User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch41

Mug shots

I started a thread here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mug_shots. Would you mind giving input? Thankyou. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Olive Branch

		Olive branch
		My comments at the MFD of the Award Center were neither kind nor helpful, therefore I am sending you this. I hope you can accept my apology.--LAAFan 16:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Question

I've been noticing a lot of problems with the FA Isaac Newton lately. Many citations missing. Many images on the left under sub headings. Many strange uses of centered quotations. No criticism of Newton (there was quite a bit). Structure seems to be strange, as you have biographical bits not integrated into the biography, but completely disconnected. Massive "see also" section. Unnecessary "further reading" section. And on and on and on. However, this is part of many wikiprojects and is connected to many editors, which would make it a logistical almost impossibility, and might have an unnecessary landslide of "keeps" without any true review. What should be done? Would it even be worth me preparing a detailed FAR entry? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

A landslide of Keeps means nothing at FAC or FAR if there are demonstrable issues wrt WIAFA; it's due for review. The External link farm is a fright. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to spend a little time cleaning up the most trivial things (image positioning and captions, See also overload, maybe the external linkfarm, etc). It should go to FAR anyway, but this way only the most substantive problems need be listed there. Maralia (talk) 00:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Maralia, will you be willing to help me put together an FAR entry (discuss the initial report) and also help me with some of the fixes (I have some substantial 18th century accounts of complaints lodged against Newton's theories)? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be best for you to write the FAR nomination, as I'm largely ignorant of the content issues, which would be the most serious problem. I'll help wrangle it through FAR, though, and do copyediting/MOS cleanup, and if the content fixes aren't over my head, I'll help with those too. Maralia (talk) 02:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson's early life ‎

When you get a chance (not now of course), could you add a section to Samuel Johnson's early life for TS diagnosis to talk about its influences on his childhood/appearances in childhood/the information on how TS naturally progresses in childhood? I'm think that a paragraph about how TS normally develops, then an analysis by Pearce et al on how it appeared in Johnson. Two paragraphs should be fine. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

While I'm traveling, I'm trying to only keep my watchlist from getting away from me. This shortcut keeps popping up when I want to get out to dinner. I will look at this in a few weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Johnson's health, including TS and History of TS made it onto the main page. I'm sorry if this brings forth any trolls, but it might bring in some decent editors. Welllll... heres the heads up. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, thanks. Just what I needed when I just got home at 1 am. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:FAWCP shortcut at top of Wikipedia:Featured articles with citation problems

After noticing this, I thought that Redirects for discussion was an appropriate venue to resolve assessing the value of this shortcut and its merit at the top of the page by opening the discussion up to the wider community. I think gaining community input is a good way to help resolve disagreements on Wikipedia, but if you feel that there was a way to do so which could have taken less time, please let me know and I will do my best to improve upon that in the future. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What disagreement? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This one. Cirt (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe Cirt doesn't understand why the tag isn't on the article, or strongly believes that the tag should be on the article. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, I merely thought that the shortcut to WP:FAWCP should belong at the top of the page for which it is a redirect. That was all. :) Cirt (talk) 02:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Cirt has plans for the page, I don't know. I see no disagreement. The page has been around for years, is just about out of business, no one has ever used that shortcut, and any time spent dealing with the shortcut is time that could be better spent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, at any rate, I am glad that the issue was resolved and that the community input helped to resolve it. Cirt (talk) 02:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Accessibility

You know, more specific comments would be helpful, particularly if you're seeing a particular trend. We make heavy use of templates, so we can probably fix any issues easily. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing one of everything :-) In reading WP:ACCESSIBILITY, notice the order of items in the lead. Within sections, notice that images should be in the section, not just above it, and after other templates, like main. Also, no left-aligned images under level 3 headings. Also concerned about colors in the charts, I'm not up on color-blindness, but that needs to be looked in to with all those colors. On the last FAC, I also found an over-sized font in a template, and a strange new way of adding a See also to the lead. If you want to learn more, you can hop over to the talk page at WP:ACCESS to see what it's like to read through these sorts of items with a screen reader. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, the order in the lede problem is one we could probably be better at, but the colors have been debated endlessly, and we arrived at a consensus with the aid of color-blind people, so I believe we should be fine there. Images at the end of sections are a last resort when there's a significant layout problem posed by putting the image in the next section, but again, that's not really default operating procedure at all. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Geology of the...

Hey Sandy. Do you mind checking this one:Wikipedia:Featured article review#Geology of the Zion and Kolob canyons area. I know sometimes you've had concerns about MoS on mav's FAR saves. He has done a heckuva lot work on his old ones. Marskell (talk) 08:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I have no problem if you want to move Synge off the list. As long as you're happy with it. Marskell (talk) 10:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you give me an extra day? With travel, I'm not likely to get to it today. Or maybe Maralia will check the MoS issues there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm headed out to dinner; if I'm not out too late, I'll try to take a look at it tonight. Maralia (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry

I apologize about the whole WP:FAWCP thing. I let a discussion get carried away and out of hand as opposed to just ending it and letting it go. Sorry to have wasted your time and I hope we can put this behind us. Yours, Cirt (talk) 09:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem, Cirt, it really isn't a big deal. It was just a minor irritation because I'm traveling and it kept popping on my watchlist. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson's politics

Hi, please see here for hasty CSD... apologies all round, best wishes, --Badgernet ^Talk 16:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

NO problem, I see it was sorted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I've been trying to put together a page for both Johnson's morality and politics and I accidentally copied the one into the other. I believe that I could further expand his critical career in its own page, trim it down some by two paragraphs, and add in a further paragraph on both his morality and his politics. This would mean that every one of Johnson's major beliefs will be covered. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New York State Route 74‎

I just added a withdraw message to it - I can't solve Ottava Rima's opposes and I am a dang idiot with references.Mitch32^(UP) 19:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Disregard that comment, I had a mental breakdown right there, sorry about that.Mitch32^(UP) 20:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Does a FA need to have an image?

Hi Sandy. An opposition was raised in this FAC becuase it has no images. Is that valid? Is the wording of criteria 3 misinterpreted (a discussion on this went nowhere at all), or must all FAs have (free or justified fair-use) images? Could you clarify this in the FAC? Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 01:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Images should be included if they are attainable; there are many FAs with no images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)\

Dashes

Hi; thanks for your message; I was changing them because in the bulk of the biographical articles I have seen, endashes are used consistently; in the two links you provided I didn't see anything directly related to the use of dashes in dates. I'm certainly happy to stop changing them as it will reduce my editing. Your thoughts appreciated, thanks. FeanorStar7 (talk) 08:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. thanks for the clarification. FeanorStar7 (talk) 08:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Great American Bash (2005)

Hi SandyGeorgia, this FAC is supposed to close today, but there are only commments, and no supports or opposes. What will result from this? Best, iMatthew (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

FACs don't run for set periods like FLCs do. I can't say what Sandy will do, but there is no set period of time that an FAC runs. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Supposed to close today? There is no such thing :-) I have been traveling and will catch up on FAC tonight. In the meantime, I suggest you add it to the Urgents template; no one maintains that template regularly, and I periodically give up on it. I don't usually close a nom with no commentary unless I can see that policy concerns raised about images or reliable sources haven't been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I see, can you comment on the FAC? iMatthew (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want me to comment on? It looks like images are clear, reliable sources are clear, and Buddingjournalist is suggesting a copyedit. Have you re-contacted Buddingjournalist to resolve those concerns? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have, but he has not commented back. If everything seems good, is it the lack of support votes holding the article from passing? iMatthew (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

New York State Routes

I brought those three pages to the featured article review board to get an unbiased opinion of the articles. The only users who will see a discussion on those route's talk pages are those who put the article together. Obviously they will all say to keep them at FA status. I am looking for this discussion to be seen by people who are outside observers as well. If the consensus is to keep FA, then that's fine. I'm just looking for a fair discussion. Please let me know what I have to do to list those articles for discussion. Thanks! --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 20:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You have to read and follow the instructions at WP:FAR. [1]

First, we don't include three articles in one FAR.

Second, you didn't correctly set up the transcluded FAR page.

Third, you shouldn't nom three articles at a time, even if you set up separate files.

Fourth, you didn't specify any actionable aspect of WP:WIAFA that these articles violate. Even if you brought them correctly, one at a time, they would be dismissed if you don't specify a breach of WP:WIAFA.

Fifth, per WP:FAR instructions, you should allow three to six months from time of promotion before bringing a FAR; in this case, probably six months, since the articles appear to have no noticeable breaches of WIAFA.

So, there were multiple issues with your nomination of these articles, the most important being that they don't appear to breach WIAFA in any way. Spending some time reviewing our notability policies may be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

They are together because they are from the same set of routes in NY and if one gets demoted then all three should. If one stays then they all should too. It's like putting Lake Ontario and Lake Erie in the same group because they are part of the Great Lakes. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 21:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you really misunderstand featured article criteria. You wanted to initiate a review of the FA status of those three state routes, on the basis of your belief that only articles about particularly popular subjects should be eligible for featured article status. This is not how the FAC and FAR systems work. Featured article status is not in any way dependent on the popularity of the article or its subject. If an article meets WP:N then it is generally allowed to exist on Wikipedia. If an article exists, then it is eligible for evaluation against featured article criteria and, ultimately, FA status if it is deemed to meet the criteria. Long story short: FAR only reviews articles against the FA criteria, which do not include popularity or importance. If you want to discuss the criteria, the proper place to do so would be Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria. Maralia (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, seems everytime I turn around, some of my New York road FAs are being disputed here. :) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Just an odd way to promote Wikipedia with a meaningless road that travels in mostly rural areas of New York. But Maralia, if that is how FA status works than I don't really have an argument. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 03:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose, in which case to me such road articles are not meaningless. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No offense to you Julian, but a NY state route is a very narrow topic that only roadgeeks are going to get excited about. When I think of a featured article, I would like to see something more broad. An article of Abraham Lincoln or the 2008 Presidential Election would be examples of these. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 20:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A narrow topic it might be. A useless topic? Certainly not. I'm the farthest thing from a so called "roadgeek", but I work on articles on roads that I drive because I have knowledge of the topic. If you dislike the obscurity of a page, don't read it. And also, I have no interest whatsoever in politics, so I'm going to go ahead and say only politicgeeks would be interested in reading United States presidential election, 2008. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Julian, read what you wrote. Comparing the presidential election to NY 22, 32 or 28. Come now, you know better than that. The presidential election effects the WORLD! The northern terminus of NY 22 being truncated effects no one. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 22:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I meant what I wrote, and I wrote what I meant. Me comparing the presidential election to these routes is just as irrational as you attempting to demote them from featured status because of their popularity. I find it disappointing that I must keep explaining why I work on the articles that I choose. This is a volunteer project, and I can work to get any sorts of articles for featured status that I want, and I shouldn't be badgered for that. And I bet more people have driven on any one of those roads than are in the presidential election, so I suppose one could say the roads have more of an effect on individual people? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Julian, chill; I completely agree with you. One of the articles I'm most proud of is Manchester Mummy, because I know that there's no better account anywhere than the one that that I wrote. One of wikipedia's strengths is that it has comprehensive articles on notable subjects not covered in other encyclopedia. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I feel quite a bit better now to think of it in that sense. (Manchester Mummy is quite an interesting article, by the way). –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Excitement is not one of the FAC criteria. If it was, we wouldn't have an article on every episode of The Simpsons. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Good grief, Malleus; you made me get my head out of Johnson for an orange bar with a bit of Simpsons' wit!!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The Simpsons is a show that is known by everyone whether you like it or not. You cannot compare a show that has lasted 20 years to a state route. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 21:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

As it happens I very much enjoy The Simpsons. But I also understand the featured article criteria, whereas it appears that you do not. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand the FA process well. Wikipedia does not take into consideration the reach of an article to the general audience. It is purely how well done a page is that gets it there as long as its something barely notable. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 21:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I could argue that a highway has a wider impact on society than an individual episode of any TV. As such, under your train of thought, why is an article on an episode of The Simpsons any more notable than a highway in New York or Michigan? We have feature articles on TV Shows and individual songs as well as academic topics. FAC isn't the forum for notability. If an article can survive AfD, it potentially can survive FAC and succeed. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Burp, I think, confuses the idea of our "best work" with that of the articles most worthy of that "best work". But this is a volunteer project, and so editors will work on whatever attracts their interest and attention. That is both wikipedia's strength and its weakness. There are many far better encyclopedia articles in wikipedia than can be found anywhere else, but there are also many poor articles on what many might regard as core topics. I guess that's at the root of Burp's comments, but it's just in the nature of this beast. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine and with the current rules for FA I don't have a leg to stand on. While it is outrageous to compare the Presidential Election and a show that is among the top shows of this generation to a NY state route, I respect your hobbies, especially you Julian. This isn't an attack. These are just my concerns about very narrow topics being featured on Wiki's main page. The rules are in your corner, so I don't pose a threat to your articles. In fact, I think you and your fellow editors did a tremendous job. The NY state routes are so very well done and are really better than most of what Wiki has to offer. This will be my last post on the topic unless someone directly asks me a question. Regards --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 18:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I respect your opinion on the matter, but I just want to ask why you chose to FAR NY routes, rather than the numerous equally-obscure FAs about individual TV episodes, music albums and songs, small villages in the U.K., etc. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What is . . .

WP:NSBSPs? That is what you said for me to look out for in the Jena Six article.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably WP:NBSP - non-breaking spaces? Gimmetrow 02:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

So far, I found one on a time; review for others. I wish Wiki had better articles on legal jargon; I'm coming up short. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way Wehwalt, would you mind if the cite fields date=2008-08-13 were changed to date=August 13, 2008 ? Gimmetrow 02:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a concept I was familiar with, I'll puzzle through it, but I hope someone gives me a heads up if I screw up. Still on Jena Six, Sandy, I don't know if you noticed, but in the first paragraph of the Mychal Bell proceedings section, aggravated battery is defined. All the same, I'll link it to Assault#Aggravated_assault. Is there any other legal term you want to see defined? I won't make any edits until 15 minutes after you stop editing to avoid EC's. And no, Gimmmetrow, I don't mind in the least.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll stop for now and check in later. In general, just do another runthrough and keep in mind that laypersons don't know a lot of legal jargon, perhaps you can link more terms. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm on it, Sandy. I've already got links for a couple. This may be why there are so few law FA's.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Gimmetrow, while you're here: this sort of thing is kinda troublesome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you take another look, see what you think?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Almost through FAC, then will look. Poor Gimmetrow is probably waiting for me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, I'm on my way. Vacation afterburn; took me four hours to get through FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Sandy. It's my first "solo" FA, after I was left holding the bag when all the other editors wandered off after the J6 left the news. I'm very pleased.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's unusual for someone to stick to it after the news dies down; I've got a few I should get back to and clean up myself <sigh>. Anyway, the thanks go to the reviewers; I just push the buttons. Congratulations ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm a stubborn cuss, you know that by now! I've got a couple of historical articles I'm thinking of working on, but it is going to take time to whip them into shape.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed moves

Blnguyen proposed that these article be moved: [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought that the list was just there to keep tabs on weakly referenced articles - I didn't understand your edit summary. Do we have to get a consensus before it is put on the "endangered" list? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I responded there. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

LMS FAC

Hi, I had a question about the Little Miss Sunshine FAC that you closed. I was just wondering if there was a time limit that a nomination needs to be closed by? There was only four days since the last person commented, and I had planned on asking the people to continue their discussions, but didn't want to rush asking them so quickly to come off sounding pushy or desperate. There were a few issues that required discussion from new reviewers, which I guess I could have used more of. I thought that I had read somewhere that the nominations were usually closed if there had been no major changes in a week's time (or if there were numerous oppose votes). Thanks for your help, I am just curious in the actions I need to take in my next attempt. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I can respond faster if you link me in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :-) No, time limits are rarely the issue. In this case, it was a matter of the issues that were accumulating: content and copyedit issues as well as sourcing and image issues. It will have a better shot at FAC if it appears with all sourcing and image issues sorted in advance. Very often, when a nomination has been up for two weeks with a variety of issues and without a lot of support, the fastest route to the star is a fresh start after ironing out issues raised. Hope to see you back soon! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. This was my first attempt at FAC and it is an interesting process. It may be a while to try again, if ever, since I have other projects and school to deal with. Hopefully I can convince more people to take a look at it if there is a second attempt. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

ah, keep going while the iron is hot ... it's too hard to restart again later :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If you didn't don't worry, but did you see any issues yourself if you looked at the article? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering the popularity of the film, I'd expect high quality sources to be available. Some WP:OVERLINKing, for example, no need to link states and the US. A hidden table within the text (in the Awards section, violates MOS, the hidden text doesn't mirror, print and violates WP:ACCESS). But generally, if you have clean sources and solve any image issues, as well as the content issues that were raised, you should have an easier time on your next attempt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have looked for more reliable sources (looking through my university's databases), but I believe that due to the film's somewhat recent release, there hasn't been too much time for print sources to become available. I saw on the talk page of the hidden template that you were commenting on its use in articles, but I haven't seen anything that exclusively prevents it (I think that if you're printing it and then click show while its in print mode, it may print that way, but I haven't tested it myself). I may be splitting it off anyway into its own list anyway, so the issue may be avoided. Thanks again for taking a look. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

ArticleHistory template

Hi Sandy, with ref to the unprotection of the above template, you would probably need to read what I linked to in the AN thread to get the full story. Basically, the way MediaWiki works ends up with bad category page counts when the servers have problems (as far as I can tell). All I did was change the template to remove the categories and wait for it to update pages on the job queue until the page counts went to less than zero - then they got recounted. I downloaded the latest MediaWiki software and database schemas, read through the source code of the various classes to find the fix is to force the page-count to < 0, and discussed it around before proceeding - in my typically obsessive fashion. It's difficult to be sure who is taking the lead on certain pages, timezones of editors, etc. I gathered my info, felt I had sufficient approval to proceed, and made sure that what I was setting out to do would be low-risk since I knew it could all be reversed. I wasn't aware that Gimmetrow was the lead on that stuff. Is he familiar with MediaWiki too? Or has SQL access to the DB? That would be a definite bonus.

Unfortunately, there is still a problem with mis-counting of pages in categories and I think there may be a slightly different problem too - the second problem I allude to in my VPT thread, referential integrity between the categorylinks and page tables. This might require devs to get resolved. Cheers! Franamax (talk) 05:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Gimmetrow (talk · contribs) could probably have helped you sort it all faster, without the risks that come along with unprotecting (that is, everyone fiddles with the complicated syntax and bombs out articlehistory everywhere :-) Dr pda (talk · contribs) is also up on articlehistory (although I think he's not an admin, so can't help with protected edits). Right after you made your adjustments, that other image problem appeared (being discussed strangely at WP:ANI), so of course I blamed your edits for bombing out the featured star on articlehistory templates :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I've put this to Gimmetrow on their talk page for reference and opinion. You may underestimate my degree of thoroughness, I spent quite a few hours researching the whole thing and determined to simply change two category names by adding "(temp)" to them. I did it that way specifically to avoid any problems with complicated syntax - though you can check at VPT to see elsewhere where I have been able to deal with moderately complicated template syntax. I'm relatively skilled at dealing with running-database type work and I'm defintely paranoid about what I do. (Though I did once during Y2K testing overlay the order-entry system of one business line of the company with a historical image from three months before - ackk! :( ) I can only assure you that I had studied the problem enough that I was confident I had a low-risk way to proceed, and I monitored it throughout.

The image thing, I assume you mean this? It's possible that my edit of the template caused some hiccups as the servers processed the template through the job queue - but that template is used on the Talk: pages, not the article pages, isn't it? And failing a solution at VPT or from the devs, we're left with kludging around the pagecounts for categories, which seems ... unsatisfactory - we should fix our database. Nevertheless, I understand your sensitivity around featured articles, I seem to recall reading something about their being "the best of Wikipedia" :) I take that pretty seriously.

And all that said, I see now the template has still not been reprotected, which to me is inexplicable. I'll go back to AN and complain. Hmmm, that shows a need for the tools - if one of us, lets say you were an admin, that wouldn't be a problem, would it? Hint, hint. ;) Franamax (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Better you than me !! Gimmetrow is an admin, but he wouldn't protect/unprotect that page, as he's heavily involved there. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Guadalcanal Campaign

Thank you for helping with the article [3]. Cla68 (talk) 07:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Automatic licence plate recognition (ALPR)

Automatic licence plate recognition (ALPR) Automatic vehicle identification (AVI) Car plate recognition (CPR) Licence plate recognition (LPR) Lecture Automatique de Plaques d'Immatriculation (LAPI)

I have been trying to compile a list of all OEM for ALPR products including software & online data collection & data mining. I need help locating them. Perhaps an entry in Wikipedia on the ALPR page could be a key part of accumulating this OEM data. Anyone researching ALPR needs this list.

You may reply to me directly to jeffrey.meade.osha@gmail.com or through Wikipedia 70.228.69.239 (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all familiar with that article or the technology, but it sounds like what you're suggesting may run afoul of WP:NOT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Could you please be more specific? --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 19:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead specialists

Hi Sandy - Do you know any WP:LEAD specialists? Wikipedia's Tokyo article is not even GA-class at this point, which seems to me to be a major problem (Tokyo being the most populous metropolitan area on the planet). I'm sure one FA issue would be the lead (there may well be other issues). If there's anyone around particularly good at lead writing who might be willing to help that'd be great. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 06:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting question. In pondering an answer, all I can come up with is that the skill required in writing a good lead is the skill of being a thorough and competent editor with good command of prose: not much to ask for :-)) Writing a good lead can't be done in isolation, because it requires that the editor digest and summarize the entire article. So, our best lead writers would be some of our most thorough editors: Colin, Maralia, Moni3, Karanacs, Malleus Fatuorum, Laser brain and the likes (too many to name). But would one of them really want to take time to digest an entire article so they could add three paragraphs to the lead? There's the tricky part. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-automated edits to put links in citation formatting

SandyGeorgia: I've started doing some semi-automated edits to modify citation formatting. I'd appreciate it if you could keep an eye on what I'm doing and let me know if you see any problems or have suggestions as to how to do it differently. I'm downloading the wikitext, running it through a Perl script, uploading it and manually checking it with the "Preview" and "Show Changes" button before saving. I have to be careful because I lose some of the unicode characters along the way; I avoid editing parts of the article such as the interwikis, for that reason. I try to check carefully using "Show Changes" to make sure I haven't lost anything. In this edit, the diff shows some lines as if they've been changed which however look identical to me; I don't know what's going on there. The other article I've modified so far is I-message. The purpose is to have links from the Notes section to the References section as described here. Thanks. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, good: apparently all I had done to make those extra lines show up in the diff was delete blank characters from the ends of lines. I'll see if I can modify my script not to do that, to reduce confusion. [4] ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I had the misfortune of encountering a link to Che Guevara while exploring the links you gave me above: I was surprised to see huge amounts of MoS issues introduced there, it appears even worse than when it left FAR, and it was hard to resist not taking the time to clean it up while I was there, but there's too much to do.

I would recommend that you never run that script without gaining consensus on the talk page first. WP:CITE specifically says not to change citation style without gaining consensus, and I personally detest everything about citation styles using the clickable blue links. I realize others may disagree, but I believe they sacrifice editability and ease for editors, while providing little to no return on readability to our readers. And, they chunk up load time while making a mess of text in edit mode. I have recently had to work on a series of articles that use Harvnbs, and have found adding this rather useless option (which isn't intuitive, as our non-editing readers might not realize they have to click to get there, but hit the back button to get back) seriously slows down my editing time, even to the point of discouraging me from wanting to add text, as it takes so much extra work to get the citation in there. Further, the blue links place the citation information an extra click away from the reader; I prefer to click once and click back once. And, as I've seen in articles I've had to work on that use such styles, they open up a new margin for error. There's another drawback: if a series of related articles uses one citation style, and you change it, text can't easily be moved between sub- and daughter articles. (Because Samuel Johnson uses Harvnbs, whenever I want to bring text over from any of the Tourette syndrome articles, I have to spend a lot of time reformatting citations, and I don't consider that this marginal clickability which chunks up load times provides that much benefit to our readers, who likely use the citations a lot less than we do. The loss of my time as an editor to import text and citations is not compensated for by a gain to our readers, IMO.) Tourette syndrome has clean, fast-loading citations; if someone changed the citation style there, they would be quickly reverted, after wasting a lot of time. I will not slow down load time for our readers and editing time for our editors in exchange for a feature that our readers are unlikely to care about, use or understand (the click back is not intuitive, and I really don't believe our non-editing readers use our citations as much as we do). More importantly, because WP:CITE specifically says not to change citation style without consensus, you may want to take care in applying the script. Other than that, I would say to watch out that endashes are preserved on page ranges, and that it handles multiple refs to the same author correctly. My preference would be that Wiki had none of those goofy blue links, and a clean, fast-loading consistent citation style across all articles. Now ask me how I really feel about Harvnbs and other "clickable" citation methods :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your note of caution about changing citation styles. I see that I was too hasty. After this I'll ask on the talk page first. About loading times: I tested with the 1960 South Vietnamese coup attempt and Isaac Brock, where I had made similar changes, and they seem to load in about the same length of time, as near as I can tell, before and after my edit. If I modify a page with a larger number of references I'll test it for loading time, too.

I'd really appreciate it if you would give me some hints about how to find the MOS issues that you see in the Che Guevara article. MOS issues were also mentioned in the FAR, but without specifics, so I'm baffled as to what my next step might be in trying to fix them. Perhaps you could give a few examples? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm so swamped right now, because I was away traveling for a week. I'll have to get back to you ... mostly I remember seeing image layout and block quote issues, see WP:ACCESSIBILITY, WP:MOS#Images, WP:MOS#Captions (punctuation on sentence fragments), way too many images and poor layout, WP:MOS#QUOTATIONS (pull quotes rather than blockquotes all over the place, check Samuel Johnson for an alternate method), there were font size changes, piped links and WP:OVERLINKing, a hidden table in the text (see WP:MOS, those don't mirror or print), external links of video footage in the midst of the article (with changing font sizes, too), changing font sizes in the list of works, hyphens instead of endashes on page ranges in citations ... that's just a quick flyover. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey. A couple things. You can avoid the commas in dmy dates in the cite templates by using a different field.[5] I also hacked up something so those without javascript can view the timeline in Che. Not perfect, but at least there's a link to the template where the timeline should be visible. Maybe Coppertwig can figure out some other way. The display:none had been added before the Che FAR passed, it appears. Gimmetrow 02:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

How clever on the daymonth field; I suppose I should have known that! Thanks, Gimme. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, SandyGeorgia, for the specific information on things to fix. By the way, I've tested load times on a number of articles and they don't seem to change when I add those links. I think load times are closely connected to the total number of ref links, which I haven't changed when adding those links. More discussion on citation links is here on my talk page. I'm sorry you don't like the citation format at Che Guevara. I tried to make it conform to what you'd asked for: for example, I didn't use "cite book" templates, although I would have preferred to do so, because you'd expressed a preference against them. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean that I have a preference against cite book templates? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh! I'm sorry: maybe I misunderstood, or remembered wrong. I thought you didn't want us to use templates like "{{cite book}}", "{{cite journal}}", {{cite news}} etc., but wanted us to just type in the reference (putting things in italics and bold where appropriate, putting commas and periods etc.) Do you think it's OK to use "cite book" etc., after all? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, without being certain where the misunderstanding occurred, I'll take a stab in the dark. I use the cite xxx family of templates (I prefer them to citation and Harvnbs for the reasons I gave above, but personal preference has no place at FAC or FAR). With book citations, though, some adjustments can make the text more readable in edit mode and less clunky. You can cite the book *once* in the references section with cite book, and then refer only to the page number in the notes, with a shortened note. See Ima Hogg. Perhaps that was the issue? It may have been that Guevara was repeating the full cite book info for each individual page cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

formatting

Hiya Sandy. When/if you get a moment, could I bug you to take a look at USS Iowa (BB-61) and help me format the referece/notes sections? I think that becuase I am drawing a little more material from print than from the net as I usually do I may need to reconfigure the section to resemble the notes and references sections in the article Iowa class battleship, but before doing enything overly drastic I would like a second opinion. Thanks in advance, TomStar81 (Talk) 20:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll get there Tom, but because I was traveling last week, I am really behind, and have ten critical items on my "ToDo" list at this moment, including three FARs waiting for my input. If I'm not there in a few days, pls remind me again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Bob Dylan FAR

You have asked me to complete the FAR notifications twice, but the final person to be notified, the original nominator, I cannot find. If you know how to find the user, please do tell. I can't figure out how to find the article milestones. Tealwisp (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please give me a link to the FAR so I can check faster. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bob Dylan Tealwisp (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; if people would just give me links, I could address things much more quickly. The article stats page is here; you navigate to en.wikipedia, and type in the article name to see who the top contributors are. You use {{subst:FARMessage|article name}} to notify those people, and the talk pages of any WikiProjects listed on the article talk page. The only top contributor still active is Mick gold. Then you post those notifications back to the FAR, see sample at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Rudyard Kipling. For samples, click on the notifications at the top of that FAR. These instructions are in Step 6 of the nominating instructions at the top of WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, the original nominator is still active, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bob Dylan. You locate the original FAC by going to the article talk page, clicking on "Show" on the article milestones box, and clicking on the Featured article candidate link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You deserve this

The coveted (well, not really) BULLSTAR is hereby bestowed upon User:SandyGeorgia for putting up with endless BS and yet continuing to do great work.

Basil "Basil" Fawlty (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I never thanked you for giving me Dan55's name for copy edits. Thank you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, two thanks in one day; how nice :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thriller

Yikes, I just noticed that Thriller (album) is at the end of the list and will run off the FAC treadmill soon. If it's possible to leave the review open a little longer, please allow it. I have 2 supports and one oppose. The oppose came very recently and I'm still working at it. The editor has expressed an interest in changing his vote if things are done. I just need a little time. — Realist² 00:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not on my radar yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, cheers Sandy. — Realist² 00:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The system works!

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Helicobacter pylori looked like it did what it's supposed to do. That's pretty cool!!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you 'spose the years of beating on and cultivating medical editors is finally paying off?  :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL. But it was a tough love right? By the way LOL. Except I thought we were good? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

We are, but I don't usually get rolled into that whole crowd. I missed all the fun, anyway, while my house flooded. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Your house flooded? Well, glad I'm not a stalker, because I thought you lived in California, and there's no floods this time of year, especially in the middle of a huge drought. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yippie!

Article made the mainpage! I appreciate your efforts to help me as I mongo-ed my way around the appropriate pages to get this article mainpaged on one of it's anniversaries.--MONGO 04:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The system works? Is the system gonna wet vac my house, move my furniture, replace my rugs, and move all the furniture back? <grrrrr ... > but congratulations ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hum...well, probably not, sorry. But I am happy you can help me navigate areas I should frequent much more often. If I just had more time and could get myself refocused on what really matters on this website. Best wishes.--MONGO 06:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Cold War FAC

Due to certain issues, as a nominator, I decided to withdraw this FAC. Please consider closing it as soon as possible. --Eurocopter (talk) 10:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll take care of this for you; should be done in just a moment. Maralia (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the manual bit is done. Just be sure to leave the {{fac}} template on the talk page so Gimmebot can complete the archiving process. Good luck next time! Maralia (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm feeling VERY nervous...

... I just put USA PATRIOT Act up for FAC. Haven't done that in years - literally. Wish me luck - and constructive criticism :-) Tbsdy lives (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Good luck, Ta bu ... other than very straightforward queries about sources and MoS issues, I try to stay out of the FACs  :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh man, I'm getting hammered - fair enough I suppose, but I get a bit annoyed when people say I haven't taken to peer review in a fairly aggressive tone yet don't check peer review, and also when they say it's my external links!

However, I don't think the article is ready for prime time yet. How do I withdraw the article to work on it? - Tbsdy lives (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want it withdrawn, I'll do that (just say the word), and if you want to get a more effective peer review, you can follow the tips at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 to invite the opposers to comment at a new peer review. It looks like most of the comments are calling for more aggressive use of WP:SS. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If you could... I'll get it back on peer review, rather than waste a lot of reviewers time. Thanks Sandy :-) - Tbsdy lives (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Tb, I withdrew it; be sure to leave the {{fac}} template in place until the bot goes through. I'm sorry it seemed so rough on you; yes, the standards and the breadth and depth of review have steadily risen since 2004, but it's also good to hear opinions from an old-timer about the tone of comments, and I'm sure everyone who read them will try to improve how they present comments in the future, although no offense was intended. I often find that I have to go back and remove "you" and "your" for "the article", and things like that. Good luck, and hope to see you back soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar

I really appreciate the barnstar. I'm getting on a plane in about 24 hours myself (for something like a 15-hour flight), so I totally appreciate the travel burnout. I feel like I'm having pre-travel burnout. Did I drop off the CD with the film clip of Frankenstein (1931 film) for my substitute? Will it work in the computer in my classroom? Should I keep working on my powerpoint presentation? Will my laptop work at the conference center in India? What will I do if it doesn't? Oh, yes, and I need to copyedit those articles for the special issue of the The Lion and the Unicorn I'm editing. And, of course, most importantly, should Wikipedia articles on novels quote authors on their own works? That is clearly the most important worry of all. I mean, millions of people read these articles. :) I hope you had a relaxing vacation! Awadewit (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it wasn't a vacation, it was back-breaking work ... and as you noted, it's not the actual time on the plane and in airports, but the pre-travel preparations and to-do list, the post-travel afterburn of catching up around the house, and now in my case, some serious time spent with a wet vac, moving furniture and getting rugs replaced <grrrr ... > Ha, when it rains it pours! Don't worry about the FAR; you can just leave a note on the FAR whenever more time is needed. Marskell sometimes lets them run two months, as long as work is ongoing. Be safe, and have a great trip! I hope you'll have fast internet access there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Matisse FAR

Ya, I was going to tell you to move that to archive. She didn't reply or list it on FAR.

(Sheesh, I turn my back and look what happens to my favourite guideline.) Marskell (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It used to be one of the clearest MoS pages on Wiki; similar has happened at WP:LAYOUT, which used to be clear. I can't seem to get any of the MoS people to realize they are missing the forest for the trees, and the forest is burning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Music of Chicago

Hi Sandy, the nominator has withdrawn this and blanked the page. Graham Graham Colm ^Talk 18:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• You're too quick for me gal! Graham Colm ^Talk 18:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • They keep me busy :-) I was running through FAC, and it took me a while to figure out why one went missing (since I work from my own notes, list and spreadsheet). Thanks, Graham. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

1995 Pacific Grand Prix FAC

Hi Sandy. I think I've done with the minor fixes to go with the MoS. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I left you a note on talk there, did you see it? You undid an adjustment that I made to conform with WP:ACCESSIBILITY and WP:MOS#Images; there's now a left-aligned image under a third-level heading that my change had corrected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Changed back. D.M.N. (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. WP:ACCESSIBILITY is overlooked at FAC, yet it impacts upon readers with disabilities who use screen readers. We have three sometimes competing image issues: 1) no left-aligned under third-level headings, 2) eyes not looking off the text, and 3) stagger right-left. I like to prioritize in that order, since the first makes life easier on readers with disabilities, while the third is purely aesthetics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that with me. D.M.N. (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Manchester Bolton & Bury Canal

First time for me with the FAC process - I can't see an obvious reason that it wasn't promoted - should I resolve the issues raised completely, and try again? Its an article I've written mostly by myself and therefore I have to address everything myself, it just takes a bit of time :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There were a number of unresolved (or unclear) issues there, and the only supporter was an "involved" (GA reviewer) editor, so the article hadn't gained any independent support. (Not that I discount involved support, but I look for independent support as well.) When an article isn't getting feedback after being listed for quite a while, I'm sometimes forced to try to determine what might be causing reviewers to hold off. In addition to the unresolved or unclear issues on the FAC, when I looked at the article I saw many minor MoS glitches: hidden text in two sections, layout issues, and I hit some prose patches that I struggled with. In terms of what was mentioned on the FAC, try to thoroughly resolve sourcing and image issues before the next FAC (that will help things go smoother), and note that Dr Kiernan had a large amount of commentary just on getting through the lead, so a fresh set of eyes on copyedit might help. Usually articles sail through on the next attempt, while lengthy issues right up front can scare off subsequent reviewers; hope to see you back soon! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll be back :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Retrospective diagnosis

Ha ha! When I typed "mild" I knew it wasn't the right word! How about "subtle"...? "Relatively inconspicuous"? In my friend's case it involved winking at lampposts and counting letters back from fullstop/periods. Does that count as "mild"? In his case I used "mild" to mean noticeable but...—well, he never shouted anything rude. "Mild" is a difficult word to get a grip on anyone: when discussing curries it counts virtually as an insult.
Anyway, more seriously, I'm a little surprised that posthumous diagnosis doesn't exist. As time goes on presumably such a thing can only become more important? Or is there another page that covers such things? almost-instinct 22:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd raise it at WP:MED if I had the time :-) What would be the right adjective to replace "mild"? Typical :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No sooner said than done! I've asked questions on Project talkpages before: I notice that one either gets a genuinely enthusiastic reception or totally blanked. Lets see... almost-instinct 22:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick! As for "mild" vs "typical"- using the latter would suggest that one felt one knew what one was talking about, whereas the former merely indicates that whatever else, it isn't a big deal. At least, that's what I intended by it. I can think of increasingly inept alternatives: inobstrusive; uninhibiting; parenthetical; decorative... almost-instinct 16:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Your BoSox

I hadn't been paying attention, but I noticed a significant increase in excitement in the AL standings. Wow. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Business as usual for this time of year ... on the flood, "I think — I'll have my staff get to you" on that ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Scattererd disc

Fixed most of your issues I think. Also, I sent you an email. Serendi^podous 12:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Responded, and I suggest that Durova or Elcobbola will know what to do next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've emailed Elcobbola and commented out the image for now. Serendi^podous 17:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

George Washington Memorial Bridge

Thanks for your help on this article, Sandy. I think I've got most of the errors you pointed out and I appreciate the links to the MOS so I could review the proper guideline. If I've missed something, please let me know and I'll try to fix it as soon as possible. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That was all I noticed on my initial runthrough (except that I hate these increasingly overwhelmingly long infoboxes, but that's not your issue ... it's a global issue :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Content?

Ah yes, I vaguely remember the days when Sandy worked in mainspace... good times, good times. I hope Colin nominates retrospective diagnosis; I just got two DYKs on the main page (one yesterday and one the day before), and it feels pretty rewarding :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You must be a masochist ... I'm scared to death of the main page :-) Had I known back when I created almost all the TS articles, I could have filled up DYK. Ya know, I started reading Kushner *last* summer so Colin and I could bring History of Tourette syndrome to featured status. Now I've forgotten everything I read and would have to read the whole book again! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Cap template limits

Hi Sandy, I noticed that on the Last of the Summer Wine FAC, you removed my "resolved issues" hide template before promotion, citing that caps "cause FAC archives to reach template limits". I assumed that since I was the only reviewer to use a cap, I would be safe, but obviously, I was wrong. For future reference, do you not want me to use these templates? I'll do whatever's more convenient for you. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that as soon as one editor starts using them, so does everyone else, and then we hit the limits problem. I have asked Ealdgyth to continue capping, as that's a signal to me that sourcing issues have been resolved, and I begin to seriously focus on where the FAC stands. I also think we need to use caps when 1) a FAC is seriously long (approaching 100KB), or when a lengthy off-topic discussion could scare off subsequent reviewers. Other than that, I remove tham all before archiving, so we won't hit the limit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's not clear: an individual FAC page may display fine with caps, but the page that transcludes all the FAC pages for the month (such as this month's archived FACS at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/September 2008) can quickly hit the limit as it renders all the caps on all FACs transcluded there. Maralia (talk) 03:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes :-) It's the total number in the archives that causes the issue, so an individual FAC may look fine, but we can still have issues in archives. For that reason, I prefer they only be used when they are capping commentary that would clearly make subsequent review more difficult for others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No prob—I'll stop. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If you find the following too long, please cap it

Is it necessary to transclude text in templates in order to cap it? I don't know how much this has been analysed—probably a lot, but if so, certainly not on the template's talk page. In any case, I am thinking of an alternative.

The problem we want to solve is to avoid including the text to be capped in a template. The obvious solution to this is not to use templates. Using the div classes straight on, however, is not user-friendly and can distract in the edit window. So, my idea is, why not use a pair of templates? One template opening the various classes at the beginning, and one closing them at the end. The text will not be transcluded, and the templates will ensure that capping will take up little space and remain easy to use. As I am rather clueless as far as template coding is concerned (the entire concept might as well be completely wrong), many people watching this page are more qualified than I am to propose a precise solution.

Even so, I'll make an amateurish attempt. It does look simple enough with some common sense, as I am using the pre-existing code of {{hidden}}, which follows:

<div class="NavFrame collapsed" style="border:none;"><div class="NavHead" style="font-weight:{{{fw1|bold}}}; background-color:{{{bg1|transparent}}}; text-align:{{{ta1|center}}}; {{{headercss|}}}">{{{header|{{{1}}}}}} </div> <div class="NavContent" style="font-weight:{{{fw2|normal}}}; background-color:{{{bg2|transparent}}}; text-align:{{{ta2|left}}}; {{{contentcss|}}}"> {{{content|{{{2}}}}}}</div></div>

Considering that the second div class creates the header, it can be included entirely in the opening template. The first and third div classes will stay open and close with a double tag in the closing template. The "content" parameter will be removed, as the text will not be transcluded. (The CSS part confuses me a bit, but it's in the tag, so there shouldn't be a problem.)

So, my guess would be that the following could be the code for the opening template (potential title "Open cap"):

<div class="NavFrame collapsed" style="border:none;"><div class="NavHead" style="font-weight:{{{fw1|bold}}}; background-color:{{{bg1|transparent}}}; text-align:{{{ta1|center}}}; {{{headercss|}}}">{{{header|{{{1}}}}}} </div> <div class="NavContent" style="font-weight:{{{fw2|normal}}}; background-color:{{{bg2|transparent}}}; text-align:{{{ta2|left}}}; {{{contentcss|}}}">

And this would be the closing template (potential title "Close cap"):

</div></div>

So, instead of this:

{{hidden|bg1=#88c4ff|contentcss=border:1px #88c4ff solid;|header=Issues noted by The Most Noble [[User:The Duke of Waltham|The Duke of Waltham]] – resolved ~~~~~|content=
Blah blah your article sucks.
}}

we'd use this:

{{open cap|bg1=#88c4ff|contentcss=border:1px #88c4ff solid;|header=Issues noted by The Most Noble [[User:The Duke of Waltham|The Duke of Waltham]] – resolved ~~~~~}}
Blah blah your article sucks.
{{close cap}}

It looks plausible enough. Somebody let me know if I'm too deluded. :-) Waltham, The Duke of 18:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have posted a notice at WT:FAC to attract some attention; I don't like re-posting things. Waltham, The Duke of 19:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course that reduces the amount transcluded to just the table header/footer, but it's still a bit. The code you give above has about 400 characters. This would be trancluded both to the FAC subpage and to WP:FAC or an archive page. The August promotion archive has 63 closed FACs and uses 1591418/2048000 of the transclusion limit, so it only has about 400,000 free. If everyone did caps as proposed above, with say 5 "caps" per FAC x 400 characters x 60 FACs, that would count about 2 x 120,000 against the limit for an archive page. This is nowhere near as bad as the templates with content= fields, but it still seems a fairly significant usage. The code could be pared to about 150 characters, which would charge an estimated 90,000 against the transclusion limit. That would still be enough to break some archives, I think. Gimmetrow 03:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't really of the weight of the template itself; after all, caps have been used for a long time and the impression I have is that the problem has appeared fairly recently (perhaps due to the increasing volume of nominations).

Now, if this is the case, I understand that the practice of avoiding capping must be continued. Do you agree, however, that using a template like the one above is a good idea for the limited cases when capping is employed? We'd be even safer this way. Waltham, The Duke of 10:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The best case for the transclusion limit would be to use the wiki code for tables directly, without making a "cap" template. Then the characters would only count once against the limit. Gimmetrow 15:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

That is most certainly true, but it is a viable option only if the bulk of code in the edit window is not deemed disruptive. On the other hand, its being less user-friendly can be considered a benefit, as we don't want capping to be used much anyway.

I wonder what Sandy thinks about this. Waltham, The Duke of 17:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not following the details; for that, Gimmetrow gets paid the big bucks and reaps dozens of daily barnstars. For me, the capping business is a forest-trees issue. When FACs get so long that caps are needed it's often because reviewers are using the FAC as a peer review, giving line-by-line analysis of prose, etc., that can better be placed on talk pages. Rather than encouraging them to cap long commentary, I'd encourage them to put samples on the FAC to justify an oppose, and deal with more detail and line-by-line items on talk, although I realize there is a trend lately to build FAs at FAC with lengthy commentary. When I first came to FAC, it was more of a yea or nay place, with that sort of commentary reserved for peer review. I'm glad FAC is churning out more FAs this way, but I don't always see the need for the lengthy commentary on the actual FAC page. Any method of capping involves a balance; to some extent, it makes things easier for reviewers, but they also give me more work; I do have to read under all of them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Duke, I archive my talk page on the 15th usually; are we settled here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You're going to have to figure out something to trim FACs like the Samuel Johnson one, which is at 170k of text. If every FAC went to 170k you could only have about 12 FACs in an archive before it broke, and that's not even considering "caps". On caps, {{hidden}} uses display:none, which makes the text invisible to those browsing without javascript. Compare the collapsible sections on my user page. The table code is fairly minimal, and it degrades gracefully when javascript is off. Gimmetrow 19:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

But Johnson is an exception. Normally, I'd move most of the bickering to the talk page. I moved a lot of RCC to talk and worked my buns off to keep the FAC on track and readable, but no other editor has stepped in to do that for Johnson (something I don't understand). Since I'm listed as a co-nom, I don't feel I have the liberty to do what I normally do to keep the FAC on track. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. The bot's having trouble with wiki today. After I get through the FLs (if I even can), I'll be out. Gimmetrow 19:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit to Tourette syndrome

Sorry about changing the citation template earlier; I should have checked out what the consensus was first. Regarding the link in that reference...unfortunately, the link to the original article at Cincinnati Enquirer is dead, and it's no longer in their archives, so right now we have a reference there that no one can look at (as far as I can tell). Is there any way to deal with this so that the information being referenced in the article will be verifiable? I can try to find a suitable reference that is accessible online, if that would help. Thanks, Politizer (talk) 04:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Crossed in the mail, I just left a note on your talk page. Besides the other links I left on your talk page, there is no requirment that our sources be available online in order to meet verifiability. I have a hard copy, one can be located in any library, and you know of a copyvio to it, so the info conforms with WP:V. Also, if you feel any part of the info is challengable, I can provide the direct quote as part of the footnote, but it's not really controversial info. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. It's really not so much of a verifiability issue as it is an issue of trying to make things easier for the reader--the information supported by that source is, as you said, not something anyone would disagree with, but I went to that footnote specifically because I was interested in reading the source just for fun (as I think many Wikipedia users would do...a good number of people aren't here to debate the intellectual merits of articles, but just to read and learn stuff), and then found it unavailable (and, as it's close to midnight now in central time, I can't get it from the library). So mainly I just had a knee-jerk reaction to try to make that information available to the leisure readers out there. But I didn't think to consider the copyright issues, and you're right about that, so I guess there's no solution other than just to assume that readers who do want to find that article will (as I will) google it until they find it reprinted somewhere, or look up the original in an appropriate archive when they have time. Anyway, thanks for your pointers. --Politizer (talk) 04:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll add some quotes to the footnote, so others won't be tempted to add the copyvio link. The autism people in New Zealand have been violating copyrights for an irritatingly long time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

WSJ and LAT for Odwalla FAC

First off, thanks for doing this. The links for the LA times articles are [6], [7], and [8]. The Wall Street Journal citations are "De Lisser, Eleena, 'FDA Is Putting the Squeeze on Makers of Fresh Juice--New Warning Labels Are Sparking Safety Concerns Among Customers,' Wall Street Journal, September 22, 1998, B2." and "Lifsher, Marc, 'Apple Growers Revamp to Reassure Wary Public,' Wall Street Journal, September 17, 1997, p. CA1." Thanks again. If you want to post the text on my talk page or my sandbox (whichever is easier) I can read through them and add them to the article, or if you want to read them yourself, feel free. Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I would need to know what text you're citing to those articles, so I can verify the text and add the citations and any relevant quotes to the article. I can't add full copyrighted text to a Wiki page; I can look for the specific items you need to cite from these sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Pulling out sample text sourced to answers.com:

I can't find anything at answers.com that verifies this text; to which source can it be cited, and I'll look for the text. Where do I find that pasteurization alters the flavor of juice and where do I find that's why Odwalla originally sold unpasteurized juices ?

• While Odwalla originally sold unpasteurized juices (because the process of pasteurization alters the flavor of juice),[9]

From which source should I locate this? Or do I need to do the search myself (?!?!)

• They sold their product from the back of a 1968 Volkswagen van to local restaurants ..

From which source do I locate this, or do I need to search for it myself? This is the kind of research that goes into building an FA; we can't take the word of sources like Answers.com, and I'm concerned at the recent lack of review at FAC for sourcing and comprehensiveness.

• The name for their start-up, "Odwalla", was taken from that of a character who guided "the people of the sun" out of the "gray haze" in the song-poem "Illistrum", a favorite of the founders, which was performed by the Art Ensemble of Chicago jazz group.

These are double-cited already; do we need both and do I need to search for text to verify this?

• Soon afterwards, Odwalla expanded into new markets when it bought two companies in the Pacific Northwest and Colorado.
• It was estimated that they would reach $100 million in sales by 1999.

More :

• The following year, the company moved its headquarters to Half Moon Bay, California.
• ... in 1996 they made $59 million in sales, their highest ever.

There's quite a bit of work to be done here; I stopped there because there are so many to be done. Can you first doublecheck if all the double-citation is in fact needed so I don't have to do so much searching? Do you have access to a public library? That's how I'm getting LA Times and WSJ; it's something anyone should be able to do, and the kind of research that should go into an FA, rather than relying on iffy sources like answers.com, that don't have any sort of editoral oversight as required by WP:V. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow I feel so bad that you had to do all that research. Thank you a lot. I've removed all the Answer.com stuff and replaced them with the LAT articles (which are marked as fee required) and some other stuff I found at the last minute. Many of the double-citations were just me using answer.com to back up an existing ref (cuz I'm retarded like that), but I double-checked the facts and added refs where facts weren't backed (i.e. the volkswagon stuff). I think I've taken care of everything. Tell me if there's anything else I can do. And once again, thank you so much. Intothewoods29 (talk) 04:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind: it will convert you into a good researcher :-) Did you get the files, and the history article in particular, that I sent? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Haha thanks. Yes I did (which freaked me out for a second). Is the history article from Infotrac reliable? That'll be good to know, because my old high school has a Infotrac thing. Thanks once again. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 05:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The history article I sent you was from: "Odwalla, Inc." International Directory of Company Histories, Vol. 31. St. James Press, 2000. Reproduced in Business and Company Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.:Gale Group. 2008. See what Ealdgyth has to say about the International Directory of Company Histories. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I asked, but I guess she's on vacation right now. Nevertheless, I've just now triple-checked Odwalla and made sure everything is refed and reliable. Thanks for all your help on this FAC. Intothewoods29 (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Scrollboxes

I thought that because they were template-free, they were safe to use. I intentionally only used one or two as an experiment to see what you thought, so I won't use them again. Sorry, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that is a problem. Oh well. Thanks for letting me know before I started something. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI: WP:Featured article candidates/Habari

Hi Sandy. I wanted to let you know that I just deleted a new nomination for the article Habari. It had received comments (from Malleus and I) before another editor brought it to our attention that the nomination was in bad faith. The nominator had previously brought the article to AFD and then nominated it for FAC when the discussion was closed as keep. If you think that this should instead have been archived, let me know and I will restore it, but I didn't want to penalize the article because the reviewers didn't figure out fast enough that it was a bad-faith nom. Karanacs (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Karanacs; that's exactly how it should have been handled and probably what should have been done to begin with, but when I came across it, Gary King had already entered a declaration, so I just transcluded it. I appreciate that sort of admin help; it's just silly to burden Gimmetrow with botification of noms like that one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch query

Does this seem like a reasonable approach? Obviously I haven't uploaded the corresponding commentary, but I want to gauge thoughts of whether it's "fair" to single out a specific article (id est, or especially, without first commenting at an open FAC) and whether there would be any issues with prominent sections of the Dispatch relying on a what is essentially a second, external article before I make the images and write the supplement. Эlcobbola _talk 20:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the approach (using an example), but if the FAC isn't closed by the time of publication, it could be strange to have a Dispatch about an open FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see the comments - and without prompting! Only the "background" section is "complete"; could you let me know if it makes sense to the 101 crowd? Эlcobbola _talk 00:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Everything to and including "Background" is grand. The only general problem I'm having so far is inconsistency in the way you format/bullet lists, some have caps, others don't, some have punctuation, others don't, etc. Also, I'm not crazy about the backwards indenting caused by the blockquotes on each point of NFCC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Does the "new format" (see criterion 2) work better? I don't understand the inconsistency bit; all bullets start with caps? Эlcobbola _talk 01:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

How ready is the Ruhrfisch interview referenced here? Would it be possible to "trade" and do NF on the 22nd? NF can likely be done for the 15th, but I'd very much like to have the extra time for others to pick it over (NF is not exactly uncontroversial). Эlcobbola _talk 03:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we can do that. Will check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Help on Raw foodism?

Hi Sandy Georgia, I respect your acumen on science-related articles. I just started at Raw foodism trying to add the mainstream scientific viewpoint. We are having trouble differentiating between the 'beliefs' and the real science...how to make it clear that the whole raw foodism thing is a bit fringy. The article is getting a lot bigger, probably too big. This may be too frivolous for you, but I thought I'd run it by you anyway. Thanks! No sweat if you don't have time.--—CynRN ^(Talk) 22:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can get to this anytime soon. I was away for a week due to travel, and returned to a flooded house, and I'm still in "barely keeping up" mode. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

But I will add that a quick look at the sourcing reveals issues. Sources on that topic should be available via scholar.google.com or PubMed, yet I see the use of self-published sources and blogs. Usually a shortcut to dealing with an article like that is to begin tagging the non-reliable sources with {{vc}} so that they are eventually replaced with peer-reviewed, scholarly or other reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Treatment

Hi Sandy,

In addition to your many other mad skills, is it possible you're also the boss-ninja of disambiguation pages? I'm trying to figure out what to do about treatment. Right now it's half-way between a list and a severe violation of MOS:DAB. A search suggests that even the current poor version is inadequate as there's many, many other terms (45K perhaps) that could be linked in some way. I've posted on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Treatment to no avail right now, but I'm mostly looking for ideas. And I know you're a fountain of ideas, so I thought I'd try dipping my cup in the waters your wisdom.

Purple prose defines me. WLU (talk) Wikipedia's rules^(simplified) 15:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's been improved since you posted here? It could use a better sense of alphabetical order, but other than that, it doesn't much bother me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. Your approval makes my outrage abate, if you've no suggestions then I'll leave it and focus on other areas.

But I miss the chance for a really good outrage. Thanks! WLU (talk) Wikipedia's rules^(simplified) 17:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I could share my list with you. Nah, it must be Wednesday; I think I'll go for a massage instead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

NFC

"Elcobbola will be putting out a Dispatch on non-free content in a few weeks" caught my attention, could you elaborate or post a link, it sounds interesting. Fasach Nua (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't made a lot of progress on it yet; follow the Dispatches template on my user page. He's aiming for the next Dispatch, not sure he'll make it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

To the contrary... I just haven't uploaded it yet ;) Эlcobbola _talk 15:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The list

Should it look something like this? I'll try to write up a new intro on Friday. Marskell (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please be careful when making accusations

On the article, tic you told me to "cite, and avoid plagiarizing the DSM" when I clearly cited the DSM in my edit. Please note that plagiarism is to represent the ideas of another as one's own. I take this very seriously and did no such thing. I could be accused of not using quotation marks, but I had intended to paraphase, and in any event, the source was obvious and, as I said before, clearly cited. Please make your feedback a little more appropriate in the future. --Jcbutler (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The APA is very serious about copyright on the DSM. And please read the edit summary correctly: I did not tell *you* to "avoid plagiarizing the DSM" nor did I tell *you* to cite; I cited the additions I made correctly and updated to DSM-IV-TR, which is more applicable on tic disorders.[10] There is no need to personalize edits. If the shoe doesn't fit, you need not wear it, but please be aware in the future of the need to avoid using exact text from the DSM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Article history error

Thanks for the note re: my edit of Metropolis. The change of "GAR" to "GA" was unintentional, probably the result of an errant backspace that I didn't catch, or something like that. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 17:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to general relativity

I'm a bit unclear about a number of changes you made to Introduction to general relativity as part of its FAR. In particular, I don't understand the edit summarized as "correcting a *whole* lot of WP:ACCESSIBILITY and WP:MOS#Images issues that got by FAC, as well as WP:LAYOUT issues". Half of your edits appear make changes either explicitly discouraged by the MOS (such as placing images directly under === subsections), or removing states that the MOS encourages (alternating images' left-right placement). Markus Poessel (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There are three (sometimes competing) image requirments on Wiki:

1) See WP:ACCESSIBILITY, images should be within the section (not above it) and templates come before images. For some reason, this critical MoS page is often overlooked at FAC and FAR.

2) See WP:MOS#Images, eyes not looking off the text and no left-aligned images under third-level section headings (for some weird reason, apparently second-level is OK)

3) Also per WP:MOS#Images, alternating left-right.

When they compete, I prioritize them in that order. No 3 is purely aesthetic and makes little difference to anyone, so if I have to sacrifice one of the three because they compete, I sacrifice alternating. No. 1 is critical for readers with disabilities who use screen readers; we really should get that right because we create unnecessary difficulty for readers with disabilities when we don't. No. 2 inbetween, I try to get it right unless there's a compelling reason I can't. My edits would have been consistent with that. For example, I recall many images above the section rather than in it, and issues with templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see - a matter of (reasonable) interpretation, then. I'm relieved, from the edit summary I thought there were more blatant deviations from the MOS. Markus Poessel (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please return to WikProject Media franchises

Dear SandyGeorgia...You are invited to come back to discuss WikiProject Media franchises. Since you participated in one or more discussions of the project, possibly when it was known as WikiProject Fictional series, I hope to see you return to it. The project needs your participation. Currently there is no activity on the project's talk page about the reorganization which is discouraging. I had great expectations for this project as it touches so many topics but am becoming discouraged. I hope to see you return. LA (If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 19:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Double dispatches

Aha; I forgot about that problem. I made a redirect from Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-08/Dispatches 1 to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-08/Dispatches 1; now it should work. Ral315 (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Quote

You're on my userpage (; [11] ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Raw foodism

For your information, your edits have been reverted. [12] --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Also thought you would be interested in the discussion Here --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to contact me again about this article; it looks to be headed nowhere but mediation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC on Civility

I strongly endorsed what you said here. BRAVO SANDY! — Rlevse • Talk • 00:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, that was a week ago: ancient history on the internet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Still great! — Rlevse • Talk • 01:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes! ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You strike me as someone of uncommon common sense. Go you.--Tznkai (talk) 04:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not getting any younger, but Wiki is, so it's becoming increasingly easier to appear to have common sense around here :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I read it, because I'm an incurable lurker, and it creates so many confusing and delicious questions. I see ANI and some pretty bitchy comments. It's clear to me that the quality of the encyclopedia is not anywhere near as important a priority than blaming other editors for being uncivil back and forth "You're being uncivil, douchebag!" "That's incivility, asshat!" ad nauseum. To be honest, I didn't really get into interacting with other editors until I thought I could handle the comments and whatnot that fly. Regardless of policies that forbid such rudeness and the distraction from the point of articles, the culture that exists is much more powerful than the policies that forbid it. I don't think the heart of the problem lies in stricter policy. Clearly what's there now hasn't really changed too much. Instead, changing the incivility will have to start with changing the culture. This may be an impossible task. Am I the only editor who gets angry and walks away to calm down before replying to some douchebag's comments with apparent monumental effort to keep the quality of the encyclopedia in mind? Surely there are others who do the same; who believe that behaving better than policy makes you a better editor and improves the encyclopedia. Time spent here can't fill a hole in one's self-concept and repair insecurities for everyone, now can it? Not that I have any grand plan to adjust this culture. I don't know how it's done, just that it needs to happen. This, too, will have disadvantages: editors who participate for a while then get sick of it and start to mock it, or an environment so treacley sweet that no dissent is ever considered. Neither seem to be very acceptable. Just had to share there... --Moni3 (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You're not alone—I do that too, although I write the reply first, then either send it if I'm calm or close the window if I'm angry. I even recommended that technique to another editor not too long ago.

No, we have even a better gadget than sitting on your fingers for 24 hours on Wiki or taking a cool-down walk: it's called "click unwatch". I use it frequently. I even keep a list on my FAC notepad so I can check in a week or so in case I want to re-watch a certain area. But, yes, incivility troubles me on those pages that I can't unwatch, and there are some of those in my case (one of those perks of the job for which I receive such excellent remuneration :-) I agree current policies are adequate, which is why my frustration is usually aimed at the beaurocracy that either furthers or doesn't enforce the core pillars of Wiki. Each time it's not enforced, it's weakened. It occurs to me that Usenet was more civil than Wiki, because at least it policed itself, while on Wiki, the police are sometimes part of the problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm

Its not a case of watching, but whether an article which is about a form of bigotry and racist ideas that is created by editors who seem to endorse the notions is really watchable - SatuSuro 00:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

bullet points

I really, really suck at the whole indentation thing. I dunno why; it must be some kinda mental block or something. Perhaps an episode in an earlier life, in which I was attacked by vagabonds wielding colons (don't ask)... That's why I am so incredibly fond of (undenting). Anyhow, sorry if I make you do extra work in that regard. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 02:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You're not the only one; no one gets the numbered bullet points right. I wish people wouldn't use them because I always have to fix them :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hydrochloric acid

If you can do a last MoS check I can keep this one. Marskell (talk) 09:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured articles star note

On Wikipedia:Featured articles you removed the note I added about the bronze star not being displayed. I am curious as to why you felt this was necessary. (If you reply here in the next few days, I'll see it.) -- SGBailey (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't; I altered it so it wouldn't create an unnessary footnote on the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Changing this reply... I presume you feel that the "most user settings" link is equivalent. It doen't seem as clear to me as it could be but it'll do. Cheers. -- SGBailey (talk) 12:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

OUCH

Rays vs. Bosox

Looks like the Rays are for real. Trash-talking the Twins at User talk:Keeper76 might be cleansing for you.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Orange, you haven't yet grasped the essence of the mentality of waiting 86 years and then making the best post-season comeback in the history of baseball (making the Yankees the biggest chokers in post-season history)! I'll let the Rays and the Twins have their day ... I'm bondadoso :-) It ain't over til the fat lady sings. And what are you doing rooting for the AL; did you finally realize that your guys are in the peewee leagues? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

My Fish have been deep fried and served with chips, so I have to troll other teams. I'm just "pretending" to be nice to Keeper76 with regards to his Twins. They have no shot. I'll have to admit that I'm so anti-Yankees, I am, by default, a part-time Bosox fan. Oh, by the way, using your "family over the shoulder" edit summary is just plain weak. Weak. With a big W weak. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Next time, I'll take the credit myself when the smartass over my shoulder is feeding me the retorts :-) You're gaining a certain fame in this household; every time a game ends, they say, "See what the Orangemarlin guy has to say now!" I can't wait to tell them you're part of the Nation by default. Besides, what are you doing talking about those goofy teams considering what's going on in your backyard in both the AL and the NL? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, let me put it this way. There is nothing interesting south of Los Angeles, including the ANAHEIM (no, not Los Angeles) Angels (and if you're into hockey, the Ducklings). And with regards to the Dodgers, I quit following them when Ron Cey, Steve Garvey, Bill Russell, Rick Monday, etc. etc. etc. left the team. And as for your family Bosox fans, Jason Bay is no Manny.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

So, I won't be asking you to purchase tickets for me in October? Come on ... Billy Mueller was my kind of player after Nomar was the man; at least the Dodgers had something in their favor. Hey, my compadre was kicked out of Anaheim once for being a Sox fan ... imagine, why do they kick fans out when their stadium is half-empty anyway? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It's well known that the OC is a bit fascist, so if you're not dressed the right way, you get imprisoned. In fact, the only jaywalking ticket I ever got in my life was trying to get into the Honda Center to watch a hockey game. I was so flummoxed, I could barely speak! LOL. Oh, and the half-empty stadiums are a southern California thing. Come to the game in the third inning, leave after the 7th inning stretch. Even during a World Series. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Chagas disease

I finished cleaning up the references and responded to your inline note; could you have another look? ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean have them as redirects, or in the article body? They can indeed be useful on search, as most of the research on Chagas disease is arguably done in affected areas. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Both (redirects, and listed as bolded, alternate names in the lead, per WP:LEAD). What is it called in Brazil? I need to see if it has a different name in Argentina; probably Tim knows. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

All I can come up with in both languages is mal de Chagas. Right up there with my favorite "please just let me die in peace" experience, mal de Dengue (which also needs to have "breakbone fever" in the lead). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Doença de Chagas is also popular. I've added both names to the lead with {{lang-pt}} and {{lang-es}} (I don't think bolding them would conform with WP:LEAD, we render foreign terms/native names in italics—see e.g. Ireland and Brazil) and tagged your redirect with {{R from alternative language}}. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Do you think Pito in Colombia should be uppercase? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No idea. Is is supposed to be a proper name or something like a term of endearment?

I can't tell ... I know it as a Brazilian term of endearment, little boy's nickname, but as a bug name, I can't tell why it's uppercased. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, want a "please just let me die in peace" experience? Try pertussis. Nothing like coughing to the brink of unconsciousness every five minutes (and waking up in the middle of the night to do so). It also goes very well with a profoundly disturbing adverse reaction to the antibiotic that's supposed to make you all better, and a month-long residual cough. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that sounds really terrible. At least I mostly slept through my "let me die in peace" experience, with vague memories of my husband hauling me out of bed, into the car, and off to the doctor periodically, and just begging him to leave me alone and let me die in bed in peace. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

1964 Gabon

Since you are obviously more experianced than I, I have a question for you, regarding 1964 Gabon: Would consulting Polaert (the main author of M'ba, Aubame, FHB, and others on the FR wikipedia) about the reliability of M'ba work? It's all really about trust, right? --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 20:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No, not so much about trust; it's more a matter of policy (WP:V). Wikis are not reliable sources, no matter how much we trust the French editors and AGF. But, working with the French editor may be partly the way forward. Have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/El Hatillo Municipality, Miranda: almost entirely Spanish sources. Enano was in Caracas, I was in the U.S., between the two of us (working together), we were able to field all questions in both languages and regarding translations, sourcing and comprehensiveness at the peer reviews, at GAN and on the FAC. (In that case, most of the work was done at the three peer reviews.) If the French editor would work with you to resolve issues (for example, some of Renata's and Ling.Nut's comprehensive questions and Ottava's translations questions), and verify any translations that are questioned, that may be the path forward. But in terms of precedents set, we can't just translate from another Wiki and assume that we've met WP:V, because Wikis are not reliable sources, and anyone can add anything to a Wiki article. To get an idea of how unreliable even our own FAs can be, just take a tour of WP:FAR :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of WP:V. The French article was very well sourced with what we even consider reliable, so why can't I simply translate Polaert's excellant work (plus major additions, of course) and submit to FAC? I understand that someone could change the article anytime, but I'd imagine that he would be right there to correct it. He's a fairly active user, currently working on the FAC of Jean-Hilaire Aubame. If his name was added to the nom line, would we be having the problems of me not acessing Biteghe? (P.S. What would you suggest I quote with the oriinal French text?) Regards --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 21:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There are several issues occurring on the FAC. First, when questions have been raised relating to comprehensiveness, they have remained unresolved. The original sources may address those questions; clearly our standards are higher than fr.wiki, and reviewers have had questions about comprehensiveness. Second, regarding the policy, see this section of WP:V; the burden is on *you* when you add the text. If you're translating from a reliable source, the burden is on you to verify the translation. But here, you're not even translating from a reliable source. How can you assure reviewers that you have accurately and comprehensively and neutrally represented the original sources? Third, for any article, any time, we don't rely on *any* non-reliable source, period; that is plain policy. The French wiki is not reliable. That amounts to asking us to take someone's word for it that the sources have been represented in a balanced, comprehensive and accurate fashion, and that person is not a reliable source, no matter how active he is. The person presenting the FAC has to have done the adequate research to assure the article meets WP:WIAFA and to address any questions raised. Adding another author's name doesn't solve anything; someone needs to address all the questions and concerns raised, and now there are also questions about whether English-language sources are accurately represented. And finally, considering the concerns raised by Ling.Nut, I am now wondering if this was the approach taken on several articles, involving the FA-team, at least one GA, a DYK, and possibly another FA. If Lazare Ponticelli, Leon M'Ba, Félix Houphouët-Boigny and Mahjoub Mohamed Salih were also translated from another Wiki without accessing the sources, they may need attention, and I'm surprised if other editors don't understand the importance of WP:V in this regard. Again, I notice that only Ottava Rima raised this concern initially, and it worries me that reviwers aren't spotchecking sources at FAC, apparently relying on Ealdgyth to cover all sourcing issues (which no one person can or should do). Also, looking at the example I gave above of the Spanish-language FA I worked on (I speak and read fluent Spanish), the fact that you don't read French, when most of the sources are in French, seems to be a difficult obstacle to overcome on this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You're taking my or Nishkid's or anyone else involved in FACs' word that any ref they used from an offline source they personally used was correct. No one's actually going out there to buy the book and check the source, and even then you'd have to take the word of the reviewer. Wikipedia's sheer openness encourages this, and we can never become "reliable" in the eyes of the media due to its policy of "anyone can edit". There will always be that element of uncertainty, no matter how hard we try, and we will have to live with it. So I'm taking Polaert's word (since he is most definately a good-faith user) that he accessed the sources. It all boils down to this: a reliable source is definately being accessed. (Disclaimer: I personally checked the sources at Lazare and Mahjoud was independently written from the French version) --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 22:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps someone else can better explain how WP:V policy applies here, as my ability to explain seems to have hit the wall :-) There's a difference between asking us to AGF that editors have accurately represented reliable sources and asking us to accept that a translation of a non-reliable source, without even accessing the reliable sources, meets WP:V. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see it. As long as a reliable source is being used, there's always that element of doubt that comes with being an open encyclopedia. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 22:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

As long as a reliable source is being used ... Right. Fr.wiki is not even a reliable source. It's a Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Use of original sources

Here is the issue: An editor who cites a source is affirming that she or he has checked that source. At stated in the relevant policy:

Cite the place where you found the material
It is improper to obtain a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find some information on a Web page that is attributed to a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your source is really the Web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of your article rests on the credibility of the Web page, as well as the book, and your article must make that clear.

WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT

It is incorrect to put in a cite to a source you have not checked on the basis of a citation from an unstated intermediate source, even if that intermediate source is a reliable one. Where the intermedite source is unreliable (such as another wiki that anyone can edit) the principle applies even more strongly. Sources copied from another wiki should not be cited unless the editor has personally read those sources and therefore can vouch for what they say. This applies not only to FAs, but also to DYKs or any other article. Kablammo (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

EoTW, if you're following this... What they say above. Strictly, if you haven't seen the sources, you can and should (in MLA style at least, but not only) put "qtd. in" (for "quoted in") to indicate where you found them. But that would mean in this case that your text is studded with "qtd. in Fr. wiki." Which indicates that your proximate source is inherently unreliable. (As SG says, not because it's French wiki, but because it's a wiki.) If that's what you've been doing, it's understandable but still unacceptable. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

re: Earthquakes

R&D, I'm looking for someone who can give feedback on earthquake articles; is that within your realm, or do you know anyone? I'll follow your page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I can, do you have a list of articles you'd like attention on? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

My FAC nomination

Hey Sandy. What will happen to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mother and Child Reunion (Degrassi: The Next Generation) if it gets no further attention? It's sort of lulling around right now. Will it be archived and free to re-nominate straight away, or will it stay open until more people review it so as to achieve a better consensus? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

As long as the list size is manageable, I'm able to let FACs run longer than usual; you might try posting at WT:FAC to ask why it's getting no review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you deer

		The Monarch of the Glen Appreciation
		Thanks for your assistance in helping Fauna of Scotland to become a Featured Article. It's much appreciated by Cervus elaphus and myself, Ben MacDui 18:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Absence is going to be a bit... odder than expected.

First, we picked up another horse (don't ask.. it was one of those "incredible deals" type things) so we've been running around trying to get THAT cleared up so we can get her home. Second, we're right outside Dallas which means that we're expecting Tropical Storm force winds here tomorrow so we're running around helping friends get settled for the storm. Third, we've got clients trying madly to get shots taken before said storm. Fourth, we're trying to help a friend get moved before said storm. In THEORY, tomorrow and Sunday I'll be free to edit. Don't hold me to that. If we lose power, I'm screwed. If all else fails, I should be home late Tuesday night and will just start FAC sourcing things then. Sorry that this simple quick trip to Texas turned into something a bit more... unusual. We will be fine, we're not expecting to have things too bad, just might lose power, and we're ranch sitting for some stragglers from the coast. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Very worried about everyone in Texas; I hope you come through it OK, and sure concerned about Karanacs. Of course, I'm also concerned about the relative lack of knowledge of WP:V at WP:FAC, and where we'd be without you. It would be so nice if all reviewers considered the importance of WP:V policy, and I'm wondering who might pick up that work when you're not around. Maybe I'll have to go back to doing it :-) Be safe, and I hope the horses are fine, too. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I'll be back at work Wed. Mares are good, and I guess I'd rather be here WITH them than in Illinois worrying about them. This way I can keep an eye on them. (Wonder if the ranch owner would notice if I just brought them in the house with us... the girls would be fine inside, not so sure about the floors though..) I'm worried about Karanacs too, she's probably got a load of relatives again, I don't THINK she's right on the coast, so it shouldn't be that bad. Hopefully. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This time I get to be the one staying with relatives. The storm's moved enough that I now think my house will be standing on Sunday. Trying to work my way through my watchlist before the power goes out. Hope you don't get it too bad up there, Ealdgyth - I know the horses will be antsy. Karanacs (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, tomorrow will be fun. Arabian ranch. Urf. Talk about spooky horses! I'm hoping we keep power and internet so I'll be able to get some work done ... we're off in a few to get some stuff from a building in a low-lying area that might flood. Horses are all up and most of the loose stuff is secured. Glad to know you're safe and sound! And Sandy, feel free to strike resolved sourcing issues for me if I don't appear by Saturday night... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This conversation is triggering very bad childhood memories, the details of which I'll spare you both. I hope the horses are OK; I hope you're both OK. The FAC load is low right now; unless it picks up dramatically, it should be fine to let a few ride longer than usual. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hurricanes are douchebags. That's a fact. --Moni3 (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ha, I'll be the first to support when Hurricanehink brings Hurricane Douchebag to FAC. Those weather folks have the naming scheme all wrong... Эlcobbola _talk 20:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, Hurricane Douchebag will seasonally come after Hurricane Arsehole (male), Hurricane Bitch (female), Hurrican Charlie Foxtrot (male), and once passed, will then of course be followed by Hurricane Ethel. ( come on, we all know that little old lady, Ethel, that pisses everyone off whilst she peaks through her curtains and calls the cops when your "family gathering" gets a little to rambunctious, don't we? The hag.) Keeper ǀ 76 21:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Absence can't be any odder than this place. Kablammo (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Be careful what you wish for. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a good feeling about this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder whether these hurricane names are more a product of journalistic than meteorological conventions. I'm trying to picture the BBC newscaster (the one who yesterday pronounced Hurricane Ike as in "Nike") talking about "heavy flooding in Texas as Hurricane Bitch is making landfall". Surreal.

(For some hurricane-related humour, here's a xkcd comic. I've been going through the archives lately.) Waltham, The Duke of 05:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Either a very old graphic, or someone is very clueless (Castro Hurricane Red, but Chavez Hurricane Blue ... NOT!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, there's actually a method to our naming madness... and yeah, I know how annoying these storms can be, as I have a friend who saw Cat 1 winds in her house... :S Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I finished shampooing my carpets after Hanna, man, flooding stinks (literally); I just shudder to think of Karanacs and Ealdgyth, I fear we won't see them for many days, and I feel so badly for them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine. A bit windblown, but ranch, horses, and myself came through fine. No power loss, nothing. So this morning woke up to a dog crisis involving lost poodle puppies, found puppy with broken leg, vet clinic and all that fun stuff. But we're fine and should be heading out of here very very early Tuesday morning to get home to the Midwest in one day. Tomorrow is going to be two photo-shoots for clients, so FAC and FLC is going to have to wait until Wednesday. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

1964 Gabon coup d'état again

Do you know how to fix current ref no. 21? I can't seem to format it. Your friend Eddy of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 00:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

My pet peeve is when I have to dig around to find a link. Adding link, will look now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will add it on any later encounter. Sorry about the WP:V stuff--I guess I should have known better, since I've been here 7 months. I wasn't thinking clearly, rather that my (implying article ownership) was not going to be featured. I really feel like a jerk now. You really do a lot of good work in the FAC area, Sandy. Keep it up! Your friend Eddy of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 02:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I fixed it, but I was guessing. I really hate Harvnbs :-) I think they have to link to a last name, so I changed your author field to a last field. You have no reason to feel like a jerk; if that's the worst thing that happens to you on Wiki, you're way ahead of the pack :-) Hopefully, the article will still pull through, if not, next time. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I've had worse. :) Would you mind keeping the FAC open at least two more days? I won't be active for the next 1 1/2 (tryin' to catch the last bit of summer at North Cape May, New Jersey. Bernault is the only one that's eluding me; hopefuuly when I get my hands on that African Powder Keg (Funny name, ain't it?) I can replace them. Anyway, I really should be getting to sleep right now (it's 10:40 in my time zone) Your friend Eddy of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 02:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless it takes a dramatic turn for the worse, waiting for you and Nish to get your hands on the sources should be no problem. I'm glad you decided to stick with it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

How dare you!

The MOS is ALWAYS a big deal! :-) Giggy (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I dunno ... it makes me *so* mad that there is no coordinated effort to get the pages sync'ed, and I feel a bit "had" when I find a whole new page I never knew about that contradicts three others that are frequently quoted and accessed. It's such a monster that keeping up with it is a source of frustration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Some or many?

Hi Sandy, I've looked through Wikipedia:Words to avoid and I don't see it and, well, you're just such a darn easy alternative who will likely know the answer for certain sure, so lazy me...

Is there a guideline on how to decide when to use "Some say..." and "Many say..."? Are they both thoroughly squelched in proper article-speak? Thanks! Franamax (talk) 04:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't recall coming across that on Wiki, although I faced the dilemma many times in writing Tourette syndrome; if you can find a source that somes "some" or "many", that's one way to solve it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Try WP:WEASEL for some general guidance on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't find anything there, but I'm thinking in terms of statements like those about people with TS ... some individuals TS have ... many individuals have ... most individuals have ... where I had to go to the sources for the best wording. I assumed that's what Franamax was after (perhaps wrong). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks, WEASEL was the other page I'd forgotten about. Similarly unhelpful in the specific instance. Reliance on sources is good advice too, except the sources aren't exactly spilling foth answers either.

So here's the end of the neutral question then - zOMG it's about DRUGS!

Specifically Marc Emery who has extensively sold marijuana seeds, which are not a drug (in that there is no possible way to become intoxicated from them), but most certainly can be used to grow marijuana plants - which could possibly be made into hemp shirts, but really, you're more likely to burn the raw materials and breathe in the smoke, just for quality control.

And in this case, the individual has not been prosecuted in his country of birth and residence for this activity, but has been extensively characterized by enforcement officials of another country as a drug-dealer as part of an extradition request. Which request has been granted beyond precedent, if a person is committing a crime in their own country, by international covenant they must be tried at home rather than being extradited - that will reveal my bias, but we must nevertheless strive to neutral reportage.

Specifically, my original edit was along the lines of "US government officials have called Emery a drug dealer". This was later changed (by a succession of SPA's & IP's) to "some have called Emery..." and latterly to a simmering war in favour of "Many have called..."

In my opinion, "some" is a safe course, supportable by sources; "US law enforcement officials" is unequivocally true and exactly RS; and "many" is an unjustified extension which calls for an interpretation on the part of both the writer and the reader. How is many defined? How does many become distinguished from some? In this case, there is an important implication as to what is the "majority opinion".

So if you or anyone else could point me to precedence where this has come up previously, I would much appreciate that. And I would also appreciate your or anyone else's opinion on this fine point. Thanks! And sorry for the long post, I do that some(all-the)time :) Franamax (talk) 08:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

As an FAC reviewer, I would oppose language that said "Some/many say Emery was a drug dealer", especially if that was contested within the article. Citations and specific examples of who said such a thing would be pretty important, I think. Policy isn't necessary; the article is characterizing a guy as a drug dealer and then saying he might not have been. Who claimed he was a drug dealer? What evidence did they have? And who refuted it and why? --Moni3 (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Moni, don't play the some–many game, but specific attribution of who says it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Not going to sing O Canada

Hockey season is around the corner. I guess Toronto is looking forward to it. I know that Keeper76 was thinking Minnesota was going to sneak into the Wild Card, but I believe he was drinking too much that day. On a side note, how can keep such delusional individuals as admins. Kind of sad really.  :) OK, I'm warming up my voice to sing a medley of Canadian music, from Neil Young to the Band to kd lang to the Bare Naked Ladies to Fiest. Of course, we could go to Boston's long tradition of rock music....that would be Boston and......I'm done. OK, I still think the Rays have this. The Bosox probably have the Wild Card. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Erkk. Have fun with your baseball (at least TO got their manager back from fifteen years ago) but no way are they looking forward to hockey, other than as a re-run of The Losing Machine (just look at the Leafs shoulder patch). I moved 4400 km away and they exported their captain of indecision, Mats Sundin to undecide on coming to Vancouver, so our team gets screwed too. Oh yeah, the Leafs have brought back their main manager from 15 years ago too - Cliff Fletcher. Now how about the Argos? Oops, Bruce McNall might still be in jail! :) Franamax (talk) 08:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I lost faith in the Leafs a long time ago :( Gary King (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The Leafs? Do they play hockey. As I remind my Toronto friends, ummmmm, now 41 years? Hasn't Haley's Comet been by a couple of times? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No predictions from me. I kept my mouth shut when we were down 3–0 in 2004, didn't return the e-mails, but oh, was the revenge sweet when I did return those e-mails :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me guess. The return emails were very professional, no "na nana na naahhhh". I might have just sent them a picture of the final score in the 7th game. I really hate Yankee fans, just on principle. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I always aim for "gracious"; I don't always hit the mark. Particularly with Yankees fans. But I still try :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Any Idea why Anekantavada was not put up on main page on requested date.

Just curious…..I mean, there was no reason not to put it up. On the pending request list there was no other article for 14 Sept…yet Francis Harvey was chosen. Maybe some transparency would help in me understanding how such decisions are taken. Anekantavada had a points range of 2 to 5. As of today other five articles on request page also are of 2 or 3 / 2 or 4 category. SO Anekantavada had better points then these, and yet, the only featured article on Jainism was not taken on the main days of Jain festival. I hope I can get some feedback from you. Thanks --Anish (talk) 12:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The pending template isn't part of the main page request; Raul looks at WP:TFA/R. The pending template is only to help us clarify points; I don't know if Raul even looks at it when he schedules (he looks at the five requests at TFA/R). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clarifying the role of pending template. I still wonder if there is a better way to put up articles on the main page. --Anish (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks--Anish (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Untranscluded FAC nominations

Here's one: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Maguire v SOCOG 1999 Gary King (talk) 14:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I wish that bot Would Go Away. Untranscluded, two Opposes, now I have to transclude it even though it's a snowball. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

And, now submitting the checkuser; reviewers should read the FAC instructions before responding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

See above, User_talk:SandyGeorgia#FYI:_WP:Featured_article_candidates.2FHabari; these wouldn't have to come to FAC if that Bot wasn't picking them up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Gary! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I apologized because I knew I had caused extra and unnecessary work for you and others. I am an admin and will likely catch any future weird cases like this via the Peer Review archive process. If so I will let you know and can delete (also if you need someone to do so). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It just never even ocurred to me to see if the FAC was transcluded or not - I will in the future. Live and learn, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

If I do see one like this I will do my best to send them back to peer review. I do not know the bot page for FACs, but I check what User:PeerReviewBot does each day and fix (or screw up) what I can ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/International reaction to 2008 Tibetan unrest has been moved from FAC to FLC at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/International reaction to 2008 Tibetan unrest. Gary King (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Gary (but I almost missed this because you added it up here). Too bad the nominator didn't correctly move the page, as it would have saved a lot of steps (sigh). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Virus please

Hi Sandy, thanks for your kind help with Paul Offit. I have been very busy with Virus and I'm considering another FA attempt, (it's been nearly a year since my last archived nomination). Don't panic, I'm not after a critical review, but would you have time to check for glaring MOS breaches? In return I promise to bring by FAC review total to 200 before the end of the year ;-) Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 18:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I will get to it, Graham; I have several items that have been pending on my to-do list for days, so give me some time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

And thank you for all the FAC/FAR help; when are you going to become an admin? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

After You, Tim and Jim nominate me and somebody shows me how it's done :-) Graham Colm ^Talk 18:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get as far as I would have liked because I spent a lot of time in ref cleanup.[13] Please check my edit summaries; I left several inline queries. The lead feels a bit choppy and could flow better. I put in a request to Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to fix the endashes. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sister projects

I believe the confusion with layout is based on a confusion of terms. Yes, all "sister project" boxes must go in the see also. All sister project links should be used in the first use ala standard wikilinking practices. I believe the confusion comes from people not realizing that there is a wikilink code that can direct something to wikicommons, wikisource, etc, without it being in a fancy box. I hope this helps. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a little concrete help to understand the above (in case you need to help others understand). At the John Millington Synge article, there is [[s:The Aran Islands|The Aran Islands]] and {{wikisource author}}. The Aran Islands wikisource link is used as a direct wikilink to the page, and used on the first true instance in the text. The template box is used in the external links section. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is already in four other places; why continue it here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Because I'm not touching those guideline disputes. I just wanted to inform you that there was a major confusion, so that you can convince the masses. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any confusion, and here is where we can discuss why we would ever allow within the body of any article an external jump to a non-reliable inaccurate POV advert COI external link, no matter how it's placed, whether a box or inline. And why one editor can come in and edit war to change a long-standing MoS page, because MoS contradictions across pages haven't been identified and sorted. LAYOUT is clear, oft-cited, always has been; no confusion there. External jumps go in external links, and most of what is in Wiki sister projects wouldn't even be accepted as external links on most articles. But the discussion is over there, not here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"I'm sure you've aware that you are edit warring against consensus on WP:LAYOUT, altering long-standing text and reverting twice now in spite of no other editor yet having concurred with your changes." I am not aware that I am editing against a consensus. If there was a consensus the two pages would say the same thing. I suggest that you alter the sister projects page as the main page on this issue and then alter layout to reflect that. I have no objections to what ever is decided but until such time as the sister projects guideline is changes the WP:LAYOUT should reflect that. However as a compromise with you I suggest that you leave a third party to revert my changes and if they do I will not revert their revert. But it is a bit rich for you to claim a consensus when clearly there is a difference of opinion and to date you are the only person that has reverted the edit I made. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

PBS, please feel free to keep your requests to me that I should engage in the edit warring behavior you are engaging in on the respective talk pages, thank you. Obviously, I'm not going to barge in to a page and edit war as you have: I've started talk page discussions rather than unilaterally altering long-standing pages, as you have, and then reverting twice in spite of no consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

related query to Sisters from Hell

Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Wikiquote. Tony (talk) 05:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

What a bunch of bullroar. But, that argument needs the acumen of Elcobbola; perhaps he'll see that. I'm embarrassed to work on Wiki pages that promote the kind of garbage that is building on some of those sibling pages (Commons being the exception). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

MOS WikiProject

Sandy, what are your thoughts on creating a MOS WikiProject (unless one already exists that I'm not aware of) in an effort to address the bigger picture of identifying and addressing contradictions and redundancies throughout MoS? Perhaps this would bring together more editors to address the issues. I have experience creating WikiProjects and would be willing to put it together if we thought that approach would be helpful. Morphh ^(talk) 12:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and others do as well. WikiProject Manual of Style has been recently resurrected; your comments would be most welcome at the talk page. Waltham, The Duke of 12:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Morphh, as The Duke said, there's already a Project, but it has so far been impossible to get editors to focus on the forest instead of the trees. Every discussion seems to revolve around one page or one issue, when in fact, the whole forest needs to be cleared with a coordinated approach. I don't have time to spearhead the effort; it will take some time and dedication. I keep hoping that someone will appear who has the interest and time. Until the Project gets leadership willing to catalog and index the issues, I don't think anything will happen. This recent example was perfect, as it showed two pages that have been out of sync for years and no one even realized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppets

Can I just ask why you found it impossible that Jbmurray or Fvasconcellos could be a sock puppet and implied that it was possible that I could be? The Bald One ^{White cat} 14:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't intend to imply that, and don't believe I did. I have Jbmurray and Fv's talk pages watchlisted and saw the posts there; I didn't notice you in the mix, and didn't read most of the verbiage that was posted on that page. Would you like me to go back and correct that? Has it been dealt with yet? If you give me a link I can check more quickly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. OK, I;m sure you didn't mean to imply that at all, I just wanted to clear up that I am much in the dark as them and as innocent as them about the sock puppet accusation thing. I have no idea really what the accuser is talking about, neither do any of the others, but I guess people dream up all sorts of things. Any admin can check out that none of us are using accounts for sockpuppetry, and the IP of that user is probably 3,000 miles away. Al it was was a moving of the names of articles of districts to the standard naming which is used across wikipedia for subdivisions to include the "Province" or "District" in the title, something that both Jbmurray and Fvcallenos supported as many others do. I;m not concerned about the accusation though, if that is what it is, its not easy to read what it is actually about LOL!! Best regards anyway The Bald One ^{White cat} 20:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Your expertise requested

I'm going to have to get involved in some higher bureaucratic version of article oversight. I rewrote the Harvey Milk article. Another user has participated in the past in edit warring over Milk's involvement with the Peoples Temple and Jim Jones. His source is spurious. If you wouldn't mind, please look at this section in the article, and the discussion starting from yesterday. I've never gotten so far in fringe or conspiracy theories. What are my next steps? --Moni3 (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll get there as soon as I catch up on my morning watchlist (doesn't hurt that I lived through all of that). A person who is excellent with these sorts of issues (BLP + other messes) is Slp1 (talk · contribs); you might want to ping her in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I took a look; you've got it just right. Everyone is SF politics in those days got wrapped into the Jones' thing, it wasn't particular or notable to Milk or anyone else. An entire section is undue; one-sentence linking over to the sibling article is appropriate, though; it was part of SF politics that few escaped at least brushing up against. I don't think you should have to take this to, for example, a fringe noticeboard or elsewhere because it's a plain vanilla POV-pushing content dispute. Just getting more eyes on it should help. I'll weigh in over there after I catch up here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't expect you to read the entire article, but at the bottom of the Race for state assembly section is a brushing mention of Milk's involvement in the Peoples Temple. That's what I wrote, and that is what is supported by reliable sources. I appreciate your views. --Moni3 (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Lost my response to an ec. How come I can't learn how to resolve ecs? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Moni, lost my train of thought; I'll get over there after I get through my morning watchlist. Mid-day, and I haven't even started. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

That's curious; doesn't the new screen for edit conflicts display to you? And to think that one of the things I thought when I saw it was "Sandy will be pleased with this one". Not only that, but the Signpost has failed to cover it. And I haven't seen any discussions about it in the more public places. If it weren't for the confirmation of a fellow editor that the page exists, I should be considering admitting myself to the local asylum. Waltham, The Duke of 23:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

That screen makes no sense to me, and I can't even figure out why. I don't seem to see on edit conflicts what most editors see. Basically, I start over and retype. And after this miserable day, I still haven't gotten back to Moni, or reviewed Virus for Graham or ... or ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's a page I think will probably have an edit conflict I copy my comments before I try to post them. Take your time. --Moni3 (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That's what I do sometimes, not so much because I lose data in edit conflicts (I have Firefox), but because sometimes the browser will crash somewhere near the twenty-fifth open tab and then I lose what was in the edit window (and, more infuriatingly, in any other page where I had forgotten to finish my edit). At least I can re-start the session and have the tabs restored.

Anyway, the new edit-conflict screen presents you with two windows: the upper window shows the page as it is at the time of the edit conflict (much like the old screen), and the lower window (the addition) shows you your edit. If you copy the contents of the lower window and replace those of the upper one, it will be as if the edit conflict had never happened. The usual procedure, however, is to find your place in the upper window, then do the same in the lower one, copy your intended post and paste it into the upper window below the new message in the thread that interests you. It may sound complicated, but it's actually quite simple; the difference between edits is also shown (between the windows), and it often helps. The only problem I spotted in the two or three times I used the system was a certain lag, but this may be a coincidence; I was editing from the slower of my two connections. Waltham, The Duke of 00:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the people developing those screens are on Firefox or Safari and maybe the two screens don't show on IE; I dunno. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Butting in here; if you get in an edit conflict, you should be able to click back and your text should still be there. From there just copy and paste it. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "I took a look; you've got it just right. Everyone is SF politics in those days got wrapped into the Jones' thing, it wasn't particular or notable to Milk or anyone else. An entire section is undue; one-sentence linking over to the sibling article is appropriate, though; it was part of SF politics that few escaped at least brushing up against." (SandyGeorgia)

Sandy: I actually AGREE with your last sentence. Right now the section is just one sentence and a link to the sibling article. That's what it should be.

Also, just to be clear, the sentence as it stands deals with different information than Jones' support of Milk. That was in 1976 during an election. The sentence just summarizes the reverse: Milks 1977-8 support of the Temple during the investigation.

It is just one sentence now (in a huge 77,000 byte article) with a link to the main article.Mosedschurte (talk) 02:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

My talk page is a busy place; further discussion is best on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I added your quote above and asked Moni if that is alright. I'm completely fine with deleting the section heading if we can just keep the one summary sentence and a "see" link to the main article.

I just didn't see any reason to delete all mention of it.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ping

You have e-mail. Wizardman 16:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Bing

Sandy, I sent you an eletronic mail. Hope all is well. Ceoil ^sláinte 19:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I responded; all is very well. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Question on an unreleased video game for FAC

Hey Sandy, I've got a question that I'm sure you don't get asked very often. I'm thinking of taking StarCraft: Ghost, a video game, to FAC. The problem is that it's an "indefinitely postponed" game (as stated by the game's development company). So essentially, it shouldn't have any major news in the upcoming months or possibly even years. It may never even be released. This is why it doesn't have the {{Future game}} template. The article has also reached GA status because of its indefinite postponement. So, I'm wondering, would this be a problem for FAC? Thanks! Gary King (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, Gary; always one thing or another. I really think you should ask that question of a broader audience, maybe at WT:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost question

I do not know if you are the correct person to ask, but nevertheless here it is. As I have been recently involved in Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests due to the nomination of the Alzheimer's disease article I had an idea on a small statistical study on the number of visits main page articles receive before and on the day of the appearance. I believe it could give some hints on what influences the visits of a main page article, and it could also provide an objetive way of giving relevance points when nominating for the appearance in the main page. This kind of report could be of interest to the community, but of course it would be blatant Original Research. Could it have some place on the Wikipedia signpost? In which section? (Could you answer in my talk page?). Thanks. --Garrondo (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Garronda; if you put together a quality study, we could probably include it in the Signpost Dispatch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

A million thanks

Sandy, thanks for all your help with Virus, you are a Wiki-treasure. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 09:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Today's featured article process

Hi Sandy,

I don't understand how featured articles make it to the main page. Is Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests the only way? I have a hard time beliving it is, with only five articles allowed to be there for a month of updates. I can't find anything else, though. Is there another mechanism? Or is that place just fast and furious?

Thanks WilyD 13:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Raul chooses the main page articles; that page allows the community to help decide on a portion of the mainpage scheduling. It is not five articles per month; it is five requests at a time, which works out to something like a quarter to a third of mainpage scheduling, depending on how well requestors collaborate or whether someone hogs a slot for five weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thank you, this makes sense to me. But I'm still wondering: How're the blurbs written for other main page features then? Does Raul654 write them? Are they just the first paragraph of the article? Or is there some other mechanism? Thanks again, WilyD 14:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There are several FAQs and links at the top of WT:TFAR, explaining the process. Raul usually writes the blurbs himself, but he doesn't mind if requestors submit suggested blurbs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really follow all this, but thanks anyways. WilyD 14:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If you can explain at WT:TFAR anything that's not clear, we can try to make improvements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Dr Johnson

I replied at the review. I hope my reasoning is clear.

It's a shame. I would've loved to have helped you with this. But this monster is thousands of miles and, I think sometimes, a lifetime away. Marskell (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Dispatch

Trim away - I am always too prolix in first drafts. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I trimmed some more - am done now, thanks again for the opportunity to be interviewed (even if I cringe slightly at "Master of Peer review" - sounds too much like Master of my domain from Seinfeld. ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice trimming, I think it's a good size now ... can you think of a catchy heading? Usually Tony does that, but he hasn't tuned it I guess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose "Interview with Ruhrfisch, a cautionary tale of OCD and Peer Review" is out? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Only if you can work in Samuel Johnson :-) You could ask Tony1 to tweak the heading, but he'll rewrite the whole thing. If you're OK with that, drop him a note (or I will). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess I am OK with Master of PR, I would rather not have the whole thing rewritten (it is supposed to be an interview, not an article). Trimming is fine though, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Odwalla - Author info

Thanks for all you've helped me with on Odwalla. Per Domiy's comment, I checked all of the articles cited without author info and found two. One I added the author info, but the other one is a press release, and there isn't an author= field on cite press release! The ref is #20 on the Odwalla page, and the link to the ref is here. I'm assuming because the two authors (whose names are listed at the top) were writing for the US Dept of HHS that I don't need author info... but I'm just making sure. Thanks. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't believe I didn't think of that. <:) Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)