User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch55

WP:FAS

Lowest net growth in 4.5 years YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. We need reviewers; instead, we get more and more talk page proposals. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know it's bad when you have more FAs being removed than promoted ([1], [2]). Dabomb87 (talk) 01:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although the FAR is a manifestation of usually 2-4 years of total neglect YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Rel's Bucerthon

I raised your name in vain here: User talk:RelHistBuff#Bucer... . Could you perchance make a quick comment? Cheers. qp10qp (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Hues FA review

Hi, I notice that "Robert Hues" was not promoted to FA. Can I find out the reasons why, so that I can improve the article? As far as I can tell, there weren't any major objections to it, or outstanding things to fix. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing the link, Jacklee! It had been up more than three weeks, without gaining any Support. With the serious lack of reviewers that FAC is experiencing, it may have a better chance if it comes back clean in a week or so. By the time they drop to the bottom of the list, it's harder to get attention. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Wasn't aware of the three-week rule. OK, I'll relist the article later on, then. Thanks for clarifying. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no particular "rule", but Karanacs and I have to manage the page size depending on how many reviews we're getting. Sometimes I'm able to let them run longer, sometimes we have to close after a few weeks. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of interest

Hey Sandy. There has been a discussion of the tranclusion on WP:FAC going on here. The outcome of the discussion (if any) would directly affect your work as FA delegate, so I figured I would give you a heads-up. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Others have already said everything I might add; clicking on each FAC isn't practical for the way most people review FAC. And the problem with graphics is not how much they interfere with reading the FAC, but that they cause the Template limits to be reached in FAC archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that templates cause WP:FAC and the archives to go over the template limits. That's the point of the discussion. My argument is this: Reviewers should not be restricted from using useful templates and sections just because we want to transclude the reviews onto WP:FAC. By linking instead of transcluding, this problem is avoided, allowing reviewers to use the tools they need. The discussion has nothing to do with the loveliness or ugliness of graphics.

Also, you used an odd acronym in your edit summary. What is "btdt" ? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

btdt= Been there, done that; we've had this discussion before. The biggest problem FAC faces right now is a lack of reviewers. When reviewers can no longer scan through the page, that problem will be exacerbated. The solution is to fix the CBM listing, not to change the FAC page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I feel like I'm in preschool again. What is "CBM"? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry :) He's the guy who wrote this thing, which stopped working with the new archive system, but is exactly what you want. If it's fixed, your problem is solved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's set up to use categories on the transclusion page, not the article talk page. Whatever is needed could probably be added to the fac preload. (With some tricks it could be added to the factools, even.) If the Veblenbot system isn't documented anywhere, perhaps Geometry guy could look at it. Gimmetrow 19:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better late than never

Soundtrack for yesterday's toil.[3]. Sorry for forgetting, I suppose. Ceoil (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday was little toil; no reviews= nothing to close! Nice song: there's nothing to say! A pleasant little one for your day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfq_A8nXMsQ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice song, Sandy. Some of the most interesting 40-year-olds still don't know what they want to do. --Moni3 (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some genius sent me the lyrics months back :) I like every line in it, except ... beauty magazines don't make me feel ugly ! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDRId6QmNTA&feature=related SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1.38 - Spanish advice: taking it easy is preferable to good teeth. Yomangani ^talk 08:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that one? Translation? I did know an elderly woman who used to say that "mejor es perder un amigo que perder una tripa" (when she needed an excuse for farting in public ... better to lose a friend than an intestine!). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a Spanish axiom (though maybe I'll try and popularise it). The voiceover said "Floss" and the translation said "Relájate". Yomangani ^talk 15:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ha ... I see! Missed that the first time through, because I focused on the previous line: "Don't be wreckless with other people's hearts; don't tolerate people who are wreckless with yours". It is hard to get from there to "floss" and "relax" unless you consider the meaning of hilo dental in Spanish. I'll leave it to others to supply the Youtube video on relaxing in an hilo dental ... Ceoil will not find it relaxing ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was a lol. --Moni3 (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two people came into my office to ask what the laughter was for. You're killing me, Sandy. Эlcobbola _talk

Pro'ly because you speak Spanish; it's boring in English ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I speak bits and pieces of French; and so here for your tommorrow's toil (won't be around, have to go to my birthday party (i forget which year for, likely about 26-28?) <hmm> - [4] [5]. Ceoil (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology/1

You may want to weigh in here on the meaning of the FA criteria or you may want to run away screaming. Awadewit (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was accused of WP:CANVASS because I contacted one editor to weigh in on this page. Thus I have been shut down and I cannot contact any other editors because of the WP:CANVASS accusation. The GAR has been removed from the article talk page so no uninvolved editors can learn about this, but Awadewit and friends are allowed to WP:CANVASS with impunity. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know something's wrong when you are mediating another person's talk page... let's keep it neutral here, people. Ceranthor 19:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please join

Please join the arbitration against me. All negative comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration under my name. Perhaps you choose not to participate, but I believe it would be doing me a favor if I am banned from Wikipedia. Otherwise, I will continue to contribute and that is not good for my welfare. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse, you used to complain at great length about being "stalked" by SandyGeorgia, and go on about how all you wanted was to be left alone by her. As far as I can tell, Sandy has made a concerted effort to leave you alone. Maybe you could reciprocate. MastCell ^Talk 21:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well put. Ceranthor 21:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch

I picked a bad time to mix up the alphabet and counting numbers [6] :) Dabomb87 (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was the funniest Articlehistory error I've encountered :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loihi

I didn't know you can close FACs because no one really cares enough to vote :-( [7]. ResMar 01:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Omnipotence paradox

I have nominated Omnipotence paradox 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. (You were identified by the script as one of the frequent editors of the article.) Best regards, Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Readable prose

I am trying to understand what counts as readable prose for GA Sweeps. I have been using http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/readability1.4.py?page= . At Hillary Rodham Clinton, it says the article is way over 60KB. However, one of the discussants on the GAR I started says that according to another tool it is 63KB and just 5% over the recommended limit. I am unable to activate the tool he mentions and can not verify the claim. However, more importantly, I can not determine why that tool contradicts the tool I was using and what is correct.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word count comes in at about 10,600 words with 6k per word (assuming low count), that is 63.6k. That is doing it the hard way and subtracting out many of the lists. The word count is 600 words over. Now, the bulk of the size problem comes from hiding long passages in the reference section that really violate fair use. They honestly should know better. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian Jews on FAC?

Sandy, User:David_Betesh appears to have nominated Syrian Jews for FAC, and it is at the bottom of the FAC page currently. However, his actions are not reflected on the history of the FAC page; instead it appears to have been added when User:Cryptic C62 was trying to fix his mistake in nominating Gamma-ray burst (compare this and this, even though the diff is this, looks like some sort of bug). The talk page of the article does not bear the FAC nomination, and the article itself is more of lists of items associated with the group of people. Maybe this should be removed from the FAC page? Jappalang (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what happened: David inadvertently added it to the bottom of a FAC subpage. Cryptic has since moved it to the main FAC page. Not sure if it should be removed as out-of-process; will take a look. Maralia (talk) 04:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn; not only was it premature, but the main editor (some 500 edits to the article) appears not to have been consulted . Thanks for pointing it out. Maralia (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hey there

I have done some research and it seems your editing is simply superb, highly professional, and ethical. can you take a look at both the Ladies in White page as well as the Human Rights Foudation page? I think a lot of injustice is goig on.Verdadseadicha (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAC withdrawal

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Panipat (1761)/archive1 needs to be withdrawn per nominator request. I would do it myself, but I'm not sure if you would want that, so I'll leave it up to you or one of your TPSers. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can do it :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another one has been withdrawn: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nicol David/archive1. Wish someone would tell me how to do it to save the trouble, but I'm sure someone here will get to it. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Put a note on the bottom of the FAC that says: "Withdrawn, please see WP:FAC/ar and leave the talk page templates in place until the bot goes through", and move the transcluded FAC page to archive. That's all :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)ee[reply]

Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) That's all? I thought it was more complicated than that. Dabomb got to this one literally seconds before I did, but I'll remember that for the next time. :-) Giants2008 (17-14) 23:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grr

I wish people would start making the older FAs accountable instead of just complaining and not doing anything YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 09:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But complaining is so much more fun! Karanacs (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having watched a couple of "buzz saws" at FAR, I can't say I have any great enthusiasm for sticking my head into any. I don't need to work to put citations in to be screamed at that they aren't needed. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well since you siad you were available for FARs, I guess Sydney Roosters could do with a MOS check and Mumbai, there have been a couple of knee-jerk keeps. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to get there if I can, but no promises; this is a very difficult week for me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabomb and I have both been through Sydney Roosters, so that one should be pretty much taken care of from a MOS standpoint. Don't know if I will have the stamina to look at Mumbai today. Maralia (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Philadelphia Phillies season

Collapsed boxes in the text, and I'm not sure how to deal with it. At least it's baseball. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:MOS#Scrolling_lists. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Bakshi FAC

I wasn't given enough time to complete the FAC. Contact had been made with the opposing editors, as requested, but these editors ignored the content of the article and outright refused to cooperate in helping editors of the article satisfy their reviewing demands. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

One editor has been leaving a series of messages on my talk page that are downright condescending. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Sandy's not an admin, so I'm not really sure what you expect her to do about that? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ibranoff24, I know I am not your favourite editor at the moment but, as of now, I'm watching your Talk Page, and if admin intervention is called for—I will do so. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 21:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think what's called for is for Ibaranoff to reflect on the comments made by well-meaning reviewers during Ralph Bakshi's FAC, and on his reaction to those comments. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what's being discussed here...

But... proposal I think there is talk of reworking the review processes or adding a new one? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm watching that discussion and will be sure to intervene with my opinion if that idea gets any traction. Karanacs (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton

Sandy, I believe you made the wrong correction at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton. I have closed the individual reassessment as "no consensus" and opened a community reassessment at a different discussion page because the automated bot that GAR uses makes it difficult to merely transclude the same discussion page. The closed discussion needs to be included in the article history. It seems that no consensus is not a valid option. Either we need to add a new result type or we need discussion on what the proper entry is for this field in this case.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For ArticleHistory purposes, the GAR must be closed as keep. If you (TonyTheTiger) want to add another parameter to the template, discuss with Gimmetrow (talk · contribs). Dabomb87 (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reagan discussion

Hey Sandy, long time no see! It's good to talk to you again. I know how busy you are but if you could spare ten minutes commenting at Talk:Ronald Reagan#Should Reagan's increase of the deficit be mentioned in the lead., it would be much appreciated. Long story short: The national debt increase was added to the George W. Bush lead, I removed it, RTRimmel added it back and took it to the Reagan page saying the increase of the national debt under Reagan should be mentioned with that of Bush. More outside views are needed and I know how respected you are, plus you have a history with the article. Thanks so much in advance! --Happyme22 (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now one of them started an FAR: Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Ronald_Reagan/archive2. Happyme22 (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might be interested

Hey there Sandy, I thought you might be interested in this. Also, FYI, I only mentioned it because you explicitly stated your desire to know about such as scenario should it arise.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not now, but someday, maybe. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In part payment...

...I offer this. You forget about the other one and I won't come looking for my $2.50 pretzel. Yomangani ^talk 16:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pure delight: trato hecho. But you can still collect your pretzel if you wander this way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admin work...

I just want to say that there is a whole sordid world out there of which I was not previously aware. That is all. :) --Laser brain (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shhh! Don't scare Sandy - there's still that 0.0000001% chance that she'll agree to run one day. Karanacs (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you forgot the negative sign in front of your percentage---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes direct experience is an eye opener YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 08:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dispatches

Thanks for the heads up. I'll keep an eye on the FCDW page--ragesoss (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Left-aligned images under level three headers

Can you tell me where the policy is so I can give the proper guidance at the Jackie Robinson FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Counterintuitively, WP:MOSIMAGES has the answer. :) Steve ^{T • C} 22:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For all you TPSs out there...

On a small private company owned Wiki, we're wanting to set up some sort of keyword imbedded in the page that allows more robust searching. Does anyone know how to work that with the wikimedia software? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You post a query about a technical question on Sandy's talk page? It's refreshingly cynical of you that you feel you'll get a good response here, but perhaps the technical village pump would be a better place? :P --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help has arrived

Hey! I decided to make an early comeback, and I will do my best to try to help the backlog again at FAC with my tech reviews. =]--Tru co 19:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way

When listing Samuel Johnson's early life, I didn't want to force Malleus or you know who to have to deal with anything that came up during it. I took the names off the nom so I would take the brunt of anything. As such, this does not mean that those two do not deserve credit. Could you check and make the additions to the list of users by FAs and update? I probably should have mentioned this earlier, but I got side tracked and just thought about it today. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cough* And a certain someone is lacking her star on that list for the original Samuel Johnson article. I'm just saying. ; / Ottava Rima (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can update that list. To be clear: add SG and MF for SJ early life, and SG for SJ?

While we're on the topic, I've not forgotten I owe you a copyedit on early life—it just keeps getting bumped down my 'list' by articles currently at FAC or about to be nominated. Maralia (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you could update it, that would be lovely. I want to make sure that due credit goes where it belongs. And you can take your time, Maralia. I'm patient when it comes to pages and work quite slowly on them myself. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava's being overly generous again Maralia. I want to make sure that credit goes where it's due as well, so as I did hardly anything to Sam Johnson's early life I certainly don't deserve any credit for what little I did. I always feel really embarrassed at being credited with articles I just tickled a bit. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

.. not that I get credited with articles I only tickled a bit very often you understand, well, not unless they're medieval bishops anyway. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert and Wilfrid hardly count as "tickled a bit"... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not, but if we English have a single defining characteristic I'd say it's our strong sense of "fairness". To me, it's a bit like the mechanic who services your car claiming to have designed it. In my case that's coupled with the guilt that everyone brought up as a Roman Catholic has instilled in them from a very young age ... better stop there, don't want to reveal too much about my various neuroses. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the defining characteristics of the English were poor dress sense, dislike of the French, and an irrational fear that the people next door might be looking through your windows? – iridescent 23:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there is that too of course. And don't forget our obsession about the World Wars, our paranoia about the Welsh speaking in Welsh whenever we go into a shop or bar in Wales, our obsession with what we laughingly call a climate (we don't have a "climate", we only have "weather"), our dislike of close physical contact—why on Earth do those foreign Johnnies kiss on both cheeks, I mean men shouldn't be kissing each other in the street—our obsession with cricket, a game that makes even American football look fast-paced ... --Malleus Fatuorum 01:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Ottava suggest IAR on this case... if so might as well give me credit right?---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nooooo. I said IAR about moving Iridescent's comments without asking. :P If you want credit for an FA, I have a few articles that I need people to work with me to get them to the next step. Signing up? :P Ottava Rima (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, I had to try...---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't listen to Malleus. He is just being obnoxious. He thinks that performing over 400 edits to an article, having a large section of that moved over to a new page, then making another 100 or so edits to that is nothing. He deserves to be trouted until bloody. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you in ill health? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting better. Able to read a bit at times, but not ready to edit yet. Thx for asking :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Get well soon ! YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, glad to know you are at least reading (hugs) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You better get healthy soon, or goons will be sent to your house to rough you up. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will the goons look like Harrison Ford (circa Return of the Jedi) or Ewan McGregor? If so, please send them to my house first. Karanacs (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the movies... I think the goons are the ones who were too ugly to pass their entry-level henchmen exams :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rest up and take care of yourself; it seems that there are enough cyber-goons that it is as well to be in tiptop shape before returning to "work". On the other hand the clowns can be equally damaging in stitch-recovery ;-) All the more reason to take care, I say!! --Slp1 (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected vandalism to Manuel de Godoy article by User:Doubleyoupea

I had looked through both edits that I reverted on Manuel de Godoy made by User:Doubleyoupea and both removed very extensive portions of source material, gutting major portions of the article each time. The first edit offered no explanation whatsoever for the extensive content removal other than stating that Cluebot was being reverted. Extensive removal of sourced content combined with no explanation in an edit summary is almost always vandalism and I had no reason to believe that there was justification to remove the sourced content that had been in the article that I had read and reviewed. The second edit included an edit summary that seemed to challenge my ignorance for making the revert but offered no explanation of the changes, and I reread the article and again saw extensive content removed, including significant portions of sourced material, and saw no justification. Rather than explaining the edits, the edit summary of the second edit and the message left here were both consistent with the type of "no, you're the vandal, I dare you to revert" messages left by vandals, nor did the small handful of edits in the past made by this user give me any confidence that this would be someone who had the ability to make major changes in one fell swoop to an article of this scale and scope. I saw no discussion of the edits on the talk page for the article and the original edit seemed to be a kneejerk undoing of a Cluebot reversion of removed content. I do apologize for the terse templates, but that's what Huggle provides. I guess that it is possible that more detective work might have uncovered the fact that these edits were productive, but the combination of the pattern of evidence that I had seen -- removal of extensive portions of sourced content, edit summary offering no explanation other than a revert of Cluebot, a message left on my talk page that offered little more than a claim of vandalism on my part, no discussion on the article take page, an editor who had no more than a few dozen edits and few recent edits making a very major change to an article that seemed to be primarily removing content -- all led me to the conclusion that this was vandalism. Alansohn (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drmies re-read the same set of changes and came to the same conclusion as I had, reverting the changes to the Godoy article. Doublyoupea's latest revert (here) offers the rather unhelpful edit summary of "You can source anything. Does the content improve the article?", again offering no explanation of how the article was improved by removing sourced content and constituting a rather clear violation of WP:3RR. I have backed off from reverting many edits that might well have been vandalism because there might have been a glimmer of justification for the edit, and in most of these cases my decision not to revert left the encyclopedia worse off for ignoring the edit. I still see no reason to question my judgment here in the two reverts that I had made, and I am not the only editor to believe that these edits were not constructive. I know that you are a highly experienced editor in dealing with articles of great complexity, but I'm not sure what you're seeing here that would lead you to interpret this pattern of unexplained edits and repeated reversions as improving this article or benefiting Wikipedia. Am I missing something? Alansohn (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where we disagree is: nor did the small handful of edits in the past made by this user give me any confidence that this would be someone who had the ability to make major changes in one fell swoop to an article of this scale and scope. Quite the opposite in my experience. Cluebot's revert is one thing, but when a "real" editor again reverts another "real" editor, they should know the content area and discuss on talk. I suggest that those who want to reinstate that material should involve knowledgeable art editors (for example, Ceoil, Kafka Liz, Johnbod, Modernist and others) on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to creating a few thousand articles on Wikipedia, and adding tens of thousands of sources, I have also spent a bit of time using Huggle. While I understand the impulse, based on your experience, to assume the legitimacy of all major edits removing extensive content including dozens of reliable sources undertaken by inexperienced editors who violate fundamental Wikipedia policies such as WP:3RR and who don't explain or discuss their edits in any way, shape or form, my rather unfortunate experience has been the exact opposite as yours. As a rather "real" editor, dealing with someone who still does not appear "real" based on any evidence that existed when the reverts were made, I have and will continue to revert vandalism where it exists, even if I know absolutely nothing about the content area. Nothing would make me happier to have content experts jump in, but in their absence, vandalism is vandalism and will be reverted. Wikipedia is worse off by the complete absence of any mechanism to keep out malicious vandals, and the persistent assumption of good faith when all evidence points to destructive vandalism only further undermines the efforts of highly qualified individuals such as yourself who do actually have the interests of Wikipedia in mind. Alansohn (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you must. But I hope the haste to revert "vandals" doesn't discourage exactly the type of editor who does have the "ability to make major changes in one fell swoop to an article of this scale and scope". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Yet another reincarnation of AWC looks set to lurch into life, this time with the endorsement of the Great Leader. – iridescent 18:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hmmmmmmm ... I'm not in shape to touch that one !!! Besides, I'm so dopey, it took me five minutes to remember that AWC was an award center.

Anyway, for the benefit of my TPS, I much prefer your post about "an irrational fear that the people next door might be looking through your windows". If they want to watch me powder my nose and line my eyebrows in my <whatever>, whatever ... I don't want to bust a stitch (ouch), but I do wish Moni would wander through here and get Malleus under control, though; he's way beyond three strikes. "Tickled a bit", on my talk page? How inconsiderate! Roman Catholic guilt neuroses? "Dislike of physical contact"? American football? Will someone please remind Malleus to be considerate of the sensibilities of his host here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um. Yesss... Getting people under control... I just wanted to say here that I have never given Malleus $20 to speak harshly of the things you hold so dear. Never. --Moni3 (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re Thanks

No worries. Good to hear from you, hope you are doing well. :) Cirt (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ndash question

Sandy, what is the difference between these two edits? [8]. You raised this ndash issue in the last FAC and I am not sure how to change - to something longer. My keyboard only has one type of dash on it. Are you going to oppose my FAC because of a shorter type of dash or is there some nice person somewhere who can put the longer one into the article? NancyHeise ^talk 15:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That edit changes a hyphen (-) to an WP:ENDASH (–) On the difference between the hyphen, WP:ENDASH and WP:EMDASH, not everyone can see it (I need to have my eyeglasses on and very clean). See the explanations on the MOS pages I linked and our article on dash and have a look at the difference:

hyphen -
endash –
emdash —

Don't worry about your keyboard, because the method for entering dashes varies depending on keyboards and browsers. You can find an endash and an emdash in the edit window while you're editing an article: go into edit mode on an article. Below the edit window, you'll see the edit summary line, the save page line, a bold Do not copy text ... line, and below that, an insert line. The first character there is an endash, the second is the emdash. Position the cursor in the edit window at the place where you need the dash, and then click on the one you need.

Brighterorange (talk · contribs) has a script that will fix many, but not all, dash issues, and will run it on any article requested. His script mostly picks up date and number ranges problems, but wouldn't have picked up, for example, the sample edit you give above.

I have never opposed an article on dashes, nor would I ever be likely to do so. There are many nice editors on Wiki who will do MoS work; I've done quite a bit of it on the Catholic articles myself :) Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I ran the script over the page, but it doesn't catch everything. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth, are you running Brighterorange's script now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(to Sandy) Yes, I got it running in my monobox (after some serious help from Dabomb87) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To insert en- and em–dashes on a PC keyboard, hold down alt and type 0150 on the numeric keypad for and en-dash (–) or alt-0151 for an em-dash (—). On Macs, alt-dash produces an en-dash and alt-shift-dash produces an em-dash.

It is a firm rule on Wikipedia that whatever type of dash you use, someone will invariably complain that you're using the wrong kind. – iridescent 15:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy - quick way to add in the dashes: Under the Save page button is an area that has "insert" as an option. The first button is the dash that is slightly longer than a hyphen, and the second is the dash that is two hyphens. Those are the two dashes to use. Ignore everyone above, this way is far easier. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I did not understand that there was another way to insert the en dash. I went through the article and spotted three hyphens that I changed to endashes using the script "endash;". Is this acceptable? NancyHeise ^talk 17:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have time to check them all, but here, you did change a hyphen to an endash, except it was correctly a hyphen as before ... now it's incorrect. If you read the MoS pages on en and emdashes, you can learn where they are used. That one at least should be changed back ... didn't check the rest. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took another moment to check: all three of the hyphens that you changed to endashes were correct as hyphens ... those are hyphenated words, and those three should be changed back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out to me. I will change them all back to hyphens and read MoS again. NancyHeise ^talk 20:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ndashes vs hyphens vs mdashes are confusing! The only way to learn is to ask lots of questions (and make mistakes). Karanacs (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trying a new font today, find it doesn't distingush a hyphen from an en dash. Suddenly all is clear to me why certain very good users aren't spotting 'em. qp10qp (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My method of learning was to cry and make Maralia feel sorry for me and fix them herself. It was strangely effective. --Moni3 (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that's known as the Giano method. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please withdraw Tay-Sachs disease as a featured article candidate

Sandy,

I placed the following note at the end of the archive, and I am through with participation in Wikipedia's featured article candidate process.

Eubulides. I'm not even going to read this page again. I am asking that this article be withdrawn as a featured article candidate, and I am not going to participate in the Featured article candidate process on Wikipedia again. If you wish for me to continue working on the article, please do not respond on my Talk page. I hope you understand that there are very few editors working on Wikipedia science articles, and those of us who do, do so in good faith. We would rather spend our time working on articles than providing some kind of entertainment or therapy. Metzenberg (talk) 06:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in working on good articles, not in providing entertainment or therapy for others. I don't have time for this kind of thing. It appears to me that there are almost no editors working on medical genetics at this time. Frankly, the time demands of dealing with various kinds of troll-like behavior on Wikipedia make it not worth my time. I'm going to take a Wiki-vacation for a couple of months. Metzenberg (talk) 06:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. Well, clearly that didn't work out. Maybe next time an article has lots of problems I should put comments on the talk page with just a summary on the FAC review page? I normally don't do FAC reviews but undertook this one because I had just nominated a featured article myself and figured that I should do at least one review in return. And then boom! Sigh. (I suppose as penance I should go review another one now....) Eubulides (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't please everyone. For what it's worth, I agree with your concerns with the Lede section. I also found it odd that there was no information about symptoms, and it is slightly too long. Looking at other queries and concerns, such as decorative images that are not directly related, and asking questions such as Are gangliosides "fatty acid derivatives" or "lipids"? the lead says both, without explaining the discrepancy seem perfectly fine to me, and exactly the kind of questions that need to be asked. Best, Matthewedwards : Chat 07:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eubulides, thank you for your review of Tay-Sachs disease. I'm sorry that it caused such stress to Metzenberg, but it was valuable feedback on the article. My own involvement with the article is primarily limited to vandalism reversion. I am not qualified to take over the FA process from Metzenberg, so the candidacy should end.-gadfium 09:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the delay. I've responded at Karanacs' talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New username

Hi Sandy. Just letting you know that I've changed my username from BuddingJournalist to TwilligToves (talk). Not really budding nor journalist anymore :) (which has been the case for awhile, but I just had never made the effort to change nicks). Also, hopefully since I've posted here, I don't need to post anywhere else, since the folks who watch this page are folks that I interact with on-wiki. :) TwilligToves (talk) 07:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]