User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch51

Romance - more tips from our heroine

A 42 hour chemically-induced coma will get you painlessly through the day, but do remember to leave a note along the lines of "I'M NOT REALLY DEAD - JUST PRETENDING" to avoid potentially fatal misunderstandings on your spouse's part. Yomangani^talk 02:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Rethink the contents of the note. (Do you get to keep the chocolates after the coma wears off?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

some true news

Dear Sandy It is true news that the chief executive resigned. I learnt a little more about wikipedia from you. You like to fight vandals but I'm not a vandal. I'm not sure what watching watchers means. My nephew has autism and my mother and aunt are scientists. We were talking about this last week in the holidays so I know it is true. Should we put the news in? I was suggested to write on the page and write you your page. So I did. I hope that is allright. Peta Cook (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS and WP:V; Wiki edits are based on published, reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Sandy Thank you for telling me about this. I checked on the internet and straight away I found the news. It is true. / i put a note on the page talking about it. I have to go now. Peta Cook (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

April Fool Articles

I enjoyed doing research for the Ima Hogg article last year. Will you be working on one this year? I have a "Did You Know" article in the works for April 1. Someone selected my Confederate $100 banknote as Picture of the Day for April 1 on the Commons [1] Thanks -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 05:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I just found "April Fools Day as FAC, question?" on Karanacs talk page. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 05:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, this will run in the Signpost next week: WP:FCDW/AprilFools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

We kinda sputtered out on Casu marzu earlier, but if you know Italian you can go for it :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not taking a lead role this year: time for someone else. If someone does the maggot cheese, I can help out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As I noted on Karen's page, spontaneous human combustion. Ceran^→//forge 20:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 remains my personal favorite, since I once had to escape from a country with naming laws. Some day I should research and write it: not this year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Leck mich im Arsch (Lick me in the Ass) is not far off Featured quality, and was created by none other than... Raul. --Dweller (talk) 10:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Obviously...

I'm back in action. Stupid home networking glitches! Still have a ways to go to get settled in, but we're all in, we all have beds and sheets, we've found the silverware and the dishes, and the horses have decided that the big pasture is cool. All is well with the world, at least where the animals are concerned. (The cats are in heaven, so many nooks and crannies to explore!) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That's great news ... glad the animals are happy and hope you're all cozy soon! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hi there, old friend. Just flagging up to you the post from Mattinbgn on Raul's talk. Hope you're well. Snowed in here in London, which is a rarity. It rarely snows more than a sneeze-worth of dandruff. Worst snow in 18 years they're saying. Anyway, enjoy your trip. --Dweller (talk) 09:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

So jealous - I hate summer in oz....Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I hear you're having a HOT one. This country has officially closed down for the day. It's the same every time - first sign of a snowflake and the country has a collective spasm. It's chaos. How on earth do Moscow, Helsinki, Oslo, Winnipeg, Archangel etc cope? Lol. --Dweller (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Not so bad in Sydney (low 30s) but Sydney is alot more humid. Melb and Adelaide reaching 44C (!) I felt sorry for Roger Federer playing 5 sets in Melbourne - the sweat was just dripping off them. Casliber (talk · contribs)

Hey, Dweller, always good to hear from you! Raul will get to that if he's able ... he tries to respond to editor requests within reason. It's been quite a winter everywhere, even snowed in Abu Dhabi or Dubai or somewhere last week. Yikes, Cas; I remember melting once in Seville at 42C, thinking that was about the hottest humid weather I'd ever seen (thank goodness for gazpacho). I think travel to a place that is never too hot, never too cold, never too dry, never too humid sounds nice about now ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Greece runestones

Dear SandyGeorgia, I have realized that the subject matter of the Greece Runestones is impossible to bring to FA status due to a lack of secondary sources in English, and a topic that demands either that the readers have a basic knowledge of the subject, or that the article is expanded with helping explanations to a degree where it is no longer an article on the Greece Runestones, but an article on runestones and runology in general. Please delist this horribly expensive and time consuming attempt at making an FA for WP.--Berig (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't be discouraged, Berig; sometimes a bit of time away from an article or FAC is enough to help see the way through to satisfy reviewers. You have a fine article there, reflecting a good deal of effort and research, and you've received a good level of Support. If you're sure you want to withdraw for now, I can archive it on my next pass through FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I want. If you think there is a chance that the article may pass, I will make a try to satisfy the reviewers.--Berig (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't yet carefully read all of the commentary, so I'm unsure yet if you are able to address the opposes, but there is a good level of support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind encouragement. I guess I'm a bit despondent at the moment, but hopefully I'll get some more good and actionable ideas for how to improve it from other reviewers if it remains on the list.--Berig (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have given it some consideration. Seeing that Ottava Rima has yet again responded on the project page, I ask you to delist it, please. It is possible that I'll renominate it at some point in the future, if I feel inclined to go through a whole month or more of this very unpleasant business again, but I strongly doubt it.--Berig (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I listed some things for you to include. It would take a day or two at max to add the information. The only hard part would be getting access to the one journal, and then you can always add that information later (as long as there is some of the English information represented, as the two books listed can form about 20 lines of added information, plus you can add in 3 or 4 lines about the background of the museum piece). Ottava Rima (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for the trust you placed in me by supporting my RfA (which passed and, apparently, I am now an admin!). I will do my best to continue to act in a way that is consistent with the policies of wikipedia as well with our common desire to build and perfect this repository of human knowledge; and can only hope that you never feel that your trust was misplaced. Thanks again! --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 00:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sideshow Bob

Hello, I don't know what your closure policies are, but could you please not archive the FAC tomorrow and give me until Saturday? I've been trying my best to get copyeditors, but it's been slow going. Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Homo floresiensis

Hi Sandy, I'm swamped so this is short and sweet... This is a borderline frivolous FAR. The complaint of incomplete is not supported by the specific points, as they reflect either a complete lack of careful reading on the part of the nom'er (see my comment 1) or a lack of apparent knowledge of how wikipedia works (see my comment 2). Any way to speedy end this one? Edhubbard (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Ed (long time no see); you need to leave a note for Joelr31 (talk · contribs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, life has been hectic for me, so I've basically reduced my wikipedia life to bare minimum, mostly keeping up the articles I've worked on before. I've copied this message over to Joel's page, and we'll see what he thinks. One day, I hope to come back and actually make a push to get the synesthesia article up to FA standards. It's not too far now... Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You've been plugging away on that for years, huh? When you get closer, good editors for review are Colin (talk · contribs), Eubulides (talk · contribs) and Fvasconcellos (talk · contribs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Come on, Sandy. Throwing things my way when they are too hot too handle. ;) Joelito (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That's nothing: I've considered inviting myself to visit you in PR if I get stuck at Luis Muñoz Marín !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thankfully that will never happen. Flights from San Juan are always on time. LOL ;) Joelito (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sí, claro, me imagino :) (La verdad es que siempre me ha parecido un aeropuerto bien cómodo e eficiente.) It's not the on time part that I'm worried about, though! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States Military Academy

I tried to fix it up, but I think I made it worse... Dabomb87 (talk) 02:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be hard to do :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the big rush here. I left extensive comments on Saturday, today is Monday. Why is everyone rushing me? I thought the focus was quality over haste. KnightLago (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no rush, KnightLago; the FAC is a jumble, so it's hard to sort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Sandy. It's just that you asked at FAC and I got three people on my talk page yelling at me to return. KnightLago (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that happened, and I'm probably to blame; I only inquired because the FAC was quite convoluted, and hard to sort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought. I have not been following FAC lately, but would it be easier if each article's FAC was not transcluded onto the main FAC page? This would solve the problem of having a massive FAC page. It would also allow editors to hide resolved comments and use done and not done templates. Thoughts? KnightLago (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that would make it a lot harder for reviewers. Some of us skim the big page looking for articles that have not received a lot of comments yet. Karanacs (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If the big FAC page is unwieldy (I stopped using it a while ago), give WP:FACL a try. BuddingJournalist 22:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Saw that

Just saw you update your userpage - happy wiki-start day! Cheers, Keeper | 76 02:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• 38k edits in one year? Wtf. I don't even have 7k per year. I'm going to stomp, huff and puff, fume, and then hold my breath until I turn blue because of this. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  PS, search for your name. You might be surprised. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding CA 78

This FAC grew stale and didn't get any votes any way (no support, no oppose). What do I do in this case? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait several weeks, check with editors of similar articles re: how you might improve the article, and check in with WikiProjects for possible issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I am part of the WikiProject and have asked several people (on IRC, and at A-Class review) what is wrong with the article, and I can't get an answer (Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/California State Route 78 has grown stale, and I corrected all the Wikipedia:Peer review/California State Route 78/archive1 issues that were actionable). I guess I'm just frustrated because I can't get anyone to give me an answer of what is wrong with the article, and yet it fails (this second time, I don't think anybody gave it a full review!) --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Revision of sources in Venezuela & Hugo Chavez pages

Dear SandyGeorgia, I would like to bring to your attention a debate about reliability, impartiality and verifiability of sources used in the pages about Venezuela and Hugo Chavez. There are editors, notably JRSP, AlaisdarGreen27 and Rd232 that simply refuse to acknowledge conflict of interests of certain sources. Moreover, edits attempted by me are undone, without further ado, disregarding publicly available evidence, as well as Wikipedia principles, backing up edits. I should be grateful if you could look into this matter whenever you have some time to spare and inform how can these issues be solved by independent editors.Alekboyd (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)AlekboydAlekboyd (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That has always been the case on Chavez articles, and until more people pay attention, probably will always be the case. One person cannot effect changes to that article that reflect Wiki policy when there are multiple editors with one bias—unless you become very well versed in dispute resolution and are prepared to go as far as ArbCom. (As you know, because of the apathy I've encountered on that article, I am not willing to go that far.) I have followed the discussion enough to know that it is beyond ridiculous; after many years I know there isn't likely to be a change, and I only watch enough to know that it is still occurring. Most of the arguments presented there are spurious and those sources are clearly and blantantly biased for all the reasons long known to most knowledgeable about Venezuela. But even the reliance on biased sources is not the main issue: more significantly, the article does not reflect due weight attention to broad, mainstream, reputable reliable sources according to WP:V. You can read any current mainstream analysis of Chavez and see that our article is unbalanced and not reflective of most reputable reliable sources (in addtion to being woefully outdated). However, arguing the case on any Chavez talk page will get you nowhere; simply stated, not enough people care, and the watchers of those pages will prevail unless you are willing to learn and follow the steps of dispute resolution. The key is to learn Wiki policy inside and out; the place to present a solid, well-reasoned, brief analysis of the problems with those sources—so you can generate a broader consensus outside of the article's ownership—is at WP:RSN. I am going to be traveling, so will be unable to help; as long as there is a willing supply of biased editors, and others are unwilling to help, there is little to be done. The defenders of the article status quo will be particularly vigilant over the next week, in case the article is linked from the Main Page In the News section during or after the Referendum. Que estés bien. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you SandyGeorgia. Will follow your advice.Alekboyd (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)AlekboydAlekboyd (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

IF you put anything up at WP:RSN, it needs to be carefully written and copyedited ... brevity and clarity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Next nom

Since 23:00, 28 January 2009 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Byron Brown has been four support (counting nominator) and no oppose. Images, MOS and Refs have all been signed off on. All issues have been resolved for some time. Even though you have not promoted it, I am going to nominate my next candidate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You know, Tony, you do good work, but it would be nice if you occasionally reviewed an article. We're really suffering from lack of reviewers at FAC right now, and every little bit of help would be greatly appreciated. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Three supports, but an outstanding sourcing question. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I left that for others. I lean no go on it, but I'm not entirely sure it's a no-go so would prefer that other reviewers weigh in on it. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's a concern that no reviewers have weighed in on that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

All reviewers have said to include the Official mayoral results with notation like it is. They have responded on the article talk or my talk.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If you like. I will tell them to come back and comment on the FAC talk.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Tony, I removed your nom because that article was archived only eight days ago, with comprehensive and other concerns; please take a few weeks to address issues, and be mindful of the backlog at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Note this article is a March 4 centenary TFA candidate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Bit of a non sequitor there.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

TFA is not a consideration at FAC. We don't bend the rules so that articles can be promoted for a specific date on the main page. Even for last year's April Fool's Day article, those of us working on the article made sure to plan enough time to go through the normal FAC process - and we made darn sure that every i was dotted and t was crossed before we got to FAC so that the process would go smoothly. We expect the same of all nominators. Karanacs (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, that was my point. Although the article is greatly improved, it still has serious issues, and I'm just not on board that it is a serious and comprehensive treatment of the subject.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:FAC says Users should not add a second FA nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. At the time I made the nom on February 4 the first article, Byron Brown, had been 4 support and no oppose for a week with all images, MOS and refs signed off on. Sandy apparently was not clued into difficulty in sourcing one ref because endorsements had been made on my user talk and the article talk. Everyone agrees that there is no other way to source the 2005 Mayoral election results. I nominated Saxbe fix as a second nom in good faith and in accordance with the rules. The primary objections to this article had been made on 1/21 for comprehensiveness. I doubled the article content after that time. The objectors never commented on the new content. However, the second nomination was made in good faith. If she currently wishes to remove the article she can do so. Alternatively, she could just tell her army to oppose the article, which may be happening.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ri-ight, I'm a member of Sandy's army. I've had repeated disagreements with her at TFA/R and concerning Natalee Holloway and she opposed my RfA. We are talking about the same SandyGeorgia, right?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I can not figure you out. It is rare that a person comes and spends a lot of time with an article and opposes, especially when it is already down 0-2. I won't even try to group you in with any group. You are just out there on this matter. Why are you spending so much time on an article that you oppose.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be ambiguity above on whether I am saying that Sandy's army is suddenly opposing my article that stood at 4-0 supports for a week or whether I am saying that her army (a loose term for the large number of people who watch this page and take action based on commentary here) has been instructed people to derail my article. There is no doubt that there were two sudden objects that arrived on the Byron Brown FAC after editing activity occurred here. Thus, there is little doubt in my mind that the army is in fact opposing the article. The statement above remains ambiguous as to whether I feel Sandy in any way caused this to happen. I am not sure I am under any obligation to clarify objection to such that arrived on my talk page. I will clearly state that I feel like a Democrat in a Republican controled house on Sandy's talk page and feel that my FACs are all treated within the broad rules, but with a slight bias that a Republican might give to a Democrats work when I post at FAC. I do feel that an article that had 4-0 support for a week should have been passed before crazy objections arose from parties wishing that all personal information be removed and that minor third rate newspaper dissenting articles be included.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I knew she had superpowers. Here she is, foiling nominations whilst offline on vacation. Rock on with your bad self, Sandy. Maralia (talk) 05:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) Hi Tony. I am so surprised that you don't know about me enough to know my view on things. By no means should you take anything I say personally. At all. Ever. I hate the majority of articles that come through FAC. I desperately want high-value content. A little fluff is unavoidable (in the sense that I do not have the power to delete it all ;-P). But I am so so so sick and tired of crap [wait, I'll add a caveat to "crap"] being rammed through by popular !vote even tough it is second-rate for any one of several reasons. Also, I'm not saying your article is "crap"; it is in fact noticeably better than what I usually think of as "crap". But... just think... Byron has never done anything notable outside his community... now that's why we can't rely on the NYT as our Bible. If you wanna drag local politicians into the fray, then accept local papers. End of story. And again, don't take it personally that I have an "Aux barricades!" outlook on FAC. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 05:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Much of your commentary belongs on the Byron FAC page where we have been discussing sources. If you want to hold the discussion here we can. I do several levels of notability. I watch Donald Trump and Jesse Jackson, for example. Both of these are articles where it would be impossible to read the entire public domain content about their lives. I do not touch FACs for articles like those. I do attempt to tackle articles that border on the high end of the notability spectrum where failry complete reviews of top rate national/international level content results in a page on the extreme bounds of WP:SIZE such as Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Jack Kemp. I also do articles of people who are so barely notable that a complete sketch of their careers would be impossible without local papers such as Tom Weisner and Arthur Schultz. Byron is somewhere between. He has served in the New York State Senate and as the Mayor of the 2nd largest city in the state. He is at a level of notability where the line on encyclopedic content can be drawn at a high level after he became a New York State Senator. He was a more visible State Senator than others and got more press. Thus, since being a State Senator the most important events in his life have been well documented in the New York Times. This makes for a convenient demarcation for encyclopedic content. I hope he achieves a higher level of notability where I can write his article from Time, Newsweek and other similar sources. However, in this case we can avoid POV-pushing quite easily by just limiting content to Buffalo politics that make the New York Times. That is where I largely draw the line for his post senate stuff. It makes it easier for us to settle arguments on what is encyclopedic, IMO. The fact that Byron has never served outside of Western New York does not change the fact that NYT reports on most important events statewide (and in the tristate region). NYT is a good bible for NY state politics.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I put that statement here as a direct reply to your statement about "crazy objections arose from parties wishing that all personal information be removed and that minor third rate newspaper dissenting articles be included". Here's my bottom line: I want real content, not People magazine. If you have to dig into local sources to get real content to replace the bowties, marching bands, what's-your-favorite-color-and-food stuff, then so be it. :-) Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 05:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Getting back to your earlier comment, I'm opposing on technical grounds, that the article doesn't comply with the FAC rules in that it is a second nomination. I believe in building the project, and the subject interests me, so I'm editing and commenting, I'm not trying to (lol) bork the article. It's better than it was last time, though not by my standards wonderful, so I will probably not oppose on the merits this time, but just keep pointing out mistakes I see until there aren't any anymore.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Tony, I understand you were asked to hold off on nominating another article only because there aren't enough reviewers, myself included, to ensure articles receive a thorough analysis and review. Now you're on about a SandyGeorgia-controlled cabal. What is it that you want? There are simply not enough people for the volume of articles that are being nominated, no matter what the rules on the FAC talk page say. --Moni3 (talk) 13:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

What do I want????!!!!! I would prefer it if Sandy would give me more than lip service equitable treatment. She often leaves my FAC noms open for a long time after they have reached proper support levels to be passed and then they are failed. She also often closes other FACs when I have not had a chance to strike my objections (most recently a few days ago at William D. Boyce). It does not make sense you want every last hint of an objection addressed in my noms, but not in the noms I am reviewing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Tony, you didn't actually enter an oppose at William D. Boyce. Comments are generally not taken as seriously as an oppose (and from what I saw, the comments that were unstruck from you were fairly minor; none were enough to hold up a nomination). FACs in general are usually open for over a week; just getting 3 or 4 supports in the first few days is not a sign that the nomination is ready to be promoted - we have to give time for other reviewers to come in as well. From what I've seen, some of your FACs are left open too long, especially the ones where reviewers have mentioned serious prose concerns. In her shoes, I'd have archived some of them sooner; Sandy tends to give you a longer opportunity to correct the issues so that the article can instead be promoted. Karanacs (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I kind of think concerns about White Supremacy and gay Boy Scouts should be ironed out. However this article is a prime example of inequitable treatment. I had 3.5 supports for about 1 hour before getting promoted to FA. My articles always have to sit a week or more after getting to the minimal support level. I commented at 23:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC) with weak support giving it 1.5 supports. Two supports followed at 23:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC) and 00:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC) and it was promoted at 02:23, 3 February 2009. I never get this kind of promotion treatment. As I point out above, my article had 3 supports plus the nominator for a week and could not get promoted. This gets two and a half in and hour and a half and gets promoted. Thats iniquity.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Your article had 3 supports (since when does the nominator count?) by 28 January — and on 29 January the images were reviewed, and on 30 January Sandy posted to the FAC indicating that dabs needed fixing and a MOS runthrough was necessary. These issues were not resolved by 31 January, and the article remained at 3 supports when Sandy did the bi-weekly promotions/archiving. On 1 February you posted that the MOS review was done, and Ealdgyth posted a sourcing issue. When Sandy again did bi-weekly promotions on 3 February, the article remained at 3 supports. I have rarely, if ever, seen Sandy promote at 3 supports. Any more 'inequitable treatment' we should examine? Maralia (talk) 06:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There was a time when nominator support counted. However, WRT 3 supports plus nominator My last FA Richard Cordray had three supports and was promoted December 21, 2008 to FA and January 2, 2009 to TFA. In 2007, South_Side_(Chicago) was promoted with 3 supports (counting nominator, which I think counted back then) after a restart. Those are the first two I checked.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Cordray had 3 supports and a fourth implicit support "If these final issues can be sorted out", which they had been when the article was promoted. South Side was not promoted by Sandy. Maralia (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You are double counting User:Brianboulton who gave your quote at 12:57, 17 December 2008 and support at 18:26, 17 December 2008. Additionally, Prairie Avenue was promoted by Sandy with two plus nominator in Jan 2008.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected on Cordray. At Prairie I see two explicit supports and a non-bolded support. The point I am trying to get across here is that FAC reviews are not hard science, all reviews are not equal, and comparing one to another is inherently problematic. I am particularly bothered by this statement of yours: "She often leaves my FAC noms open for a long time after they have reached proper support levels to be passed and then they are failed." Setting aside the accusation that your noms are left open longer, this begs the question: why would they fail? Maralia (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I have not been following this section, and have no opinion on it, but I noticed the debate about the number of supports required to promote. For whatever it's worth, two supports, not counting the nominator, has been sufficient in the past. I dug through my earliest FAs and found Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Æthelberht of Kent, promoted (by Raul) on two supports. I couldn't say how often this happened, but my fuzzy recollection is that this was not a unique event. I should add that at least one or two others I looked at (in a sample of seven) were promoted on only three supports. I recently saw Sandy comment that she does not promote on two supports; I don't know if she ever used to. Mike Christie (talk) 02:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right; promotion standards have definitely changed over time. Maralia (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

My point is this. I have written the most well developed bio article for a politician whose highest elected office was Mayor on WP, AFAIK. It had and may still have a good chance to be the first Mayor FA. Every article on WP has room for improvement. Even most TFAs get improved under the scrutiny of main page exposure. Here we are in a WP world where every wikipedian and their momma disses on Mayors. Every mayor template I have ever made has been the subject of formal or informal deletion debates. Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_February_2#Template:United_States_Conference_of_Mayors_Presidents was the latest endangered template. As I said above the current templates at the bottom of Scott Smith (mayor) have been debated at length. I think people should stop trying to slam mayor work on WP. One or two should get through FA. I was having trouble with borderline POV pushing on the article. I suspect other mayor articles have had similar tussles or else some would be FAs by now. I think my nominee is a decent article and that it was ready when I notified Sandy I was posting a second nom. I have been getting gruff about whether the first nom was at a sufficient state to make a second and whether the second was an appropriate choice. Sandy yanked the second. I unyanked it with explanation. Then this whole section evolved. I do not think the second has been fairly evaluated on its merits and I think the firstis getting flak from this whole ruckus.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to see all three types of templates that the WP Mayor haters club gives me grief for on one page look at Manny Diaz. Last time I checked, the last one still had the TFD notice on it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Very true. While I was taking Woodes Rogers through GA, I noticed the 300th anniversary of his rescue of Selkirk (by most accounts, the basis for Crusoe) was coming up. As soon as the GA came through (Mattisse was already reviwing when I noticed the date), I nommed for FA. I was prompt about comments. I helped out on another FAC, though I am a very bad reviewer. Rogers got its FA four days early. Just go with the flow, Tony, get the article through. There is still a month to go until the date Knox was sworn in under the original Saxbe fix. And if it doesn't occur, well, worse things happen at C, and it is interesting enough Raul may use it soon anyway. But letting down FA standards one iota for the sake of TFA, and especially for what you hope will be a TFA point record, well, that is not on.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Page size again

Keith Miller - Dr pda's script says 79kb and the readability script says 91k ?? YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Dr pda can explain, not sure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This has come up before, see here. Short answer, the readability tool includes the text inside <ref></ref> tags when it is not a {{cite XXX}} template. Dr pda (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah thanks, I didn't know my hundreds of book refs added to that much. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding nominating an FAC with one already ongoing

Hi Sandy, I just want to apologize for nominating another FAC when I already had one ongoing. Next time, I will ask you first before I do so. I've also been reviewing articles that go through FAC when I'm familiar with them, which are typically video games, and will continue doing so. Cheers! Gary King (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this, I have been working on Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock on and off for the past few months. There was a recent push to bring it to FAC, and User:Masem finally brought it to FAC today. I asked him if I could co-nom, and then I did, so that's why I have another FAC up there right now, although I hadn't planned it. If you check the page's history, though, he has 214 edits to the page and I have 112, so the article will be tended to by him and myself, rather than just me. Gary King (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that's fair, Gary. Karanacs (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: 2008 ACC Championship Game images

I wanted to catch you before you go on vacation to let you know that I think we've managed to nail down the last of those image problems. If you could take a last look before you leave, it should be good to go. Thanks again, and have a good time traveling! JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It's unlikely that I will have time to run through FAC again; Raul has said he'll go through next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

William Bostock FAC

Hi Sandy, saw you heading off soon so just wanted to jump in here... Believe I actioned your MOS points, only thing that's still a question for me is re. the request from a couple of people for access dates, apparently even on non-web-only sources, which I've not come across before and can't see as a policy at WP:References - if it's required now of course it can be done but it seems new to me, as well as of dubious benefit, so could you pls confirm the requirement for FAC now, one way or t'other? Many tks, cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Responded there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

script that compares the edits of 2 editors

quick question.. where's that script that compares the edits of 2 editors to look for common article interests etc.? Tks Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 13:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

http://toolserver.org/~bjweeks/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks.. hope you're doing well.. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 13:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't take anything that script says too seriously, though. Two completely unrelated editors can look very similar just because they each happen to revert a piece of vandalism on today's FA, or each made a minor spelling fix to the same article; I have 866 pages in common with Sandy, 832 with you, and 903 with Mattisse, despite finding it hard to think of a less connected group. (And when you compare yourself to one of the Hugglers, the figures go out of the window as chances are they've edited everything on your watchlist at some point; I have more than 11000 pages in common with J.delanoy.) – iridescent 13:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually quite connected with you; you just haven't discovered your (my) true identity yet. We were twins separated at birth. As for Matisse, well, s/he and I were in a plane crash together. I met Sandy at a party with Kevin Bacon (actually, Sandy is Kevin Bacon.. oh crap.. did I let the cat out of the bag??)... Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 14:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

What's this rumor about a vacation

Apparently, you failed to get signed approval from me. Denied.  :) So, I won't tell anyone where we're meeting. Please don't forget it's an "all-cocktail dress" holiday. Can't wait. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

April Fools' continuation

Hmm, Lake Titicaca could, IMO, easily be brought to FA status. (and it's got some 5th grade humor, too) Ima Hogg wasn't much more humorous... Ceran^→//forge 20:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Added at Wikipedia:April_Fool's Main Page/Featured Article#Suggestions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it... –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

let me add some links: Titicaca...---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 20:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

erm –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

or... Titicaca Ceran^→//forge 21:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Surely Typhoon Longwang would be a better choice. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I still think Jimbo Wales would make a great choice, especially with the picture that Jenna had. ;/ Ottava Rima (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but sadly, Jenna is retired. Let's cherish new times and make them old memories. Some wise guy probably said that some time ago. Ceran^→//forge 21:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I still have the picture and permission to use it. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ravenloft (module)

Hello! I am notifying you that a article you previously reviewed for FAC has been nominated again. Please, if you can, take the time to see if the article has been improved enough to consider supporting, and if not, let us know what needs improving. :) BOZ (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States Military Academy

All of my concerns have been addressed. I just wanted to drop you a note as I know this particular FAC is taking up a lot of space. KnightLago (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sandy is traveling and probably won't be able to do much with FAC. You may want to talk to User:Raul654, the FAC director. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy SandyGeorgia's Day!

SandyGeorgia has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as SandyGeorgia's day! For simply being an outstanding Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, SandyGeorgia! Cheers, bibliomaniac15 01:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Stripped down comments

Sandy, how would you feel about stripped down !votes on the FAC pages? E.g. I might put simply:

Oppose. 1a. Details on talk page. Mike Christie (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

and leave a note on the article talk page, in a section titled "FAC comments" or something similar; that section would be linked from the "talk page" words in the !vote.

I'm wondering if by moving some of the FAC-as-PR discussion to the article talk, where it belongs, after all, you could more easily focus on whether there is consensus on the article's promotion or not. Would this be a Good Thing or a Bad Thing? Mike Christie (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good strategy (but some examples should be provided on the FAC page ... enough to back up the oppose, with remaining detail on talk). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

USMA FAC

Sandy, let me please say first that I apologize for the lengthy and exhausting comments on the USMA FAC page. I realize that my newness to WP and the FAC process contributed to much of the dialog, especially the WP:IUP. While there is a lengthy amount of back and forth on this FAC, the current for/against status is 8 Supports (Madcoverboy, Rlevse, Elred, KnightLago, Strikehold, JKBrooks85, Rogerd, Rreagan007) vs 1 Oppose (Awadewit). I just now returned to Awadewit's talk page to see the lengthy dialog between you and her concerning her weariness over this review. I'm very sorry to have been the cause of this. My learning curve has increased exponentially because of this review. I believe that all the image use issues are resolved. I removed three four images (File:West Point Fortifications.jpg, File:USMA-BlackKnights-Logo.svg, File:Bob Knight & Coach K at USMA.jpg, and File:Franklin Hagenbeck.jpg) because we were not going to come to a speedy conclusion about their PD status. The sole remaining image is I've replaced the Superintendent's official photo File:Franklin Hagenbeck.jpg with File:Sec Def Gates & LTG Hagenbeck at USMA.jpg, which should have no issues with PD. I believe the image meets the criteria for PD, but it It appears that Awadewit, and Jappalang have withdrawn from the review over frustration caused by failing to resolve the image issues. I think that this lone remaining photo is in fact PD and should stay, but if that is the singular sticking point to proceed with the FAC, then I will gladly remove it until I can find an image that all can agree meets the PD cirteria. Again, I'm sorry for this lengthy and untidy FAC, but the consensus is currently overwhelmingly in favor of promotion. Thanks.  Ahodges7   ^talk 16:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Although perhaps aesthetically and technically inferior, perhaps either this image or this image, appropriately cropped, could serve as a reasonable substitute? Both are unambiguously public domain. Эlcobbola _talk 16:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a note to say that Sandy's traveling this week, (per her note above) and Raul's going to handle the one promotion that'll take place until she gets back. Probably that'll happen right before Raul himself goes on the road. Also, it should be noted that promotions are usually (even when Sandy isn't traveling) happening just twice a week, just so you know. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Roger, understand that Sandy's traveling. I posted a response to Эlcobbola on their talk page for anyone who is following along. Thanks.  Ahodges7   ^talk 22:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, I have attempted to clarify the situation with the images.[2] In my view, only the issue of the ring remained unresolved, but I believe I have addressed that by replacing it with a smaller sized image (if accepted by the nominators, it too should be considered resolved). Jappalang (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no issue with the reduced image size of the class ring image per Jappalang's adjustment referenced above.  Ahodges7   ^talk 23:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Damn

Mail. Good link; cant meet it, but this is on my heavy rotation list at the moment. Kings are such nice guys and so bloody pretty; damn that I'm straight, I'd likely make an exception for these gentelman. Ceoil (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Potential copyright concerns on multiple FAs

Because of what was said here, I am concerned that a few articles are using wording taken directly from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships without properly citing it. I have not hand a chance to go through line by line to see if the wording is too similar to find out. However, it seems that many editors are under the misconception that Public Domain = no longer having to quote exact language. I find this troubling and I wanted to give you the heads up because we will need to look closer at the use of this source in future FACs. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Please go to the current conversation there; we have a misunderstanding. I was not referring to the FA's where DANFS is cited correctly! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I know exactly what you said. However, those pages cite the DANFS. Thus, the material was introduced. They need to be combed through to make sure there is no left over language. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Please keep the conversation in one place, thanks... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I am talking one of the FAC coordinators about a problem. You can back off now. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that Sandy is traveling this week? (See the top of this talk page) -MBK₀₀₄ 22:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but this isn't a time sensitive issue. Its about future FACs. Also, many other people read her page, so others can be aware of concerns in this regard. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Any article that uses text directly from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (DANFS) is supposed to employ Template:DANFS which staates:

This article includes text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships.

This notice has long been considered a sufficient indicator that some portion of the article is public domain text. (Whether or not public domain text use in an FA is a good thing or not is a different matter.) Please note that there are many U.S. Navy ship FAs that use DANFS as a source (just as one would use any other source) that neither use, nor require the PD text notice, since they do not contain any text copied verbatim from DANFS. You're right to be concerned about copyright violations and plagiarism in FAs, Ottava, since they are proffered as Wikipedia's best works. But I think the worry is unfounded in this case. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Its just something to keep an eye out in future FACs. : ) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawal

A couple of hours ago, I added a withdrawal request on Saxbe fix.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Requests for oppose striking (WP:FAC/New York State Route 382)

If you get this while you are traveling, (I also posted it to Raul's talk) Per the results at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GroundhogTheater, could I have the three opposes related to those on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New York State Route 382 stricken as votestacking? If you could look into this, thanks.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 11:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Cup COI concerns

Hi Sandy, there's been some discussion here and here as to whether you just need WikiCup participants to declare an interest at FAC when they are doing something that could affect their Wiki cup standing (submitting an article at FAC or reviewing an article by someone they are competing with). Or if you also want cup participation declared by cup participants reviewing articles by non participants or participants in other "pools" than the one they are competing in (the WikiCup does not award points for reviewing articles). If the latter, what form do you want the declaration to be in? As an example I've reviewed a number of articles at FAC, but none by the five editors I'm competing with and I don't think any were by the 54 editors in the other 9 Wikicup "pools". Would you mind giving us a clarification please? WereSpielChequers 12:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Since Sandy is on vacation, I will take a stab at reading her mind. I think that an editor should self-identify their participation in WikiCup if they review any article submitted as part of the WikiCup (even if not part of their pool), and when/if they nominate an article. The declaration could be as simple as disclosure: I'm a wikicup participant. Sandy may want something different, but this is start. Karanacs (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Karanacs is correct. Similar to the FA-team submissions and the Tzatziki Squad submissions, I just want to know when a nomination (or review) is part of a group effort or a contest, so I can assure that there are independent supports and reviews (for example, the FA-team's nominations came with a high number of built-in supports, and I watched for independent supports from non-FA-team members). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm shocked, just shocked

ARod admits to juicing. Aren't you glad the Bronx steroids got him instead of the Bosox? I was on the phone with a consultant on Long Island this afternoon, when the news hit that he admitted to it. The guy is a Red Sox fan through and through, and he said he was hanging up the phone, then getting drunk. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

As an Oriole fan, I hope that Boston, New York, and Cleveland all lose their teams in a steroid fueled rage in which their players all explode simultaneously. We haven't won at all since those three started stacking the decks. : ( Ottava Rima (talk) 03:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Blame the owner! And I just wouldn't lump Cleveland with the Bosox and Yankees. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

We have to play all three more than any other team has to play all three, and each are the reason why we keep failing every year since 1994. They need to split the arrangement up so that we can at least have a chance. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Mumbai

Could you close this FAC. I dunno who removed this FAC from the Main FAC Page. Beleive me, I had added it. Is there a time limit for renominating a FAC. Thanks, Kensplanet^T_C 10:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I moved it to archive so Gimmebot will close it (it was removed several days ago by someone else as a premature nom); you should take several weeks at least to address the concerns raised previously. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

February archive

Just a note for an unusual situation: I removed Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lunes of Hippocrates today after the article was deleted as a copyvio. I was worried that adding it to the February archive might stall Gimmebot (since the article talk page is gone), so I just delisted it at FAC and manually added close tags to the page. Wanted to mention it for the record, since you might want to include it in counts. Maralia (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

As an additional note, I moved Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Run to You (song) to the archive due to 4 opposes in quick succession and no comments by nominator (who I don't think had actually worked on the article). There's a note on the FAC nom and the nominator's talk page not to remove the FAC tag. Karanacs (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

NY 382 (New York State Route 382)

With Groundhog Theater blocked as a sock, does this mean that the NY 382 is now promoted as there seems to be 100% support of the article. I am willing and will continue to improve it but having a FA star at the top would be nice! Chergles (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There won't be any more promotions until sometime next week, as both Sandy and Raul are off-Wiki until then. Karanacs (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at the FAC comments again and even if the sock ones are not striken, I think the article qualifies. If there are any concerns that need to be addressed, I would be happy to improve the article before it is rejected for FA. Chergles (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Note that even if concerns are all addressed, articles must usually get a certain level of support declarations (3 is usually the minimum, although occasionally an article squeaks by with just 2). Karanacs (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Son-Rise: A Miracle of Love

Hi SandyGeorgia!
Long time, no see.
I wanted to know if you could help me on an article I added.
Son-Rise: A Miracle of Love, I am sure you are familiar with, you know Son-Rise, an Early Intervention therapy that was created by parents in the '70s that got their son to completely recover from the Autism spectrum. A Miracle of Love is a docudrama about the recovery and was adapted by the book, Son-Rise (now known as Son-Rise: The Miracle Continues).
Their is not to many references supporting the movie, the most reliable references for the film is not informative enough or 100% accurate (e.g. New York Times Film Synopsis said that (from All Media Guide) Raun Kaufman was high-functioning, but he was severe and mentally retarded, in addition to the movie.
Their is more info from the book, which adapted into the film.
Could I reference a lot from the book, and use it as a reliable source since it has the majority of the information from the movie and is more accurate.
Thanx and have fun traveling!
ATC (talk) 04:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Annie! I've been traveling, and because I have a long medical app't tomorrow (Monday 16), I probably won't be able to catch up at all until about Wednesday. I will watchlist and try to pitch in when I can; in the meantime, you might want to drop a note to Eubulides (talk · contribs) also. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Venezuela Information Office

I didn't think the material you re-added about the "employees" was well-sourced, which is why I had commented it out. Can you confirm that you checked the sources to see if they supported the claims in the article? I will defer to your judgment on this if you have. THF (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, THF; I wasn't clear on where the issues were occurring. Give me a bit to catch up on that ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

THF, is it the paragraph beginning with Past employees of VIO include Michael Shellenberger ... that is questioned? Reviewing sources now ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. See the comment I'd left behind for more details. THF (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see your comment there, but I'm working through the sources now ... will move and detail issues on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

THF, OK, I see the issues, and hopefully have detailed them on talk in a way that Alekboyd will understand. I apologize for the quick catchup; that is all I can do for now, more later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I'll stop watching this page; I've answered your questions at Talk:VIO. THF (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

YAY!

Sandy's back! Yay! Hope your trip was good. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely back :) Trudging through my watchlist, but will be out tomorrow for medical app't, so it will take me a while to fully catch up. My trip was spectacular; thanks :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)