User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch17

Getting Started With The Working Group

I've suggested getting the Working Group together at Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Working_Group to start talking about any potential compromise on the attribution policy issue. Perahaps you can add the page to your watchlist. I have also mentioned this page in the community discussion, so there is public awareness of this discussion. Hopefully you will be willing to participate. Whatever exchanges may have taken place in the past, between the various parties, it's in the community's interest for this discussion to go forward. Thanks. zadignose 18:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And...

The Resilient Barnstar

Not for your blunders or mistakes, but for picking yourself up and keeping up the good work ;) Remember, if you need anything I'm right here. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Dismantling an FA..

Wanna put yer 2c in here? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Polish-Muscovite War (1605–1618)

FA'd Nov, 2005, very few inline citations (less than 5, maybe), and 6 refs in the tail. My instinct says it should be a former FA, but I'm not familiar enough with all the details to be sure. Xaxafrad 01:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You could submit it to WP:FAR, but I suggest waiting at least a week or two, as there is currently another Polish article at FAR, and the same authors may work to improve both articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

When to cite

I'll have a look. What are you going for in the way of examples? This may not be a completely bad thing; see my recent creation 5-HT3 antagonist: much of its "backbone" is "synthesized" (but not to advance a position :) from two book sources, with inline references for specific data likely to be challenged; do you think this is insufficient? On a side note, as something I felt was a bit over the top: I once saw a {{fact}} tag slapped on the lead of sibutramine, following a claim that it is related to amphetamines. I felt like saying "well, look at the structure!" I didn't, of course—I found a reliable source, cited and reworded the statement, but you can see where I'm headed :) Do you think a compromise can be reached? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't thought any further yet than I don't know how one begins to give examples of what to cite in medical articles, and what not to cite (such as the example you give above). I don't know what kind of examples to give, so the entire notion has me uneasy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Tricky; this may very well vary from editor to editor. The "subject-specific common knowledge" line makes me cringe. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Tim Vickers gave a good answer further down the page; whenever you make a statement based on someone else's work, you cite it. In medicine, that's almost everything. I just don't see how we make a list; it's one of those things you know when you see. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. I like Tim's "rule of thumb"—seems pretty close to our current standards and broad enough not to discourage common sense :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

copy-editing

Hi, you weren't very clear about what to copy-edit, and I've wasted my time now on the wrong bit, Colin says .... Tony 11:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Backmasking

I was unclear about what you meant in regards to secondhand news sources - could you clarify? I'd also like to know if you agree with my interpretation of the reliability of the sources. Thanks. Λυδαcιτγ 21:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Itanium Again

I finally completed my latest try at a lead paragraph of Itanium. Please take another look at this and at your other open issues on hte review page., if you have time. Thanks. -Arch dude 23:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

sections

Sorry, I should have read the FAC page more carefully. Thanks for removing subheadings.--Paaerduag 00:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

TS epidemiology

Fingers crossed :) After comparing the new draft to the version that was featured, you know I have to say this one actually seems clearer to me? I hope it was worth the effort :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

So do I, considering ... well, never mind. I guess I should view any opportunity to educate as a good one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

There's the secret ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments! You've done more for this article than anyone else, and Colin's copyedits far outweigh my minor contributions :) Hopefully this new text will be to everyone's liking. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit help

Sandy, Could you try copyediting History of Puerto Rico? It is the first article I helped reach FA status. It will be featured June 18 in the main page and I know it needs some copyediting. Thanks in advance. Joelito (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll get through it as soon as I can, but remember, I'm not a great copyeditor :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Much better than me. :) Joelito (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me what you deem worthy of citing. Joelito (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Did not notice your {{inuse}}. Joelito (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the referencing help. It seems the vandalism has already begun. Thanks for reverting. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 01:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Musical Theatre

Suddenly some of the old musical theatre folks have resurfaced and started to discuss changes to/finalization of the article structure guidelines for musicals. I know that when you were helping me on some of those articles, you expressed some opinions about these guidelines (I remember that you did not feel that they were as good as those at the film project). Feel free to weigh in at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure. -- Ssilvers 15:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I might not make it there 'til tomorrow, but will weigh in ... Father's Day and all that jazz :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

FA

sorry I thought anyone could FA Articles Zalaza 17:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Margate F.C.‎

The fixes have been made. Epbr123 23:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

History of Puerto Rico

Don't worry about it, but as I said on the article's talk page its more prudent to ask the user making the change the reason behind it before reverting it. It helps to avoid misunderstandings, Peace. -凶 01:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's why I don't enjoy the mainpage, because things move too fast for my fingers. Just trying to help, and I left you an explanatory note, but you still seem upset, so once again, I've learned to stay off the main page. Saludos, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I wasn't upset perhaps the word selection wasn't the best but I certainly wasn't upset if I was I would have written the comment in Spanish ;) -凶 01:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. El Hatillo Municipality, Miranda has been quite useful in my work on San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Bueno, me distes bien duro on the article talk page. I was only trying to apologize after correcting another editor's mistaken change to the United States, and considering the article previously had Partido estadistas unido ... I'm glad El Hatillo was of some use; Enano275 (talk · contribs) might be of help on San Juan. I try to help out in Spanish, but I don't do well on the fast-paced mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Mi naturaleza es fogosa, hay veces que selecciono mal mis palabras. I have been looking for someone to help me to do some text cleanup is he good at that? -凶 01:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 film)

Just curious as to whether the bolding utilized in the cast section of The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 film) article is all that is keeping you from supporting the FA nomination? The "cast section" of the WikiProject Films' Style guidelines supports the format used in the article: "Pertinent casting information might also be included in this section (or in production), and only then should bolding be used to make the credits stand out from the additional information." As you pointed out, WP:MOSBOLD goes against the Film Style guidelines, and I can easily "de-bold" the cast section if it is preventing you from supporting the FA.-Hal Raglan 01:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

U2...

Hi SandyGeorgia. You come highly recommended as a copy editor, and we are looking for a fresh set of eyes to look over U2 which we would like to push towards FA. I've seen you help out on a few Indonesia articles in the past - Toraja? - and hope you could help out here. If not, perhaps suggest other good copy editors. kind regards Merbabu 12:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Take care

Keep well, Sandy. Marskell 07:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back

Your return made my day, too (I was worried; sometimes people don't come back).

That foxglove is twelve foot tall now, with five spiky children further down. I've never seen anything like it, but I've now got an eight-foot-tall verbascum about to flower. If there's a secret with biennials, I think it's growing from seed and sowing early the previous year. But the warm winter has sent this year's crop crazy. My favourite flower at the moment is a pale mauve scabious, which I sowed a year ago February and has its first flower, like a pincushion, which the bees adore. (Now that I know you're a gardener, I'm not afraid of boring you with this stuff).

All the best. Don't do too much. qp10qp 23:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

From me as well! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad you're back

Unfortunately, it would add way too much code to check for everything people might do wrong. Oh, and if you could, could you use the "01:23, 4 May 2006" format for date when you use dates in the GA templates. I designed a lot of the code around the page history and the date format there is "HH:MM, DD Month YYYY". I haven't programmed the bot to recognize all variations, especially ISO. Gimmetrow 00:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You might want to check out this at WT:CITE. Someone wants to allow footnotes before punctuation based on the Nature style. It's a little confused because a couple other people involved want them both ways in the same article, but I think the idea is that any particular article would be all one way or the other, not mixed. Also referenced at WT:FN.

In July and August, I may not be online regularly, especially on weekends. I take it you run a Windows computer and don't have an easy way to run a python script? Gimmetrow 03:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what a python script is <eeek>. Yes, I have Windows and don't speak anything else; can I learn to run Python on Windows? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

(hope you don't mind if I butt in) Python is a programming language. Lots of bots are written using a python-based framework called PyWikipediaBot. I run it on a Mac, I'm sure there's a Windows version (you'd start up a DOS or cmd shell, then type some gobbledygook to get it going). This relates to a conversation we had some time ago. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, Rick. It looks like our old conversation has a link to everything I'd need to get started. Considering the archaic state of my computers and computer knowledge, it may be a steep learning curve. Not something that excites me (particularly when Wiki can be such an unpleasant place and I'm re-evaluating how much time I want to spend here) ... but if you both think I can get it up and running without too much effort, I could try. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Very glad to see you appear in my watchlist once more. I've sent you an email. Colin°^Talk 22:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Monty Hall problem lead

Hi Sandy - During the FAR for Monty Hall problem you expressed a concern about the lead, which was resolved at the time by shortening the lead. user:Georgia guy has been rating articles for Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics and gave it a B+ (!?), at least partly due to concerns about the lead. I've reworked the lead and he's happy with it now. Are you? Please let me know (here, my talk page, the article's talk page - I'm easy). Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW, the problem statement in the lead is deliberately a quote to avoid what was a continuing series of wordsmithing edits (I forget exactly when this was done - perhaps before the original FAC). The point is as a quote it can't be wordsmithed. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Daspletosaurus

Hi Sandy! Welcome back from your break! I hate to bother you so soon, but I saw you edited the talk page for Daspletosaurus (thanks btw) and I was wondering if you wouldn't mind running through the article real quick? It's up at FAC right now and I'd love to have the advice of one of Wikipedia's best-known copyeditors. I had a very productive exchange with Tony on an FAC last year and since then I've tried to take his advice to heart. I'd be thrilled to see if I've pulled it off this time. Thanks either way! Sheep81 08:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for looking it over, I added "Dinosaur Mailing List" to the ref as you suggested... not sure why I didn't think of that myself actually. Thanks again! Sheep81 07:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:FICT

I don't know how passionate you are WRT fiction, but you might be interested in this:

User:Deckiller/Notability (fiction)

It's being discussed on WT:FICT. — Deckiller 16:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Minneapolis, Minnesota

Hi Sandy. I was mulling through the references for this FAC and corrected up to ref #5. Wondered if you could have a look to make sure these corrections is what is needed. Also, just to clarify, do you mean that cite web template is okay, but the parameters need cleanup for consistent order, and add 'publisher', etc. ? Cricket02 21:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You're always a great help, thanks much! Cricket02 22:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Geology of the Lassen volcanic area

Hi Sandy - I think I addressed the awkward sentence you found. Anything else need fixing? --mav 00:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks

For helping format the refs for puberty. I am about a quarter way through the article, in case you would prefer to wait until all the refs have been added. I gather that empty parameter lines in book cites can be eliminated? Does that actually save much space? Also, I prefer a couple of the original section headings as providing more reader orientation, and will probably change back, but will wait until I finish referencing and minor amplifying and you finish fixing what you think needs to be fixed. This article may become large enough to split. I was thinking of splitting off a new article on Timing of puberty, and perhaps one on Endocrinology of puberty, which should hold about 30-40% of the content and should allow this one to be reduced by about 30%. alteripse 17:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

San Juan FAC

Well said. Joelito (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad you thought so; I didn't want to step on any toes, but goodness, it deserves so much more !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Gone to review

I have put myself for an editor review at Wikipedia:Editor review/Aditya Kabir. Check. Aditya Kabir 05:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: See also

Thanks for pointing that out. Cheers. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 14:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks...

...for cleaning up the mess I made with the articlehistory template at Tool (band). :-) Johnnyw talk 15:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!

Well met, SandyGeorgia! Good to finally get a proper welcome - I just sort of wandered into this whole shebang and am trying to help out where I can. I have not yet met Tony1 (talk · contribs) or Deckiller (talk · contribs), but I have been watching Deckiller's page for a while now since he seems to be on the ball. I've been editing at random when not working on the List of Missouri state parks, but I like the idea of helping with specific pages set aside as needing work. I'll check into the Schizophrenia page, thanks for the suggestion. Looking forward to working with you! - Kabethme 17:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Need advice

Hi Sandy! Wonder if you have time if you could have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Mayer. I've gotten my feet a little wet in reviewing FACs, and commented on this one, using your examples of the citation template usage, and I may not be explaining it correctly. So I said I would defer to an "expert" :) Maybe you could help clarify? Specifically, I'm not sure if this method is a hard and fast rule for FAs, although I know it is preferred, (by me too) Cricket02 19:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense now and I understand a lot more. A great big thanks for your input Sandy! Cricket02 22:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Erie

I'm not totally done yet, but I was wondering what you meant about the citation publishers. I am not real sure what I need to do, so if you could please explain to me, I'd really appreciate it.--trey 16:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I have personally checked all the references, checking and correcting titles, authors, and publishers. Ive un-linked some words, removed recently and currently, added some information on crime (that is basically non-existent in Erie). I've had to do this all by myself, as other editors that are part of WP:ERIE and contribute to the article are absent right now, so a thing or two might have slipped, just let me know. Also, thanks very much for using examples and fixing refs, I know normally FA-reviewers are reluctant to do things like that, so thanks for doing it. Please update your oppose. Thank you! --trey 04:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Minneapolis, Minnesota

SandyGeorgia, thank you for your review and sample edits. One year at Wikipedia and I am still not sure which approach to references to take so it helped a great deal to have a solution in sight when one was needed. I would think they can all be morphed in the future if styles change. Thanks again and best wishes. -Susanlesch 00:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Greetings!

SteelersFan UK06 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

- Just a little something for your help on the Dominik Diamond. You kept my head in one place after i nearly ripped it off in confusion.... Keep up the good work! =) --SteelersFan UK06 06:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:MUSICALS project

Thanks for your comment. I don't think the films project guidelines fully answer the question about Character Lists and Song Lists in musicals, as I've explained over at the musicals talk page. I'd say that the G&S article structure guidelines and examples are actually more helpful in these regards. By the way, speaking of G&S, I have now expanded the G&S article to finally include the important content that I thought was missing when the article was prematurely nominated for FA. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 14:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

???

What was this about..? mattytay Talk - mattytay 17:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it makes more sense now!!! mattytay 17:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for help with FA

Search engine optimization is running on the main page Monday. Thank you for your help with this article! Jehochman ^Hablar 21:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Invitation

Hi there

The acrimony seems to have died down at WP:V and people are now co-operating on a single version that should be able to accommodate all views. Please feel free to edit this draft. here or add specific comments on how to improve it, either for clarity or including more of the relevant viewpoints. Tim Vickers 20:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

You're welcome anyway ;) I'll keep an eye on them. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, whaddaya know... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I did tell you...

• Well I suppose I should say that "I hate to say I told you so" [1]... but, well, like I said [2] ... Ling.Nut 23:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		This barnstar of diligence is awarded to SandyGeorgia for having reviewed over 1000 articles—580 at FAC, 390 at FAR, and 85 Peer reviews, as of a week or so ago, but these numbers are almost certainly out of date already. Congratulations and keep up the amazing work. Dr pda 02:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that I think you did a bang-up job on the FA stat audit. Raul654 02:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Ditto. Thank you, SandyGeorgia. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 04:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Plus one FLC. Amazing. Colin°^Talk 10:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Amazing indeed! No wonder you get a little stressed out sometimes... :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

United States housing bubble

FYI, left you a response at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States housing bubble RE note formatting:

SandyGeorgia, your comments about the reference format are simply wrong. These notes conform to The Chicago Manual of Style’s format, which states:

Quotation within a note. When a note includes a quotation, the source normally follows the terminal punctuation of the quotation. The entire source need not be put in parentheses, which involves changing existing parentheses to brackets and creating unnecessary clutter.

This is entire consistent with Wikipedia's policy Wikipedia:Citing_sources. Frothy 19:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Responded on FAC. This response is unrelated to my objection; I did not object on these grounds. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

FAC page

(You wrote)

Hi, Poeticbent; I'm not sure why you created Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion/archive1, but it's messing up some scripts that check featured article pages. Would you mind putting a speedy author delete tag on it? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The archive1 (although with a somewhat misleading title) was a necessary part of my FAC nomination of Kraków, currently stored at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kraków/archive1. The article Kraków was originally submitted to FAC over three years ago, long before the current system of nominations was established. It did not have a discussion page of its own, like it is practiced today. The first failed nomination is listed on the "archive1" page lower down in section "History", as a one-liner. I suggest, if there's a problem with some script, please rename that archive to retain its original purpose, which is to provide information about the failed nomination from the past. Sorry about the trouble. --Poeticbent talk 21:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not following your response, Poetic; we seem to be talking about two different files. I'm inquiring about Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion/archive1, to which nothing links, and you're responding about Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion/archive1, which is linked to in your archived FAC. Since the first has no links to it and was created by you, the script would run better if you could request it be deleted, as you are the author. Perhaps I'm missing something ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I seem to have missed the obvious difference between the titles of those two archives and mistook it for one and the same. I suppose I wasn't looking hard enough. Would you please remind me what the proper tag is for the speedy author delete? Thanks. --Poeticbent talk 21:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Poetic; it's {{Db-author}} SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed that User:Gimmetrow is already trying to help, but the new edits messed up the link from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kraków/archive1 just like I suspected. Can you take a look at this? [3] [4] Thanks.--Poeticbent talk 21:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing what's messed up; the RBP archives can be linked to directly, so I'm not really sure what you're after. Gimmetrow is very well versed in all of this, so if he's on board, he'll get everything in the right place; just let us know what you're trying to accomplish. Why not link directly to the RBP page ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you think is wrong with the links to the RBP pages in the Krakow FAC? The Refreshing Brilliant Prose pages are historical, there was no need to move them to begin with. I reversed the move. Also Sandy, lots of people use FA related templates on user pages, and it shouldn't cause a problem for a script - just have Rick check which namespace he's looking at in the pywiki code. Gimmetrow 22:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Gimme (you're supposed to be "off" on the weekends :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone decided to do promotions on a Friday/Saturday. Gimmetrow 22:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't said anything yet, because I'm afraid I'll end up with a job, and I don't really want to learn how to run your bot :-) Anyway, go enjoy the weekend !!!!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Now everything's perfect. Thanks, Gimmetrow. --Poeticbent talk 22:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Various things.

• On the instructions, what if placing {{fac}} were the second step? If someone clicks on the link and there is no page or a brief text, then no problem, otherwise, do the page move.
• I was thinking about creating a "preload" for new pages with the appropriate level-3 heading, but there is another, more substantial change that could solve a lot of problems. The {{fac}} template itself could check a sequence of page names for the first one that doesn't exist. If someone wanted to nominate television, the fac template would see the /archive1 is used and go to /archive2, which is free, preload an appropriate header, and that would be it. There is a history of having WP:FAC/PAGENAME be the last successful FAC, and if necessary that could be made a redirect to whatever page it's actually at. The main long-term benefit is that whatever page is used in an archive would be fixed as there would be no reason to move any pages.
• The old fac pages you're going through seem a bit of a mess. I found a few doing the AH conversion, but a lot of them are not linked for good reasons. Redirects, not submitted, mistakes (attempts to submit to featured list or picture). Barely seems worth it.
• I will be away from the net next weekend. Gimmetrow 02:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Lost my previous response when I looked up and realized Poeticbent seems to have deleted the wrong file. Oh, well. Anyway, yes, good enough for <unpaid> gov't work, I feel like we fixed enough and the rest isn't worth tracking down. Raul seems to often promote on Sunday nights; do you want to drop him a note? On the instructions, we used to have that step second, but the problem is that a novice user gets into the FAC and then doesn't know how to move from there -- that's what causes the whole problem -- so we have to give them a heads up on the move first. I just ran through all of FAC, and there was only one article that needed the instructions. The rest were either first-time FACs or already-botified FACs. The more articles that get botified, the less the problem will be -- maybe we shouldn't worry about it? I don't know if you should bite off a whole 'nother chunk of work with another change. I'm going to keep a closer eye to make sure that moved FACs were updated in archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I had the other file deleted. Sunday nights would probably be OK. Gimmetrow 02:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't check for oldscipeerreview. Treat it as a WPR. Gimmetrow 15:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

World War II#External links

I removed half of the links in World War II#External links and removed the {{external links}} tag. Check to see if there is something else that should go. -- Petri Krohn 03:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Much improved; not sure about this one, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Publishers?

I replied to you at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Plug-in hybrid/archive2 with a couple questions -- what do you mean by publisher in relation to WP:CITE/ES, and to which references are you referring? -- along with responses to your other concerns. Thanks for the comments, but frankly I'm a little baffled at the moment. BenB4 01:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Re

Am I really back? Tough to answer! I want to be back, but I don't know if I can follow the same rhythm of work because of some personal reasons. Give me two days to think once again if and how I can work on the article, and then vote your "remove". Cheers! Happy to see you still around with the same passion!--Yannismarou 08:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Sandy,

Thanks for the kind note. All is well here. I probably haven't been editing as much as I'd like. I hope things are well with you.

Mike

Dashes

Hi Sandy - thanks for having a look at Introduction to general relativity. As for the dashes problem that you mentioned, I'm surprised, though – I did have a look at WP:DASH some time ago, and from that article gathered that spaced en-dashes are considered a valid alternative to em-dashes, as long as they were used consistently throughout the article. I then changed Introduction to general relativity so that all interruptions were indeed indicated by spaced en-dashes. A search I made just now reveals that I did in fact miss one hyphen that should be an en-dash, and I'm of course willing to correct that, but I'm reluctant to go through the whole text again without a compelling reason. Is there some rule I overlooked – are the dash criteria for featured articles more strict than what is stated in WP:DASH? Markus Poessel 14:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Psychoactive drug chart/diagram

Hello Sandy :) It appears that you are quite the wikipedia machine! Anyways, I am the original creator of the chart, and I would like to state that every substance was placed on the chart by first looking up its proper medical classification. Of course it will take some time, but I am prepared to make citations for every item on the diagram if need be. I would also like to point out that the chart has received far more accolades than criticism. --Thoric 16:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Atomoxetine and THC ? Also, it might be helpful to have a look at WP:MEDMOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

THC is often put into its own class, and is in its own section in the chart -- the white area comprised of an overlap of the stimulant, depressant and hallucinogen circles. Often legally classified as a hallucinogen, medically its classification is not so clear cut, but science and medicine generally agrees that THC exhibits mild effects of all three of the above mentioned classifications. Some studies claim THC to be a sedative to be grouped along with sedative-hypnotics, but I would not agree as THC has not been shown to be able to depress the central nervous system to the point of death, as is the case with all other sedatives:

• Report of the Australian Government, 1996: "Cannabis has been erroneously classified as a narcotic, as a sedative and most recently as an hallucinogen. While the cannabinoids do possess hallucinogenic properties, together with stimulant and sedative effects, they in fact represent a unique pharmacological class of compounds. Unlike many other drugs of abuse, cannabis acts upon specific receptors in the brain and periphery. The discovery of the receptors and the naturally occurring substances in the brain that bind to these receptors is of great importance, in that it signifies an entirely new pathway system in the brain."

• Sedative, stimulant, and other subjective effects of marijuana: relationships to smoking techniques, Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1998 Feb;59(2):405-12: "Paradoxical subjective effects were observed in that subjects reported some stimulation as well as sedation after smoking marijuana"

• Drugs of Abuse, Antipsychotics, Antidepressants - Lecture 11, Elon University: "Marijuana - cannabis -- (flowering tops and leaves of hemp plants) classified as a hallucinogen/stimulant/sedative (thus in its own class)"

• Abnormal Psychology, 5th Edition, Ronald J. Comer: "When smoked, cannabis produces a mixture of hallucinogenic, depressant, and stimulant effects"

I'll dig up some references for Atomoxetine, but there is far less information on it. --Thoric 18:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out some things from the Atomoxetine article as to the placement on the chart:

• Strattera was originally intended to be a new antidepressant drug; however, in clinical trials, no such benefits could be proven -- this lends support to putting it close to other antidepressant drugs (I was also not comfortable placing Atomoxetine within the "psychedelic" circle).
• Some patients tend to feel lightheaded, dizzy, or "buzzed" as a minor side effect along with the drowsiness. To diminish these side effects, which can interfere with daytime work, study, etc., dosing time is sometimes changed to just before bed; as Strattera is long-acting, it does not "wear off" overnight. Mild hallucinations can be experienced under high doses (300mg) -- this lends support to putting it close to cannabis.
• However, rats, pigeons and monkeys trained to distinguish cocaine or methamphetamine from saline indicate that atomoxetine produces effects indistinguishable from low doses of cocaine or methamphetamine, but not at all like high doses of cocaine -- this lends support to Atomoxetine being a mild enough stimulant not to be considered a sedative.

Also, it should also be noted that Atomoxetine was/is being examined by NIDA for use in treating cannabis dependence. The medication given for substance dependence most often produces a similar (yet not as enjoyable) effect as the substance being substituted to ease withdrawal. --Thoric 19:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The entire chart is too ORish for me, but more, the article just isn't comprehensive and isn't FA material. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

History of Tourette syndrome

I'd forgotten about your request for a lead sentence in bold. This is easy for normal articles but not where the title is a phrase, which is the case for Lists and summary-style daughter articles. With many lists (including my own) some slight variation of the article title may be better. I'll have a think about it. Now, what about the rest of the article....

BTW: You've got mail. Colin°^Talk 18:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The rest of the article <groan> ... I was almost done with the book when the other issues came up at the article, and now I've lost my train of thought and plan of attack for that article. I wanted to spend all summer focused on it; instead, we started the summer with other things. arrrrgh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm OK with whatever you decide (soon, later, never, not sure). I've plenty other things to interest me and never enough time. However, I have started down the road (read the book, got the t-shirt) and am prepared to invest more time because it looks like an interesting challenge. But taking it to the next stage involves much more effort than just reading a book on a fascinating subject. I can start preparing some notes (perhaps in the form of a timeline like you suggested) but there's not much point if you aren't committed too. It would be a bit of a gamble for both of us. Colin°^Talk 21:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I was just looking through Category:Graphical timelines for a sample; looks tough. I want a graphical timeline that shows what was going on in different parts of the world, in relation to world history events (such as WWII, Freud, etc.) Maybe we should set up a Sandbox and just dig in? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I want to do something like Graphical timeline of the Big Bang, but with four or five columns. Lots of work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Póvoa de Varzim

• Don't you want to be that native English speaker? It would be really helpful. Some natives had reviewed the article, but that was sometime ago.---85.240.5.203 11:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Radar FAR

Hi,

Thanks for the notice and I agree with the assesment of FAR. I've contributed to the article but I just to added some parts, I'm not the main writer so I was wondering why you have just contacted me and one other user, as far as I can see, on the matter. I must tell you that I'm not ready to take in charge any reorganization of this article, so you should contact more users if you want to find one that is available. Pierre cb 14:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Pierre; we routinely notify the top editors, and you're on that list.[5] Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk page templates

Why are you switching WikiProjectBanners to Wikiprojectbannershell, which uses up more space? Raul654 14:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I still prefer Banners to BannerShell on most pages, but I'm seeing the extra steps I have to go through when doing FAR notifications for pages that use Banners. With Banners, I have to click through to get to the Projects for each notification (already a time consuming process); with the Shell, I have one less click per Project, since the link is directly accessible. For this reason— and now that most Projects support the nested option—I'm starting to like the shell. I don't usually switch them, though; there was a lot to be done on that page, because when I originally installed the Banner, I put things inside that didn't belong there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comments at FAR

Sandy, yes we know all about your campaign against Raul645 that you, Marskell, and Tony1 have been conducting, trying to undermine him at FA for some time, over a year now it appears. The entire project does, or soon will. Viewed in the light of your vendetta against Raul your comments are utterly transparent, part of that campaign. Your little group has recently tightened the FA criteria to the point of absurdity, without substantive community input I'll add, with all kinds of new ridiculous rules about how citations should be written, and quality of writing and sources, which you guys simply ignore when when it suits you. Your new rules go way, way too far. It's clear to observers that your little group tries to maintain the FA review process to give you more control over FA content and guidelines, and you frequently use it as a weapon, either against Raul or against individual editors; both being the case here. A good number of we admins have watching this from the sidelines for several months now, so don't make the mistake thinking that you're going to continue on like this at FA unopposed... the cat is out of the bag. This behavior of yours matters because it's spilling over to affect articles through FAR and several of the best FA writers have told me that they have stopped writing FAs because of your group and its methods I've outlined here. I'm sure they'd be happy to come here to say exactly what's on their minds if you have any doubts. I'll also note that both Marksell and Tim Vickers (another from your group) have recently turned up at NOR, V, and RS trying to force unduly tightened sourcing policies as well. This constitutes a pattern by a group, and that pattern shows that the group's aims are not the betterment of the project, but undermining and marginalizing fellow volunteers like Raul654 and SlimVirgin. Until you stop trying to impose the inane new FA criteria and cease engaging in selective enforcement of same, I'm taking a personal interest in seeing your group's vendetta against Raul654 and SlimVirgin aired out and ended for good. Either announce a ceasefire with these editors and stop disrupting FA with needlessly rigid criteria and its selective enforcement or I'll take this DR on their behalf... your call.FeloniousMonk 04:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, yes we know all about your campaign against Raul645 that you, Marskell, and Tony1 have been conducting, trying to undermine him at FA for some time, over a year now it appears.

Wow, that's news to me. When you start off that far off the Mark, do you really think I'm even going to read the rest ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Pity - you should read the rest of it. It is very informative. Giano 08:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem about the IP posting, Giano; I often get logged out. Of course I've read FM's post now that it's been here for several days. I hope having had a few days to cool off will permit him (I think FM is a him) to take a fresh start, assume some good faith, and air his complaints in a calmer tone. The post above didn't provide a very good place for starting a discussion, since it includes several other people in FM's complaints directed at me. The things FM said about me trouble me less than the fact that he has said these things about other people on my talk page; thankfully, I don't think they all saw these comments (either here or at the FAR), as I can't imagine anything good coming from others being made aware of these kinds of things being said about them. If FM would care to take a clean and civil start, I'm listening. Retracting the things said about other editors on my talk page would be a good faith way to start a dialogue; I think if FM really holds these views of other highly respected and basically decent and good editors, he might discuss those matters directly with them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be, it certainly isn't news to anyone else familiar with your background. One only need to read your comments about Raul654 at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Intelligent design and your frank exchange there with SlimVirgin to see all the evidence they need to substantiate my summary of the issue. That, and your immediate follow up with a snarky oblique attack on her at WP:AN/I. Do I really need to post diffs? Sure this is how you want to play this? If so, we should just save some steps and skip ahead to the next step. FeloniousMonk 05:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow indeed! If Raul has a problem, Raul is perfectly free to post as much. I've certainly never had a problem with him—he's a bulwark in the process. Marskell 17:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What an absurd rant. It lacks credibility as it is second hand and recieved. "A good number of we admins"; please. Ceoil 14:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Sandy and Raul worked rather well as part of a team - as can be seen [6]. This behaviour by FeloniousMonk is a pathetic joke, and I have no qualms in saying so - the fact he is an administrator is appalling, and as far as I am concerned he should be stripped of admin status straight away. He doesn't deserve the privileges that go with admin status in every sense of the word. Everyone else should condemn this poor behaviour also.

As concerns Marskell conducting a campaign against Raul - that's the biggest laugh I've ever read. I've been at loggerheads with Marskell on a few issues where his viewpoint favours that of Raul (check the Operation Downfall FAR). LuciferMorgan 15:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"second hand and recieved." Presumably, it was provided by e-mail. Marskell 15:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

What I don't understand is how FA guidelines can be used against Raul - he enforces the rules, and has the final say. He promotes, fails etc. and decides what meets the criteria, so it can't be used against him. LuciferMorgan 16:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear LuciferMorgan, thanks for submitting feedback to the Society for the Destruction of Raul645^{(sic) ® Yomangani[7]}. The organization is newly formed and has not yet established bylaws, formed a Board of Directors, or apppointed officers. Our Public Relations Department is not functional so we haven't prepared a polished response to the matters of concern; the Advertising Department isn't up and running either, so we're not sure how you found us, but we do appreciate your correspondence and expressed concerns for our mission. Although we are still in our formative stage, it is highly probable that our mission statement will eventually contain the following elements: 1) SDR does not believe in fighting fire with fire, 2) SDR does not support WikiDrama or escalation of rhetoric, and 3) SDR believes that hearsay furthered via backchannel communications such as IRC and e-mail are equally insidious and destructive to the Project and its members. Once our Benefactors are in place, we hope to have the resources to respond more thoroughly to your concerns. We appreciate that correspondence lodged with our organization not engage in insults, rhetoric or WikiDrama. Any correspondence received here which serves only to further insult and WikiDrama may be removed. Kind regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

My response can be viewed as "fighting fire with fire" I suppose, but I'm still at a loss at how this behaviour by FeloniousMonk can be excused - he's an admin, and is meant to set an example. He's made a very serious accusation which is rather damaging for all those involved, and such accusations can have very serious consequences for the accused. I hope you can see where I am coming from. LuciferMorgan 16:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do Lucifer, and I appreciate your concern, but please don't escalate this matter, even out of your sense of fairness. There's a much bigger issue at play here than what FM thinks about me. Wikipedia espouses civility, AGF, and NPA, but its culture is very far removed from any of those principles, and the truth is that these kinds of posts from an admin to a regular lowly editor are, sadly an accepted part of its culture. That isn't going to change any time soon. Admins endorse behavior like this all the time at AN and ANI, even as it damages a good, decent, productive FA machine like TimVickers. It's not really FM's fault that a) someone has told him these things, and b) Wikipedia endorses this kind of behavior, so there's no point in addressing indignation at him. I'm more interested in the broader issue of civility and how damaging backchannel communications can be to the Project. It's fairly apparent that someone has told these things to FM backchannel, and most curiously, Giano (who has himself been a victim of those tactics) doesn't seem to see the irony or the insidious effects this has on good editors who churn out FAs at the rate TimVickers and Marskell do. I really appreciate your concern, LM, really. But you can be a bit hotheaded in a debate <smile, I know it's because you have a sense of fairness>, so take it easy here, OK? And by the way, how did you find out about this post? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I won't escalate this matter any further, although I feel FM's post itself will do that all by itself if other editors get wind of it. As concerns Wikipedia's policy and its actual culture, I agree with the points you raise. This behaviour does damage those involved, but for Marskell and TimVickers, if such accusations were taken seriously, it would likely be a desysoppable offence (when the truth is they're just getting along with their own Wikipedia interests like writing articles on subjects which entice them). I'm too busy really to get involved in a lengthy debate, but I always like to register my opinion (a hot headed one maybe, if it warrants one) - now it's registered, I'll opt out unless I am asked personally to post any further.

I found out about this post via checking Ceoil's contributions - he does a lot of good things with the Alternative music Project and I always like to know what he's getting up to in that regard. LuciferMorgan 17:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

ah, thanks for letting me know, LM ... I was afraid it had been linked somewhere. I guess it was quite Pollyannaish of me to hope I could hold down the flames on this. I do appreciate your support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Lucifer that this unseemly outpouring of phlegm by FM is an appalling display by someone in a position of responsibility—who should be setting an example, not descending to the kind of frenzied, puerile street aggression that characterises some of the more violent computer games. You, FM, are a disgrace to your fellow admins: many of them take seriously their duty to calm disputes and make peace; rather than joining them in that role, you appear to behave in such a way that requires their intervention.

• I call on you to resign as an admin. Your threatening outbursts bring Wikipedia into disrepute; please remember that these conversations are open to everyone to read, and make us look like a bunch of fractious fools.

• On your substantive claims, as opposed to your disgusting behaviour here, I'm very happy for Raul to meet resistance to some of his decisions and behaviour as director. He appears to have no understanding of the notion of conflict of interest, and I disagree with his approach to maximising the rate of promotions (at the expense of quality, IMO). That you should issue threats against those who work tirelessly and skilfully to raise and maintain those standards—threats that are especially abusive for the vague frame in which they're cast—clearly indicates that you've been personally affronted by your experiences in the FAC room, and possibly by the failure of some of your nominations. I'm sorry if this is the case, and am willing to discuss your experiences on your or my talk page if that would help to calm things down; but your lack of self-reflection and humility is becoming a liability for the project, in its own small way. I respect some of your Wikifriends, and would like to respect you too. Why don't you make it easier for me?

• To those who've been the target of this angry spray, I say that it's a poignant indication of your success in raising standards. I'd be surprised not to see this kind of destructive reaction from time to time, although that doesn't stop me from being disappointed when it happens. Tony 16:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for not letting you know about this post, Tony; I really wanted to give it time to cool off and I was hoping to hear from FM and keep this misinformation from escalating. Because my talk page is a busy place, I typically archive it twice a month (15th and 30th); I guess that plan is shot to hell. Well, I guess I must drop a note to TimVickers now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I find it impossible to take this seriously, is this some strange kind of joke? I've dropped Raul a note on his talk page in case this has worried him at all. Strange days indeed. Tim Vickers 17:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This rant from FM is just pathetic. Are you seriously trying to say you can't tell the difference from power grabbers and people who are trying to improve the project? Get a grip, no one is tenured for life here, why are the old timers so threatened? Unless you have forgotten FM, everyone is a volunteer here and serious contributors are often trying to improve the product. I see nothing but good faith efforts in that regard. David D. (Talk) 17:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, David D.; I'm sorry, I'd give you a membership form, but we're a bit understaffed right now.So much for my hope that this wouldn't spread and escalate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Just moral support. David D. (Talk) 17:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, David; really, from the bottom of my heart. I just want to tame the rhetoric, having seen all too often how these things escalate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand your worries, who needs time sinks like this? But established users need to know when they are overstepping. Very frequently they become blind to their own actions and comments. In such a case a frank comment is justified, in my opinion. David D. (Talk) 17:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk already has a clear understanding of how regular editors experience behavior like this; perhaps he'll reflect on the content he removed from his userpage just hours before his RfA went live. The bigger question to me is what happens when they're handed the admin tools that changes so many editors, and how healthy is Wiki's culture, anyway? And I also likely offended him and others when I said on the Intelligent design FAR that the lead was an embarrassment, so I'm not without fault. At FAR, we are frequently dealing with older, abandoned FAs, so it's easy to forget that a real person worked on that content. I've stayed away from the FAR since so as not to further inflame things there, and FM hasn't yet been back on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Rightly or wrongly I have too often read the comments of you an others concerning Raul and the FA policy in general and been concerned that there is an ulterior motive. I know I am certainly not alone in those thoughts. Perhaps in future it would be better if you considered your statements and comments before hitting save rather than afterwards, then this confusion would not occur, additionally you would find fewer editors become exasperated with you. You should also consider that Wikipedia needs FA writers in order to provide you with a job - so perhaps their views are more worthy of consideration than you and your friends give them at present. Giano 20:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Giano. Thanks for the appropriate and measured tone of your remarks.

• Taking your last point first, I refer you to WP:WBFAN. Tim Vickers and Marskell are among our most prolific FA writers; the charges Felonious Monk has leveled against them can do nothing but harm the Project, and I hope it doesn't dampen their enthusiasm for writing. I hope you're considering *all* FA writers, and not just those you know best. My interaction with Tim Vickers has been scarce, but it's been enough to realize that he's not only one of Wiki's best writers—able to turn out FAs in difficult and contentious areas—he's also a scholar and a gentleman. *Most* of the people who frequent my talk page (and Tim Vickers isn't one of those) or who could be accused of being part of "my group"—if there is any such thing—fit into that last category. I have no admiration for those who use their considerable writing talent to skewer fellow human beings who are only trying to do their best, and there are plenty of people at the top of that list who ignore controversy and WikiDrama and use their writing ability to continue to churn out FAs.
• Further, analyzing WBFAN, yes there are editors on that list who have taken difference with me, but a few of them do it in a backhanded fashion, so I don't engage them. No WikiDrama here: no use for it or their backhanded jabs at me. I have very good relationships with the majority of most of those populating not only the top of the list, but also a good number in the middle of the list, and the bottom of the list. Most of them know I'll pitch in and help them anytime I'm able, and that I'm fair. (Unfortunately, I can no longer Support FAs written by some of them because the toxicity of the environment on Wikipedia makes me fear my Support will lead to charges of conflict of interest, just as my defense of TimVickers at the administrators' noticeboards seems to have led to him being rolled into this attack.[8][9] If the goal is to make it difficult to befriend Sandy, someone is succeeding. Recall that my considerable work in support of making Raul654's life easier with Gimmetrow/GimmeBot made me the object of wrath for merely upgrading a Bio assessment while prepping for GimmeBot on a FAC.)
• Next, yes I take responsibility for not being aware of how toxic the Intelligent design editing environment is, and for making comments on that FAR that either shouldn't have been made at all (embarrassing lead) or would have been better placed elsewhere (conflict of interest in FA process). That said, can you help me understand what ulterior motive I (or anyone in "my group") might have? Do you think anyone else wants to take on Raul's load ?? Have you seen the crap he gets after every single promote/archive and main page date assignment?

• Since Raul promoted/archived last night, now's a good time to look at his talk page, as it's typical of what he goes through. Six queries in three days. One mainpage assignment changed (that's a boatload of work), one asking him to archive/promote (but GimmeBot was away), one asking him why he hadn't promoted an article (patience, patience—it's now promoted), and three queries regarding the articles he either archived or didn't only a few hours ago. Will all of those people who have ulterior designs on that job, please raise your hand and get in line? Don't beat down the doors ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, LuciferMorgan, Tony, David D. et al. I endorse your comments. Thanks for your efforts to try to bring some civility and decency to Wikipedia. FM's behaviour is depressingly frequent. More the problem is that his example is "inspiring" others to similar behavior. DLH 05:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Next, this notion of undermining Raul and some of the very mistaken things FM said (and others have believed). I guess he isn't aware of everything I do to help keep FAC/FAR running smoothly, and all the work I do with Raul to that end. Uh, the idea is to make Raul's life easier when Gimmetrow and I work for months creating all the articlehistories, and then I prep every FAC for GimmeBot, correct all the mistakes in malformed noms, watch for all the errors introduced into ArticleHistory, make sure moves are archived correctly, clean up the old archives, let Raul know whenever he inadvertently fails to restart a nom or add the new FAs to WP:FA, audit the stats with him, make sure the bot counter is working, make sure Schutzbot is working ... oh, enough, it's not about me. Anyone who could say the things FM said obviously just isn't aware of how much work I do to support the number of steps Raul has to go through when he archives/promotes. Bah ...
• So, to the main issue of criticism of Raul. I've often felt that Raul is overworked, which sometimes leads to mistakes (that incriminate all of us, btw, recall the Null (SQL) debacle and the things that editor has written about the FA process since, and all the work Gimmetrow and I have to go through to clean up such things). My response to that has been to help behind the scenes! And whenever his mistakes have come up, I've defended him (numerous times, by the way, as he can tell you !!) and upheld the process as he runs it, so I don't really know what you're referring to when you mention my "comments". Whenever the idea that Raul needs some sort of "clerk" help has come up, I've put forward ALoan's name because he's someone who knows the FA process well, but more specificially because he's friendly with "your group" AFAIK. I do agree with Tony1 that it's important to the FA process that Raul not be viewed as witness, judge, and jury all at the same time, and that avoidance of the appearance of conflict of interest is important, but the Intelligent design FAR wasn't the best place for me to have said that, since it's such a highly-charged environment already. Other than that, can you please point out to me where I've criticized Raul? I'm not asking for diffs, because it's a PITA to go dig them up, but can you give me a general idea of what you mean? Come on, Giano; you, more than anyone, should know the damage of backchannel hearsay.
• Lastly, I don't need a job ... you may misunderstand much about my life and my reasons for being here :-) Further, most of the people I spend my time with on Wiki are truly good people (not just good writers), and it's enjoyable to be around them. I'll still be around them, whether it's at FAC/FAR or somewhere else. I learn things here I wouldn't otherwise know, and my life is enriched by some really fine company. Sometimes the sheer brutality of people using their finely honed skills to skewer others on Wiki (in the most uncivil environment I've seen anywhere on the internet) dampens my enthusiam for the Project, but it's never more than a few hours before one of the "good guys" lifts my spirits again, and my faith is restored. I've taken a lesson about my comments on the FAR; I hope others will examine their motives and conscience as well. Before he became an admin, Felonious Monk seemed to have an appreciation for a lot of what goes on at Wiki. What is it about Wiki that made him go from criticizing that to apparently engaging in the same, and what can we all do to help stop it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Giano, telling Sandy to consider her statements is the pot calling the kettle black (even though what you're saying about Sandy is rubbish) - if you considered your statements and comments before hitting save rather than afterwards, Wikipedia would be a much better place. Also, like you, I know I'm 100% not alone in those thoughts as concerns you, despite the fact most people here on Wikipedia are too afraid to show their true feelings about you as they don't want the hassle of having to deal with you. Unlike them, I'm not particularly bothered about my opinions being known. As concerns reading the comments of you and your friends, I've been concerned there is an ulterior motive too, and I won't be swayed from that opinion. I definitely believe your ulterior motive for posting here is due to the fact you took issue with Sandy in the past, and decided to post a batch of incivil comments here (which, may I add, Raul failed to respond when I asked him to intervene, which I have little desire to comment on). LuciferMorgan 21:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Sandy has two choices regarding what I say - believe it , or leave it. The decision is hers but whichever path she and her mates choose has no return route. Too many are watching for that. Quite frankly I care not a jot which path Sandy and Lucifer walk so long as our paths don't cross more than absolutely necessary for the good of the encyclopedia. Giano 21:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Lucifer, would you mind not complicating this matter with old baggage? Giano, is that a response to me or to Lucifer? I'm not walking any path with anyone, and I did regard your comments; are you planning to respond to my queries, or that's it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    • It is perfectly obvious that the response is to you both. Regarding you reference to WP:WBFAN - what a load of old twoddle that page is, I had know idea you people counted these things. What about all the pages nominated by friends or just admirers of the major editors - is there a similar page for people who have nominated pages for FARC, that must be very satisfying for you all. Giano 22:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Giano, you started off so civilly; please don't make me enforce the SDR charter :-) Who are "you people"? I share your feelings about that list and its many shortcomings, but the person who started it/maintains it did so in good faith, and you are belittling his effort. Oh, and he doesn't carry the SDR card, either :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Belittling? It is a load of inconsistent rubbish. I see I am listed twice, one of the most recent FAs I worked on is listed to both Bishonen and me - I am surprised you bother to refer people to it. Giano 22:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• I moved your comment back in line, as you chopped mine in half and left me sigless. Yes, Giano, that list has numerous problems, and doesn't accurately identify many FA writers, but ... Do you question that, for example (alphabetical order, since rank isn't accurate) Angmering, CLA, Deckiller, DrKiernan, Hink, Marskell, Mav, Peta, Tim Vickers, Titoxd and Yomangani are among our most prolific FA writers, even if the absolute rankings on the list are inaccurate? Do you acknowledge that these folks continue to write FAs and avoid imbroglio ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Shows how well I know you Sandy, you're a woman? For some reason I'd always assumed that "Sandy" was a male name! All the best Tim Vickers 22:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if I told 'ya, I'd have to kill 'ya. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll have to call you "babe" from now on, babe. Tim Vickers 22:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Then I'll really have to kill 'ya ! After I find my eyeglasses, that is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If anyone has any problems with WBFAN please contact me or bring it up on the talk page (and the explicit point is not writing, but nominating and putting up with the slings and arrows at WP:FAC). I created and maintain this page as a public service, mostly as an arena in which the testosterone challenged among you can compete that's somewhat less worthless than Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. It is fundamentally pointless, but if there are any inaccuracies anyone cares about I'll be happy to fix them.

And, BTW, in the above I think Sandy has displayed admirable restraint and should be commended for refusing to be baited (from either side) into this unpleasantness. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Rick; thanks for popping in. For anyone who doesn't know you, it was your effort and programming skills that shaved weeks off of the audit of the FA stats, allowing us to complete the job in only a week, and with greater surety about the accuracy of our work.[10] I'm confident you can make any adjustments Giano requests, but I hesitated to directly refer anyone to you during this discussion, lest you be inducted into the secret society :-) Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Had a dream last night of an indulgent world in which we're all friends, or at least not at each others' throats. The scene was an outdoor party. Raul wasn't invited, but sent a good-will message all the same, which Marskell read out to the eerily silent assembly. Suddenly, before the message had been fully read, David D (trying not to smile) poured a jug of icy-cold punch over Felonius Monk, who grabbed a large blackforest cake and pushed it into David's face. Within seconds, a cream-bun fight broke out among all. Giano and Sandy were particular targets, and ended up covered in white from head to foot (this made the good-bye hug kind of sticky). At the height of it, Lucifer set off a smoke bomb. In the ensuing fog, there was lots of “friendly fire”; no one escaped at least partial coverage with sweet cream—even ALoan, who was fed up and thinking of calling the police when, pow, Hoary's bun, intended for me, hit him squarely on the side of the face. Tim Vickers and Bishonen were too drunk to throw the gooey missiles, and could only receive. They took refuge under the table, where they came eye-to-eye with Georg. A tickling match succeeded in coaxing raucous giggles out of the normally serious-minded Georg. After the frivolity had died down, there was much laughter and play, and talk of how Wikipedia has enriched all our lives. Tony 05:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow what a gastronomico-ontological interpretation! Sort of like Sigmund Freud meets Clement Freud.....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well ! I guess that goes to show you what happens to a good, hard-working editor who's busy working on featured articles in the midst of this food fight. Ceoil didn't even make his way into your sub-conscious ??? Now there's a statement about squeaky wheels and Wiki.

Giano and I together, covered in sticky white stuff? Please, Tony, I've got enough with TimVickers calling me "babe"; I don't need to be implicated in steamy Latin scenes.

Oh, and where was SlimVirgin in this dream?

Your subconscious works in strange ways. As for me, no dreams; I've been sleeping very well lately. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't (consciously) thought of a sexual side to that—only the friendship potential. But then, it was only a dream, and I've never been one for drawing serious conclusions from their interpretation! Tony 12:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

ROFL!!! :D --RelHistBuff 10:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It is true that several good writers have left the project because of Sandy's heavy handed approach. One example is the original creator of the following pages:

• World energy resources and consumption
• Minot's Ledge Light
• Boston Light

The reader should judge for himself if these pages make a contribution to the project or not. I know that the author left Wikipedia because he did not want to deal with Sandy's overbearing attitude. Cleanenergy 15:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, hello, Cleanenergy (talk · contribs), newly-registered account; welcome to SDR. Yes, I'd strongly encourage anyone to look into the history of World Energy, but ... um ... they can't. There's one little problem. Mierlo (talk · contribs) tangled up the histories on that FAC so badly with multiple moves, redirects, and cut and pastes that even JzG couldn't sort it out. Seems the tracks were covered so thoroughly that even admin tools couldn't put that humpty-dumpty back together again. Oh, and JzG (talk · contribs) got kinda tired of dealing with trolls himself, and he seems to be gone for now as well, so you can't even ask him what happened there. Speaking of loss of good Wiki people. And let's not look at the state of World Energy now, after the factual accuracy tag was placed following Mierlo's work, and subsequent repair by multiple editors since the article failed FAC. A simple review of the talk page reveals the problems. But welcome again ! (Oh, btw, have you read Wiki's COI policies wrt inserting text about your one's own companies? You might find them helpful.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The "campaign against Raul" is more a campaign to replace Raul. Sandy, in particular, with LM, has been wanting to get a little committee of "experts" on "what is a featured article" to replace Raul as the corporate bureaucracy that controls FA and FAR. They disagree with his promotions vocally and publicly, esp. when Sandy has objected for some process reason. Those who believe this is about bettering the project can only say so by sharing Sandy's bizarre and unaccountable ideology of forms, forms, forms, and -bots, rather than reading and thinking and editing. I'm sure such persons exist. It's all so much easier when you don't think, when you just look for numbers or check marks on a page. The lazy, incurious, and self-satisfied the world over love this approach. The people who came to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, and one that anyone might edit, generally do not. Geogre 14:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me put it in direct form: Sandy, do you support FAC being taken over by a committee instead of Raul? Do you believe that Raul has been woefully inadequate and wrong in his promotions? Do you believe that there is a body of "experts on what is an FA" who should be making the decisions? Do you believe that FA's should be determined by a concrete series of steps that can, by themselves, disqualify most applicants? Geogre 14:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Responded on Raul's talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't support the committe idea, and while I appreciate the hard work that Raul puts in, I'd be happy for just a little rotation of the job so that the process isn't subject to just one person's take. Tony 15:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't wish for a committe to take over Raul's job, for the record Geogre. So instead of spreading such lies, feel free to correct them for a change instead of making such slanderous comments. LuciferMorgan 15:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Lucifer, thank you for keeping your comments measured and calm. There are parallel problems going on right now, and your old baggage with Giano complicated the current issues, so I appreciate you staying focused (as you did here). Thanks for understanding. I usually archive my talk page on the 15th; it has now reached 121 KB. I'd like for everyone to wrap this up. Yes, I disagreed that there was sufficient consensus to promote ID, but I can disagree with one paricular promotion, while still supporting and respecting the process and Raul as featured article director. We can't have a free-for-all at FAC, and the normal committee and admin closings won't work for that room. Geogre should have simply asked me how I felt long ago rather than having all this fuss all over the place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Review

I know you must be busy cackling insanely and rubbing your hands together, but if you get a spare moment away from the meetings of the Society for the Destruction of Raul645, could you have a look through Beagle. I fixed some vandalism on it about a year ago and finally got fed up with seeing pop up on my watchlist in it in the state it was in, so I rewrote it a couple of days ago. I'm quite pleased with the way it turned out and might FAC it, but it manages to cover two areas that might be contentious (hunting and animal experimentation) so I'd appreciate a once over on the refs. Sorry, I don't know the secret codeword, but I'm hoping you'll let it go this once rather than adding me to the list of those to be obliterated. Yomangani^talk 16:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ay, tú sí eres demasiado bueno ... que carácter especial tienes, y agradezco la sonrisa :-) I'm still looking for that secret codeword myself, and wondering why I'm always the last to know :-) I'll give it a look as soon as I can (at least you didn't ask me to look at one of those <bounce> <bark> <bounce> <bark> types), but I have to prep for high-maintenance overnight houseguests due in a few hours, and ... by the way ... don't you still owe me something on Barbaro ? <cackle, cackle> PS: all rumors aside, it's not 645, it's 654. I should know, since I'm apparently the President of the Society. Is this a paid position? I don't work cheap, so I hope the fundraisers are in full gear ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks great; I asked Casliber to have a look as well. I left a number of inline queries, so be sure to review my edits and edit summaries. I would use more commas, but we know I'm no grammarian, so I'm probably wrong :-) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I dealt with them. The "why?"s don't have an answer in any of my sources. I suppose it was because people weren't thinking "Finally, the war's over, I must buy a Beagle", but it could be any number of things. Yomangani^talk 00:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks good—you're on your way (again). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Nicely done - I played with the lead - be nice to get a bluelink stub on Northern Hound as looks a bit funny unlinked while others are and may as well deal with redlink dramas prior to FAC.... within a coo-ee of FAC methinks....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

PS: I have my own problems trying to address a last minute oppose from User:Spamsara at Deinonychus FAC......

PPS: My stuff with Guinea Pig was more style issues and emphasis/comprehensiveness - coming from a biological and taxonomical angle - then again if you take tha article as primarily about cultivated critters it was ok. I've been trying to streamline numerous biological articles WRT headings etc. but this is a view not widely held and ultimately we're all volunteers - eg Marskell has laid out all the cats in a manner quite different to many other biological article but its no biggy and I rearranged Lion to go like the others...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I was hiding the Northern Hound until I could find a picture, but it doesn't appear there are any, so I've published it this morning. Thanks for looking at it (I especially liked your "footstuffs" - I assume they are knockoff trainers). Yomangani^talk 11:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

And it's off on the hunt: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Beagle. Yomangani^talk 11:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Beautiful! As always, my full Moral support (for the dino and the dog). I won't register an opinion at FAC—if I did, someone might nominate you as my co-President or make you part of a non-existent Society :-) I don't think you need my "vote" anyway :-) Now, about Barbaro ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

He's not actually in that bad shape (well, he is, but the article isn't). Yomangani^talk 16:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

aw, that gave me a smiley tear ... Barbaro and Laika. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Arf !!! Look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2007 !! You don't see that every day :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

And besides the two in one, you rewrote it on the 9th, it was promoted on the 17th. Sheesh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, I hadn't noticed it had been promoted. I was busy writing about a bloke who thought he was George Washington. Yomangani^talk 01:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me know when it's ready; if they haven't run me off of Wiki by then, I'll be glad to have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not thinking of FACing it (though I might do his four-legged friends at some point). I wouldn't take any notice of the comments on FAR. It reflects badly on them, not you (but I do wish you stop canvassing Emsworth every time one his articles comes up...I'm sure you have a hidden agenda etc. etc.) Yomangani^talk 01:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Injustice makes me tilt at windmills, and what was done to TimVickers has no name. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

hyphens in fractions

Sandy, you've prompted me to propose a revision of that section. I'd hyphenate fractions. Whaddyou think of the proposal? Tony 05:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Chew Stoke FAC

Hi, You kindly made some comments about the Chew Stoke article on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chew Stoke. I wonder if it would be possible for you to take another look as I believe your comments have been addressed. Thanks— Rod ^talk 16:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

By the time I realised I had only got through the first page of WikiProjects for the Galileo Galilei FAR, you had beaten me to it and notified the rest. Thanks for doing that. Geometry guy 17:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey there

Can't believe I missed this—should start checking the history on my Talk page :) I'm fine, how are you? BTW, I've just requested protection for Alex and Nat Wolff— I've been trying to revert everything that comes up and other users (especially Malevious) have been doing an excellent job, but it's getting out of hand. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ack, I'll start watching them again. I reduced my watchlist after my break, and was hoping things had calmed down for the boys. Are you going to be back soon? A few entries up on my talk page is a very diligent, hard-working, persistent person who needs ce help on a Portugual-related article. I was going to offer your name, but I know you've been busy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Póvoa de Varzim; it's at FAC now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll be taking some time for myself over the next couple of days, and should be back in full swing next week, until the next deadline comes along... :) I'll have a look at the article ASAP. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Riana protected both, so don't worry about putting them back on your watchlist—enjoy it while it's still short :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

FAR overload

I am sorry about the FAR overload. One has no project overlap with the other two and should be coming to a decision since it was a May FAR. I thought they went for 2 weeks at FAR and 2 at FARC. When is Pioneer Zephyr's decision due?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 07:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I won't place any more at FAR. The two that are new are both WP:MLB/WP:WPBIO. If I have to take one down let me know. I will take a look and see how I might help but will not be the main savior of either. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 07:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

External Links

Hi, I have received a message on my user talk page about adding external links. I have added links to various articles on our www.youandyesterday.co.uk website and they have all been taken off. These are reliable sources that have been created and offer unique information about Derbyshire. This is information that does not appear within the article and is all factual. It is information which I feel would be of interest to the reader of the wikipedia article. Your article says that external links should be to reliable sources such as Mainstream websites published and maintained by notable media outlets . We are part of the Daily Mail Group and this website has been created by the web division of the Derby Evening Telegraph and all the pages we have linked to have been written by journalists. I cant understand why the BBC have links to its website and yet ours have been removed. Could you please explain this to me? Thanks Claire Shanahan - You and Yesterday Project Manager. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.112.97 (talk • contribs)

Hi, Claire; you can sign your posts by entering four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after your entry, and new posts are placed at the bottom of talk pages to preserve chronological order (I almost missed your post, as I wouldn't typically look at the top of the page for a new post). The best place to locate your question—for broader discussion—is at WP:RSN. Note that WP:RS also says, "Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight," while it appears that anyone can sign up to submit content to your website (Wikis are not reliable sources). Also, when an editor inserts an External link into dozens of articles (while making no other content additions), it raises WP:SPAM concerns. Reviewing WP:EL might also be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Peru

Hello, thanks for your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peru. I'm in doubt about one of them. Could you check it out? Greetings, --Victor12 23:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, I've written some comments and questions at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peru. Could you check them please? Thanks for your help, --Victor12 07:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I've posted an update on the status of the article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peru. I think most objections have now been overcome. Could you check the article again and see if it meets FA criteria? Your review would be very much appreciated. Greetings, --Victor12 21:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up review. I have posted some questions and comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peru. If you find some time, please check them out. Greetings, --Victor12 03:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Introduction to general relativity

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Introduction to general relativity raises an interesting question, I think. The things they are arguing about aren't actionable, strictly speaking... Ling.Nut 01:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I've seen arguments that support both points of view; I guess we'll have to see how this one sorts itself out. It's certainly a nice article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I've argued strongly in favour of this one - having the in-depth and technical main article also understandable by the lay reader is wishful thinking in my opinion. Sandy, in a few weeks would you be willing to have a look at Origins and architecture of the Taj Mahal before I submit it to PR? --Joopercoopers 16:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey there; I think it's a wonderful article, but I can also understand the POV that says that the main article should be written more like the introduction article (so Markus' excellent work may not be featured because the *other* article needs the work). At any rate, I'm staying out of the discussion, since some really long knives have made some pretty unfair accusations about my involvement in FAs. Drop me a line when you want me to look at your article, Joopers; nice to hear from you ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

UFO FAC FUBAR

Well, it isn't going to pass, and if people want to put it up for GAR PDQ that's AOK with me. Tim Vickers 13:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Tim

I'm staying away from it (other than the ongoing cleanup of the articlehistory errors, since I check the error category daily and do that on all articles); I've never been very involved in the GA process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It has already been at GA/R once already, but was given a rather easy ride in my opinion. I'm not convinced it is GA standard. Geometry guy 16:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Guy, it's all yours if you want it ... all it means to me is I'll have to clean up the articlehistory again :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For the adjustments...[11]--MONGO 18:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my unsuccessful RfA. I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me; however, this time around things just didn't work out. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Parâkramabâhu I

Hi Sandy, the Parâkramabâhu I article was nominated for FA status last yeah but failed, mainly due to WP:MoS concerns. I noticed though that you put a lot of effort into improving the article back then and provided significant feedback on the peer review request. I recently went through the article thoroughly and attempted to fix the all the problems I could find, and submitted a new peer review request. I would appreciate it if you could take the time and see if any further improvements are required to the article. Thanks. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Made some MOS edits, responded on peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I am new to this and noticed you edited....Thor Halvorssen

an article about Thor Halvorssen. I found an ambiguity that I want to create a page about Thor Halvorssen-Hellum. I work for a Merchant-Ivory funded film production company that owns the rights to Thor Halvorssen-Hellum's life story. We are having some issues because father and son are always being confused with each other and this is going to be a publicity nightmare once the film is in production. The story we have was also the basis for a book by David Yallop called "Unholy Alliance" as well as numerous magazien articles we have but cannot upload online. I have all of them as PDFs and text files. Is there a way I can just upload them all on here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugargrrl (talk • contribs) 00:49, July 18, 2007

Hi. You can sign your edits by entering four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after your posts. You should add some categories and references and a {{stub}} cat to Thor Halvorssen-Hellum quickly to establish notability, or the article may be speedy deleted. You can use some of the references from the Halvorssen Jr. article, which also reference Halvorssen Sr. As to uploading PDFs to Wikipedia, I'm not sure what you're asking. That would be a copyright violation. You can use your sources to reference the Thor Sr. article, but I don't understand why you want to upload PDFs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I added enough content there to establish notability, so the article won't be deleted, but I also had to delete some of your content. Before you start writing the article, be sure to thoroughly review wiki's policy on biographies of living persons at WP:BLP. To re-add the content you must source it to a reliable source, or it violates BLP. Good luck ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you've also set the article up incorrectly, because Venezuelans don't use hyphenated surnames—they use father's surname and mother's surname (doble apellido). Let me know if you want me to correct this, which involves moving the article to the correct title. The sources I've read do not show Thor Sr. with a hyphenated name. If you're not certain of his last name, I'll ask some friends. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been searching for a source about the Unholy Alliance. The only thing I can find is something penned by Halvorssen himself (which would not be a reliable source for this instance), and although he mentions his frienship with the author, he doesn't specifically say it the book was based on his story.[12] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

On different sections for citations!

Hi! Is it ok to use different methods of citing? Please see Hinduism for understanding. In this article, there are two different sections named "Notes" and "Citations". Under "Notes", statement-like staffs (which may be needed to explain certain portions of text) are listed; under "Citations" direct citations of books or websites have been listed. However, the work was on progress and was not completed, as there was opposition to this approach (please see Talk:Hinduism). So you will see some mix ups. Those will be fixed once we reach a consensus.

This approach is not unprecedented. For example, please see the FA Rabindranath Tagore where this approach has been used nicely and for the benefit of the reader. Another example is the FL List of Harry Potter films cast members where a similar thing has been done. Can you please comment in the talk page of Hinduism? Thanks a lot. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. In fact, WP:FOOT says it's ok. It says, ""It is possible, however, to use the template system to e.g. separate content notes and references when that is deemed a good idea (this is often the case when content notes must be themselves cited, see, for example, Alcibiades)." you can see my input in Talk:Hinduism (probably I was writing that when you were writing your comment). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

ah, I thought I'd seen it somewhere :-) You know we have three different pages where the layout is mentioned: WP:MSH, WP:GTL and WP:FOOT. Only on Wiki :-) How are you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Póvoa de Varzim, part two

Hey there, how's it going? :) Now, about Póvoa de Varzim: I've scratched the surface with some minor copyediting and registered my opinion at FAC. Sadly, this is currently commanding my attention, and I'm fighting off a cold. I am trying to "get back in full swing" as I said above... just might take me a while longer than expected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

oh, no, Fv; it's so tragic. My thoughts are with you. Should I offer to the Varzim editor that we'll help him in the future? I'd like to offer to help, but I'm afraid I'm overcommitted, so maybe I should keep my mouth shut. Please get well soon! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm feeling better today already; this nice surprise helped brighten my day :) I'll see if I can do anything else for the article. I'm constantly amazed at the sheer amount of people you can help on a daily basis. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

She certainly seems special; we need more editors like that. Happy day :-) There's a problem about GimmeBot, so I'm probably not going to get back to the Varzim article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

So you've not met Phaedriel yet? I must nominate you for Wikipedian of the Day :) Will Raul be closing FACs even with GimmeBot not working? If you need help updating ArticleHistories, I'd gladly help...provided no-one requests my meatspace services over the next few days... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You are so amazing. Follow the conversation on Raul's talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanx for the barnstar! Those pages get the crap vandalized out of them. Apparently people have nothing better to do than attack child stars and their families. Happy Editing :) --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 19:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Oil shale again

Hi Sandy. I am going to nominate oil shale for the FAC, but before doing this I would like to ask your expert opinion. The one thing is that the article is too long and probably will be split. But beside of this, is there anything else, what has to be fixed before the nomination? I would like to ask also your opinion if this article is ready for the FAC nomination or you suggest the GAC nomination at first? Thank you in advance. Beagel 21:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

At a quick glance, Beagel, it's not ready for FAC. I see you have a peer review up, so I'll add comments there sometime later, probably today. After that, you might want to go through GAC as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. Will work with these issues.Beagel 18:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Kudos

First, I want to tell you kudos - don't let occasional sniping let you down, there are many people who respect your job - but commonly, the flaming minority will be the loudest :)

Second, I think that my newest FAC sets new standards for, at least, my personal FAs (I am only unhappy we are missing a good map). Perhaps you'd like to take a look and comment?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Piotrus, thanks so much for the kind words; they are deeply appreciated. I'm not going to be able to review any new FACs until the issue of GimmeBot is solved. Gimmetrow has gone on break, and the bot handled all the promoting/archiving of FACs and FARs. <sigh> ... Good luck with it ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Saw your msg on Raul's talk; I don't know a lot—ie nothing—about bots, but I wonder if it would be possible for Gimmetrow for replicate the functionality of the bot in a second account and hand that account over to a trusted user (though hopefuly not you!). All else failing, I would be willing to pitch in here, and I suspect a few others would too. I'm going to be traveling for 6 weeks or so, but will be back home each weekend, which is when is when Raul normally promotes. Anyway, er, sorry for reigniting that unmercyful fuss on your talk on Saturday, but I though it was important to pitch support. Good intentions and the road to hell. Slainte. Ceoil 19:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all, Ceoil. Well intended people can do no harm in my book, and non-inflammatory support is always welcome. Thanks for the offer to help; stay tuned to Raul's talk page and we'll see what happens. I've been meaning to check how many editors have wished Gimmetrow well on his break, and thanked him for the marvelous effort he gave to the Wiki for so long. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, babe, I endorse these sentiments 100 percent. :-) Tony 05:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep your chin up

Sorry, I didn't actually read the comments till after I said my two pieces. It's easy for me to tell you to ignore it, but it must be very hurtful. Unfortunately, working around FAs does tend to earn one a few enemies; I'm sure the people at William Shakespeare hate me, because I think they felt if it wasn't for my opposition (and Awadewit's) they would have got their star. But, as I say, to me this is not the real world; I can't take what happens on the internet seriously. But you do, I know. Anyway, remember, you ARE appreciated.qp10qp 00:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I can take all the lumps I need to take, and if everyone whose FAC I have opposed wants to get in line to take lumps at me, that will be a long line. I don't do as well when others are unfairly accused, or when good people give up and leave the Project. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I know. I find it upsetting when good people leave; but I also try not to over-identify, because it's hardly the end of the world either. Perhaps because of the things I've been through in real life, the internet cannot hurt me, particularly if I stay anonymous. One can only scoff at its pinpricks.

Though I subscribe to the project and care about the quality of the articles, I'm realistic that my participation is purely selfish. I do it because I enjoy the hobby; if I wanted to be altruistic, the world has worthier projects, after all. If I ever stopped editing, I wouldn't announce it, but just slip away. I'm realistic that few care what I do or don't do here, and those only glancingly. In many ways, that's actually a freedom for me: no stress, no deadlines; I can take my time! The rest of my life is not like that.

I've actually suggested ID be closed with a keep, even though I've said it's not up to standard (you're quite right, as always). This might seem contradictory or a cop out, but who needs the aggro? The process doesn't work for kicking-and-biting articles like that, which are best scratched out of one's hair and left behind on the forest path.qp10qp 00:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

(undent) * Sorry for eavesdropping. I really tried to wade through that FAR of ID , and I have to agree that "The process doesn't work for kicking-and-biting articles like that." Parties from both sides were yapping about POV; meanwhile their heads were all on fire by the mighty might of their POV of choice. I hate to sound bureaucratic etc., but there really should be a separate process (built along the model of ArbCom) for FARs which degenerate into very smash-mouth POV-fests. There should be a way to call the whole thing off and refer it to a closed group. But I'm sure it'll never happen.

• Plus everyone knows Sandy rocks. Ling.Nut 01:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Aw, how nice of both of you ! (My heads on fire, too; fretting over Gimmetrow last night.) Interesting little view of Wiki, that FAR; the article will be read equally whether it has the star or not, so it's strange that they wouldn't even fix the little stuff. But I do have one view on whether it should be closed (and I'm glad I don't make that decision). The "process" should be respected so it doesn't deteriorate again like this, and according to process, there isn't consensus that it's up to standard, and there shouldn't have been "voting" during the review stage anyway, so I'd like to see it go to FARC for correct "voting", even if the result may be a Keep in the end. (No, actually, since GimmeBot is gone and I'll have to archive the darn thing, I just want it to go longer until Gimmetrow returns LOL !!!! :-) I wish they would have used the review phase for what it's intended for; discussion about and improvements to the article. I never did get that across, did I? I guess no one was going to get that across.

I always enjoy knowing people on the internet I'd probably like in real life, and wonder what it must be like to live in some people's skins :-) Thanks to both of you for thinking of me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

(Sorry for the interruption from a minimal contributor) I would also support going through the FAR/FARC process correctly. Forgot to mention to you that it was partly because of you that brought me back to FAR and Wiki in general. Your consistency, integrity, and persistence in keeping the process going made me rethink about retirement. Way to go, er... babe! --RelHistBuff 09:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yipes, too late. A couple of hours ago, someone closed the FAR. Sigh... --RelHistBuff 09:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was a fine way to start my morning, before my coffee no less. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm enjoying my afternoon tea ;-) I thought of fixing it myself while the rest of the US was asleep, but I figured Marskell was the FAR Director.

By the way, as qou requested that someone else should take care of the FAR notifications, I will do so whenever I can. --RelHistBuff 13:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Marskell pretty careful to make sure no one refers to him as "director", as that "title" has only been conferred to Raul, but same idea. Thanks for the help on the notifications; there really are some good people on Wiki :-) So many people have come out of the woodwork and offered to help; maybe there's a silver lining to this mess! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should never say never. I remember Marskell speedily waving The Country Wife through; and I thought that was an efficient and emotionally intelligent decision by him, since the way it started out threatened a nastiness-fest of the highest order. For things like that, IAR really is one of the wisest options on Wikipedia. And though ID is nowhere near such a good page as The Country Wife, it is not so bad as to bring FA status into disrepute. I respect your wish to see the full process out, however.qp10qp 17:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

There's one thing I'm sure of—Marskell/Joelr31 will do the right thing, whatever that is. I don't want to start the precedent of just anyone closing FARs, but whatever they do next is fine with me. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

FA status for an article

I'm trying to raise Ray Emery to FA status. Can you give me some pointers as to where to improve it? I'm asking, because you are quite stringent about MOSNUM at FAC (which I admire), and I'd like to be able to fix some things that I might not pick up on beforehand. Thanks!! Maxim 01:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Maxim, I'm afraid I won't have time to review that article, because a problem has come up with an FA bot that will consume my time for now. There are a number of other FA writers in that topic area who may be able to help you. Go to WP:FA to find other featured articles in the area, and click on the featured article candidate in the articlehistory to locate the original editors. Good luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Maxim 17:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Big Green Switch

Dear SandyGeorgia,

I am writing regarding the Big Green Switch links that were recently removed from Wikipedia. Could you please explain to me why these links were removed? They were posted on around 20 specific articles where our content would be valid and interesting to Wikipedia users.

Obviously we want to follow the rules of Wikipedia and don't want to be seen as spamming the site. If you could inform me of the reason our links have been taken down I will happily follow the necessary guidelines for any future posts.

With kind regards, Adele Hook

Big Green Switch

See response above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Bill Clinton

Thanks for correcting my edit to the article history. LordHarris 09:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Best wishes

Just a note to reassure you that I'm happy, carefree and cheerful. I have oxidative phosphorylation and microorganism to work on, GA reviews to produce and a kitten to play with. If you were worrying about me, please don't. All the best, babe, Tim Vickers 15:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I could get used to this "babe" business. Best back at 'ya, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No apology is necessary, I don't care in the least what FeloniousMonk says about me, as I have no idea who they are and don't give their strange opinions any more weight than the ramblings of somebody standing in the street and shouting at traffic. Tim Vickers 18:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I know it doesn't bother you, Tim. It does bother me that you were unfairly attacked because someone dislikes me, and I made the mistake of defending you. That silences me from ever defending anyone. I can at least ask for an apology; it it doesn't come, so be it. That will say nothing about you, but a lot about "them". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, no worries! ;) Tim Vickers 19:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I just finished reviewing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gnixon, and saw your name mentioned there as having reprimanded Gnixon; it didn't appear as a reprimand to me, but since you're so kind, I guess it could be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Emporis

The emporis links seem to be back up and running (for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chicago Board of Trade Building. Let me know if they are working for you today.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I am finding that depending on what server I am accessing from emporis may or may not work immediately. However, at times when it sends me to the error page refreshing from that page does the trick.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

FAR closure

Sorry to have stumbled in on this. I couldn't see an explanation on how they closed and life is too short so I went for it. --BozMo talk 20:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

re: tense tension on FLC

Take your time. There's no rush to comment. I've sent you an email. Colin°^Talk 21:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; what a difference a friend makes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks

I've only just glanced at your comments at my RfC on my way to catch a plane, but thanks very much. I'm sure I'll have more to say once I've had a chance to read through everything. Gnixon 21:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Have a good trip, and I hope you find more peaceful pastures when you return. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

NIght of the Long Knives

SandyGeorgia,

The article that I have assiduously been working on in the last month is Night of the Long Knives. It is currently on the peer review page, and I have responded to the comments. However, I have finished expanding the article and I think it needs one last good copy-edit review before I submit it for FAC. I've seen your work before and I think the article would benefit from your comments.--Mcattell 22:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be my pleasure to comment on that article at this time; I won't get to it quickly, but certainly before the weekend is over. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help.  :) --Mcattell 17:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Halvorssen Hellum

Hey, it's me, Sugargrrl... I cannot find the password I created for that account so I simply edited it from here... The article is a lot fuller. you are really good at this wikipedia editing thing. you should get an award for it. i have a lot (a box of documents) with the scripts for this movie, all the media articles, and a lot more. but i don't know how to upload them. they are not online. the story is absolutely fascinating. i didn't know much about halvorssen mendoza but this is like watching a novel unfold. lots of drama. garcia marquez writes in magical realism form. i am beginning to understand that these countries truly are places where the strangest things happen. also, look what I found: http://www.cantv.com.ve/Portales/Cantv/Data/CANTVINF06/06_presidentes.asp. This is addictive, by the way! 70.23.3.191 05:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sugargrrl, I wondered if it was you. It would be easier on me if we discussed the article at the article talk page, because my talk page is so busy. I'm awful about images and how to upload them, so I can't help there, but you must be sure you understand Wiki's copyright policies. The cantv link only says he was President, but we already have that from the Christian Science Monitor, which is an English-language reliable source, so it doesn't add anything new; we need information about his tenure at CANTV. It's very important that you review WP:BLP and WP:RS; if you're going to get addicted, read up on the welcome info I posted at your talk page, as there's a lot to learn :-) I've got the article watchlisted, so we can discuss article edits there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, sugargrrl, the info that Halvorssen is related to Bolivar will definitely need a very strong reliable source; if you don't have one, the content will likely be deleted quickly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I am sorry but I am almost crosseyed. I can't keep up with you and the other editors. I don't know where, exactly, you want me to post messages to you. can I not just simply email you? Also, I have PDFs of all of the articles like the GQ piece, the WSJ article, and a lot (I mean A LOT) of other articles given that we had to prepare lots of memos for the production company. We also have all of the legal files of the case. I noticed that "usertalkJRSP" doesn't believe the charges were trumped up. How many articles do I need to read. We have most of the court transcripts. he was never found "not guilty" because there was never a trial. there was never even a filing of official charges, just an arrest warrant that was rescinded once the scandal broke. In retrospect the banco Latino, pablo Escobar, Orlando Castro situation makes it so that only someone very dense would think Halvorssen Hellum was both involved in investigating mafia, fraudsters, and money launderers and still wanted to put a bomb. There was no reason (and the financial terrorism thesis melted weeks after the arrest). Can I post everything here? Can I email them to you. Trust me. They make for cool reading. Plus, you would be saving me a lot of work in that it is now up to me to make sure there is a clear understanding of this case when searched. We also have the Yallop book. All of the Halvorssen story is in there. What source do you need? anyone who gets the book at the library can read it in there. Help!Sugargrrl 20:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Sugargrrl. The best place to discuss these articles is on their talk pages, Talk:Thor Halvorssen Hellum and Talk:Thor Halvorssen Mendoza. I've just returned from my library and there is no record whatsoever of that GQ article, so I need better information from you right away. Our WP:BLP policy obligates me to remove all of your information. The Yallop book was from a *very* obscure publisher, and has been out of print since 2000. I'm anxious to help you learn your way around Wiki, but please respond on the article talk pages, and please spend some time familiarizing yourself with Wiki policies. Please immediately check your GQ source (perhaps you have the wrong month, title or author?), and respond at Talk:Thor Halvorssen Hellum, where I'll type up some info for you. The talk pages of articles is usually where article edits are discussed. See you there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I responded there! I hope I did it right70.23.3.191 21:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for the addition of a summary of MOSNUM at MOS central

Hi Sandy

Mathematics is among your talents, yes? Your opinions, bit by bit, wouldn't go astray at MOSNUM talk over the next two week, where I've just dropped a bomb. :-) Tony 05:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Bomb? Me? Now? Have you no mercy for the war weary? <looking for a flak jacket or a bottle, whichever I find first> Ok, I'll keep up there, but I owe Colin a look at his FLC first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Austin Nichols

Do you mind taking a look at this one to offer a kp or rm? It's deadlocked between two editors. Marskell 09:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Georg Cantor

Fix anything and everything you like... thanks!! Ling.Nut 01:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a ton! :-) Ling.Nut 03:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

wikihalo

• Does Gimmetrow have a wikihalo, like Raul? I didn't look at hi/her userpage, gotta run... Ling.Nut 17:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • When I gave Gimmetrow a barnstar, it was his first. This still upsets me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I can't find this halo thingie; cluestick ? And I don't want to be the one to award it to Gimmetrow, as I was the one to award him the barnstar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• (waving arms) no no no... my understanding is, the wikihalo is one of the very very few awards that can't be given out by indivs.; there's a process. I dunno where the relevant info is but it shouldn't be hard to find... Ling.Nut 17:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • ah, I see – well, that's the cluestick :-) If it can't be awarded by individuals, I guess the folks who hate bots won't want it awarded. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Looks like a non-starter: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikihalo SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• I've been lurking somewhat at FAC and FAR, I'll start chipping in some modest comments September-ish, but not 'til then I shouldn't even be logged in right now...
• If you're worried about giving the same person a barnstar twice, find three or four other folks to award one collectively with you. Pick a good barnstar, not just a standard one... Ling.Nut 17:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

ID FAR

Sandy, please withdraw from this situation. The FAR was closed by an admin. You then re-opened it, despite being in a dispute with the article's creator and after having seriously insulted him and the other writers. I have closed it again. It would be best if you were to allow others to handle this from now on. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have archived it. It got half-done anyhow, and the talk page is relatively productive. Sorry, but can you check the tagging? Marskell 05:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Although you, Marskell, are agreeing with this unusual and sudden method of closure of this FAR, surely you must agree that this was not done properly? Excluding the comments made by the defenders/attackers, there were valuable comments made by neutral uninvolved participants that clearly showed that this article needed to go to a FARC vote. ID could have succeeded in keeping the little star during that phase and everything would have been done properly. To me it now looks like the FAR was arbitrarily closed twice by defenders of the article (a defender requested an admin to close it the first time and a defender closed it the second time) which then leads to a potential future dispute of bias in the system. This really weakens the process. --RelHistBuff 14:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Flowers

SandyGeorgia, here are some flowers to brighten your day, even if you don't need it. Whether you're right or wrong, I know you're a good person. Take care, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Clayoquot; they're beautiful, and much appreciated! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Straw_Poll

This relates to the text on the placement of footnotes which you helped to work out last month; you may wish to comment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Very brief question

• Would you mind giving your opinion on this question? Probably requires only a brief answer. Thanks! Ling.Nut 13:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

ArticleHistory

Hi Sandy, I was just looking in the ArticleHistory error category and noticed another case of GAC instead of GAN. To try to reduce the number of errors due to this alone I've added GAC as an allowable "action" for ArticleHistory. I'm not going to add it to the documentation at the moment since this would probably create more confusion, and GAN will continue to work fine. If at some point there is consensus for GAC over GAN the documentation can be changed. Dr pda 16:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Be careful. Often people who use GAC use it to record the nomination, not the pass/fail. I'm not so sure allowing GAC is a good thing. Gimmetrow 18:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

My feeling was that in such cases there'd likely be some other thing which would trigger an ArticleHistory error. If you prefer I can change it back. Dr pda 20:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I responded on the talk page of articlehistory. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Obama

Hi SandyGeorgia - any reason to keep the Obama FAR open any longer? Thanks Tvoz |talk 00:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Tvoz. Marskell indicated elsewhere that he's been traveling. Normally I would advise that you ping him, but since he's traveling and its two weeks are up any day, you could either ping him or sit tight until he gets to it, as he surely will any day now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Night of the Long Knives FAC

Thanks for all your help in providing criticism for Night of the Long Knives. I have nominated it here it for featured article status, and would appreciate your assessment. Thanks, Mcattell 01:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Mcattell. I'm going to be off Wiki a lot between now and mid-September, so I'm going to limit my input at FAC so I won't have so much to follow up on. I'm confident the article will do well and pass with flying colors. Good luck ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chicago Board of Trade Building

Can you please revisit your comments on this nom? Raul654 15:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I should be able to get over there sometime later today; thanks for the reminder. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Some minor MOS items still, but prose could use a fresh look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Timeline of tuberous sclerosis

Sandy, many thanks for your continued support and suggestions at peer review and at FLC. Colin°^Talk 21:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

Hi, Could you please review the article Economy of ancient Tamil country and post your comments at the peer review ? I have looked at some of your reviews before and feel that this article would benefit a lot from your contributions. Thanks in advance. Lotlil 00:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Postage stamps of Ireland

Thanks for the FAC review. I have fixed most of the issues you mention but have some questions that I left on the WP:FAC page. Thanks ww2censor 04:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Followed up on your suggestions re TOC and lead image, but don't like the new layout – too much white space – but it follows the MOS you pointed me to! I left a comment about the ref listing that you suggested. Tried to do some but because I use the cite book tag means I would have to rewrite those I wanted to change. Maybe later or in the future. More comments on the FAC page as linked above. BTW thanks for reorganising the sources. Cheers ww2censor 21:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Moved from my talk page to keep it all together!

I like the lead; guess I'm a conformist :-) Do you want me to run through and fix the refs as I suggested? You don't have that many refs; it would only take me a minute, would look better, and the article would be easier to edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, you've got some bolding in "Airmails" and "Sterling issues": see WP:MOSBOLD and WP:ITALICS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Doing the ref would be great if you don't mind. I fixed the bolding — the issue is that it is both a title and contains foreign words which was why I bolded it. Does the airmails section read ok now with the Vox Hibernia? Thanks ww2censor 21:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll look, then fix the refs, then head over to Support. Give me about 20 minutes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That should be it; let me know if you see any problems. Much cleaner :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the ref cleanup. I reinstated a bit of data for some that are known by the joint authors, but otherwise all looks good to me. Thanks. Let's hope it get through now. Unfortunately Pagrashtak does not seem to have been active recently (9 edits since the last comments on July 6) to reply to his last objections, but real life interrupts occasionally even when one is Wikiaddicted. Cheers ww2censor 00:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a question before supporting: some of the page ranges are very wide. Are those page ranges correct? If I go to a source to verify a piece of text, I shouldn't have to look through 50 pages to find the text to verify. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Good question. Remember many of these sources are specialised catalogues and to support some specific statements I made requires analysis of a large range of pages. For instance to make the statement: "including a series of St. Patrick's Day cards issued annually since 1984" (ref # 29) requires sourcing the full range of pages to come up with the statement because it is not something you will find written in the source book but analysis produced the result. Similarly with some of the other long page ranges. Makes sense? ww2censor 00:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you certain that's not WP:OR ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. The authors are saying exactly the same except it takes them 53 pages to say it in different words than I have used. ww2censor 00:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, what do you think about the use of the {{TOCleft}} tag in articles? ww2censor 02:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have an example? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is a draft page I am working on, albeit slowly, that I am experimenting with using the TOC left tag. Cheers ww2censor 02:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the standardized look our Manual of Style affords. It says, "The table of contents, if displayed, appears between the lead section and the first headline." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought so. Cheers ww2censor 02:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Byzantine

Do you have a status comment for this one? I am a little bit torn because, while I understand the position of Peter and others on excess length, the fact remains we have never settled on a hard length criteria. And this is a subject of significant historical importance, so extra length is understandable. Marskell 09:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

for getting the Ecole Polytechnique Massacre totally up to snuff. Sorry that you had to do this yourself, but if it is any consolation, I watched and learnt for future reference. But I'm not sure about the non-breaking space thing. What was that all about?! --Slp1 00:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was in very good shape ! WP:MOSNUM is being rewritten right now (see the talk page), but if you look at WP:UNITS, you'll notice that numbers and units of measurement should have a non-breaking hard space to prevent the measurement unit from wrapping to the next line, being separated from the number. Same thing applies to time; it's so we don't see 4 on one line followed by p.m. on the next line. Good luck on the main page ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment and for the mini-lesson, as well as for the good wishes for Main page Day. It has been bit of surprise, and given that the topic is somewhat controversial, I will be keeping my fingers firmly crossed, and hoping that lots of eyes are watching! --Slp1 00:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Super Nintendo Entertainment System

I agree that this shouldn't have become an FA. It received a very weak GA review two weeks ago, and it passed its FAC after a couple of weak supports and a support from myself in reward for getting a copyedit. I'll be more careful about what I support in future. Epbr123 00:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I started trying to salvage it, but it was too much work for one volunteer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

MOSNUM

Thx for your input! Is it worth excepting batting averages? I disagree with the style decision of that site. But if sports contributors would think it mean/boring of us .... unsure of the importance. Of course, I know where this comes from; you're a veritable expert!

Regarding your comment about 'subsequent' abbreviations: it's only the main units (before the parentheses) that are at issue here. At the moment, you have to spell them out in full every time. Tony 03:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think batting averages or sports scores ever have a leading zero; I've never seen them anywhere. Ever. It would just be weird if we starting adding zeroes. ESPN baseball-reference San Francisco Chronicle SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Batting averages OK now? Can you revisit Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Proscribe_superscript_squared_etc.3F? Tony 06:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sandy: I'm determined to implement the whole draft by tomorrow morning my time. Here's a copy of my recent queries. Is this OK? "Squared and cubed metric-unit abbreviations are always expressed with a superscript number (5 km², 2 cm³); squared imperial-unit abbreviations are rendered with sq, and cubed with cubed (15 sq mi, 3 cubed ft)." AND MORE: Should the subsection be called just "Unit symbols" rather than the current "Unit symbols and abbreviations"? MCJdetroit says that the abbreviations are symbols. And thus, instead of "squared imperial-unit abbreviations, we have "squared imperial symbols"? No, it's needed for imperial units. Tony 08:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC) AND another point: there is a huge difference between 15 square miles and 15 miles squared (= 15 mi × 15 mi). Should this distinction be mentioned? Tony 09:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Numbers between minus one and plus one require a leading zero (0.02, not .02); exceptions are performance averages in sports where a leading zero is not commonly used, and commonly used terms such as .22 caliber. I've put a piped link to "baseball", but can you nominate a more focussed article—one that lists batting averages (to demonstrate the absence of the leading zero? Would need to be an internal link. Tony 11:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Batting average will do it. Tony 14:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thank you for being vigilant. Part 03:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC) By the way.

You have been invited to join the WikiProject Zimbabwe, a collaborative effort focused on improving Wikipedia's coverage of Zimbabwe. If you'd like to join, just add your name to the member list. Thanks for reading!

Part 03:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way...

{subst:WP Zimbabwe Invitation}} Part 03:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Part, but I'm not sure I can squeeze out the time for another Project. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Better than a barnstar!

You know how sometimes you hate checking your watchlist, especially when you see that certain someone or an IP has edited your favorite articles? The Ray of Sunshine is bestowed on that person that, when you see their name at the top of your watchlist, you know that all is right with the world, you can relax, and do something besides cleaning up another mess.

Wow! I feel like Nicholas Cage getting praised by Elvis! Allow me to present this:

WLU 14:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, Nicholas Cage is a huge Elvis fan, almost obsessive. Not that I'm obsessive. I'm just a fan. I was just going for a 'think you're a great editor so it's nice to be praised by someone you respect' - thing. WLU 18:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Supernova date revisions

Hi,

I noticed that on the supernova article you made a sweeping change on July 29 to remove the commas from the date fields in the cite templates. Your argument based this on the WP:MOSNUM formats, yet the later does include commas when the date is on the form: Month date, year. Could you please clarify why the commas needed to be removed? Thank you. — RJH (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the commas are automatically inserted when the date is formatted; in fact, whether I am logged in or logged off, I do see commas. If the commas are a problem, I'll glady reinstate them, but I don't see the problem. (Do you really consider commas "sweeping changes"?[13] :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Corey Mitchell

Sandy, I can't seem to add to the talk page at Corey Mitchell. Can you help me do that please?The Mask of Zorro 19:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll follow responses on your talk page to make it easier for you; I'll start a section at the talk page, so you will only need to edit the section I start for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I have seen enough of you around to know how much you do for Wikipedia, and trust me when I say that you are a true asset, and Wikipedia would not be the same without you (especially during FARs and FACs!). Your expertise is invaluable. Keep up the outstanding work and thank you so much for all that you do! Okiefromokla•talk 04:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem, you diserve it. Thanks. Okiefromokla•talk 17:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Length of a FA

Hey there Sandy,

Is there a general sense about the minimum lenght of FA articles? There is an article that I wrote about 7 months ago, but several better editors than I have worked on, that I think might be worthy of FA. (I'm sending it thru GAC right now and plan on sending it to PR first) but wanted to get your sense on Denver police officer shooting (2005). Is it something that might be considered for FA or is it too short? It's only about 6500 characters right now and I don't see it growing too much beyond that. Also, do you think the subject matter is too narrow to that it would prevent it from becoming a FA?Balloonman 16:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

At 4KB prose, it would definitely be among the very shortest. Editors can't object on the basis that it's too short (that's not a valid object), but you'll have to be prepared to strongly defend that it is comprehensive and covers all major facts and details of the case. Even if it doesn't get Opposes, it won't garner a lot of Supports unless you make a strong case that it's comprehensive and there is nothing else that can be said on the topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

PS, please try to clean up the reference formatting, see WP:CITE/ES or {{cite news}}. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy... I go over my articles on occassion... and the edits other editors have put into this one constantly make me think it is a pretty good article albeit on the short side.Balloonman 17:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

On the other end of the spectrum, what about long ones? Most of the major US Presidents are 100K plus, a lot of which is refs, president info boxes at the bottom, etc. Thoughts?Rlevse 16:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I generally oppose the long ones (above 50–60KB prose size, as defined at WP:SIZE), but the jury is still out and we have FAs being approved with 74 and 82KB of prose. My laptop chokes on those articles when I'm traveling and on a slow dialup. There's a discussion now at the bottom of the talk page of WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC) PS, Rlevse, Dr pda (talk · contribs)'s page size script sorts out prose from the other "stuff". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I never heard of DRPDA. What is the spelling of the (user) page to go to to get it?Rlevse 16:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

WIAFA is What Is A Featured Article. Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't visit FAC too much any more... the standards are too demanding for my taste ;-) but when I did I really didn't like overly long articles. One of the criteria for FA is compelling prose. To me that means that the article has to be written well enough that you don't get bored and stop reading it halfway through it. Very rarely can you find a long article that are strong and interesting enough to keep the average readers attention through 100KB of information...Balloonman 17:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

WIAFA I know. I was wondering where the DRPDA script is, but I just found it. Thanks.Rlevse 16:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ack, sorry, I linked it above.  :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• On prose size are you talking Dr pda's "HTML" or "text only" output? I'm working on Harry S. Truman's refs right now (what a mess they were) and later hope to get it to FA. Right now there's a 30k or so diff in HTML and text only outputs. Any suggestions besides cutting down the lead therein?Rlevse 22:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, you do need to shave some prose, but besides that, I've shaven as much as 6KB off of the overall size by removing the empty parameters from the cite templates—they *really* chunk up the size. And, on my own articles, I avoid cite templates completely, because their overhead is absurd. I write citations manually. But first you can eliminate all empty parameters from the templates—I saw a lot of them. 22:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Ja, agreed, but that would not count in the prose count anyway. When you said you look at 60K or so for the prose limit, are you talking Dr pda's "HTML" or "text only" output count?Rlevse 01:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I've looked into this and as I read it, it would be the "text only" line on the prose script.Rlevse 09:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Endash in article name

I'm inclinded to go with Tony's judgment. I'll make the page moves tomorrow. Had a similar issues a few weeks back when W.B. Yeats was moved to William Butler Yeats, and I had to move the FAR page, listings etc. A bit tricky (for me), but thats fine. Ceoil 21:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you want me to do it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of article names Ceoil (hi Sandy!), the title "Triptych, May-June 1973" should probably have an en-dash instead. I made that change within the article text, but I'll leave it up to you. I only mention it because someone else will in the FAC! –Outriggr § 21:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you reading our minds ?  :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[2 edit conflicts!] Er, yes. I'm in a hotel lobby at the moment, and just paid c. 10 euros for 10 minutes access. If you could that would be great as I am now in minute 9. Ceoil 21:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll do it. Have fun ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize you WERE already talking about the Triptych article! That's what you get for cross-talk page discussion. :) I must say though, shouldn't it be an unspaced endash? –Outriggr § 21:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

My read on WP:DASH is that if the date elements around the dash have spaces, we have to space the endash. Wrong? Or shall I ask Tony, since Ceoil is traveling? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I left a query for Tony; I'll fix it all if it's wrong. In the meantime, I won't check for double redirects (until I'm sure it's right). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Found this at WP:DASH, so I think Triptych, May – June 1973 is correct (either or both of the items):

Spacing: All disjunctive en dashes are unspaced, except when there is a space within either or both of the items (the New York – Sydney flight, the New Zealand – South Africa grand final, July 3, 1888 – August 18, 1940).

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[ec] I think the difference is that "1973" is not formally part of the range. So "March 1973 – May 1973" but "March–May 1973". Ideally, the title of the work would take precedence over any style guideline, but I'd bet that the title has been quoted in many slightly different ways throughout the references. I'll leave it to you, Tony, and Ceoil. –Outriggr § 21:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

ack, the responsibility is killing me :-) I'll wait to hear from Tony so I don't end up with multiple moves. Sounds like you're right, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, yes, spaced en dash exactly as you rendered it on my talk page. PS I notice that WP:DASH and WP:MOSDASH both go to the top of the MOS, which isn't much help. How to go about inserting the en dash section into the redirct mechanism ...? Job for a friendly admin? Tony 11:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

By the Way FAC

Although the FAC passed, I'll be happy to put any of your qualms about the article to rest. However, at a glance, I do not see any problems with the references, as they all have the proper publisher information and last access date. Please be more specific in identifying any problems that may still exist. Regards, NSR77 ^T_C 22:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on the FA! I did some sample edits to get you started. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll get to the references shortly. NSR77 ^T_C 23:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine link to Assessment

I added a wikilink from Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine to Assessment along the lines of your suggestion. You might want to double-check it as I'm a bit lost in this area. The broken link that I found earlier I fixed here. Eubulides 22:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

ArticleHistory at By the Way

Oh, I thought this needed to be done manually. Is this the same for GA promotions as well? I didn't know that—saves some work for us. Thanks for the heads-up. All apologies. Grim-Gym 23:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi Sandy. I was wondering if you could have a cursory look at clindamycin, whenever you have time—I can see you're swamped as usual :) I stumbled upon it while assessing for WP:PHARM, and it looks pretty close to GA. I've done some minor work as needed, but since I'm not the kind to do "drive-by" nominations, I'm not sure whether or not it's really ready. Now, those deadlines are calling... Thanks in advance, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. This one uses Harvard refs. Never thought I'd say this, but it's a welcome change to see them every now and then :P Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

P.P.S. Have Tony's MOS changes come through? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

{{done}}

Hi, I'm not convinced that the changed you asked for in this template is a positive one. If you have a second could you have a look at my comments at Template talk:Done#Too large. Thanks, WjBscribe 09:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

you're too nice

Thanks for your barnstar! Yeah, it was a lot of work, and I feel that some people are focusing on the negatives: the compromises they ended up making. Well, I made compromises too! Adding it to MOS-central is the next step. Tony 11:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons

Because the nomination was withdrawn, should it be noted in the page's history template? Also, I was wondering if you could please take a look at You Only Move Twice, which has been an FAC for 13 days and only has a couple of comments. Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't need to be archived or entered in articlehistory. The next time a FAC is submitted, GimmeBot automatically looks for the next open archiveX for nomination, so he'll automatically go to number 5, and see that 4 was withdrawn. We only archive to articlehistory FACs that had significant Oppose comments. I ran through all the FACs Sunday night, and if I made no comments, it meant everything looked good structurally, but I didn't have time to read the article :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)