User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch37

Requests archive

I agree with your suggestion to archive the page - I've done so. You may want to re-post your very good summary of outstanding issues. Raul654 (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. How was Grover Cleveland missed for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 24, 2008? Anyway, in regard to [1], I started doing this bot work partly out of sympathy for Raul's thesis, which he's now finished, and partly to resolve archiving problems. It would be nice to more toward a substituted talk-page FAC template, like {{PPR}} used at WP:PPREV, so the bot work can decrease. Gimmetrow 21:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That's going to require a major investment for me to 1) understand that system and 2) implement it without the defects that I, at least, perceive at PR. Where do I start to understand this, since it has escaped me so far? Can you give me a Dummies 101 Nutshell version? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Basic idea is you have a template that's only for substituting, say it's called Template:NewFAC. Let's say you want to nominate London. On the talk:London you would put {{subst:NewFAC}}, and when saved the substitution process would magically produce {{FAC|London/archive5}} in the wikitext (since /archive1 through /archive4 are already taken). Template:FAC would generate the same banner it currently does, and the link to "initiate the nominations" would go to WP:Featured article candidates/London/archive5, and WP:FAC/London/archive5 would need to be added to WP:FAC. This page wouldn't need moving whether it's a promote or not. Gimmetrow 21:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you so far; what happens at closing? So far, I don't see how the bot is freed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It cuts the page moves out of the current process, which is probably the most tedious part to do. That leaves close tags, and on talk pages, changing {{FAC|London/archive5}} to {{FA|London/archive5}}. These can either be done by hand, or a much simpler script written to handle them. That leaves AH maintenance, which I can do at leisure ;) Gimmetrow 22:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

And would it transclude a bunch of crap to the FAC page, such as what we currently see at peer review and GAN? I seriously hate those cluttered pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever clutter is part of the preload. If you don't like the "FA tools", dump 'em. None of this process involves auto-generating WP:FAC. Nothing requires using the bot from peer review. Gimmetrow 22:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I like the tools. OK, two more issues: 1) Raul has to weigh in and 2) what is involved in the transition? Do we have to stop promoting for a few days, do a few test days, what? The reason I ask is that between now and August are better for me than September (travel). Also, what about the facfailed templates we haven't yet converted (only a couple 100, almost done); should't we finish those first? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The {{NewFAC}} or equivalent template would need creation (not a big deal), and probably {{FAC}} would need to be disabled or moved to a new name, or people would keep using it "by hand" leading to new problems. Instructions changed, of course. Someone would need to create a bot to handle closes and the quick talk page update, or do that by hand. At PR, the talk page template is changed from {{peer review}} to {{oldpeerreview}}, and I periodically fold the oldpeerreviews into AH. At present, my bot uses the end of the name of a transcluded page to figure out what article it involves, which won't work for names ending in /archive1. I would need to go through the AH template code to make sure it doesn't use SUBJECTNAME to generate links for current FAs. Gimmetrow 22:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Now you're starting to lose me :-) Somebody (who?) has to create a bot? Does that mean instead of working with my favorite Gimme, I'm going to be working with two different people? And do I have to tag every FAC closed, or will the new bot do that or will GimmeBot do that? You went too fast for me on this one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I could keep doing it, if I rewrite a part I know wouldn't work under this system. Gimmetrow 22:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's see what Raul says. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Good. We'll move on to this when I get the time. Gimmetrow 05:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

History of computing hardware FAR

Hi Sandy. If you check Talk:History of computing hardware, you'll notice I've posted there several times already. I would have helped more, but I do have my own projects going on. And I did notice Ancheta Wis's hard work by awarding them a barnstar for it. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If you look in the article's history (quite a way back though, Ancheta makes a lot of edits) you'll notice I did do some copyediting for it. Thanks for reminding me anyway. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Curiosity

It is pretty obvious that you are one of the persons who dedicates the most time to WP. Why? Nergaal (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Reference Tim Vickers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Intersting Problem

I've this interesting problem, I was hoping you might be able to help me with it. I've been reading older editions of the US Navy magazine All Hands for information that I can use in the Iowa class battleship articles, but some of the article do not seem to have the names of the people who wrote them. Do you know how I should cite information from a magazine if the person who wrote the article I'm trying to cite isn't mentioned? TomStar81 (Talk) 01:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

When there is no author, you don't have to specify one :-) Just leave off the author fields in the cite templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Will that be an issue at FAC/FAR(C)? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

An author has to be supplied when available. The only time an author becomes an issue is when the source is an WP:SPS; perhaps I'm not understanding your question. Many newspapers and magazines don't have author bylines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you are understanding the problem, I'm just making sure that it won't be an issue. As much as I hate to admit this, FA standards have advanced enough that our Iowa class battleship article will need to go through that process rather than peer review this year to ensure that its still meeting FA standards. I came to this conclusion after seeing the amount of input the Montana class battleship FAC got, especially in the sourcing and prose areas. Iowa class battleship is an old FA, having gotten its star back in the summer of 2005, and since then I have been using the milhist peer reivew process to invite comments to keep the article up to date with FA standards, but I think that at this point FAR would be better for the article. In advance of placing the article at FAR though I am attempting to nail down sourcing issues (warships1 , daveswarbirds, and other so called 'hobbysites' are used as sources in the Iowa article but were removed on RS grounds from the montana class article during the FAC), and there are some other issues related prose and summery style that I can adress now before going in to FAR so as to lighten the load when the time comes. Since I value your opinion on FA and the entire FAC/FAR(C) process I thought I would ask you directly about this, especially in light of the fact that I am two articles shy of a featured topic :) TomStar81 (Talk) 02:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Conatus

I know Raul is responsible for promoting articles to FA status as well choosing article to be featured in the main page. Do Raul check articles before deciding? I see this article's three lines needing citations. Well, its not a big deal but its important. I proposed in the talk page to remove those if unresolved. Regards, --Efe (talk) 01:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Often, being on the main page is a good way to getting such issues resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Its not an FA anymore. Citations must be fixed before it gets on the main page. Thoughts? --Efe (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't work; sometimes editors add cite needed tags unjustly. Not sure what you're saying; Conatus is an FA and is on the mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Whether its unjustly or not, it must be given attention either by Raul or the editor of the article. Why I say its not FA anymore? Because it fails one FA criterion, which states that all should be properly cited. Im perfectionist, all must be set properly before it gets on the main paged. =) --Efe (talk) 01:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It's an FA as long as it's listed at WP:FA. WP:FAR takes at least a month, and citation tags can usually be addressed sooner than a month. Also, there's no such thing as a perfect article; citation needed tags are just more visible than issues that another article might have. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Im a perfectionist. I do not intend to pass this article to WP:FAR. But its rather good to avoid those tags prior to its being featured on the main page right? Cheers. --Efe (talk) 02:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Note on WP:FAS

Hi Sandy, I wanted to explain the new June 2008 PR stat at WP:FAS. This is a bit lower than the past few months, but we stopped allowing multiple submissions to PR by one nominator in one day, and limited people to four open PR requests at once. I think this explains the reduction compared to previous months.

I love the Tim Vicker's quote by the way (and if it is true, I hope I never learn your real name). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL :-) Thanks for the explanation; I was just noticing the dropoff, in fact. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Tables and FA's

Hi Sandy. There is an interesting discussion going on here at WT:PW regarding FA's and tables, with some arguments that plain text is more effective to get the point across and arguments to the contrary that it's unprofessional as plain text. Recently, the format for the "Results" section has been changed from plain text to a proper table. Is this outlined anywhere in FA how tables affect FAC's, because some at the discussion are confused about how it makes it look better. Your input is welcome at the first link. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of a guideline, other than professionalism ... I prefer the tables (actually, I think the text without tables looks terribly unprofessional) ... just my preference. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. BTW, you may wish to look at this as I plan to renominate that particular article within the next week. D.M.N. (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Portal additions

Thanks. I had not seen that or any standard before. --Carlaude (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Image review

Got your note - ugh, that was a nasty situation. I've now learned to do image stuff (especially non-free image stuff) for short periods interspersed with long breaks doing other stuff. I'm busy in real life now, plus I'm trying to get an article started in my sandbox, but I promise to try to come by and do some more reviews. Who else is left? You should think about recruiting Quadell - he seems to have come back and there's nobody who knows more about copyright. Kelly ^hi! 20:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I am OK

Thank you for your note of concern. While I would have reacted as Aleta did in her position, I am ashamed and embarrassed that so many know I am not made of granite, as I like to come across. I promise you I would never do anything which would make Isaac unhappy. Jeffpw (talk) 07:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I never thought you would, and you have nothing to be embarrassed about. Please write any time you need to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

2002 Bou'in Zahra FAC

What do you mean by "this needs sorting"? --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 16:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ficus aurea

Regarding this edit, are you saying that I should strip the refs out of the lead? Guettarda (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No, not at all ... I fixed it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Cold War FAC

Hi Sandy, some reviewers are contradicting each other again in this FAC. User:Biophys' comments are POV in my opinion and this was also adressed by another reviewer (User:Krawndawg). Would you mind having a look and tell us if there is anything actionable within Biophys issues? Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch

Hi, you probably noticed that User:Laser brain/Dispatch is in a drafty-draft form and should be ready to use whenever needed within the next day or so. I will be getting back to reviewing FACs now that a major freelance project is completed. --Laser brain (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Laser, did you want Awadewit to have a look? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I will drop her a note when I'm done writing. --Laser brain (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Nguyen Van Nhung

Hi Sandy. Can you withdraw this one please? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'll get it in tonight's batch; hope to see you back soon with a new name! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No capping at all?

I almost asked you before capping the Michael Gomez FAC but figured it would be OK because it would go in the July archive, not June where there was a problem. Does this mean that capping can no longer be used at all? Giants2008 (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid July archive could get longer than June's, since June was a very slow month; try to cap only when commentary is very long or resolved comments may deter subsequent reviews. Since Gomez is done, no need there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nuclear weapon design

I think the nomination was a mistake, and I would like to withdraw it. The article is better off with its present class rating. For instance, the large, internally-captioned drawings are intended to be read as an integral part of the text. To shrink them down as thumbnails would nullify a major feature of the article, which presents potentially intimidating technical information to a general reader. I will continue adding footnotes for a while, even though the new footnotes will mostly cite the references that are already listed. HowardMorland (talk) 03:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I will put a maintenance delete on the page; you might follow the tips at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 for a successful peer review once you've gotten farther along. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael Gomez

A little something to sustain you in your work

Just a quick note to thank you for your tremendous patience while we worked to bring this article to featured status, Sandy. I think I can safely speak for Vintagekits as well on this point. Never did I anticipate having to respond to a FAC by email exchanges with the primary editor; it certainly slowed things down quite a bit. Your tolerance, and the thoughtful and helpful comments from fellow FAC reviewers, is most appreciated. Risker (talk) 04:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

yummy !!!  !!!!

Uncivil comments

Another one bites the dust. Where's my broom???? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Do I detect a deflection from the Marlins? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Deflection? Who? Me?????? No, you must be mistaking me for someone else. Seriously. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Overlinking in articles

I'm removing linked dates in an article that I am currently working on to combat overlinking. However, what is the general feeling towards linking cities? The article I'm working on currently has every city mentioned linked, which is about two dozen or so in the entire article. I'm thinking of removing the links because they don't add very much to the article, but what would you think I should do? Gary King (talk) 06:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the city and the context. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is Unabomber. So do you recommend that the more context-sensitive cities be linked? Gary King (talk) 06:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Not gonna read that article: too close to personal loss. Generally speaking, everyone knows what New York City, Rome and Milan are; Paris can sometimes be confused with Paris, Texas; there are many different Los Angeles throughout the hispanic world, so depending on the article, sometimes they need links. Again, it depends on context and whether the reader is helped by having a link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

All of the cities mentioned are in the United States, so the large cities I suppose will not have to be linked. "Schenectady, New York" will probably have to be linked, though. Also, I didn't mean to upset you with the link; however, I should warn you that I plan on bringing it to FAC... erm, I'm not sick or twisted or anything, but it is always interesting to see how people turned out the way they did... Gary King (talk) 06:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

So, I'll read it when I have to, but not in my spare time :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It writes itself!!!

April 1, 2009. Maggot cheese is indeed a worthy topic. However, tears!!! of mirth from this one:

Rings of Uranus

Uranus has complex rings that have only been there for 600 million years. A British astronomer looking at Uranus reported noticing the rings of Uranus 200 years ago, but more likely they were observed in 1977 when satellite probes were sent to Uranus. The rings of Uranus were too dark to have been noticed that long ago. There are thirteen distinct rings of Uranus, which are composed of large particles of extremely dark, heavily processed material and ice, with dust bands in between some of the main rings. A few of the rings are eccentric. Some scientists examining Uranus thought that near Uranus were moons that affected the shape of the rings.

What, too base? --Moni3 (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh My Gosh. Too easy? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I need someone who's into physics to see if we can include "wiping" and "Klingons" in there. --Moni3 (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

History of timekeeping devices.

Jagged85 expanded the article yesterday; I'll go through and check the new citations. · AndonicO ^Engage. 15:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

ah, I see. Please ask Tony1 to revisit his oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thriller

Hi Sandy, would you mind removing the Thriller album from the FA review list. I still have some work to do on it. Cheers. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 20:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Please remember to leave the {{fac}} template on the talk page until GimmeBot goes through, per WP:FAC/ar. Also, if the need arises again, please just leave a note on the FAC and I'll get it on my next pass. Hope to see you back soon!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers :-) I'm starting a new wiki at the moment, I'm a bit busy to deal with Thriller at the moment. Cheers. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 20:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, forget about the message I just sent you, I would like to keep it open. I have just spent 2 hours doing some research to resolve a concern aired. There is little I can do about it so its best to see if it can still pass as it is. Sorry again. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 23:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Realist2, this is not good. I moved it to archives hours ago. In the future, I'll have to ask that these kinds of requests be entered on the FAC, and I'll process them as I process the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok, never mind. Never knew that. I thought it was still open. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 23:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Serious question about baseball

Setting aside the THREE GAME SWEEP OF THE BOSOX, why are there no baseball team articles FA class? I thought, for fun, I'd work on the Florida Marlins article (you know, 2 in 10, not 6 in 88, which, of course, is mathematically worse). I keep digressing. Sorry. Anyways, I wanted to use an FA article as a template on how to do it. None. Nada. I figured you would know the reason why. Are there any sports' team articles that are FA?OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's about football (soccer) rather than baseball, but Sheffield Wednesday F.C. is an FA. Or Chicago Bears if you want an American example. – ırıdescent 20:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Slim pickins, look at Wikipedia:FA#Sport and recreation, mostly football (soccer) and cricket. Surprisingly few baseball collaborators on the Wiki, consider Nishkid64. New England Patriots was recently defeatured. Speaking of the Patriots, has Florida almost had a Triple Crown (ever)?  :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's remember I am a Californian by birth, upbringing, residency, tax payments, and language. I happened to work in Miami for a few years, so I'll have to say I'm not sure. Did the Miami Heat win something recently? And of course there are the Miami Dolphins who won some important game in the 70's. And the Florida Panthers went to the Stanley Cup Finals in 1995. So, they almost have a Quadruple Crown, if one considers 30 years of history or so.  :) OK, Boston has that one, hands down, save for the Boston Bruins who were last good when Bobby Orr was on the ice. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Stepping away from the Bosox vs. Marlins discussion, so how do I get the article to FA without a guide? Is there a BASEBALLMOS (sort of like WP:MEDMOS)? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Four out of five, check. Rephrase: has Oakland, San Francisco, Los Angeles or San Diego almost had a Triple Crown, ever? I'll tell you the correct answer for my next comeback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this question over a certain number of years or one season? Because if it's one season, let's not forget that the Patriots kind of lost the Super Bowl.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I said almost. Correct answer to the question for a true Californian is:

"Who cares? We have more to do out here than obsess over sports teams."  :-))SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Too many years on "the Hill" have made me obsess about sports. SU sports are critical to me. Well, not SU football lately. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No excuse; you're off the Hill, you don't have to be tied to mlb.com anymore. Go climb a mountain (and I don't mean University Ave :-). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Climb a mountain? I'm a city boy. When I see more trees than cars, I get freaked out. And if I can't get an internet connection and my cell phone doesn't work, then you may as well shoot me then and there. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You left off a good cup of coffee. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Of course, Starbucks has decided to go with this Pike's Peak swill lately. Blech. I'm moving over to Peet's. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If there is a baseball MoS, I'm not aware, and it's not likely a strong one. The issue on sports team FAs is comprehensiveness; think in terms of covering marketing, history, ownership ... things that extend well beyond stats. You'll need to do research outside of the sports sites. Consult the cricket project (they have more experience) and Nishkid64 (talk · contribs) on baseball, and Giants2008 (talk · contribs) may be helpful. Oh, and learn about endashes on sports scores, and look at two recent FACs that had a hard time getting through because of lingo: 1926 World Series and Art Houtteman. You have to seriously recruit someone who doesn't speak baseball (not me) to de-jargonize. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to keep jumping in on your talk page - but I'd suggest User:TonyTheTiger would be quite a good one to talk to; he's taken quite a number of baseball related articles to FA/GA. – ırıdescent 21:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Read the FACs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. That has reminded me just why I've never submitted anything to FAC, even the ones I think could pass. OK, maybe don't ask Tony... – ırıdescent 21:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If you get a good peer review (per my tips below), you should do fine at FAC. When people use FAC for a peer review, it makes for a rough time at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Nishkid64 is the baseball guy. Dweller (talk · contribs) and The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) would be good to consult at an advanced stage, as they aren't baseball folk and will be able to help spot holes. Also, you know GrahamColm (talk · contribs) from medicine articles; he doesn't speak baseball, and is a very thorough person for a final run-through from someone who can spot jargon/lingo issues. Then you should always consult someone strong in MoS before coming to FAC (Epbr123 (talk · contribs) or Maralia (talk · contribs) or Karanacs (talk · contribs). I suggest, per WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008, initiating a peer review when you're almost there, and inviting these people to participate (along with Elcobbola (talk · contribs) for images and Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) to check sources). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn

Here Gary King (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Got them all, methinks Gary King (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll look on my next pass through; my talk page light doesn't need to go off on these :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lufthansa

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lufthansa was created but not transcluded. The creator is also not a major contributor. If I come across these, do you want me to bring them to your attention, or just leave them? I usually drop a note to the nominators telling them to transclude to WP:FAC if they want to nominate it. Gary King (talk) 03:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, I'll look; no point in transcluding if significant contributors weren't consulted. Let me have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Each situation is different, no standard response: new editor, significant contributors not consulted, article ill prepared. Note left. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Babylon 5 should be closed as the nominator has not edited the article before, and one of the article's primary contributors also oppose it. Gary King (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. It has not been transcluded to WP:FAC so a close will be rather easy. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Gustafson (talk • contribs)

Talk to Awadewit; my hands are tied.[2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I am going to give a big, deep sigh at all of this right now. Gary King (talk) 07:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Gary, such maturity :-)) In the meantime, I see my time becoming much freer ... no more dealing with malformed and premature noms :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I transcluded it to FAC, since I no longer have any choice; it will have to run its course and be archived. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

FAC urgents

Regarding this edit summary [3] at User:Deckiller/FAC urgents. I can volunteer for a task there. I can add new ones. However, in removing closed ones, I can do it but I wouldn't be as efficient as you in removing them (though the blue sac that Gimmebot envelopes them with helps if one is late in being removed). maclean 19:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel like judge and jury when I'm the one who adds, but removing them as I pr/ar makes sense. Perhaps I've been updating too fast in the past, so others don't have a chance. Like to keep that list as short as possible, maximum a third of the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(wow, you type fast) I agree the list should be kept short. I can't think of any formula I'd use to add new ones but I'd take it on a case-by-case basis. I'll do it for a couple of weeks and solicit your comment on how it's going. maclean 19:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to virus

Dear Sandy,
Would a very busy woman have the time to take another look? I have tried to implement your valued suggestions.
Best wishes,
Graham,
GrahamColm^Talk 21:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Graham, I'll try to look tonight depending on how I feel; I'm going to miss the US Fourth of July fireworks because of a miserable stuffy summer headcold. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that; it's a bloody virus no doubt :) Graham. GrahamColm^Talk 21:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

At least it's not one of your specialties :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Raul654's page

I did? I don't recall doing that... I have absolutely no idea why I would have done that. Most likely it was a combination of my incompetence and some automated tool that allows you to revert back to an old revision with one click - I was looking at an old revision of his page earlier, if I remember correctly. Sorry about that. Nousernamesleft (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought; please doubleccheck my revert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

According to this, it's fine. Nousernamesleft (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

References

Clarification please on two points

1. I noted that you removed unused items (mostly "quote =" and "month =" ) from the Nuthatch refs. Should I remove all unused fields, including "doi =", in future?
2. Just to make sure I understand the new non-autoformatted dates, presumably I just put "accessdate= 5 July 2008" instead?

Thanks, jimfbleak (talk) 05:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

On 1), empty parameters unnecessarily chunk up the article size and make editing harder; there is no guideline requiring that they be removed, but it certainly makes editing easier, so I always remove them. Some bots do as well. On 2), I haven't figured out how that change is going to shake out yet, particularly because the citation templates handle dates inconsistently; just be sure that your dates are consistently formatted both in terms of user preference display and raw format (that is, if you use 5 July 2008 make sure you use the same format and linking within the article). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, jimfbleak (talk) 05:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

I just had not had a chance to reply to you yet. I will take a look at the article and see what I can do with it. I will also post it on the WikiProject Food and Drink Cheeses task force page. As for butter, I have been wanting to take a look at it for a while, but I'm not sure what I have in my library on butter, I will have to take a look at the article and my books.--Chef Tanner (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

MilCon

Well, what to say. I think the perceived fall in quality of A-Class articles that you speak of, is more related to shifting goalposts at FAC. FAC now looks for perfection in prose, something that ACR was not originally designed for; it is more about checking the facts, highlighting some common MOS problems etc. I think that is at the core of any problem, do we want ACR to become purely a pre-FAC process, or a CE? I think if you look at A-Class articles from a year ago and compare them to output now, I don't think there is any change in quality.

To me, I don't see the link between MilCon and any perceived fall in quality output from Milhist's ACR process. Whilst I can see how the "Awards center" was not beneficial to the Wikipedia, and I understand your vociferous opinions on that subject, I don't see how MilCon has any tangible effect on article quality, particularly A-Class ones. It is more based around quantity, acting as some tangible measure of article output; harmless fun, a small incentive to go through the maelstrom of FAC/FLC/ACR. I don't see it having any link to the quality of articles. In a couple of cases, it has highlighted editors trying to game the system; editors shouldn't review their own articles and those that do, generally mark up, which can be found and discussed. It is a set of targets to reach, a motivational factor. Whether that will ever assuage your concern, I don't know. Perhaps open up a discussion on MHCOORD with any specific grievances? Best regards. Woody (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge

Greetings: This article has already been a featured article - do you wish to feature it again? ("return to FA status") Also contact User:Samuel Wantman

- Leonard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonard G. (talk • contribs) 21:20, July 5, 2008

I'm sorry, I don't understand your query. Please see the message on your page and review [WP:FAR|Featured article review]], which is for determining if an article currently meets featured standards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

King Arthur

Sandy! Read the talk page! ALL of the FA-Team was just waiting for Hrothgar. He IS the main editor. Wrad (talk) 02:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

lol, yeah -- I wrote most of the article and got the impression everyone is itching to get the FA nom started... Can I renominate?! thanks, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 02:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I did read the talk page. Before I removed the nomination. Discussion there, pls. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This is sooo anti-climatic. Wrad (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

When an entire team has worked to bring an article to status, the other members should be consulted and respected, and not the least because they can be very helpful in assuring a smooth FAC and helping with any issues that come up during the FAC; launching the FAC when they're away or unaware isn't the best way to proceed. I hope that waiting 12 or 24 hours to hear from the other members will not cause the Wiki to break :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Leaving it up won't break anything either. Just respect the work this guy's done, please. Wrad (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrad, I am now repeating for at least the fourth time; the discussion is at the article talk page. Please do not continue to break up the discussion in multiple places; I can't get to the talk page to respond when my message light here is going off to say the same thing, now can I? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, server lag ia preventing bot from working. Gimmetrow 02:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Primary contributor issue

Sandy, I rarely raise larger issues on any page, mainly because I don't want to get involved in long discussions that go nowhere. I only do when I see a serious problem in an area where I work. Until today, I had thought that the "primary contributor" clause was going to be interpreted loosely, not strictly. Since that is not the case, however, I would like to have a larger discussion about it, as I see some potential problems with it. I think it would be good if you contributed to this discussion. It is not just about one incident. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 04:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It is interpreted loosely, and I account for all factors and I do a lot of looking before I decide to remove a nom. Do I need to point out that September 11 is still up, even though the number one contributor opposes? Frankly, I'm stunned that you haven't yet apologized for accusing me of "abuse of authority" and surprised that your usual professionalism was lacking in this discussion. I'm sorry I trusted your post, and used that as the final factor in my decision; I'll try not to make the same mistake again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

As for my post - clearly you misunderstood it the first time you read it. That happens and is understandable. However, that post has now been explained to you several times by myself and others. You are a reasonable, intelligent person. Why you are continuing to insist that I meant something I did not is baffling. As for my criticism of your actions - I meant what I said. I did not type those words lightly. You can either seriously consider them or you can disregard them, but as someone who reviews FACs nearly everyday and nominates FACs nearly every month and sees much of the good work that you do, I can say with confidence that this particular action seemed very out of character for you. Awadewit (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't misunderstand. Apparently you hold the contributions of Jbmurray, Qp10qp and others to King Arthur in low regard; they were much more than the mere automated copyeditors that you describe. And I don't share the low regard for FAC you expressed at WT:FAC, or the high value you place on automated tools in decision making. I do respect and admire people who apologize when they make mistakes, and am more concerned with who stops a problem than who started it; I have noted that although I've apologized to you, you are unwilling to reciprocate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• I don't hold copyediting in low regard at all. I do feel that the best person to handle an FAC nomination is the person who has done the research - they are best equipped to answer questions about comprehensiveness and sources, for example. Those two opinions are not mutually exclusive. Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• And I don't share the low regard for FAC you expressed at WT:FAC, or the high value you place on automated tools in decision making. - Where did I say I had a low regard for FAC? Where did I say I had a high value for automated tools? Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Do you want a sincere or an insincere apology? You can browbeat me into apologizing, making the whole thing entirely pointless, or we can have a civil discussion, with your aim to make me think: "Wow, Sandy was being totally reasonable all along and I was out of line. I should really apologize to her." Convince me I'm wrong and I'll admit it, no problem. Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Any reason why institutional authors not used?

I meant to bring this up when I did it on the San Francisco FAR cleanup but it felt like a waste of time to worry about it at the time. Is there any reason why institutional authors aren't used where there would be no author, such as when citing US Census data? I'm used to it from APA style, and it looks better to me to have all author fields populated, but I assume there is some reason why this isn't the case in the current MOS. -Optigan13 (talk) 11:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Like clockwork...

... those new accounts are. This one's a sleeper, at least. MastCell ^Talk 23:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

And there will be others. What's the procedure in such cases? Does a new checkuser have to be done every time? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

In the Good Old Days, when rouge admins walked the Earth, each obvious, disruptive agenda-driven meatpuppet account would be blocked rapidly with a minimum of fuss. Today, due to a combination of factors which I can't list without sounding overly cynical, it's not that easy. Anyhow, the pattern is established and a few admins have shown a willingness to work on this, so it could be worse. There are a few other angles that I'm looking into. Still, I'd anticipate that volunteer time will be spent dealing with coordinated advocacy BS rather than improving the article for the immediate future. MastCell ^Talk 06:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

FAC withdrawal

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ubuntu Gary King (talk) 03:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Darn it, Gary, how do you always get to these before me? The Tea and Sympathy one as well... Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm like a ninja. I also think that I sometimes unintentionally suggest that an FAC be withdrawn so more work can be done before renominating them. Gary King (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Gary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Huffington Post, Gawker and About.com

Hello Sandy. Your statement there, while it agrees with three other editors, it disagrees with two others. In my mind, you are probably the most qualified to comment on what is a RS thus far in that discussion. When I asked the question, I held the same opinion as DGG, and, subsequently, ImperfectlyInformed. Are you sure about what you said there? For instance, our article on About.com asserts the writers have at least some degree of knowledge of what they're writing about. (And the website itself calls them experts, as well as asserting their content is reliable). Would you mind revisiting what you said, and adjusting if you change your mind? I generally trust your opinions on these matters. Thanks. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Replied there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Autism

I got rid of the "etc." but asked for wording help on Talk:Autism#ADHD, Tourette's, etc. The comorbid diagnoses point is important, but also is hard to word well as this is an area where there's a mismatch between official terminology and reality. Eubulides (talk) 08:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Disruption on featured article candidates: The Stolen Earth

Hi, Sandy.

Could you have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Stolen Earth? It's been used by a disruptive user to push his interpretation of NFCC (and an admin to push ad hominem to support that user). See also: WP:ANI#Fasach Nua and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fasach Nua. Thanks, Sceptre ^(talk) 14:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand there are a lot of issues about interpretation of image policy these days; the disruption won't affect how I read the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

FAR's

How long do FAR's normally last at their shortest? D.M.N. (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Normal and shortest are mutually exclusive terms. How tall is a human being at their shortest? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Two weeks in the review phase. Two weeks in the FARC phase. Joelito (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Epa !! I love it when Joelito mysteriously appears out of nowhere :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm always around. I just keep a low profile these days. ;-) Joelito (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Smart man :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Damn, that's a bit of a problem. I'm off on holiday for two weeks starting on the 19th July which means I will not be able to participate in this FAR which I am the main contributer of. D.M.N. (talk) 11:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look in there as soon as I have a chance; FARs are often extended, so just leave a note about your travel plans, and if it's not wrapped up by then, it probably won't be a problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. I think it would be a bit unfair if it was delisted while I was on my travels as I would have no internet connection to do anything about it. D.M.N. (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't happen at FAR; if it hasn't closed before you have to travel, be sure to leave a clear note at the bottom of the FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at the FAR; the main issue at this point is Tony's prose concerns. If you can assure that is addressed before you travel, the FAR could be closed without moving to FARC. What is the status on that front? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't think there's much problem with the prose, but I've asked someone to look at it. I haven't told Tony that I've fixed the points he put down, because I cannot leave comments on his talkpage. D.M.N. (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

With Tony (in general terms), it's not about whether you've fixed those points, since he typically gives examples; he'll be interested to know if someone has gone through the entire article. If so, I'll ping him for you for a new look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You can ask Tony to have a look now. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

See my query below to Gary King on the new, new, new guideline on date links, and there are still problems with your wikilinking (Tony notices that); you have some WP:OVERLINKing of common terms, some dab links going to the wrong place, and make sure all your terms are defined. More later, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I never knew. What's the standard with that to "announce it" so the whole community know - because I think at least every so often a little newsletter should be created outlining the main changes to the MOS and then it's sent round to WikiProjects that sign up to the newsletter. D.M.N. (talk) 07:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Tony's monthly updates are regularly published in the Signpost; any one who subscribes to the Signpost will get them. The date linking change was just enacted. June, April and May, and January thru March. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a link to where "Date linking was discussed? Someone was asking here for a link saying they have looked around but cannot find one. D.M.N. (talk) 07:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know; I stopped following MoS and date linking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah OK. Anyway, I'm starting removing the wikilinks for the dates, but should I remove "piped link", for instance a wikilink that looks like [[WWE Judgment Day#2003|2003]]. In that case, it sort of helps with the context and i don't think I should remove it. D.M.N. (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Contact previous FAC commenters?

Hi Sandy, I have a question. When one has nominated an article for FAC for a second time, is it considered appropriate to contact all of the commenters from the previous FAC (supporters, opposers, and neithers), telling them the article is up again? Or is that considered a form of canvassing? I looked in the FAC talk archives but couldn't find any clear answer. Thx. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think if you approach them all equally (support, oppose, comment) and neutrally, it isn't canvassing. If you approach only the supporters, that would not be good. You might want to wait to see if other opinions are given by my talk page stalkers :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks, seeing your stalkers are quiet on this, I have done so, equally and neutrally (this is the message I left, same to all recipients). Wasted Time R (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, quite quiet 'round these parts, isn't it? The message looks good; if you were part of a big group Project, you'd have a dozen supports and wouldn't need to drum up reviewers, but then I'd have to go looking for non-group evaluation of your work :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

FAC

I went to this FAC expecting to see you there trying to put your Red Sox Nation POV there. Found out it was Boston, but wrong sport, and a sport I don't even like. Meh. Bill Russell (baseball) might have been much more fun.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I hate basketball. Why should I wrench my neck back and forth for hours, when it's all decided in the final two minutes? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Making linked dates in citation templates optional

I'm not sure how involved you typically are with these types of discussions, but I figure I'd bring it to your attention. There has been a discussion (at Template_talk:Cite_web#adminisrator_asked_to_implement_Gary.27s_sandbox_change) about adding a new option to citation templates, starting with {{cite web}}, to delink the date and access date fields so that they don't appear as blue links. Gary King (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That's Tony's gig. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, just letting you know because hopefully FACs will be the first to implement this. Gary King (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

When there's a clear conclusion and consensus, would you mind letting me know? That is, until the next clear conclusion and consensus changes dates back to linked :-)) Maybe I'll still be closing FACs while this changes a dozen or so times, maybe not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Argh, all this date linking business; Gary, what are we supposed to do, for example, at December to Dismember (2006)? I delinked the dates in the text, but the cite templates automatically link the dates. Does that pass The Tony Test, or is there something else we need to do? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what the current discussion is trying to solve. For now, though, to make date= and accessdate= not bluelink, change "date=2008-01-01" to "date=January 1, 2008" and "accessdate=2008-01-01" to "accessmonthday=January 1 | accessyear=2008". Gary King (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous amount of busy work for little gain; is that what your program is going to do? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Some people are going around changing existing "date=January 1, 2000" to "date=2000-01-01" so they link. Guess it's like changing references/ to reflist to reflist|2 to reflist|3, and changing "handwritten" cites to cite templates. Gimmetrow 22:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, and that's until the next flip-flop. I'm not keen on making this a condition of closing a FAC or FAR until it settles down to some proven stability, or at least until there's a bot or script that can do all the fixes, because doing them manually is a ton of work. I don't want to see FAC get caught in one of those wars over automated bot changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the current discussion is to simplify the unlinking of dates in citation templates. Gary King (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Uriel Sebree

Thanks for giving a little extra time for copyediting on my FAC. I'm surprised because I had hoped that I would have learned enough lessons from my previous FACs that this one would make it through easier. (I was much prouder of it than any of the other ones that I've significantly contributed to.) Oh well. Maybe the next one will go easier. (I look back now at my earlier FACs and I can't understand why they made it when work that I'm much more proud of didn't. I guess criteria are also getting narrower.) Thanks though for letting me take some extra time on this. JRP (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Normally, a FAC that has been up that long with no Support would close, but there's been a real summer slowdown, so I've been making extra allowances on those that show progress. I'm afraid people are going to be caught unawares if the pace picks up after summer vacation breaks end and there's more FAC traffic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to virus FAC

Sandy, I'm done as much as I can for now. I'm waiting for Markus to (hopefully) approve of my responses to his questions. I have a very full day at the lab tomorrow, so I will catch-up with the FAC in about 20 hours. Best, Graham. GrahamColm^Talk 22:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Graham; I haven't checked recently, but last time I looked, it seemed to be doing fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Co nom?

Hi Sandy, it's Hap. I've decided to go through with my RfA, which Balloonman started at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Happyme22. You indicated to me back in May that you would be willing to co-nominate me when the time came, and so it has. Are you still up for that? And if so, I would greatly appreciate it; I will accept the nom when all the co-noms are in. Best as always, Happyme22 (talk) 23:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be happy to co-nom. The problem is that Baolloonman stole my thunder and already mentioned just about everything, so I need to gather my thoughts and think about what I can write in the co-nom. Is tomorrow OK? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hehehe... I knew what you were going to say ;-)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 01:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What? I love u? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well apparently I've screwed something up and already transcluded - I thought that co-nominations could still be added once transcluded, so I went ahead and did it. The RfA nominations guidelines gave no indication as to why that may be a bad idea. Can you still add your co-nom? Happyme22 (talk) 02:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think so. Ack. OK, I'll add something tonight, with advance apologies if it's not as well put together as I'd like. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well don't blame yourself ;) Happyme22 (talk) 02:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And thanks for everything. Happyme22 (talk) 02:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure :-) Hang on for the ride, Happyme22, because it could get rough if the POV pushers come at 'ya ... I hope Balloonman's nom will forestall that to the extent possible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As do I. But I know that if worst comes to worst, I have wonderful friends who will hopefully help me through it. My best as always, Happyme22 (talk) 04:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As do I. It could get rough... but we'll see what happens. I would be surprised if somebody doesn't have a Molotov cocktail ready to throw your way... but we'll deal with that when (if) it comes up. One of my criticisms of the RfA process is that it tends to silence opposers if the RfA appears to be heading towards a pass. While I don't mind that fact when it is somebody whom I believe in/support, it is a flaw in the system... hopefully, you will reap the benefit of this flaw. And while it could get rough, you could also fly on to WP:100! Personally, that is my expectation for you.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep; I've seen a few doozies go through lately, where I knew my oppose wasn't going to make a difference, and would only earn me enemies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I traditionally won't weigh in on candidates I don't know if they have more than 25 supports and 80% because of it. If the nom looks questionable or is in the early stages, that is where I get involved.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You might find this to be mildly interesting.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Funny timing (I was just adding it); what are "views"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure... I think it might be the number of times you edited the page? Or perhaps there is a stronger database out there than I realized and it actually keeps track of the number of times you visited the page? Actually, the later wouldn't surprise me.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I figured it out... pretty meaningless number IMHO---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

BSA FAC

Would you please review the Origins stuff and give me a sanity check. I am just so confused here. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 02:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I just realized that as the FAC coordinator, you probably should be neutral here. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 10:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The traditional rfa thank you message

		Thank you for the support!
		SandyGeorgia, it is my honor to report that thanks in part to your support my third request for adminship passed (80/18/2). I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me, and I will endeovour to put my newly acquired mop and bucket to work for the community as a whole. Yours sincerly and respectfuly, TomStar81 (Talk) 02:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Mooh

I think thrombosis in cattle is indeed a major problem! JFW | T@lk 05:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's my day for cows, after comments about a cow (Can of Worms) edit summary elsewhere :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of baseball

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Bartman (2nd nomination) showed up through Wikiproject Baseball. Anyways, I was thinking how to make the article a GA, and someone is deleting it. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's headed for a Keep; talk about 15 minutes of fame. I'm dismal at XfD; just don't get it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that until the Cubs win a world series, Steve Bartman will be famous. Kind of like your Sox. Finally, we're done with those stories that Babe Ruth was sold to the New York Yankees (boo, hiss) for money to invest in a Broadway flop. I wonder if the guy will show up in Chicago if the Cubs make it again? (And let us not forget that my Marlins won that game--in case I forgot to mention it.) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Any conversation about baseball in a town that tolerates this guy gives me the eebie-jeebies. I don't care if it's the other team; the bad associations are the same. Orange, You Must Take Lessons In Fun Talk Page Dialogue, and you must learn which topics should never grace my talk page! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson

Only a few more sections to go and his page will be completed cited and verified. I started a basis for his "psychology". If you want to add in more "modern" diagnosis, then that would be appreciated. The lead will have to be worked on, the prose fixed some, and some better organization, but it appears to be on track. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it too ambitious for me to think that I could bring this to FA quality in a month or so? Or was the page so damaged that it could never happen. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering other factors, you will need collaborators to help navigate FAC. I haven't looked at the article lately, but I can suggest other editors who might be able to help work on the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I know a few people (over 20 or so users that could help), but I don't really care about the "FA" tag. A good article is a good article regardless of community recognition. I strive to make the articles useful for struggling college students that need a direction to start when writing critical papers. The article was a total mess before, and I think I fixed most of that. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Great approach :-) But on that article, you may get input from Ceoil (talk · contribs), DrKiernan (talk · contribs), Qp10qp (talk · contribs), Isolation booth (talk · contribs), RelHistBuff (talk · contribs), Johnbod (talk · contribs), perhaps some MoS and ce help from Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs), perhaps input from Slp1 (talk · contribs) or Karanacs (talk · contribs) ... gosh there are so many ... I'll think of others, and I'll peek when I have a chance. Unfortunately, if I know you're FAC-bound, that means I'll contribute less, so I don't create a conflict. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Can't we get Raul to run the FAR for this one? :D You've contributed so much to the discussion of the article before I got there, that you deserve a lot of credit for people even caring about the article. I wouldn't have even bothered with the page if I wouldn't have seen your messages on the talk page which prompted people calling for someone to actually add citations. There needs to be a barnstar for those who actually care about important pages like you have definitely shown so far. :) Btw, I'll get to contacting the above users soon. I just have three more sections to tackle, and then splicing in some other perspectives so it is not so heavy on the two (absolutely amazing) biographers used so far. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not a FAR, it's a FAC :-) There's a good chance he'll be handling it anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Is FAR the one for those that were FA and then people realized that the standards were really low and that a lot of articles slipped in without anyone noticing? I know quite a few that should be taken there. :D Regardless, FA something. I hate acronyms. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

<all of my funny responses deleted> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, I'm not very familiar with Samuel Johnson but I'll be happy to do a pre-FAC peer review; just ping me when you are ready. Karanacs (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Just looked, still needs work, gave you one beefy link on his Tourette syndrome. Relies a lot on quotes, needs a MoS tune-up, and if you don't find a better section heading than "Psychology", I might climb out of my skin :-) Tourette syndrome is not psychological, it's neurological. I really dislike the referencing setup; best to leave full website sources directly in the Notes, and not repeat them in References (no need to split out websites in References, just leave the full citation in Notes). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The websites are split out for temporaryness (some of them will be replaced by physical sources and others dropped completely as unnecessary, that section is more of the "pit of no return" :D ). I changed the section title to neurology. I expanded on your neurology refs so it now reads as "general thought" to "anecdotal accounts" to "clinical diagnoses". Ottava Rima (talk)

By the way, Donald Greene (one of his biographers) described the thoughts on his mental state as "psychology". Mwah ha ha ha. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

OR, it still needs a lot of work (notice by edit summaries, I did my changes one by one so I could describe each in detail). I suggest the following steps:

1. Follow all the tips at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 to invite editors (including my list above) to a peer review.
2. Then apply for GA
3. Then do another peer review
4. Finally, approach FAC.

These steps will help assure many eyes on the article before you come to FAC. It still needs work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought they change the rule to users no longer able to apply for GA. Otherwise, I would have put hundreds of articles up. :) (no, not really, but still!). Remember, I still have until August until it can be reviewed. Thats... 21ish days away. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

How come Life of Johnson isn't cited, and often? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Boswell's? Well, it can have more citations, but most biographers take his writing, his notes (he left a lot out), Burney's writing, Thrale/Piozzi's writings, legal documents, and the various letters to form a primary source. One of the problems that Boswell had was removing certain details (such as changing harsh language or just "forgetting" certain moments). Its a good work regardless, and I can add more if needed. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It was just a dumb question from a non-literary type; I thought it was some sort of standard in biographies, so expected to see more of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Its not a dumb question (and I put that first paragraph in the biography to try and address why). Its a good biography, but it was also written by a friend, and, well, you know how friends are. People will definitely expect more Boswell in there, so I will put together some choice quotations, throw them on the talk page, and then people can argue about which ones are good enough to go in. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, when did they remove the date linking in order to adjust to user preference? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Recently (massive PITA). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Pita? Since when did flat bread become the bane of my editing? :( Ottava Rima (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Not you, my friend Tony1 (talk · contribs) who hates date links. Removing them is going to be a massive pain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Utter silliness. Links, no links. Dates, no dates. If it goes to print, then, wellll, none of it matters. I'd love to see the precious wikilinks then! :D Ottava Rima (talk) 00:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If it changes back again, I'm going to be pretty fried about all the work I just did. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, to try and ease your pain, I went ahead and softened the language here and hopefully removed any nasty pov. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice ! You train easily :-) You can pick up more ideas about language in medical articles at WP:MEDMOS; maybe have a look to see if there's anything else? I haven't actually read the article yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) PITA is about right. Being English, I really don't like the US way of formatting dates. So I'm prepared to put up with the little bit of blue that Tony hates for the sake of a more sympathetic reading experience. My interpretation of the recent rule change though is that either all dates in an article are autoformatted, or they're all not autoformatted. For myself, I'll stick to autoformatting, waiting for a better solution from the developers that doesn't confuse autoformatting with wikilinking. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I 'spose I had to do it once to learn my lesson. Unless this MoS change sticks, and someone writes a script to delink, I'm not sure the work is useful. (Hey, Malleus, you can't weigh in on Johnson unless you decide to help out :-))) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I know, I know. I'll be along as soon as I can. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick way to find dates - search for [[17. I did just that and found some. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It was such an impressive name that I didn't have the faintest clue where to chop. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 04:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I added six scenes from Boswell that flesh out some of the account in the main prose. There are a few more that I can add. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Those dashes are evil. I think my computer reverts some of the longer ones (I don't know, I can't actually "see" them on my computer, because it only recognizes one dash) while I apply a larger copy edit. Perhaps it happens while copying and pasting from the "edit conflict" box. I don't know. Maybe I'm cursed. Are there any priests on Wikipedia that specialize in such demonic forces? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Priest of the Dash is User:Brighterorange; he will run a script that fixes them, but I've been picking them up anyway. One thing you can do (since you can't see the difference) is to enter the hard-coded html endash rather than the keyboard character. Em and en dashes can be referenced in HTML as — and –. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL, it seems exciting. If I was an atheist, I would question the effectiveness of ritually performing a series of functions of whose result I cannot determine. But I'm not. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Rant - SandyGeorgia, how dare you perform amazing edits on a page that gets a significant amount of views but was left in tatters for many years! Who do you think you are?! Ottava Rima (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You might ask Malleus if it's ready for GA submission now. Not bad for a few days' work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, OR, now would be the time to invite other literary people to the peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Which one is better? Blue boxes or blue boxes with quotes? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs or Malleus will know better, but those big obnoxious quote marks are, well, obnoxious. I'd consider reverting that move. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a matter of taste I suppose. I know from experience though that the big quotes inside a box is OK for an FAC, but without the box is a NoNo. Personally I like the graphic—it makes for a nice separation from the slabs of text—but I think we do need to look at getting the padding down. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Is that enough images? I believe there is one from every important moment of his life, and most of the well known/important Boswell quotes. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

break

As an academic, I live and die by the Chicago method. I can't ever change, and the aesthetics of the trendy versions on wikipedia are distressing for many reasons. Although the guidelines state that it should be based on the first method, people seem to wish for all sorts of craziness for whatever reason (Harvard style? No one uses that!). Chicago was first. Chicago will be last. I'm withdrawing myself as the first "referencer" and as a major editor so people can go in and choose whatever preference they want. After all, that is the policy that trumped all the others (but no one remembers that anymore). I added material and clarified on my additions. I've done all that I can do. Use this diff in the future if anyone questions any future changes from my version to the next. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh no you don't; you can't withdraw !! I'd help if I could, but I don't speak that method. I was just wondering why some of the citations link to refs and others don't. Can you make them all link? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "withdrawing" per se, I'm just giving up all claims to being the originator of the reference style. I can finish the piping, but Malleus and DGG have stated their preference towards shifting the ref notes into Harvard, which operates on a different template system. The aesthetics make me shiver. I don't understand why anyone would have a year before a title, or follow a short note with a year (normally, its a title if there are multiple titles, otherwise dropped). A consensus is forming, and its a one or another thing, so there can't be any "common ground". They stated the need of the transfered system for it to become FA, and I can't stand in the way for your first major article to become FA. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not my first major article; I've only worked on one paragraph :-) It's yours and MFs. Whatever y'all decide is fine with me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I hit every major one I could go through. I'm sure I missed a few, mostly using the find function. I think I added in some junk to the ref name = function, but it shows up because I added it in equally. My eyes are starting to blur and I can't distinguish text because of how much I just had to scroll through. I'll hit the rest tomorrow unless someone beats me to it. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

On the date-link thing...

Excuse my getting slightly off-topic, but I think it's usually wiser to stay in a thread in order to comment on something said there. Anyway, it's your comment on script-aided de-linking that prompts this rant. I simply want to make sure that people realise that de-linking in the case of dates is not simply removing the links, but also straightening out any inconsistencies in the formatting, such as missing (or redundant) commas and missing spaces (not to speak of entirely different formats). Although these are lost in the auto-formatting process, a plain de-linking would expose them and litter any article with tens of style errors. Could a script take care of these issues? I honestly have no idea and would be quite interested to know. Waltham, The Duke of 14:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there was a problem in the UA 93 article, where dates were partially delinked. I believe I assured consistency across all dates at Samuel Johnson. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of this comment was, as is my penchant, to lecture on general terms. However, I have just taken the opportunity to review the use of dates in the article on Samuel Johnson and I have found them nearly perfect. It is indeed refreshing, as I realise after seeing for the first time a large and high-quality article with no date links, to view dates as a proper part of the prose. Question: is the absence of a couple of ons before dates a relic of American practice (I believe that they are often omitted there) or allowable for the sake of variety and in order to avoid repetition? Waltham, The Duke of 10:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

As the article is using British English, being on an English subject, it's just a hangover yet to be corrected afaic, not a stylistic variation. Like you, having now seen a significant example without date links, I'm beginning to change my mind about autoformatting as it's currently (poorly) implemented. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for being so helpful

Sandy - thanks for being so helpful in pointing us to the relevant mental health contributors as well as assisting in clearing up any copyright confusion we may have drummed up. Cheers Mindsite (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you check out our DSM-IV proposal and provide any feedback? Thanks Mindsite (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Heterosexuality

It was suggested to me by another editor that I speak with you concerning the article on heterosexuality. Is it possible if you could please consider giving this page a detailed Peer Review? Thanks. Caden S (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you please do me the courtesy of a reply? Caden S (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

My sincere apologies, CadenS; this got lost in my talk page. A more descriptive talk page header would have helped prevent that (because I have such a busy talk page, I scan my talk page TOC regularly to see if I may have missed something, and a talk page header that says "hi" isn't going to trigger my memory :-) Have you set up a peer review? If so, pop the link up here and I'll be more likely to weigh in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It's okay, I understand. I'll be sure to use a more descriptive talk page header the next time. But no, I have not set up a peer review. Caden S (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what your immediate goal is, but if you are aiming for WP:GA, there is quite a bit of work to be done still, so I recommend opening a peer review and using the tips at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 to locate and invite editors to the peer review to comment. The three biggest issues I see now are that 1) there are entire sections in the article that are undeveloped, 2) there are numerous cite needed tags and the article is largely uncited, and 3) the quality of some of the sources isn't the best. I agree with the comment on your talk page that the article is currently more about sexual orientation than heterosexuality, so the article content is going to need a lot of beefing up. There are also basic rewriting and copyedit needs (there is a sentence that says: "The history of heterosexuality is part of the history of sexuality"), and there was a strange citation format. There is a lot of basic manual of style cleanup needed, and a mixture of three different citation styles (for example: Heterosexuality is first recorded in 1900. [2] "Heterosexual" was first listed ... normal sexuality". (p.92, Katz) ) You may want to work with someone who has access to high-quality sources and will help write the bulk of the article, which is pretty slim. You can find general information about sources here, and specific tips for accessing good bio/medical research material here. Good luck with it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Template

It looks ok on my computer. Buc (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Lyme Disease

Um, hi. What is your expertise in Lyme Disease? Can you give me a reason for removing what I wrote? Did you even read the link? That's not the only place it was reported. If you think it's unbalanced, qualify my statements, or remove the last sentence if you think that's too provocative. I don't have an axe to grind, I just think that this is an important piece of information that anyone interested in Lyme Disease would probably want to research further. Thanks, Alan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.23.75.244 (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Please copy your post to Talk:Lyme disease, where article edits are discussed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. It will be under "Biowarfare". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amdurbin (talk • contribs) 20:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Please...

...check your email. I sent a similar message to Balloonman. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 02:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Helium

Mind taking a look? Might not need FARC. Marskell (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the venerable DrK has done some more wonderful work on a couple at the bottom of FARC. Marskell (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FAC#I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings

Hi Sandy, not to do your job for you, but I didn't know if you'd looked at this FAC lately. The nominator stated several times that s/he is not planning to implement most of the requested changes until after the FAC closes. It seems like it is just on FAC right now for a peer review. Since the list is getting long, I thought this might be an easy entry to sacrifice. Karanacs (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Karanacs; I'll have a look later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

A friend is there through thick or thin...and you are a friend, indeed

My test results came in qt 4:28pm CET, and were negative. I am celebrating with several perfectly home brewed Vodka Gimlets and chicken sandwiches. Was watching a YouTube video (self made) when I suddenly thought of you: This song encompasses you to a "T". Thanks for always sticking by me, no matter what a Cowardly Lion I might be. Love, Jeffpw (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

oh, dear friend, thank you for making my day; you've made me feel all greenified. I'm celebrating with you; chicken sandwiches it will be for lunch, then. It is a bittersweet happiness. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

talk

Hi Sandy, I've racked my brains but I can't figure out this[4] comment. Did you post to the wrong talk, or is a very subtle and sly dig ;) If the latter, hats off. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 18:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I was thanking you for your edits to Samuel Johnson; perhaps you haven't read through to the last paragraph yet? :-) You should know by now I'm not versed in "subtle and sly digs". :-) Dr Johnson was one of the first articles I edited, within days of joining Wiki. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Aaaah. Sorry for being so slow....( Ceoil ^sláinte 18:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That occured to me last night too. I've followed Ottava's trials so far, and to be honest he won me when he told the bot who is now blocked "to f-off"! I was thinking anyway about working with Ottava, as our interests intersect, so sure. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 17:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize you two shared that bot issue :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes well. I'm always looking for good people to work with, and you do seem to have a talent for bring people togther. So thanks. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 19:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Important figure, nice collaboration, what more could I want than to have some fine editors at work on the Doctor? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

NY Roads FACs

I've run into a bit of a problem. Remember the New York State Route 32 FAC? Well - the shields have become a problem again. One group, U.S. Roads want them in, per THEIR standards. The people at FAC want them gone for violating WP:MOSFLAG. US Roads now wants to changes their own standards so if someone or I remove the shields (images) from an article, they will oppose for the point of not meeting WikiProject standards.

I have a lot of roads I wanna get up there but no one can seem to compromise. I really want to keep getting GAs and FAs, but no one wants to make a good deal. What is your take on this and is there something we can do about it?Mitch32^(UP) 20:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I encourage you to take it to a broader audience (outside of the Project) for resolution, by linking to the Village Pump, starting a Request for comment and linking appropriate guideline pages to one centralized discussion, for developing consensus outside of the Project. Set up a specific place for the discussion to be restarted, and link all of those pages to that discussion; the MilHist group will also be helpful. If you can show broad consensus, your case will be stronger. In terms of bringing articles to FAC, I am not inclined towards holding up FA promotion over a disputed MoS item that can easily be corrected depending on MoS flip-flops. If you bring an article to FAC, and that is the *only* opposition, and you've initiated an attempt to sort this at a broader level, I won't hold up promotion over it. But please do initiate a well-organized, linked-in-one-place, broader discussion, because one Project can't overrule community consensus on flags/images as decoration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sandy,

I started a thread for this on WT:FLAG, where I think this belongs. Daniel Case (talk) 06:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)

I am not sure what your edit summary "third time's a charm" meant. It seems like this is headed for a second restart. That is not a bad solution. As the nominator, I will summarize my thoughts on the progress. First off, there has been a lot of struck comments and editorial action on the article for a statement such as "If there is anything that has been resolved, caps could be used on this FAC, but it doesn't appear that issues are being resolved." The main concern really seems to be the extent of links in the article. The guidance in the MOS seems to suggest the article has the right amount of links according to WP:OVERLINK#Link_density's acceptable example. I have pointed this out repeatedly. This has resulted in lists of words which have been contested. When I explain reasoning behind the words in the list the arguments against them seem to focus on whether it is "silly" to link certain words than a circumspect analysis of a given link's propriety. To date the only words where there has been substantial debate have been swizzle sticks, spa, and sushi. There has also been a debate on the propriety of linking full date, which seems unresolved. Yesterday, I got a neutral party, User:Dank55 to come in and review prose and help resolve debates. He has informed me of the current opinion on date links, which seems to support current usage in the article. The other minor issue is the floor use diagram. I had cropped an original source for fair use. The text was small in the thumbnail version and I attempted to correct this with Microsoft Paint. We have a request in at WP:GL for a better diagram.

WRT, the dates, and the diagram your opinion would be quite helpful. Dan is going through the article and I think he will help with links. Hope the summary is helpful.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Third time's a charm meant it took me three edits to correct my typos. There has never been a second restart at FAC; peer review might be a better option. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, I will of course be happy with whatever you want to do, but note that the only two people commenting at the moment, Matisse and I, are both saying that Tony is doing well. I'm making a lot of (largely cosmetic) changes to the article. I will get my part done within 2 hours, and then I'll ask everyone to look at the diffs from the last few days or read the article and see if everyone is happy. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, Dan; the length is frustrating, and every time I've checked the article myself, I've seen a lot of unresolved issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I just recanvassed all opposers who I am not sure were following along plus two abstainers with significant involvement in the disucssion. Unfortunately, Mattisse remains opposed. I am awaiting responses.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Please assure that your canvassing was more neutral than last time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Main page carnage?

Was that normal, what all those awful, awful people did to my article? Or was that free-for-all reserved for an article that every English-speaking person recognizes? Because if that's normal, I'm quite tempted to take the citations out of all my FAs right now to save myself the effort of ever requesting another one again on the main page... That was insane. I'm going to have dreams of my house burning and me running around in the flames naked, trying to find clothes, but they're all going to be on fire. --Moni3 (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the Laser brain, Mike Searson, exclusive, members only, no fee required, First Class Lounge. I see you came through it like sipping a mint julep in the shade on a hot summer day :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Here, have a glass of sangria and read this. It will all feel better very soon. Risker (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I see you responded politely to all the queries. Moni, you're supposed to drink heavily on mainpage day and let someone else do the duty!! (How did the featured template end up at the top of the article; GimmeBot wouldn't do that.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I read Giano's description of main page feature a while ago. Ha ha, I thought. That's very funny. I was expecting interjections of "Mr. Miller is gay! This class sucks!" or more appearances of Señor Ballsack, not a battleground for 4chan vandals. I actually spent most of the day floating down a river on an inner tube. I was all blissful and calm until I encountered technology again. I have no idea what state the article is in right now. Do I go through line by line to try to restore it? --Moni3 (talk) 04:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I gave you a diff (see above) of all the changes; some are good. I think of mainpage day as more of, everybody has an opinion, like ... you know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think she passes initiation and can now join the club. I consider main page day to be when I get to finally release one of my babies into the wild. Gary King (talk) 04:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I need your permission

As a contributor to information about Johnson's psychological / neurological state, I would like your permission to spin that off into a separate article about his "personality" in general, which would include most of the character sketch. It would reduce the section to four paragraphs. It could be called Personality of Samuel Johnson or Samuel Johnson's personality. I find that this and a page called Contemporary Biographies of Samuel Johnson would allow for important information to be accessible to the page without cluttering the page. Such a place will have discussion of Boswell's work along with Hawkins's, Mrs Thrale/Piozzi's, Fanny Burney's, Anna Seward's, Mrs Montagu's, Hannah More's, and Horace Walpole's. In particular, it will talk about the differences between Hawkin's, Piozzi's, and Boswell's (the others were minor). What do you think? Ottava Rima (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't need my permission, but ... :-) A new page would be excellent, because there are enough reliable sources discussing his psychological and neurological makeup to warrant an entire article. (I'm not sure Personality is the correct article title; we should carefully discuss that on the article talk page. In psychological terms, I don't believe neurological makeup is a personality trait. I would discuss naming with the Med Project or look at reliable sources, but I don't think Personality does it.) But, since his posthumous diagnosis of Tourette syndrome is one of the best supported oft-cited posthumous diagnoses in medicine, I'd not be happy to see Tourette syndrome left out of the summary back to the main article. The main article should say he was posthumously diagnosed with TS and that evidence is strong; this case is distinguished from the random, "Did Einstein have Asperger's" queries, for which there isn't consensus or strong evidence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I separated the biographical information from the clinical information (one next to the other) in order to show where real medicine is vs biographical commentary. I outright labeled the above (Tourette) for easy access to the section. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Note - There could be a page on actual diagnosis and a page on biographical personality accounts to separate the two. What do you think? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

There should probably be a category for 18th century writers with various disorders, illnesses, and "madness". I can think of eight major individuals that would fit such a descriptive off the top of my head. Perhaps it is the strain of genius? The Romantics thought the "madness" liberated them from the constraints of 18th century life and allowed them to achieve creative and intellectual feats that a "sane" person would be incapable of. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with those kinds of categories is that there are very few posthumous diagnoses as strong as Johnson's (thanks to James Boswell, who left good evidence), so they always end up in deletion and sourcing debates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't necessarily need "posthumous" diagnoses when I have at least three that were diagnosed, locked up for madness, and have famous case studies that were used in the formation of England's psychiatric treatment system (i.e. Bedlam et al). :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, Samuel Johnson is still only at 48KB readable prose, within WP:SIZE and the norm for FAs; why must we split? A separate article can be written, but this article is still fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is a lot of material about his personality, mental state, etc. Its just something to consider. Johnson is known for his personality/biographies, so, to make up for lack of indepth writing about his works, we can have a lot about her personae. (I will also be putting together something for Irene, London, and a few of the others) :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Cough - would you know where he is quoting by chance (midway down his entry)? It completely baffles me. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Unwatched, uninterested, will check in later to see if the article has deteriorated wrt FA-status. Imagine someone telling me what a "syndrome" is :-) By the way, the NIMH is frequently wrong, and I personally had to wage a campaign to get their blatantly wrong information corrected once. No need to cite the NIMH on that one, since there are legions of reliable sources. When dealing with undue, OR, synthesis, non-RS, etc., best to back out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

From my experience, NIMH always tends to trump the verifiability/reliable source arguments. They are the most funded group, after all. All US research has to go through them, which means a lot. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope. They often make fundamental, blatant errors, and are behind the times. For example, their fact sheet said for years that GTS first described TS. Wrong; Itard did. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, thats a semantic point - "described" would be to actually apply a set of ideas and term it. Anyone can see symptoms, but its a different matter to actualize it into a theory. NIMH is right down the road and I know many of the highly trained researchers there. Most of what you would say is "behind the times" are online publications that might not be the current thing. Its just a tad unfair to characterize it in such a way, as it is easy to take pot shots at the big guys. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that "describe" was the exact word used; it's since been fixed, I was paraphrasing, they were wrong, and that's just one example. That's without mentioning the PANDAS debacle. I wouldn't put them above the top researchers in the field on anything, and I wouldn't recommend doing so in the sourcing of an article (they aren't the "big guys" by any means). Although I'm sure some of them may be nice people :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that I will actually need to list the researchers at the NIMH with their credentials to disprove your misconceptions about the organization. And yes, it is the single biggest organization of its kind in the world (even the Wikipedia page states that) I don't understand where your prejudice comes from. However, it seems to be a common anti-government perception. You do know that most main researchers in the United States are only able to fund their studies through grants provided by the NIMH in return of them working with the NIMH, right? If you would like, I can provide you with contact information for researchers at the NIMH so they can perhaps help you with your misconceptions about the practices there. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know that unfortunate side effect of NIH funding well; it means researchers should bite their tongues long and hard before saying anything critical about NIH/NIMH publications. Anyway, peer-reviewed journal published research is the standard on Wiki, so it's not an issue here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

And my point stands that within the US, most of those "peers" are either part of the NIMH or funded by them. I've defended the NIMH along with every other DC institution for years. I was there when this had to be put together to dispel the notions that you hold. I am deeply saddened when people disparage important contributors to the world's health based on ideas that are grounded more in political feelings than actual fact (not you, but the people that originally alleged such things in 2002 were very political). Professors, without organizations, say a lot of things for political attention. I would be more worried about them than the people at NIMH. I hope you understand where I am coming from, and I hope you realize that yes, I do have enough experience with this matter to have a legitimate opinion. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Forgetting my manners

Sandy, thanks for your essential peer review of Introduction to virus; its FA status could have not been achieved without it. Best, Graham. GrahamColm^Talk 19:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that you would ever forget your manners, Graham :-) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

How to change my username appearance?

I've been meaning to liven up my username's appearance, which is rather bland at the moment. Do you know how this is done? If not, is there a how-to page about this on the site? In honor of my favorite NFL team, I want a darker blue for my name. I also want my talk page link to be a red 17–14, in order to torture any fans of New England sports teams that I come across. You wouldn't know anyone like that, would you :-):-) Giants2008 (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Here you go: Wikipedia:Signatures. I bet Gary King can help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I figured it out and this is the result. Thanks! Giants2008 (17-14) 23:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a good thing I hate football :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

What the :| Gary King (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm now I don't know if that was a jab at my signature or not. It's so ambiguous! Gary King (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You lost me, Gary? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought "I bet Gary King can help." was because I changed my signature so often :) Gary King (talk) 01:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course not, Gary :-) First, I'm not like that. Second, as far as I know, you've changed your sig once, and I was very happy about that. Third, I offered that you would help because you follow my talk page and understand techie stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

lol. Hopefully that at least explains my messages above. Gary King (talk) 01:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Do you know a tech wiz who could help?[5] None of my business really, but that never slowed me down.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ask Gary King (post just above yours here). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

All taken care of, khrap.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Oliver Sacks

In fact, yes I have checked the article for copyright violations. I also wrote the original text and didn't copy it from other sources. There are couple of sentences that are similar to those in articles elsewhere but most of those are Wikipedia mirrors. The way you replaced the whole article with the copyvio notice is the one that is used to say that the whole article is a copyvio and therefore should be removed. That means that you accuse me and the rest of the people who have contributed to the article afterwards for that violation - Skysmith (talk) 07:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't find similar text; I found exact, verbatim copyvios from The Guardian, which is not a Wiki mirror. Anyway, since you've removed the copyvio tag, I think that makes you responsible for having checked the rest of the text. Also, the reader can't get beyond the second paragraph without finding fundamental grammar issues, so it's unclear why you also removed the copyedit tag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing the Guardian piece was appropriate. Copyedit tag is relevant. What I objected to was blocking the whole article. I consider the matter settled to my satisfaction. Thank you. - Skysmith (talk) 07:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as you've checked it, there should be no problem. I hadn't been able to check all the other sources versus the remaining text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

ProteinBoxBot

Thanks Sandy, but that was already there under a different heading! (link). :) Tim Vickers (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Keratoconus

Perhaps it sounds like an organism? The Lesser Spotted Keratoconus, or Keratoconus bowmanii?  :) — BillC ^talk 18:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Bit of advice requested

I'm trying to cite pages in a book which is basically a collection of papers by a number of different authors, published under the name of the editor. So for instance, chapter 3 might be written by Smith, chapter 4 by Jones, and so on, but I'm unsure of the best way to cite, for example, page 120 of the book, which might be in Jones' chapter. Do you have any suggestions, or can you think of an example I could follow?

BTW, since coming across Samuel Johnson I've become quite a fan of {{Harvnb}}, but don't tell jbmurray. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I usually follow the convention of the {{cite encyclopedia}} templates there. I think {{citation}} gives some examples using say a conference paper on the page of citation examples? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I do that by treating the chapters as journal articles. Using Ref #20 in Restoration of the Everglades, for instance. --Moni3 (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Malleus, I can't add anything; I'm still very frustrated by the citation template's inability to handle journals correctly and the weird italicization, so go with Moni and Ealdgyth's recommendations. (I already dropped a grrrrr ... on Jbmurray's page :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. Hopefully you'll see my humble offering at FAC shortly now I've got some ideas about how to tidy it up. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake

Thought you might want to know that the nominator of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake, Editorofthewiki (talk · contribs), has been MIA since July 3. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Nishkid64; it's helpful to me if you post commentary like that on the FAC (I'm just now looking through). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson again

It strikes me that one omission from this article is any discussion of the possible relationships between Johnson's posthumously diagnosed conditions and his work. Would you agree? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, to the extent that is dealt with in the journal reports. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, I guess I just wanted to see the information spread more evenly throughout the article, instead of a parting shot at the end. BTW, can you explain this edit to me? Have we decided to abandon Harvard referencing now? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I, too, left some of the citations in the citeid format, because I can't make the citation formatting work. I used cite id when I was forced to manually configure the cite. Citation seems to work best on books, and I can't make it work correctly on websites and journals. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see, thanks. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

MOSFLAG, ELG, highways, mediation, hello

Hi Sandy. Long time no see :-)

I have a bunch of problems (well, two): Mitch put up a mediation request up for the Route 32 issues, which I picked up. I'm having some difficulty figuring out what the exact problem is, though. All I know is there's a slow revert war over the shields because of the "not decoration" clause of MOSFLAG that was brought up in the FAC. On the other hand, there's the MOS for highway exits, which most highway articles follow (it has the standards for shields). Is that guideline (ELG) considered a part of FA review? If it were, the guideline would probably put an end to the revert wars, as the warring stems from the guidelines brought up during FAC.

The two guidelines are counter to each other. Maybe all that's needed is some more documentation? Any thoughts much appreciated; I don't usually wander into featured territory, so not quite sure what works and what doesn't. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC) I apologize in advance for my poor grammar :-p

Hi, X !! WP:WIAFA crit 2 says that FAs should follow WP:MOS. As you've stated, the problem arises because of competing guidelines: the Road Project has a guideline that some believe contradicts MOS:FLAG in terms of images as decoration. I recommended above a path forward for them to sort this, but it doesn't appear that anyone has enacted those steps; I'm not sure mediation is the correct venue, as much as posting to the Village pump and other very visible places to create a central discussion for attracting a broader audience to develop consensus as to whether the "maps as decorations" guideline also extends to shields. The MilHist Project has also dealt with this matter. The Roads folks need to come to a broader consensus (outside the Roads Project). I gather that they're having an internal issue now that could be solved by going outside of the Roads Project. They need to sort it at a broader level, since the Project guideline appears to disagree with another MoS guideline. In terms of the way MoS works, by the way, this was a problem waiting to happen; there is no centralized MoS. I argued long ago that Projects shouldn't be able to add guidelines to MoS without garnering wide consensus outside the Project (just as WP:MEDMOS did), but that didn't fly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Aha! So there are guidelines that aren't really approved, as such. Well, that's a whole 'nuther issue... I'm guessing that causes a lot of confusion. But it's a good opening for village pump :-D I'll pass it around Mitch et al and see what comes of it. Thanks :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

They're approved within the Project, and there is no mechanism in place to gain support outside the Project. Any Project can add anything to the MoS, based on six or eight editors who agree. It's a diseaster waiting to happen, I've been mentioning it for months (years?), but nothing has been done. When WP:MEDMOS was added to WP:MOS, strangely, it was required to garner support across Wiki, which we did by posting to Village Pump, 20 other WikiProjects, WT:MOS, etc. Since then, no other Project has done that, there has been no mechanism, so when they come to FAC and encounter editors from outside their Project who differ, they hit a bump. The bump can be eliminated by taking it to the community and getting broad consensus to add their exception to MOS:FLAG; but they need to take it many places, which they haven't done yet. Infighting won't address the issue. By the way, if this is the only opposition on a FAC, I'll factor that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Happyme22

I'm sure you meant good but please don't interfere when I'm asking a direct question to Happyme22. No offence. Thanks --Floridianed (talk) 02:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Date PITA

Nothing changed that I know of. You're just using {{citation}} instead of {{cite web}}. I hate {{citation}} :) Gary King (talk) 05:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Date formatting

Hello, I've noticed that there have been some changes to date formatting. I would be happy to implement the formatting changes, but I'm still trying to figure out what needs to be different now. How should I write out release dates (fairly prominent) in film articles? What about a filming start date (not as prominent)? How about the date= attributes in {{cite news}} and {{cite journal}}? How should I apply WP:NBSP for dates in the article body, if at all? If you could take the time to briefly answer these questions, I can make the appropriate changes and try to spread the example among WP:FILM editors. Thanks, Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't advise you on the appropriate changes, because MoS is in flux, currently at odds with Wiki's various citation methods, and currently it isn't possible to fully comply; various implementation issues are unresolved. There is nothing in MoS that prevents date formatting, so making changes without clarity isn't a requirement. This is the version of MOSDATE at the time of this writing:

• Wikipedia:MOSDATE#Date autoformatting does not say that autoformatting isn't used; it says that "a combination of a day number and a month can be autoformatted", recommends "careful consideration of the disadvantages and advantages of the autoformatting mechanism", and adds that full date formatting "requires consistency in the raw date format within an article". Consistency in raw date formatting isn't currently easy to attain because of limitations from the citet family and citation templates. Because MoS is not in sync with the reality of citing methods on Wiki, I've always had to overlook this guideline at FAC.
• WP:MOSDATE currently says: "The same format should be used in the main text, footnotes and references of each article ... " and "if an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to that variety ..." The citation and citet templates don't yet allow for consistency within an article for all date styles.
• WP:MOSDATE currently says: "If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to that variety," but this isn't possible with delinking and the current formatting of the {{citation}} templates, which defaults to Day Month Year format and can't format dates before 1970-01-01.
• The requirement for a non-breaking space between month and day was added six weeks ago, and then deleted from some pages yesterday: as of this writing, it is still part of WP:NBSP. MoS is inherently unstable and the pages often contradict each other.

How to implement delinking of dates hasn't settled yet and the various templates for citing articles aren't in sync; cautious implementation on selected articles where date consistency within an article can be assured and implementation issues can be resolved is underway, but I don't recommend wholesale (e.g.; Project-wide) changes until the situation settles. I currently don't see a way to fully comply with the contradictions in MoS without manually formatting citations; a script would be needed to correct many citation styles. I fully delinked dates at Samuel Johnson, using international style dating and some manual formatting of citations, but this isn't currently possible with ISO date formats, so all you can do for now is experiment within an article to see if you can achieve consistency. (Be sure to view the article while logged in, with your date preferences set, and while logged out, to see what most readers see.)

Future questions about date linking should be directed to WT:MOSDATE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the in-depth explanation! I will wait to see if the dust settles. In the meantime, I'll share your update with editors who have not been clear about date formatting at this time. (That way, you don't have to repeat yourself about the current situation for now!) Again, much appreciated! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Johnson count

This is interesting to me. Is it interesting to you? I have a feeling that you will triple my edit count shortly. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting how? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Because it makes you the nearest thing we have to a Boswell. qp10qp (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

HAHA. Exactly! :D Ottava Rima (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Qp, you're funny :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Just Arthking

Hrothgar was asking me on my talkpage how long FACs run, so I advised him to give you a ping. qp10qp (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You're on my watchlist :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi :) I smoothed off this morning that edit I had to leave last night, and am pretty sure that all the images are done too, in response to your comments on Qp's page. Please do let me know if there's any questions etc that I've missed and apologies if this FAC has been a headache for you; it wasn't meant to be :-/ Cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Not to worry; I promoted the article a bit ago (there is a normal delay with the bot that does the final accounting, see WP:FAC/ar). Congratulations !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, excellent! Thank you :-) Cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

email

anything further is redundant. Jeffpw (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Happyme22 RfA

Hi Sandy; Since you're involved quite a bit in cleaning and formatting that page I would like to ask you to go over it again after I changed my vote again and left a little (just a little) format mess there. Thanks --Floridianed (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you're quick. I just saw that you already took care of it. Thanks again --Floridianed (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

She's not really an actual mortal, Floridianed.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm getting scared, Ferrylodge... :o)... :) --Floridianed (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)