User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch42

sarcasm equals uncivil?

Not sure about that... but eve if it were, I don't think it is more constructive to allow editors who argue for the sake of being right to brag about their opinions at FAC. Anyways, your page, your rules. Nergaal (talk) 02:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

TS Kiko (2007) FAC

Thanks, I thought I did something wrong but I wasn't sure what it was. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks again. Hopefully this time I can keep it up without causing problems. ;) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

2004 Atlantic hurricane season

On a recent (unrelated) FAC you mentioned that 2004 Atlantic hurricane season (currently FA) had a lot of problems. If you want to make a short list I'll try to bring it back up to scratch. Plasticup ^T/C 02:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The main template used by Hurricanes uses incorrect bolding, see WP:MOSBOLD and all other templates. There are spaced emdashes. I still really dislike the inclusion of See also in a box at the top of the lead (WP:LAYOUT). Text squeeze between images in Seasonal activity and Deaths. Another goofy see also box at the top of "Storms". Emdashes separating date ranges in each hurricane box !!!! That means someone added emdashes to the infobox in place of endashes, and those will be on many articles !! First sentence has prose issues (The 2004 Atlantic hurricane season officially began on June 1, 2004, and lasted until November 30, 2004. These dates conventionally delimit the period of each year when most tropical cyclones form in the Atlantic basin.) The 2004 dates delimit the period each year, like 2004 = 2005 ? U.S. State of Florida is linked twice in the lead, within two sentences of each other; review all wikilinking. External jumps in the text for For the official forecasts, see:  !!!! External jumps belong in External links or citations. This is everywhere; you're sending our readers off-Wiki in every single section. WP:NBSP issues throughout. Every section violates WP:ACCESSIBILITY, the infobox should go under the main template. "Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) Ranking", text sandwiched between boxes. "Storm names", WP:ACCESSIBILITY, I doubt that the "marked in grey" works for color blindness, but I'm not certain. Unformatted citation: May 2004 Tropical Cyclone Summary. I didn't look at the prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

OUCH

Rays vs. Bosox

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

Yes ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

See below. Can you put a dollop of whip cream on the slice of humble pie? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Anon

Sorry Sandy, lot of work on, men can't multitask is my only excuse. Image - I thought rounders was a tranquil game? (: jimfbleak (talk) 05:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Question

There's a discussion going on here in which I'm trying to figure out why this part of the MOS is being ignored for discographies. I've asked for a link to a discussion showing the consensus for this, but I've not yet received it. Tony1 said that you and other experts at FAC agreed that it looked bad and therefore the discog style guide was updated accordingly. Project-wide, the lead sentence includes some variation of the title emboldened. If you believe it better to ignore this part of the MOS for discogs, could you explain to me why, because right now what I'm told is it's "the most unengaging, irritating way to start the lead of a list" and that it "mangles the English language", but I don't agree. Also, if you have the illusive link! :P Jennavecia ^(Talk) 14:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Jennavecia, it's going to take me a bit to get to this (I have three pending queries above yours and just finished with the carpet installers after my houseflood). In the meantime, if you can provide me a sample article, that will help when I sit down to look at the issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Take your time. Some examples, I believe these are correct: Tool discography and A Perfect Circle discography, whilst I believe Echo & the Bunnymen discography and Dave Gahan discography are not. Perhaps it's OCD or something, but I'm bothered by inconsistency. Let me know your thoughts, whenever you have the time. Thank you, Jennavecia ^(Talk) 19:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Jennavecia; it took me a while to get to this (always something 'round here), and in the interim, I also discovered that the LEAD guideline (like most of MoS) is in flux. I've always supported bolded titles in the lead; I'm not sure where/why this mentality changed. I believe this issue originated at Featured list candidates (FLC), not FAC. I was happy in the olden days when all were bolded, as it seemed to force editors to think about choosing good article names and because I also appreciate consistency. I dislike this "some bolded, some not" business, but it seems to have caught on. I don't really know what to tell you here :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for looking into it. Hopefully this can all be sorted out. I've commented on the guide talk page. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 13:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I am ready to accept my punishment like a man

I guess I trash talked your Bosox too soon, after I noticed the the blowout against the Baby Rays. I guess I'll clean up some FAC as my punishment with a happy heart. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

For your pennance, there is a German women's football team at the bottom of FAC, languishing for reasons I can't decipher :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hell hath no fury.....you are cruel!!!!!!!OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Harumph !! And here I was thinking I had been quite gracious :-) You didn't see me mentioning anything like, oh say, the Home Run Derby in September, didya? You didn't see me commenting on Kazmir choking his most important game ever, didya? You didn't see me reminding you that Beckett's pitching tonight, didya? (Hey, and there's no one over my shoulder, so how am I doing?) No, I wouldn't do those things, because I know all about the Fat Lady Singing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

For your reading pleasure, The Dirt Dogs: "Sox Deep-6 Rays in a Good Old-Fashioned Kaz Kickin'". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Great, now I have to read Bosox blogs???? How much punishment am I given? I'm about ready to click on the link for the football team. And I'm guessing it ain't USC Trojans. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

oh, so the payback is to mention USC football on my talk page? Not nice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't going to mention the Syracuse Orange. OK, I read the article (I'm now so bored I could sleep for hours), made three comments. In fact, I don't think it deserves FA status, but since I've read precisely one other soccer article, I'm not experienced enough. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

See, it's your fault for tempting me to gloat before the Fat Lady Sang; it never fails. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you notice that I did not come here and dance around, making all kinds of intemperate remarks? However, I believe I am now relieved from further reading of any soccer articles. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

MMMMmmmmmmpppph. <--sound of biting tongue. I'm trying to be a good boy. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep biting ... you're not going to bait me into outguessing the Fat Lady again :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Moi??? Are you assuming bad faith that I came over here to bait you? I'm offended. I'm hurt. I'm almost in tears. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't mean to be mysterious

...with my "I've talked with someone" etc. at WT:MOSCO; we'll be so much better off if we can get people from GAN and some wikiprojects jumping to our defense. I've made a couple of invitations, and if they accept, great, and if not, we'll proceed anyway. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Death Valley National Park

You rock! I was going to start referencing that article tonight but I see you are currently editing. Don't mind me ; my edits can wait. :) The major part of my ref-pass shouldn't take more than a couple days b/c I have all the listed references. --mav (talk) 01:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Mav, I'll stop now; those converts just about wore me out (note to self, halfway through Climate section). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

bolding

Sure, if you want the openings of some articles to look like a mess. Just why you felt it necessary to chime in on an argument that had stopped, I don't know. I'd already run the gauntlet against people whose bloody-minded obstructionism I loathe, and had given up. Tony (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've calmed down now. Tony (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

All right, but I'll still post my response because I composed it during the edit conflicts.

I'm sorry you're disappointed in me.

1) The change was proposed September 8, after my house flooded while I was still catching up from travel; I missed it. A week isn't a long time.

2) What I did see was this change to an FA I monitor. I didn't realize why Eubulides had done that until Dank55 upated the thread at LEAD and it popped on my watchlist. I think the options are worse; I agree with bolding alternate terms in the lead, specifically, the first sentence, I like the look, and I don't like to see bolding scattered elsewhere. Also, I embarrass myself when I revert an editor I work closely with so an FA will conform with MoS, and then find out MoS changed. Something should be done to coordinate MoS changes (see point 4 below).

3) The change brought some style guideline pages out of sync, which is a broader issue that needs to be addressed at MoS. (That was what I noticed first.)

4) Because of how hard it is to routinely keep up with all MoS page changes, I've proposed a centralized discussion location, like a noticeboard.

5) I'm suprised and taken back at the tone of your message. Is this the first time we've disagreed? I'm glad you removed the cursing; I don't think I deserved it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• No, of course you didn't deserve it—I'm just being curmudgeonly; no, it's not the first time we've disagreed (the extent of the use of non-breaking spaces, the order of priorities concerning the removal of DA and addressing inconsistenies between ref sections and main text). But that's fine; you're allowed to disagree with me, as long as you acknowledge that I'm the supreme being and lord of all. PS, the change was reverted almost as soon as I made it, so why all the stuff about instability and sending the wrong signal to FA nominators? Tony (talk) 04:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

please add DANCE as a category for the FA articles!

Hello,

You have many categories listed for FA articles, and I would love (as many others would too) you to include the title DANCE.

Here are links to a few articles that might be of interest...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_dance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merce_Cunningham

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Morris

Please help us further an awareness of dance as an art form. Thank you

(Riceflan (talk) 06:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

Further awareness of dance as a separate art form is a worthy goal, but until we have enough featured dance articles to warrant a separate category at FA, we can't really add that there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Odwalla FAC (again)

I responded to Domiy's comments on Talk:Odwalla and noted it on the bottom of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Odwalla. Thanks a lot again! :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ealdgyth is getting back up to steam (post-Hurricane) now; all of the sourcing commentary could be capped off if Domiy agrees sourcing issues are resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Super. I fixed the typo on Nations's Business. :P Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Citation Format Question

Hello, I was referred to you by Yannismarou regarding this question. My question specifically relates to the difference between the "work" and the "publisher" in web citations. I've been listing the work as the web site with the publisher being the larger entity that the website represents. For example, the IOC website is quoted often through the Olympic Games article that I'm working on. So I've listed the work as Olympic.org with the publisher being "The International Olympic Committee". Would this be correct? When there isn't a differentiation between work and publisher then I've listed the website as the publisher. Your insight in this would be appreciated as I prepare this article for official peer review. Thanks! H1nkles (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

See WP:ITALICS; periodicals (newspapers, magazines, journals) should be italicized. Corporations, domains, orgs, etc. are not.

In cite templates, there are two ways to italicize: 1) use the "Work" parameter, or 2) add italics to the name when using the "Publisher" parameter.

IMO, it is not necessary to list both Olympic.org and The International Olympic Committee, and neither of them would be in italics. It doesn't really matter which you list in publisher, as long as you use a consistent biblio style throughout the article. Don't worry about how the cite templates work, you don't have to always supply work and publisher, just make sure you end up with a source listed, italicized when it's a periodical, and not italicized otherwise. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Great thank you so much for your help inspite of your condition. H1nkles (talk) 02:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Two king requests

Hi, girl! Two things:

• I added a request for Battle of Greece here. Can you check if my points' counting is correct? I can't get your point system!! To be honest, I hate it (and I thus refuse to understand it)!!! Till the moment I tried to follow it, I was sure that only the Greek state is so innovative in creating such bureaucratic procedures.
• If and whenever you have time, I'd appreciate your comments in Stamata Revithi's peer-review. Your reviews are always "surgical", and more than useful!

Thanks in advance! Cheers!--Yannismarou (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Since Sandy is having eye problems, I can help with item one. I think your points are correct (one for date relevancy and one for the FA being over 1 year old). Karanacs (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Dunno about the date relevance. Check the infobox, it says the battle happened in April. The lede does say that it is regarded as a continuation of the Greco-Italian war, which started on October 28, 1940. I would think that the battle's relevant dates would be in April, whereas if someone wrote an FA on the Greco-Italian War, then Oct 28 would be a relevant date for that. One point total, in other words, just for the year-old FA, no point for date relevance. Feel better Sandy!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Responses from Karanacs and Wehwalt on points; Yannis, I'll try to get to the PR as soon as I can, but I'm way behind. Best. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the date relevance, I don't think there are any landmark dates only relevant to the Battle of Greece. I am quite certain that 28 October is recognised by Greeks as representing the entire war effort against the Axis, and I've never heard of any other date connected to that war commemorated or even mentioned in this country (with the exception, of course, of the state television's daily "What happened this day in the twentieth century" segment).

By the way, I absolutely agree with Mr Marou's statement about bureaucracy, both in TFAR and in Greece. It must be the Greek taxpayer's nightmare: after several hours of intense fight with papers and queues, to escape into the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit and find this! :-D Waltham, The Duke of 14:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah so. Well, close enough, then, I'll waive the objection. Two points is going to be problematical anyway, especially since Raul may put up a military article or two between now and then, why make things worse? Especially since I have an 11 hour layover in Athens in early December, don't wanna have Greeks bearing gifts.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Query

SandyGeorgia, hi, I wanted to follow up on something. I'm not doing this for everyone who had participated in the request on my page, but I have respect for your own opinion, so I was wondering if you could go into a bit more detail as to why you endorsed?[1] I have to admit that I read your comment, I honestly had no clue what it was that you were referring to. Could you perhaps provide a diff or two of specific administrative things I've done, which you disagree with? I'm hoping that there's just some miscommunication here, or perhaps you're confusing me with someone else, and I'd like to see if we could clear the air. Thanks, --Elonka 18:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I can answer in more detail once I'm caught up and can dig back and find diffs, but my concerns were generally related to:

• You seem to have embraced and enabled fringe theorists on science articles (see input from Mastcell and others); this is a big concern for me, as I consider myself mostly a science editor and have dealt with such issues many times and know how frustrating and time consuming it can be to deal with fringe theorists. I don't believe admin abuse should be limited only to actual abuse of tools (see my evidence in the SV-FM ArbCom, there was no abuse of tools there, but there was certainly abuse); it's also abuse when other editors know that admins have the power to use the tools and are forced to refrain from editing lest they find themselves on the wrong end of an admin with power. I believe this notion, combined with the "power" invested in you, tied the hands of many good editors.
• Something happened on either Homeopathy or Chiropractic (can't remember which) where my read of the situation was that you had become overly involved and invested considering your role. Strict neutrality and hands off is required in situations like that: I believe you lost that vision on those articles. I remember that in the midst of an already difficult situation, you started editing the article to redlink journals, which IMO created a distraction in an already difficult situation and created an extra burden on a stellar science editor (Eubulides). I would have to go back to his talk page to dig up the exact situation, but that was my impression from what I read there (I follow his talk page because we edit many medical articles in common).
• You agreed to stand for recall. It is my opinion that 1) margins on passing RfAs are too low (I advocate for 80%), and 2) you passed with a very low support percentage because you agreed to stand for recall and Tim Vickers nominated you. I used to hold AOR in very high regard; your refusal to respect AOR changed that.
• I am increasingly aware of and troubled by backchannel groups that periodically come to my attention. Too much Wiki work is being transacted backchannel, on IRC, on various off-Wiki groups, etc. I'm seeing this lately a lot and yet, I find I can't oppose some RfAs because of my principles regarding private e-mail. My take is that you are an editor who transacts a lot of Wiki business off-Wiki; I prefer transparency. This has always been a concern. I suppose you may not be unusual relative to many other editors, but had you not agreed to be open to recall, I would have opposed your RFA based on that impression. I am uncomfortable giving the tools to anyone who seems to do as much off-Wiki as on.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think the problem here is that there are some Tag teams throwing around a lot of false accusations, with the hope that if they repeat things over and over enough, people will start believing the charges even if they're not based in reality, and that will help to eject an "unsympathetic" admin from their topic area. For example, though I don't know if this is what you're thinking of, I recall an ANI thread where some editors were trying to keep me from using admin tools in a topic area, by claiming I was an "involved" editor since I'd edited the Homeopathy article. However, if you actually look at that article history, you'll see that my one and only edit to that article was to add a link.[2] So the charges were somewhat misleading, to claim that because I made that one edit, that made me "involved" and incapable of being a neutral admin.  :) I also deny any charges that I am "enabling fringe theorists", though I realize that there are indeed a few editors accusing me of such. If you do have time to dig up any diffs though, let me know and I'll be happy to review them. --Elonka 01:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that is not what I read, and since I've been on the receiving end of quite a few unpleasantries during my time on Wiki, I'm disinclined to believe most of what I read on AN or ANI without doing my own investigating, and I'm inclined usually towards believing Mastcell, since I've edited with him. I don't know what possessed ArbCom to set up this situation, but it is unfortunate if our best and most civil science editors become disinclined towards helping out on controversial articles. There are precious few science editors of the caliber (both in terms of personal character and knowledgeable editing) of Eubulides, Tim Vickers, Colin and others, and considering how much work there is to do daily, there's no reason for them to go where they might be placed on the same level as any tendentious editor with a keyboard. My concerns started right here (that is when I tuned in); I've never seen a word about this out of Eubulides, and that would be uncharacteristic of him, but I believe this created an unnecessary distraction at a difficult time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, I took no administrative actions at Chiropractic, or even really engaged in any editing of the article. I added some links to sources, I archived the talkpage, and I did some source-checking, including bringing up a couple sources at talk which I was concerned might not be reliable. I'm still not seeing anything there which would justify you asking me to resign my administrator access, but if you have more diffs, I'll take a look. --Elonka 04:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes. There as more to the story than my memory dredged up. [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

FAC/Odex's actions against file-sharing

Hi Sandy,

I don't know to put it, in a sense it's between a rock and a hard place. I think you are pretty aware that the above-mentioned FAC is in there for more than two weeks. The article has gone through two peer reviews, the first FAC failed primarily due to copyediting issues, and the same objection that came up in this one.

The article has undergone a transformation in style and grammar during this second FAC itself, thanks to the efforts of more than a handful of copyeditors I have personally requested. The transformation I am not sure if it has satisfied Tony1's concerns, with a further string of copyediting four days since his last comment. With due respect to Tony1, I personally think that sending it back to Peer Review or on CE Wikiprojects would do little justice because it would not have any further improvement/effect on helping the article to meet his 1(a) (as the flaws in PR are pointed out in the FAC discussion), because there won't have the needed exposure that editors are able to see through and fix all the errors that he is able to see (when it is otherwise on FAC, see the transformation), and feedback is in excerpts due to his time-constrains.

Please kindly advise on the next step to take. I personally hope the FAC either is able to benefit from more exposure, more detailed feedback or/and is restarted, because I really believe it is possible for this article to meet the FAC criterias; one of my fellow editors already resigned to thinking that it is impossible to get this kind of articles promoted due to lack of topic interest and systemic bias. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 19:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Mailer. The systemic bias charges are bunk IMO; I'm glad to discuss reasoning on any FAC if it will help dispel such notions. The situation there (I haven't looked today, so I apologize if this is no longer accurate) is that not only Tony1 mentioned copyedit issues; three reviewers found basic issues and had concerns with prose and indicated serious copyedit concerns. It is usually very hard to come back from that position when the FAC is already reaching the bottom of the page, unless you've engaged a respected copyeditor and can re-attract the attention of reviewers. I understand your frustration with peer review, but it is possible to get a decent peer review if you follow the tips at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 to locate and invite peer review volunteers and previous FAC opposers to the review. Some editors are much more willing to engage and help with the article when they aren't under the time pressure of FAC. The list size at FAC is relatively short, so I haven't archived a lot of FACs lately, trying to give them as much time as I can; under other circumstances, I would have to archive sooner. One thing for you to consider is whether you can withdraw, enlist a good copyeditor and re-approach FAC; often articles that got bogged down on one pass through FAC sail through the next time. But if you believe the stories about systemic bias, that will only get in the way and prevent you from making the article the best it can be. The FAC is not currently within my criteria for restart; restarting a FAC before previous opposers agree that copyedit needs have been met will not yield a better result, and a premature restart often just prolongs the agony. The issues clearly revolve around prose only; I restart when a FAC is so complicated by a lot of issues that it's hard to see where thing stand, or when the article has substantially changed but is stalled at the bottom of the list and needs a fresh look. As long as there are strong copyedit issues remaining, it's not stalled and it's not unclear: it has a clear issue that needs to be addressed. If you can satisfy at least one of the three reviewers who have prose concerns, a restart for a fresh look might make sense. I hope this helps you understand my reasoning; if you have any further questions, pls ask ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes please, it would be good if you can reason out in the FAC. The last time I did sought help at PR for copyediting and then put it back on FAC as you have just advised, but it isn't smooth-sailing as we are in FAC now; I personally find that it is better for it to remain on FAC rather than going through PR again where more work in actually done within the span of 1 week at FAC than compared to the period over 6 months combined before, inclusive of PR (and Tony1 states on his talk he doesn't normally do reviews outside FAC).

I actually did manage to get a couple of good copyeditors over the article for the past few days, I'll try and contact the reviewers again for reconsideration/more feedback. The last thing I want to see for this article is for it to become like an Avianca Flight 52, where it circles between FAC and PR in a holding pattern over the same issues until it runs out of fuel and crashes... - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 10:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, please pull out the FAC on Monday if there is no new feedback there by then. I think I might have some plans in store for it... - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 07:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

ACK! Joint reply to all requests above

Ack ... came home from Dr. to four new queries, plus others I haven't yet gotten to. I have an eye infection, and reading is hard. Will respond to each as soon as I can, but not as quickly as usual. My darn eye hurts and it's hard to see. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy recovery!--Yannismarou (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Eye hope these questions aren't too much of an eye-sore. Eye'm thankful for your help. Hang in there! H1nkles (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This will sound extremely unsympathetic, but would you give Mountfort FAR a second run over sometime later? (I've already left messages on the talkpages of some of the other editors who've made comments on the FAR, so it's not that urgent) Second, er, third Yannismarou and Hinkles. Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No promises except I promise to try; I'm way behind :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Spelling out abbreviations issue

Hello, you asked for evidence and I am delivering it. Ealdgyth, one of the users who seems to be fairly experienced and trusted at FAC, told me to spell out all abbreviations in the 'Notes/References' section. I asked which ones he specifically was referring to, and he stated that things like FIFA, UEFA, HR (Croatian site) or other similar abbreviations should be expanded to their full name. This can be found here right here where he comments about the reliability of a list of sources. Hence, I think you should reassure this issue on the Scotland national football team FAR. I was told to do it, even though it was blatantly extreme. I personally think that it is a lot better and more specific this way, so doing it on the Scotland team page coulnd't really hurt. Domiy (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I already saw that. "Please spell out abbreviations in the notes" doesn't, to me, mean spell out common abbreviations like BBC or CNN in citations, and if someone objected on that, I might ignore it. Asking you to spell out uncommon jargon terms makes sense. I don't read Ealdgyth's statement as literally as you do, and I don't see the need to spell out BBC every time it occurs in citations; that will unnecessarily chunk up the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm more following the MOS, where it (somewhere) says "Spell out abbreviations when first used." I'm not going to oppose an article if they aren't spelled out, but I will point out that things I think could be better. Folks involved in football will know what FIFA is, or UEFA, but I'm not involved in them and I have no clue. Spelling them out gives me a clue, that's all. BBC or CNN or USSR or US or EU, those are so well known that, while I won't object if folks spell them out (i'm a pretty formal writer, honestly) I won't usually bother to point them out when that's all that is abbreviated. You'll note I get on the hurricane folks for it too, as well as the road folks. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, I'm a she. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Really ?

If your recent message is about templates at MOSCO, then the answer is no: I just found the page today (while cleaning up a problem with the RFC template instructions) and figured that MOSCO would want to know about its existence. The first edit to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Style_issues was in August 2005; it is not a new creation.

If it isn't useful to you, or if you think that it would be best served by a merge with RFCpolicy, then I'd support that. I'm not sure that everyone has a really firm grasp on the difference between "style" and "content" anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC) (who is watching this page for the next few days, so you can reply wherever is most convenient for you, if any reply is actually needed)

No, I was referring to this; I'm afraid one more discussion will push me over the edge :-) And I'm teetering already, considering giving up on MoS and unwatching the bunch of them, including MedRS and MEDMOS. The situation has become unmanageable, yet FAs are supposed to conform to MoS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

An error that I reverted, actually. RFCstyle was listed twice on the RFC page. I found the first wandering around in the instructions on how to start an RFC, and I moved it up to the box with all the other RFC templates. Then I discovered that it was already present in the box with the RFCpolicy (lower down on the page), so I deleted it from the first box. I figured that we don't need to have the RFC page list the same template twice.

As I said above: I'm not starting anything new. That RFC category has been around for more than three years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I was just wondering if you were aiming to start something new. Resolved ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Re Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Myst IV: Revelation

I don't see any hidden comments in the audio section... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Myst IV: Revelation - The Soundtrack tracklist is hidden. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, collapsed. I was looking for some text I had commented out but not deleted or something like that... fixed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Gabon

Would you wait to close the FAC until Ling can specify the sources used for Aftermath section Much of article weak on comprehensiveness? Your friend Eddy of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 00:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama

Speedy closed. I archived it as keep but as discussed previously that is not ideal. We don't have a third category for procedural closes. Note I left your misc. MoS comments on Talk:Barack Obama, if you'd like to follow up. Marskell (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you pass a glance over Wikipedia:FAR#Benjamin_Mountfort. Marskell (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't tell what's going on there; FAR should have a restart option. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Meshuggah FAC

Good day SandyGeorgia! I would like to know why was the last nomination of Meshuggah refused. There was one oppose, which was easily disproved and one support. That oppose was a bad faith by some oppinionated metalhead. And it was disproved very quickly. There were not any more comments, but what could I do? I told to some users to comment the candidation, but the did nothing. Only thing I can do now is to nominate it again. Or?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 14:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Raise a discussion at WT:FAC, politely inquiring why reviewers didn't engage and asking for suggestions as to what others think you need to do next. I wouldn't refer to "some opinionated metalhead" in that post, though :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer :) But still, I dont understand why did you remove the candidation. Yes, it was there pretty long time without comments, but is that a reason to remove it? I would rather try to find some people to comment it.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 16:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If I may say so, I think the way you phrased your question to SandyG reveals why this article is not yet at FA level. It really does need some serious copyediting by a native English speaker. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Unbelievers repent! (by xavexgoem)

Were it not for Sandy

I would know not a thing.

Were it not for THE WAY of resolution

There would be no compromise.

Were it not for skill

You would assume I evoked it.

You did not.

Thus, I have succeeded.

Xavexgoem (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC) ;-) or :-P or :-) - can't tell which one is better. All I know is that :-D would not work

Hey, X; how are you anyway !! I was hoping Moni3 would get one of the good ones; I'm so glad to see you're still around (and I miss the time I used to be able to spend working with new users, it was so much fun !!) Looks like a job well done. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Pretty durn good, thank ya! I reviewed the history of the case before opening it and wandered across the ANI thread and spotted you. So, of course, I had to open the case :-)

I was a bit worried you'd trout slap me for that message up above... I don't think I can even begin to comprehend how much different my life would be had I not run into you.

So thank you, again and again :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 03:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The pleasure was all mine; and it's rewarding to see someone I welcomed move on to being so helpful :-) It sounds like you're really enjoying Wiki, which is quite a feat for someone working in dispute resolution. You must have (still) a very special character. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Editor review

Hi Sandy, would you mind commenting on my editor review? Thanks. —§unday {Q} 15:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Asperger Syndrome

Hello SandyGeorgia. I see you recently undid an edit that I made (though it was later changed again by Eubilides).[4] I was wondering, if it isn't such a hassle for you, if you could explain how the opening is more comprehensive than my difference, just so I will know for next time. Master&Expert (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Asperger syndrome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry!

Thank you for informing me! A downfall of mine is the ignorance with which I go about my business on Wikipedia. Again, sorry for messing up, I will keep it on the GA nomination and remove the Peer Review link. If you have the time, however, would you mind giving feedback on the GA nomination page for OCD. (GA nomination page here [[5]]. Thank you! FoodPuma (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really get involved much in the GA process; if you send it to peer review, pls do ping me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Herb Caen

I saw your blind edit when you made it. I understand the point about full quotes, but...argh. I'm going through these microfilm reels one by one based on dates I already know. Some of it really isn't that clear, and my biggest criticism of Randy Shilts is that he doesn't mention specific dates. There are, of course, no subject searches for microfilms, so this is what I have to do. Do you know of a quote in particular, or did you just want to see the entire sentence by Caen? --Moni3 (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about that; it was only an idea, not worth expending that much effort on (no, I can't think of anything particular, too many years ago). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:FAR notifications incomplete

I notified most of the 5 top editors and WP:QUAKE. The no. 1 highest retired. Your friend Eddy of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 19:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Query...

Can you do me a favor and look over Horse and tell me what you think? We (the Equine Wikiproject) just put it up for GA, and it was quickfailed because it did not fit the "mold" of the other species articles. (I also suspect some personal issues but that's neither here nor there). We're probably going to take it to GAR, but we may just skip GA and take it to PR and then FAC, so we can avoid the one reviewer can fail an article for their own vision of the article problems. However, I'd appreciate second opinions, if possible. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm swamped, but should get to it tomorrow. Casliber, by the way, is familiar with the format on species and speaks horse. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Link to Calisber's page? I don't have it watchlisted (ducks). Ealdgyth - Talk 23:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to take over my pet peeve ? Well, I can arrange for you to inherit several others !! Casliber (talk · contribs) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Just looked at the unnecessary quickfail; yes, pls do consult Casliber and then I suggest taking it to GAR. I'll watchlist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI, FA domestic sheep, ant and bird. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no doubt in my mind that this article ought not to have been quickfailed, as I said to Ealdgyth earlier, and it should be taken to WP:GAR. I don't think the article's perfect, but neither do I agree with the reviewer's objections. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Where do the reviewers' objections relate to WP:WIAGA, and why do nominators need to submit to GAR when something like this happens? I'm not up on GA procedures, but can't nominators resubmit to GAN on faulty fails? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that the reviewers' objections do relate to the GA criteria, I'm agreeing with you. Nominators don't need to submit to GAR if they don't want to; it's perfectly OK to renominate at GAN. In fact, in this case that's probably a better idea. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Dana's going to take it to GAR on Monday, probably. She and I both are swamped for tomorrow, so it's better if we're around for when things need to be watched. As for why GAR instead of renoming, I don't know, it's just how things are done. I just follow the rules, here! But, yay me! I got the two FACs I've been wanting to reviewed reviewed! Yay! And the art show went very well for the first day, we sold a good bit! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect Malleus is secretly scheming to make me come up to speed on GA issues :-) So, I finally found the "quick fail" criteria, and this article is clearly not a quick fail. So what does GA do next when something like this happens? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What we've done in the past is to quickly apologise and offer another review by a different reviewer.[6] I'll offer to do the GA review if the article's nominated at GAN again. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you.

ROFL; as requested :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest a section in the article to explain why horses are so popular in stories written by and for 6th grade girls? I was confused by my contemporaries in 6th grade, and when I taught middle school literature. --Moni3 (talk) 00:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was fourth grade ... by sixth grade these days they're thinking about kissing boys instead of mucking stalls. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait, mucking stalls isn't a euphemism for kissing boys? Protonk (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. Trust me. And really, having just gotten back from an art fair where we sold out of three horse related prints, it's a female thing, no matter the age. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Clearly it is, and the reason why I never enjoyed doing either. HA! I'm a hoot. --Moni3 (talk) 00:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

(pokes Moni) You almost dropped my heart into my feet with the "this alone may be a quick fail..." edit summary... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's time for Moni to put her skills to work updating Yomangani's take on FAC; I'm sure she can work Horse, Harvey, Johnson and RCC all into one nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, Ealdgyth. Loosening your bowels was not my intention with my edit summary. There is a piece of cake stuck under my backspace key... I have been recently dismayed by the bland introductions of FACs. I would like to be inspired to run off and read an article I had heretofore been absolutely disinterested because someone's grandfather on his deathbed asked in halting breaths for the grief-stricken and impressionable grandchild to spend 6 months to a year poring over information of odd-toed ungulates compiled by face-making, ritual performing impoverished British dictionary writers who excluded input by flamboyantly gay Castro District politicians at the behest of 5 million kilobytes of comments from the Roman Catholic Church. --Moni3 (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Put that on one of Julian's hurricane FACs. See how he reacts. (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Noes! –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Weighing in late, was tipped off to this chat be lurking on Dana's talk page. Just so's ya know, the horse thing is actually a viral condition, not contagious but possibly hereditary (though it may skip generations), and unquestionably a lifelong, incurable state. Far more common in the human female, though not unheard of in the human male, though men can usually turn it into a profitable venture with a career as a veterinarian or something, while for women it is a lifelong money pit (we can stop anytime we want to, really we can. After I buy that REALLY CUTE little bay filly over there...). And yes, it usually first manifests shortly prior to puberty, though on occasion symptoms may occur earlier. Like, in my case, when "urs-ee" is the next word after "ma-ma" and "da-da." (grinning, ducking and running). Montanabw^(talk) 02:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: is it the horses that inspire the unicorns and rainbow-colored long-tailed fantasia of My Little Pony, or is it more the fascination with the fantastic creatures that cause the love of horses because they're the next thing to purple crystal-laden art? Inquiring minds want to know. --Moni3 (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't know. I never was into unicorns and I'm allergic to pink and purple. (Really, I am!) Never owned a My Little Pony either (Gods, I'm scared, we have an article on them...) I just wanted the real thing. Not a pony, a horse. (Ponies are, in my opinion, nasty little ill-tempered things that are usually spoiled rotten and need some serious remedial education). Never minded the work either. I think you'll find that most horse-owning women didn't want unicorns, they wanted horses, the real kind. I owned Breyer horses when I couldn't get the real thing out of my parents (although I never got into the showing of said Breyer horses) Ealdgyth - Talk 03:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

HA! All I ever wanted was a cute little furry burro to tag along at the end of the pack train, but all the boys in the family got their horses, while I couldn't have one little burro. I'm still traumatized. If a My Little Pony (along with anything else pink and purple unless it's an herbal bath) ever came into my house, I'd run screaming from the building. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

DIrect correlation: Breyer horses = has the horse bug! (I lost count of all mine, and they still "live" in my garage!) I too predate the My Little Pony fad, and find them to possess significant conformational errors! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 23:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Template_talk:Talkheader#Talkheader_.2B_WikiProjectBannerShell_.E2.89.88_Good.3F. Gimmetrow 01:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

James Robert Baker

I've nominated James Robert Baker: Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#October_18. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that, Bookkeeper; I hope someone has access to the sources in case we get questions on mainpage day ? SandyGeorgia (Talk)

I have access to a lot of periodicals. I'm sure I could find the answers if need be. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I will try to help, but I had to unwatch Jeffpw's talk page as the distortions posted there are too upsetting; I'll help unless similar occurs, in which case I'll have to unwatch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Eyes September 22 on Draining and development of the Everglades appreciated

Since Sandy's page is more of a communal plaza farmer's market than a one-on-one parlay...

A huge YAY! because this topic should be on the main page, another zoiks! because I'm going to be away from my computer most of the day, busy with a function at work. I won't be able to respond to vandalism and nutty queries on the talk page.

Any assistance with watching the article tomorrow is appreciated. I'll respond to talk page queries as soon as I can. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm having caching problems today: can someone else confirm that the Everglades shows up here? (I'm also having e-mail problems; my inbox says I have a ton of unread e-mails, but I see none, and my attempts to discover the problem have not panned out ... gonna be a long day. If someone e-mailed me and I haven't responded, could be an issue. Does anyone know what would cause Yahoo to act this way?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to show up there yet. --Moni3 (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Then something is goofed up there; they normally show as soon as Raul fills in the TFA page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It's there now, must have been a cache or purge issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, crap. I never made it :-( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Just looked, not too bad for mainpage day :-) BirgitteSB is a good editor; the two of you should be able to sort those remaining concerns after it's off the mainpage (and after you've taken a break to drink heavily :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Original Barnstar
		To SandyGeorgia, on the occasion of no problems. I owe you this from long ago and received no complaints. Because you got a tiny star for helping on a featured article in FAC. Well done. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Pardon if I have to edit this again later. Best wishes and thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Just filling in here as I haven't heard a peep but I did hear a crow quack like a duck, which reminded me you like some images on occasion and this is a good occasion. Best wishes. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

A duck on Lake Calhoun next to what appears to be a real rock, but it looks like one at The Home Depot's garden center that someone else bought first. The Home Depot will refund all of our money, or they used to. Photo by Alfred Essa courtesy Wikimedia Commons FlickreviewR

File:Mona-Lisa-20080922.jpg This user helped promote Lisa del Giocondo to featured article status.

Viola tricolor, wild pansy. Photo by Wikimedia Commons user Wisnia6522

File:Disk-20080921.jpg Gold foil cake liner. Bazillac chocolate cake courtesy Kramarczuk Sausage Company Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

Thanks so much, Susan (to what do I owe the honor of five nice images?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, SandyGeorgia, I think you are a woman on the job, a tough job, in a critically important area of IT. As long as Google PageRank considers Wikipedia to be the cat's pajamas. Also you have few peers. Karen S. Evans—just found out she is the de facto CIO of the United States—is known to be in a leadership IT position somewhere in the Western Hemisphere most days. Almost just kidding. Thanks for your note. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That editor again

Now at Talk:Alzheimer's disease. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

(points above to the Query section). Also involved. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Orange, I've been keeping an eye on that page throughout the day, on and off. So far, it doesn't seem too bad (at least, not on the level of the previous situations), so staying low key about it might help (I saw the comment again negating consensus re "majority rule", interesting, but try not to escalate it would be my advice). Nonetheless, the article seems to have come through the day pretty well. See Ealdgyth's post above; there have also been some issues on equine articles, and there is some interaction at the editor's talk page, in case you want to weigh in about past situations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone asked me some detailed questions about her edits on medical articles. The whole "old timer's disease" section of Talk:Alzheimer's disease says it all for me. Then I went to read the horse edits. Wow. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I remember the mess at Talk:Herpes zoster; that was painful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Reliability

Are these sources reliable?

• http://www.contactmusic.com/
• http://www.mvdbase.com/
• http://www.about.com/

It is being discussed here: Talk:Some Girls (Rachel Stevens song)/GA1. I asked Ealdgyth about this matter but I think she's busy. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 05:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Number one and number three wouldn't get past me. I've never come into contact with the middle one though so not sure about that. — Realist² 11:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm sure Ealdgyth will get to it; she has bookmarked somewhere my spiel on about.com (depends on the author). Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches explains how to evaluate reliability of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It's replied to on my talk page. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have passed the article to GA. Anyway, thanks for the responses. I'll read the link. --Efe (talk) 09:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

U2 for article of the day – Sept 25

Hi Sandy. I’d like to nominate U2 for article of the day for Sept 25 which is the 32nd anniversary of their first band meeting. Howver, I cannot find the instructions on how to do it, so I’ve just added it to the request page. Eg, who's meant to write the summary? Cheers --Merbabu (talk) 06:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The instructions are at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests; you don't have to worry too much about the blurb, as Raul usually writes them himself. Adding the request to the pending template only stimulates discussion: if you want to nominate it, you have to remove another request from the requests page and replace it with yours. See Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests; since U2 currently has negative points, there is no other request it would be eligible to replace. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have returned from the hellish slowness of Indian internet cafes

Hello! I am back and ready to review images again. I see that there is a little army doing well at that, but please let me know if there are any FACs that need attention. I plan to start reviewing full-time next week. I hope all is well with you! (I was surprised to see the Samuel Johnson FAC still running!). Awadewit (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Goodness, that's back in the saddle fast; what about the famous post-travel afterburn !?!? Glad you're safely home. The current issue at FAC is less the need for image reviews rather more general reviews. Each time I look at FAC to promote/archive, I find dozens of stalled FACs, waiting for any review, so I go away to wait for another day. If we could get some at the bottom of the list resolved, then we can refocus on images (which aren't doing so badly now, thanks to Elcobbola's Dispatch efforts) on the rest. The non-free Dispatch is up next, at WP:FCDW/September 22, 2008 in case you want to look at it. Last time I checked, Frank Zappa was murky on image review. I'm not sure what Raul is looking for next in Johnson or what we should do next about it; I'm stumped (but I hope that's the last time my name goes on a FAC, as that certainly complicates matters). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Very doubtful I will finish this thing today; "Wikipedia-wide criteria" aren't even done. Real life intervenes. Эlcobbola _talk 17:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

They never publish on time; you have a few days still. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Fat lady has a cold

Apparently, her singing voice is a little hoarse today. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the Wikimedia Foundation errors will let up in time for me to get through my watchlist before the game. Maybe the next time I spend an hour reading through FAC, I'll find some I can close. Maybe someone will start shepharding the Dispatches. Maybe I'll be able to respond to all my talk page messages, two pending PRs, and get through FAR if the Wikimedia Foundation errors stop and someone picks up next week's Dispatch. Maybe I will get to see the game after all !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't carry loaded guns today!!!! And what is up with all the errors? Vandals? Too much frivolous discussion on my talk page (apparently, my talk page has turned into the neighborhood bar). I can't decide if I enjoy writing articles or shepherding more. I'd like to help, then I get distracted and rewrite a whole article (see Syracuse University, which I'm trying to get to FA status like Georgetown University). And my watch list needs to be pared down.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the damn errors are about, but I'm not even through the top of my watchlist yet. (Syracuse has image layout issues, and does Biden really belong there, causing text squeeze?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It needs a lot of additional work. I'm taking a bit of a break from working on it (it's something I learned in writing real journal articles...write for a day or two, take a break, then write again). BTW, I think you had a certain admin write me about a certain editor--I wrote something that I want you to know. I think Alzheimer's disease is one of better articles around this place, and not because I helped. It's because it was a collaborative effort from some very good editors around here, and despite a certain someone's comment that Wikipedia is horrible, it is indicative of what we can do around here. But it's hard. It took months to round that into shape. At this rate, I might be able to get to 3-5 medical articles a year. But if we have 10 dedicated editors, we could really make a dent. This qualifies as a partial rant. :D OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't have anyone write to you, but if someone did, that's fine. The problem with Wiki is there just aren't enough good editors to go round, but we do have some of the finest in Medicine; I would certainly like to see them engaged in article writing rather than dealing with obstruction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Oooops. My bad.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Whew. Four hours just to get through my watchlist because of the stupid Wikimedia Foundation errors. Did someone say baseball? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It's never too late

It's never too late to redeem yourself you know. I expect you to reply to all the comment I've made. Remember another human being sits down behind the avatar and computer screen in another country, and when you say things about them or directed to them, they listen, and they reply. The normal thing to do is show some life in return. You're as yet nowhere near the troll that started the review. I still can't for the life of me figure out why someone like you, who seems to do otherwise good reviewing work, would want to entertain that kind of behaviour. Maybe you could explain that too. Wikidea 20:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Law. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• Wikidea, I hope you see the irony in accusing Sandy of incivility when your post above verges on uncivil and does not assume good faith. Comparing her to a troll? That is ridiculous. Karanacs (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• Karanacs +1. How ridiculous. Keeper ǀ 76 21:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• Karanacs +another 1. That's just about the most ill-tempered review I've seen in a long time, and I agree entirely with what SandyG says below. It's just not acceptable for nominators and reviewers to be trading insults. But Wikipedia's civility policy is a sick joke, something that was shoved in my face when I was unwise enough to call a wikilawyer a wikilawyer, so not entirely unexpected. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Someone really should start patrolling FAC and FAR for civility and AGF issues; Wikidea blatantly calls another editor a troll on that FAR (and I've seen similar at FAC and could do nothing about it). Other than that, I've clearly stated the issues I have with that article, and Wikidea has ignored my concerns, so that's that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Jeez, I didn't even see this. Way over the top. Cool Hand Luke 02:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Speaking of over the top: [7] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Complete trout. I'm still waiting for your replies. Go on, show that your above and bigger than all this, and just try to improve the article. Show that you can engage, discuss and reason. It really is never too late. Wikidea 15:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikidea, I agree with the editors above who fail to see incivility in SG's comments. Further, I understand how difficult it is to defend an article you've labored over in the face of criticism from editors who have not done the research you have. But you can choose to improve the article based on their comments, or you can choose to pick apart all of their critiques as undeserved, uninformed, and poorly argued. I believe listening to them will only improve the article in the end, and your strength as an editor. You, however, must make the right choice for yourself. --Moni3 (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I rarely see the word "spoil sport", and it is amusing that it came up here. Sorry about the orange bar, Sandy. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Saving lost edits

Just a quick FYI; Wikipedia has been wonky lately, and I see that you're still losing edits sometimes. As I mentioned before, refreshing the page will resubmit your edit without requiring that you type everything in again. Your browser should alert to you that you are "resubmitting information", or something along those lines; you can just hit "Okay" on that and then your edit should go through again. If you get a Wikimedia server error again, then just hit Refresh again, and again, until it goes through. Cheers. Gary King (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Gary; I'll try, but I think I'm just beyond frustration now ... would probably be better to turn off the computer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

...why...?

...did you close this? There were only two opposes, and I had addressed their concerns/asked them if I had addressed them! Why was it closed so quickly? I'm confused. ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 02:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Look how many issues had been addressed since the first FAC! [8] ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 02:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that Tony1 said the article needs to be better written throughout, not just fixing the examples he mentioned. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What are these differences then? (With two different editors!) ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 02:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, yet perhaps Tony1 was still dissatisfied with the prose of the article. I can't speak for Sandy's actions, but I trust she closed it correctly. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen the review? He hadn't replied to the changes yet: his comment on the prose was on the 18th, while all of those c/e changes occurred on the 19th... ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 02:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Several reviewers were uncomfortable, but you got some good feedback for how to move forward and improve the article in preparation for another FAC. I try to keep candidates open as long as I can, but if you peruse the entire FAC page, you'll find there are not other candidates open with "only two opposes". When several editors express concerns, it can be helpful to open a peer review and invite those editors to comment, also utilizing the tips at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 to invite other peer review volunteers to comment. Often that's enough to assure you'll sail through next time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

...Alright, I see then. =/ I'll try PR first before renominating...thanks for the comments! =) Cheers, ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 03:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)e

Dab link on Mother and Child Reunion (Degrassi: The Next Generation)

Hi Sandy. Thank you for promoting Mother and Child Reunion (Degrassi: The Next Generation). I saw you left a comment on the FLC regarding two dablinks. I fixed one of them which was actually incorrect anyway (it was pointing to Oakland, Ontario instead of Oakville, Ontario), but the other points to the eleventh hour, and used in the sentence "At the eleventh hour the broadcaster decided to bring it forward to October 2001" I knew this was a dablink when I included it, but I can't find anything in that link which would work better. I could link to the Wiktionary entry for wikt:eleventh hour if that is better. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say leave it alone, since that dab covers it; I just pointed out that they needed to be checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: History of the National Hockey League (1942–1967)

Not that it really matters much, but I was in the process of reviewing the article and the nominator had responded to my concerns when you restarted. Either way, I did what you asked for :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, David; those two were suffocating at the bottom of the page, and I couldn't see a reason. (Funny edit summaries :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. If I didn't do some FAC work even on topics which bore the ever-loving s*** out of me, I'd feel kind of bad when I do back-to-back-to-back FAC nominations... as for the edit summaries, if you've banned my joking opposes I have to keep it light somehow :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope you're not too offended about the joke opposes; they had the potential to backfire someday and really set off a nominator (and selfishly, I'd love to train reviewers to keep their commentary brief and FAC pages readable ... some of our frequent nominators could learn a lot by sitting down some evening and having the pleasure of reading through the entire FAC page ... after they've done all the janitorial work of cleaning up talk pages so they don't stall GimmeBot, and prepping the FAC pages so they don't stall RickBot :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know I shoulda be more careful with the oppose... why don't you write a sort of handbook for reviewers/et al in your spare time (yeah, I know, spare time is limited in your department :P) -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much!

		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		Just wanted to say "super duper thanks" for your super-human work and research on Odwalla, especially your amazing patience with me and all the work you've invested in the entire project. Sincerely, thank you so much. Intothewoods29 (talk) 06:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Slovenian presidential election, 2007

Hi. I wonder if you could give me a couple of days more on this one before closing this FA nom. I was still waiting for a response from reviewers after the issues addressed have been fixed. Thanks. --Tone 07:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sandy

		Thank You!
		for your assistance in helping Virus to become a Featured Article today. It's much appreciated, Graham. Graham Colm Talk 13:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Nominations

I have a question about Feature articles: do you put an article you want to nominate on the feature article page immediately after nomination or wait for it to pass the Feature article candidacy? Please respond ASAP if you can.24.1.4.241 (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you're asking. It's unclear if you're inquiring about WP:FAC, WP:FA or WP:TFA/R. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the questioner means to ask if one should add a nominated article to WP:FA immediately one nominates it at WP:FAC, or if one should wait till it passes the candidacy. If so the answer is the latter: anyone can nominate an article at WP:FAC, but it may only be added to the featured article page when the featured article director promotes the article. In fact, the act of moving it to WP:FA is what effectively promotes the article, so nobody but the director should ever need to do it. Mike Christie (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It that is the question, then that is the answer :-) Thanks, Mike (but I'm still not sure if that is the question). By the way, where have you been ?!?! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

oops, not quite the answer. Not just anyone can nominate an article at FAC. WP:FAC instructions now require that significant contributors be consulted first. That is, an IP shouldn't nominate an article at FAC without first consulting with any signficant contributors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been (and am right now) in a small rented house in Huntington, New York. I quit my long-time job in Austin in April, and took a contract job in Long Island; the disruption, back-and-forth travel, and separation from my books has limited my ability to spend time on Wikipedia. I have accumulated some of my references up here, though, and I'm slowly starting to have time to contribute again. I just nominated Amazing Stories for GA and am hoping to get it to FAC in a while -- my first for some time. I don't usually go to GA first but I'm a bit rusty so I thought I should; I might do PR too. I should be able to do a bit of FAC reviewing intermittently, though if I end up moving to NY then I'm sure my life will get even more disrupted for a few months. Mike Christie (talk) 01:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Austin to Long Island ... eek ... not sure if I should send you congratulations or condolences :-) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Condolences, of course. I moved away from Austin years ago and I still miss it :( Karanacs (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Untranscluded

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Abu Dhabi (city) Gary King (talk) 01:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing the IP above was referring to this FAC. Gary King (talk) 01:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Second time for that nominator. Gary, honestly, since you always get to these first, why don't I teach you how to handle them, since the FAC janitorial work is so time consuming? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it basically this? User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox#Withdrawn_by_nominator_FACs Gary King (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, I'm typing it up now so you can do it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This should all be done by bots some day instead of by humans. Gary King (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't even open that can of worms. Anyway, there is so much FAC janitorial work that I have to do every single day, it would really be nice if more of the regulars took notice and pitched in to help.

Yes, that's pretty much it (in my sandbox) ... just doublechecking here ... Steps:

1. Are there significant contributors who have been involved recently (check dates and contribs and talk page and article and their talk pages, check everything so you don't get blasted)?
2. Is the nominator a significant contributor? Check stats, and check exactly what his/her involvement has been.
3. If not, did the nominator consult the others?
4. If not, remove the nom by:
   1. Remove from WP:FAC (if it was trancluded).
   2. Remove the FAC template from the article talk page
   3. Move the FAC page itself to the next open archiveN
   4. Clear the redirect, entering the exact text === [[ Article name ]] === followed by renaming the redirect link to previous FAC withdrawn (exactly like that, for other scripts). It has to end up looking like Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2010 Winter Olympics.
   5. Leave a nice note on the nominator page, explaining. In this case, it's the second time, so the message could be stronger. See my earlier sample message at User talk:NewWorld98. In this case, the nominator may need to be watched and mentored.

If you want to do this one, I'll follow your contribs. If you ever run into opposition or difficulty, be sure to flag me, or Karanacs or Roger Davies or Elcobbola. Most urgent is to always AGF, never bite, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, an admin should step in here, since 24.1.4.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked before for this, and there is some evidence that the IP is the same as the nominator, so possible sockpuppetry and repeat FAC disruption. Where are all my talk page stalking admins? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Copied note from my talk page I have read and considered your information Sandy - using the DUCK test and concur with your synopsis. Both accounts blocked for abusing editing privileges via sock accounts. Nice to see you are staying sane and as always keeping up the brilliant work. Looks like you have a willing helper - cheers Gary!! --VS ^talk 04:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I have withdrawn the FAC. Gary King (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

looks good (remember to remove the tools). Thanks, Gary. When future situations are very clear cut, go ahead and do them; if you have any doubts, raise it here as we don't want to risk biting newcomers or prohibiting FAC noms ... if it's a tough call, then I'll take the blame :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah yeah the tools; do they have to be removed? Do they cause a problem, like too many transclusions, or is it just for looks? Gary King (talk) 02:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Good question :-) We remove them before moving FACs to archive, as they cause the transclusion limit issue there. When they aren't moved to archives and aren't botified into articlehistory, I spose it's not necessary to remove them, but ... it's a habit :-) Are you clear on the difference between withdrawing a premature nom (not botified into articlehistory) and withdrawing a nom that already has opposition at nominator request (moved to archived and botified)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I think so. Gary King (talk) 02:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

AGF only goes so far;[9] still needs admin attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Allrighty then, where are all those editors I've nommed RfA when I need admin help on fac ?  :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused as to what the need for admin attention is. He appears to be making good-faith edits. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The IP was blocked before for edit warring at TFA/R, and has now supported the second spurious FAC nom by the registered account, who was already advised not to do such, raising questions about sock or meat puppetry. Not sure the Abu Dhabi edit above is constructive. Someone needs to keep an eye out, since this is the third issue, and let them both know about FAC disruption (I already left messages for both last time). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Untranscluded 2

{{FAC}} was placed on this article but the nomination was never completed. What happens here? Gary King (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, Gary; I'll look now and then walk you through it, as I'm keen on having you learn to deal with these. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

User seems new to Wikipedia, and since the article was previously nominated, the FAC template makes it seem like the process is already complete and the nomination is already accepting comments. Gary King (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, lots to investigate here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Clues:

1. Most of the talk page was deleted, needed to be restored.
2. Previous nominator and significant contributors not consulted. (Check article stats, check talk page, check nominator contribs)
3. Nominator is not a new contributor, just a relatively inexperienced user.
4. Nominator doesn't have a history of spurious nominations at content review processes, or talk page warnings, appears young and likely just inexperienced. AGF and try to help the nominator understand importance of reading instructions, working articles through other content review processes, etc.

So:

1. Fortunately, there are no new comments on the FAC, so the FAC page itself doesn't need to be dealt with at all. Also, the FAC itself hasn't been trancluded, so it doesn't need to be removed from FAC. There is no archiving or moving needed when reviewers don't get to the premature FAC and add to it. So, you only need to remove the FAC template from the talk page, and
2. Leave a nice note like the sample above on the nominator's talk, and then
3. Keep an eye on the nominator to make sure it's not a recurring problem.

Let me know, thanks Gary, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Gary, are you doing these or shall I? The two nominators from yesterday still don't have talk page messages. Shall I continue doing this myself ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Should be all done now. I only contacted User:NewWorld98 and not the IP, because NewWorld98 was the nominator. Gary King (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, these guys are really just messing around now. See their latest FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United Arab Emirates. I think I should leave this particular case to you as it's not a typical one. Gary King (talk) 02:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said earlier, and repeatedly, they need admin attention. And since there are only so many hours in a day ... thanks for letting me know, but that was as I suspected over a month and one block ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The IP was originally blocked after edit warring over Avatar Airbender, and the registered account has now nommed it GA, so we may have sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry as well as FAC disruption. I removed the FAC template from the talk page; the disruption needs admin intervention. I used to run around and find someone to help, but there are only so many hours in a day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

And in the meantime, IP vandalizes as s/he likes. [10] [11] Fuchs, did you really mention good faith edits?  :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Master of Puppets is working on this now. I asked him yesterday if he could help, and he left a note to the registered account. Now that they're at it again, he's back on it and he said he would open a Check User case. I'm going to be watchlisting both accounts just in case. Gary King (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I also went looking for help; we should't need a checkuser in such an obvious case. And FAC regular admins should be on this stuff without us having to go out and drum up help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

← Well I asked for general help and he volunteered; he's helped me a few times before. Gary King (talk) 03:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least you're getting good training :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

From what I now understand, Check User is not required in this case; whichever admin gets to this first should have enough information to perform a block. Gary King (talk) 03:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's what I thought yesterday, but what do I know? I'm just the dummy who counts the votes and pushes the janitor buttons. An IP vandalizes at will, edit wars, disrupts FAC, GAN and TFA/R and then supports a registered account that only submits spurious FACs and GANs, and they both submit Avatar Airbender and edit the same areas. No need for a checkuser, don't have to be a rocket scientist. But I guess that's why I'm not an admin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It would kind of be nice to be an admin; I wouldn't want to work on any of the anti-vandal stuff, though; not my cup of tea. Protected templates and such is where I would be! Oh yes sirree. Gary King (talk) 04:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Review my withdrawal of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tall poppy syndrome/archive1 when you get the chance please. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, an article like that stretches AGF, so you may need to watch the page. It's very time consuming, Gary; perhaps that's why no one else helps me? Please note though, that the redirect text should be exact, previous FAC withdrawn ... so future scripts only have to search for that. Next ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I did Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/University of Pittsburgh/archive1 too. I'm going to update the wording in {{FAC withdrawn}}; watch the template and change if you want. Gary King (talk) 04:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That was a good faith nom by a serious editor who just hadn't read the instructions; I left a followup message on his/her talk. You have to follow those very closely, and if you're in doubt, best to leave them to me so you don't get your head taken off. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright; in that case you would have typed up a custom message? Or, can we create a templated message for that, too? :) Gary King (talk) 04:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked; I would not have created the template, I would never use it, almost every message should be customized because every situation is different. This, for example, is an experienced editor, and we can't give the impression that you must go through PR and GAN before FAC. The message in each case is unique; here, he only needed to know that the principle contributors needed to be consulted, very different from the other cases. I just wouldn't use templated messages in these cases, and you might want to delete that template. I would use the boilerplate in my sandbox, but customize each message to the situation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, your messages should not further ownership; primary contributors have no right of ownership to nomming an article. We just want to make sure it's ready; they only need to be consulted. In good faith cases, you must be very careful with your message. Anyone can nom a FAC, but please discuss with principle contributors first in case they think the article isn't ready yet. Furthering ownership or FAC cliqueishness is not our intent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

← You say this is time-consuming but spend most of your time typing on user talk pages :) I could customize the template so that when it is used, then difference sentences are added or removed based on what options you use at the time. For instance, the part about sending it to PR and GAN could be removed, or the part about notifying major contributors could be removed. Gary King (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't spend a lot of time typing on user pages: I grab the sample wording and customize it. I think it's very important to be very cautious with withdrawals of good faith noms, and I do personalize every message. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I got the GAN dealt with. Gary King (talk) 04:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Gary, looking at the template again, there is no version of it that is adequate for the University of Pittsburgh; that article is FAC worthy, the nominator only needed to know to consult the principle contributors. Yes, the article still needs work, but we would be out of line to say it isn't FAC ready or must go to GAN or PR. Please, if you use that template (which I don't endorse), be very very careful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do the goalposts keep shifting?

I understand that Wikipedia has an interest in increasing its reliability, but I find it frustrating that the rules on citation keep changing seemingly on a daily basis. I've passed 20 featured articles, and I've never needed to include exact dates before. Years, yes, not exact dates. If this goes much further you'll be demanding I vet ref authors for prior drug use. The Cite template automatically puts all publishers into italics, no matter what I do. Serendi^podous 06:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware there have been citation cleanup needs on all of your FACs, but the goalposts haven't moved; the concerns have been the same throughout, and your citation methods are gradually improving. Publication dates have always been needed; sometimes only years are available as dates, sometimes there are full dates available, but when using newspapers, it would be hard to find the source (particularly if links go dead) if one doesn't have the full date. (If you've gotten by without doing this in the past it could be that reviewers didn't notice or it could be that permanent PMID or DOI links resulted in less worry about the source being locatable should news links go dead.) Full dates are available on many of your news sources. Cite templates do not automatically put publishers in italics. See User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch42#Citation Format Question. Per WP:ITALICS, periodicals, newspapers, journals and book titles are italicized. Webistes, corporations, orgs and domains are not. There are two ways to accomplish italicing in cite templates: use the Work parameter, or add italics manually to the Publisher parameter. The publisher parameter is not automatically italicized. Serendipodous, considering that nothing has changed in the citation requirements, but this has been a recurring theme on your FACs and since I detect some frustration in your response, I'm wondering if you could work with someone familiar with citation on your future FACs before or when submitting them? That might help lower the frustration and you could learn citation along the way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No one familiar with citation does what I do. Serendi^podous 18:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to help. Which are the relevant articles? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Jbmurray; in this case, it's Legal disputes over Harry Potter (Serendipodous usually works on planets and astronomy, so is usually dealing more with journal articles than news papers). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Watchlisted. I'll try to get to it tomorrow. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at this, and didn't really understand. Citations are not using {{citation}} (not that it matters, of course), and there seem not goalpost shifting or discussion of citation dates at the FAC. If S wants a hand, he should feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct, S uses Cite xxx (thankfully :-) I usually end up cleaning them up myself on S's facs, which is why it would be great if someone would pitch in to help Serindopous learn consistent formatting. It's usually inconsistent author formatting, missing full dates, and mixing up of publisher and work (italics). If I have to do it myself again, I spose I'll do that, but it would be good for Serindopodous to learn and adopt a consistent biblio style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You know what? I give up. I've had it. I've given years of my life to this project, and I can't even figure out why any more. I've brought 20 articles up to FA level. I've slaved for the better part of four years on various featured topics, bringing more than ten articles to FA level in the process, and the only response from on high to date has been, "Stop cherry-picking!" I spend four years improving an article, and it gets crushed over what? Date formatting? So factual accuracy, impartiality legibility and comprehensiveness don't count? I can't do this any more. Serendi^podous 18:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

S, please cheer up; I don't want to see you overreact to minor matters. It is not being "crushed" over date formatting; I will fix those issues myself if need be, or I can ask Epbr123 to run through. I've left samples so far in case you want to follow. As of now, it has an Oppose from Awadewit, which is non-trivial. When a FAC is ready to go and substantial matters are addressed, if there are MoS issues remaining, someone will fix them, and I'll do it myself if need be. I'm not sure what your cherry picking comment refers to? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Bob Dylan FAR

Hi SandyGeorgia, I'd be grateful for your guidance. Dylan FAR began partly because of length of article. Cuts have now been made. My worry is: Do they go far enough? On Dylan Talk page [[12]] I've tried to express my concern that if we cut a lot more, we shall reduce article to not much more than a banal list of dates on which Dylan released certain major albums. And we're in danger of losing a sense of why Dylan is an important 20th and 21st century artist. Many thanks Mick gold (talk) 08:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I replied on the FAR; not so concerned about the length now, but saw a lot of cleanup needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I left a reply at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bob Dylan for you. Cheers. — Realist² 20:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Following on from this discussion, I offer you this possible solution: Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Possible new nomination process. Thanks for listening. GDallimore (Talk) 08:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, GDallimore; I'm not really involved in DYK so don't feel I should opine on the processes there. The issue in that case wasn't so much process as recurring issues from one Medicine editor. I don't believe changing the process will prevent someone from derailing a DYK with unsubstantiated original research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Peter Jones (missionary)

I just noticed this is not listed at FAC but its FAC page is still open. Was the FAC closed or was it accidentally cut from the FAC page? Sumoeagle179 (talk) 10:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It takes time for the bot to run and officially close the FAC once Sandy has archived or promoted. I usually watch wP:FAC so I can see when she removes nominations. Peter Jones was archived [13]. Karanacs (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

See WP:FAC/ar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

TRM

You must've missed the note at the top of his talk page and the postings over the last few weeks at Talk:FLC. --Dweller (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

In answer to your question, Matthew was picked by TRM to replace him and a discussion took place here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

So, it's like a crown, we just pass it along? 21:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't sound like Sandy. Has your account been compromised, or are you having a tough day/week/month? Wouldn't be surprised - your wikiload is pretty immense, never mind whatever RL throws at you. Take an ascii asterisk from me as a token of respect for all you do and feel the cares float off your shoulders. * --Dweller (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It's me :-) This development troubles me, a lot. It undermines our very purpose, and I'm not likely to enjoy contributing to featured content if this is the way we're going. Alternately, I suppose I could spend time making spreadsheets to track block voting. Yes, that prospect makes me grumpy. But if I sound that grumpy, I'll stay out of the discussion for now and think about it (certainly two days of dealing with Wikimedia Foundation errors haven't put me in the best frame of mind). But ... we choose positions like directors of processes based on certain character attributes: we don't pass it along like some inherited crown, and I "voted" for candidates whose character I knew well enough that I could be assured of how they would conduct business and who had a long track record on Wiki. I include transparency as an important attribute, and I am decidedly not a fan of conducting Wiki business via IRC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm somewhat confused, because you seem to switch between the Director and the IRC stuff. But no worries. I understand and agree to an extent with the concerns about IRC. But, as for the Director issue, it was discussed properly and confirmed at the right place, so I can't see a problem there. We can't really expect Scorpion to handle the huge volume of work on his own that TRM's been doing. The burden on the FL Directors is very large because there's no you there, and because the number of eagle-eyed reviewers is so small. I'm off to sleep. Night night and take care. You lovely ol' grump :-) --Dweller (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

So far, they seem to be related. We have a new FLC director, and new off-Wiki processes at the same time, originating at FLC. Would TRM have done that? Does he back it? Would you have backed this suggestion? I think not: I think FLC is getting off track. Sleep well, and thanks for being you :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually Sandy, the FL channel has existed for over a month, and I was the one who suggested it. TRM knew all about it, and he didn't oppose. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Then I guess the best I can say is that I'm sorry that something was done at FLC that will affect FAC, but we'll deal with it. There will be changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note to perhaps put your mind at ease somewhat, we (the channel) decided to make public logging allowed, so I suppose we can post the discussions somewhere on-wiki. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. At any rate, I'm done being troubled by this, and I know what adjustments need to be made. Done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Syracuse University

You mentioned somewhere that the images are a mess, or too many, or something. I can't find where you wrote it. Can you give me a bit more advice on it? I've been slowly working on upgrading the article, and the images don't look right, but I don't know why. I've pared back what look like spamming of images on the article, so guidance can be helpful. Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The only problem as of now is Biden. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that a political commentary? LMAO. You owe me a new laptop...I spit up my Coke Zero on it! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That was my finest moment of the day :-) Doesn't say much about the day, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that was a classic. It may have actually moved your daily average fun factor up several points. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Quick question

No rush, you can ignore this if you don't feel like it, as it's just an informal request for opinion. I was wondering if the reference style of Heavy metal music was up to standards for an FA. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 05:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Doesn't look like anything that would belong at WP:FAR. Gary King (talk) 05:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's RFAR worthy. But I think it's in need of cleanup. So I wanted to know if I was being to strict. Basically, were this up for FAC, would it be requested that the refs be tightened up or would it be passed as is? Jennavecia ^(Talk) 05:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm too tired to look tonight ... I'll get there ;-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Article is already an FA, FYI (if you weren't aware already). References look fine to me. Gary King (talk) 05:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I am aware. It was promoted several years ago, and reassessed a year and a half ago. So there has been a lot of change since then, and the references look sloppy to me. So I'm asking if such sloppiness is acceptable for an FA. The reason, not because I want it sent to FAR or anything, rather I want to clean it up. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 12:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Kindly avoid using the word sloppy (youve used it 3 times now) when judging other people's work. And point in fact from what I can see, you dont want to tidy it up, you want to impose a cite.php template.[14] Ceoil ^sláinte 19:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, folks, I still haven't gotten there; the last few days were miserable timesinks here. Is this only about templates or are there other issues? If it's only about templates, not only are they not required, but some of us hate them and use them only because others do and we're forced to :-) I manually formatted Tourette syndrome so I would't have to be subjected to the ever changing vagaries of Wiki's templates, and to avoid unnecessarily chunking up the text and the article load time with those horrid citation templates (which are a real killer on load and editor time). WIAFA requires a consistent citation style, but doesn't prescribe the method (it does say we can't mix citation and cite xxx because they result in an inconsistent style). Is that all that is at issue here? If not, I should find time to look more closely tonight; I just haven't gotten there yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that article is still pretty clean. So I don't have to type it all up, please see my edit summaries. WP:PUNC needs attention throughout. Decide if citations have a period at the end or not (some do, some don't). Its *The* New York Times. There is some missing punctuation after article titles. And since most dates are delinked, you should delink the remaining accessdates (see my sample edit for how to do it). I didn't go all the way through, but they look pretty consistent. If there's anything in particular I missed, pls holler. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yea. The article looks good. I spent three and a half hours cleaning up the references and correcting the quotation placement in the article. I hate cite templates also, but they're handy for Harvard references, linking notes to the ref section. So the clunky templates are only used in the references section. In the body, it's simple info between brackets, taking up very little space, and it looks quite clean. The refs as I found them were sloppy looking; all commas, random fullstops, inconsistent date linking, etc. So I started on it. When I went to continue, I saw that all my changes had been reverted, and I was told the reference style was fine as it was. That's why I wanted a couple of opinions. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 02:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't look at the history; I just looked at what was there when I got there. I may have worked with the guys when it was at FAR last time (I can't remember, too many FARs and FACs to sort now :-), and since I hate Harvnbs, cite templates, and all that clunky bluelinky stuff in text, they may have learned from me :-) Or I could have an exaggerated sense of my role in those early FARs, LOL !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

FLC, me and wikibreak

Hi Sandy, thanks for your message. Well, where to start. First thing – I'm off travelling for a few months. I'll be very sporadically editing but nowhere near as much as I can do. Basically I'll pop in when I can get to an internet cafe or similar just to update you folks as to my whereabouts and how I'm doing. So, as a consequence, and with FLC being a busy old place these days, I had to hang up my boots so to speak. Like FAC, it needs pretty much daily attention so User:Matthewedwards is going to fulfil that role from now on. We didn't go through the whole election process again, I talked it over with Matthew and then asked the FL community for their consensus, which was unanimous in support of him taking the position.

Standards increased? I'd like to think so. But perhaps I can't see the wood for the trees. It'd be better to ask someone like Tony1. As for IRC chats, I have no idea. I keep away from all that, I think it entirely undermines this place. What do you know that I don't? Hope you're well, best wishes. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I just caught up with the IRC chat over at WT:FAC. Wow. For me, when I see IRC, I switch off, so I was unaware of those goings-on. I stand by what I said a few minutes ago - I'll still be keeping away from it! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The whole thing is very disturbing. Changes everything that matters about FAC and FAs. I hope you're well, TRM, and your travel is beneficial and rewarding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

FAR italicized notification notes

Regarding [15], my apologies I was unaware it was preferable to link the the WikiProjects' talk pages instead of the project main page - from now on I will do it that way. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a problem, Cirt; I periodically go through and 1) check them all, and correct them to 2) make sure editors are aware of how to do them, and 3) avoid the problem that future nominators repeat the mistakes they see in existing nominations. I wish someone else would do same every now and then, but I seem to be the designated janitor. The issue is that the Subst message gives full instructions for how FAR works, and when people don't use it, editors show up to declare Keep or Remove without understanding how FAR works (two phases, etc.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Which subst message? I think I missed that this time 'round. Cirt (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't remember which FAR is which, but you should always notify with {{subst:FARMessage|article name}}, because it gives full instructions re how FAR works. Some editors pop directly into FAR, bypassing the instructions, and start declaring Keep or Remove. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah quite right. As you can see if you will check I actually did use that method to do all of the notifications. Cirt (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably; I corrected a ton of FARs this morning, so I can't remember who did what or who's on first :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Third base! Cirt (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Russian Ground Forces

Hi SandyGeorgia, thanks for your inputs on the FARC here. I would very much like to make the improvements required but I have a couple of problems - firstly, having tried to read through the policies you linked, for some - like ellipses - I cannot work out what I need to change in the article to conform with the standards, and my keyboard cannot reproduce some of the recommended characters. I know you're reluctant to devote too much time to this one, but would you mind making a list of the most key, egregious, faults in the article right now, with explanations if necessary? Following that list I'll prune and change as per your direction. Right now I've done some work but I'm not quite sure what exactly I need to do more... Thanks very much, Buckshot06(prof) 20:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Buckshot, that sort of thing (ellipses) is trivial and easy to fix, and I can do it after the more important work (citation and prose) is done. I'm too busy to get over there now, and making a list now would be premature. Just leave a note on the FAR about anything you're not sure of, and when I have time to check in, I'll work on them. Marskell is not going to close a FAR for trivial MoS issues; he needs to know you all are progressing on prose and citation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your immediate inputs SandyGeorgia; I'll read them carefully and follow along. Buckshot06(prof) 08:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input

Hi SandyGeorgia- I just wanted to drop a message saying thanks for doing some clean-up on The College of William & Mary and for also pointing out errors that need to be addressed when trying to apply it for FA status. I can clearly see you know the Wikipedia rules very well (I admit that I lack in knowing the exact guidelines), so I was wondering if I could request your assistance every now and then to look over the W&M article? I'm going to do my best to clean it all up, fix typos/errors/formatting issues etc, but it's always good to have multiple users check on one another. It's my personal goal on this site to get W&M as an FA, so any input into making that happen is more than welcome. Thanks again. -Jrcla2 ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoops

Domiy responded to Wikipedia:Featured article review/Scotland national football team after Marskell closed it as a keep, and some other editor commented on it after that. To be fair to Domiy and the other guy, the page is not showing for me as closed. Are the post-close edits a big problem? The second editor is probably so upset about the death of Yankee Stadium that he wasn't paying attention anyway. :-( Giants2008 (17-14) 00:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Now if we could just do something about the team and the fans to go along with the stadium :-) No, the post-closing comments don't matter much; GimmeBot has now been thru. If Domiy re-noms, against WP:FAR instructions and director authority, it will need to be reverted. Marskell Hath Spoken. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

All right; I'm better now

I needed an anti-depressant and a good night's sleep. The dates are all concordant. I'm sorry if I offended you in any way. Serendi^podous 09:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Very short FA nom?

Sandy, no doubt you've seen the last couple of posts at WT:FAC about Space Science Fiction Magazine. I really am tempted to nominate it, but I wanted to see if you felt it would be a disruptive nomination. There's a sense in which it wouldn't be a good-faith nom, since I am not convinced it can pass. However, I do believe it technically meets all the criteria. It would essentially be a test case for the length argument, perhaps establishing a lower boundary than has previously been seen. At least, I'm not aware of anything shorter than Hurricane Irene (2005). On the down side, it might just waste a lot of energy in discussion, without achieving anything. What do you think? Mike Christie (talk) 11:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I am watching those discussions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Question about peer review

Hi Sandy,

I've been working on Mark Speight, and it's currently on peer review. I would, however, like to take it to FAC soon. Would it be bad form to have the PR closed early, and move it to FAC? It's just I think some fresh eyes on the article whilst it's on FAC will be good for it, and instead of sitting around on PR for another two weeks or so doing nothing much, it could be doing something more productive on FAC. What do you think?

Thanks for the help! -- how do you turn this on 18:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If an article is languishing at PR, rather than closing early and going to FAC, I would instead follow the tips at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 to invite peer review volunteers to comment. Sometimes you have to go out and drum up reviewers yourself. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manchester Bolton & Bury Canal

Hi there. this is actually User:DrKiernan - I don't know how to fulfill your request but I thought I'd let you know anyway. Bedtime now, and a busy weekend with work for me. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It is time consuming, isn't it? The way to fix it is to go back through the diffs, find the diff where he supported the FAC, and add the diff to his support along with {{subst:Unsigned|DrKiernan|add the time and date stamp from the diff here}}. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Now, beddy byes! Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks, saves me a lot of time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:low standards

I saw your message at Cla68's talk page; part of the problem may be that we are in the middle of coordinator elections, which has somewhat diminished our capacity to handle such matters. With a little luck, in a week or two, we should be back up to full strength. Sorry for the let down, BTW, I hope we can recitify it soon. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Tom; I look forward to the return of the days when an A-class MilHist review meant that an article was truly FAC ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm about to put my word on the line about our poor preformance as of late: a pre election article is up at FAC, if it goes well then its probably just the election; if it doesn't, I may have to examine your compliant in more detail :) TomStar81 (Talk) 01:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'm still confused, because MilHist has had very competent and skilled coordinators, so I can't think elections could be the factor in why subpar articles are garnering support ... ??? I suspect Kirill was right that you're just getting more driveby input now like other Projects. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to here you say that; if you care to look at our coordinator page you would see that the project is being questioned for its descion to replace lower ranking articles (Starts and Stubs) that were selected for the 0.7 release by a non-project member who thinks by doing this we are somehow acting out of line. Moreover, some of our coordinators (myslef include) are occupied with real life at the moment and can't put our all into the project. I am going to try and do some PR/ACR/FA related work over the weekend, I hope it will help a little. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think people's attitudes about MH-A have kept up pace with the standards of Wikipedia. Somehow I think that the GA standards are catching up to MH-A now, at least in teh top half of the GA reviews. I'm a bit surprised that probably I'm the only one who cares about formatting the refs and page ranges...Somehow I think I'm peeing off some of the others with my attitude. I wonder what will happen with Russian Ground Forces actually. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for my delayed response. I thought that that article was good enough for FA. I should have looked at it more closely. Cla68 (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I am deeply concerned by casual supports for Milhist A-Class articles, which often clearly don't make the grade. However, at the moment, any reviewer can prevent promotion with a criterion-based oppose until that oppose is resolved. This needs to be used much more often, to crank standards up. The aim should, and must be, that Milhist A-Class whistle through FAC, because they are genuinely FAC-ready. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel like I'm holding you all to a higher standard than others because you're still head and shoulders above other Projects, but after seeing the three Keeps at a very deficient Russian Ground Forces FAR, I had to wonder what happened to the days when MilHist really represented the best at the higher end of assessment and wouldn't let anything less than quality through. It was just very strange to see those Keeps at FAR because FAR allows all the time needed to bring articles to standard; pile-on Keeps aren't necessary and won't change the outcome. MilHist FAs that had been through A-class a year ago were practically a hand wave through FAC and rarely had any issues; the three keeps at Russian Ground Forces raised my eyebrows, partly because that is so unexpected from MilHist. Best to all of you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

FAC WIlliam and Mary - thanks

Sandy: Thanks for your handling of this one. I hope you will note that I used the opportunity you opened to attempt to both encourage and educate those interested in seeing the article become a FA. As a result, I think we have left a pretty clear trail of what it would take and in doing so, have done nothing to hurt feelings or discourage the nominating editor.

FYI, this article was a real mess several years ago as a number of WP editors who were students at the school and apparently fairly new to WP were taking a whack at it, so to speak. Unfortunately, their focus was more to include what they wished than following a path to achieve a quality WP article. All that furor seems to have passed, thank goodness.

In maintaining and keeping an eye on the overall presentation of a lot of Virginia-related articles, I do not also have much time free to work on individual ones to the level needed to get them to FA quality. However, I am sure you agree that we want to guide and encourage those who do.

Best Wishes, Vaoverland (talk) 06:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Kareena Kapoor

Hi Sandy. I was wondering if when you have a spare moment you couls take the time to read this article and identify any major flaws in it. I know the principal editor has had an FA in his sights for sometime but writing an FA on an Indian actress is far from easy. Any thoughts? The Bald One ^{White cat} 16:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Harry Potter FAC

Hi there Sandy,

It's not a graphic - see Template:Done-t. It's simply a green tick.

 Done is the graphic version.  Done is the version I'm using. The documentation for the template says that it could be, for example used for FACs!

Thanks, The Helpful One ^Review 19:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was discussed many times at WT:FAC; please remove them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that there is a template upper limit on pages, and using too many templates causes the page to go wonky. Thus, we try to limit the use of any templates on the FAC page. I replaced your templates with done Ealdgyth - Talk 19:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

And we still discussed it and we still don't want it, and the other problem is that editors shouldn't append their comments to a reviewer's post. There's no way for me to see who marked it done without stepping back through the diffs (which is what I spend most of my day doing lately). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

And now...

I remember why I didn't want an article on the main page.... Five more hours to go... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It boggles my mind that people fight over (and go to low lenghts to fight over) getting their article on the main page at WP:TFA/R. I'm sorry I haven't helped; I'll go have a look after I finish FAC janitoring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Ha ! So far so good; don't see any major issues or any place where I can exercise any MoS obsessions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been keeping a good eye on it, and a good chunk of the recent change patrollers have as well. Just some small wording tweaks, which may or may not have improved it, but didn't change the meaning. Some overzealous overlinking which I've swatted down. Someone went through and linked single years ... ugh. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch

Is it really publishing "any minute"? I would like to "finish" it tonight, but I can, as a matter of technicality, do it now if needed. I'd just rather not spend much more of a Saturday afternoon in front of the cursed computer... Эlcobbola _talk 19:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I could grumble on about how much the Dispatch deadline always hanging over my head stresses me out, and I rarely get consistent help from others in making sure we have the next issue ready for the deadline ... and then, after all my effort, they never publish on time anyway. This is unusually late, so it could publish at any time, but there's no rhyme or reason to when they actually go out, AFAICT. Perhaps I'm taking my responsibilty there too seriously and should just let a week or two fall through the cracks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think letting it slip a bit would be good for you. Obviously the dispatch people aren't sweating getting it out on time, so why should you stress it either? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You do more than your fair share independent of the Dispatch. It's not as if the main page will be deleted if a Dispatch is missed; alternatively, if it is, I'll eat my hat. TIND - four very nice letters, indeed. Эlcobbola _talk 20:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

But that darn thing does have a deadline, and I end up fretting over it every weekend. <grrrrr ... > SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Relax... Waltham, The Duke of 22:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Buck house - your revert

Doh! I must have gone crosseyed when I made that cnp.. thank you for fixing me! Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 22:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what I did, but if you have any image layout questions, please feel free to ask here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I had mistakenly put the image above a {{main}} link. You fixed it. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 22:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Real Madrid CF

What is the reason of not promoting Real Madrid C.F. to FA? I solved all the complains. I just don't understand.Hadrianos1990 (talk) 09:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Give it another chance

Why did you fail NY Route 28N? Wouldn't it have been easier to restart the nomination rather than fail it for 1 oppose. If you could let me start the nom over - because this is awfully unfair.Mitch32^(UP) 17:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Dear Raul and Sandy, after spending three months since the close of the last FAC improving this article with the help of several experienced editors, I have been encourged to bring this once again to FAC. Two new sections were added to the article as a result of comments from very experienced editors who offered their advice in that FAC and soon afterward. The article was trimmed twice, improved once again through another peer review, new scholarly sources were added and I have recently asked randomly selected peer reviewers as well as all those who voted or commented in the last FAC to come offer comments. Sandy offered this [16] comment yesterday. Because of her post, I would like to know up front if it is going to fail because of its size. I will not support the article for FA if it is not going to be allowed to be one of the largest articles on Wikipedia. I think the subject matter justifies a larger size per instructions at Wikipedia:Article size. The consensus of editors over the past 9 months with whom I have worked have only asked for more, not less content. The only people who have asked for less content are user:SandyGeorgia, User:Karanacs, User:Carlaude and User:Ling.Nut. Out of respect for them and because Sandy is the FA director's assistant, I have made every effort to keep the article as small as possible, even though they represent a minority of the page's editors. Please understand that it has been quite impossible to make the article a size that makes all people happy all of the time and I think that its present size is our best offer. Please let me know if it does not have a chance at FA because of this issue so we can all save each other the wasted time at FA. I would also like to leave you with a comment left on my talk page by an experienced peer reviewer I chose at random to come give me comments on this last peer review [17] Thanks in advance for you help in this matter. NancyHeise ^talk 18:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears my recent comment is capable of misinterpretation. Apologies if it was taken not as meant. Johnbod (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

No need whatsoever Johnbod; I was only clearing up the misstatement that I have not asked for anything, only presented the data. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, I personally trimmed the article twice, others assisted in this effort and two people did a trim right after the FAC while I was on vacation. The creep in information is the result of efforts to address issues raised at the last FAC and requests of editors since the last FAC. In addition, there were a total of 54 different editors who commented or voted on the last FAC (including before the restart and not counting anyone twice), 12 of those opposed the article and only one of those listed article size as a concern. I am aware of your concerns over article size because of your persistent comments on the issue. I think you are wrong to be so concerned or to keep bringing that subject up when there is such clear evidence that it is not a major concern for the vast majority of editors and viewers of the page.NancyHeise ^talk 21:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Leaving...

...on a jet plane... soon. Yeah, I'm outa here for five months. You're right, that IRC business is unhealthy in extremis and should be avoided. I'm sorry to think it could be perceived as a FLC thing too. What a pity. Anyway, I'm here and there and roundabout for the next three weeks until I disappear. I'm sure the current FL directors can weather the storm, I hope you and FAC, FTC etc can do too. The sooner the IRC thing goes away the better. My very best to you The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, I've sent you an email. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Job perks

(offensive pseudo-barnstar removed --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC))

Dude, wtf?--Moni3 (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I've asked for an explanation rather than blocking at this point, Sandy; however, there are a lot of eyes on this and I hope that Hadrianos1990 addresses this concern before doing anything further on-wiki. Let's hope this was just a moment of poor judgment. Risker (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

No urgency, Risker. It's more a sequelae to what happens when I have to archive FACs without a lot of reviewer input. If I think of it in terms of how te mato is used in Spanish, I'm less concerned than how it sounds in English. There also seems to be a lot being played out among some of the football articles, and that all started with a different editor. Thanks for the followup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Why remove that barnstar? I think it has value in being an example...of... something. I'd keep it on my talk page, but that's me. --Moni3 (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Folks might find the history behind this barnstar to be a bit less threatening than its name implies

Hm. I'd thought it was the doing of Achmed, the Dead Terrorist. Waltham, The Duke of 23:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI - It's gone. Commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Ikillyoubarnstar.png Эlcobbola _talk 14:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I wish I had time to keep up with it (just "another day at the office"); it looks like thanks are in order to you and Giggy. Thanks guys !! It did seem rather unnecessary. He could have just said he'd kill me, without the image :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed the thread got archived link. Is this over as far as you're concerned? I would like a a response to Moni's question above "Dude, wtf?", but since he hasn't really edited since dropping that little nugget off on your barnstar page is this one about as resolved as its going to get without Hadrianos return? -Optigan13 (talk) 05:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for following up, Optigan13; I think it goes with the territory (FAC delegate) and I'm willing to live with it as long as we watch that it doesn't happen again. I appreciate you checking in, and Moni3's concern as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Utah SR-103 FAC

Sandy, have I just shot myself in the foot for nominating this article? I see you noted how many words are in it... --Admrboltz (talk) 04:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Unsure if it would have been better to see how the others work out, or if it's better to ride the wave. The times they are a-changing I guess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This FAC has been withdrawn. --Admrboltz (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll take care of it, Sandy. Karanacs (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Working Woman's Barnstar
		To SandyGeorgia, for your continuingly positive edit summaries, despite the occasion of the United States Federal Reserve System bailing out The Home Depot, who might have run out of spare change with which to make garden center refunds. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, and I thanked you today on my user page. Hope that's all right with you. This continues an earlier award because I have no training or education in economics or in federal "crises". But I do love the album Your Country, sung by Graham Parker, and, at least on "Fairground," Lucinda Williams. Please pardon me if I have to edit this later. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Today is SandyGeorgia day on my user page. Fine with me to ignore the politics. I usually do. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Decreased workload for Sandy

Just thought you might want to know that User:NancyHeise seems to think you have no authority over FAC [18]. Now you can take a break! Karanacs (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

In spite of consistent and sustained efforts, I have not found a way to befriend or help Nancy with her FA efforts that she understands or is receptive to, so I will stop trying because all of my efforts have consistently backfired with misinterpretation and misunderstanding. Authority? phhh ... bah ... I just try to help, but sometimes I'm unable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Karan and I have weighed in on the PR. We'll see how this goes. The article absolutely bottoms out my computer trying to load it. It's bloated and needs serious trimming, but it IS much better than it was the first time around. But... ugh. Classic example of "improve the article through FAC"! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, if I could make a suggestion. You don't have to AGF someone forever. Like Una Smith, there just comes a time where they aren't worth the trouble. You really should relax and watch the Red Sox for a couple of weeks, give or take some wins. I actually have no clue how you do so much around here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My dear Orange, more baseball is always good, but the day I give up on AGF is the day I give up on Wiki :-) Thanks for the kind thoughts though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

New York State Route 311

I was looking around the FAC's to see where I might help out. I was looking over this one, and found it interesting, well written (there are a few comments I'm going to drop), and better than a lot of stuff in this project. But, is it FA-worthy? I know I'm going to get slammed and slammed hard for what I'm going to say, but shouldn't FA's be not only well-written, well-sourced, NPOV, and everything else, but shouldn't it also be noteworthy? I'm wondering if I would find an article about New York State Route 311 in Encyclopedia Brittanica? I might be preaching to the choir, but is it possible that we should have too levels of FA's, one for critical articles in medicine, history, science, religion..etc. And then another class for the best of the best, but in daughter articles like this one. So, the FA article might be State Routes of New York, and the VGA (very good article, as opposed to our GA's, which I find to be somewhat inconsistent in quality, but I'm talking about a narrow range of inconsistency) might be this one. In the medical, where I focus, I can see us doing this across the board. By the way, I'm not saying that VGA's should be any lower in quality than an FA, just that it should be a separate level of subject. Anyways, this may have been discussed 200 times before. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Notability, etc
• Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Very short FAs
• Wikipedia talk:WIAFA#Comprehensive and extra-short FAs
• Wikipedia:Very short FAs

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Just like I thought. Been there, done that, and there are still too many FA's that shouldn't be FA's. Sigh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI - Withdrawn FAC

Per this [19], I'm going to archive the WP:Featured article candidates/Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series. Nothing for you to worry about, just wanted to make sure you knew why it is about to disappear. Karanacs (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words :-). Shouldn't be too difficult to complete the article, but a lot of work still needs to be done. Hope we meet again in less stressful surrounds. Serendi^podous 18:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States Naval Gunfire Support Debate

Your comments about the naming of the page seemed to have brought up a more urgent matter, one which I regret to say I hadn't considered previously and it may radically effect the FAC nom I have up now. Comments made by ALR on the FAC page itself suggest that this matter may be more an international issue than just a US issue, and I am now trying to confirm that independently (no idea when that might happen, but maybe by the end of the week). If this is in fact currect then I think the best course of action will be to move the article to some thing "Naval Gunfire Support debate" and drop the current FAC, there wouldn't be any sense in going forward with it this article ends up part of a much larger and very new article. For the moment I need to see if ALR is right about this being larger than the US, so I will get back to you when I have evidence of this one way or the other. Sorry for not thinking about this angle sooner, I usually try and catch things like this before moving an article over FAC, and in this case ALR's comment was not one I had previously considered. Sorry if this causes any problems, as that was not my intention. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It's no problem, Tom; the only thing that makes kind of a mess is when people move FAC pages incorrectly, so if the article needs to change, contact me or Woody to make sure everything ends up in the right place. It's easier to get it right the first time through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

TFA

No worries, I just happened to be browsing the page and noticed that sept 30 was scheduled. It honestly didn't occur to me that anyone other than Raul would do it, so I didn't think twice about removing the article from the requests page. I'm not the type to argue and revert you, especially with only an hour to go anyway :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 22:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Holy cow

Sandy, I don't actually read FAC unless I'm able to review, which I haven't been for months, so I was amazed to discover the other short FAs showing up. I only noticed them when you made a comment somewhere about "four test cases now". Sorry! Didn't mean to start anything. I was thinking we could use a specific test case to hash out the general issues.

I will try to get to some FA reviews in the next couple of weeks; I'm going to try to stick to a rule of doing at least three reviews for every FAC I submit, since I almost always get three reviews. It won't be this week, though, I don't think, so I can't help with this bunch. I promise to try not to start any debates on WT:FAC for a while! Mike Christie (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Not your fault, Mike; it had to happen eventually, and we'll need to sort the issue. No problem. But it's kinda funny that people are now complaining about the list size :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the list size complaints kinda boggle me too. It's a lot more managable than it was in the past... I did review a few, but I do still absolutely refuse to touch a full review on a pop culture item or a road. I also spent about four hours Peer Reviewing RCC today, so if that helps RCC have a smoother FAC next time around, it'll be time well spent. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

And it is kind of weird also because the test case is more than two years old... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

But Irene's 800 words; now we're talking 400 (nice job on the copyedit, Tito :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, although the FAC got withdrawn, which has me royally ticked off (I could have used the time to study for a hard midterm on Friday)... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, crap, I still haven't gotten through my watchlist ... are you saying Erick was withdrawn after you copyedited ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, for what I consider an absurd reason, but oh well... back to vibrations for me for the rest of the week... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll move this for you, Sandy...keep plugging through your watchlist ;) Karanacs (talk) 19:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, darn; I guess I understand his reasons, but we still don't know how that's gonna shake out ... thanks, Karanacs. And thanks Julian for respectfully shortening the list, but it wasn't necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh Sandyy!

• shakes head* - Oh Sandyy, why? WHY!?. I thought a consensus had to be reached before you can...forget it. Really disappointing Sandy, really disappointing. I don't even want to sign my post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domiy (talk • contribs) 09:12, September 30, 2008

Manchester Bolton & Bury Canal promotion

Thank you for your help, particularly your constructive comments at the previous FAC failure for this article - they helped me improve the article and were a factor in successful promotion on this occasion. Expect to see me again soon, with another canal article :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What a difference three weeks, and a few constructive FAC comments, can make, huh? Congratulations !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Extra eyes

I take your recent talk page message to mean you prefer on wiki communication to off, which I respect.

In short, I need your help, and I want your read on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Domer48. If you'd rather not get involved, I respect that too.

--Tznkai (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do :-) That's a red link. The heart is willing but there aren't enough hours in a day, and I'm always backlogged with work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. I meant no disrespect by off wiki communication, but posting on your talk page might drag you into it, whether you want it or not. Toodles. --Tznkai (talk) 14:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem; I'll look at it as soon as I get a chance (which usually means in the evening after I process FAC). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ack, Tznkai; I took a very quick look, and there's not a single article or editor there that I'm familiar with. So ... I need a nutshell from you on what I'm looking for. I understand you've been absent for a few years. I can tell you that what has happened in that time is that ArbCom has handed down some very poor decisions affected apparently by partisanship, group dynamics, and powerful cliques. (No, I'm not a WikiReviewer; I've been through it, see my evidence in the SV case re how easily dispute resolution is gamed on Wiki by powerful cliques.) If you're on the wrong side of those cliques, you're topic banned. Other than that, I'm not sure where/how I can help, because I'm unfamiliar with any of those editors and articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thats pretty much what I need you for: you're uninvolved. Give me your "read" of the situation and editors involved, and if you have time, dig through histories. I'm looking for bad behavior. Content blind, whos edit warring, who's name calling, whos socking, etc. Domer48 is the original target of the complaint, and it spirals outwards from there, looking for all warring parties, not just the one.--Tznkai (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow; you don't ask for much :-) I've been putting out fires solidly for several days and haven't even gotten through my watchlist yet today, and have to close out a lot of month-end stat pages, but I'll get there as soon as I can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I know I ask a lot, but if it helps, its all on my head. Theres been some more developments. Comment, or don't as you wish.--Tznkai (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Good grief; what a dense mess. First, I did not follow that ArbCom. Second, I don't know any of the players. Third, I don't know anything about the topics. So I don't know if my two cents are worth even half a penny. I didn't dig any deeper than what was on that page, because the page gave me more than I wanted to see. I agree with the notion of casting that net wide and making it stick until they all get the message, because very few of them responded appropriately to multiple requests to stay on topic or to provide (recent) diffs for accusations and as evidence; in fact, several of them came back right away with more of same, including months old diffs or current bickering and accusations without diffs (dead horse). You've got four solid admins in there, and the bickering kept up in spite of the warnings to stay on topic and provide diffs. It looks like quite a few of them have not gotten the message about effective editing and appropriate behavior on Wiki. I'm not an admin, though, and I've not had to edit around deep nationalist topics, so my approach could be overly harsh. What is on that page can be contrasted in severity to the concerns I have mentioned elsewhere about heavy handed admin threats and accusations aimed at truly stellar editors who would never find themselves in conversations of that nature, or even slightly problematic editors who have otherwise done very good work and may have been ganged up on and could benefit from mentorship and show potential to turn around and produce quality edits. The behavior there seems to be coming from all sides, with a conspicuous absence of diffs. Contrast the dialogue there with the calm, succint, brief, organized, evidence-based post from Eubulides at WP:AN#Chiropractic (which seems to have fallen on deaf ArbCom or admin ears). That's my impression based on a fly-over only; I'm not sure that's what you're after, but since I don't know the topic, I also don't see it would be of benefit for me to dig deeper. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

What I wanted is what you felt comfortable giving. And don't be surprised if the !admin thing changes sometime vaguely soon. Thanks much.--Tznkai (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope so: sometimes I feel like I'm raising children all over again here, which was not the idea :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

wt:wiafa

I can get to the talk page via an edit link, but the main page falls into an endless recursion loading loop according to FF. I checked my edit, I have nothing special in there (no URLs or wikilinks). I wonder if it is related to the brief outage circa 14:30GMT. --MASEM 15:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

So it's not only me? Why can I load everything else with no prob? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Redirects also don't work if I recall correctly. Maybe there was a redirected template on the page? Gary King (talk) 15:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I got there this time via a purge; thanks Gary. Darn, it's getting harder and harder to work on Wiki, as there seem to be ongoing serious maintenance issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone made a big boo-boo with the server, actually, per the server log: "14:01 RobH: Site is down, go me =[ " Gary King (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:FSAC/WP:FSA

Question, would you end up becoming director of the Featured Short Article candidates? This is a curiousity question in case I know who to come to with a question. Otherwise, maybe someday I can get the job for FSAC director ;) - Mitch32^(UP) 16:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ack, NO, I wouldn't. I'm not certain it would need a director (GA doesn't have a director), and in the interest of not stepping on toes and giving everyone time to weigh in and get involved, I'd rather let that work itself out over time, after others have weighed in. It could be that the GA people really come on board, and they may want to run it without a director. Let's see which way the wind blows on this; I don't want to take a high profile there, as I am completely confident it is going to run itself very soon, and it won't need me breathing down its neck :-) If it does need a director, of course I would show the same preference I showed at the FLC director elections (for people who have already been heavily involved in FAC and who understand the standards and already have a track record), and there are many editors who fit that description. I suspect we're going to have so many people interested in that page that it's going to be hard to elect a director, if it comes to that ! First things first; it's an extra burden for Gimmetrow, and he is the unsung hero, without whom everything falls to crap. You can best position yourself by being as helpful as you can early on, though :-) 16:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)