cared about getting a PhD in sociology (Hello, Department of Useful Degrees, Hello?), I'd do it in this. --Moni3 (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm chronically frustrated here, but that's within my expectations; as long as it's not boring, I'm generally good to go :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Moni, will you please please join my family? We could use your humor at family gatherings. I just love this: In government, this is called politics. In your family, this is called Thanksgiving. It's an insightful essay, and I think WP would be a better place if everyone recognized why they were here and were honest about their reasons. Me? I write articles as an excuse to indulge an obsession with history, and I review FACs because otherwise I would never have heard of the Priestley Riots or E. Urner Goodman. Karanacs (talk) 02:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Only if I get to participate in all the family underhandedness that goes on during the holidays. You know, drink too much, insult my siblings for being a disappointment, accuse parents of raising me wrong and causing the train wreck that is my life. Pass peas. I write articles to correct omissions in subjects I think should be prominently displayed (and my judgment is ossim, I must say...), and I review FACs because it's spellbinding to look at the FAC page and see the gamut of topics people work on. And to help Sandy. --Moni3 (talk) 12:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[2] Do we want to have AH hidden? Gimmetrow 01:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Been round that block before with Timneu22 (talk · contribs), not going to do that one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

FAC editintro

Okay, I have talked with Gimmetrow and he gave me the okay to make the change, per User_talk:Gimmetrow#User_talk:SandyGeorgia.23Withdrawal_request. I have done so. I tested it, and it looks great. It's like walking into a new house — I hope you like the new smell. Gary King (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Confusion at Emmy Noether FAC

Sandy, I want to apologize for the confusion at the Emmy Noether FAC. I'm afraid it's been an insane week in so many ways for me, and correcting that confusion kept slipping my mind. I appreciate all the hard work you do at FAC, and I know you don't need boneheads like me giving you more to do. =) We're hoping to get the final items which need to be addressed for the article finished this weekend. I trust you're not planning to close it before then? Thanks again for all you do. – Scartol • Tok 22:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm noticing Tony often forgets to sign :-) By the way, what am I supposed to make of that German comment from Willow? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

PS, no, it's not in danger of closing :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The sense of the German comment is basically thanking Jakob for his help, and asking if he would look at List of publications of Emmy Noether to check that Willow's translations are correct, and that the urls to the historical papers are included for all papers which have them. When everything is correct there she will copy the relevant links over to Emmy Noether. Willow says that any corrections are most welcome, and if anything else needs doing to gain his Support for the article she will gladly do it. Dr pda (talk) 00:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Doc (good to see you 'round!); so that's tricky, since it has a bolded Support and I didn't know whether to count it as a support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering about that, too. Not only am I numerically illiterate, I'm also illiterate in German! The only language I'm good with is French: Il y a un poisson dans le bibliothèque. – Scartol • Tok 00:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Baseball brawl

Was that the Rockies Brawl?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Rockies, who? You mean the team that fizzled last October? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

But at least it made it to the World Series, as opposed to certain other teams.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, of course they made it to the World Series, silly. They were playing in a AAA league. Trying ever so hard to remember ... what was it that happened in last year's World Series when they met a real team? Was that a 7-game Series? I struggle to remember ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Humph. See next section. (I crack myself up.) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Video. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, we now know why Shields plays baseball. He'd never make it as a boxer. Cool video, Sandy! Risker (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

:-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Alzheimer's disease

There seems to be a lot of good comments at the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alzheimer's disease, but I'm not sure if I have the time to handle them all. Tony's comments in particular require a thorough redundancy review. Everyone is giving suggestions for change, but how do I get more help in fixing it? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Heck, if you can get anyone on the Medicine Project to collaborate on FAs, pass that ticket my way. Those who help most are Colin, Eubulides and Fvasconcellos. Collaborating prior to FAC is always best; with enough time, Tony can even be enticed to ce. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to hand out bribes.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you evading the baseball comeback? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh? You said something about baseball? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Did I? I forget. Some-teimer's. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this. I haven't been checking FAC as much with other things a-happening. I suspect this FAC may get really messy and maybe the best thing is to withdraw and leave it at WP:PR for the time being. I need to notch up some more comments and see what I can do too. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, now Casliber is ideally placed to offer expertise and copy-editing. TONY (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Star impostor

When I first saw Thiruvananthapuram, I thought, for a short moment, that it was a featured article. Little did I know... What is your opinion of this?

(How I found myself in an Indian article is a completely different story...) Waltham, The Duke of 04:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

How charming; not only a fake star, but a whole fake featured article system. Maralia (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Many portals have selected articles... But they are content with advertising that in the talk pages, not with stars emulating those of Featured Articles. We've been through so much trouble to keep the GA icon off articles, that this looks like a bad joke. Waltham, The Duke of 04:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Where's it coming from? I left a message for Gimmetrow. What do we need to MfD or whatever? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I see: Template:Indian selected article. So, what's next? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have replied there, and Maralia seems to have found it here as well. There's not even a talk page in that template...

I stand by what I said above, but this particular system seems a bit too advanced... The London portal, for instance, is much more restrained (and it's also featured).

I suggest a calm response: let's discuss this with the people responsible for the India portal. Leave a message at the talk page there. See how they respond. They might have no problem removing the star on their own, after all, if they see the conflict with FA. Waltham, The Duke of 04:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Duke; my head was in trying to sort out the RCC FAC, and I was in the midst of trying to summarize it when you first posted. I left a message for Dwaipayanc (talk · contribs) because I seem to recall coming across this before, and it's been up since 2006. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Checking closely, it's used on exactly one article; I suspect we just need to TFD it. anyone volunteer? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, more here, just need to TfD it, only used once. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Even better, it's already been deleted, so why's it back? Will see if Gimmetrow can sort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Note Portal_talk:India/Selected_articles#Selected_article_star and [3] Gimmetrow 04:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is the diff of when it was inserted.[4] Also on Culture of Thiruvananthapuram added here.[5] The actual image is Image:FA-star-India.png. Risker (talk) 04:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

hmmm .. since it was already deleted and was only linked to one article, I thought we could just housekeeping delete the template, but now Risker has found another piece. Don't know what to do next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The previous deletion was for a similarly named template, which has been deleted. This is a fork. I'll put it up for TfD. Risker (talk) 04:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

And they were only in those two articles; I removed them. If you can TfD it, that would be great (maybe the star, too); I'm dismal at XfD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

One article out of two million and I had to fall on it... By clicking on "Random". What were the odds? :-D

Anyway, deleting the template is one thing, but the image might prove much more controversial. Let us not be rash here. Waltham, The Duke of 04:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I told you I was dismal at XfD ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuses, excuses... Waltham, The Duke of 04:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are actually four templates involved, so I will put them all up together. We have the old TfD to go by, at least, to show these are forks. Because of the ever-so-slightly different names and content, I'm hard pressed to say they are speedy deletable. Risker (talk) 04:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

So, not only have they copied the featured article process and star, but the Main Page back-up system as well? :-) What is it with all the forks? Waltham, The Duke of 04:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

There are some portals which use a star of some form on their selected article leads, such as Portal:Alberta/Selected article/3. Gimmetrow 04:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Marskell's Bobcat; one of my sentimental favorites !! But that's only at the portal, right? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think having selected articles at portals is a new phenomenon (I did mention London above). It's a matter of where we draw the line... Waltham, The Duke of 04:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

PS: Bobcat is featured anyway; I don't see the harm here. Thiruvananthapuram, on the other hand, failed its FAC. Waltham, The Duke of 05:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The deletion discussion is happening here. Risker (talk) 05:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one bothered by Portal:India/Selected articles replicating the format of the FA pages down to the last detail? Maralia (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned my displeasure in passing above, but, to be honest, I do not think this is so much of a problem. The star had to go from the mainspace because it was a self-reference and these, with very few exceptions, are unwanted. The page, on the other hand, is in project space, so our readers will see little of it, and it is not likely for one to confuse the page with its FA "counterpart" anyway—both the name and several elements on the page itself provide enough differentiation. If the honourable colleagues at the India portal like the FA layout so much that they have decided to use it themselves, and since there are no actual problems stemming from this decision—from what I can tell—I do not see what we could do about it other than enjoy the flattery. :-) Waltham, The Duke of 03:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, this selected article of India portal started a few years back. However, the process is not much active now. Yes, at the beginning that star image was implemented to some articles. As some of those articles became WP:FA, the India star was removed, and the FA-star, obviously, was added. There are some articles that are Portal:India selected articles, but not WP:FA, so those may still bear that India star.

Since the icon is causing the fallacy, and it is not recommended to have other icons than FA star in the mainspace, it should be removed. However, advertising them in the talk page - that should not be removed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Bradman poll

Hi. I found consensus at WT:CRIC and closed the PR. Waiting for a c-e before going to FAC next week. The consensus poll is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket#Move_to_close and the debate that preceded it (which is IMHO impressive academic - but definitely intelligible) is just above that section. --Dweller (talk) 11:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

MOS change

S, is this worth taking up at MOS talk? As I think I've pointed out, it came, it went, it came, it went, and hasn't shown up in the updates because of the timing of my "snapshot".

[6] TONY (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Out of time today, Dr's app't, but I don't understand the question. The guideline looks clear and OK now, but the TOC issue isn't mentioned in the update, even though it was removed in May. Confused. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

dashes

Hi SandyGeorgia. I know from past comments on FAC that you are a dash expert here. I'm really confused with all these dashes. Do you mind taking a look at Emmy Noether to check that all is OK please. Cheers, Randomblue (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC).

I'm out the door. I will look tonight, or you can probably get quicker feedback from Epbr123 (talk · contribs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

RfB FYI

Hi. I know (from personal experience :) ) that you want to be informed of these, so in case you had not known: Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/AGK 2. -- Avi (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I really appreciate that, Avi; still troubled that these don't show up in the normal reports, considering how important they are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/SandyGeorgia ;-) ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep waiting :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• And another :) Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Useight

• Goodness, when it rains, it pours. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool tool

I asked Franamax to make a tool here, and this is what s/he came up with. Cool eh? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I like that ... just the article contribs, without all the fluff of the other tools? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I mean I think it is still in development, but it is exactly what I want to know :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sadi Carnot

I looked at Sadi's history and I found no good evidence that Sadi is 199/Oakwillow. I assume Sadi was banned for good reason but I don't see any incivility in the history. Did the sockpuppets get nasty? Can you refer me to some of these sockpuppets? Mrshaba (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain, because I didn't follow that closely; I left a note for Jehochman (talk · contribs); he'll know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin Tilley

Quick question on my FAC, if it's bad form to ask then I apologize, but I haven't run through this process in quite some time. (Two FAs last year, but then I took a long wikibreak.) I know that BFT has been on the FAC list for some time, but hasn't received that much feedback (1 oppose, 4 supports; but I think I've resolved the complaints). Should I be trying to drum up more reviewers? There are notes on WP:MILHIST already. Let me know if there's something I can do, or if I should just be patient and let the process work. Thanks. JRP (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

FAC is slow right now, as a lot of the regular reviewers are a bit ... exhausted. To help out, you could consider reviewing some FACs yourself (that would take some pressure off of the regular reviewers), you could ping WikiProjects (without canvassing :-), and you could make a post to WT:FAC to inquire if someone would review the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I just doublechecked the FAC, and I see 3 Supports (?). There's one leaning towards support and one oppose; you could ping those two editors for a fresh look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've already left notes on their talk pages, but don't want to be too annoying about it. But as for doing more reviews, I will do that. I got a bit of a bad taste in my mouth from reviewing Peter Wall, but I'm sure they usually go better than that. :) JRP (talk) 01:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Just saw this. I am sorry if I was responsible for any bad taste in your mouth from reviewing Peter Wall. I can't remember the issues right now (and my battery's about to die, so can't check), but feel free to raise any issues with me. Again, apologies if you were put off in what was, as SandyG says, a rether unusual FAC. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Peter Wall was unusual, and most reviewers don't mind if you ping them :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Article size

I would suggest an RFC. There has been too little participation. The only editors to have participated in the discussion are ones who are the primary editors of humongously long articles and appear to be afraid that someone is going to call the kettle black. Since you have been a frequent contributor, can you take a look at the other suggestion about the wording regarding No need for haste? See the first paragraph of Wikipedia talk:Article size#Readable prose numbers? Oakwillow (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There has already been extended community input, both at FAC (daily) and at the MfD discussions of the Extra-Long Article Committee. I'm not concerned about the current wording on the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to read them. The MfD, I believe quickly squashed the idea of creating a committee of people running around chopping up articles, which has nothing to do with the guidelines (the committee would have run around chopping up articles regardless of what the guidelines said - 50k, 100k, 200k, 400k, etc., the guidelines would only tell them how small to make them). The guidelines affect all articles, not just FAC articles. I can understand how the error crept in, with so much discussion about readable prose, and certainly one of the options is to just fix the table so that it does represent readable prose, as shown (15/20/30/45), but I would like to have editors understand what's going on with the edit byte count, and why articles that have more than 100kB edit byte count get the {{verylong}} template added - because they are very long. That's why I believe the best choice is to include both. I also think that for practical purposes we can add the guideline that the readable prose is often about half the byte count. That would be a very useful note. However please let me know what you would suggest that I read. I'm sure that you must get tired of trying to explain things so much, when if you just fixed the guidelines there would be nothing to explain. As you and I both know it is up to individual editors to do whatever they wish with the guidelines - that's why they are guidelines and not policy. The situation right now though is we really are not being honest about what numbers to use. A table was developed using edit byte count and was then re-labeled as readable prose without making the appropriate corrections, and hence false and contradictory guidelines exist. Do you honestly think that it is appropriate to suggest articles that have 100 kB readable prose? Why did it earlier say that readers may tire of 20-30kB prose? Did readers in the myspace age get longer attention spans? I think they got shorter. The article says readers may tire of 30 kB prose (or longer for some - I know I have a long attention span). Wouldn't it be better to suggest thinking about chopping up at 30k, instead of 60, which is coincidently twice the attention span? Oakwillow (talk) 03:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Texas Chainsaw Massacre

I'd like you to take a look at the FAC for the following article. While it doesn't meet FA standards, I would like to note that four of the opposes in that FAC are actually too vague as to be deemed valid. I'm not saying the reasons they hold aren't valid, but they actually haven't expressed why, according to the FAC criteria, that the article falls short. If this is the best FA reviewers have to offer, this is rather worrying. LuciferMorgan (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Nimrod Expedition

I'm a little surprised by your promotion of this article to FA. I think it's a very good article, which is why I devoted over an hour of my life to it last week, but I also think that it hasn't got there yet.

While FAs seem a good idea (and the design of the main page requires them), I'm not at all happy with the FA candidacy process as it is: to a large extent other people's posted concerns seem mechanistic (they seem to be checking items off a form on a clipboard) or trivial (niceties of prose) or both. That, and a desire not to be or appear pompous or a WP:DICK, deter me from airing questions on FAC pages. Instead I was posting questions on the article's discussion page, and was surprised that they seemed to elicit little interest from the article's main author (actually I was about to nudge him to take a look) and just now was more surprised to infer that you to either hadn't looked there or had looked and were untroubled. Perhaps I should have mentioned at the FAC page that questions at Talk:Nimrod_Expedition were unanswered.

I have more questions to ask about the article, and I do intend to ask them some time later. I don't want to ask them very soon, as the author should be allowed to bask in the pleasure of FA success for at least a couple of weeks. It is an excellent article, after all. Morenoodles (talk) 11:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

FAC is intended to determine if articles meet criteria or improve them to featured status if possible within the timeframe of FAC; you need not consider that raising issues there would engage WP:DICK, since that's the purpose of FAC. We also have WP:AGF, and when I see a series of comments on a talk page on a FAC that has been running for six days, I have to assume the editor who wrote them considered them to be minor issues, easily fixable, not a deterrent to featured status, or that editor would have entered an Oppose on the FAC. I can't read editors' minds, and AGF is a priority :-) Opposing a FAC until issues are resolved is not a matter of WP:DICK; if you're uncomfortable opposing, you can always enter "Fixes needed" instead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

bolding

Well, as you know, I've always lent towards the less mandatory requirement for bolding at the top: it's funny to highlight what the reader has just read in the title; the distinction between this "descriptive" and "non-descriprive" categorisation has bothered me; and I definitely don't like synonyms, akas and other stuff bolded as well. I'd just as soon get red of the practice, although sometimes it does work well. TONY (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

San Francisco, California Featured Article review

Hello, I am concerned that this article does not meet the requirements of a Featured Article. I have started a Featured Article review (located here), but the primary contributor to the article disagrees with all of my concerns and has simply stated that the article met the Featured Article criteria in 2006 and is good enough now.

I was wondering if you could look the article over and give some feedback. Alternatively, could you recommend a few people that I could ask to look over the article? Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I will try to get over there next week; I participated in the peer review, and was a bit surprised at the number of supports it racked up as quickly as it did at FAC, considering some of the issues you're now raising (looking at the dates, I was probably traveling when it came up at FAC). You could also try Laser brain (talk · contribs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitely a way to make my (crappy) day better!

Thanks! After a hot sweaty day of cranky trainers, pissy horses, hay in my jeans (I HATE that), cramps, cloudy weather when we're trying to photograph horses, and way too many people in Wally World when I needed groceries.. that really brightened my day. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

E-mail

Hello SandyGeorgia, I've sent you an E-mail. Best wishes. Acalamari 02:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Got it; yep, it's irritating, but I've been around that block and made no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack

You mind explaining what a personal attack has to do with article size? It's entirely inappropriate. I have no objection to it taking place in an appropriate forum, although I really doubt that someone speculating on what an editor's IP address is is ever appropriate in any forum, but it certainly has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Please! How would you feel if someone was following you around like a puppy dog trying to guess what your IP address was? Checkuser can be used to reveal an editors IP address, but the information is never made public. Oakwillow (talk) 05:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yay! Thanks

for the star ... Is there a different medal on offer each month? :D indopug (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Only if someone designs it for us :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for mine, too :) Much appreciated, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 21:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Very much appreciated, means a lot, Thanks Sandy. Graham. GrahamColm^Talk 21:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks also... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The thanks go to Maralia ! The work is in reviewing all those FACs in archives :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the star! :-) Giants2008 (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes thank you! --Laser brain (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Anglesey Central Railway

Would you (or any of the other FA regulars who happen to be watching this page) be able to answer Ansbaradigeidfran's question regarding page numbering in references on Talk:Anglesey Central Railway when you get the chance? I've given him an honest answer from my point of view; however (as I've said there) I work with almost exclusively in short and medium-length low-importance articles, and I know that what's appropriate at my level isn't appropriate if he's planning to take the article to FA status - however, I don't really know what the "correct" answer is - the MOS and WP:CITE are both unclear on the matter. Thanks! – iridescent 21:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

FAC reviews

Sandy, I started reviewing images on the FACs as requested...I'm not sure of the protocol. If everything looks good on the images/media, should I leave a comment saying that on the FAC page? Kelly ^hi! 19:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me jump in here... In short, yes! If things look good, this should be mentioned as much as if things look bad. Thanks! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Kelly and Jb; Kelly, if you see that either Elcobbola or Black Kite have already been through, you don't need to check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Notifications

Sandy, is it ok for the FAR to say Notifications complete without identifying who and which projects have been notified? I can see some value in listing the notifications but am not sure what the protocol is. Thanks. --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 22:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason we do the notifications is to avoid having a significant contributor or someone who could restore an article to status appearing a month into FAR, complaining that they didn't know about the FAR, which causes us to extend the FAR and backlogs the page (it has happened). The goal of the notifications is to cast as wide of a net as possible to pull in anyone who might help restore the article. If nominators enter "Notifications complete", that leaves the burden on one of us to go check the nominator's contribs and see who they notified. Doing that once might be fine, but if subsequent nominators see that, the trend could take hold, and then we have no notifications. I would ask the nominator to post them to the FAR; if the nominator won't do that, then I'd check the nominator's contribs and go ahead and add them, so the trend won't take hold. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 18:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Incorrect changes

Hmmm...I guess I'm a bit confused here (sorry...this is my first FAC). I've had one FAC reviewer make the comment that the raw endash code is needed for scores rather than the symbol itself (ie: 3&ndash2 is better than 3–2), and that the article will not pass FAC if this is not done. So firstly, is it okay to simply add the endash symbol (as is found in the symbols box below), or do I add the raw &ndash text? Also, I will go ahead and change the endashes to hyphens where necessary. Thanks for the help! – Nurmsook! (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that information is not correct. An html endash is not required (see WP:DASH); those were fine before (but html endashes work as well, so you don't have to change them back if you don't want to). The bigger problem is the mixup between hyphens and endashes; again, I suggest asking Epbr123 to run through the entire article, and a review of the difference at WP:HYPHEN and WP:DASH. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through and fixed the hypens and endashes. – Nurmsook! (talk) 04:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I had a quick look, and they seem fine, but I was out all day, still catching up, so it was a cursory look. If you have any other concerns, the article will be in good hands if you ask Epbr123 to run through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Mainspace summary

Hi Sandy, Casliber had asked me about a tool to expand on wannabekate, and as events would have it, I've made a prototype uContribs:

• Examine all user edits, counting the user edits to the most recent 5,000 mainspace articles, and retrieve the article status and importance rating from the talk page categories. Summarize these for all articles where the user has made more than 20 edits.

Casliber was asking for this as a way to check on his own progress to making his favoured articles into uniformly featured status. I'm bringing this to your attention since it may be of interest to people who focus on actually contrbuting to the encyclopedia part of Wikipedia, such as yourself. To that end, I've added a listing for you at User:Franamax/Ucontribs. If you have the time, I'd appreciate your comments on the associated talk page as to accuracy. It's early days and you can find in your own listing several, ummm, challenges to my programming skill :)

On I related note, I'm running the same summary for Cirt, in preparation to post this same notice at Durova's Triple Crown page. I'm a little distressed at the lack of activity there, I've always thought of those awards as among the most valuable incentives for WP content editors (as opposed to the process- and drama-junkies who can find their rewards on a daily basis). I mention this here only to ask if you have any ideas to keep the awards concept alive and well. I know you mentioned the program in a recent Signpost (I think), I'm not sure how well linked it was, and I'm not sure how visible it is on an ongoing basis. Just throwing it out there.

Thanks and cheers! Franamax (talk) 03:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Like a Rolling Stone

OK, thanks for your help. Have a great day! Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 19:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Spectrum disorder

Looks great for a stub. I did some very minor copyediting. Is there some prize for the best stub on Wikipedia? Eubulides (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Time flies when you're having fun; can hardly believe it was all the way back to December 2006 that that article was giving me fits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Montana class battleship

I took your advise I dropped a note on E123's page for a check of the issues, he apparently got a few others that were problomatic. Would you take another look at your comments and update them as needed? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

He seems to have gotten everything, unless you see anything else. A slow worker, isn't he? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"Slow and steady win the race," or so they say :) I think that's everything that needed to be addressed. Thanks for your input, I appreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

FAC stats

Sorry, I haven't been logged in so missed your note on FAC stats. So few were kept last months there's not much to note. RickBlock did do a save on Monty Hall problem. Marskell (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and can we put the third Barack Obama FAR into AH? I'll do it if you have one of those explanatory pages. Marskell (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I lost power and am trying to deal with a sporadic dialup, may not be on for the rest of the day. We can't add the FAR to AH until we agree on how to do it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As a keep. That's de jure what it was. Marskell (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get to this today (still dealing with electrician to get my house back in order after storm and power surge, more tomorrow); are we sure Joelr31 wants me to add it as a default keep? Will do it tomorrow unless Gimmetrow gets there first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Talyllyn Railway FAC nomination

Thanks for your concern, but personally I am pleased that this article has been improved since its last nomination, and am happy for it to go to FAC. I would ask you not to withdraw it, for what seems like a minor technical violation of the procedure. Many thanks. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 05:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

My award

How kind! I'll adorn my userpage with it. --Dweller (talk) 11:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Demise of Charing Cross Euston & Hampstead Railway FAC

I just want to ask why the FAC on this article was closed as I was still in the middle of actively dealing with comments raised and it had only been a candidate for two weeks. Was there something procedural that was missed? --DavidCane (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing missed; two weeks with several opposes is not an atypical close. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Dilemma, and a hypothetical issue

Let's try not to connect any dots here. Let's say a friend of yours has an article he wrote that he thought no one would pay attention to, but wanted to bring to FA. Let's say the article is about, uh...the Demise of Fluffy Bunnies (quite the tragedy). Before bringing to FA, coincidentally a presidential candidate is reported within the past week commenting that he voted against a bill to save fluffy bunnies from being clubbed to death. Candidate Bob did not want government to spend the money on this project. He mentions this on the campaign trail while visiting a fluffy bunny farm. Fluffy bunnies are pretty big in your state - a state, which, by the way, is a swing state and has caused a few problems in the past two elections. In a story printed in The Most Widely Read Paper In Your Country is a quote by an expert on fluffy bunnies (one that is mentioned in the article your friend wrote) that says the issue of fluffy bunnies depends on who is elected as president.

1. Do you include this information?
2. Is it NPOV to mention Candidate Bob if Candidate Joe voted for protecting fluffy bunnies, and is therefore not really notable, and you don't mention anyone else's vote?
3. Is it WP:UNDUE?
4. Will the inclusion of the information affect the FAC process?

Again, no dot connecting. Anyone may give input. --Moni3 (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, shame on Candidate Bob for his lack of environmental conscience. Now, about this complex little case of yours, I could make a few theoretical points:

• A detailed analysis on how Bob's statement might affect the election would probably not only drive the article off-topic but also breach the Crystal Ball clause. On the other hand, if any candidate's comments on their votes are accompanied by further statements about what they might do in the event of their election with regards to the protection of fluffy bunnies, then that might be worthier for inclusion, also subject to a candidate's chances for an electoral victory.
• The simple statement that the election will be crucial for the issue of fluffy bunnies is probably relevant enough to include, but this should be in a section specifically marked as relevant to future developments on the issue (I suppose there should be one in such an article). Greater coverage could be given in the articles about the election and the candidate, as far as the previous point is concerned (how the comment will affect the election itself), and Wikinews could include the details not mentioned even there.
• If the bill in question passes, then it deserves greater coverage in the article than a failed attempt, and thus Bob's name might be included in a list of notable politicians who opposed the bill (the same thing goes for supporters).
• In any event, unless there is great disagreement about what should be the course of action, leading to the article not being stable (FA criterion 1e), there should be no reason for this matter to affect the FAC process. But I might be wrong here.

Waltham, The Duke of 02:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Duke, I want you to know I read your response. I'm just thinking about it... If anyone else has any more input, I'd appreciate it. --Moni3 (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Moni, I haven't wrapped my brain around it yet (maybe small sentences would help :-) I had to deal with a trifecta this week: health issues, household problems, and houseguests. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

FAC

		The Reviewers Award
		This is awarded to Sandy for keeping FAC running smoothly and helping to raise standards to newer heights. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Anna May Wong

I'd just like to thank you, SandyGeorgia, for promoting the article, and for putting up with my sometimes testy comments. This was my first experience with FA review, and I admit I am definitely a "content" guy sometimes at the expense of "format", and I probably do become more impatient with squabbling over hyphens and such than I should... Anyway, thank you for seeing that my first encounter with FA turned out positively. Happy editing, and cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Back for more

Thanks for your comments at Creatures. I see that you are having storm trouble again at your house. Maybe you should move to higher ground! :) See Hell and High Water (book). -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

When you have a moment ...

could you please have a look at this discussion. It's about the Milhist response to various perceived changes at FAC. Thanks ever so, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, Sandy. Useful input :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

An apology

Sandy, I wanted to apologise for the (IRC related) comments I made to you at WT:FAC about a week back (or thereabouts). They were out of line and you didn't deserve the harsh tone or connotations you received. The work you've done here is a lot more valuable than anything I could ever achieve.

Hoping we can put this (and the stuff that lead up to it) behind us, and continue to build the encyclopedia, giggy _(:O) 09:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Urgents

Sorry, Sandy, I'm swamped IRL and have only really had time to do some "pecking" here and there. It may stay that way through August. On the plus side, I'll have more frequent flier miles than any man should. If you ever need to fly to Jupiter, I can get you there free - and in first class (no paying for soda!) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No, dear; no first class to Jupiter, only chocolates :-) I have the same frequent flyer miles problem ... have you ever heard of emerald platinum status? (Secret: charities love to receive mileage for gala auction items :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Is that Qantas? Lufthansa is my bird, or its "Star Alliance" friends. Not exactly a convenient thing when you're stuck in a Northwest hub (NWA has over 70 percent of the gates; who says the U.S. doesn't enforce anti-trust?) Charity, you say... ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Resolved comments

I revived Template:Resolved comments. I have improved it significantly since last time – take a look at the documentation to learn how to use it. Perhaps it could be used to make hiding comments easier since some people don't want to have to type out the hide template, background color, etc. It also does all the fancy stuff like including the user's signature in the header. At least, it replaces what I've been doing which is typing out the hide template with the powderblue color, so at least I will use it. Gary King (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

1. If it doesn't take a sig, I don't want it :-)
2. Why do we want to encourage more capping of comments? Do you understand the tradeoff involved? They cause me much more work; they originally were used to cap only extensive, lengthy, resolved, no longer relevant commentary. Why should we encourage venetian blinds on FACs, where all comments are capped, and I have to click a dozen times to read the FAC? Is that the one that was TfD'd? If so, did you recreate deleted material? If so, should it be speedied? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The difference between this version and the one that was deleted is that this one automatically produces the signature, as I said. It doesn't need to be advertised, but for editors who regularly cap their own comments, it can be useful. Gary King (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sig is good. Advertising or not, once it's used at FAC, more and more may use it, and capping of every comment is neither desired nor helpful; I still have to click on them to look under them, so capping minor commentary isn't helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It can just "exist", then, and I will use it since I cap a lot of comments when a long discussion took place that has been resolved. FYI, the template is substituted, so the only way other people will be aware of it is if they are told about it, so maybe more prolific reviews could be made aware of it. It's really up to you since you'd have a better idea of who's comments are better left capped and those who are better left uncapped. Gary King (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I foresee problems down the road if we get into venetian blinds on every FAC; I'd like for caps to be used very sparingly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Worlds End State Park thanks

	<font=3> Thanks for your helpful note on MOS issues on Worlds End State Park, which (as you know) made Featured Article today! Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

My FA article is on the main page right now

While we're on the subject... giggy _(:O) 00:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, my FA article, Flag of Canada is on the main page right now. I was taken by surprise. No need to reply to this, I'm just happy about it :) Gary King (talk) 00:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Why were you taken by surprise? The talk page was notified five days ago.[7] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You make it sound like I check my watchlist... Gary King (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL ! Well, yes, that is kind of assumed when you were the principle author of an FA :-) If you don't watchlist it, it could end up at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yay Gary... still waiting for my main page day (winks at Sandy). giggy _(:O) 00:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it up to Raul to pick them? Or it's not...? Also, perhaps it would have been better if the article appeared on the main page on July 1 for Canada Day. Oh well. I'll take whatever I can get! Gary King (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, Raul picks them, but I don't know if he likes chocolate as much as Sandy does. ;-) giggy _(:O) 00:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I posted a query to Raul; basically, I thought older FAs had priority for main page. I forsee less vandalism for this article than most considering its dull nature :p Gary King (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Giggy, That question has already been answered. Gary, aren't you aware of WP:TFA/R and User:Raul654/Featured article thoughts? I am uninvolved in TFA/R, other than grabbing a slot for someone every now and then when I see an opening. Age of the FA is only one factor; there are many others, including diversity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been to both, but never had any hope since getting an article on the main page is a crapshoot. I was basically aiming for February 15 for Flag of Canada, which is the date the flag was created. I guess, yay for dull, erm, under-represented articles? Heh... Gary King (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Be sure to see Wikipedia:FCDW/June 9, 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll check it out, but I've also read every main page article for the past few months so I think I understand the usual routine that these articles go through. It certainly is refreshing to see the article on the main page. Gary King (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Creatures of Impulse

		Creatures of Impulse
		Thanks for the advice on polishing up the article at the FAC, helping nudge it over the last hurdle - a mere month and two days after the article was created =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, what he said! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Global Economics merges

Hi. As someone who was active in the discussion about this Wikiproject, I'd thought you might be interested in my comments here. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

BoVR

Lol, it was past my bedtime ;) I'll try and finish up today. EyeSerene^talk 09:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Adventure

Sandy, did I tell you about my last adventure? Since I consider you a friend, I want to share it with you. Check it out here: Tony's crazy adventure. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Epa, that's phenomenal, Tony! (And I'm glad you had some important people in audience, too :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised

You are not an administrator? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 08:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sandy is too smart to be an administrator. Plus, nobody gives administrators chocolate. Risker (talk) 08:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You would make a very good one. I urge you to reconsider. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Queries

Hello Sandy, just read your comment at the 2008 attacks on North Indians in Maharashtra – FAC. I am really confused as to what is correct and whats not. Earlier all dates were in the format {February 3, 2008} but were then changed to this format– {3 February 2008}. Should I revert the changes or leave the dates as they are? Also dates without year are currently in the form {May 6}. Is this fine or I have to change them? Whatta do?

Thanks, KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 08:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The raw date format needs to be consistent (either one or the other, whichever is used in the country in question), and the linking needs to be consistent (either link all dates or don't link dates). That is, when you're logged in, you should see consistent dates, and when you're logged out (of Wiki), you should see consistent dates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I suspect you don't understand date settings in your user preferences, because your sample dates above look the same to me: both show as February 3, 2008 in my date prefs. I have to look at them in raw format to see what you're saying. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my date preference is set as no preference. WP:MOSDATE says that {Monthname DD, YYYY} is more common in the US than the International format {DD Monthname YYYY}. Being an India-related article which one should I follow? KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 09:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You should follow what they follow in India, but realize that logged in editors who have date preferences set will see them according to their own preference if you link dates, and will see the raw format if you don't link dates. That's why they need to be consistently one or the other. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

One more question–Say we leave the preferences option (as only registered users have this advantage) and see this from a non-registered reader's view, then shouldn't dates without year be written as

• 14 February if the article follows (DD Monthname YYYY) style for full dates, and
• February 14 if the article follows (Monthname DD, YYYY) style for full dates

I don't understand the question; you just need to be consistent throughout the article, whichever you choose to use. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Okie! Thanks a lot, Sandy. (BTW to get an idea of which format is more common in India I went to websites of leading English newspapers. Times of India follows (DD Monthname YYYY) style and Hindustan Times follows (Monthname DD, YYYY)) So I guess its only consistency of one partcular style that matters. Its really great to see how patiently you handle paranoid FAC nominators with gazzilion queries and wishes. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 09:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Referencing

Sandy, I sometimes come across journal sources, usually first descriptions of bird taxa, which are complete except that they lack an article title. Usually I cannot find the title by any practicable means. I’m not sure how to format the references.

• Dementiev, Georgii Petrovitch (1933). Alauda. 5: 339. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1=, |2=, |month=, and |coauthors= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help) - Odd quotes, invites title missing

• Dementiev, Georgii Petrovitch (1933). Alauda. 5: 339. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1=, |2=, |month=, and |coauthors= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |quotes= ignored (help) - Double full stops, invites title missing

• Dementiev, Georgii Petrovitch (1933). "[title unknown]". Alauda. 5: 339. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1=, |2=, |month=, and |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |quotes= ignored (help) - Looks odd, invites why?

Any guidance on this please? jimfbleak (talk) 09:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Confused. You shouldn't cite an article unless you've seen, read or have the article. Why can't you find the title? Doesn't the article have a title? Why not? How can a journal print an article with no title? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(Jumping in...) Ditto. I've been looking through my MLA guide and it doesn't even contemplate journal articles without titles... --jbmurray (talk • contribs)

That's fine, I was wondering whether I was expected give the original publication details as well as the author and date for subspecies (the example is for the Tawny Owl subspecies Strix aluco siberiae). Zoonomen gives the original publication details for many subspecies, complete except never with an article title, and most of these old journals are not available in any readily accessible form. So basically you answered my question - unless subspecies have an easy source like Linnaeus, there is no need to reference the author. Thanks, jimfbleak (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Brian Horrocks

Hi Sandy, just to let you know I've been chipping away at this, but won't finish until tomorrow (just so you don't think I've lost interest if there's nothing much happening!). Best, EyeSerene^talk 14:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Addendum to May update

How's this? TONY (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill FAC

I'm very familiar with the subject of this article, though I have chosen not the edit the article a great deal. Is familiarity only defined by numbers of edits? The article doesn't need a large amount of work now. I could probably answer every query and more, and am sad that you withdrew the nomination. Hippo (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I think the instructions could be made clearer, it looks like you just need to familiar with the subject and sources. Hippo (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)