User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch4

• Chavez talk subpage. 1 June - present

Lieberman

Might as well revert all the way back: I was trying to keep up with the POV as it was being inserted, but decided to wait for it to finish. You can revert over all of my edits, as I was just trying to keep up with the POV inserts; and the Table of Contents was destroyed with that whole series of edits. Sandy 01:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sandy,

I tried to keep your edits, delete his vandelism. Looks like some others are taking it up now.

There's another page related to the Senate race:[1]

I don't see any reason why you remove a criticism by an anoymous user (not me or people I know of).

08:16, 4 August 2006 83.52.113.169 (Talk) (LionO)

Please reconsider and feel free to put it back. --Stephenzhu 22:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Final Fantasy X

Would you agree on closing the Final Fantasy X review? It seems that major concerns have been addressed and there is no need for FARC. Joelito (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Tourette syndrome

Hi! I’m sorry I haven’t done anything for a while—I underestimated the time I’d need for other things. Regarding the collage, I’m still not too sure what to use…

• freely usable pictures tagged with ‘children’ on Flickr: [2], [3],
• ditto, ‘people’: [4], [5].

Maybe some of those look good to you. —xyzzy_n 17:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The idea is to pick some images, crop them and arrange them in a way that does not offend people with an understanding of aesthetics too strongly. You did describe the kinds of images that would be useful, but I am, apparently, not as good at evaluating human faces as I should be to do this efficiently. The links above are to collections of miscellaneous images in which the keywords ‘children’ or ‘people’ occur and which we can use here. If you would pick some of those images (click on them to get to their pages), I could probably put them together relatively quickly. (Also, you know way more about the topic to be illustrated than I do.) —xyzzy_n 17:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Biography Project

Hi Sandy! I wanted to thank you for being so diligent and announcing FACs and FARs on our Talk page! This weekend I've completely overhauled the whole project structure and we now have a place to actually post these in a more prominent area :-) Here's the direct link for editing, but it's transcluded into our new sidebar that's on every Project page... Thanks and Cheers! plange 17:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

no problem, if you remember, that's cool, if you don't, no biggie, I'll move :-) plange 17:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahmedabad FAC

Hello. I have significantly expanded all the references used in Ahmedabad. Please check out the article again. Thanks for taking the time. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 17:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yo! Please do not forget to take a look at the Darjeeling fac. Thanks a lot for your comments in Satyajit Ray. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks a lot. I was ashamed to see some mistakes pointed out by you, like the sentence on colonial archirecture. It was a case of careless overlooking. Anyway, tried to modify the article accordingly. Having more looks to copyedit further.

One problem,IMO, is the English we use in India is more a functional English rather than grammatically perfect English. So many errors creep in. And only native speakers or English scholars find out those. Please try to see the article after 1 or 2 days. Thanks a lot, again. Also thanks for the caveat on Tony :)--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent) Thanks for the update on Ahmedabad FAC. I have addressed the points raised by you. Here's the diff for your reference. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 17:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. You guys are doing wonderful job at FAC. I will make it a point to look carefully at the references from all Indian FACs. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 11:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Medal of Honor

Hi Sandy—Yeah, I've just run through it, and I think it's OK to close from the 2a perspective. Just got another email bounce from a message I sent you a few days ago. Tony 13:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

FAR

Hi! Thanks for notifying me, but I have already voted at the Lego nomination. I now voted at the other two. Is there anything else I'm supposed to do? I've already stated my concerns when nominating. Todor→Bozhinov 14:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Aha, that's allright. Please notify me in the future too then :) Todor→Bozhinov 14:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

email

Just replied to both of your addresses. Fingers crossed. Tony 16:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

e-mail now seems to be working <sheesh> ! Sandy 16:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Natche24

Natche24's first version of the Szatmari read:

"Peter Szatmari

Diagnosic criteria for Aspergers

  1.  Solitary - two of the following:
         * No close friends
         * Avoids others
         * No interest in making friends
         * A loner
  2. Impaired Social Interaction - one of the following:
         * Approaches others only to have own needs met
         * A clumsy social approach
         * One-sided responses to peers
         * Difficulty sensing feelings of others
         * Detached from feelings of others
  3. Impaired Nonverbal Communication - one of the following:
         * Limited facial expression
         * Unable to read emotion from facial expressions of child
         * Unable to give messages with eyes
         * Does not look at others
         * Does not use hands to express oneself
         * Gestures are large and clumsy
         * Comes too close to others
  4. Odd Speech - two of the following:
         * Abnormalities in inflection
         * Talks too much
         * Talks too little
         * Lack of cohesion to conversation
         * Idiosyncratic use of words
         * Repetitive patterns of speech
  5. Does not meet DSM-III-R criteria for:
         * Autistic disorder"

This read to me as an attack page. The message I put on his page was a template, subst2. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Tobacco Smoking

Can you please give me more detail on how the page doesn't conform to MOS? --GoOdCoNtEnT 21:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Putnam

Sandy, query for you here in case you miss it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Tony criticised a sentence introduced by this edit. Gimmetrow 02:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I looked back at the edits by Trodel that upset Francesco. I'm not justifying the edit summary but I think perhaps Trodel was, unintentionally but in fact, removing useful information. I'm not sure, but if that is the case then one can understand Francesco's frustration. Gimmetrow 02:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yikes, you're good: I missed that. Gimmetrow, have you been able to establish a rapport with Francesco? I'd sure like to see him delete that personal info from the FAC, but I don't dare suggest it. Sandy 02:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I did suggest it on his talk page; he hasn't responded. I am becoming sort of an archeologist here. I just caught a sneaky reversion someone did to a 5-month old version, and a while back found a case of misinformation-vandalism nearly five years old. That was a bad week for my faith in wikipedia.... Gimmetrow 02:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Now I know who to call when I need a sleuth :-) I'll read Francesco's talk page: I hope others will stop feeding the frustration, and we can get him to delete that. Sandy 03:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bob Dylan

Hi. I'd like to ask for a favour. There is a lot of confusion at Talk:Bob Dylan about what level of citation is appropriate, or more specifically, whether the {{citation needed}} templates should stay. It is a bit of a m:Walled garden there, and it is not clear to me that what they are comparing the article to is current demands for referencing involved at WP:FAC. If you would take a look and add, subtract, declare "just right" what is marked as needing citations, it would be helpful. Thanks. Jkelly 03:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Just as I was about to hit the sack :-) I'll look in there now and see if it's something I can do tonight, if not tomorrow. Sandy 03:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:REVIEW

Sandy, I've set up a page at WP:REVIEW, which I hope we can write up to give advice to FAC reviewers about which issues are grounds for objections and which aren't, etc. If both reviewers and candidates can see what's required, we'll have more consistency and fewer disappointments, and hopefully also less work for reviewers because candidates will come more prepared. I hope you'll help to write the page as you're one of the experienced reviewers, and therefore know best what people should be looking out for. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, don't get upset about that page. It's just a draft of an idea. I didn't even put the proposed guideline template on it, because I don't see it as even having reached that stage yet (though I see someone else has added it). The Putnam thing will die down soon. You and Tony do a great job and an important one, and the page will not undermine that. On the contrary, I hope you'll contribute what you know based on your experience of reviewing, so we can try to distill the essence of a good review. I have a good working knowledge of the policies, but no FAC review experience, so I can't write it without your and Tony's input.

I see you have no e-mail in your preferences, but if you want to e-mail me at any point to discuss further, I'm slimvirgin at gmail dot com. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I second that. I apologise if this has caused any upset. The intention is to make the process easier. You have done a great job on the Putnam thing, and can I say again, my beef was not about the excellent work you have done. And of course I am willing to help with reviewing work where my relatively limited expertise allows. Dbuckner 07:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That wacky Putnam

Hey! I just wanted to send you a note of thanks for the editing you're doing on the Hilary Putnam FAC. Don't let Dbuckner throw you around; despite his expertise, he's just often as right as he is wrong. Lucidish 15:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Lieberman mediation

Hello, I have volunteered to mediate this case. Please see my comments over at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-04 Joe Lieberman. Thanks! Fishhead64 20:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Fishhead, but I'm really just an observer to the mess. I'll kick in whatever I can. Sandy 20:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Your note

Thanks for the note, Sandy. I took some time to look at the work you and Tony and the others are doing on reviewing generally, and it seemed pretty good. Apologies again for any upset caused. I'll step back from this for now. Dbuckner 14:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Query about citations

Sandy, I have a query about refs. Wikipedia:What is a featured article? refers to including "a 'References' section where the references are set out, complemented where appropriate by inline citations (see Wikipedia:Citing sources)." I'm unsure what this means. Does it mean one reference section should be maintained (i.e. the one called Notes that is automatically generated by the refs), or does it mean that a second section called References should be maintained too, with full citations listed? I interpret it to mean the latter, and that's what WP:CITE recommends. But when I mentioned that to a nominator today, he said it referred only to the list of notes that is automatically generated.

What do you do in such cases? I'm unsure whether it's grounds for an objection. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I’d like to know that, too. Is it really necessary to have two lists of references, especially if the Notes already have full citations? —xyzzy_n 20:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Since you're both asking, I'll give my speculative answer about Wiki instruction creep here :-)). That has been confusing territory, IMO, since the increased requirement for inline citations. I look at it on a case-by-case basis, depending on the content area. For example:

In the situations I know best in terms of references – medical articles – it would be silly to separately list every inline citation mentioned in the Footnotes in a References section. That's just not the way medical articles are written. Look at cystic fibrosis, the MCOTW's most recent FA. When almost every citation is an individual PubMed article, it would make no sense to repeat each one in References. As another example (a work in progress still), look at how I handled Tourette syndrome. Same situation: it would be silly and impossible to re-list every citation as a reference, since the best in-line citations for medical articles are PMID abstracts. What I did, instead, was to include the most recent textbook tomes on the topic in Further reading, since almost every important research paper of the last ten years is disucussed in those books, and you can locate detailed descriptions of most of the studies in them.

Also of note: the MCOTW folks have their own guide to writing medical articles, so I look at their guide as an adjunct to Wiki guides. They are pretty clear on what References and Footnotes mean to them, and what the distinction is. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles) So, I try to recognize that what works for one "Project" might not work for another area.

Turning to other types of articles, there are situations where it is clear when a separate listing of References, in addition to inline citations, is needed and helpful. If the main references used in an article are, for example, seven different books, with extensive inline citations that reference specific page numbers of each book, I'd rather the list of References mention each book, while the Notes section says only, Joe Bloe (1998) p.7. A group that often references mostly books, and uses that system, is the Military History Group, for example Battle of Blenheim.

But, if another article is cited mostly to websites, again, it would be silly to re-list them all twice.

Considering current requirements for inline citations, it sounds almost like the current description is backwards. You complement the necessary inline citations (Notes) with a References section where needed, for clarity on sources that are general background info or used often.

I don't think I've ever objected to an article based on whether they have the two sections. I just want to know that the article is referenced, I recognize that different subject areas have different referencing requirements, and I want the Wiki reader to be able put his/her hands on the needed source for a given sentence or paragraph. I don't get tangled up in the form here: substance is more important. If I can find the reference, the referencing system is consistent and well-done, I don't object. I'll admit, this is one of those areas where instruction creep on Wiki makes me crazy, since the way you would reference a medical article isn't necessarily the way you would reference another article. This is an example of one of those areas where I just don't think you can really nail this down to one best way, and you have to rely on the good faith and good judgment of reviewers, and the give-and-take between reviewers and nominators. I don't think it's possible to write up one description that works across the board: I just want the article referenced, consistently and thoroughly. In the time I've been reviewing, I can't recall a situation where this has been a problem, and I think (not sure?) I'm the reviewer most often fixating on the References.

What I always object to is one big blue link to a website, with no description. (Have a look at Tobacco smoking, where I fixed part of his references as an example. Since I started on them, I don't think anything has changed. The blue ones are his: some of the black ones, with text, are mine. Most of those big blue links are good references, which should be fleshed out, bibliographic style, so a reader can find them if the links go dead. And I want to know, at a glance, if those links are personal websites, news sources, of PMID abstracts. There is a case where his References section is just general reference, and repeating each cite wouldn't work.) I want to see the info in bibliographic form, so that I can find the reference somewhere if the link goes dead. My pet peeve is when editors use cite web in place of cite news or cite journal, since the important bibliographic information is obscured. And, while we're on the subject, I hate the cite templates because they chunk up so much KB in article size, but whether to use them is a personal decision. HTH, Sandy 23:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I was thinking about bringing something like this up on WP:CITE. I don't think one size fits all. If an article has 30 notes to 25 different sources, it makes sense to put all the citation info into the note and not have a separate bibliography. If an article has 30 notes to 5 sources, a bibliography might make sense. If those 5 citations are web pages, they can be named and repeated. Named refs are somewhat fragile though and can make it difficult to rearrange text, so it may be better to avoid named refs and repeat the full citations every time. However, repeating full book citations seems to me a waste of KB. Because of this and the fragility of named citations, I ended up using short footnotes (similar to Harvard refs) in my FAC. (It would be nice to be able to separate text enhancements from pure citations, perhaps marking one with letters and the other with numbers.) Anyway, Sandy, to answer your query: I took your statement about "no change" to refer to the conclave article not being edited from Aug 2 to Aug 6. I just wanted to point out that an article may be improved "behind the scenes" without receiving actual edits for a while. Gimmetrow 23:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see – thanks, Gimmetrow. And, yes, I agree with your analysis of the cite situation above. I don't have the prose skills to begin suggesting edits to Wiki guidelines, but the Notes References thing is an area which could benefit from clarification. Sandy 00:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

SV, I found the discussion you're referring to, about Padmé Amidala. That's a middle-of-the-road case, neither/nor, so I'd not worry about it as long as it's well referenced. What I would ask him to change (but not as an objection) is that stilly statement at the bottom of the references about last access date. If articles on Wiki were static, with only one editor, that might work. But, given that he could get run over by truck tomorrow, and lots of other editors could work on the article, adding and deleting sources, putting that statement at the end like that doesn't recognize the dynamic nature of Wiki. Sandy 00:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy. I posted a reply to you, and just swung by to see whether you'd responded, but I see my post's not here. I must have forgotten to save it! I use tabbed browsing and I'm forever moving from one tab to the next and then forgetting to go back. Anyway, the post basically said thank you for the very helpful information. I agree with Gimmetrow that it'd be good to work out when best to add a References section and when not. I'll know for the future not to object on that basis, so long as the full citations are there somewhere. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed explanation! Regarding the size of the cite templates, I’m still thinking about some kind of solution, but, so far, with little success. For Tourette syndrome, I count 11.4 KiB of non-empty ref elements, largely without markup, which, assuming an optimistic factor of 1.5 for the use of cite templates, would grow to 17.0 KiB. I think it’s possible to devise templates similar to the existing ones but using positional parameters instead of named parameters at far smaller cost with respect to size, but that would undo the human-readable metadata and probably make the citations harder to edit. It would, however, allow centralised control of the formatting. On the other hand, if the increase in size, in the order of magnitude outlined above, is not a big problem (that particular article is already above 32 KiB), normal cite transclusions (or custom ones…) could be generated automatically from PubMed’s XML data, using only the PMID as input, so at least wikicoding the citations and checking the results might be unnecessary—if that’s any significant advantage at all. Is there anyone else working on this? —xyzzy_n 03:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there's a PMID converter out there, that messes 'em up everytime. I'll go dig it up. Sandy 03:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Diberri's tool to convert a PMID reference number to a wikipedia template:cite journal reference is: http://diberri.dyndns.org/pubmed.html It puts in weird punctuation, uses ALL the author names, and for me, is harder to use then just cut and pasting the info from PubMed. Sandy 03:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a discussion, where several of the Wikiphysicians agreed with me: [6] Sandy 03:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The shark guy

(Help, I've been pigeonholed!)

Peta struck her Oppose earlier today and it's been copyedited to death (mine), so I'm not sure what else I can do. I've asked Fieari to revisit it as well, in an attempt to get it moving again. Cheers, Yomangani 13:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I just reviewed it and didn't see Peta had struck: darn aging eyes :-) I'm also avoiding that room like that plaque lately, as I'm so disgusted. I'll have another look soon. Sandy 13:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It was subtle (I had to check the diff). Thanks, Yomangani 13:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, starting to do my homework: how come there is a link to a former FAC on the talk page, that links to the current FAC? Sandy 14:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's all the fault of templates, curse their little curly brackets. I've fixed it, so it points to the old one now. Yomangani 14:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I dug around in there a bit: still needs some copy editing, and I left some comments on the talk page. I'll check back in later. Please change any of my edits you disagree with: I'm no prose expert :-) Sandy 14:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I only changed one thing, but the citation for "sea dog" was lot harder to find than I expected. I hadn't even cited it as I thought it came under the apple pie get-out clause of WP:OR. Still, it was an interesting exercise. Yomangani 16:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I've finished playing with it, and Tony has copyedited the majority (not sure when he will get back to it), so please have another look. Yomangani^talk 13:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh ho, so you think I'm a bad guy, eh?

Here's looking at you, kid. You get the double dosage.

Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Refs

Sandy, I notice you keep "fixing" the way I write refs, which are actually fine. I've commented here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

"All URLs Last Accessed"...

Sandy, I removed the general "date last accessed" statement in the Notes section of the Padmé Amidala article. Each URL ref has its own last access date now, just in case I get run over by a truck tomorrow ;) (per your suggestion here and here). Dmoon1 08:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

FairTax

Sandy, I've added inline cites extensively to the FairTax article after your review. I've also done a lot of copyedits after Tony's comments. I was wondering if you could have a look and see if it would meet your FA criteria and/or offer suggestions. Thank you for your assistance and review. Morphh 15:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to follow up with this request. I'd really like to get this article to FA and we just need a little external help to make it happen. Thank you again, Morphh 13:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

POV templates and other

I haven't looked at the articles. Sometimes a POV tag is added by an editor not previously involved; if no reason is forthcoming these are usually removed within a day. I can't remember any notable instances of an active editor on a page added a POV tag without other editors knowing why. POV-check is a little different, however, and seems to stay on a page well past its need. Sometimes the tag use is absurd - I came across a page which had one sentence of content saying "Cindy Sargon is an Australian TV chef." and the article had 3 tags including POV!

Next point, SlimVirgin has added some text about citation templates to various places, saying they are "not recommended." I have tried to impress the notion that a lack of a recommendation is not the same as the positive statement they are not recommended. This comes across as a policy change to me, discouraging their use. My understanding was that use of citation templates were optional, an indifferent choice.The relevant text is at WP:CITE#Templates and WP:CITET. Could you take a look at these; the text is short. I find the text reads as a discouragement and a disapproval. (I added a bit to the CITET text but it looks absurd even to me, and I expect it will be removed.) If I'm off base on this, say so; I have better things to do than argue over guidelines. Gimmetrow 05:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the sort-of support. I don't know if there is an actual policy on removing POV tags, I'm just saying that I've seen them removed many times with no problem. I recall one article the template was mildly edit-warred, until it forced the editor adding it to chime in on talk. After discussion a section-POV tag was placed for a while. On another point, I can't find the place that used to say that footnotes came after punctuation with no space. This is important for layout, as having a space can cause ugly "floaters" - the note mark on its own separate line. Mixed style (space or no space) is even worse; this is a simple technical issue to fix and I'm surprised people let it pass. Finally, from your experience with FAC, what do you think is the status of my FAC? Gimmetrow 15:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

If you could point out some parts that are difficult, I'll at least have something to work on. I haven't read the whole thing at once in a while. Gimmetrow 15:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support on my FAC. I guess Raul got tired seeing it in the list; now I should have some time to help other people. At some point I saw you referencing the amount of prose vs. total length of an article. Is there an automated way to do this? Gimmetrow 03:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

35 mm film FAC

Hi Sandy, just wanted to say thanks for the comment. I've edited the article accordingly, and hope that it is up to any further scrutiny. Would you mind taking another look and striking out critiques implemented to your satisfaction? Many thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 01:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

List of people with epilepsy

Based on your discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles), I thought might like to comment over at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of people with epilepsy. This list had undergone some big changes whilst being reviewed and is now starting to get some support. I fear, however, that it might run out of time to become featured. Regardless, I'd appreciate your opinion. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 09:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to review this list, and for your support. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 13:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

FAR of anarcho-capitalism

Howdy, Sandy. I have notified interested parties of the closing of the vote. I request that there be a wee extension while they consider whether or not they would like to vote or add anything to the discussion. This includes editors who I believe might vote to reject as well as editors who I believe might vote to keep. Due to the controversiality that often surrounds this article, I feel that it's important that we make sure that the issue will be settled when it is settled. --AaronS 18:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

User:DTC wrote:

I can't help thinking that this comes from the typical anti-capitalist psychology of wanting to destroy or discredit what others have built through their hard work. Not only is the article itself the fruit of enormous intellectual and physical labor but the article itself is about a philosophy that supports profiting from one's achievments. On top of that, the article is awarded with a Gold Star. It fills the anti-capitalists with envy and resentment. Instead of building anything of value themselves, they work destroy what others create. (Compare to the attack on the World Trade Center).

Pardon me, but how can you condone that kind of rhetoric? --AaronS

I haven't condoned that. As Joelito explained, the FAR is closed. If you feel it was done prematurely, you should take the discussion to Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. Sandy 19:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, you did say that you agreed with it, but perhaps I misunderstood. Who decides when an FAR is closed? I'm unfamiliar with this. Thanks. --AaronS 19:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I see that, now. I apologize for missing it, earlier. My main issue -- stability -- doesn't really need explanation. My other issue -- neutrality -- involves the cherrypicking of sources to substantiate controversial claims and present them as if they are not controversial, i.e. that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism. There is a raging discussion going on at Template talk:anarchism regarding this very matter.

Most of the good editors get along quite well. The others have been sock puppets of banned users. It has never been a personality issue. It has always been a disagreement about content. --AaronS 19:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

FAC - categories

Hi Sandy, I've noticed your desire to see categories in alphabetical order in FAC reviews. (I know this is also suggested in the javabot review). Is there something in WP's criteria that enforces this? I personally find it preferable to list more fundamental categories first. Thanks, Outriggr 03:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

(copied from my talk page) It's just that I (for one) look at categories to get a sense of an article's topic. The first category I want to see for say, Einstein, is "Swiss physicists"; that's what he is. That article is an FA, incidentally, and if the cats were in alpha order, the first categories I'd see are "1879 births", "1955 deaths", "American vegetarians", "Autodidacts", none of which really primarily categorize the subject. The current category order on Albert Einstein suits my needs better than alphabetization. So that is where I'm coming from. Thanks, Outriggr 05:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I hereby award you The Working Man's Barnstar for repeatedly notifying relevant parties during featured article reviews, as it's an oft-forgotten task. -- tariqabjotu 23:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize that was part of the instructions either; it's been awhile since I have requested an FAR or FARC. -- tariqabjotu 23:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

About an autism related article

Hi there Sandy. I am sure you have a long list of to-do stuff, but I'm still sticking my head in here to ask your advise. I noticed that you were editing some of the extremely well-researched autism articles---which is the reason I'm here. I was wondering if there is a place where one may put a request for assistance from people who are familiar with these issues, with neuroscience, psychiatry, or with autism in particular, as well as with the literature about autism published in Scandinavia. The reason I'm asking is that the article about the Swedish neuropsychiatrist Christopher Gillberg is an absolute mess and needs urgent attention. I don't really feel that I have the background to write about something as specialized as neuropsychiatry, or autism for that matter, nor about the particular research done by Gillberg. I know his story well from a journalistic and from a legal point of view, but the lawsuit for public access that lead to such disastrous results for Gillberg is only a brief parenthesis in an active life filled with important work in the field, and it is a particularily negative and distracting issue in his Wiki biography. Still, as it stands now, this issue threatens to totally overpower the article about him. (The story: One of Gillberg's research projects has become the center of a heated controversy in Sweden regarding whether or not the principle of public access to official records applies to research material involving sensitive data about the private life of study participants. In 2003, a court case initiated by two private citizens, who had been denied access to the patient journals and the raw data collected about the participants of the study, was settled in favor of the complainants. The private citizens were a sociology professor and a pediatrician who had a long-running dispute with Gillberg, but they acted in their private capacities. The court ruled that permission from the participating patients was not necessary. The access was granted according to Swedish Principle of Public Access, without directives about how the identity of the participants would be protected and without the need for the two individuals requesting access to follow established praxis and present a proper research proposal for consideration so that the university's ethics council could control the use of the data. Rather than breaking the promises made to the parents in writing about the conditions of privacy offered, Gillberg's associates made a decision to shred the data when he was out of the country. The associates were charged for "destruction of government property" and Gillberg himself was later charged and sentenced to a fine for "breach of duty" for failing to turn over the documents.) This is a perfect scenario for his detractors who now claim that he destroyed the records solely to avoid scrutiny and that this proves that his research was a fraud. One such person is editing the page right now, with no regards to balance or to whether or not her statements are defamatory. There is a long and heated discussion about the court case on the discussion page, but facts about Gillberg's work, life and ideas are sadly missing. Please let me know if you can assist with a plea for input into this article from any of the Wiki editors with medical expertise. Best wishes, Pia 07:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, thank you so much. Sorry, this turned out to be a busy weekend. But you are right--I will need to dive in. It's just that there are so many other articles I'd rather work on, that are more directly within my field of interest and expertise. Working on this particular issue means that I will have to go through more journals and brush-up on stuff I haven't dealt with in a long time. I was sort of hoping that someone else might pull the load, like the user Denis Diderot for example, who seems well-versed in the issues. The only reason this article caught my eye to begin with was that I monitor Scandinavian issues (especially Swedish issues, since my family has roots there). This article was listed as troubling. It sure is, in more ways than one. One of the problems is that only the major news outlets, those with specialized staff covering medical issues, covered the story with an angle other than, "Man, this doctor thinks he can hide his files from the sociologist and the public." (Just whisper "threat against the Principle of Public Access" and see how high a journalist can jump..some in the pack will bounce up and down and howl bloody murder as well.):) This is the reason Daphne’s list of sources contains such a large amount of letters to the editor and non-peer reviewed articles, one private letter, one investigative magazine article from New Zealand, and one magazine that went out of business and was not around to detract the stories, as was done for example by the magazine published at Gothenburg University. Some are pure opinion pieces and contain statements that are directly contradictory to the discoveries and statements during the trial and with information in mainstream media reports. This has been pointed out repeatedly, but the stuff keeps getting reinserted in the Gillberg article and I think Denis is just running out of patience. The Gothenburg study article can deal more directly with this, and refute it in more detail. The secrecy issue has been debated on the parliament floor as well, in strong support of the secrecy laws Gillberg was relying on, referring to the need for Sweden to adher to the Helsingfors Declaration which states: "In medical research on human subjects, considerations related to the wellbeing of the human subjects should take the precedence over the interests of science and society. It is the duty of the physician in medical research to protect the life, health, privacy, and dignity of the human subject. Research investigators should be aware of the ethical, legal and regulatory requirements for research on human subjects in their own countries as well as applicable international requirements. No national ethical, legal or regulatory requirement should be allowed to reduce or eliminate any of the protections for human subjects set forth in this declaration." This is a very large issue to cover, but I will start to source and insert information ASAP after the weekend. Sandy, thanks again for taking the time to look into this and for your recommendations. You deserve all the praise I see you have collected here so far! Pia 18:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I support you on that move and I understand your position in regards to the language barrier. I think the objection might be that two unbalanced articles full of questionable information and mistakes, by an editor using inappropriate sources, are worse than having no information out there at all, yet. I'll get to work on it ASAP. Pia 21:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

New England FAC

Thanks for your many helpful comments. They all make sense to me. I'll get to work on fixing the prose and finding sources immediately. --AaronS 13:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review for San Francisco, California

Hi Sandy,

The San Francisco, California article was recently nominated for FA status and was rejected. You and several other commentators suggested that peer review would be a good process to go thru to get specific suggestions for improvement. The article has now been placed on the peer review list: Wikipedia:Peer review/San Francisco, California/archive1. If you have some time, could you please look over the article and make some comments on the peer review page?

Thank you!--Paul 21:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sandy,

Thank you for taking the time to review the San Francisco, California article and for making a good list of suggestions. It will take a while, but we'll get to all of them, and then ping you again. --Paul 16:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There has been a lot of work on the San Francisco article over the past few days. If you have some time to look at the current effort & comment ([Wikipedia:Peer review/San Francisco, California/archive1]]) on quality and any areas that might be week, it would be greatly appreciated.--Paul 16:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

If you have the time, I think we are ready for another look. I have a few concerns still, and I'm curious to see if your thoughts agree with mine. I hope this is close, as with attention, articles get better, and with inattention, they regress, and I don't have a lot of attention left to give to this article. Anyway, thanks for you help! --Paul 18:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Q re WP:GTL

Sandy, Thanks for being bold and rearranging the article US housing bubble according to WP:GTL. But this page says that the notes go last, and you've put them before other appendices. Would you mind explaining the preferred layout? Frothy 02:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You have to read WP:GTL more carefully: it's really quite a confusing page. The See also and Notes that are shown last on that page are the See also and Notes *for* that page. The layout of sections is given in Section 7 of that page, here. Sorry it wasn't clear :-) Sandy 02:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Christopher Gillberg

Sandy,

First of all, I'd like to make clear that I really appreciate your help with the Gillberg articles. I reverted your addition of the link to the new article only because I didn't have the time to fix both articles at once. The new article created by Daphne A unfortunately contained the same kind of unsourced and potentially defamatory information that she had previously added to the Gillberg article. Therefore I wanted to keep the wikilink out of the Gillberg article until someone had begun to fix that other article. I fully understand that it's difficult for you with all the sources in Swedish, but I wonder if you could perhaps just take a quick look at the current Christopher Gillberg? Do you think the "criticism and controversy" section should be made even shorter, or perhaps moved out of the article alltogether? Also I wonder if the article seems sufficiently well sourced to you (understanding that you can't verify that the cited refs actually support the claims) --Denis Diderot 14:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a look, Denis, but it's darn near impossible for me to sort out the controversy and POV without some English-language sources. I can only rely on what I've heard in TS/ADHD circles, which is that DAMP is highly controversial and not well accepted. I haven't studied the controversy well. Isn't there *something* you all can find in English that can summarize the situation for those of us who don't sepeak Swedish? Sandy 15:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Check with the IRS?

In re: your msg left on my talk page...

I've been trying to get hold of Wiki's latest 990s to see if Soros is a funder, but I haven't been able to get hold of the most recent. The pro-Marxist persuasion seems almost too much to be explained by the natural inclination of radicals to be attracted to this sort of venture.

Like the dreaded 503c organization's filings, I would be very surprised if wikiedia's "990c"s (I'm afraid I am not familiar with this particular filing) were not public record. I would contact the IRS directly and request all of w'pedia's 990c's for its entire existence.

If you get any static*, then there's always a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request.

One way or the other, the information can be had. Tho' persistence maybe the key since our Federal bureaucracies demonstrate some confusion between themselves and the medieval Papal Curia.

And, bravo for labelling these lefties for what they are. Liberalism is, after all, the vestibule of Bolshevism.

In my many explorations of wikipedia I have yet to find an article that has been highjacked by a conservative or right-wing claque. Not that I would approve of it. But it would certainly be a refershing change of pace from the Left-Liberal monopoly and gadflies (such as this gamaliel individual).

PainMan 00:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Sadly, even tho' it's mandate is financial rapacity, even the Internal Repression Service seems to be infiltrated by the Libs. The state of Ohio revoked Jessie "Embezzle-Cash-to-Support-my-bastards" Jackson's "Rainbow PUSH" coalition's charitable status--which under Federal law means that the organization must lose its Federal status, this has not been done.

Anyone who think this is an oversite is living "in the land of Oz."

My block

I posted that inflammatory thread hoping the thousands of people who watch my talk page would notice and take action ;). I don't know what's up. I'm fine now after I sent an e-mail to the blocking admin last night. I'm one of very few Wikipedians where I live so I get worried that the proxy might be blocked and it will go unnoticed. Thanks for the concern. Marskell 07:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm back. Or actually I was never really gone—I don't know. My wiki-work was often been short this summer and there have even been days (the shame!) where I haven't made a single edit.

Your edit count, meanwhile, has been phenomenal! Indeed, I have thought of leaving you a note previously about this. I absolutely hope you don't take this the wrong way, but are you editing too much? This is no comment on you, just an observation after 18 odd months on the Wiki: the people who edit for hours a day with thousands of edits a month often hit the wall hardest with wiki-stress. You've been doing so much in so many places (which taxes the brain) I wonder if you shouldn't choose a day a week off or something similar. Marskell 21:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiki/CC Image Copyright Questions

Would you please have a look at the CC image copyright question question posed at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Wiki.2FCC_Image_Copyright_Questions and chime in on the correct answer? Thanks -- Frothy 15:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Frothy, I am completely mystified by Wiki's (in)ability to explain and deal with copyright issues on images. I can't add anything to the discussion. Good luck, Sandy 15:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel-Venezuela relations

Thank you. I did look at the Talk: page, and noted that Superflanker is removing large amounts of material on purely spurious grounds, and has been doing it for some time. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the next step would be an RfC regarding a specific editor, or the articles in question. You could also request mediation, though that can be time-consuming. Ultimately you might have to take this to arbitration. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Not the Mediation Cabal, which is worse than useless. The Mediation Committee, run by Essjay. You'll find them at WP:RFM Jayjg ^(talk) 22:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to express my strong support for your careful editing, wise words, and reasoned actions on this page. I think some outside intervention will unforunately be needed though. nadav 07:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Help with stub tagging on amputation article?

Hi Sandy,

I'm not sure this is really your area, but from my interactions with you about TS on the free will page, I thought you might be a good person to at least point me in the right direction. One of the pages that I am watching is the amputation page, as it relates to some of my professional interests. In the past two weeks, the page has been tagged three times as a stub [7]. Normally, this would be a quite reasonable tag in wikipedia (and not something likely to be picked up by bots), and I wouldn't be contacting an admin about it, but in this case there are a number of things that make it seem like vandalism or a joke in poor taste.

1. The article is not a stub. It is long enough (although it could still be expanded) that it is no longer editable by a novice. It currently includes 7 sections, and although it could use some referencing hits the major points.
2. Stub when referrring to amputations makes for a very poor-taste joke. Indeed, the first editor who tagged the article with "stub" included "huhuhuhu" as his edit comment.
3. All three users who have tagged the article are IPs. The first one has only this edit in his or her history. Obviously, this are at best circumstantial details, but I am only using them to add to the above. Especially in the case of the first IP edit.

Again, if the article were a stub, or in the absence of such comments, I wouldn't be contacting you. At this point, my question is, does the 3RR apply to vandalism of this sort? Is there any way to make certain that this article does not get tagged with an inappropriate stub notice? Please feel free to reply on my talk page. Edhubbard 19:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. It's nice to know that there are other eyes watching the page. I'll contact User:Commander Keane, and see what else he can suggest. Edhubbard 20:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for the info. Got a very nice message from Commander Keane this am (Paris time). He said that he would put it on the pages to be watched, which will add new page patrollers, and explained that the 3RR doesn't apply to vandalism, so it seems like it should be ok now. Edhubbard 15:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

(Belated reply on stub patrolling) Thanks for your help. It does seem to be working, and just in time too! I was gone on vacation from the 30th until today, and was only checking a few things from internet cafes... I know, I know ;-> Edhubbard 17:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think that you can remove the amputation article from your watch list. Thanks. I'll leave it on mine, since it still has a a scientific link with the phantom limbs page, but I don't think that you need to worry about it, too. I will take a look at the Omnipotentence paradox, but this one gets a bit outside my area of expertise, which is more in the realm of where empirical work in experimental psychology and neuroscience connect with philosophy issues (I also have a question for you, which I will start in a new topic for you below). Edhubbard 17:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

US housing bubble for featured article?

Thanks again for making the effort to provide comments and feedback on the US housing bubble article. As summarized at the page Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Response_to_objections_raised_above, I believe that all the objections and issues raised have been addressed. Would you please have a look and consider supporting this for "featured article" status? Especially given the (unfortunate) recent news (see, e.g., today's New York Times "most-emailed" Op-Ed "Housing Gets Ugly" here), this would be an especially timely featured article, and help "Wiki" live up to its speedy name. Frothy 02:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

favour

Sure, done. Let me know about the rest. Tony 03:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Since you asked

I've got 3 running right now:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Information Clearing House -- violates WP:WEB and WP:NOT
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InfoWars-- Non-notable public access television show.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium (second nomination) -- POV fork of Alex Jones and 9/11 "Truth" Movement for nn event

Keep an eye on my userpage, I keep a running list. Morton devonshire 05:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Referencing

I don't know if you are an expert at how to cite references, but I was hoping you could look at something for me at my sandbox - My Draft Articles. Everytime I preview the page the references look properly numbered and so on under the "Notes" section, but when I actually save it looks all a terrible mess with jumbled numbers and so on. I cannot for the life of me find out what's wrong. Do you know? If so, I'd be real grateful to be told what I'm doing wrong. LuciferMorgan 19:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok thanks I'll speak to you later on the topic - I had Dmoon1 look at it earlier, but he said he didn't know what was wrong. He made an edit which seems to have made it ok, but then I just added subheadings to topics (which I intend to fill with paragraphs of course) and now the numbering is jumbled again as before. You can check the editing history later if you wish. It's a real head scratcher, so we'll speak later. LuciferMorgan 19:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You can fix this temporarily with a WP:PURGE as described in this thread at WP:FN and various threads at WP:VPT. Gimmetrow 20:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Asperger Syndrome dispute

Sandy, I'm not sure what the ettiquette is on the subject, but you may wish to have a word in the current dispute. If this is inappropriate, please feel free to edit this section out of your talk page. --Keyne 13:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The entire situation is both amusing and somewhat sad. I mean, I only just started making active contributions with the AS article, as I'm keenly interested in the topic, but I had helped before on the Jack Thompson deliberations after the man had threatened Wikipedia. Is this sort of action [that Zaraeph pursues] par for the course on WP? I'd really hope not, but then again, I'm a bit of an idealist! :) --Keyne 17:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Insisting one AOL user is another AOL user is pretty silly--I'm prettu sure you're not one or every other 9m+ peoples! (or you're very active!). If absolutely necessary, with proper permission, wouldn't the emails assist? It's a bit of a shame that one paranoid editor could cause so much fuss, but I dont really see any outcome other than something positive (perhaps that's the optimist in me). --Keyne 17:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Now, that's unfortunate. That WP allows such harassment is disingenuous from the stated goals. Hopefully this gets rectified, properly. I see no reason why unfounded libellous claims would be allowed to persist. --Keyne 18:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a note: The anonymous AOL user signed up for a Wikiname, it would seem. I don't know if it's A Kiwi or someone totally different, however. It might be relvant to today's events. --Keyne 20:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. Some people just need to let go. Sandy 22:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

tourettes FA

Sandy, I think this article is FA worthy. I'm sorry I didn't "check" with you first, as this isn't 'your' article. But I do understand that it's important for main contributors to be on board. What needs to be fixed, as i think it is FA worthy already. -- Wikipedical 01:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. For the future, I think you should just handle this. I won't nominate it for FA, and continue your good work. Best of luck. -- Wikipedical 04:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the quick review of Down syndrome. I also don't have much time to work on it, but I felt at some time we just needed to get the calf out of the barn. It has been a long haul for a topic that makes up about 5 minutes of class time each semester. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 04:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Invite to Wikipedia:Libel-Protection Unit

Biographies of Living Persons WP:BLP requires a higher wikipedia standard since the Siegenthaler Controversy in December 2005. Articles like these involve WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV It has been 6 months, and wikipedia still has hundreds of potentially libelious articles.

Many editors and even administrators are generally unaware of potential defamation either direct or via WP:NPOV. To help protect wikipedia, I feel a large working group of historians, lawyers, journalists, administrators and everyday editors is needed to rapidly enforce policies.

I would like to invite you to join and particpate in a new working group, tenatively named Wikipedia:Libel-Protection Unit, a group devoted to WP:BLP, WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV and active enforcement. From your experience and/or writings on talk pages, I look forward to seeing you there. Electrawn 16:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Enzyme FA nomination

Thanks for your comments. I have tried to address them and hope the changes meet with your approval. Thanks again! TimVickers 05:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Tagged images

I have removed each of the images from articles. If they are not replaced in seven days, they will be deleted. Please add each of them to your watchlist so that you can monitor any discussion and respond to objections. If there are objections and you still want them deleted, consider taking them to WP:IFD. As I think I said before, it's sometimes best, especially for long-standing images about important topics, to use IFD from the beginning. Best regards. ×Meegs 18:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ziad Jarrah

Greetings. You voted to demote Ziad Jarrah from being a featured article. The reason you gave was "Still lacking inline citations". Since then, I have improved the writing, added inline citations, and reorganized parts. I'd be much obliged if you gave it a second look. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Medicine related FAR

Hello! I reorganized WP:MED (comments are welcomed...), and Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Featured articles review page got greater attention. Do you continue the review work with Schizophrenia? Cheers. NCurse _work 08:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Morning tourrets

Thanks for the note. I didn't speedy this article because it's a typo in the title, should be tourette, which does exist, whether "morning tourette's syndrome" exists is another matter. I don't know. If you are happy it's a hoax please speedy the article. --Richhoncho 12:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

hi

Welcome back, Sandy. I'll look at it this w/end. Work is hectic at the moment. Tony 14:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll still try to do a few small parts soon—might help. One of my clients, a leading researcher into the science of reptiles, puts the following signature at the bottom of his emails: "So many snakes, so little time". Are you appalled by Unfinished work, which has been up for FAC for a while? It's fatuous, and I've been doing my best to stop its promotion. Tony 14:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

And HIV—well, GrCampbell was extremely rude to me last year when I ran through the article. I don't hold a grudge, but I intend to scrutinise it again. Tony 15:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Bio notices

Hi Sandy-- Just wanted to let you know that the place you're posting the bio notices for FARs isn't the one on the box on the FAR talk page-- It's not a big deal, but thought I'd let you know since sometimes I've already added it (as in the case of the last two you posted) and it would save you work if you're able to see they're already there :-) Thanks for all that you do! Here's the link --plange 23:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

oh, my ... I told you I'd forget :-) Thanks for the reminder ! Sandy 23:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking for a little assistance

Hey there, I'm wondering if I could get a little assistance with the Unreal Tournament 2007 article. It's been flagged as possibly containing original research, though I only see one statement with a {{fact}} tag. I already stated in Talk:Unreal Tournament 2007 that that portion would be removed if no citation was provided.

Maybe you could take a look at the article and see if the OR tag is warranted or if there's other stuff in there that needs clarifying or citing.

Thanks,

Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 00:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yikes, I had a look, and the referencing there is in bad shape. Without good and consistent references, it's likely there is some OR. User:Ryu Kaze is a regular FAC contributor in the computer games area, which I know little about: maybe you can ask him to help out? Sandy 00:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! :D Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 01:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Regarding your note on my talk page

I have tried arguing with certain admin/editors, but some can be very stubborn, and allow their bias to cloud their objectivity (I'm really thinking of one person in particular.). It seems that no matter how solid your argument is, they will not be swayed once they have their teeth into something. I think the best way, at least for me, to deal with them is to be a better example of objectivity than they are. For instance, today I have removed anti-Clinton vandalism from both Monica Lewinski and Bill Clinton several times. As far as the general stacking of the deck, I have tried to seek out other like-minded editors, and back them up on arguments, AfDs, etc. I don't know what else can be done, other than to keep plugging away. I just recently got involved in the BLPP, and once the bugs are worked out, I think it may help. Others that I know focus on POV issues, or RS/Verifiability. Crockspot 19:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Peer review for synesthesia article?

How does one go about getting a peer review on an article. My main project, along with a few others has been to improve the synesthesia page to a reasonable status. I started working on it on July 25, and it was a mess; tagged with expert, clean-up and unreferenced tags. Now, I am starting to hope that it is a good summary style article, with shiny new Harvard reference-style references, and factually acrruate (compare here [[8]]). At this point, what I'd like is for someone who hasn't been too closely associated with our edits to come and give it a look over, and to highlight any particular weak spots, etc. In particular, the article is a little longer than I would like so any thoughts on trimming or farming out to our fork pages would be appreciated. Edhubbard 17:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I can give you a couple of leads:

• Have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine, and post a request for help on their talk page. Ditto for Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Week. Neurology isn't necessarily their forte, but some of them are willing to help out.
• In particular, also see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles). I resisted the overly-disease-oriented format there at first, but once I used it for Tourette syndrome, I found it helpful, and that it helped me see what areas I hadn't covered well. In particular, notice there how they recommend my TS article in terms of how to handle "Notables" or "famous cases": your notable list isn't referenced, and you might have a look at how I did it. Your Table of Contents also might need to be tightened up.
• In terms of items a peer review would note:
  • You need far better inline citations. Have a look at Tourette syndrome and Cystic fibrosis (a recent medical FA). You mix referencing styles, with some Harvard style inlines, and other footnotes. You have only three notes, which aren't necessarily reliable sources. You need to incorporate one style for all of your inline citations. (Don't forget to employ PubMed links -- again, see TS and cystic fibrosis). Your inline cites would be better converted to the cite:php mechanism for footnotes (see TS). Even though Harvard style references are accepted, in practice, most medical articles on Wiki are moving towards the other format.
  • You don't follow WP:GTL - External links and further reading go last.
  • You have what is referred to as a "link farm" in External links; see WP:NOT and WP:EL, and also refer to the above article on writing medical articles. You might try to pare that down.
  • Your section headings don't conform to WP:MOS: have a look at the guidelines there. If the title of the article is repeated in the section headings, there's a problem in the section headings.
  • I didn't look at your article content, since I know nothing of your area, but I recommend you look at [[9]] and in particular, Tony's page at the bottom of that page.

So, in terms of how to proceed from here, I recommend that you read everything above and get all that preliminary work done, then ask for help from the medical projects, and then, last, list it at peer review (which isn't always very helpful) - WP:PR. Let me know if you need any further guidance: this is just a start. Sandy 18:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Help needed

Hey Sandy I have a favor to ask of you. I need some help copyediting Fauna of Puerto Rico. I wish to submit it to FAC but not before a good copyedit is done. I am a mediocre writer so I need a skillful pair of eyes to help me. Joelito (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I will ask Tony but he is murderous with my writing since I am a mediocre writer at best. I am a much better researcher and my native language is Spanish after all. Nevertheless, thanks for your help. Joelito (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

TS Review

To Dwaipayanc, Xyzzy n, Wouterstomp, Wikipedical, TimVickers, Arcadian, NCurse, TedE, Jkelly: to all who have helped me develop the article Tourette syndrome, I was hoping you'd have a new look. Jkelly has checked the images, I've asked Tony to do a thorough copyedit to polish the prose when he has time, and I've completed the referencing and expanded the Screening section. I think I've done all I'm capable of, and would appreciate any new input you may have. Sandy 23:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I've made a review on the article's talk page. Nearly perfect, absolutely great job! NCurse _work 06:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

TS

Sandy—I've looked at the lead. What about referring to it consistently as TS? Let me know if you prefer to retain "Tourette's". Tony 01:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, you're teaching me about Google rankings. Go with "Tourette's", if that does the trick. Tony 02:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering; did a compare edits and it looked major. Tony 15:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, didn't much like "in academic, social, behavioral or other realms". What about " in interpersonal and social ..."? Or something else? Tony 15:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll look at the scope/variety of references later. I guess it's an issue. Most WP articles do rely on too few sources, I suspect. Tony 16:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've turned all references thus far into "Tourette's", so when you decide on what it should be (perhaps you could use a combination of the full name and the shortened if you think it will maximise Google's exposure), you may need to paste the whole thing into word and do a find and replace on them, one by one. I think "comorbid" should be used rather than "co-occurring", since it's linked on first appearance and is the more technically correct term. There's some repetition concerning the relative intensity of tics and comorbid conditions, and of treatments. Tony 14:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Image distorting printable version

Although I have several images in Tourette syndrome, I am having problems with only one image distorting the text when I print from Printable version. I can't figure out what is causing the problem. The image of Jean-Martin Charcot in the History section causes distorted text when I print the article using the Printable version, but that is not happening with any other image. Part of the text is cut off, and text shows in the margins around the image, so it seems to have something to do with a frame or a border. Any help is appreciated: thanks! Sandy 21:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing's distorted for me. —Mets501 (talk) 05:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Mets ... it doesn't show in the printable version on-screen: it only shows when you actually print it. Sandy 14:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I just tried printing it, nothing is wrong for me, and the code looks very normal. Maybe it's a browser/OS issue? —Mets501 (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

FAC review

Hi Sandy - can you please conduct a fresh review of Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India? Having addressed your points, we need a fresh cue from you regarding the status of the article and what more needs to be done. Rama's arrow 14:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be concerned about two issues. Firstly, its not your fault alone when a contentious debate erupts. I have absolutely no desire or inclination to be unreasonable with people. Secondly, I can't understand why you'd assert that all India-related FAs have poor grammar and prose. Yes there is a major cultural difference between the usage of English by Indians as compared to others, but honestly I don't see any particular issue with the FAs promoted so far. I respectfully ask you to post your reasons for thinking so at WT:INWNB or just as a reply for me. It will be helpful for those of us trying to improve our language skills. Rama's arrow 18:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, if there is a pattern of language issues in India-related FAs, your insight will help us rectify the problem. Rama's arrow 18:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I was aware of some issues but I thought they were natural. I'd like to know if Spangineer and Tony think the same. When it comes to Wikipedia's content, quality is important and cultural barriers are not. I understand that you may not wish to, but I do hope you can find some time to give me some specifics to work with. Perhaps at the very least, you could have a look at a few of the FAs I've written and give me a few tips - take Lothal or Sardar Patel for instance. Rama's arrow 18:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Putting my nose in.... Quite some time back, when similar concerns were raised, I asked Spangineer for his opinions, and this was his reply. Thought it would be relevant to the discussion here. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

hmmm, as I was reading through that, I was wondering if I had written it myself. I also tend to focus more on inline citations than prose (partly because I know Tony will pick up the prose), and I tend to give in when editors are making a good effort, fearing I'm the only one who sees the problems. That pretty much sums up why I hesitate to comment on the India articles: contributors always make a good effort, but I sometimes fear I'm the only one who sees the prose problems. uh, oh, now we've got a lot of people on this topic: maybe it should have gone to the project page :-) Sandy 19:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to reiterate, I respect your opinion. You needn't be concerned about talking to me at least. Even in general, there should be no hesitation for you as long as you have WP's interest in mind. Rama's arrow 21:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sandy,

The IIT KGP FAC can do with some criticisms before "the sea of supporters" turn up. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Maraba Coffee

Hello! As you're a Wikipedian interested in African topics, I'm writing to notify you that the Maraba Coffee article is now a 'Featured Article Candidate'. Please feel free to evaluate the article and write your support or opposition at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Thanks — SteveRwanda 15:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, It's me from the Libya FAC, remember? I was just about to tell you about the Maraba FAC but I see you've already been told. I feel some of the sentences in the article are very difficult to get my tongue around. It could do with a copy-edit. Could you take a look at it? I'm going to vote later and have a better look myself. Jaw101ie 17:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

FARs

Thanks, for the work list :). I'm already working on a couple of the previous FAs that have been demoted, but I only deal with the poor neglected ones that are aren't getting any attention. I've rewritten England expects every man to do his duty which is in FAR at the moment, but one of the criticisms was that it was too short, which I've been unable to do anything about (and don't think is valid anyway). I did start on Tea, but it's a real mess with all the merger proposals and split-offs, and it's too long to do a quick restructure. Cheers, Yomangani^talk 09:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll add those to my "next candidates" list. I don't mind if people vote to remove early on, as long as they come back and check regularly. Ideally the remove votes cast early would be discounted if work is done afterwards, but I suppose that isn't the case? Yomangani^talk 12:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Images

In case I wasn't clear in my post to the noticeboard, I agree with your point about images (although I haven't looked at the one in question and don't expect to). I was just pointing out what you might be up against. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Help with debate on the synesthesia and famous synesthetes page?

Hi Sandy... Once again, I am coming to you for advice on wikiquette. In particular, the very section of the page that you highlighted as needing work (I've done some of the other things that you mentioned, but not all of them yet) seems to have attracted a troll. User:Mikkalai came across the synesthesia page, and started deleting the famous synesthetes section and the link to the main entry, arguing at first that "FORKS are disallowed" [10]. When I challenged him to show me where wikipedia policy states this (see Talk:Famous_synesthetes), he changed his argument to the idea that forks are inherently POV. As it has gone on, it seems like he has just been looking for a fight, since his concerns/comments/questions are spreading wider and wider. I am starting to think that I am just feeding a troll here. Any help, and or comments, would be greatly appreciated (even if you say that you think I'm completely in the wrong here!). I'm too close and have put too much into that entry to be completely objective about it. The majority of the debate has been taking place on the Talk:Famous_synesthetes page. Perhaps forks are inherently POV, but if that's the case, we really have some trouble here on wikipedia! Edhubbard 19:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Diaper-changing admins

Thanks for the laugh! :-D FreplySpang 15:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Homo floresiensis FAR

Hi Sandy, I was just looking at the FARs, and noticed Homo floresiensis was there. I added a comment about POV, since it seems to me that the nom'er is not considering that not all data is equally good data, and it's not POV if it's the majority view. One thought I had too, was to leave a message about the FAR at the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Evolutionary_biology page. Although that project is supposedly more molecular, there might be some people involved with both projects who would be interested in the FAR. Edhubbard 07:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Night watch

OK, you're 11 hrs behind? Guess that means my afternoons and evenings ... Tony 03:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll watch it too from now. So we cover the whole day. :) NCurse _work 05:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You are a wikignome! :) It's 7:10 a.m for me... Good night! NCurse _work 05:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh

Thanks for watching my back. We could all use a little help where the CT-promoters are concerned. Let me know if I can ever be of service. Morton devonshire 05:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

K4zem

Sure, Spanish is my native language... however, I didn't understand very well what you meant. Do you mean warn him for his incivility and name-calling towards you, or because of the edit summaries? I personally think that his behavior is more egregious than edit summaries... but anyways, sure, when you need something, I'll tell him. As for the peer review: I'll try to do it sometime soon, although I have like four articles on my to-do list already... I'll get to it, though. If you have the time, though, mind giving me quick comments about Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina? Titoxd^(?!?) 04:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Tourette's

Sandy: Classification is a stubby section; I wonder whether it's possible to merge it with Characteristics? Unsure. And to forestall the anti-list reviewers at FAC, should the three items under Classification be in running prose? Tony 06:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the family reference repeats what is said elsewhere. Perhaps "gives those with Tourette's the skills to manage"? Didn't like "one".

International keyboard

If you have a MS windows PC I could show you how to load the Intn'l keyboard on your laptop. This way you could type Ñs and accents, also non Spanish foreign chars. JRSP 12:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You could also keep a special char table in your userspace. I added Tourette syndrome to my watchlist JRSP 13:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget Á É Í Ó Ú Ñ ü Ü ¿ ¡ , they could be useful eventually JRSP 13:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Maraba Coffee - how is it going?

Evening Sandy - just interested to know your current take on the Maraba Coffee article. Quite a lot of work has been done by various editors (including yourself) to try to address the prose issues you felt were necessary. The 'promotional tone' problem has been looked at too. It seems there is still an issue over the length of the lead, but in my opinion (and this has undergone some work too) it sums up the contents of the article quite well, and any further shortening will remove potentially interesting info for people who only read the lead. For what it's worth I've had a chat with BanyanTree (who is an experienced Wikipedian, and something of a mentor for me) about this and he is generally in agreement that it's OK as it stands (see User talk:BanyanTree#Maraba (lead)). Opinion appears to be split amongst those who've reviewed the article and I'm not entirely sure on protocol when a disagreement occurs over an objection in WP:FAC, but I can see you're experienced in this area so your support would be valued.

Anyway, please have another look if you have a spare moment and let me know / fix any other points you think are not up to scratch. Cheers — SteveRwanda 16:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Featured article candidate - Gliding

Thanks for the comments on the article on gliding. I have made all the changes that you suggested, including references to demonstrate that all the notables listed are/were glider pilots. If there any other ideas, I would be pleased to receive them. Thank you again. JMcC 21:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Mars

Raul removed it early today (26th). No edit summary, as often. I dunno. I trust his judgement totally, but I worry about his workload. Marskell 22:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

and Venus

I had glanced again at "Transit of..." today. Yomangani is such a great editor! I try to keep a general sense of most every article on FAR (hopeless, moving, hopeless, moving etc.) and he stupifies me every few days by plowing into one on my mental hopeless list. Anyhow, I'll try to look more closely tomorrow, tho I have an important real world letter to draft up. If I've acquired any "amateur expertise" here, its with astronomical stuff.

I also plan to respond about the citations problem list but I'm not sure how I feel yet. As noted, a best case is still two years to clear it out, but if we nudge them out more quickly are we curtailing the type of effort Yomangani is doing? Marskell 23:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Mormon handcart pioneers FAC

Thank you for commenting on this article. In response to your comments I've been going through the article again, looking for words or phrases that can be cut or sentences that can be simplified. It will certainly help.

Your comments were a bit terse on a couple of points, however, so I wonder if you could provide a bit more guidance.

• "Sections don't conform to WP:GTL, and section headings need attention per WP:MOS." In the version you reviewed there was a problem with the "See also" section, which another editor had moved out of place. I've corrected that problem. But I've reviewed WP:GTL and WP:MOS and I'm still not sure what other problems you're concerned with. Any guidance would be appreciated.
• "Notables are not sourced." I'm not familiar with Wikipedia guidelines on this topic. Could you please point me to some guidance, or at least to an article that handles them correctly.

Thanks again. BRMo 02:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, based on your comments I've organized the sections to conform with Wikipedia guidelines and added references to the notables. I've also gone through the entire article copy editing again, trying to eliminate the problems you spotted and to shorten overly long sentences. Thank you for encouraging me to do this. BRMo 03:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India

All your suggestions have been looked into, and taken care of. Please tell if there is anything more required. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 05:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

TS

Sandy, I answered your queries on my page; thx for reminding me about Joel's FAC. Tony 15:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Maraba again

Hi Sandy,

Hope I'm not bothering you too much here! There's been another day of activity on the Maraba article, and I've filed responses to your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Maraba Coffee as usual. Cheers, and have a nice evening — SteveRwanda 17:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh well, thanks for all your work anyway. I genuinely don't believe a bad precendent is being set here - as BT says, it should be treated as a business article and to chop out partners with whom they have done business simply because the context makes it feel like a "feel-good marketing tool" would be wrong - there can be overlap between an encyclopedia and a brochure. I'd better choose a more obviously neutral subject for my next FA push, anyway! Cheers — SteveRwanda 17:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

PS - Just in case you're not watching, Mark has asked at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Maraba Coffee whether you can strike out any objections which have been fixed so we can easily see what the outstanding ones are. Good night — SteveRwanda 17:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

FAR stats plus GAs

I have been following the stats, and have been very very pleased; this month it has been close to 40%. I honestly thought the % would be in the single digits when I first worked on that page. When I update it on 30th/1st I'll add the column you suggest.

I'm a little torn on what you say about GA. You may have noticed that where I comment on that process I tend to denigrate it. Perhaps I've been mean-spirited, but there's a flaw at the heart of it: the more they improve their standards, the more it comes to resemble FA and the less use there is in having it. Why do we need to drain manpower for two parallel (in the negative sense) processes that are hard to distinguish—FAs and almost-FAs? I've said once before, that if the GA standards are actually met on GA-tagged articles, they are practically FAs already and should just go to FAC. But are they meeting their own standards? The input process is incredibly diffuse, as anyone can come along and pass something. The fact that every once in a while one of the people who works on it needs to go through the list and drop a dozen in a day does not speak well of the process. So, if it works I don't see the need and if it doesn't work I definitely don't see the need. Thus, I'd rather not engage those talk pages. I've suggested reform ideas a few times at WP:GAC and WP:GA but it's useless b/c the process is already old enough to have reactionaries who reply with "we're just fine—screw off". The GAC talk particularly has enormous volume, so you just kind of get lost in the yapping—this, in its own way, speaks to a flawed process. Why do people need to talk about it so much? See the WP:FA talk. No flare-up a day, because the process is working.

So there's my latest GA rant. Regarding your concern about further notification:

1. You're on much safer ground describing the FA criteria than someone describing GA. WIAFA effectively functions like a policy despite not having the policy tag (one of the few pages that can be said of).
2. Present it as a just letting you know, my hands are tied, point. "Some people like the inline cite rules, some don't, but a rule it is". Because FA status is a clearly defined status we can clearly demand things.
3. Remember that Harvard ref style is allowed. Some science editors prefer them, AFAIK. Thus, "can you at least move to Harvard style" might be a compromise to present to people.

Finally, I looked at Transit of Venus as you suggested. It's getting into shape. Marskell 17:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Francesco

I think that might be it... I think he's a very good editor because he takes this very personally, but I think it makes it hard for him because he cares about it all so much. I know he also has some health issues which probably don't make things easier for him. In general, he does so much good for wikipedia that I generally forgive his outbursts (and he often seems to regret them afterwards), but at some point, he's going to meet up with someone that doesn't understand, or even know, all that he does for philosophy on wikipedia. I wish he could just take it all a little easier, for his own sake, too. Edhubbard 20:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, and I assume you know him better than I do, having been around here longer than I have. I don't think it's ok for him (or anyone) to snap at you the way he did, and I didn't intend my comments to be an apology on his behalf. I guess he will regret it later, but I don't think that you should be asked to put up with being snapped at indefinitely. No matter how stressed out people become, there should be a certain level of respect and courtesy... Edhubbard 22:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

:-) If all else fails, at least you still have your sense of humor. Let me know if I can help any. Edhubbard 22:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Review

Hi Sandy. I was hoping that, if you have the time, you could read through Frank Macfarlane Burnet and let me know about anything that still needs work. Thanks. --Peta 04:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll have another look at the TS article in the morning. Two little format things that spring to mind (1) I find the picture in the infobox a little bit odd (2) the topics template could use some cosmetic work, mabye something like {{Australia topics}} could provide a template for the template. My EurekAlert RSS alreted me to this recent study, you're probably in the best position to decide if its worth a mention; I might be able to get a pdf of the article if you can't. --Peta 13:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Policy tag

Maybe you have an opinion on this. No one has responded :(. Marskell 08:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well...

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me. I just wanted to let you know that I find your comments borderline personally offensive, and IMHO your attitude is hardly helping the development of WP. I appreciate that you did not voice your opinion in the GA discussion though. Bravada, talk - 15:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No need to go away, just reconsider:

• Even though a sock puppet, vandal or whoever can list an article, anybody can still delist it. We are dealing with improper actions both ways (especially illegitimate listing) every day, and we are ever more successful in weeding out bad faith and simply improper actions. There is also GA/R for more controversial actions. The system is just beginning to work well, but it is on its way.
• We have also started an initiative to re-review all the GAs accrued over the last months, in order to make sure that they all meet the standard. These efforts have been stopped by most active reviewers being entangled into pointless discussions with users who actually do not care about GA!
• The cornerstone reason why some "science" editors create so much ado, and effectively obstruct the functioning of GA, making users like you get the impression it is all about bickering, unstable etc. is that they do not want to be bothered with making inline citations. I could say complying with the Manual of Style is a waste of time (with regard to some point at least), but I won't disrupt FAC or whatever other process because of that, but rather agree with the broader community consensus and adapt my articles to it.

I hope this would make your understanding of the issue more clear. Bravada, talk - 15:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

MagicKirin blocks

MagicKirin (talk · contribs) is doing same to Hugo Chávez. Sandy 15:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Now warned about the WP:NPOV policy. (aeropagitica) 15:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: FAR question

Thanks for the revelation! If possible, I want to avoid working with the intransigent anarcho-capitalists who've established control of the article—it's too time-consuming and, from experience, it won't produce anything. I don't have time for arbitration, either. I'm hoping that an FAR will bring some neutral voices into the fray, because we clearly need a more broad array of people in order to formulate a legitimate consensus on what this article should look like. If my review is deleted, however, I'll be willing to wait the three months. -- WGee 20:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Today's Italian FA

Might you be interested in reviewing today's Featured Article on the Italian Wikipedia? (0.--Francesco Franco 09:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Laika

I'm pretty much done with it - I've rewrote the pop culture last night (dropping a few of the more tenuous connections), and I'm waiting on a reply on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions about the image status. I expect objections on length, as it is another narrow subject with not a lot of publicly available information. Do you see anything obviously lacking? Statements needing citations etc.? Cheers, Yomangani^talk 12:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I cleared up most of the pages linked to that soon to be deleted image and left an {{editprotected}} on the anniversary page. Thanks for spotting that. Yomangani^talk 15:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)