User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch43

Back

I'm back, though I've no heart to continue where I left off. I only spotted your response to Kim after I'd posted my section. Well, at least we agree on one thing. Colin°^Talk 19:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see your post there; I went straight to the bottom. I think the TLDR disruptive tactic should more often be called for what it is. Busy productive editors should not have to be subjected to tendentious TLDR as a debate-winning tactic to wear down everyone else. As soon as I get through my busy productive day (grin), I'll go look for your post. All the best, and I'm so glad you're back, wouldn't want to be on the Wiki without the likes of Colin :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice to spot you both in the same place! A mutual friend told me you two were both worried I didn't appreciate both your time and patience?

Not sure what gave you that idea. :-P I know I have been concentrating more on other folks, since they needed more attention, but this doesn't mean I don't appreciate the regulars. Quite the opposite in fact. Especially Colin has made my life a lot easier so far. :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 03:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Not I; never said those words or anything like them. I did say that Colin had put up a break sign, which is not good for Wiki and a bad turn of events. Kim, I appreciate the efforts, but when Colin is worn down, it's unlikely there's much that I can do; he's ten times the person I'll ever be. If he's on board, I'll help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I misheard then. Nevertheless, you're both appreciated. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, Right after I posted to Mastcell Eubulides post this to the administrator board [1] You and I both are aware of where the WP:Ownership comments started from unfortunately. I really am getting quite angry by all of this. But I am just an outside editor who lurks and occasionally comments to see if maybe I can help break up the conflicts. Oh well, I just thought you would be interested. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom has made their choice, and made it clear: it's not in the direction of support of our finest editors or reliable sourcing or accurate articles. I can't decipher what is driving this, but it's so at odds with anything related to building a professional and reliable Encyclopedia that one can only guess why they've chosen this path, and why they're willing to put our best editors and content experts on par with POV pushers and SPAs under management of admins who may not understand medical sources or topics. It seems to be more about exercising power than building excellent articles. The message from my last series of posts was clear: anyone who continues to speak up will likely be branded as a troublemaker and receive the same heavy handed accusations I received last time; I don't see what else I can do or say. The good news is that I noticed that Tim Vickers is in there now; the bad news will be if this experiment costs us more than one of our finest science editors. Wiki has lost or risked losing many fine editors, yet ArbCom seems so removed from the trenches of article editing that they never seem to care or notice; I hope we don't lose the ones who dared to tangle in Wiki's worst experiment. Thanks for letting me know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes I totally hear you on this. I was really surprised by the responses you got that in my opinion were very heavy handed and didn't respond to your concern either. I also understand why you don't want to say more, I feel the same way. It just looks like things are getting out of control there and I wouldn't personally take it too well to be attacked like what is going on with two editors to others. I am just going to watch for now I guess. I am not a great editor but I can tell when there are excellent ones and I would hate to lose some more. I just thought you would like the update since you did tell them this was what was going to happen, and yes Tim showing up hopefully is a good thing to stop it all. Have a good healthy day, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't particularly surprised by the individual response: I am disgusted at the number of people who are sitting by with their arms crossed, doing and saying nothing, seeing what is happening, afraid to stand up to ArbCom. I learned, after others were there for me when I was wrangled through an unfair ArbCom, that I could not have searched out all the diffs and prepared all I needed to prepare alone; you must be there for others or you can and will be railroaded. Anyone who watches it happen to someone else and stands by silently can only look to themselves when the day comes that it happens to them, too. The bottom line is whether excellent editors or Joe Bloe post to that thread appears to make no difference; they don't care about individuals. They would be forced to listen if masses spoke up, but the masses are complacent and apathetic, as long as it's not happening to them or to their article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I would love to be knowledgable enough in this to be able to give input here but I fear I would come off sounding dumb. But this is spreading like wildfire [2]. Maybe you could explain something to me, why isn't there anything being done about the bad faith and rude comments? There are at least 4 administrators watching this article, Tim Vickers just signed the log to be one as uninvolved, but yet I haven't seen much to stop the bad behaviors of putting words in others mouth, or out right uncivil postings. There has been suggestions made though [3] and [4] which I don't see as stopping any of this that is going on. Why only one administrator who said she would step back and let the others tend to things [5]. I have to say I am quite frustrated and disappointed that no one seems to be listening to anyone else. I thought we were here to write Wikipedia the best way possible, not play political power games. I'm sorry for this vent to you but you seem to be the only one listening. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Short answer: because ArbCom is generally (with some notable exceptions) not comprised of article writers, rather bureaucrats. To the extent that any of them ever were in touch with content creation and article writing, a couple years of serving on ArbCom takes them out of touch by necessity, exposing them generally to the worst of the worst, not the every day fine editors, who they don't seem to acknowledge or understand. So, even if they are well meaning, and even if some of them can overcome their own agendas and biases and backchannel allegiances, they often just aren't in touch with the work in the trenches of article writing, and more significantly because of the job demands, are out of touch with the good editors who don't cause problems but who are most highly respected in the community. They don't seem to distinguish between those that we in the trenches hold in the highest esteem and the common tendentious SPA POV pusher. Second, the admins who are willing to just cut through the BS and get rid of the tendentious and time-consuming trouble makers (and have the ability to recognize who those are, like JzG, unlike some of our new touchy-feely admins, who wouldn't know a reliable source or a good editor if they morphed through the computer screen to say hello) have been excessively scrutinized by ArbCom, and are probably unwilling to act. Third, ArbCom, as usual, in missteps and heavy handed sarcastic responses like the one I got at ANI, send a clear message to everyone else that They Have Their Chosen and by gosh, don't get in our way, or we Will Deal With You. Fourth, the current ArbCom has an anti-science, anti-content-creation systemic bias; they seem to have fallen for the pop culture "it's all relative" approach to creating an encyclopedia. So, editors and admins alike are afraid to speak up, and others just don't have the ability to absorb difficult, research-heavy topics; and rather than facilitating expert content contributions, ArbCom has hamstrung our best, most civil and most knowledgeable editors rather than empower older, wiser admins like JzG to just deal with the tendentious troublemakers. You should see the long answer :-) It involves the underworld of backchannel dealings, power-seeking and agenda-based editing at Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

[6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you again for your very well analyzed response. I have to say I have actually seen what you are describing and thus my frustration at times. I am one of those who would love desperately to jump in help like you speak of but don't have the knowledge to do so. I have trouble editing simple things unfortunately so I try to do things that at least I know do help the project here so that others like you can get on with the messier and very technical part of things. I think the minor work that I do does help to that end of things though so maybe staying around and doing what I do is worth it.

I have heard a lot about the back doors of this place and seen quite a bit of feuds do to the decisions made by those who talk there. I personally think that everything should be said on this site and not some sneaky back door. Granted there are things that need privacy but I don't see all of things that have come back here under privacy conditions, ie.:the OrangeMarlin decision that blew up (too early for me, too lazy to find the Arb dif). I got upset when I learned how that came about, it was my first hand knowledge of the back channels and secrecy stuff that seems to go on a lot lately. Well you keep up your excellent work. I heard wonderful things about you from WLU who helps me out a lot with my editing questions and so forth. Oh, Mastcell did comment on the Chiropractic talk about the negative comments. Short and to the point, think it was well put. Have a good day and thank you again. --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

WT:MEDRS is tidied up now. :-)

What remains should be a set of pretty readable summaries from the different points of view. Can you take a look? If you like, you can try to answer the 4 basic questions for yourself as well. (Though I'm willing to wager that you already have the answers to them ready at hand). Answers can be any length, but keeping answers down to the good old medcab-traditional 2 sentences (humor encouraged) does help keep tldr levels down, of course. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll get to this later tonight, Kim, after I get through my daily "stuff". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Aaron Sorkin

I'm not sure the edits are Obama related, except the one where Sorkin's picture was replaced with one from the Obama fundraiser and that picture seems to be a marked improvement over the crappy image that existed prior to the swap out.. Granted, the edits do seem to be doing quite a bit of hacking and slashing to the article in order to skew it in a certain direction, but that's a content/conduct issue. As far as a checkuser being run, I'd suggest checking out Homely Features' connection to LiteraryMaven. It seems highly unlikely that a new user that has only made edits related to An Inconvenient Woman and Summer Brave would make a flyby comment similar to Homely's comments on a FAR for a person that is unrelated to either of those topics. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ha. Interesting how LiteraryMaven (talk · contribs) created a fully cited article in 20 minutes with three edits on their first day of editing, [7] and immediately started adding Project tags.[8] This is feeling more familiar, now. Where there's one sock, there's likely a long story or a drawer full. Thanks, Bobblehead; may be hard to rescue the article unless some admins decide to pay attention to this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not LiteraryMaven. I don't know what more I can say about that.Homely Features (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, treat the new Wikipedian kindly, please. I am afraid you are going to scare the guy/gal away when all they are doing is starting out here. And cease thinking that the way the Aaron Sorkin article was before was good. It was not. "Rescue the article" by helping cite the article and ruthlessly improving the prose. It really was abysmal, error-ridden, and badly organized.Homely Features (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sandy. I checked out the Sorkin article after noticing your request elsewhere for independent opinions, and I've just spent the last hour going through a random sampling of Homely Features' edits to the article. What is of concern is the editor's lack of civility, both in edit summaries and at the FAR page. The "hacking and slashing" noted above, and the speed at which this is being undertaken, is also hampering efforts to determine whether the edits are truly constructive. Despite all this, I haven't seen too many edits that I would consider harmful to the article, and those that could be construed as such in isolation do ultimately seem to be part of a wider plan of improvement. I wouldn't endorse every diff I've seen, but I think we've a chance for a net gain here. In short, I'd be content to leave the article be for a short time to see what Homely Features manages to do with it. As far as the FAR goes, and the improper edit summaries, I'll leave the editor another note to see if it gets through that the page isn't for posting a running commentary on his/her improvements, and that nor is it for issuing borderline insults to the article's previous contributors. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 21:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Steve, thank you so much for getting on that and spending the time necessary to look in depth. I got on it very late last night, so am behind in catching up at FAC this morning, and just haven't had the time to deal with it effectively. I so appreciate the effort. I'm still concerned about two new editors going straight for that article and dismantling it, but the Wiki can't be broken :-) Thank you so much :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

At it again

Sandy, I thought you'd like to know that as soon as my block expired, the user came back and gutted the article once again. I cannot make another block or revert on the article because of my original block, but I have raised the issue once again at ANI. Also, there is some semblance of a talk page discussion, but I get the impression that the editor will not yield to consensus. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

From viewing the actual article edits since the unblock, it appears that Homely's editing is much better now. I also see that Steve (talk · contribs) has a steady hand on and a solid summary of what appears to be the situation. I'm going to unwatch, as it appears that the need for FAR involvement has passed. I'm still a bit concerned about the sudden appearance of LiteraryMaven (talk · contribs) to weigh in on the FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well then do your checkuser or whatever it is. But LiteraryMaven appears to have been scared away. Probably someone who appreciated the improvements I was making to the Aaron Sorkin article and took a swing at Wikipedia. But there was so much strangeness given CobaltBlueTony's pressure on LiteraryMaven and your backstage suspicions that I think he/she is now gone. I don't know much at all about the theatre but I was quite intrigued by LiteraryMaven's edits. I may have to watch A Season in Purgatory. Interestingly LiteraryMaven cited Maureen Dowd's commentary of the novel in this article. Dowd is an acquaintance of Sorkin's and recently had that funny column where Sorkin took over for her and had Jed Bartlett and Obama engage in a conversation. Anyhow, no need for all this paranoia. I still think the Aaron Sorkin article should be delisted.Homely Features (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting info about the Dowd sourcing; if things don't settle down amicably, I'll put out some phonecalls myself to Sorkin acquintances. As far as delisting Sorkin, I see you're doing better work now after a rocky start; in about three months, you can bring it back to FAR for a new look. Removing a star quickly isn't necessary, and doesn't impact on Google rank, which was one of your concerns as I understood it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

My Sorkin sources will trump yours!!!!!! We Orange have a secret handshake.  :) I'll watch over it too. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No no, when I said "I may have to watch A Season in Purgatory" I meant actually view the TV adaptation, not watch it for mysterious edits. I think LiteraryMaven was acting in good faith, and was just flustered by the tags thrown on some of the new articles he/she created. What is all this talk about Sorkin acquaintances and sources? I think it is more important that we find more academic sources on Sorkin and his works so that the article is more interesting.Homely Features (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I'm absolutely positive that Aaron Sorkin hates Wikipedia: "And the Internet [doesn’t help]—it’s a bronchial infection on the First Amendment. Nothing has done more to make us dumber or meaner than the anonymity of the Internet." [9] He would probably recommend that this web site be shutdown, it being a hornet's nest of anonymity. I recommend that Britannica or some other organization get off their asses and provide a counterbalance to Wikipedia. For almost every Wikipedia article there should be an expert written article, and it should be in the Top 3 or 5 of Google rankings.Homely Features (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I mean there is nothing wrong with the world's amateurs working together to write an encyclopedia but the way the Internet is set up currently this work done by amateurs at Wikipedia is way too influential. Their articles should not often be ranked #1 in searches and occasionally the only source of information on a topic. Perhaps this is only a temporary situation, temporary meaning for another decade, but atm amateurs have a certain responsibility with the information they're representing which is insane. What can you do though?Homely Features (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

What can you do? Work your arse off to combat Wiki misinfo, especially in medical articles and bios. Get at it, Homely :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I will try to do my part on the Aaron Sorkin article. Orangemarlin's edits were quite helpful.Homely Features (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yea, unless he's choosing baseball teams, Orange isn't half bad. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:opening

Thanks for the heads up. I can now finally go out to diner (was afraid to do that because I didn't want to miss the next chance to get the article up :) On an unrelated note, I have found some evidence that the Naval Gunfire Debate was at one point international, but so far haven't found enough info to justify merging my article into a new, larger article. I have one place left to check tommorow, and if nothing turns up then I intend to petition for an article move to United States Naval Gunfire Support debate on MoS grounds and proceed with the rest of the FAC as I usually do. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Did my checking, IMO the article should stand on its own. I would like to see it moved to the redlink above though, and am reluctant to address any FAC concerns until this is done since I do not wish to make this any harder for you or Raul. Thoughts? TomStar81 (Talk) 05:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you maybe missed this one since the editing history shows you have been on today. Or did you not have any opinion on the above proposal? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry, Tom, yes I did miss this! Will look now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think everything is in the right place now; pls doublecheck my work. I'm sorry for missing your message ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like everything made the jump intact and in one piece. Thanks for the response Sandy, I was waiting to get the name issue resolved before moving on to address anything else since I didn't want to make the move any harder for you our Raul654. Also, Bahamut0013 (talk · contribs) has volenteered to help out with article, so this in effect becomes a co-nom now. Thanks for the reply Sandy, with a little luck I should be able to take it from here :) TomStar81 (Talk) 02:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

9.0 live FAC question

I just wanted to see if I'm missing something here, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/9.0: Live/archive2. This was not promoted despite having four supports and two opposes. The two opposes objected due to "length" which is not a criteria for an FAC. It just struck me odd that it was cut off when the two opposing people were never responded to my reasons. Other people in the past brought up the same issue of length but understood after they recieved an explination and changed their thoughts; why were these two opposes not allowed time to respond? Thank you! Blackngold29 03:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It has only two supports, and two support declarations that actually read as opposes and identified deficiencies that needed to be addressed. As to why I closed it, see WT:FAC; reviewers no longer want articles carried at FAC longer than necessary while we wait for issues to be resolved, so I'm closing them sooner based on the consensus and clamor at WT:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see all the issues of the "support declarations" were adressed. I just don't like how we have to keep nominating the article because the reviewers don't follow up on their comments. Most issues were adressed within hours, but obviously the reviewers were taking longer to reply. It makes more work for the nominators when we're doing everything we can to get the promotion. Blackngold29 04:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I know; we are lacking reviewers. And I can't promote FACs without clear consensus to promote; I'm not the FAC dictator, and if I don't have enough clear supports to indicate there is consensus that criteria are met, I have no basis to promote. You can re-nominate in two weeks, after discussing the two Opposes and the two Supports that actually identified deficiencies and read as Opposes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, sounds like a good idea. Thank you very much! Blackngold29 04:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep; the close was fine, Sandy. We'll see what we can do regarding the relative shortness of the article. Gary King (talk) 05:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Gosh; a nice post after I archived. Thanks, Gary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

What the hell?

Re Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/José Sarria/archive2, would it really have been such a big deal to either hold it open pending communication from the Courts or removing the image as the only contentious item? Otto4711 (talk) 05:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see the thread just above and discuss at WT:FAC; at 11 days, it had not garnered promote consensus, with one Support and one conditional Support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

""*Nonsense. The only issue was a single image. No harm would have been done keeping the FAC open to allow for the relevant parties to respond either by clarifying the status of the existing image or releasing rights to a different image. This bereaucratic garbage is pointless and a hiderance to improving the project. Otto4711 (talk) 05:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Please post your concerns to WT:FAC; reviewers are demanding that FACs close sooner if they haven't garnered support, as reviewers are stretched thin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Otto, I think there were more issues than the single image, and the support was lacklustre, including my own "Prose is OK". Please see the third bullet in the instructions for FAs, and the subsequent sentence. There should be no problem in resubmitting after a re-assessment. See if you can garner the input of another one or two people who are interested in the topic but not familiar with the text. Let it cool for a couple of weeks is my advice, and the next FAC should be straighforward. Nine days, was it, is on the long side, even it nearly there. Next time, I wonder whether you could provide a succinct one- or two-sentence nomination lead. Thanks for your work, and let's look forward to the next round. Tony (talk) 13:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

RFA-nomination offer

I imagine you already knew everything on that template however... Anyways,

If you accept, its about time. - Icewedge (talk) 06:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what does a mop have to do with a highly skilled job such as closing FAs? Tony (talk) 13:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling she won't accept. How many times has she been asked now? :-) -- how do you turn this on 14:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised this hasn't made it to WP:PEREN. :-) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, it may be time to post a Shermanesque statement on your talk page. Or ask an admin to prevent recreation of an RFA nom page for you. (Admins can come in handy on occasion.) Kablammo (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm still trying to get her to skip the admin phase and run for 'crat... but I think her accepting either has about as much chance as McCain winning California or Obama winning Texas.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we should create a userbox: This user has been nominated XX times for adminship. Woody (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Sandy has been nominated at all. She has declined everytime. A better userbox, would be the "This user does not want to be administrator" userbox. -- how do you turn this on 16:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

She used to have one, but took it off when she got rid of all of her user boxes... I think she realized that even when she had the box that it didn't detract people from asking her to run.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ahh... I see. I figured it might be something like that, I did some searching through her talk archives looking for such before I made the offer but I must have missed those parts. Sorry for wasting your time. Anyways, If you ever do run I will be there to support! - Icewedge (talk) 23:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Techinally that last line should say "...we will be there to support!" since a lot - and a do mean a lot - of people would love to see sandy as an admin. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't like to see SandyG become an admin, because I can't see that would do anything other than divert her from the work she's doing now. I certainly would like to see her able to do some adminy things, like moving over redirects, but that would require a debundling of some of the mystical admin tools that seems highly unlikely. Having said all that, if SandyG did ever decide to allow herself to be put forward I'd be right there in the support column, but I sincerely hope that she never does. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the only real reason she needs the bit is to perform them page moves she's always asking us talk page stalker to do for her... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, she's more valuable doing what she does now. Raul and SG deserve some special award for putting up with everything that happens with the FAR and FAC processes. But these are just my opinions. Go Sox. (That would be the red version). OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

They need a special award for putting up with me. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Schoolmaster and tutor

I left a comment on the talk page; hope it helps. Eubulides (talk) 06:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Homer Simpson

I know how annoying it is when users complain about their FxCs being closed. However, in this case, I feel the opposition had been addressed, but the opposers just hadn't returned yet. Anyway, I really don't think there is much else I can do to improve the article for another FAC, so when can I resubmit it? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 11:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the work you've put into it, but I think the reviewers' comments provide scope for improvements in the next few weeks. Looking at the top of the article, I agree with comments about the prose. Here are random examples:

• "titular" --> "eponymous". "voice"—there's a more appropriate word, isn't there, but I can't think of it right now.
• "Although Groening has stated in several interviews that his father is the namesake of Homer, he has previously stated in several 1990 interviews that"—unfortunate repetition, "previously" is redundant, and the tense "has" is wrong.

Look, they're just two examples: it's basically well-written, but when you resubmit it, polished, I'll be hoping to support it—I'd expect that it will be a relatively painless process. There should be no issue in resubmitting; it's normal. Congrats on your existing work. Tony (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, this has been resubmitted. -- how do you turn this on 22:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Note Tony1's response above: "I appreciate the work you've put into it, but I think the reviewers' comments provide scope for improvements in the next few weeks." I apologize to Scorpion0422 for not responding myself, but 1) I thought Tony had covered it (several weeks between nominations is the norm, unless there are extenuating circumstances and Raul or I have made an exception), and 2) I'm trying my best to wean FAC off of the notion that I must do and respond to everything, particularly when other FAC reviewers know the ropes and can field the queries. We need to allow time and space for other articles to get reviewer attention; FAC should not be a revolving door. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Tony1 also said "there should be no issue in resubmitting" which I took as meaning that I could resubmit it whenever I felt it was ready, the "next few weeks" thing completely slipped by me. It has been copyedited extensively since the FAC and one of the opposers now approves, so I felt that it had been improved enough to resubmit it. I will withdraw it if you want me to. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of consistency and fairness to everyone else, I'd rather you wait a week. Reviewers are clearly expressing that they can't get to everything, and asking that I throttle back on the re-noms. To withdraw, just remove the transcluded file, revert it to the GimmeBot version, and remove the template from the talk page. Again, Scorpion0422, my sincere apologies for not responding directly to you: I'm trying to get my "talk page stalkers" to take a more active role in dealing with routine FAC queries, and I thought Tony's message was clear. I see now that it wasn't and I see how you misunderstood. I'm off for the night, and hope others will help you with this. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Paul Gondjout

Why did you close this FAC 4 days after it was opened? the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 20:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the delay; I see you've gotten an excellent answer from Steve. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Manu Sharma

Hi Sandy, could you please close the FAC? I don't have time to address the nominations, and some pretty good alternatives have sprung up on WT:FAC. I'm about to log offm and will be away till Monday. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'll do it to take some tasks off of Sandy. --Moni3 (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, Karanacs, or Maralia should check to see that I did it right. I'm not sure I did. I should stop trying to be so freakin' helpful. --Moni3 (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You got it right - in the case of a nominator withdrawal with opposes, just remove the listing, add it to archive, make sure the withdrawal is noted on the FAC itself, and make sure the {{fac}} template remains on the article talk page till Gimme gets to it (I see he just did). Maralia (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Back to Back

Sorry, I was messing with Julian and after I saw he had placed an {{fac}} tag on the talk page beat him to the punch in creating the nomination as a joke... I put his name under nominator (I didn't think he would transclude it first) :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

All right, but considering how exhausted reviewers have expressed that they are, I suggest that limiting the horseplay on FAC might be helpful right now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry... you can blame IRC for hijinks like these :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Sandy, I would like your opinion on an idea we have for reducing overall kB on this page to help with page load time. Ottava Riva asked me if I would be open to creating a separate page specifically set up to handle all the quotes in the references on this RCC page. We could then provide a link in the reference that would take Reader to the actual quote on a separate page. We could eliminate 20kB by doing this bringing the overall kB below 145,000. It is currently 160,000. What is your opinion of this idea? Has this ever been done before on a FAC and if so, can you point us to that page so we can maybe follow the example? If it has not been done before, are you in favor of making these changes to the refs? NancyHeise ^talk 18:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to see Ottava is helping move the article forward! But I'm almost certain (although I can't put my hands on a guideline right now) that that idea would be unwise and should be/would be rejected at FAC. Remember that Wiki is mirrored on many other sites, and that would disconnect the quotes in the sources from the actual article on mirrored sites, as well as messing with printable versions. Disconnecting the sourcing from the article isn't a good idea from an editing standpoint, either; remember, the article is dynamic and editors need to have everything in one place for future changes. When I looked this morning, I saw that progress has been made on the size. I seem to recall a lot of images; have you considered looking at how much the load time is affected by images with a program like this one? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Sandy, to have to put this here, but I wanted it so everyone could see my suggestion. Current: ^ Noble, p. 446, quote "The most chilling tribute, however, was in humans for sacrifice. When the wars of expansion that had provided prisoners came to an end, the Aztecs and their neighbors fought 'flower wars' –highly ritualized battles to provide prisoners to be sacrificed. Five thousand victims were sacrificed at the coronation of Moctezuma II (r. 1502–1520) in 1502. Even more, reportedly twenty thousand were sacrificed at the dedication of the great temple of Huitzilopochtli in Tenochtitlan." p. 456, quote "The peoples living in the Valley of Mexico believed that their conquest was fated by the gods and that their new masters would bring in new gods. The Spaniards' beliefs were strikingly similar, based on the revelation of divine will and the omnipotence of the Christian God. Cortes, by whitewashing former Aztec temples and converting native priests into white–clad Christian priests, was in a way fulfilling the Aztecs' expectations about their conquerer."

My proposal ^ Noble, pp. [[Roman Catholic Church/Sources#Noble 446|446]], [[Roman Catholic Church/Sources#Noble 456|456]]

With subpage reading: ===Noble 446=== "The most chilling tribute, however, was in humans for sacrifice. When the wars of expansion that had provided prisoners came to an end, the Aztecs and their neighbors fought 'flower wars' –highly ritualized battles to provide prisoners to be sacrificed. Five thousand victims were sacrificed at the coronation of Moctezuma II (r. 1502–1520) in 1502. Even more, reportedly twenty thousand were sacrificed at the dedication of the great temple of Huitzilopochtli in Tenochtitlan."

===Noble 456=== "The peoples living in the Valley of Mexico believed that their conquest was fated by the gods and that their new masters would bring in new gods. The Spaniards' beliefs were strikingly similar, based on the revelation of divine will and the omnipotence of the Christian God. Cortes, by whitewashing former Aztec temples and converting native priests into white–clad Christian priests, was in a way fulfilling the Aztecs' expectations about their conquerer."

The reason why I suggested this is that I have a similar formatting for online holdings here. The encyclopedia page doesn't need the actual quotes, there are there only for convenience of verification for the most part. This would allow an online edition of the excerpts (assuming the amount is allowable by fair use, which is a concern if they are part of the page or on a subpage regardless) that someone could easily check. If its on another Wiki system, it wont matter, because the references are still there to manually check. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's wise for the same reasons I give above; you can't disconnect information in citations from the article page. And if it's true that the current article doesn't required the quotes in the citations, then why are they there? They're either needed or not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, what would the difference be between the above and not having the quotes anywhere online? These are convenience only quotes. Nancy wants them available for people to check. No quotes in references are ever truly needed. Its all for convenience of someone wanting to check the source material. Would you have a problem with what I did with the Prometheus Unbound page? I don't see a difference between this and linking any primary source so someone could easily click on the fuller version. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've given you the best answer I can; if you disagree, consult others. But if you're telling me the article has 20KB of unnecessary quotes in footnotes, then I'm really confused. Copy this whole thing over to RCC talk, because this isn't my decision. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's what ArbCom said; you're welcome to dig back through the evidence and see what that case was about, but I'm not in a "troll through ArbCom" kind of mood these days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

So, it appears that ArbCom states "we don't deal with content, get a consensus first". I took it over to the talk page, so you can feel free to remove the above or whatever. Sorry for oranging up your day. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Double doo-doo

You ok with my nominating Harvey Milk while Stonewall riots is still on the list? Dank55 and I are tag-teaming on Stonewall. I think I'm flying solo on Milk. --Moni3 (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't caught up on FAC; if it has no major unresolved issues, and has garnered at least some support, it's fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Once I fell asleep in Spanish class in high school, putting my head in the crease of my textbook. Where my pencil also was. When I woke up the pencil was stuck to my forehead. I didn't learn a lot of Spanish in high school. --Moni3 (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

RS question

SandyG, if you have any thoughts and had the time to have a look at this query about sources for Carmen Rodriguez, I'd be most grateful. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That's spelled out somewhere as a clear no-no ... I think it's at WP:NOR ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources" :) A goldmine? Indeed. Totally against policy? Yep. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

But it's dealt with specifically at WP:PSTS: Unsourced material obtained from a Wikipedian's personal experience, such as an unpublished eyewitness account, should not be added to articles. It would violate both this policy and Verifiability, and would cause Wikipedia to become a primary source for that material. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Think of the nightmare! "But Mary Shelley told me in a waking dream that Frankenstein is really about..." :) Awadewit (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Did she tell you to pronounce it FrankenSHTEEN like Mel Brooks? --Moni3 (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent:) Yes, I feared as much. In fact, mind you, I think the taboo that's being broken here is less WP:V than WP:OR. After all, research (particularly historical and scientific research) for instance, relies precisely on primary sources: letters, interviews, diaries, as well as experiments, lab notes, and so on. It's not that the students are drawing on personal experience--per the example of an eyewitness report of an accident--let alone a waking dream. In fact, they are being suitably scholarly in searching out primary and unpublished sources. It's just that when scholars do this, their reputation and training is what provides verifiability. Here on Wikipedia, because these are sources that nobody else can access, they are regarded on unreliable.

NB the use of primary sources would not make Wikipedia a primary source; it would make it a secondary source, along the lines of the sources that Wikipedia itself uses. But Wikipedia's goal is to be a tertiary source, that relies on (usually scholarly or journalistic) secondary sources.

I do wonder, however, how much leeway is provided by the final paragraph at WP:PSTS: "Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• I don't want to be responsible for redefining editors as scholars, though! One important reason to severely limit the use of primary materials is precisely because the vast majority of Wikipedia editors have no training and are not able to properly assess primary materials - that is the job of experts. Finally, I think there is a world of difference between quoting a few lines from published novel and quoting from an unpublished interview with the author of that novel, for example. I tend to use "primary source" quotations when scholars have used them, for instance, to restrict any quotation bias, and the novel is available for anyone to read. However, an unpublished source is not available for perusal and will undoubtedly be used as evidence in an argument constructed by the editors - the kind of original research that belongs in academia, but not on Wikipedia. If we allowed everyone to post their own views with their own "unpublished" evidence, this place would be totally anarchic. Take a gander at the Joan of Arc archives, for example. You will find an example of an editor who wanted to add the results of his own personal, family tree to the article. It was unpublished, but reliable, because it was "family tradition", you see. :) It makes for a good read. Awadewit (talk) 09:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, thanks for your thoughts. I am going to encourage them to write up their interview for some kind of publication... and of course not primarily so that they can then quote the material on Wikipedia, but because that's a good thing to do in itself. They're quite thrilled with the Wikipedia thing (getting sufficiently into the assignment to contact Rodriguez and so on), but I think they'll be equally excited with the possibility of some other kind of publication. (Meanwhile, note to Malleus: I disagree quite vehemently, but admire your own faith!) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds like an interesting discussion for another time. As David Hume said, "Truth springs from argument amongst friends." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'd cringe to know what hell spawn springs from one of our arguments. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 03:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• My lips are sealed. Imagine two scientists who spawned artsy children; I get enough of this in real life. "Why can't they just be physicists?" SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• There's an inherent imbalance in these discussions, in that Jbmurray and Awadewit, for instance, have chosen to make their academic credentials public. That others of us have chosen not to be so open should not be taken to mean that that our opinions are of lesser value. I will make one confession though; my first degree was in psychology, but I think that gives me a view into both the arts and science camps. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• It's a problem in all of Wikipedia, honestly. Look at all the "But it's an interview, it must be reliable" arguments. It isn't helped by the fact that primary/secondary changes meaning across disciplines. What *I* know, as a historian, as a primary source isn't quite what say a biology professor would understand as one. (Also isn't helped by the fact that in ancient history, a "primary source" can often be written a couple centuries away from the events it's recording i.e. Livy) Sourcing in general at WP is ... scary. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm afraid my hackles rise when I see comments like "the vast majority of Wikipedia editors have no training and are not able to properly assess primary materials". It may well be the case that the vast majority of the 7.9 million or so registered users do not, but I would suspect that of the 153,000 active editors many have academic training, and are quite able to make judgements about primary materials, even in fields not directly related to their specific academic qualifications. From a scientific perspective I'd have to say that the evidence and arguments presented in literary articles often seems to be little more than the opinions of earlier generations, sometimes even risible. But I digress. There are different standards in the literary and scientific fields. Is Shelley's Frankenstein a good read is not a question that can be compared with "Can mass be converted into energy?" One can be tested, the other is a matter of faith. Discuss. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Just look at any Simpsons article, for example. There is such a mishmash of primary and secondary sources as to make the skin crawl. There is no real understanding at that project, apparently, of what a primary and secondary source is. :) If you want me to defend my field, I'm ready to do so - not all of it, mind you, but some of it. I would like to point out that no literary scholar worth their salt would ask "is Frankenstein a good read?" That is not the kind of question we ask. If you would care to learn about the field, I would be happy to teach you. Currently, I can only assume that you have erected a strawman argument in order to throw out an insulting comparison. Awadewit (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry if you found the comparison insulting, that was not my intention. Neither do I agree that the argument is a strawman, as it it clearly rooted in the philosophy of the scientific method. But I will say no more, for fear of upsetting you further. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm just tired of seeing my field maligned unfairly - there is plenty that is wrong with literary studies that I will freely admit to, but what you are describing is not it. You described a type of question that no one asks - since no one does what you claim, the comparison is false and your argument falls apart. If you want to have a real discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of literary studies, I would be happy to do so, but caricaturing the field is not the way to do so. Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• The problem of editors not understanding the difference between and correct usage of primary vs. secondary sources is also big in bio/med/science articles; in fact, it's the biggest issue at WP Medicine right now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Malleus ... !! I took a day off this week. After the Johnson debacle, I was thinking just that, and that I can't wait to get that thing behind us and get back to some science and medical articles. Good gosh, there's no such thing as a hypothesis that can be tested in those literary articles, and a fact is never a fact. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think those of us who've had scientific training think about the world differently. We're open to ideas, but we know that to have any value those ideas have to be testable, else they're just faith. I'll save you from my monologue on Karl Popper, another dreadful article that I wish I hadn't just looked at. For instance, do ghosts exist? Perhaps they do, perhaps they don't. But to get the right answer you have to ask the right question. What do you believe a ghost to be? How would you identify a ghost? I'm starting to ramble now, even I can see that ... :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• PS. I'll be interested to see how this pans out. My guess is that the scientists will whup the arty types. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• • sigh* Couldn't we agree to learn from each other? For example, why do you think scientists have failed to convince the majority of Americans that evolution exists? It has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with philosophy. We have failed to convince people that rationality is important. Moreover, I'm surprised to see someone on the science side of question referring to the "right" answer. It is my understanding that all answers in science are provisional - you are mistating the case for scientific rationality. It doesn't help your cause to make an undefendable argument! :) Awadewit (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• That evolution exists is not in any doubt; there are many examples which demonstrate that perfectly satisfactorily for those with eyes to see. That so many Americans (in particular) seem to cling to a belief in creationism is a sociological and religious issue, nothing to do with philosophy. I find the presence of so much religious TV in the US just as puzzling as the apparently widespread belief in creationism. In closed systems of belief no proof is possible, therefore none is required for belief; faith substitutes for proof. BTW, that an answer is provisional is not the equivalent of saying that it's not the right answer, simply that it may not always be the right answer. The more important point, which you have studiously avoided, is selecting the right questions, ones that empirically testable hypotheses can be drawn from. Everything else is just blind faith. Oh, and before I forget: *sigh* to you too. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think the question about faith has everything to do with philosophy. When I teach argumentative writing to my students, we have to spend days discussion why reason and logic are important: they do not understand why it is important to be logical. They often argue that faith is more important/better than reason - it is a fundamentally different philosophy. Moving on, though, let's resist the idea that the only questions worth answering are those that can be empirically tested. For you, apparently, philosophy is worthless. Ethics is of no concern. Etc. I am a rationalist and I turn to empiricism when appropriate, but I do recognize that it cannot answer all of the questions I have. How do you decide questions of morality? How have you developed your code of personal ethics? Also, you want to divide knowledge-gathering into neat little camps of "empirical" and "non-empirical" and then say that everything that isn't empirical is faith-based. That is a simplistic view that doesn't hold up and will get you into serious trouble if you really follow out the logic. For example, mathematics is not based on empirical evidence - it is only based on axioms, proofs, etc. Nothing in the "real world" proves that the "truths" of mathematics exist. What does that mean for the sciences that rely on that mathematics? Sciences like physics rely on data collection and correct prediction to justify their assertion that they are describing the real world, however much of that data collection and prediction rests on difficult mathematical constructs that are themselves unprovable. You are trying to make such mixtures seem much simpler than they really are. Awadewit (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• It is not at all the case that I believe philosophy to be worthless, quite the reverse. Simply that I am more drawn to empiricism than I am to other epistemological frameworks. I welcome disagreement and argument though, because without it there can be no "truth". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• And I find it puzzling that great numbers of people seem to think that ALL Americans are creationists or that we ALL watch religious TV. (tickles Malleus) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps what many Europeans find puzzling is that any Americans are creationists, or that there are any American religious TV programmes? Anyway, I'll stop there. Don't want to upset you as well as Awadewit today. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Heh. Nah, won't upset me, as long as you don't assume that I, as an American, am necessarily creationist or a viewer of religious TV. Just because I write about bishops doesn't mean I'm necessarily religious. Just like I won't assume that just because you're from England, you're a soccer-mad fanatic! (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• I love debating! A good thrust and parry always brightens my day. Awadewit (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• I enjoy lurking, apparently, as I don't feel strongly enough to join in anything. As a very skeptical artist married to a scientist who had a very strong fundamentalist Christian background and reads evolutionary theory along with Tim LaHaye novels, I recognize that neither science nor philosophy exists in a vacuum without people to believe in either, or require either branch of study to be explained. The question of "do ghosts exist?" (they can exist for individuals) is not the same as describing the properties of fire, or wondering why some typos are more prevalent than others: is it a question of what the fingers are used to typing or is it insight into the secret desires of the typist? Does Awadewit want a new apartment? Does Moni secretly hate the Everglades so much that she wants the spelling "Evergaldes" to throw off Google hits? Such questions - will they ever be answered? --Moni3 (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent:) For what it's worth... My university endlessly wants to bring the Sciences and the Arts together. I'm deeply sceptical, for many reasons. Not least because I think interdisciplinarity is much more difficult than their happy-clappy vision of everyone sitting in a lecture hall singing kumbayah. And some of the above gives the merest inkling of why such dialogue across the disciplines requires such work. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Can't be any more work than packing up a house. A house owned by bibliophiles. (whimpers) Last count we were about 6-7 thousand books, something like that... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I live with a physicist. We do the interdisciplinary thing every single day. It is wonderfully exciting. Hard, frustrating, but we both learn so much. We go to lectures in each others' field and we have huge, long debates afterwards. Stanley Fish and Roger Penrose come to mind. Who doesn't want to have great discussions like that? Disciplines are too cut off from each other, in my opinion. I have always wanted to teach a writing class for scientists! :) Awadewit (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ha! I live with a physicist, too; why haven't you reviewed Quark? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Because I don't want to be the person who starts the long discussion about whether we can use popular science books that omit huge chunks of information as sources for science articles. I would rather that a scientist do that. I'm sort of surprised no one has. Awadewit (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I may take off the delegate hat there and review it myself, but I don't want to risk another long FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I spent 15 years with a Mathematician (which I probably just mispelled). I'd go "such and such really resembles (historical event here)" and he'd go "Huh? What was that?". He'd babble something about planes and integers and stuff, and I'd go "But why can't you balance a checkbook?" (grins) Fun, but... while I miss him every day since he died, I can't say that having to repair the mess he'd make of a checkbook is something I miss. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I live with a biochemist, who wishes to explain her enthusiasm with labwork with me, and good partner that I am, I wish to share that enthusiasm. More often than not, I fail miserably at understanding anything unless I frame it in my own way. While she tried to explain Constructive and destructive interference to me, I could only get it when I equated it with human social behavior. Now I think someone should develop a branch of math and sociology to predict why people do dumb things over and over. --Moni3 (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Quantum inference? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's you and me write the books about it, Dan. We'd be rich. That is the framework by which all science and philosophy is judged. --Moni3 (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Tacking on to the bottom: A, I hope you know that the context of my earlier reply to Malleus is the sheer exhaustion, frustration, disruption to my normal Wiki editing, and dismay at spending six weeks of my time on the Johnson FAC and seeing it (the article) deteriorate in the last few days. I have a hard time imagining that discussion about a bio/med article could proceed as this one did because of the scientific method, but I could be biased. And I could just be plain worn out and tired. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've read the archives of homeopathy, evolution, and several other articles which should have been straightforward but which turned into battlegrounds because of fringe ideologies. Scientific reasoning did nothing there to save the articles. Awadewit (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but that's a whole 'nother story, more related to Wiki's refusal to get a handle on disruptive editing and incorrect use of primary sources. I think (?) with Johnson we're generally (limited exceptions) talking about good editing, but there is still disagreement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Test cite templates vs manually formatted citations

Sample. Let's check how much the cite templates affect page-load times: could you compare load times for versionA and versionB? Gimmetrow 02:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you want me to go dialup for worst case? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

According to websiteoptimization.com (I'll go to dialup next and test them myself):

Version A

Connection Rate Download Time

14.4K 553.95 seconds

28.8K 283.38 seconds

33.6K 244.72 seconds

56K 151.95 seconds

Version B

Connection Rate Download Time

14.4K 553.95 seconds

28.8K 283.38 seconds

33.6K 244.72 seconds

56K 151.95 seconds

Shows absolutely equally. Did I make a mistake on Versions A and B? Off to dialup now to manually time the loadtime.

(Did you really write a script to strip citations? Hillary ! The problem I see at RCC is they would have to maintain citation consistency; I do that at Tourette syndrome, but with more people dipping into the pot at RCC, citations will get out of whack, so unless the savings is substantial, it may not be recommended.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Download rate should be determined by the size of the rendered html. It's *possible* the rendered html is exactly the same size, but I doubt it. If you used that optimizer website you linked above, it may be striping off modifiers to a page, like "&oldid=". If so then the page loaded would be the same. Gimmetrow 02:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm a dummy, I shutdown and restarted to be sure my cache was clear, Version A, 73 long seconds, ugh. Now going to restart again for Version B. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Version B, 40 seconds. Since Version B is the version with templates, does that mean I had a caching issue even though I restarted? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Possibly the images. The html is different, however, if for nothing else than

Accessed 2008-04-12

replacing

Retrieved on <a href="/wiki/2008" title="2008">2008</a>-<a href="/wiki/April_12" title="April 12">04-12</a>

That accounts for about 8k (91 refs x 88 characters). Gimmetrow 03:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Steve Bruce

• I was just headed over to Oppose Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Steve Bruce, but it's been promoted. Well, move on to the next one... it's still in the Urgent FACs template; perhaps a bot could rmv articles from the template when they are closed? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 02:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Steve Bruce has been up since the 22nd ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorta pretty much getting into the habit of ignoring the long list of FACs on the FAC page, and working only from the template on its Talk. I spent all last night creating a second version of the lead of quark, and this morning dealing with other things.. and so just now was headed over to Bruce to say that the lead is really poor (in my cranky opinion)... Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)}

• As I've long suspected, this is a big problem with that list. If people would review articles at the top of the list, we could cut the list in half because I could archive the deficient FACs sooner. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Are things like this allowed in FAC's

[10] Supporting or Opposing per another person? Doesn't the user in question if opposing have to provide a better reason in FAC's than that? D.M.N. (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It's common to see opinions of others all over Wikipedia who support or oppose something "per" another person. It's shorthand for "s/he said it and I agree with it". It's not something I do, mainly because I so need to be original, and I don't want anyone stealing my thunder. Seriously though, I speak for myself, but I recognize other people agree with "pers". --Moni3 (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If someone said everything that needed to be said, it's fine. Obviously, I give more weight when it's clear that the reviewer fully engaged the article, but neither do I discount per so-and-so Opposes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Waterfall Gully FAR

I placed the notification on its FAR listing on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities on 30 September. However, did not know till now that it was supposed to be mentioned on Talk page. Michellecrisp (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Berlin

Battle of Berlin is a work in progress. All dates should be in the form "day month year" as that is what the majority are in. The reason why the start of the article is without links is because it has been edited in the last month the rest of the article has not and the recommendation on not linking dates has only recently been agreed. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"Work in progress"? But it's at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Kiko (2007) FAC

Oh, ok. I didn't know that, sorry. I'll see what I've missed on reviews. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Dylan FAR

Sorry if Michael Gray's opinion was WP:TLDR. We were discussing what was an authoritative Dylan source, and he's the only expert I know who could give us a well-informed opinion. Thanks for guidance. Mick gold (talk) 06:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

FAC comments

Already fixed, see FAC review. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 07:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Too much caffeine, I think. :-D Jayjg ^(talk) 07:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I added it to a bunch of other articles, for when they all make FA status. ;-) Jayjg ^(talk) 22:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As of linked years

I left a response at Tony's talk page, but wanted to leave a note here as well to avoid confusion. You said at the FAC, referring to "as of" links: "I don't know when those awful things crept back in to MoS" From what I can see, they never did. Wikipedia:As of says clearly that 'as of' links are deprecated, and Template:As of was recreated in February 2008, and outputs plain text instead of whatever it did before. Hopefully that is clearer now. I'm dropping a note off to User:Ikara to make sure I'm not misunderstanding anything. Carcharoth (talk) 09:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The following is the reply I left on Tony's talk page:

The "as of year" links are deprecated per WP:As of and the discussion regarding it that took place at the Village Pump. However, they should not be outright removed as they still serve a functional purpose. Instead they should be converted to the {{As of}} template as appropriate. Links of the form [[As of Year]] should be formatted as {{As of|Year}}, and links of the form [[As of Month Year]] should be formatted as {{As of|Year|Month}}. This will output the plain text "As of [Month] Year" and categorise the article appropriately, but not create a wikilink in the article. See the template documentation for more options and information.

Hopefully that clears things up – Ikara ^talk → 16:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; most likely, Tony will clear up the MoS page so editors don't think they're still supposed to be adding "as of" year links (likely because of not reading that entire other page). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Beyoncé Knowles

Thanks for the note. I left a message there. --Efe (talk) 09:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Connie Talbot/archive2

Can I ask why this was not promoted? Was it the concerns about over-detail/prose? Or was it that the biography may, in the future, change? Surely, using that logic, I can't ever hope to get this to FA, as, inevitably, she's going to outlive me? J Milburn (talk) 10:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

At 11 days, it had a solid oppose and one of the supports was a weak support that actually identified deficiencies and read as an oppose. I suggest following the tips at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 to open a peer review and invite Karanacs, as well as other peer review volunteers to comment there: that should pave the way for a successful FAC next time. Hope to see you back in a few weeks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

J Milburn, it is quite normal for a period off and a re-run. Little weight is given to Supports (see the thrid bullet in the instructions. Good luck next time. Tony (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:GO

Sandy, I just read the thread at User talk:Gimmetrow#WP:GO. I got the impression that the Gimmebot isn't going to maintain it for much longer, and you're frustrated by it. Since WP:FL adds a high number of noms, I don't mind looking after it. What exactly needs to be done to maintain it? Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Matthew, thank you for the offer to help! Here is the history, so you'll understand the issue. If you read through the talk page and the talk page archives there, you'll see that for years Raul was mentioning that no one else helped do the weekly page archive, and it was a lot of work. The archiving instructions are in the actual page. The dates have to be added to the template, etc. When I came in as FAC delegate, I quickly understood how exasperating it was to maintain this page, particularly since no other process was sharing the burden, and I was having to do it all, every Saturday night at 0:00 UTC; fun way to spend my Saturday night. If I didn't get to it right away, at midnight Saturday, other processes would just add their promotions, without bothering to archive the page, creating even more work. So, Gimmetrow eventually wrote the code into GimmeBot to do the archiving automatically on Sat nights. But there are still issues, and other processes haven't helped. For example, the dates still have to be added to the template about a month in advance. We have to watch for errors: the last thing that tripped up the Bot was a sound with a # in the name, but the Sound people don't even notice or check. I had to manually correct the archiving, and Gimmetrow had to adjust the script to account for the sound files: who knows what's next? So, when I come along to promote, I have to correct the page and re-archive, when I'm in the middle of promoting with six tabs open (my circuit breakers pop :-). If other processes would: 1) help watch on Saturday night that the page archives correctly, 2) make sure the page has archived before adding new entries to it on Sunday or Monday, and 3) help maintain the template dates in advance, it would be most helpful! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Content policy updates

I removed WP:Attack pages and added WP:NFCC to Category:Wikipedia content policies, so now it's just 7 pages: the 3 core content policies, plus NAME, NFCC, BLP and NOT. Would you like like monthly updates of the 7 content policy pages? I won't have time for all of them but I bet I can find people who are interested in contributing, given the activity on those pages.

Sounds like a lot of work; have to leave tht decision to you :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to delegate the work if I can. The style part of WP:Update is ready; is that useful? Do you want changes? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on Ottava's talk

Hi, I noticed your discussion on Ottava's talk page, where he/she mentions six editors who complained about Jbmurray. I am one such editor, and made my concerns about this publicly, on the Mark Speight FAC and his own talk page. I do agree with you to an extent that discussion should be kept on-wiki as much as possible, but sometimes issues are rather too personal to raise publicly. I have however let Murray know of my thoughts publicly, before I began discussing him with Ottava in private. This FAC is my first, and his is the only oppose so far (that wasn't stricken). As someone who is well versed with the process as he is, he could have been much more helpful than he was with me. Instead, he's left a rather rague unhelpful "bad prose" strong oppose without actually bringing up the issues he has. I have spoken to other editors, and other editors think the prose is fine. He asked me to get others to look through it, so I did, and they think it's fine. I hope his oppose is no longer considered, since I did everything asked of me. It really is a stressful process, and opposes are a bit of a dig, especially when the opposer refuses to explain to me how to fix the problems, or even what the problems are. Best wishes. -- how do you turn this on 20:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you point me to the guideline against inline queries? I've never come across it; this is the first I've heard of it, and I haven't yet found it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea about any such guideline. The closest I can see is here, but that doesn't say they aren't allowed. I thought it was a very odd way to raise concerns, when there's a perfectly useful talk page and FAC page open to do so. However, my real issue with him was his lack of helpfulness to a newbie FA writer, as I explained above. -- how do you turn this on 20:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec:) As I've tried to explain repeatedly, there are various issues here. But the most important is that a reviewer is not (and should not be) required to mention all instances of an issue at FAC. It's when a nominator views the FAC as a place to get quick fixes and subsequently badgers reviewers (or even, as here, the FAC delegate) to strike opposes, that's when the FAC process starts breaking down.

My own approach to FAC, and I'm hardly alone, is first to do some copy-editing on an article, and raise some minor issues inline, to which ideally the nominator can easily respond without fuss.

You chose rather to make a fuss. I hardly see that as an improvement.

Meanwhile, I have explained to you quite clearly what the issues are with this article. I'm sorry that you cannot see that. Those issues remain. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No you haven't. I'm sorry you can't be just a tad more helpful. Anyway, I'm not going to argue about this on someone elses talk page. -- how do you turn this on 20:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the FAC, so I won't opine on the oppose other than to say that all actionable opposes should be heeded. The guideline on inline queries is my immediate concern. Since I also use this method at FAC, I was surprised to see that it might be against a guideline; it appears that it's not. So, I want to point out that many editors do this as a time-saving, helpful approach to FAC. It is far faster to fix a minor issue right there in the text, based on an inline, than for the reviewer to add minor comments to the FAC or article talk, and for the nominator to have to go back and forth between the talk page, the FAC, and the text. It is a method that is intended to be helpful. If something turns out not to be minor, requiring further discussion, then it can be raised instead on talk. At least that's the way I have always approached FAC reviewing. I hope this helps resolve part of the concern. It is not surprising for a first FAC to be stressful, but little confusions like this only complicate matters, so please do bring them to me or WT:FAC sooner rather than discussing them off-Wiki, where confusion may only fester. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This puts it perfectly. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

A similar method of communication was used in the recent FAC of Stonewall riots. Maralia copyedited what she saw needed addressing, and where she had questions, asked in hidden edits. I saw it all when I got up the next morning and got to work fixing what she pointed out. I thought it was convenient enough that I did the same in a recent peer review of Columbia River. However, it is true that if a reviewer sees multiple problems, it's sufficient to point out examples of repeated issues. FAC is not the place for fixing simple prose and sourcing issues that should be caught in peer reviewing. --Moni3 (talk) 21:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

So, unless someone can point me to something else, the practice of limited inline comments during FAC (used by many editors) seems fine. This is one of the reason it's best to keep Wiki discussions on Wiki, so we can all decide these things together :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll just chime in to explain where there is a problem. I'm sorry if this may be condescending since I am relying ont he basic pages, but please bear with me. Wikipedia:TALK#How to use article talk pages - What a talk page is for: A. "The talk page is the ideal place for all issues relating to verification." B. "The talk page is particularly useful to talk about edits" C. "The talk page is particularly useful to talk about edits" D. "Talk pages are for discussing the article," Since we already have these stated, and this is a strong section that has been carefully worked, it seems that consensus pushes for the talk page to be the center of discussion. It also does not prioritize on who gets to edit, nor favors another. It also grants the ability to archive discussions, which the article page does not. Now, from the invisible comment section: "Invisible comments are useful for flagging an issue or leaving instructions about part of the text," This implies (to me) information such as "this is original spelling", "this page is in ___ English", or "This is a list from ___". Also, "They should be used judiciously" implies that they should not be overused. I would prefer if people had a chance to discuss before changing pages, not make it seem like a page should be changed instantly, especially when it deals with content and style, and not a simple fix. That's all I have to say on it, and I would rather not discuss this further. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree with Ottava here, substantial changes to the prose should probably be run through the talk pages so there is an archive of it and it's public to everyone. I generally don't use inline comments except to make sure that folks do not change something that is a misspelling in the orginal quotation, etc. I think what everyone needs to remember is that first time nominators don't understand everything at FAC, and taking the time to explain thoroughly is well worth it in the long run. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You can say that again (the last part). Not sure how fast I'll be submitting my next article (if I ever do) considering the attitude of some of the commenters. -- how do you turn this on 22:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to beat the same drum, but :-) Perhaps if you would have brought your concern early on to WT:FAC, it might have gone smoother. I'm not sure it could have occurred to Jbmurray that the inlines were causing a problem; I use them, and think of them as a way to make things easier on nominators. I have checked the FAC now, and see that three reviewers raised prose issues (and that Ottava has now copyedited), so the next step would be to request previous opposers to revisit. I'm sorry you felt the experience was less than optimal, but I think we could all encourage more discussion at WT:FAC as the lesson learned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, was this reply to me? <confused> -- how do you turn this on 22:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a general reply to all of us; we need to make better use of WT:FAC. Sometimes I fear my talk page is becoming FAC central, and I'm not sure we're reaching everyone. The take home message here is that inlines are often used among experienced FAC nominators, but perhaps we should use them less liberally with newer nominators. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that

[11]. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem :-) This was addressed in the Dispatch that interviewed RickBot, but it still hasn't caught on with FAC reviewers or nominators. RickBot needs a nominator line first for ease of his script; otherwise, he has to manually intervene. And, we had other scripts in the past that bombed on the capital P on previous FAC, so I try to make sure every FAC is standard, as I can't predict our future script needs. If regular reviewers at FAC would be more aware of this, it would be one less janitorial step for me, designed to help the bots and scripts that make us all happy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"chunk up the text"?

Sorry, I'm trying to learn the stuff to where I can do one of these and you guys don't have to fix a ton of these things in time... what did you mean about the text chunking? I may have gone dumb from a very very long day but I don't get it. rootology (C)(T) 02:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Whenever a cite template has a field that is empty, it's not doing anything in the article but taking up space that you have to edit around; you can remove them. I'll go do a few more samples now so you can see what I mean. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha, I thought I'd gotten all of those. I was trying to remove them all as I went after I found this tool to format them for me. rootology (C)(T) 03:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Navboxes on the side

You may want to look (and comment about :) ) at the solution Jdorje came up with for Hurricane Dean, and which [hopefully] satisfies the WP:ACCESS concerns you've raised lately. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Italics or quotes?

Sandy - been through most of the stuff, but there are some words still in quote marks here in this section - Major depressive disorder#Psychological, they should be in italics, right? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:ITALICS are used for words as words, sparingly for emphasis, for foreign terms, and for the other main uses in the guideline. I'm not certain why all of those items in quote marks need quote marks, but I don't believe they would be in italics. I also saw a mix of single and double quotes, and still a lot of errors in logical punctuation. Perhaps ask Tony about the quote marks if he's not too busy? Otherwise Dank55 might help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Be happy to help if you haven't checked with Tony, Casliber. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Blue links

Your edit is noticed! I'll get right on with cutting the links down :-) -- how do you turn this on 21:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

On the other papers, you don't have to link every occurrence, particuarly since they're well known. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Do the dates need unlinking, or are references different? -- how do you turn this on 21:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Concerned FAC

I took my time, there really isn't any reason why I should wait a few more weeks doing nothing, since I can't think of anything else to do for the article. If it fails again, at least people will point me problems I can't notice otherwise, and it won't be a waste of time. Diego_pmc ^Talk 21:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Reviewers are stetched thin, other articles deserve a chance for review, and talk page consensus at WT:FAC and long-standing consensus has been to allow some time between nominations.[12] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, but as I said I can't see any reason why doing so here would cause harm - WP isn't a beurocracy, after all. As an alternative, you could point out problems that could keep me occupied for a week or so, so that I wouldn't have to wait a week doing nothing, just so that I would respect a set of rules. :) If it is of any significance, I considered the previous nomination to have been closed prematurely, since the problems could have been solved in a matter of days, as you can see. Not that I accuse you of anything, I understand it can be tiring to review all the noms thoroughly. Diego_pmc ^Talk 21:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In fairness to other nominators, other articles, and reviewers, do not re-nom the article until a few weeks have passed.[13] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

FAC isn't an article improvement service, articles should come to it pretty much prepared and ready to go. At least that is how I approach my nominations. I suggest you contact the reviewers who left notices and ask for further help, most will probably be happy to do so without having to have the time constraints of FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Just for the sake of it, I'll wait until a week has passed since the last nom, but I think this rule should be a bit more flexible—I find it very absurd in some cases. Is it discussable (should be it's Wiki), and if so where can I start a discussion? Also if there is any reason this rule should stay as rigid as it is, please tell me, so that I could think it over, if needed. Thanks!

P.S.: Ealdgyth, thanks for the tip. Diego_pmc ^Talk 22:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There are discussions about this at WT:FAC right now. There are not enough reviewers to keep up, and if we keep having to review the same articles over and over then there won't be resources to go around. If you can't think of anything else to do to the article, open a peer review and recruit other users to take a look and offer opinions. You should especially contact anyone who has already opposed the article at FAC; if you don't address their concerns then your next FAC will likely fail too. Karanacs (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, PR now requests 14 days before an article that wasn't promoted at its FAC be listed at PR. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I keep forgetting that, but it makes sense. A FAC gives the nominator enough to work on, so immediately listing at PR doesn't make sense either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

So bottom line, the reason this rule is still up is not that it is too great, but because there aren't enough reviewers? Diego_pmc ^Talk 22:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's also because I don't take archiving a FAC lightly, and they are archived when reviewer consensus is that more work is needed than can be done at FAC. Bringing them back right after archival disrespects reviewer effort. Also, the rule is flexible; if a nominator, for example, is affected by a hurricane or illness, and had to withdraw for a logical reason, I'm open to letting the nom come back sooner. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but there are exceptions from your 1st argument (IMHO Concerned is one of them, as I could have fixed the article in even less than 4 days—I took my time out of respect you could say). Also, it is relative if a renom is disrespectful or not. If you renom an article immediately after it's been closed, without making any improvements than that is very disrespectful. But I don't think that renoming it after fixing the problems is.
And last, about natural disasters slowing down a contributor, I find that kinda funny. I guess that person will have other worries than promoting an article, so a week will still pass anyway.
BTW, don't take any offense in this (you seem a little irritated), we're just having an argument. Anyway, I'm not going to push for renoming Concerned now, because the not-enough-reviewers reason is actually a good one. :) Diego_pmc ^Talk 06:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The Scott Mills Show Peer Review request

Hi.

Could you please review The Scott Mills Show and leave comments here.

Thanks, TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Syracuse University copyedit request

I've cleaned up this article from top to bottom. I've got one more subsection to write, although I'm finding it difficult to get good sources of information that aren't just out and out propaganda. Joe Biden is prominently displayed with all the appropriate NPOV stuff... in other words, he was a graduate of Syracuse University School of Law. LOL. I was wondering if you could start a copyedit once-through. Just so you know, I used Georgetown University as my template, since it's one of the few FA university articles that would be similar to Syracuse. And their competitors. So, Go Bosox, and any advice you have for me (no one else is helping, so this is basically mine) would be greatly appreciated. I think copyedit help is the level at which you're not considered a involved editor for FAC purposes. I'd like to nominate it for FA status soon, after you and Tony give it a once through. Again, ignore the one section that needs writing. Next, some medical article, probably Herpes zoster. That should be easy (unless you know who shows up). Then I think it's time to get HIV/AIDS back to FA status--it's an abomination that those two articles aren't FA. So that's my 1-2 month plan around here. Cause trouble here and there. Help out with Multiple sclerosis for Garrondo, who is doing yeoman work in neurological articles. Thanks for everything.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Publishers missing on most citations; can you get someone to fill those in, and I'll chip away as I can? It won't be soon, because this old dead writer is killing me. (PS, On a quick flyover, I see lots of MoS stuff to fix, but I'll also be leaving inlines about missing context ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you're fast!!! I just want to get this article off my things to do. I'll start working on some of those MOS things, including publishers.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

A question

Sandy, you've kept your opinions out of the short FA discussion, which is fine, but I'd like to know if you have an opinion on how much value there is in trying to shepherd the discussion to a consensus, as I am trying to do. If we let things lie at WT:FAC, and no consensus forms, we stay with the status quo ante, which doesn't seem to be the preference of many people. Do you feel that we can carry on happily without resolving this discussion? If the consensus is to promote Space SF without resolving this discussion, I'd be slightly disappointed; I didn't nominate it to get a star, but to determine if it could get a star. If it gets one without a supporting consensus on the issues I suppose that's harmless; if you don't promote (which even with majority support I'd not object to, since !votes != votes) then that's also disappointing without a consensus to make the reasons for not promoting more explicit. I suppose another way of looking at it is that that FAC discussion, which I've done my best to draw attention to as a proxy for the abstract debate, may itself turn out to be the best location for the debate, and the decision there may be regarded as precedent-setting.

Anyway, I don't want to try to draw you out on your opinion on short articles at FA, but I would be interested to hear your opinion on the status of the discussion, and the best way to resolve it. Mike Christie (talk) 02:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless we hear something concrete from Raul (who knows more of the history of WIAFA), I think the discussion is valuable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

New quark intro

Hi there. I have written a new introduction for quark at User:SCZenz/Quark#New intro. As you expressed concern about the complexity of the previous introduction, I'd be especially pleased if you would take a look, let me know what you think, and help improve it. -- SCZenz (talk) 06:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "complexity" was the word I used :-) The first sentence is much better: it now has something closer to a fundamental definition of a quark, although it's still lacking. The second sentence goes right into the same issues present in the previous version: terms are used before they're defined, and readers who don't speak physics are forced to click on blue links to try to decipher the article.

For some samples of how simple it is to write with clarity about Quarks, refer to the pros at SLAC:

• http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/VVC/theory/fundamental.html

I also have a sneaking suspicion that most of the article editors are too young to remember how exciting each quark discovery was, how they changed basic physics concepts taught to older generations, or to understand how confusing the Quark article might be to anyone over 40 or 50 years old, who may still think of protons and electrons as the basic building blocks of matter. That's what I mean by context is lacking, in addition to the overreliance on blue links for basic concepts. If you were a 60-yo liberal arts major, who had never taken a course in physics, never heard of a quark, and thought you knew the most fundamental building blocks from your high school science courses, would you get this basic information from the lead of this article? Or would you be forced to click on a bunch of blue links to try to understand what the heck?

• http://www.particleadventure.org/frameless/quarks.html "Quarks are one type of matter particle. Most of the matter we see around us is made from protons and neutrons, which are composed of quarks."

Quarks are such a basic concept that the introduction should be clear and accessible to all audiences. Then, the body of the article needs to use scholarly sources, not high school websites. And goodness, the discovery of quarks was exciting to some of us; the history section could use some beef !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States Naval Gunfire Support debate

First, thanks for the move. Now that the name issue has been dealt with I am working on the other issues. In particular, I write this message with regard to the quotes in the articles; I left a note with a link to a discussion about the quotes in the current form. I think this is the only suriviving issue relating to the MOS that you had, and I would like to get it straightened up before moving on to address any of the other major issues. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW: Your quote recommendation was retoractively applied to the article Montana class battleship as well after it occured to me that the article had been using the some curly quotes. Thanks for fixing that, I apreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

How long should I waut to resubmit this to FAC? Obviously rapid firing FACs doesn't help my case, but I would like to get one more FA under my belt before my birthday, and I am running out of time to do that. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

In general, you should always wait a couple of weeks, but you should also make sure previous Opposers are satisfied. The main opposes in that FAC were due to prose concerns; after an independent copyedit, you could ask the opposers if they think it's ready to come back. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Death Valley National Park

Hi Sandy. Mav feels he's done with this one. Marskell (talk) 08:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Tourette syndrome

Thanks for cleaning up my minor edit to Tourette syndrome. I'm still getting used to Wikipedia's MoS, which is slighly different than the writing style I'm accustomed to for research papers and articles, so I appreciate your patience and apologize for making you have to clean up after me so much! Happy editing. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 17:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

He was very rude to us Scots, you know.

		Civility Award
		For outstanding patience, to SandyGeorgia in respect of a particular English gentleman's FAC. Ben MacDui 20:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

MBB FP

I'm unclear what is happening here. I've read and re-read things, but don't quite understand the process. Could you offer a little advice and tell me what I should do? Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The article is eligible to be put up as soon as Raul schedules Oct 16. The recommendation that you wait (not put it up right away) is based on not tying up the slots on the page, keeping other articles off for a full month, since you will surely get a slot with so many points. However, waiting too long carries a risk; sometimes Raul schedules far in advance, sometimes he doesn't. If he happens to have some plans that require him to schedule far in advance for November, and you missed the chance to get your slot by following the advice to wait til the end, you could miss the slot. So, you have to weigh the risks, and decide when to put in the request. I was concerned that no one pointed that out to you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

But - I thought I'd already put a request in, on the talk page? So should I just leave well alone until Oct 16 is scheduled, and then...well what exactly? Do I create a new section with exactly the same text in the proposal? Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The talk page is not a request; the talk page is discussion. A request is entered when you add it to WP:TFA/R; you should carefully read the instructions there. It's your decision as to when you want to enter it on the page; it can be anytime after Raul schedules the 16th, but you don't have to jump right on the 16th. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok thank you. From the main page I see that no more than five proposals are allowed at any one time. If there are already five on the page by the time I come to propose, what do I do exactly, especially since it is by no means certain that the article I want to propose may have those 6 points for a bi-centennial? Thank you for your patience on this, sometimes the finer points of Wikipedia policy can be tricky. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Read the first paragraph of WP:TFA/R, and the "Adding requests" section, and let me know if you're still uncertain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if there's a rule

I made these two edits to the article. I wikilinked the name of the person, but not the name of the building. Then I thought about it, and I'm not sure if it's useful or silly. I'm sure you know the exact rule to follow in this case. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that's fine, as there's not enough to be said about the building to make it notable enough for its own article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Template talk:cite map

{{cite press release}} also lists publisher first and has no field for press release authors. Maps aren't the only sources where the publisher is the important detail and the person who authors the work, if even known, is actually less important. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Citing video interviews

I have a small question, and I thought you might be able to help. When citing video interviews should I use {{cite video}}, or {{cite interview}}? Diego_pmc ^Talk 09:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Since I've never used either, I'm really not sure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It really depends how you want your end reference to look, and how many fields you can fill in. I doubt there's a strict rule on which to use. -- how do you turn this on 23:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

an alternative to the proposed WP:FSAC?

I should like to suggest, as an alternative to the proposed WP:FSAC, excluding articles on "semi-notable" topics from the ambit of the Featured Article project entirely, diverting them into WP:GA(N) instead. In other words, put more articles into WP:GAN (hopefully increasing the prestige of the WP:GA status, to where people wouldn't want to submit "unencyclopædic" WP:FACs), rather than creating a new process. I know you support the new process but I thought I would still seek your input.

On a different subject, I also have been thinking that when the Featured Article Director's delegate demotes a former Good Article [i.e., WP:GA → WP:FA → WP:FAR(C),] a decision expressly be made whether to re-submit the article to WP:GAN or not. (Needless to say, if the article contains serious error then it shouldn't.) If you think this is a bad idea then please offer your input.

Finally, on a completely unrelated question, does your Shermanesque response to my earlier question still hold? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 13:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

1) I'm not sure how we define "semi-notable". 2) Almost all FARC'd articles do not meet WP:WIAGA; I can think of no example of a FARC'd article that would meet WIAGA. 3) yes, Yes and YES. My answer won't change, so you really don't have to keep asking :-) Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

will be back

I have to go out of town for a couple of days for family reasons and I may not be able to respond at FAC. I just wanted you to know I will be back soon, definitely by Monday. I have alerted other editors who worked with me on the page and they will be helping out while I'm gone. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 14:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

MIT

Massachusetts Institute of Technology has been through a GAR (kept) and PR in the past three months in preparation for a FAC in the near future. The primary stumbling block seems to be the Research activity section which is a mass of "over-linked" (but really easter egged) blue and probably worthy of some Summary style. I've let the article sit for a few more weeks to see if anything developed from other editors after the PR and GAR, but nothing has. I know of no way to equitably slice and dice it. I would appreciate your thoughts and any suggestions you had for that section or the rest of the article. Cheers! Madcoverboy (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I see quite a few issues there, and an article that is a ways from FAC-ready. Unfortunately, as I was searching around for a better University article to show you as a sample of which way you need to head, all I found was featured University articles that need to be submitted to WP:FAR. I'm afraid you've gotten a very superficial peer review there; I, too, have issues with the way that one section is written, but I see much more work needed to prepare the article for FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Are there any particularly low-hanging fruit to be addressed? Madcoverboy (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested in your impression...

of my proposal on short articles at WT:FAC#Even more arbitrary section break. (Feel free to respond there, here, or not.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I like the first sentence :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

For the next sub-heading, I respectfully suggest Chaotic section break. Waltham, The Duke of 05:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ideas on just what is wrong with people

Are now solicited...

• Exhibit A - Seriously...what is wrong with people?
• Exhibit B - must listen to let me know what you have always wanted the chance to do...
• Exhibit C - there's a sociologist working on this somewhere, right? Right??

Anyone? --Moni3 (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

O. M. G. Where do you find these things, Moni3? One hopes this is some sort of offshoot of The Onion or Mad Magazine or... sheesh, I have no idea... Risker (talk) 06:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, I haven't even looked yet; been having fun all night with someone whose time is more valuable than any of the rest of us. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"Everyone's a critic"? Not really, but I know a crime against humanity when I see one.

Sandy... You know Al Gore!? Waltham, The Duke of 22:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI on Pump discussion

Quiddity gives a number of useful links pointing out potential article problems at WP:VPP#When to use hidden/collapsible sections and asks which style guideline should address these issues. What would you like to see in the style guidelines? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It's already dealt with at Wikipedia:MOS#Scrolling_lists; once again, what is MoS, chopped liver ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the feedback. I've responded to your comments at VPP. I'll try to summarize or just transfer that discussion to the WT:MOS page in a few days (plus I'll add a link to the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 102#Scrolling in articles 2 discussion that led to the MOS update).

(I'd never heard the chopped liver reference before, but having eaten the foul stuff for school lunches, waybackwhen, I can instantly understand it!) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Schizophrenia

Featured articles comply with Wikipedia's Manual of style per WP:WIAFA, crit. 2. Your change to the bulleted lists breaches Wikipedia:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists; I've corrected it once, you reverted. If you're going to be editing a featured article, please read edit summaries carefully and be sure to conform to WP:MOS and WP:WIAFA. In the course of the WP:FAR, your edits which breach MOS will just have to be redone by someone else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that, and I read the MOS and cleaned up after myself. As I mentioned in my edit summary, there was an edit conflict I needed another edit to resolve. Sorry for the confusion. -- Beland (talk) 06:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No you haven't; you've added an additional MoS breach on to the first one. And if you're going to remove my messages from your talk, I'll be glad to return the favor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Your bulleted lists do not conform to MoS; if you truly don't have time to edit the article, as you stated on the FAR, then please don't introduce MoS breaches that others will just have to cleanup. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I just fixed a few more things; does it look good now? I'm taking a bit of time to get it right. As noted at the top of my user talk page, I usually move talk page threads rather than copy them, to prevent unbounded accumulation and to separate things that have been dealt with from things that haven't. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused. -- Beland (talk) 06:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No, you still have created bulleted, numbered lists that breach the MoS section I've already cited. If you don't know how to correct it, then please don't revert me when I do. I don't have endless time to do janitorial work either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If you have time

I know you're busy from just glancing at your talk page. But I just want to bring this to your attentions in case you are unaware and would be interested in giving an opinion. [14] (See the side bar) I think some good old common sense is needed and I think you have that big time esp. with some of the stuff being written Here. If you want to stear clear, I totally understand as it seems to have broken down into two camps near the end, which is very frustrating to see since all the drama going on really is for nothing, IMHO. Anyways I wanted you to know because I get the feeling another good editor will be leaving soon, albeit one that is very contoversial, but still again an asset to the project. I hope you are well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Staying away from that, but my opinion is that even if what Elonka did was within the letter of the law, it was unnecessarily cruel. I used to get logged out all the time (don't know why it used to happen, don't know why it stopped happening); the actions raise concern about character, judgment and compassion even if within the letter of the law. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I didn't think you would go to any of the locations but I did think you might be interested. Don't worry though, it's gotten messy near the bottom of the page. You stay well, I'm off to bed!zzzzzzzzzzzz --CrohnieGal^Talk 00:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Bosox

Not Botox. So, I'm guessing you won't be editing this evening. The Dodgers are in a bit of a funk right now. I was hoping for a Dodgers/Red Sox world series. Now wouldn't that be something.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I always edit while watching the ballgame; it helps keep my manicure intact. Red Sox/Red Sox West would be nice, but I think it's time for the Phillies and Tampa Bay. Have to be fair. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

PNC Park

Busy day for both of us with this one. As the depressing prospect of another BoSox title looks more and more probable, I'd like an explanation of why you made a logical punctuation change in Planning and funding. The statement in question is "corporate welfare", which has a period inside the quotation mark in ref 10. Ref 11 doesn't have this quote and is used to cite the funding controversy. What rule am I not getting here? Giants2008 (17-14) 02:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Rather than go looking for one period during the ball game, I'll take your word for it that I made a mistake :-) Now go watch the game ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch

I'm swamped at work. Can it be the next dispatch? I suppose an interview will work best for me. I'm going to try to get to the FAWCP rewrite today. Marskell (talk) 11:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

FACR

Sandy, I know you've already seen this discussion, but I'm posting here to let you know that I'm going to notify everyone who's significantly contributed to the various recent FAC and FACR discussions on comprehensiveness and related issues. If I miss anyone, let me know and I can add a note to them. I know quite a few people watch your talk page, so posting here is also a good way to spread the word. If we're going to change a foundational criterion like 1b I'd like a lot of people to be aware of it. Mike Christie (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike; let's make sure to allow ample time for many people to weigh in, perhaps a few weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Unless it's a landslide in one direction or other, which seems highly unlikely. Mike Christie (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing emoticon

No, that's fine :) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Matthew, I'm not sure if you saw my earlier response on WP:GO: I think it's in my archive now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I read it again earlier on just to refresh. Do you think Rosetta@home will cause an issue? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting: let me alert Gimme. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope. When the issue first arose, I was using [^#]* in the regex. I'm trying another form now but '@' isn't a problem. Gimmetrow 23:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Sandy,

Just a note to say that for the heads up on the schizophrenia FAR, I'm away at the moment, but will be available in a couple of days to pitch in. Thanks and all the best - Vaughan (talk) 00:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't have much choice: the editor who nominated it was too busy and couldn't be bothered. Like, I'm not busy at all, huh? :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, giving it a bit of a spit'n'polish was useful, large, high traffic FAs are frustrating to keep a handle on sometimes. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:GO

Cross-posted from WT:FSC

If I might explain: The title (not the filename) is, by default, automatically generated using {{subst:SUBPAGENAME}} - in other words, if you start the nomination on the page Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/My nomination the title will be "My nomination". This works well most of the time, but if the page name contains certain characters - I believe ' and " and ? are the most common - it will use HTML code for the symbols, for instance - let's see if this works - &#39; for the apostrophe/single quote. I usually fix them when I see them, but it wasn't obviously an issue, so I wasn't very diligent. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm also going to have to apologize - I'm a bit overwhelmed by FSC as it is, so I can't take on much WP:GO maintenance. It's a new project, we have no bots whatsoever, and I have to do everything by hand, at the same time trying to create enough content to keep FSC running during its current doldrums. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

My new project

After rejecting a couple of articles because there are still minor edit wars and active controversy floating around, I've started work on my next project to upgrade to FA, Albert Speer, not a law article but at least there is a law connection. Since it will mostly be offline sources, it's going to take time, but I'm hoping to get it to FAC by the end of the year or January at the latest.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've made good progress. If the peer review and some editors whom I've asked for opinions aren't too hard on it, I'll probably put it in FAC late next week.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Despising Ceranthor?

Hi Sandy. I noticed this comment by User:Ceranthor, an editor I am in close relations with. I really don't think you despise him, though I am clueless about the context of this. Could you explain it, to me and Ceranthor (who seems to have gone on a long term wikibreak over this). ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 15:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea of the origin or context of his post. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

He was User:Meldshal42; presumably this? Maralia (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there have been issues along his learning curve, but I'm not aware of why he thinks I "despise" him or what he means by a conflict that he has tried to resolve. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't this closed?

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Real Madrid C.F. was removed from FAC by Maralia, but for some reason it's still open, and accumulating more opposes. With the mess left by certain actions during the FAC, is there any chance I can convinve you to put this one out of its misery? Also, how does one go about handling someone's withdrawal, or a case like this? Perhaps I can save you the effort next time. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Giants. When you want to know if an article is archived, click on "What links here", and see if it's linked at FAC or at the FAC archives :-) Please see WP:FAC/ar :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Gimmebot just hasn't done its archiving yet. I noticed people were still posting, and was about to manually archive it just now, but then I saw that Sandy just did promotions; I imagine Gimme will pass through shortly. If not, I'll do that one manually. Maralia (talk) 02:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

And, the reason people continue to enter comments, even though it's not on FAC, is that they go through that Bot list that causes me nothing but headaches :-) If it's not on FAC, it's archived or promoted, but that other bot continues to carry them. And experienced reviewers continue to use that list without checking to see if the FAC is transcluded. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The new comments were why I posted here. Oh well, live and learn. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

going to be late today...

With FAC sourcing run, farrier is coming at 9, and then errands need to be run on that side of town. So won't run through FAC until this afternoon. Just giving you a heads up. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Managed the run, and I'm done with the LaRouche stuff, and mostly satisfied. If you wanna go ahead and cap mine with yours, go ahead. Now if I could get rid of this pounding headache.. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

UFA

I have rejigged the intro to Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles, if you want to have a look. Unless my memory is failing, the original list was compiled in June 2006 immediately after the merger, not in 2005. Marskell (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

And I must say, gratifying as it is to see how much the original list has declined, when I look at those 316 new ones, I think: 2 more years of work... Marskell (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Randall Flagg

It's alright, I think I was in bed when the whole thing happened. :) Don't worry about it, and thanks for fixing it. --CyberGhostface (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

What are these warnings about "unknown binding" about? Kaldari (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Warnings? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You added HTML comments that say "unknown binding" to 2 reference sources in the Roman Catholic Church article. Why would anyone care what type of binding the books are available in and why do you claim the bindings for these 2 books are "unknown"? Kaldari (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Kaldari, I have a special place in my heart for editors who disrespect the {{inuse}} template when I'm in the midst of very tedious referencing cleanup work that requires my full concentration. I'm done now. OK, first, it's not a "warning" (whatever that means); it's an inline query, a question for regular editors of the article to resolve. If I intended a "warning" (again, whatever that means) that it was a non-reliable source, I'd put a {{vc}} on it. Next, several of the sources there are missing ISBNs, which I attempted to fill in, using the ISBN finder in the userbox on my userpage. When the ISBN finder returns no similar book in print, I next check Amazon.com or BN.Com. They report, "out of print, binding unknown". This is a tipoff to the regular editors to check if there are more recent scholarly sources that can be used. I hope that answers your question. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I made the edit simultaneously to you adding the inuse template (it was an edit conflict on my end). I'm so sorry if I ruined your concentration. Thanks for answering my question. I just wasn't aware what the "unknown binding" warning notice was about. Apparently, it's completely irrelevant, so I'll just ignore it. You don't have to be so snarky with your answers you know. Kaldari (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

And neither do you need to be so snarky with your replies. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Allright, I was snarky. It's a pet peeve, and when I'm in the midst of that kind of boring awful tedious repetitious someone-should-write-a-bot work, it's frustrating to be interrupted (particularly after I checked with Nancy well in advance so I wouldn't cause any problems by putting the article in use). I can't apologize for my pet peeves, but I can apologize for my snarkiness. I'm sorry, Kaldari. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I know doing ref cleanup is pretty tedious, so I'll let it slip this time ;) Kaldari (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Poor english welcome templates

Someone has already gone through and edited the {{tl:welcomeen-es}} template diff. So if you have a minute, could you take a look and make sure it is ok, I added it to the WP:Translation requests but I'm not sure how those work. (Link if you need it Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Non-english warning) -Optigan13 (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Still very seriously and fundamentally flawed; mixes tu and usted for starters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Its been 15 days.

I would like to ask if you would allow for another shot for New York State Route 28N to go back to FAC. I feel that another try would be worth it, and I do wish that people would reply fast to their comments, because I'm becoming a victim to it. If its alright, I'd like to try and re-nominate it.Mitch32^(UP) 22:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Mitch; as long as you've made every attempt to resolve prior issues, yep, 15 days is good. I'm sorry I can't do more to help with respect to getting people to revisit promptly. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it hasn't had a single revision since its last nomination failed, but WTHN! :-) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Fat lady is clearing her throat

Well, at least you can concentrate on Wikipedia. <Ducking under table, locking door, asking for Secret Service protection.> OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

SHUT UP !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You see what you did ??? Double play. Go away now :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The only reason that I'm not pulling out my Libretto to listen to the fat lady is that she has been known to get a sore throat and cancel her performance. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop trying to jinx me. And remember, my money was on Tampa Bay/Phillies anyway (check your talk page ... or was it mine ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Philly? Meh! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I won't mind if the Dodgers are in: Billy Mueller (my favorite ex-Sox, still part of the Dodgers), Nomar, Manny ... and Joe Torre ... take your tomato, Yankees ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Kind of like Bosox West. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Two words: Matt Stairs. MastCell ^Talk 17:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I still think it's the Phillies' turn. I'm still mad about how they were robbed by those fraudulent Rockies last year, who went on to give us the most boring World Series in recent memory. But I'm afraid Tampa Bay is on a roll. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Nevada (BB-36)

I replied to your concerns on the Nevada's FAC. Cheers! —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 03:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/LaRouche conspiracy trials

Thanks for your hands-on help with LaRouche conspiracy trials. You went above and beyond the call. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Not really; just what I usually do :-) Besides, I feel badly when a nominator gets stuck by reviewer edits. Since someone partially delinked the dates, you still need to finish delinking them. Are you going to get to that? There should be a bot, but it's a relatively new item, so there's not yet. Gosh, it's not everyday I encounter a picture of Mt. Baldy on a userpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The nice things about footnotes is that they're at the bottom, so the use of different dating schemes isn't so glaringly obvious. I hope the folks that decided this latest date format change know what they were doing. It all seems like a bunch of useless effort back and forth.

I haven't climbed Baldy yet this year. Looking at a picture is a poor proxy. That phot was taken from near Bighorn Peak. Though it's not obvious, it encompasses 5,000' of elevation from the lowest canyon to the summit. Quite a mountain. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a script, I begged Tony for it. BUt it's User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js here if you want it. Very handy thing, lets you set either Day-Month-Year or Month-Day-Year and how much to do. Also gets commonly overlinked terms. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought that script only got dates in the article text, not citation dates? We need to convert ISO citation dates to either US-style or international-style dates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It gets everything but the stuff in the ISO format in the templates. However, if you don't have to do the rest of the article, it makes dealing with the ISO dates much less daunting. (Of course, I don't have many of those in my articles ... thankfully.) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Darn: the ISOs in the templates are what we need converted :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup listing

I recently got a list of all FLs with cleaanup tags generated by User:B. Wolterding and it has proven to be very useful in finding some less than stellar pages. I'm not sure if there is already such a list for FAs, but I thought I'd let you know about it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that telling me that if I create the page Wikipedia:Featured articles/Cleanup listing, the bot will automatically do the rest? What do I put on the blank page? What do they mean by "Header"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure. I just asked B. Wolterding on his talk page and he did it for me. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to get my courage up :-) Not sure I want to see that list. Maybe someone else will ask him so I can leave my head in the sand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

WOuld you like me to ask him for you? It probably won't be as bad as you think, only 2.8% of FLs had tags, which still isn't that great of a number, but I was anticipating much worse. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess so ... <gulp> ... thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it better to at least be aware of glaring issues so you can fix them, rather than having them go unnoticed? I've spent most of my morning trying to get all of the FL issues fixed. Anyway, I've gone ahead and asked him. It may take a few days. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

We're already aware of glaring issues :-) Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I was planning on renominating the Homer Simpson article for FAC on Friday, which would be 15 days after it was closed. Is that okay, or would you like me to wait another week? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If you've addressed issues raised, two weeks is good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design

Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be done. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

In the middle of the playoffs and into the World Series? Football season would have been nice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Dodgers-Red Sox would have kept my interest. I need to do this before hockey season really gets going, and I need to head off to watch the Ducklings and Princesses. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

OM, I don't want to get into the same mess I fell into last time on the notifications, but if you check the articlestats link in the userbox on my userpage, you'll see you missed some of the top contributors. Those with more than 100 are: FeloniousMonk, Kenosis, Dave souza, Ed Poor, Jim62sch, Duncharris, Vanished user, FuelWagon, Ec5618, Tznkai, ScienceApologist, KillerChihuahua, Ungtss and Guettarda. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Some haven't edited in years. Dunharris hasn't been around. I thought Vanished user was a fake name for a ...vanished user. I missed KC and Ed poor. Will fix those. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see the Keep declarations have already started, and the notion that the purpose of a review is to Delist, which is inaccurate. Having been burned once already, someone other than me will have to try to see if they can herd cats on that one this time. Keep/Delist are not declared during a review; the purpose is to hopefully address issues and retain the star. Here it goes again, into Keep, without even trying to do things like clean up formatting. And that's after you posted instructions to each talk page. Once burned, twice shy; not my problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm already annoyed by the keep comments. I need your help, or this will be a huge waste of my time. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It is annoying, isn't it, when you just want to review an article like any other, and instead, you get a bunch of KEEP with no concerted effort to review and upgrade the article :-) Perhaps now that you've seen how FAR functions in most cases, you realize how exasperating that is. No, I have never been an abused woman; I don't think I can help wrangle :-)) Someone else will have to wrangle: perhaps DrK or Ceoil or another FAR regular will try to keep it on track. As always, I will help with MoS and citation cleanup if the hollering subsides. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design has already been a huge waste of a great many people's time. And I'm not talking about the article. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I vote to delete the damn article? I tell you, it IS a huge waste of this projects time. I've done a couple of FAR's and they've actually been productive. Have you checked out Helicobacter pylori lately? There's been an editor working three or four edits per day, making it even better. I think the FAR process is critical. There will be individuals who think it's a POV battle...but it isn't. It's whether the article needs to be improved or not. I never say or do something without a prediction of what may or may not happen. I'm not shocked yet. Except I thought you wouldn't be twice shied.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I just look dumb. I'm not going to get whacked with the same belt twice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I have avoided ID for two years—originally from a vague, unspecified sense of unease, and much later from certain knowledge of its nature. Both the Wikiproject and the entire cluster of related articles are WP:OWNED and militantly monitored by editors who are staunchly anti-ID, ironically enough. [Not all of the above are actually members of the ID WP]. I personally write the entire area off as a loss; a failure of Wikipedia to maintain WP:NPOV in the face of a dedicated cluster of editors who are more than willing to wear down all opposition using questionable techniques that are marginally within the letter of Wikipedia's policies etc., but far from their spirit ... Wait a sec... did I just say something true in public... before I RfA... holy cr*p! I'm an idiot! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 23:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Commiserations on the now inevitable failure of your upcoming RfA Ling.Nut. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Y'all should watch more baseball and stop shooting yerselves in the foot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

<ec>Sorry, but I have no clue what Ling nut is saying. If we can review FAR process, we would only state, "how can we improve this article." Our personal thoughts on what may or may not be going on is completely off base, and the same as some of the comments I'm reading in the FAR. The process is to improve the article, not air grievances or vote whether it should be kep. And it will not degenerate into a name-calling, POV vs. POV discussion. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

But that was explained over and over last time, yet it is still viewed as an adversarial process. I have to say, I can only guess that those editors haven't participated at FAR and just don't understand the spirit of the place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

So how much do I get paid for this fun? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll split half of my salary with you :-) I'm not sure if Marskell will take a more active role in curtailing preliminary declarations this time: that man is the Paragon of Patience and seeing pages grow to hundreds of KB doesn't phase him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing that you gave up your salary so fast that it doesn't amount to bupkis. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

←Baseball game? Is that what you called it? Meh!!!!!! I think handling assisting with this FAR would be so much more fun and rewarding. Don't make me beg. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Translation: you want me to get my butt kicked twice in one month. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Nawwww. OK, I guess I'm going to have to resort to begging. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Two ideas: best to wait for people to stop hollering and settle down to do the work. And, did I hear begging? Since I couldn't collect on any baseball bets, there's still a medical FAR we discussed sitting at the bottom of the page :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This just makes me glad I don't edit medical articles... bad enough to have War elephant and Barbaro hanging over my head... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Just wait 'til you need a favor: I'll collect that FA on Barbaro yet! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I find editing medical articles fun. I'll bet I've learned more on a few topics than I thought I would. I'd say 99% of medical editors on this project are committed to the principles of Wikipedia and help create great articles. My only problem is that there are too many articles and not enough time. The only reason I jumped into ID is that it's so confused right now. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw the heading and I was wondering why you were talking about me. >.> Ottava Rima (talk) 03:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Groooooaaaaannnnnn. I am not going to encourage you by even slightly chuckling. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Re your intelligently designed edits

Regarding this edit: Thank you. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No prob: seriously, to clean up refs on an article that size, consider getting the edit references script on Dr pda (talk · contribs)'s page. It makes editing refs much easier. That was just a sample look at the bottom of the article; I can chip away at more, little by little. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)