User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch60

WALL-E review[edit]

Can you review WALL-E for me SandyGeorgia? Secret Saturdays (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia[edit]

Sandy, big thanks for the comments and for promoting the article we've worked so hard on! All the best!-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 01:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

en dash[edit]

Well, it's not an opposition or a movement or direction to or from. I'd be inclined to use a hyphen. I've looked at many pop music articles, and they're all, 100%, hyphenated. What I do dislike is the linking of "singer-songwriter", "musician", "producer", etc. I remove those links. Tony (talk) 03:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

en dashes and em dashes are just hyphens that need to go on a diet. We should just cut the fat already and go with one easy to use hyphen to meet all of our dashy needs. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere in deepest British Columbia, Robert Bringhurst just had a heart attack. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoop for common sense! :-D Let's get rid of these stupid extra dashes already... Colds7ream (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, properly used unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes are very useful and make the prose look professional. Graham Colm ^Talk 13:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure how dashes at all really make things look professional. Their use basically suggests to me that you don't understand what a comma is. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, the different forms make little difference except providing a source of extreme irritation when anyone attempts to find and standardise all the dashes in an article. What's wrong with just a hyphen? Colds7ream (talk) 13:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People think that hyphens are too short. It is the whole "bigger is better" complex. They don't realize that it is not the size of your dash that matters, but how you use it. ^__^ Ottava Rima (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with a FA[edit]

2009 flu pandemic just passed GAC. I'm looking to nominate it for FAC, but would like somebody with talent in writing medical articles to have a look first so I don't embarrass myself. Thoughts? Jehochman ^Talk 20:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy should reply to this, but in case she doesn't, you can ask Graham or Timvickers. Maybe colin? ceranthor 20:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those three, plus User:Fvasconcellos and User:Eubulides, are some of the best editors to help bring a medical article through FAC. But. Just from glancing at the article sourcing, I can predict a problem in getting it through FAC; the popular press (even the BBC or The New York Times or other allegedly high quality sources) are notorious for not getting it right when it comes to medical issues, and the article should use only highest quality medical sources. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches, which also references WP:MEDRS. You may have a hard time at FAC unless the sourcing is improved. Those editors can help, but they are all *very* busy, so patience will be key. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to find some time. Without having read the article yeat, I will say that the topic has aspects of "current affairs" that may mean respectable popular news sources can be used in limited areas and with care, but I agree that for health facts they are generally very poor. I'd like to say the BBC was good, but it isn't and its online news is especially poor. If you read the book "Flat Earth News" you'll find out why. Colin°^Talk 21:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, you beat Dabomb to it. ;) ceranthor 21:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Je, neither would I rely on sources like the Mayo Clinic; in the medical areas I'm most familiar with, their information isn't always correct. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind the article is about social science, not hard science. We have a distinct article about H1N1 bug. Popular press is useful for sourcing Egypt slaughtering all their pigs, China's quarantines, and what CDC told the public. Jehochman ^Talk 01:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Colin's comments above apply-- popular media sources will be adequate in some areas, but I haven't had time to read the article (I did leave some sample edits of MOS issues that might be addressed). And ... <grrrrr ... > I forgot to list User:MastCell as one of Wiki's medical editors who might best help ... I plead jet lag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a few of us who'd be happy to take a look, me included. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to have Cas back at FAC-- among our best medical editors! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. (I hit MastCell already, how could I not with a username like that!) I'm going on a drama-free diet for a few months. Jehochman ^Talk 05:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to help make sure that the virology is lay-friendly, but accurate. But I need to recover from the trauma I suffered when Virus was on the Main Page yesterday ;-) Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 18:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope[edit]

Didn't mind at all. Thanks for the improvement. Noroton (talk) 00:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source run...[edit]

Will do one tomorrow. Just back from an art fair and it was cold, drizzling and miserable. (We sold well though..) I'm taking today easy in order to hopefully keep from getting sick. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you're back (and glad you sold well) ! And thanks for all you do ... you're awesome. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Say a FAC on its second nomination has had pretty much every improvement it possibly can after tons of comments in two archives and edits in-between, but does not have that many explicit supports, would you promote it using your executive decision? RB88 (T) 17:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I need consensus to promote, but when a FAC is going through a second or third time, and gets little input, I do let it ride longer than the first time through. A post to WT:FAC about the lack of review may help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. How do you normally define consensus? Does it differ (e.g. in amount) from the first time to other times? What if by the 4th or 5th time there's only minute reviews because everything else has been taken care of? What's the procedure then? I'm just curious. RB88 (T) 18:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We still have to have reviewers explicitly declare that they believe the article meets the FA criteria. A lack of concrete proposals for improvement is not the same thing, and is not enough for the article to be promoted. Karanacs (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, in effect, some random guy who does nothing on Wikipedia and just says support has much more of an impact than someone who reviews thoroughly all the time but does not give verdicts? RB88 (T) 18:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. A long list of actionable comments without a declaration can still be read as an opposition (because here's all this stuff that needs to be fixed). On the flip side, I cannot assume that a lack of opposition means that the reviewer is supporting. Generally, if an experienced reviewer choses not to explicitly declare support, it's because that reviewer is not 100% comfortable with the article, but can't pinpoint the more complicated issues to fix. As a reviewer, I often left comments and didn't support when they were addressed if I thought the prose was just so-so. Karanacs (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with Karanacs, but also adding that "some random guy who ... just says support" doesn't always carry the same weight as seasoned FAC and FAR reviewers, who do a careful and comprehensive review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I'm going to blaspheme against the wiki-gods and disagree with Karanacs here. A comment without supporting isn't necessarily an opposition; where I'm not familiar with the topic (the Australian football one last week, for instance), I'll quite often still make comments on the prose style, sourcing or what-have-you, but won't actively support because I don't consider myself competent to judge accuracy or comprehensiveness. (I know nothing about Australian football, and wouldn't know what an article on the topic is expected to include.) – iride scent 19:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to agree with Iridescent in that my comments tend to be just comments and not any sign of any particular opposition to the article passing. A support would normally mean I had the time to sit down and go through everything. A comment just means that I saw something but didn't actually do enough to go one way or another. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Hassett with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948[edit]

Do I have to keep arguing this ideological point? The AFD consensus was that these forks are not new concepts or OR at all. Else using a general biog on JFK to write about his election campaign would be OR, as far as I can see. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, YM: vacation afterburn. I see Karanacs already responded. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey[edit]

How have things been? I miss this site — too bad I haven't been able to contribute with enthusiasm since 2007...— Deckill er 21:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied[edit]

I've replied at my talk. Unit Anode 21:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trichotillomania[edit]

I found in the hebrew version that (N-Acetyl L-Cystein) -‏ NAC 1200 mg worked on 56% i am not registered user , can u add this important ting link to Trichotillomania http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichotillomania the hebrew ver http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%98%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%94 the article http://ihealthbulletin.com/blog/2009/07/06/n-acetylcysteine-supplement-effective-trichotillomania/

i am going today to the doctor and show him the article hope i will be cure, i will inform u if it helped me [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.71.249 (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs and primary studies do not meet the requirements of WP:MEDRS; you would be better to locate a journal-published review article discussing N-Acetyl L-Cystein for trich. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note from Ottava Rima for you[edit]

Hey Sandy. Just leaving you a note from Ottava Rima. He has been blocked for one week on ANI and probably won't be able to work on Ode on Indolence. He wanted you to know he has a backup editor for the FAC and not close it while this happens.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 14:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Ottava will listen to Moni... ceranthor 18:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was unblocked, after it was determined that blocking someone for restoring a deleted RfA that was deleted out of process by someone involved was not against policy and consensus could not override policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with the Ode FAC or Moni? I'm inquiring (above) whether Ceranthor's comment about Moni pertains to the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you might find the answer to that on my talk page, Sandy. I guess wikibreaks are only a fantasy, right? Risker (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the vacation afterburn factor: you pay! Thanks, Risker. (But I may have to promise my firstborn to anyone who saves me time by giving me a diff :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, it's this section here. And Ottava started the RfC a few hours after I posted my wikibreak notice...so much for actually walking away from the drama for a bit. Risker (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Risker. Do you want my firstborn? (Or let me rephrase, will you pay for his college?) So, I gather Ceranthor's comment is unrelated to the FAC, and I shall beat him with a wet noodle for stalling my FAC reading :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse, abuse! Sorry, I had a brainfart. ceranthor 19:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Hat in hand[edit]

Like this? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much ... I couldn't find the right place to add that <sigh ... adult-onset something or another ... > SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bioidentical Hormone Replacement Therapy[edit]

I see you have commented on this article before. I have asked for input on a specific matter here Talk:Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy#Seeking input on terminology . I would appreciate it if you could take some time to review. There does not appear to have been any consensus reached in almost a year. Thanks Riverpa (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's too much POV pushing going on in that article to entice my sustained interest. When editors understand and adopt the requirements of WP:MEDRS, or if more editors who understand correct sourcing in medical articles begin editing, I will re-engage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

I noticed that the article Ram Narayan is at FAC and hasn't received any substantive reviews. Is it okay if I advertise this nomination at [[India notice board to attract reviewers, or is that likely to be construed as canvassing ? Abecedare (talk) 03:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, FACs are routinely announced at noticeboards at many WikiProjects. As long as the announcement is worded neutrally, there is no problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday tune[edit]

[1]. I cant say enough good things about this piece. Ceoil (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incase I might be able to help[edit]

Hi Sandy, I mostly do vandal patrol when I'm here. I just added Water fluoridation to my watchlist after seeing a comment you made to another editor about this article. I looked at the history section and saw that it is a target for vandalism. I am assuming that is because it's on the main page. If I can help with vandalism on articles that are being hit by vandals please do not hesitate to drop me a note of my talk page so that I can help. I usually do vandalism reverts though I do have some article of interest on my watchlist and I try to research to remove ^{[citation needed]} templates. I've also done images that I take myself that are needed (please see user page to see the small additions I've made if interested, if you can't take medically graphic pictures do not go.). I don't have a lot of images yet but I have a few more I may be adding that may be of use for some articles since I recently had neck surgery. I am losing my focus here, sorry. If I can help in any way please do not hesitate to let me know. I hope all is well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, wouldn't it make sense to protect or semi protect an article that is on the main page to prevent vandalism while it's in the spotlight like the main page? Also it looks like it's an FA article so the editing going on now esp. since it's on the main page looks bad, at least to me. I guess it's not done because this project is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit." Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer, CG! Yes, the main page TFA is not protected except in extreme situations; there's a Wiki page about that somewhere 'round here, but I don't know where to find it just now. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re[edit]

Thanks for the thanks. Much appreciated. Well done on your amazing FAC work, too. RB88 (T) 17:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attachment theory[edit]

Is that it then? It just drops off the bottom of the page and fails? Even when there are two reviewers who say they are in the middle of their considerations?Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's been up for 6 weeks without achieving consensus for promotion. There were still unstruck image issues, and with no action on the page for the last few days I was not hopeful that it would achieve consensus for promotion soon. Don't be disheartened - I suggest contacting those reviewers individually and asking for their feedback and then bring it back again. Karanacs (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image isues were resolved ages ago and I have addressed all the issues raised. I have already pinged editors who were in the middle of reviews anyway. "Disheartening" is hardly the word.Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read that New Scientist article? Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually yeah, I wasn't done reviewing so I was a little jarred. JoeSmack ^Talk 19:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fainites, I hope you can get Cas and JoeSmack to complete their reviews, and then it should do fine a second time through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do they complete their reviews when the page is archived? And what about BenDui, Fowler, Ealdgyth, images etc. Everyone has to start again? Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining issues can be addressed on talk, you can ping those editors and urge them to review, and images and sources, when already cleared, can be noted on the next FAC. The FAC page doesn't have to be open for editors to continue work, and when editors say they are reviewing but don't finish or don't support, that can be an indication they aren't yet satisfied, so working off-FAC can be more prodctive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you don't mind my saying so that all sounds a) very complicated and b) inherently unlikely to happen. Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much else we can do when a FAC is up six weeks and doesn't gain consensus to promote. Usually things work out the next time through, because the FAC page is less burdened, and others are more likely to review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. If the reviewers are hot to trot I'll stick it up again. Thanks. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Email[edit]

Ottava Rima (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter; diffs are diffs, no matter who presents them. "Constantly go after"? Not happening, never has. The mentors signed on to do a job, and some of them are doing it; those who aren't are hurting the person they're supposed to be helping. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See below as to exactly what diffs are not just diffs. People matter, and only people matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, people matter. This mess has now spread to at least seven user talk pages by my count, and there are probably more that I'm unaware of. Do those people count? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should reverse it. Why did it spread to so many talk pages? Because of the polarity of the individuals involved. No one, -no one- is being neutral. It requires a neutral person to effectively deal with the issue. That includes -both- sides. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is my opinion that Philcha infames and spreads the issues to multiple talk pages. Note the thread at Karanacs' page, for example, and the inflammation of the issues John Carter was trying to discuss with Mattisse. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know what your opinion is. I've seen it on at least 5 different pages for quite a while now. I have also seen your counter opinion to him, along with Karanacs and others. His view is more than enough balanced against. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that it will be necessary to request ArbCom to re-evaluate the system because it seems that only the ultra positive and the ultra negative involved, and only the pure neutral should be dealing with this. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For once, the monitoring page was working, and the mentors had addressed the issues; that should have been the end of that. John Carter nicely started a discussion on Mattisse's talk, trying to help her, and then another squabble started. Look at Mattisse's and Philcha's subsequent contributions to that discussion: IMO, you'll find the problems there. I suggested on one of the many talk pages where this mess has spread that the easiest way to get this mentorship to work for Mattisse and not against her is for Philcha to resign and let a neutral mentor take over. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Carter's talk page has been on my watchlist for a while. as well as Mattisse's. The events I saw do not correspond to your statements above. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you didn't say which part differs, there's nothing I can add. Besides, do we really need to discuss Mattisse's arb on yet another talk page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not want to discuss it here. I wanted to express the perception directly to you in a manner that would not embarrass you. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not likely to happen, since diffs speak for themselves :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the personal elements and the generalities as opposed to what may or may not have happened in the past 24 hours. You can feel free to remove this, or whatever you want. I mostly wanted to express my view and both of ours are rather known as of now. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not your fault, Sandy, but this type of thread is exactly why I don't have email enabled. Unit Anode 21:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the IDEA of the form[edit]

I'm not certain it will work, but in principle, it's a good idea. This whole thing is starting to feel like it's spinning a bit out-of-control, in my opinion, but hopefully the cooler heads amongst the mentors (SilkTork and Regents, particularly) will prevail, and progress will be made. Unit Anode 15:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patience :) G guy (and someone else, I forget which) said they couldn't really weigh in until Sunday, so hopefully a decent page structure will be put in place by then. I do wish ArbCom had approved a better working structure from the beginning-- that might have helped avoid these months of free-for-all. I hope the example will give them something to work with as they finalize a more effective page structure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patience is a virtue, after all, right? :) From my perspective, I've brought them two issues, simply from things I noted on my watchlist, and have spent more time fending off a couple of the mentors (including one who's basically implying that I'm lying), than anything else. I've worked out a system for myself, though, by which if any further problematic things pop on my watchlist, I'll just ping SilkTork and let him deal with it. I'll leave that lion's den at the monitoring/mentoring page to you and Moni, thanks! :) Unit Anode 15:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't count on me! My attention span for dealing with the antics there will wane quickly.[2] I've tried everything I can to prevent Mattisse from being brought back to ArbCom, concerned that the mentors aren't helping her case, but most of us seem powerless to really effect any change to that dysfunctional system. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For a "fun" trip through the mind of one of her mentors, see the thread on my talkpage (I think it's called "Just stop") where I outline his basic justification for "banning" me from his talkpage. Also, the fearless Philcha later "banned" me from the monitoring pages, long after I'd already foresworn posting there ever again. It was beginning to feel like I was in the midst of some odd, 3-ring circus of some sort. Unit Anode 15:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you won't mind if I say no, thanks! I have work to do on Wiki, and I try to avoid unnecessary agida as much as I can :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on! It's a fun trip, I promise! :) As for the real work on the wiki, I should probably get back to my own. If you're interested in rather obscure state politicians, whom the Ku Klux Klan thought it necessary to assassinate, stop on by and pitch in! Unit Anode 15:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got all the fun I can handle at the moment :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom clarification on Mattisse's Plan[edit]

Request opened by Moni3 here. --Moni3 (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll weigh in after you copyedit it so we don't ec :) :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done making notifications. --Moni3 (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rev[edit]

see reply/article. Simply south (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, should i have raised that i thought the article should be reviewed or should i have just been bold, of which i partly done the second? Simply south (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see Iri has this one ... ummmmm ... under control :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for the welcome. :) Bitcloud1 (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I tried to fix what I think was a formatting error. Would you mind checking it out to make sure I fixed it to your preference? (at the above user's talk page) It's snowing in NJ–again! ceranthor 20:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ceranthor. I think it's a problem with that template, but I've never taken the time to sort it out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your revision - Autism Speaks[edit]

Edit summary: not a rs, please supply a source that conforms with WP:V and WP:RS, not an advocacy site

How is an advocacy site an apparent automatic failure of WP:V and WP:RS? AinslieL (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basshunter vandalism[edit]

you removed my info cuz you said it was vandalism? how do you know he's not gay. I live in sweden and I know what is said in the newspapers and what I wrote was the truth, don't be so fast removing things before you know the facts first thank you very much (talk)

I made no such statement;[3] BLP violations are different than vandalism. Please read WP:BLP for the sourcing requirements needed for the kind of content you added. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you. I'm new at this so bare with me :) I'm sorry and have a great weekend :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigge365 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supernatural (season 1)[edit]

Hi. I was wondering why Supernatural (season 1) was not promoted to featured article status? It was nominated for a couple weeks, and all the concerns were addressed. Thanks. Ophois (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ophois. In no way do I speak for Sandy, but it seems likely that the FAC was archived simply because of a lack of support (or constructive opposition that could lead to support if addressed). To promote the article, the delegates require thorough reviews that lead to several independent editors' formally lodging their support. With no new comments at the FAC for nine days, it unfortunately seems like it became one of those that just stalled; when that happens, there's an ever-decreasing likelihood of attracting new reviews. It's understandably annoying when that occurs, but please don't be disheartened. WP:FAC is continually backlogged, and it happens from time to time. If you still feel the article meets the featured article criteria, there's nothing to stop your renominating it, though due to the aforementioned backlog it's usually considered good form to wait at least two weeks before doing so. All the best, and good luck. Steve ^T • C 00:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Ophois (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Steve. Also see here; when subsequent reviewers identify significant deficiencies (for example, in the sourcing), I give less weight to early supports. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apology[edit]

What I wrote in the RfCl was unfair. Sorry. I have since scratched out my comments. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Fowler; I won't have time to get there today for a look, but I do appreciate that. "Growin' old ain't for sissies." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:) Yeah, I know the feeling. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know you were only trying to soothe the anxious gossipers on someoneortheother's talk page, but inputs from me don't usually result in restarts. Please see User:Fowler&fowler/My_2009_FAC_reviews. There is only one restart there in 24 inputs. In my opinion, restarts often result from nominators whose ambition, insecurity, and aggression outstrip their ability and effort. As you will also see, in my own FAC, I am always respectful of reviewers. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 09:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some respect of nominators would be appreciated and help improve the environment at FAC. Comments like "nominators whose ambition, insecurity, and aggression outstrip their ability and effort" are unhelpful, unnecessary, and detrimental to a collegial working environment. Comments like "you use the word "wittering" again as a verbal noun, please be aware that it is only a verb or adjective in the way you have used it; as a verbal noun, it means hint or sign" in a FAC are off-topic, insulting, and lower you to the level of the lamest flame of them all: the spelling and grammar flame, typically used in the absence of a stronger argument. Please take the same advice that would help your mentee: treat people as you want to be treated. Your comments above are no way to talk about other editors on a volunteer project. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, fair enough, I'll make a renewed effort to be more sensitive in my comments, but you do realize that I wasn't the one who first made the insulting remarks in that FAC. I was only using grammar to chide Skinny87 it was who made fun of my "voluminous wittering." And it is Iridescent who is first insulting in the FAC review. I made a simple post with a few comments; it was s/he whose response was insulting (talking about endless rambling etc. etc. and assuming familiarity with me, when I've had no previous interaction with him/her). It was s/he who made unnecessary remarks in the Mandell Creighton edit summary about shutting me up. How come you said not a word to them? And shouldn't an FAC director not be stoking the flames of gossip on a user talk page? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no idea how old you are F&f, but that reads to me remarkably like the kind of thing a kid would say. "Please Miss, Johhny started it." --Malleus Fatuorum 13:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, gee, when I get down to everyone else's level, they get sore. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More sensitive would help, along with recognizing when demands are individual rather than based on WP:WIAFA. Who starts something doesn't interest me as much as who stops it; regardless, you are frequently in the mix, at FAC and here on my talk page. Restarts at FAC are very rare; yes, you are often a contributor on those rare occasions IMO. I can't see or follow every FAC edit summary in real time, nor should it be my job to intervene when participants are uncivil at FAC, as that could be viewed as compromising my neutrality. On that FAC, I simply drew a line in the sand when I became aware, and then watchlisted the FAC; now I will see all edit summaries and subsequent commentary in real time. I can't do that on 50 FACs at once. If any one else contributes to the civility and off-topic issues, I'll move the posts. It's very simiple; treat others as you want to be treated. I'm glad you were respectful to reviewers on your FAC, but you should be equally respectful of other nominators' efforts. This is a volunteer project; the efforts of good-faith editors should not be belittled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

F&F, your view is certainly not the only I have seen, but it is the latest and it prompts me to ask why adults continue to use it. I saw this when I taught 10-year-olds, and although it was depressing to see it, I expected it somewhat of them. One boy slapped another and when he was admonished, he claimed the other boy should have been punished or chastised for not moving his face quickly enough. I seek to understand this. You're here and I'm taking advantage of the opportunity, although I reiterate that I do not see this only in you: What is the connection between your self esteem/self concept and the satisfaction that other editors get chided? At what point do people ever grow out of it? It's as if you are unable to accept responsibility that you are not being constructive until many other people share the blame. Is that it? Is the feeling of being chastised lessened when others are also yelled at? What would happen if you simply ended the post above with "Fair enough"?

I participate in FAC because I enjoy being intellectually challenged and having complex discussions about interesting topics, and it seems this is the only place on Wikipedia to do this. I don't want to be a part of a society that mirrors the behavior of recalcitrant 10-year-olds. I'm running out of places to go. There must be a place where people see what is wrong and make a conscious decision not to be as wrong as what they see, but rise above it. Where the hell is it? I'll go right now. --Moni3 (talk) 14:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its not so much the sense that I want others yelled at, but more that I don't see the process improve. I feel that cliques have formed, that members of those cliques are submitting sub-standard articles for FAC and have been for ages (which accounts for their chest full of bronze stars), and when I challenge them, they have decided—now that I'm well known—that the best form of dealing with criticism is to go on the offensive. This can be done by being insulting and provoking me or abusing the meaning of "inactionable" by wanting to have a reviewer's suggestions spoon fed. I too come here because it is intellectually stimulating; however, when the process degenerates, as it did in Hurricane Grace (1991) (please read that FAC review), when buddies line up to express easy support (such as Iridescent and Ottava Rima did for Hurricane Grace, and Julian Colton did for Mandell Creighton and Ode on indolence (the latter prefaced by "I don't know anything about poetry, but ..."), the FAC review becomes a farce. That is what is frustrating, that some ~~childish~~ editors who have hitherto had an easy pass on FAC review, and are now being challenged, are detracting from the intellectual value of the review. Please look at User:Fowler&fowler/My_2009_FAC_reviews. Why is it that I never have the same problems with user:Awadewit, user:Karanacs, user:Slim Virgin, user:Auntieruth55, user:Finetooth and a host of other editors, even ones I oppose, such as User:Davemeistermoab, who turn around and give me a barnstar? Anyway, I hear you. Both of you. I'll make another effort. Thanks for taking the time to express your dissatisfaction. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be that you approach those editors' FACs differently than those you describe as "nominators whose ambition, insecurity, and aggression outstrip their ability and effort"? Just food for thought; perchance, review your own contributions to the resulting acrimony. Anyway, I hope we all understand each other now, and everyone will work towards the same goal: more civility at FAC, and FACs that stay on topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My support on Mandell Creighton had nothing to do with me being the nominator's "buddy". I found the article via the WP:FAC TOC and thought it would be an interesting read, and decided to post on the discussion page. If you're going to incorrectly accuse me of such things, please at least contact me on my talk page so I have the chance to defend myself. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

F&F: there is no value in calling folks "childish editors". Period. No matter what they have called you, it doesn't mean you should do that. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks, Ealdgyth. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for striking, F&F; as I said, I'm more interested in who stops squabbling than who started them, and striking is a good-faith way to demonstrate that one "gets it". Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Max Weber[edit]

I've just discovered your talk page comment from August, and concur that a FAR (or at least a sudden improvement drive) might be necessary. SGGH ^ping! 19:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I barely remember that :) I put a note on talk to see if anyone will clean up articles, so they can avoid FAR. If that hasn't happened, it may be time for a FAR nom (but I don't have time). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ping[edit]

Incoming; but dont worry - your not in trouble! Ceoil (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

but, but ... my middle name is Trouble! Plugging down my list after being out all day ... I'll get there! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dont try and fool me. We all know your middle name is ted, ted. Ceoil (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Post no-show[edit]

Re this, I emailed the reporter some days ago but have had no response. I'm ready to oblige, but I don't think he wants to talk to me. Ah, well. Brianboulton (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying, Brian. Perhaps he's just busy; I haven't heard back from him either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reporters often work on tight deadlines, and sometimes have their editorial calendars rearranged. You have to be quick, as in 20 minutes, or these opportunities may evaporate. Jehochman ^Talk 20:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Je ... I did get back to him in less than 12 hours, with the suggestion that he contact Brian directly. Oh, well :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He contacted me directly, and I have replied. I am waiting too. I think there is not as tight a deadline for this as other things he's working on, and that he is busy. I'm around if he gets back to me. --Aude (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refs following punctuation[edit]

Where is the MOS for refs following punctuation? I got a question at Talk:Pennsylvania/GA1‎.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PAIC. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting: that page is incomplete. It fails to mention that placement after emdashes is different. I think that's at WP:FN. Wha' happened there ???? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue; faulty recommendation there on a GA review. The last time I intervened in a GA when a faulty recommendation was given, it led to arbitration. Are Malleus or G guy following ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty poor review on a number of different levels I think, not least of which is the reviewer's misunderstanding of citations in relation to punctuation, and demanding alt text. I've made my point at the review. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Malleus; I hesitate to weigh in at GAN, because of the results after the last time, when I merely commented that citations in a lead were sometimes OK, leading to a number of "those" attacks on me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recall that Marskell and I had something of a disagreement ages ago about citations in the lead, in which he was wrong and I was right, but he refused to admit it. :lol: Anyway, more seriously, I don't like to see reviews like that one, focusing on the nitpicky details of MoS compliance and minor copyediting concerns. That's not what GA is about for me, so you let me know if anyone attacks you over this and I'll sort them out for you. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus, you dirty devil; how can you speak thusly about dear Marskell, and make me laugh at the same time? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The focus of GA is one of the many issues where Malleus and I are in complete agreement. Indeed we were discussing precisely this only a couple of days ago at User talk:Iridescent. Anyway, I'm glad to see Malleus is offering a second opinion on the article. Geometry guy 19:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asperger edits[edit]

It took me a long time to sort out what your minor edits were (my problem, my eyesight); would you mind including more in your edit summaries? Just saying "comma" or "punctuation" would do the trick. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Will try. Iota (talk)

To sleep, perchance to edit....[edit]

Dear Sandy, I wondered if your question about Nature might have something to do with an edit on 28 February 2008? Ben Mac Dui 18:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ben; I never did have time to track that down, but I remain unconvinced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFA threshold[edit]

I don't think any RFA is safely, even if it gets down to 60% support or whatever. The only ones that are safe are those below 40% from candidates with no allies. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know; I really showed my ignorance on that one :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should have seen the Sean Black 2. The closing crat voted support, and then shouted at the opposers. They were well known IRC buddies. There's less warlordism and cronyism nowadays, but you can still get the Ton That Dinhs of the world... YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It really was different in "the olden days", huh? LOL ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not just RfA, everything. I'm currently working on Neville Chamberlain which had a FAC in 2005, giggle giggle giggle ("if inline citations are now the de facto norm I will give up nominating featured article candidates"). I expect its second FAC (December?) to be slightly more, er, involved! Still writing ...--Wehwalt (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! And ALoan was an exceptional editor, too! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes!! He was!! Jehochman ^Talk 03:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clever, clever, Je :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interview[edit]

May I interview you for the Wikipedia Signpost? Please respond on my talkpage ASAP. Secret Saturdays (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably not the best time for me to try to carve out time for this ... maybe in a month or so? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#fourth lev headers Dabomb87 (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, as you requested[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of no hours and no minutes for your gross flouting of WP:CIV and WP:NPA against one of our most valued editors here [4].. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

Pedro : Chat 21:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You dork; just wait 'til April Fools comes 'round !! In my defense, I submit that calling a stupid hammer a dork is not an insult. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On balance, your defence makes perfect sense. Accordingly I have not undone my non-block ..... Happy editing Sandy and thanks for indulging my sense of "humour" :) Pedro : Chat 21:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, your steet cred has gone through the roof with this! With the wrong people, unfortunately. Ceoil (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the "wrong people" would be ...? Pedro : Chat 22:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the likes of me, for a start. I have a list of ten other 'wrong' wikipedians, which I am too timid to post here, but I have forwarded to arbcom. Beware; you or your neighbour or your neighbour's friend, could be one ;) Malleus is screwed, I will say that. . Ceoil (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FA maximum length[edit]

Sandy, you said the current longest FA is about 14,000 words. Would you consider this to be an upper bound for the Inner German border article, or should I be aiming for a lower target? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIZE is a guideline; there isn't necessarily an upper bound, just precedents in previous FAs and reviewer consensus. I will add my own experience, though; when I travel, both in the US and overseas, I am frequently forced to a dialup or a slow connection. In those cases, I can't access about the top quarter of FAs by size, and I can't even pull up diffs for vandal fighting on them ... just something to consider if you want the article to be readable to people who don't have fast connections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ram Narayan/archive1[edit]

Hello, I wonder why this was not promoted? Lack of reviewers' interest, I suppose. Nevertheless, the reviewers-- Hamiltonstone ("all points have been addressed, thanks") and RB88's concerns were satisfied. Curious. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.31.26 (talk) 08:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The FAC had been up for almost three weeks, with no Support declarations. See the WP:FAC instructions; articles can't be promoted without support from reviewers. The article can be brought back to FAC in a few weeks for a new look. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Case[edit]

Spurred by ill-informed comments of Carcharoth's this morning, and by the comments a couple of sections up on this page. I have come to the regrettable conclusion that we cannot all keep taking this quietly and lying down. The headbanging, and departures have to stop. With that in mind, I'm assembling (publicly and honestly) an arbitration case concerning Mattisse and her behaviour. The last one failed to solve the problem, this one must not fail. Rather than do this by secret emails or a mailng list, I think it best to assemble the case here in public. It needs to be strongly presented and cast iron in its proof of the long term and unresolved problems that we all have with this editor. I've started the ball rolling here:User:Giano/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case - please add any diffs or coments to the talk page, you feel will be of use. We need our voice to be firmly heard without being moved, drowned or otherwise lost. Mattisse and her "mentors" can refute the diffs when it goes officially into mainspace. This problem has to be solved, once and for all - without the confusion. Giano (talk) 11:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be wiser to wait to see the results of the request for clarification; depending on the outcome of that, a new arbitration case may not be necessary right now. Karanacs (talk) 01:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have agreed with you for certain, Karanacs, before Carcharoth posted his last. Now, I'm not so sure. U A 01:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It will be a while before I have time to look, so for now I have two thoughts: 1) Tony's efforts for ArbCom reform may need to incorporate the alarming ways this case has been handled-- twice now, arbs have stifled feedback at the one place where all issues should be thoroughly reviewed, in favor of waiting for a "report" that suffers from ascertainment bias, and although Giano stayed out yet Mattisse and her mentor brought him up in continued grudge-bearing behavior, no action was taken other than to silence those "plagued"; and 2) there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of diffs supporting the history of the issues. I think it will be important to avoid re-hashing the RFC and presenting all of the issues, focusing instead on the most egregious. It's apparent that the issue is so complex that at least one arb isn't following, and an ArbCom 101 version might be more effective. Have you considered that there's more than one way to skin a cat, and an ArbCom recall effort might be a better use of your time at this point? What will be gained by again bringing an issue before ArbCom, when it wasn't handled the first time? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Struck per this update. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom recall? Does such a process even exist? And are you certain that the misapprehensions of two arbitrators is worth such a drastic measure? U A 14:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The arb who made the first unfortunate comment has since struck that comment; I do not have an issue with two arbs, and I stand by all of the votes I registered in last year's arb elections. My concerns about one arb were recorded here; I have not had time to review other ArbCom cases to see if my concerns have been borne out in other cases, and I'm a bit hamstrung in this case because I don't reveal private e-mail. I do, however, regret that my repulsion for revealing private email prevented me from bringing forward the disgusting canvassing that resulted in an ArbCom appointment of a different arb. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well in my view it was not appropriate to ask for an official "mentors report" in the first place given one of the main issues was accusations that mentors at best ignored issues and at worst functioned as enablers. This issue should have been looked at clearly first. They are not going to agree that they have functioned this way. Even now it isn't clear whether they are aware of all the issues there have been. One draft of the report dealt with the entire Munchausens by Internet/Moni3 business with the words "another challenge met". This would actually be funny if the plague list editors weren't human beings. It just adds to the train wreck nature of these proceedings. Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not inappropriate to the extent that we have appointed Arbs who have the ability to understand ascertainment bias, and a forum which allows full and thorough feedback from all involved parties. That these two conditions are met is no longer apparent. The requested report, as of the last version I saw, has numerous serious flaws, but it seems it's not in our best interest to continue discussing them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also thought that "Another challenge met" was fairly laughable as I don't think it has been resolved at all and my opinion as the one who threw a hissyfit was not solicited. My capacity to be surprised by Mattisse's mentors knows no bounds. Compounded with the hostile responses from arbs intoning that those who are raising a stink should be punished in some way... none of this is logical. It's simply counterintuitive. I can say nothing constructive about it. I have to withdraw from this process or lose faith entirely in this community and move on somewhere else. It's just...bad...all of it. There is no possibility to be proud of what we have learned. I don't know what else to say about it. --Moni3 (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to withdraw because I have simply far too much work to do to be drawn again into the Mattisse vortex. I hope I can confine my input from here forward to simply noting when something is inaccurate, and leave it to the illustrious mentors and arbs to figure out why. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But they won't "figure out why", if all the sensible people being damaged by this debacle simply drop out. It will become little more than an echo chamber resounding with cries of "another challenge met." U A 15:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They will eventually: patience, my dear, patience. Perhaps you weren't around for the infamous Cla68 ArbCom. We do have some exceptionally good arbs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thoroughly disgusted by that very clear threat to sanction anyone complaining about Mattisse. I know who I'd be sanctioning right now, the one making that threat. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is that, once you start revealing private e-mail, you harm yourself more than you help the case, by losing the trust of everyone, even good faith editors, who rely on your confidence. But. ArbCom has issues. Another concern here is the (or at least, what I believe to be) record number of recusals from the case because so many arbs have had run-ins with Mattisse. ArbCom is also hamstrung in this case, and it's not their fault; I don't know what can be done about this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping Giano, might reconsider a full case - this has been enough of a time sink for everyone already. I've posted a bit of a summary and a few suggestions on the clarifcation page here. Sorry Malleus, I've rather taken your name in vane, but the current mentors don't even think that your exasperation is worthy of mention. Given you were one of the mentors that left I beg to differ. Hopefully this will be read alongside Sandy's diffs re. FAR and FAC issues since 1st July too. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent additions look to be very effective feedback (I hope you aren't drawn into the vortex as a result :); perhaps it took a fresh set of previously uninvolved eyes to cut through and summarize the issues as well as you have. I, too, would not look forward to having to revisit this matter in yet another ArbCom; it has already taken too much time from some of Wiki's most productive editors. At this point, I'm more concerned about the notion of one arb silencing feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dah - that (stiffling feedback) will come out in the wash I'm sure. When I think about all those involved - all good editors, and I include Mattisse in that for her article work, it seems such a ludicrous situation. Best to find a way we can all get on with out lives and make better use of our time. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, not all of the mentors are suffering Lima Syndrome; Geometry guy remains steady, but he defined a limited role for his participation from the outset. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed - damn, I meant to read it through to say 'some mentors'......thanks. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ! Your post shows how a previously uninvolved editor can be more effective (than the rest of us, who are simply worn out and frustrated by the ongoing disruption, and perhaps expect the issues to be more apparent than they are to a busy and hamstrung ArbCom). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am going to press on with the case - it cannot make things any worse. Her mentors and Arbs are treating us like shit, worse in fact, with utter contempt - why? I have no idea. If one avoids, one is dragged in, if one responds one risks saction, well let's hear how the Arbs justify this, so far they seem reluctant to do anything hoping the problem will go away - us being the problem. The only thing that will stop me, is if an arb comes to my page and asks how they can help resolve this. In the meantime I am pressing on, I reckon it will take me another 48 hours or so. Then I'm running with it.Giano (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be able to review your efforts in that time frame; I have a houseguest due any moment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has done a lot of mentoring, may I offer a few observations? When mentorship works it is almost always voluntary and apolitical: the mentor remains in the background and the success of the mentorship is measured by the mentoree's conduct. Two or three years ago, if an individual sought mentorship during arbitration it was at the individual's initiative, and the Committee weighed that as a sign the person recognized they weren't perfect and wanted to improve. That's a positive sign, but only one positive sign: actual improvement needed to follow.

Mentorship is not a panacea. It isn't even appropriate all of the time. Here's a classic quote from an unsuccessful mentorship:

In essence mentorship works extremely well - I've never been asked to stop doing anything (that I can think of?) and I'm empowered to ignore all complaints raised against me, because of course they should, naturally, go to my mentor.

This year's Arbitration Commmittee has attempted to use mentorship in ways that really set the whole thing up for failure: nearly any editor who has conduct problems will accept mentorship as an alternative to involuntary sanctions. It's the difference between leading a horse to water and making it drink: the individuals who actually want to change usually seek out advice without external structure or prompting. The ones who don't want to change play a political game where they position the mentors as insulation between bad conduct and its normal consequences. Usually they're more subtle than the individual quoted above: when interacting with the mentors they'll be affable, endearing, and follow trivial guidance in order to string the mentors along while the major problems continue unchanged.

The latter scenario is exhausting for everyone; it prolongs conflicts and burns out good volunteers. Politicized mentorships can even result in offsite harassment to the mentor. I've explained this to ArbCom backwards and forwards but they haven't wanted to hear it. Involuntary mentorship has become in 2009 what discretionary sanctions were in 2008: the snake oil remedy that ArbCom just keeps buying. So I'm sitting back and watching this play out. If this analysis is too pessimistic then everybody wins, and if it's right then eventually everybody will agree with it. Sometimes people really need to see for themselves. So there's a historic portrait of a Medal of Honor recipient that needs another edit, and perhaps if you're patient enough to read to the end of this, Sandy, I'll translate more French and German sources to get Jean Desbouvrie to FAC (he'd be a good April Fool's FA). Best wishes with patience, Durova³⁴⁰ 17:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Durova, I have just had about enough as I can take of thie whole debacle [5]. Let's get the show on the road and this problem sorted. The Arbcom must be forced into maing a decision one way otr the other. what fool appointed these particulat mentors needs firing, but this needs sorting and sorting fast. I will not be pushed about by th elikes of "these mentors" - some may be able to bear it, but I can't. Giano (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vassyana's threats[edit]

I was about to post at the Clarification place, to supply a few examples of abuse by Mattisse in September-October, according to her request. But when I saw Vassyana's scolding and threats, directed it seems at anybody who criticizes Mattisse or her mentors ("Out of the gate, a set of editors has continued to assume bad faith" etc etc ... "if the mentorship fails, I will be seeking sanctions against those who have engaged in the baiting and incivility") I lost momentum. Not that I'm scared of Vassyana's or for that matter Carcharoth's "sanctions", you understand. Nope, not personally. I'm always prepared to leave if required to, even though leaving over Mattisse is not quite the dignified sweeping-out exit I had in mind. The problem with speaking is rather that Vassyana has tipped the whole thing so far over into the Kafkaesque. Not even naming his "set" of editors? Leaving us all with the question "am I in that Set? Will sanctions be sought against me? Dare I be critical?" I can't believe what's happening here. Is there any point in Joseph K speaking out, to this court? Bishonen | talk 02:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not paying much attention to that circus any more, but I thought Vassyana had struck those comments? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shrug. I may have got it wrong, but I sure don't see any strikeout through the comments. It says "collapse" here, which is the only place I can find those lines. (I could have gone blind, I suppose... they ought to be in one other place, certainly.) Anyway, this is an arb I'm talking about. I'd fucking well like to see a strikethrough and/or a heartfelt apology. This guy supported Bishzilla's RFA![6] Bah! Bishonen | talk 03:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

OK, very busy here, but I took a quick look: the statement of concern was struck: "~~However, if the mentorship fails, I will be seeking sanctions against those who have engaged in the baiting and incivility that contributed to the poisonous atmosphere and failure.~~" [7] I stand by my votes in the last elections, but am concerned about the high number of recusals in this case, and Arb burnout; both may have led to a dilution of reason :) I don't follow ArbCom closely enough to know if this trainwreck is an aberration; the other two cases I was involved in proceeded more "normally" (for a Wiki :), so I hope these problems will be worked out, if not in this case, in the next elections. I'm curious as to why we have this "Request for clarification" format, as I'm not sure how proposed decisions and Arb voting work in such a chaotic format. Mattisse has been involved in disputes for as long as she's been on Wiki, and these kinds of problems tend to self-correct with time-- no reason for more good editors to leave! Have a glass of wine, and don't let it get to the 'zilla! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk)

Mhm. Dilution of frontal lobes. Phrenological Dilution. He should never have come to these parts, to cause a dilution of the icecap and polar bears diluted to flatness. And if he loses his fur hat, there will be further Dilution of sensibleness. [/me keeps an eye on Bishzilla, to see if she seems inclined to reassemble the little user by stuffing him in warm cozy pocket.] Apparently not. Oh well. [Zilla twirls wineglass like a connoisseur. ] Zilla need wine! Bring demijohn, please! bishzilla _ROARR!! 05:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I learned a new word today. Before clicking the link I thought a "demijohn" was half of a toilet. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently your mind is cleaner than mine. I've caught up over there now; ~~arb impartiality and diligence has absented the premises.~~ I've made some brief (well, brief for me, anyway :) responses, but it's 3 am and I don't have much time or patience for the circus anymore. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are Vassyana and Carcharoth the only two arbs left to deal with this matter? Perhaps if we could get the other available arbs to, you know, actually arbitrate this matter, all the threats and silencing will go away? Yeah, I know, I have pie in the sky dreams, but wouldn't it be nice if at least one other arb had the guts to say...anything? Tex (talk) 15:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are all very busy, and too many have had to recuse (not a good situation). ~~On the other hand, I'm very concerned if they have left this in the hands of Carcharoth, as he is not demonstrating either impartiality or an ability to calm a difficult situation.~~ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Struck per this update. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are both Brad and Risker recused? Because both of them have been relatively active, as far as editing, since the initial request was posted. Frankly, if Vassayana and Carcharoth are the only two arbs that will be dealing with this matter, I'm going to go the clarification page, strike everything I've written there, and just let Mattisse have the run of the place. I'm completely beaten down by this. Now she's posting massive lists of unrelated diffs claiming I've been harassing her. I've had about my fill of this whole mess, and I'm really wishing that SV's talkpage hadn't been on my talkpage, as that's the way I was drawn into this whole mess, as a completely uninvolved editor, because no matter the scare quotes Mattisse puts around "uninvolved", that's what I was. I'm not going to deal with these two arbitrators enabling Mattisse's casting aspersions on me and others. U A 20:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember who all is recused, and don't have time to look. NYB is not; Risker is. Several arbs are not active, so the remaining committee is small. I was also drawn into the whole mess by being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and trying to help Mattisse, so I sympathize with you. Don't worry about her unrelated diffs; the arbs will sort that, and they don't help her case. She should be spending her time addressing the issues about her behavior, rather than deflecting them to others like Giano and you, and the arbs have already noted that, yet she continues. You have nothing to worry about, so let it go. I have to advocate for a plan that will get FAC and FAR some break in the relentless issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement. I think, for my own peace of mind, I'm going to unwatchlist that clarification page. If you think of it, would you let me know if Vassayana or Carcharoth decides that I'm one of the "others" who needs "sanctioned"? U A 21:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can't make that promise; I really do not have time for this, have other pressing duties, and am beginning to resent how long this has gone on. Many of Wiki's most productive editors are involved, and it's unfair to everyone. I can't follow closely. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right. It was a rather inconsiderate request. I guess if they decide to "sanction" me, they're required to leave some note to that effect at my talkpage afterward anyways. And knowing in advance that they were considering it would only cause more stress, as -- from their current stance -- there would be little use in defending myself. Thanks again for your counsel. U A 21:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well Dunn sources[edit]

How exactly are the sources supposed to be "worked-out"? I responded to every query with detailed information, showing that everything comes from either a reliable source (eg. the National Wrestling Alliance is obviously an authority on wrestling) or self-published sources that meet all of the criteria at WP:SPS. Nobody had the decency to respond. It sat there for weeks. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that it's possible that no one responded because they didn't think the sourcing was adequate; bringing it back without doing additional work in that area may result in same. Sources can be reviewed at WP:RS/N, taking into account the Dispatch that I posted on the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, if people pay attention to the criteria for reliable sources, it may not result in same. Either way, a yes or no response would obviously be more appropriate than endless silence. I have provided replies to everything, and I await a response from someone on the FAC. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Also, two very ill-prepared FAC noms SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I think if we find the right channel for the enthusiasm the user could be a net positive. Clearly does need some guidance at this stage however. SilkTork *^YES! 18:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gray's Inn[edit]

Certainly law; it's essentially a bar association with lots of bells and whistles. Ironholds (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all but one already, and left a comment on the FAC page. Thanks for your comments so far; everything that improves the article is helpful. Ironholds (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seton Hall FAC[edit]

Please see my comments suggesting archival here. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 11:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I 'll have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAC...[edit]

I should be able to do a source check sometime today... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth, what are you doing up so early? I just lost three responses to edit conflict! :)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I woke up? Well, I"m in the process of doing so... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll never get that diplomat's job with the Foreign Office ....[edit]

I should have been more diplomatic. Sorry. An FAC isn't the place to vent my frustration. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus, you curmudgeon, I think I'm getting to you :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: User_talk:Risker#Quandary[edit]

You were very vague in mentioning your evidence offwiki about As instructed.

I am not interested in who As instructed is, I am just wondering why you didn't add those external links. Is there some policy on this? Page? Thank you in advance. Ikip (talk) 07:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's no policy, and I don't think there's enough evidence to move forward anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAR far FAR[edit]

Hi Sandy. Given that the page has shrunk by half and is now easy to go through again, I wonder if you might retake up the "one last look" comments you used to provide on the reviews at the bottom of the page? They seem to be sitting up an awful long time, just needing one or two more declarations. ("Keepish" rather than "keep", as I think of them.)

Of course, I'm not really in a position to be asking for anybody's time :). Marskell (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry; I've got some time over the next few days, and happy to comply. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, it's the bottom of the FAR section rather than the FARC section that could use some last comments at the moment. Marskell (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I'll get to them after two Excedrin. Oh, forgot, I'm allergic; Excedrin might be suicide LOL !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I need a cup of your coffee. I just nommed an article at FAR (for like the third time ever) and it took me half-an-hour. Marskell (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, none left-- I just finished off yesterday's cold pot! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of none left, am I correct that all of Emsworth's are done?

Brewing your own coffee is one of life's joys, incidentally. Marskell (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will check once the headache subsides. I consider things other than brewing coffee among life's joys :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee tastes like mud anyway, What you need is a good strong cup of tea; milk, no sugar. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I need is a swift kick to the head. Or scotch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a Emsworth re-FAR in July/August, so some of the already passed FARs might get more scrutiny over some things YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YM, I didn't make it there today: maybe tomorrow. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Anne of Great Britain/archive2 YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Email[edit]

- Ottava Rima (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darn it, why now; can you see I'm busy? <smile> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, curses; thank you, Ottava. <sigh> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to warn you about the name of the game. It appears that there are four people (both sides) that seem to be doing the above. Fun, right? I think maybe Malleus and I should probably vanish, but, you know, we would be so easy to spot. My alternate name is well-known and I am quite fond of it, so I would hate to lose it. By the way, on a separate matter - Mattisse has stated that there was some rule or something that people that she is not to edit articles of people she has had disputes over? I would really like an exception for some of my articles so I can actually have her edit in an almost invisible area that could use some interest with no possibility of damage (there are a few articles about 18th century hymnals that -no one- really seems to bother with besides me) and I think it would be good to have her do at least something positive. I'm not a mentor, and I don't really care about the drama. I just want to put people to work in my areas because we have no one and if I can muscle people into doing work then all the better. I can't finish these topics on my own. ;/ Ottava Rima (talk) 03:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about these alternate names: guess my head is in the sand, other than those that are clearly revealed (Bish, etc.). I don't know anything of Mattisse being asked not to edit. G guy and I once floated a proposal to keep Mattisse involved at FAC, on the talk pages if necessary or in cases of prior dispute or if new disputes arose. That died when Ling.Nut weighed in with rather outlandish charges. The solution to this dilemma is not in my power to influence, with the arb threats being registered on the Requests page. It seems we shouldn't present possible solutions, helpful background, or in some cases even necessary evidence to provide context, so I really can't add much to your concern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts are that when people don't have contact with other people, there can be no fighting between said people. Everyone to their own area, no community forums, no myspacing, no ability to search for names or contributions. ;/ That will fix everything. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My first op ed at The Signpost: "Someone Should Fix All the Problems". --Moni3 (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TFA[edit]

A new permanent job, perhaps YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recusals[edit]

This is my official notification that I'm hereby recused from closing any FAC on the article Catholic Church, and from archiving any FAC nominated by User:NancyHeise, as my neutrality could be questioned. I'm making this very public (since this talk page is watched by half the wiki) so there will be no question in the future that I might be abusing my position. Sorry to leave them for you - I know 40-page FACs are just your cup of tea! Karanacs (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, then I think there could never be a Catholic Church related FAC closure, as everyone in the whole world seems to be involved in that case. ;/ Ottava Rima (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly seems to be a possibility! We may have to grab some random person off the street and let them close it ;) (yes, that is a joke). Karanacs (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava, we will cross that bridge when/if we come to it. (Where is Malleus when I need tea?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we just put that page in its own category and separate out all of the ultra controversial pages? ;/ I will now recuse myself from every further comment regarding the matter and declare CoI to prohibit me from being dragged into any madness. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Colm ^Talk 18:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Graham; you're always so thoughtful ! (I 'spose Malleus hasn't offered me tea becuase I called him a "dork" :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damn right, I was really hurt by that! ;-) I could offer you some very nice Talisker though. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted ! And I'll have you know that my very uncomplicated son proudly wore a t-shirt that said "DORK" when he was 11, so I consider it a term of endearment :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested that an uninvolved party take over the monitoring of that page for compliance with RFC conventions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Making a discussion archive section[edit]

Hi SandyGeorgia,
I don't know if I started making the discussion archives right.
I think they're more like articles, and I don't want to edit more and goof.
Here is the link to where I'm referring to [8]
I added the {{talk archive}} template on the top and bottom of each archive page.
Could you check if I did it right or if we should get an adminastator to delete it.
Thanx!
ATC^{. Talk} 21:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at that after dinner, ATC; not to worry, if anything is goofed up, we'll get an admin to fix it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Actually, two minutes before you responded, someone did here. Thanx anyway. ATC^{. Talk} 21:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good news ! Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prairie Avenue TFAR points[edit]

Please read discussion regarding third point and comment constructively regarding the point or leave it alone. Current discussion supports three points. You must have skimmed discussion and missed the extra point.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I did miss the relevant part, being snarky about it won't help me find it, now will it, TTT? SandyGeorgia (Talk)

And now that I have found it, I see that Wehwalt concurs with three points, but updating the point tally at the top of the blurb argument would be helpful in the future. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't mean to be snarky. I meant that if you were disagreeing with the points comment and we can discuss it. I guess I slapped down a comment without thinking about how it reads.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. returning to unwatching for now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, TTT: I can be snarky, too, when I'm rushed :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chaco Culture National Historical Park[edit]

I fixed the two references with the same id. {{harvnb|National Park Service|2005}} will generate an id of CITEREFNational_Park_Service2005. In the citation template, add |ref=CITEREFNational_Park_Service2005 to manually add the id. You can run an article through the W3C Markup Validation Service to find duplicate or invalid ids. Might be a good idea to do this for FAC. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gadget, I just didn't have time, and will look now. Perhaps I can entice you to use that tool at FAC :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAC Question[edit]

Hello, I was wondering how many supports are generally needed for the article to be passed? Because the article that I've nominated has already gotten one support, but only two editors have been reviewing. Now that all the issues appear to have been addressed, the review has kinda died off, which happened last time that I nominated an article. Thanks. Ophois (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give me a link to the FAC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry. Here is it: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All Hell Breaks Loose (Supernatural)/archive1 Ophois (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That nomination has only been up three days; it can stay open for at least two weeks, but I don't pass articles with only one Support, and there is no minimum number of Supports that assures a nom will pass. Have you (neutrally, without canvassing) notified relevant WikiProjects and asked for members to review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if it was too early to ask. I just didn't want a repeat of last time. I did list it in the TV project, but nobody seems to look at that. I will ask for help in the project's discussion page. Thanks. Ophois (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry slug[edit]

Hello SandyGeorgia, thanks for asking me. I don't want to put myself in a difficult situation here vis-à-vis other users, but I am going to have to be somewhat blunt to answer your question. First off I must say that I know very little at all about the FA qualifying process, never having gone through it in any way, and never having had the chance to research the necessary qualities before this whole thing happened, so I am not really qualified to say whether something is "ready" or not. But I can say I was surprised the first time the nominator submitted Kerry Slug for FA; I had no idea that was planned, and I certainly did feel that the first time was premature.

This second time around I also had no idea that the nominator was going to resubmit the article. The nominator did not mention it to me or any other member of the project before taking either action. He did not leave a note on the gastropod project page asking people to help, either the first time around or the second time. (I left a note there once the first nomination was underway.) As for this second time, yes, to be honest I also feel that a few of the more active members of the project should have been asked to look at it again and given enough time to attempt to try to fix it up some more before resubmitting it, although to be fair, I did not see the closing comments at all (where is the discussion archived?) and I was not completely clear on what still needed doing, except that it was apparent to me that the prose needed a lot more work.

Neither myself nor User:Daniel Cavallari mind at all trying to help out with fixing up an article in this kind of situation, but we need both time and an advanced warning/request, and right now Daniel is busy working on fixing up a different article for a GA review.

As a general point, I think collaboration is the sine qua non of Wikipedia, and some people just seem to have much better instincts or a better basic ability for collaboration than others do. Without close collaboration and some good diplomacy, explicit appreciation, politeness and warmth, etc, not much can be achieved here in the long run or at the higher levels. Not everyone has these things within their repertoire, and some people unfortunately may have to learn that the hard way it seems. Best wishes and thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the thoughtful response, Invertzoo. The other FAC delegate, Karanacs (talk · contribs), is handling that FAC this time through, and she has my talk page watched. The previous FAC is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kerry slug/archive1, and you can also find it by clicking on the article history milestones at Talk:Kerry slug. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TFA Nov 9[edit]

Hey Sandy, I responded here. I think IGB should get the main page date but 1968 Illinois going on the 8 is awesome for me! Best, ceranthor 21:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a heads up to User talk:Raul654. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Boulton's 2nd Wikipedia Birthday[edit]

Hi Sandy, it's 3:30 a.m. in Toronto Canada, same where you are, too, if I'm not in a sleepless fugue. Yesterday's TFA on Cosmo Lang, Brian's, is not only brilliant (d'oh!) but personal. Cosmo Lang is my 2nd cousin 3 times removed. We have chatted about my written but unposted article on Cosmo's father John Marshall Lang. I'm a sittin' on a split rail fence because Brian suggests I await further "published" stuff on JML (pigs will fly, IMHO), etc. My family papers are too good enough for Wikipedia sigh demmit!

But on to the IMPORTANT PART. Sandy, fact check me on this but my perusal of Brian's User page tells me his account was created November 07 2007. He's prodigious. He must have/couldn't have? become a Wikipedia force of nature before he created his User account? Can we craft a suitable Happy Birthday shout-out to Brian for November 07? That would be grand.

Thank you Sandy and, in advance, Happy Thanksgiving.

Ann Landrey Toronto Ann.landrey (talk) 07:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Ann.landrey (talk) 07:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Brian's Talk page sorry Sandy can't make a pretty quotation at 5 a.m.

My first article, 7 November 2007 This was my first posting of an article, on 7 November 2007. Please note my strict adherence to article structure and WP:MOS, my scrupulous attention to in-line citations and listing of sources, and my careful selection of images.

I'm a mewling puking etc. You're right, growing old ain't for sissies. I ain't neither and so to bed.Ann.landrey (talk) 09:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Ann.landrey (talk) 09:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the quotation so the HTML wouldn't affect subsequent posts: I'm not following what your post is about. Perhaps some of my TPS can decipher. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No action, no celebrations, please. I thank Ann for her kind comments about the Lang article but please, let the matter rest there. I had forgotten that my ironic comments about the quality of my first wikipedia article were still on my home page and have now deleted them. Brianboulton (talk) 13:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? What are we going to do with the stripper we got you?? Come on! She's already paid for!! I've already got the tattoo parlor reserved for all of us...not to mention I already went first. Dammit. --Moni3 (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ask if they'll allow you to switch your payment from a female to a male, and I'll come to the party. No tattoos, though :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, you can just get a temporary tattoo. ceranthor 14:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sandy for fixing the html. Brian, please restore your first post. It's droll. How often do we meet droll in our lifetimes. That is a Rhetorical Q. I'm in for the tattoo. We could design a WikiEye. Yes.Ann.landrey (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dispatch for 2 November edition of The Signpost[edit]

Sandy, Skype interview done. Will write. Asked Sage about whether we can have an image—I hope so. I could never get it right about the draft page. It's beyond me to set it up and the rest. I'll write it off-wiki for the moment. Tony (talk) 09:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, per WP:FCDW, could you put the Dispatch at WP:FCDW/November 2, 2009? I'm not aware of any reason that you can't include images, but I will ask Ragesoss. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FA archives[edit]

Why wasn't Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Derek Jeter/archive1 included in the October archive?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- missing carriage return [9], something anyone can fix. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that and only saw three lines.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's something I learned the hard way ... whenever the numbers don't add up, look for a missing line break ... sometimes happen in the edit copy, edit paste. Thanks, TTT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WALL-E review[edit]

Virginia[edit]

en dash[edit]

Need help with a FA[edit]

Nope[edit]

Source run...[edit]

Question[edit]

Lindsay Hassett with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948[edit]

Hey[edit]

Replied[edit]

Trichotillomania[edit]

Note from Ottava Rima for you[edit]

Re:Hat in hand[edit]

Bioidentical Hormone Replacement Therapy[edit]

Question[edit]

Saturday tune[edit]

Incase I might be able to help[edit]

Re[edit]

Attachment theory[edit]

Email[edit]

I like the IDEA of the form[edit]

ArbCom clarification on Mattisse's Plan[edit]

rev[edit]

Thanks[edit]

Your revision - Autism Speaks[edit]

Basshunter vandalism[edit]

Supernatural (season 1)[edit]

Apology[edit]

Max Weber[edit]

Ping[edit]

Washington Post no-show[edit]

Refs following punctuation[edit]

Asperger edits[edit]

To sleep, perchance to edit....[edit]

RFA threshold[edit]

Interview[edit]

FYI[edit]

Recent comments of yours[edit]

Blocked, as you requested[edit]

FA maximum length[edit]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ram Narayan/archive1[edit]

Arbitration Case[edit]

Vassyana's threats[edit]

Well Dunn sources[edit]

Thanks[edit]

Gray's Inn[edit]

Seton Hall FAC[edit]

FAC...[edit]

I'll never get that diplomat's job with the Foreign Office ....[edit]

RE: User_talk:Risker#Quandary[edit]

FAR far FAR[edit]

Email[edit]

TFA[edit]

Recusals[edit]

Making a discussion archive section[edit]

Prairie Avenue TFAR points[edit]

Chaco Culture National Historical Park[edit]

FAC Question[edit]

Kerry slug[edit]

TFA Nov 9[edit]

Brian Boulton's 2nd Wikipedia Birthday[edit]

Dispatch for 2 November edition of The Signpost[edit]

FA archives[edit]