User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch52

WikiCup

I signed up to the Wikicup as I thought it might be fun, social, and encourage me to do a bit more work in featured content. I'm really uncomfortable with learning that because I signed up for something, I am, by default, under suspicion.

I really, really dislike this situation, and refuse to declare conflicts of interests where nopne exist. If this means boycotting FAC, so be it, but I simply refuse to accept that such suspicion is reasonable, and will not do things that require me to publicly act as if it was. Hence, I will neither be trying to get articles up to FAC, nor participating in FAC in any way while such rules are in place, an abominable situation, but the only one that my ethics allows me. This is a pity, because H.M.S. Pinafore or Arthur Sullivan could probably be fixed up, but I cannot give in to being given a black mark simply because I wanted to do something fun and social.

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ummmm. Since I've been away, first things first. Where did you come by the conclusion that WikiCup participants, are "by default, under suspicion"? Also, suspicion of what? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You should probably read User talk:Garden/WikiCup#Participating or submitting FAs etc and User talk:Garden/WikiCup#FAC, etc which took place while you were away. I think that many participants feel that they are under suspicion of either reviewing poorly and opposing to get ahead in the cup, or supporting incorrectly to perhaps advance someone in a pool ahead of someone else? I haven't got into it yet. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

From those links, it appears that this "under suspicion" notion originates with Shoemaker's Holiday, so it would be helpful for him to clarify. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot you responded on your talk page. I'm just not comfortable with having to declare participation, as it presumes that participation is, in itself, a problem that requires a higher level of scrutiny. I just don't feel comfortable having to describe - every single time I do anything on the FAC page - my participation in a social event. It's both embarrassing and participation other things that would presumably cause an equivalently low Conflict of Interest, such as Wikiprojects, are not put under the same suspicion: Noone is required to declare Wikiproject membership, for instance. It just feels... wrong, and I'm not at all comfortable with participating in FAC while I'd be forced to wear - if you'll forgive the slightly overblown analogy - a scarlet letter. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't speak for Sandy, but declaration of who you are matters. If you want to be incognito, then chances are you aren't up to any good. It is just that simple. Too many people try to game the system, turn it into votes, etc. Declaration should be obvious, as with declaring if you are part of the same WikiProject or not. If you want something honest to be put forth, do the right thing. If not, well, then you might as well just start putting things up as an IP so you can completely hide. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Similarly, I am unaware of what individual WikiProjects may offer to editors whose articles are promoted to FA. The WikiCup offers awards, which has become the concern for serious editors and reviewers. Shenanigans and goings on were caught in previous awards programs; editors were working together to bypass peer content review to gain more rewards. I commend the heart of the WikiCup so far, but just like it helps when nominating to say if the article has had previous peer reviews, including WP peer reviews such as biography, novels, MilHist, etc., disclosing that the editor is nominating the article as part of the WikiCup not only alerts reviewers to any ulterior motives that may be exposed during the nomination, but it also identifies the WikiCup as a contest that has full disclosure and transparency as its M.O., which can only help. --Moni3 (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Right now, it doesn't seem like anyone else has a chance but the people currently leading. Almost definitely, this contest is going to lead to a lower standard in content. Ceran^→//forge 19:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Drop out and write FAs just for the fun of it then. No disclosure necessary. --Moni3 (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The last few comments indicate preisely why I refuse to participate in this. Ottava claims that there is something being hidden if I don't declare - hence that suspicion is justified. Moni claims that my personal participation in the WikiCup is a strong conflict of interest that would encourage me to ignore the standards I held my many previous FAs to. Ceran says that participating in it devalues the many featured pictures I gained during it.

I find all these positions abominable. Perhaps you're going to say that they don't apply to me. If so, why should I declare? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Its the internet. What is there to even hide? Are you afraid that as a member of WikiCup the Nazis will break into your house and take you away? I've listed my participation a few times and no one came to get me. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Now, SH, don't go kicking up dust and making a mountain out of a molehill. I did not mean that all featured content would be devalued, just that articles in particular would have an easier time passing through GAN and the like. Ceran^→//forge 19:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

What did I say, Shoemaker's Holiday? Certainly not what you just said I said. --Moni3 (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You were out when I called to take you away Ottava. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 19:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I shoudl be more specific: The actions being required are unduly onerous, and require a direct statement that I should be put under suspicion with every single nomination, every single comment. Throw a list on the talk page, but don't tell me that I have a moral duty to declare myself a pariah every time I do anything whatsoever on a page. I'll avoid the page before participating in such restrictions, which would be a tacit admission that such restrictions were necessary. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"Onerous"? According to www.dictionary.com, saying "I am a member of the WikiCup competition" doesn't seem to fit any of the definitions. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Every. Single. Time. And qall the time feeling intense dislike of having to do it, feeling like a pariah, and being told this is necessary because yoy're a shift,y, suspicious character who can' be trusted otherwise. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you've got this exactly the wrong way round. The reason editors make declarations of a potential conflict of interest is because they're not "shifty suspicious characters who can't be trusted", not because they are. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

[Unindent] And were it voluntary, I might have. But it's being made required. The requirement is also vastly out of proportion to the problem. No problem has actually been shown to exist, indeed, I believe most of the people in the competition are well-known content editors, many with huge strings of featured content behind them.

A cautionary action, in the complete absence of any evidence of problems, should not start out with an extreme, involuntary, and dogmatic restriction on everyone involved. A list on the talk page would have been reasonable. To assume bad faith and to make every person tacitly confirm that there is a problem that needs declared in order to continue participating is an action vastly out of proportion with the non-existent problems. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Exhibit 1. --Moni3 (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Of the many places people can go online and in real life to get support, feel loved and trusted for their achievements and various whatnot, Wikipedia doesn't seem to be the best place to accomplish this. The entire system is built on not trusting what we know by citing where you got it. The FAC system is in place to put articles under intense critique and scrutiny to make sure editors aren't trying to shove poorly written nonsense through. All articles are shifty and suspicious, even FAs. That's Wikipedia's most beautiful lesson: don't trust the knowledge you have been fed. Find out for yourself. I do not understand your hesitation to disclose your participation in the WikiCup, nor why it is so offensive. I understand the words, but not the emotion behind them. --Moni3 (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

And the last thing the wiki needs is more drama. We need more admins. Speaking of that, any volunteers? Ceran^→//forge 21:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Good gods, no. I like my nice calm non-drama life. (Even if it does involve an hour spent cleaning stalls...) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

<-- Hi Moni3. That's a very interesting statement. With "All articles are shifty and suspicious", you've cut right to the heart of the split on Wikipedia—a split that, for me, has taken most of the vibrancy out of the project and led to my continuing efforts to extract myself (hi Sandy!). It's as easy to argue that the beauty of Wikipedia is precisely the opposite—that anonymous and generally disinterested people can come together to produce a useful "knowledge" product—and that the product is, to the world at large, mostly good and mostly right, and that the world at large comes to this conclusion without regard to all the formalizations that the new, modern, insiders' Wikipedia considers paramount. There are some serious epistemological issues at hand here, and I wish someone better versed than me would attend to them. Most contend, by way of the footnote fetish, that our ability to learn about a topic is dependent on a continuing string of sentence-facts that are "verifiable", paying no mind to how our brains really process information. I read an article, I chunk the key ideas, and if an ostensible "sentence-fact" was incorrect, it likely did no harm in terms of preventing me from coming to a greater understanding of the topic. How, then, could I ever agree with "All articles are shifty and suspicious". I find it, truthfully, very extreme. Its extremity is mitigated only by the fact that most of the people here agree with it. Now, you're not an editor whose name makes me bristle in anticipation of rules-lawyering etc, but you said it. That's instructive. I'd like to think there is a learning moment here, some opportunity to come back from the brink of an extreme sentiment that is sadly not even recognized as extreme. (So, along the same lines, while you don't understand the emotion behind Shoemaker's Holiday's words, I absolutely do. Let's step back from the "suspicions" on our volunteer project.) Sincerely, –Outriggr § 04:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, if that's how everyone feels, I'll just continue boycotting FAC. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm still unclear where the "under suspicion" and "scarlet letter" interpretation originates, but perhaps there is some confusion about the way I process every FAC. My previous response is at User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch51#Wiki Cup COI concerns. There is no "requirement", there is no "suspicion" and there is no "scarlet letter". As I said earlier, when FA-Team or Tzatziki Squad FACs come through, I watch for independent supports as well as Project supports; I do the same for every WikiProject. For example, I hope for non-MilHist reviews on MilHist articles, non-Hurricane Project reviews on Hurricane articles, non-Catholic WP reviews on Catholic articles, non-FA-Team reviews on FA-Team FACs, etc. We may not always get independent reviews, but I try to leave FACs running longer if we haven't. The aim is to avoid promoting articles that haven't received independent review from editors not familiar with the topic area, to the extent possible. We need both kinds of support (those familiar with the topic area, and those unfamiliar, to avoid jargon, etc., and make sure articles are clear to the uninitiated.) There is nothing new here, except that the WikiCup Project is so much larger than the previous Award Centers (FA-Team, etc.) that it's harder for me to remember who all is participating, so I asked that the information be included as a courtesy. I routinely watch for independent supports on every FAC, whether a Hurricane Project, MilHist Project, Roman Catholic Church Project, FA-Team, or any other. If editors don't declare, it's just an extra thing for me to keep track of; not a big deal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

" non-Catholic WP reviews on Catholic articles" Wasn't the problem there the exact opposite? Just throwing that out there. Look at the overwhelming support for the Protestant Golden boy and see that a lot less was put into researching, neutrality, and the rest. There are 1.4 billion Catholics out there, so I would expect 25% of the say. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Depends on which of the three FACs (early support on first FAC was almost all WP Catholicism, but that changed ... it's just an example). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm just poking fun. But yeah, Calvin, that's some bias. The best thing that guy ever did was die. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 03:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

We've already had this happen over at FLC because of related issues. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Inevitable really. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

<advice to no one in particular>Do an Esperanza on the Wikicup! Go ahead! Show everyone what real moral courage is!</advice> Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 05:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Poor, poor, Sandy... ;P Ceran^→//forge 11:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous votes on FACs?

I was under the impression that anonymous editors were not allowed to vote on FACs. 4u1e disagrees with me, and says that he does not believe this is true. So, who is right? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC))

FAC is not a "vote". It is a forum in which people address concerns about a page and there is a short period in which the nominator is given the chance to accommodate these concerns. If an IP address is just "voting", then that will most likely be ignored. If one puts up serious concerns that other people will verify, then I am sure that other people will speak up and there wont be a problem. Why an IP would be at FAC is a strange matter in itself and people should come with a name. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The IP from the FAC in question seems to bring up some valid points, although more details would be nice. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Any user is welcome to comment at FAC, including anonymous IP users. It's the content of a user's contributions at FAC that should be weighed. BuddingJournalist 03:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

New thread at WT:WIAFA

Hi Sandy, dunno if you're still dancing and drinking the caballeros under the table etc etc, but there's a new thread at WT:WIAFA. You also may not wanna comment in order to maintain the neutrality of your FAC directorousness; that OK too. Hope all is well!! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Nutty Ling, where did you get such an idea? I don't dance well, I don't drink anyone under the table, and the only thing I know about gentlemen under tables would have to do with retrieving a dropped dinner napkin. (I think the current WIAFA wording covers the situation just fine, and doubt that expanding WIAFA will do anything more than make people read it less.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you aware of this:

User:Physchim62/Sandbox? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but thanks for letting me know anyway! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Everybody wants to rule the world ... --Wehwalt (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I never wanted to rule...my goal was always to be a princess. All the pretty jewelry and gorgeous shoes with none of the responsiblity ;) Karanacs (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Smart woman. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Until you're married off to Duke Markus of Rotogravia, and started wondering what happened to his first six wives.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Content lists

Hi SandyGeorgia,
I wanted to know how you add content lists on your discussion pages, it will make it easier for me to find different topics at once.
Thanx!
ATC ^{. Talk} 22:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Contents [hide]
1 User talk pages with the most edits
2 Son-Rise: A Miracle of Love
3 Venezuela Information Office
4 YAY!
5 WikiCup
6 Anonymous votes on FACs?
7 New thread at WT:WIAFA
8 Are you aware of this:

Like that above.

You have __NOTOC__ at the top of your talk page; this is a magic word that disables the display of a table of contents. Just remove that, and you'll see a table of contents on your talk page. Maralia (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

ATC, I don't fully understand your question, but if you're asking what Maralia suggests you're asking, I've removed the NOTOC (which causes No Table of Contents) from your talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I thought that was part of the new format. ATC ^{. Talk} 03:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Next promo...

I'm currently waiting for Karanacs to conduct her final comments at Nevado del Ruiz's FAC... when are you doing your next promotion? Ceran^→//forge 23:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: Son-Rise: A Miracle of Love

Hi SandyGeorgia,
User:Eubulides never got back to me yet, and since you are available, I can't keep leaving the major expansion sign up on the article.
I spoke to User:Steve and he found all the references he could find and told me he'll let me know when he came up with more idea's.
Take a look on the discussion page and the article.
ATC ^{. Talk} 03:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia,
I goofed on the references and don't know how to fix it, their is duplicates in the reflist.
Can you fix it?
Thanx!
ATC ^{. Talk} 00:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The science thing

Where would you like the subpage to be placed? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 11:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Not my choice. (I'm more interested in seeing more productive FAC reviews, than more discussion about discussion about FAC reviews ... ) My views on the math/science articles is that they are very often inaccessible, even to a person with a math/science background such as myself, so ... we need more reviewers in general, not more math/science or specific WikiProject reviewers in particular. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I was concerned that if I made subpages of FAC and WT:FAC then some bot or other would be confusing them with noms... Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 12:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Could be; maybe you should use Mike Christie's old workshop page instead (not sure where to find it). I'm not sure why it would be a sub-page of FAC necessarily; if we had a FAC subpage for every proposal for changing FAC, it could become unwieldy. (And they often detract reviewer attention: sometimes I think there's more discussion about FAC than reviews of FACs. And they rarely come to anything.) Anyway, I'm really not sure where you should put it, nor is it my choice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: FAC query

Sandy, I went through 14 FACs at the bottom, and I am in the middle of doing a usual review of the fifteenth. I will return tomorrow. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 05:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything you want me to look at? I've been sick for much of today, and am slowly recovering. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Auditory Integration Training dispute

Sandy, I want to comment on your input - yes we appear to be in a dispute stage regarding entries under the above topic. If you would look at the history of the edits you will see that every edit I have made to correct Eubulides's misinformation and biased POV has been promtly reverted and further negatively biased comments added to the entry... e.g. the 'multimillion dollar' entry which could apply to medicine and dentistry more than to AIT! But Eubulides has persisted in his erroneous insistence on the medical sources as the 'only reliable' source - despite the non-medical nature of AIT, surely revealing a definite bias in his POV? I am cautioned about 3RR rule but he who did the first reversal is not - how is this equitable? Your comments pleaseJvanr (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

As explained many times at the article talk page, Eubulides' edits are well grounded in Wiki policy and guideline. It may be helpful for you to read WP:TEND. A slow edit war can result in you being blocked just as three reverts in 24 hours can; your edits should be based on consensus and policy. So far, as discussed on talk, they have not been. Your stance about the non-medical nature of AIT is curious, since it is alleged by proponents to be useful for medical conditions. (I see that your own conflict of interest and the need to avoid WP:SOAP has already been mentioned at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Auditory Integration Training, along with mention of your WP:SPA status; at least five editors now have disagreed with your edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

Regarding this edit, may I bother you to explain to me why emdashes are not spaced on Wiki?
Personally, I think what was there before looks far superior, but I expect you wouldn't have made such a change without some sort of self-justification, so I look forward to learning what your self-justification is. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I provided the link to the guideline in the edit summary; you can find it again at WP:EMDASH. Another option is to use unspaced endashes: see WP:ENDASH. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome; no problem! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

USS Connecticut's FAC

Hey Sandy. I believe that all issues have been addressed, and I think that there are enough supports...would you be able to pass this so it can be on the main page for the 22nd? If you see something else wrong, then please don't pass it right away, but please tell me so I can fix it/them. Thanks! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

See User talk:Raul654. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

New York State Route 382

I see that you did not promote this article. Was the length and obscurity a factor? This is important to know because those are unsolvable problems while prose problems can be addressed. Thank you for answering this question. Chergles (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/New_York_State_Route_382/archive1

I know Sandy is trying to catch up on a lot of work today, so I hope you don't mind my trying to answer your question. If you are referring to the opposes that claimed the article's topic is not significant/notable enough to be a featured article, then I can confirm (as did several other reviewers at that FAC) that only opposes based on the Featured article criteria are considered actionable here. Maralia (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

On reading the archived FAC, it looks like there were outstanding prose and sourcing concerns. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Nevado del Ruiz FAC

I think that Karanacs's comments have been resolved. Could you check it out, since Ruslik and I have inserted explanations in parentheses to any jargon? Thanks, Ceranthor 21:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, as usual. Ceranthor 21:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Your comments

Thank you for them; it means a lot to be recognized. I'm still a novice at the FAC thing, so if you ever have any advice to provide on my reviewing, I'd certainly welcome it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

April Fool's FA

I think that unless we select an article now, we'll have nothing for April Fool's Day. Ceranthor 23:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

On a more pleasant note, I'm constituting an effort to do a bunch of reviews (though I'll probably get kicked off the comp. first). Ceranthor 02:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

reviews

• Almost no chance I can review anything in FAC today. Perhaps tomorrow, or perhaps the next day. Sorry for the madhouse—common sense isn't. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

KLKM

Hello, SandyGeorgia. You have new messages at Fowler&fowler's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ralph Bakshi

I don't think this FAC round is getting as much attention as it should, and the opposing reviewers haven't commented on it in several days. Would it be possible for you to renew the FAC if it gets close to falling off? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC))

• Why did you remove it? The FAC wasn't done yet. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC))
  • Also, I should note, the opposing commentators were basing their thoughts upon information that had been deemed to have been false and/or biased. For example, The Rough Guide to The Lord of the Rings is sourced largely from unverifiable Internet sources and was not prepared with an intent to seriously discuss the adaptation history of those books, but to praise Peter Jackson's live-action film versions. Rough Guide is essentially an elaborate puff piece on Jackson. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC))

Featured article candidates/Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore

Sandy, I'm watching this FAC, per your request on WT:FAC, and it appears to be able to descend into something similar to the FAC for Major Depressive Disorder. Just FYI, I've set parameters for Dineshkannambadi and Fowler&fowler that may need to be revisited as the FAC goes on. I have asked Dineshkannambadi to address you if there is simply no way he can overcome an objection that may be based on content. When you review the FACs and you feel that a point in particular should be addressed, please communicate that on the FAC. I know there will be points that nominator and reviewer will disagree on, but I'm using the ultimate goal here of can this article be an FA, not can everyone on the FAC page get along.

If there are other admins who are watching this and have input, please don't hesitate to give it. The more the FAC has participants with the same goal of either promoting or archiving, the smoother it will run. --Moni3 (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

When Good Sources Go Bad

(Asking here as Sandy always seems to know these things, but anyone else feel free to answer)
Does Wikipedia have a "party line" on what to do when a reliable source says something that appears to be incorrect? This has just come up here, (refering to the last couple of paragraphs of this section), where the most reliable source on the topic (the leading expert on the history of the area, in a book published by a museum specialising in the history of the area) seems to be making an assertion that's flat-out incorrect, to judge by all the photographic evidence – and there's no Reliable Source in Wikipedia's terms I can find that contradicts her. As a chewing-gum-and-duck-tape interim solution I've deliberately reworded the paragraph in question so as to be ambiguous enough to be correct in either case, but that seems unsatisfactory. The strict application of "verifiability, not truth" would seem to say "leave it in even knowing it to be wrong", but for obvious reasons I don't like things to be wrong.

Any thoughts? Ideally I'd like to get this one sorted out before this one goes to any putative GAC/FAC (won't be for at least a few weeks), as otherwise I can foresee any FAC disappearing under a smog of policy arguments rather than addressing the (hopefully few) genuine issues that will remain by that time. – iridescent 15:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about a party line, but some of us had to deal with something similar here [1] and as well as regarding the date of picture in the infobox in the Learned Hand article. In both cases we went with there is "no obligation to include something we are pretty sure/know is WRONG" approach. --Slp1 (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree wtih Slp1. If you are sure it is wrong, don't include it in the article. Karanacs (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I arrogantly sent an email to a professor who had previously written about Marjory Stoneman Douglas, and had submitted a massive biographic tome to a publisher (it just came out and I'm trying to wade through it). I proudly asked the professor to read the article, and he pointed out an inaccuracy I got from Douglas' own words, recorded for posterity. She was in her 90s, so I might give her some slack for misremembering a date by 20 years, but I was stymied about how to handle that. See citation #38 in Douglas', article. --Moni3 (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I've more-or-less copied what you've done with Douglas, by adding a long footnote explaining the situation. I don't really want to lose the section altogether – for a 19th century community founded on religious lines, a mission hall is A Significant Thing, and the place undoubtedly exists. – iridescent 16:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad I could help. Marjory scores again! --Moni3 (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Jack Coggins again

Hello, Sandy. I've taken a stab at doing some copy-editing to the Jack Coggins article. Can you please give it a brief once-over and let me know if it is near readiness for a second attempt at FAC? Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ping :) -- Avi (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Avi, my time on Wiki is limited this week; unless someone else gets to it sooner, I'll try to look on Friday or Saturday. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be fantastic! Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 05:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• There are WP:ACCESS and WP:MOS#Images issues with the image layout (no left-aligned images under third level headings and avoid text squeeze). Images should all be juggled to adjust for this.
• Identify a publisher (as a separate parameter) on all citations, example:

^ "Jack Coggins: Yachting Magazine Covers". http://www.jackcoggins.info/yachting.html. Retrieved on 2007-04-14.

^ "Jack Coggins: Bristol Laboratories Advertising Brochures". http://www.jackcoggins.info/bristol.html. Retrieved on 2007-04-14.

^ "International Editions of Coggins/Pratt Space Books". http://www.jackcoggins.info/spacebooks1.html. Retrieved on 2007-04-14.

^ "Jack Coggins: Samples of Artwork". http://www.jackcoggins.info/art.html. Retrieved on 2007-04-14.

^ "Jack Coggins Papers". http://www.lib.usm.edu/~degrum/html/research/findaids/DG0202.html. Retrieved on 2008-08-22.

• Check with Mike Christie (talk · contribs) for a peer review; he's an experienced FA writer and this article is right up his alley.

I think after you do those things, you're ready for FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you SO much for your time and input, Sandy! -- Avi (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2 TFA

Raul scheduled King Vulture for TFA March 2, and it has a couple very old "verification needed" tags. Gimmetrow 06:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: FAC Com

Yeah, User:Ealdgyth told me the same thing. But what if some are in cite templates and others aren't? Shouldn't there be a consistency?--TRUCO 21:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The resulting citations need to be consistently formattted, regardless of method used; I'm not sure a script can determine that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the script/tool I used can determine that, depending on whether some of the citations are in cite templates. If some are in cite templates than the ones that aren't in cite templates come up in the script.--TRUCO 21:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

But can it determine if the resulting formatting is consistent, which is all that matters? Using or not citation templates isn't the issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

What I do is look at the reference section first to see if some are in cite templates, like {{cite web}}. If some are and if some others aren't I run the script and see which ones aren't in template form.--TRUCO 21:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

We seem to be going in circles; it doesn't matter if some are in cite template form and some aren't. The final result -- the actual citation -- is what needs to be consistently formatted. It's possible for some to use templates, others not, and the article to still have consistently formatted citations, regardless of method used to achieve that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No no, I know that. For example, if one is formatted like [http://www.whatever.com/lajfljjl;fjdlafj/u8029u4/alfjakf.html] while others are formatted like [http://www.whatever.com/aljlkajfoius08u093485/uiojasflkajf09.html Terror strikes Coca Cola offices] Then there is an inconsistency (with the first one) because its not formatted probably, either like the second one or with a template.--TRUCO 22:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

So am I right?--TRUCO 22:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Neither of those examples would be appropriate - neither have a publisher, date accessed, etc. The real issues with consistency tend to be much more difficult to catch. For example, refs formatted a) Author1 52 and b) Author2 (1982), p. 163 are not copnsistent, and one would need to change to be similar format to the other. For websites, we get into issues with whether it is a newspaper or not (because those names need to be italicized), and whether there is a consistent order to how the data is presented (is it author (date), title, publisher... or author, title, publisher, date... etc). I don't think that a script can catch those type of intricacies very easily. I've spotchecked a few of the comments you've left on FACs, and while you may be right that there could be improvements to the refs, the final list of refs are visually formatted properly, which is all FAC really cares about. Karanacs (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but they are hidden problems that can sometimes affect the way you link to a ref, which is why I review for that. My script can't check for consistency with non external links, unless I manually check it (which I might start to do). For websites, my script can only check whether the references have citation templates or not, and if they don't and if they are formatted like they are in my examples while others are in cite templates, then that needs to be fixed for consistency. --TRUCO 02:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand. To meet the FAC criteria, the output of the reference needs to be consistent, regardless of what code was actually typed to get it there. If one reference uses a template, and one reference is formatted manually, but they ouput the exact same format, then there is no problem. I think the results of your script would be better placed on the article talk pages rather than the FACs, because a lot of what you are checking for are not part of the FAC criteria. Karanacs (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand that, which is what I was stating above (maybe you misunderstood what I wrote) but I did mention that I skip over issues like that, since they have the same output. Sometimes, however, the same ref appears twice, which can be solved with a ref name, other times, book refs are not formatted properly, if the ref has no formatting whatsoever and is just a link, if the ref is a duplicate of the other, and if the ref name is a duplicate, all affect the output of the ref, which I can solve with the script. So its suitable for me to add it to the FAC.--TRUCO 16:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Image reviews

Hi Sandy, I can take a look through them but I am uncertain if I can get all the remaining 4 in those thread before the weekend. Jappalang (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey stranger...

Happy 'Spring's coming' && New Year to youse!

Long time no see, errr... flirt, errr... say hi!

FYI, suggest adding a new criteria or two to GA/FAC Guidelines per this pair of links

• Notice on FA talk page
• VPP (misc) post calling for a policy or such discussion.

• So sorry didn't think of you first, but your guidelines and comments on such (and adding it too your check list(s)) would exert a steady pressure in the right direction for the overall product quality, or so I figure.

• In the meantime, Happy New Year. Send me an email so's I can add you to my new computer's hard drive, etc. Kinda lost the old lists for lots of people. // FrankB 21:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Frank; long time no "see"! Thanks for the flowers and well wishes! (errrm ... where was this flirting? That would have gone right over my Pollyanna head.)

I'm not sure this needs to be addressed at WP:WIAFA; in the past, when there have been map/image problems of this type, FAC has dealt with them fine. Two suggestions: consult with Kmusser (talk · contribs), who is The Map Man, and consider starting a topic at WT:MOS about adding something there. If something becomes part of MoS it can be enforced at FAC that way. I stay away from MoS as much as I can these days. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Featured article review

I have nominated British African-Caribbean community for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Cyclone Hondo FAC

Not to be bothersome, but I'm a little confused as to the lack of reviews for Cyclone Hondo. I've had the article up at FAC for a while now and any reviews for it would be nice. If you have the time, I would appreciate your comments on it also. Thanks, Cyclonebiskit 16:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ling.nut

Hi there! Not sure if you noticed, but per this, it appears that Ling.nut will be away indefinitely. I'm not sure how many outstanding comments he may have in FAC, but it is unlikely he will be revisiting them. If you like, I can sort through the current noms and give you an overview. --Laser brain (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

He had left a comment on Franklin Knight Lane FAC, stating that he had an uneasy feeling about hagiography on the article and would revisit the following day once he had slept on it, words to that effect. I commented in return, but I don't know if his concerns are addressed or not. Hoping so.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware; no need to sort through. Thanks for the offers! (Wehwalt, I archived that one because it had fallen to the bottom of the list and wasn't gaining Support; it might do better with a fresh look in a few weeks.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate it, Sandy, and I'm having someone give it a once over. Whether I bring it back shortly or in about a month depends on that review and on whether my colloborators think Rudolf Wolters is ready to go. We'll see.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, good luck ! (Twice to Glacier, huh? Jealous ... only once here, dying to go back soon.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but not in sixteen years.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I was last there in 2001: heaven on earth. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:FCDW update

Sorry for the long wait for a reply, its been that kind of 48 hours. I have a rough draft that I just uploaded, you can check it out here: Wikipedia:FCDW/FTShip. I did my best to tinker with it as much as I could before uploading it, but its still going to need some spit and polish, and maybe some rebuilding, before its set for publishing. I having never done one of these before I have 100% confidence that I have screwed at least one thing up, there for I apologize in advance for the added hassle of having to clean up my work. I'm exhausted, I've had maybe six hours of sleep total in the last 48 hours, so I may or may not be back on later today. I wish you and the others luck in overhauling what I wrote. I hope its what you were looking for. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Magic Johnson FAC

Sorry to bug you about an FAC (I'm sure you get it a lot). But I would have thought that a nominator would at least have time to respond to an opposer's comments before the FAC is closed. However, in this case, it seems I was not able to do that at all. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 09:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

re:Ships

Hello, SandyGeorgia. You have new messages at Stepshep's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

§hep^Talk 19:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Malcolm X

I'm sorry about using templates on the page. The instructions say not to use graphics, so I used {{done-t}}, a non-graphic template.

Again, I'm sorry if that's contrary to the rules. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that too many templates cause the FAC archives to exceed template limits. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Rufus Does Judy at Carnegie Hall FA nomination

Thank you for your comments. I have corrected the links, and please let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve the article or earn your support. Thanks again! --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)