User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch70

You speak Spanish?

Yet another reason to worship at your altar.

Thanks Sandy, I trust you remember the editor from Asperger syndrome? One of the Spanish-speaking editors is also an admin, I'm hoping that between the editing history and (I'm assuming bad faith here) erroneous additions the med school article, a permablock will prevent me from having to worry about this in the future. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure do-- I don't find that info in the source, but I could be reading it wrong. If he readds it, he needs to supply a quote from the source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a reply for you at Talk:Ignacio A. Santos School of Medicine. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

TFAR points

I actually do update the points fairly often Sandy. Troll through the history and you will see my name with an update probably every week or two. I am not the only person who is responsible for this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Sex Pistols

I'm deligheted this finally going to make main page, but lord, imagine the level of vandelism it is going to attract! Ceoil (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to help-- it's a good cause! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You know most of the vandalism will be coming from Johnny Rotten, right? He probably thinks the article and all of Wikipedia is a piss stain. --Moni3 (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Johnny Rotten sold out years ago. He now stars in a TV advertisement for butter here in the UK. Malleus Fatuorum 20:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You are right of course, but the man in his heyday was a genious. I prefer PiL to Sex Pistols, I think early 80s Lyndon is about as good as it gets.[1]. Exquisite bitterness, and a nice reminder that the world is full of tools. Ceoil (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that wikipedia is about as good a reminder as we need that the world is full of tools, but I'd best say no more. (Not a comment directed at you or anyone else here Ceoil, just so there's no misunderstanding.) Malleus Fatuorum 21:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you left that qualifier Malleus, as I have several crooked admins up my selve. Woe bedites the guy, his friends, neighbours and pets, who insults me. Ceoil (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Basic courtesy

Hi again Sandy. Just a reminder that you should always inform editors you are commenting on at AN/I as you did here. Quite apart from any considerations of basic courtesy, it is also a rule that we have. What exactly is it that you think I did wrong on this occasion? --John (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that I failed to notify you, but the discussion was about Tan's unblock. I'll try to remember this courtesy in the future, but ANI is such a circus that it doesn't stick in my brain. I suggest, given your history with them, that you simply leave productive editors like Malleus and Ceoil alone, and let editors who contribute excellent content go about their work. If their behavior is problematic, let uninvolved admins comment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion is noted, but on this occasion as I pointed out it was Malleus who made a couple of unprovoked comments on my talk page on a matter which as far as I can see did not concern him in the least. Do you plan to give him similar advice? --John (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Malleus is always concerned about admins who provoke conflict, so I don't think it's accurate to say it doesn't "concern him in the least": I'd like to see that stop (generally, not specifically to you), and excellent content contributors allowed to go about doing what they do best. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I see. And what would you say I did to "provoke conflict" in this instance? --John (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't think this was unnecessary and provocative?

• "Failing that, there are plenty of basic English classes in most communities. --John (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)"

John, you came under scrutiny when You Did That Thing to Ceoil. Your behavior is noted, and when it continues, noted again. I suggest changing it, and making less passive-aggressive edits and edit summaries when referring to other editors. As long as you do, it's likely that Malleus will take note. If you honestly don't see that you are provocative and demeaning, then I don't think we'll make much progress by you continuing to pose questions here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

In context, no I do not think that was unnecessary or provocative. The recipient didn't seem to have a problem with it either. Did you research the whole matter we were talking about or did you just cherry-pick one commment I made? If that is the worst you can find, do you really think it merits discussion at WP:AN/I? And if I again see an editor call another editor a "cunt" while (apparently) pissed out of his mind, yes, I will challenge them on it again, whether you like it or not. Do you honestly equate that with my slightly snarky comment to someone who was very slow to see an obvious point about English writing? If so, I despair. Is this anti-admin crusade you and your acolytes seem to be on actually going to improve the quality of the encyclopedia? If yes, how will this happen? I really don't see it. --John (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I could make several suggestions to you John, about how the dispiriting effect of hypocritical and sanctimonious administrators and their hangers-on-in-hopes-of-being-an-admin-one-day sycophants could best be countered, but most of them would be anatomically impossible. Malleus Fatuorum 15:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no doubt you could, and well done for not doing so. The question is, how do comments like this, and the ones you made at my talk page, advance the goals of the project? --John (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps they will make you think twice before letting your mouth run away with you in the future? I'd agree that does seem unlikely, but I'm an optimist. Malleus Fatuorum 15:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You may be an optimist, but it doesn't appear to me that much progress is going to be made here. John continues to pose questions rather than acknowledge and address his problematic behaviors (I find that some of the site's older admins do have a certain sense of power and entitlement or that admins are a separate class, immune to the very policies they claim to uphold, and are slow to see the errors of their ways. ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Note

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lad, A Dog/archive1, may need archiving. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does ... will get to it soon, unless someone else gets their first. Thanks (as always!)SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Ucucha! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For this. There's some fundamental disconnect between my thoughts and my keyboard, I just know it! Awickert (talk) 04:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but I'm glad you wrote that page :) It's astounding the number of nominators who never review, and don't seem to understand that it takes an average of 12 editors to get their FA passed ... I used to estimate it took about 12, and the good Dr pda ran some stats once that verified that number spot on! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

12, wow! But now that I've written it, I have to walk the talk... starting Friday, I think. Should be fun though. Awickert (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

MbI order of sections

Can you take a look at the talk page of Munchausen by Internet to address why Notable cases should appear at the bottom of the article? It is a move I disagree with, I reverted Doc James, and was re-reverted. Per your edit summary here, "Discovery" does not refer to the discovery or naming of the condition, but what occurs when an internet forum discovers that one of its members is lying about the extent of his/her illnesses. Therefore, renaming the section to "History" in not appropriate. If it should be reworded to clarify what the discovery actually refers to, however, please feel free to provide an alternative. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

ah, ha. IF there's a good reason to deviate from MEDMOS, that's fine-- I'll go revert myself! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I didn't know if there was something about MEDMOS I was woefully ignorant of and arguing about on the talk page. Sorry for the business-like tone. Dirty lyrics or humorous hijinks to ensue in another thread at some point in the near future. --Moni3 (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You do that-- then we can go on an abusive campaign against all TPS who ignore the hijinks. Malleus says anyone with a clean block log can't be trusted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If anyone ever needs Malleus to trust them, they can come see me; I'll block anyone with a clean block log for $10 (via PayPal). For $15, I let you choose your block reason. For $20 I'll just block Malleus instead, and you won't need him to trust you anymore. € and £ also accepted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

What might Sandy or I be able to do within the next five minutes to scar our unblemished block logs? I'm notoriously scattered. After five minutes I'll be on to something else, distracted as if by a cat toy. --Moni3 (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have to pay-- I've already turned down multiple offers! I figure I get to earn it the hard way :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It appears I need to rethink my business plan. Too many customers willing to do it the easy way, and too many competitors who'll do it for free, for the sheer enjoyment. Perhaps I could sell page deletion services? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Flo! The real money is in the unblock! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

<facepalm> Of course! I'm a fool. </facepalm> /*scurries off to CAT:UNBLOCK /* --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, fuck Malleus sideways until he sings like Mitzi Gaynor. --Moni3 (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Got a picture? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It's all in my head in technicolor and surround sound. --Moni3 (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That should make it hard to concentrate on editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It's why I'm on a wikibreak. I can devote more time and attention to my fantasies. --Moni3 (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Gah, musicals again! I hate musicals! Might be up for a bit of sideways how's-yer-father though ... Malleus Fatuorum 17:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Write the damn glossary already, and stop making me ask stupid questions! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It's kinda the point, Mal. Just how hard would you have to get boned before you broke into birdsong? --Moni3 (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

<tap, tap, tap> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Pretty hard, I think, Probably very hard. Malleus Fatuorum 18:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Side note: it took you 34 minutes to get hard enough to come up with that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

hmmmmm, MF comes through with humor! But no response from Casliber, who must have an appropriate birdsong. Could we get blocked by insulting an ex-arb for not joining in? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

"That's the last song you'll ever sing" / Held him down, broke his neck / Taught him a lesson he wouldn't forget / Then I put that bird in a cooking pot ..." Bird Song Florence and the Machine Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I may really have to insult Cas now! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey Sandy. I bought you a house. Whatcha think? --Moni3 (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice try, but I really need a good deck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Aspergers from Palilalia

I understand your statement that Aspergers is an ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder) but what are the terms rs and medrs? Do you consider aspegersyndrome.org not a proper source?Naraht (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Source reviews at FAC

I am prepared to help out here, at least for a while. I've done it before during Ealdgyth's shorter absences, and I'm not too bothered about being shouted at. I can't promise to do as much as Ealdgyth did, but I will give it regular time. As this will mean reducing my involvement at peer review, I'd like to have a word with Ruhrfisch and Finetooth first, but I'm sure they'll understand the need for sources reviews at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Münchausen by Internet

Hey Sandy further discussion had taken place on the talk page [2] No content was deleted. I see this was already dealt with above. Will leave it as is.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Gliding

All suggestions on things that should be done to revamp the article on Gliding would be appreciated. No doubt standards have improved, but it can't be that far out of line already. Thank you in anticipation. I have a large collection of books and access to the future British National Gliding Library if necessary so references should not be a problem. JMcC (talk) 22:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

FAR listings

Have you talked to YellowMonkey about this? He usually uses "Listed wikiprojects." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 12:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

See User talk:Dana boomer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Iravan/archive1

I have answered your comments. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Is there any specific reason the FAC is not archived. The lone oppose was striked out, there are 7 supports (I suppose this is a consensus). I suppose all issues are settled. Please let me know if something needs to be resolved. Thanks --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you really want it archived? Or do you mean promoted? I hope you don't mind that I do occasionally take time to shower, shampoo and blow-dry my hair. I haven't finished reading FAC today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It has been a month old and resting at the end of FAC list for quite some time as FACs above it are closed. That's why I wanted to point it out. I have no objections if it is not promoted with a valid reason. I just wanted know if all comments on the FAC are properly addressed. Do take your time and I repeat, Please let me know if something needs to be resolved, so I can mend it. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Presenting these shampoos as a gift, they are old but the wikipedia article-store had only these. Enjoy your shampoo. ;) --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Blabbermouth (again)

I happened to stumble upon an FAC discussion on FAC's talk page, which was clearly regarding my FAC nomination - however, nobody had the courtesy to invite me to that discussion. Referring to my 2007 FAs, Iridescent said "A lot of fansites, press-release aggregators and such which were grudgingly accepted in 2007 FACs"... Let me state something clearly; my sources, which were reliable, were not "grudgingly accepted". They were happily accepted, and you were the person who deemed each FA nomination successful.

If anyone has a problem with my 2007 FA nominations, please tell them to either nominate them at FAR, or quit rubbishing my FA work as if it means nothing. I'm a heavy metal journalist, someone who's interviewed bands like Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Megadeth and so on, so I certainly know which sources are reliable and which are not. Heavy metal bands, particularly smaller ones, grant interviews to webzines - since that is an interview with the band themselves, to me that means that specific article is reliable. However, FA reviewers (one of whom is Iridiscent may I add) who know nothing about reliable sources as it relates to the heavy metal genre decide to weigh in with their opinions, and treat an article on a little known metal album the same way they treat an album by say Michael Jackson or Lady Gaga. Newspapers and major, international magazines are obviously gonna cover say Jackson or Gaga, and books will be written about them, but that isn't the same for most heavy metal bands. Gaga's albums sell more in a week than a lot of metal albums will sell altogether. And besides, as I've stated before, Blabbermouth has been used as a source by the likes of the Toronto Sun, MTV and NME - and yet its reliability is being questioned.

So in short, I put this to you; is Blabbermouth reliable as well as the webzine interview articles I've used (per the reason I stated earlier), or not? Can these sources be used in my FAC nomination? Yes or no? If they aren't acceptable, then it means someone can nominate all of my previous FAs at FAR and my latest FAC will be unsuccessul. I'm just fed up of this middle ground, that's all, and would like things to be clear. LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not all about you; this is a general problem with many older FA, in that while the requirements haven't changed, the way in which people interpret them has. Glacier National Park needed a major overhaul of the sourcing to "reliablize" its sourcing in preparation for its main page appearance, John Vanbrugh is currently being dissected at FAR for the fact that its citations no longer match current practice despite nobody suggesting that any of the facts are wrong, and even the Michael Jackson article you mention with its 300+ references and relatively recent promotion date is causing serious concern over non-compliance with the new parts of the MOS and oversourcing from potentially unreliable sources, and would pretty clearly be delisted at FAR were it to be nominated (see the talk page). Wikipedia's protocols on when it's acceptable to cite websites are unclear as to exactly when a website slips over the line separating "academic resource" from "self-published source", but to me it's fairly clear; websites are reliable for "basic" facts such as member names, release dates and so forth, but not for anything that's potentially open to challenge, except when the website is itself the topic under discussion or is mirroring a print source which meets Wikipedia's standards of reliability.

As you (Sandy) know, I've already had (and lost) a similar argument over Subterranea Britannica as a source for tunnels and railroads; consensus there was clearly that despite their 35-year history and their "Subterranea Britannica is recognised as an authoritative body within this specialist area of industrial archaeology and research" claim, as a website it wasn't reliable. I was fuming at the time, but on reflection agree—some topics have simply not received enough coverage in sources which meet our current standards of verifiability and reliability, and thus through no fault of their own are structurally unable to comply with sourcing requirements at FAC level, regardless of the quality of the article by any other measure. – iridescent 11:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Despite your assertions, I still 110% disagree with them, and am still waiting for Sandy to provide specific clarification. As far as I am concerned, there are no problems when it comes to reliable sourcing with the FAs I wrote in 2007. John Vanbrugh is also a 2004 FA (not a 2007 one), so I am not surprised it has been FARed. It got through when citations and sourcing didn't mean much, and when the rules were different. More to the point, if your last paragraph were to be correct, then what you're saying is the FA process is actually fundamentally flawed and broken - if that's true, I'd suggest everyone abandoning FA as well as Wikipedia altogether.

May I add that I mentioned Jackson, and you're using that to discuss something else regarding articles entirely. I did not mention Michael Jackson's article specifically, or any other Jackson articles. What I actually said was major newspapers and magazines cover artists like Jackson and Gaga, but they generally do not cover heavy metal. In other words, you're not gonna find extensive articles on bands like Evile in Rolling Stone or the New York Times - however, some reviewers like yourself wrongly expect people like me to find such non-existent articles. Anyway, I'm just waiting now for Sandy to get back to me regarding my original query. LuciferMorgan (talk) 11:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten you, just busy, owe you and Dana boomer responses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Link, in case you need it. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Whitlam comment

Thank you for the promotion and the final look through. FYI, Leader of the Opposition is a formal title, therefore Opposition was capitalized there.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks- did you switch them back? Please do ... I'm busy :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Haven't had a chance, will now. I'm way behind on my next FAC, which is the related 1975 Australian constitutional crisis.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Do I manually update WP:FFA, including the list of re-promoted articles, or does a bot do that?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I got it (thanks for the reminder! ... that's why we add that big red note, so we'll remember to mainpage bold it, move it on FFA, etc.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ucucha, thanks for checking up on me again (my computer was not cooperating today!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Tune, 13 hours late

This is exceptionally pretty, and the vid well worth watching to the end...its real, not CGI, and a piece of art of its self. Ceoil (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, dear Ceoil. A little birdie told me to save my response 'til tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

oooo, I can guess who that birdie is! Ceoil (talk) 12:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

A three-fer! Enjoy, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Got them. No good deed goes unpunished - but thank you sweet heart - [3]. Best. Ceoil (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

[4] - Hold on in there until 1:57. Ceoil (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of the Yosemite area/archive1

Ping! :) --mav (Reviews needed) 01:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

NFL Infoboxes

Hello. WikiProject National Football League would like to let you know that we are currently trying to switchover all NFLretired infoboxes to NFLactive. The NFLactive infobox can now support retired players, so we would appreciate it if you did not change the NFLactive infobox to NFLretired. Thank you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The mind boggles at the thought of Sandy actually putting an infobox in, much less switching one for another.... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

[5] Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Gee. For some reason, an IP edit whose only edit summary was "changed infobox" to Active from Retired on an almost 80-yo man who died three months ago looked strangely like vandalism from here. Y'all might want to deal with edit summaries better :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought so too, and the above template isn't a warning, it's just a friendly notice. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I know, and I appreciate the note-- the edit didn't seem helpful, I thought someone was poking fun at Tom, and you might want to educate that IP (I should have taken the time myself, but ... busy!) Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Mind providing a translation?

Hi Sandy, would you mind helping to translate the following into clear English?

ARTICULO 38 - Es lícito, sin el consentimiento del autor y sin remuneración al mismo, pero con obligada referencia a su nombre y a la fuente, siempre que la obra sea de conocimiento público, y respetando sus valores específicos:
c) reproducir por cualquier medio, salvo el que implique contacto directo con su superficie, una obra de arte de cualquier tipo expuesta permanentemente en sitio público, con excepción de las que se hallen en exposiciónes y museos;

For context (and a Googled translation), please refer to commons:Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Status of FoP in Cuba?. Jappalang (talk) 03:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The gist of your translation is basically correct, but since I don't understand FoP well even in English, and since it involves some legal issues, I could be missing something significant. You might want to ask User:Yomangan to have a look, and also send an e-mail to User:Elcobbola, who speaks Spanish, is an image expert, but hasn't been active lately. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so this is why Jappalang asked! ;) Should I put my concerns aside and actually fill out my babel? Эlcobbola _talk 19:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Any other articles getting spammed like this?

Hey to Sandy and her talk page stalkers. I should be taking this to AN, but I'm still in a "They can suck it" mood.

A variety of IPs are spamming the talk page of Stonewall riots, with...appropriately, perhaps...Abercrombie and Fitch links and nonsense. See history. One post in the middle of the night for the past several days. Is anyone else seeing this on other articles or is this one just really lucky? Anyone have any ideas? I could ask for protection, but ahhh...I dunno. If it was really a huge concern I'd toe the line and protect it myself. --Moni3 (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You could block the link on the blacklist, that way you wouldn't be able to add it to any pages. The link isn't being used anywhere else: link search link 2 (The second link had one link on a user talk page which I just deleted as spam) so there wouldn't be any collateral. It would be less invasive than protecting. Woody (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I requested blacklist for the links. Hope I did it right. --Moni3 (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Odd FAC

Someone just re-listed an FAC that was archived years ago, see [6]. The article doesn't seem ready, with unreferenced pieces, probably overly long plot summaries, and unformatted references. Don't know what the best way to proceed would be—probably just reverting. Ucucha 02:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Ucucha-- I withdrew it, and notified the nominator with {{FAC withdrawn}}. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

About an RfC/U

Hi Sandy. Of the RfC/Us that are active, the one certified in late April could do with some of the sorts of formatting changes that were needed in the NancyHeise RfC/U. Although I'd usually fix it up, this is one of the few RfC/Us where I prefer to recuse. Would you mind taking a look at it, making whatever formatting changes are needed, and watching it until it closes? Formatting changes can include handling conversations/threaded discussions, removing signatures unless they are endorsements or accompanying an additional comment, etc. It won't matter if you're short on time or something; whatever you can do in the time that you have available would be great! :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can do that (I appreciate when you helped on the other one), but until tonight, I won't even have time for a peek-- I'll get there, though! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops almost forgot I'd even made this request. No worries...as long as you get there in the end. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

FAR ping

Hi Sandy - There are a couple of FARCs that you had previously commented on that could use your attention:

• Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of the Yosemite area/archive1 - Dabomb did some MOS cleanup work on the text, so I think it's ready for another check by you.
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/OpenBSD/archive1 - The main editor has a question on your comment.

Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Just adding another one:

• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Israel/archive1 - The editor working here has a few questions regarding your comment at this review.

I hope to see you over at FAR soon. Thanks in advance! Dana boomer (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops

Hi Sandy

I nominated Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Bardia/archive2‎ for FAC but forgot about the two week penalty after unsuccessful FACs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Oba Chandler

Hi i was wondering if you could take a look at the GA article Oba Chandler and do some changes that you find to be in favour of a possible FA status some day. Was planning to put it up for FA sometime next month and needed some outside help. Especially from someone who is good at this with FA articles.Thanks--ÅlandÖland (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Please wait!

You have just said I needed to peer review Harry Potter, but I already put it down as a peer review; click here. Also, alot of the main contributors haven't edited the article for a while, and I haven't seen that they have edited it before. I have told the contributors that have edited most recently now. Please wait a little bit before you archive it. Thanks.Guy546^(Talk) 16:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The article is not FAC ready, you should always consult other significant contributors first, and a one-person peer review isn't sufficient to prepare the article for FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Bulbasaur was a featured article

I invite you to take another look at the Talk page I linked. Bulbasaur was featured on July 28, 2006, and was in fact such a poor Featured Article that it has since been deleted and merged into a list. Bulbasaur is off-topic on Talk:David_A._Johnston so I've moved the discussion here. --Doradus (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention the obvious, but 2006 was four years ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow your point. I never said it was a recent Featured Article. --Doradus (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The point is that FA standards are quite different from what they were in 2006—much higher, in fact. Ucucha 17:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Good! Because back then there were some real head-scratchers. --Doradus (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Recopa Sudamericana

So do I reopen another request? Right now, the article will definetly qualify and I didn't want to look like I was spamming requests either. Check out the article. Jamen Somasu (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Jamen, though I don't doubt you mean well, I don't think l the article is yet ready to qualify. Did you see the notice when you edited the FAC page to add the nomination? To reach featured status, an article is rigorously checked to ensure it meets several strict standards, which you can read about in a little more detail here. FAC delegates, such as Sandy, can remove unprepared nominations at their discretion after at least one one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn. This will continue to happen in this case, as the article—while a solid foundation on which to build—is not yet close to meeting those standards. It is currently ranked "start class" on the assessment scale; compare that against the other grades here for an idea of how much work may be needed. After you've worked on the article a little more, at the very least adding inline citations for each statement and ensuring it's a comprehensive overview of the topic, perhaps Peer Review will be a more appropriate venue. Better yet, before then you could ask members of Wikiproject Football for a re-assessment, which should at least give you some idea of where it stands. So I'm afraid no, it should not be re-added to the FAC page. I'm sorry if this reply seems harsh; it's not intended as such, but the process is clear about what should and should not be nominated. Good luck, Steve ^T • C 15:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I am briefly home between app'ts; could a TSP please deal with the FAC disruption? Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Karanacs (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

As an example the article is terribly uncited, with statements such as "Estudiantes de La Plata, a modest neighborhood club and a denominated minor team in Argentina, had a style that prioritized athletic preparation and achieving results at all costs." and "Nacional emerged as the champions of the 1971 tournament after overcoming an Estudiantes squad depleted of key players that helped lift it to its recent glory." and "The 1970s were also notable for the appearances of Universitario of Peru, Colo-Colo and Unión Española of Chile, and Deportivo Cali in the finals." among many many other examples. Other issues include MOS issues such as easter egg type links to specific year tournament articles, punctuation that varies between before and after the footnotes, and copyright problems with the pictures - for example File:Bocajuniors2000.PNG claims to be public domain because the copyright in Argentina has expired (which is 25 years) but the picture is of a 2000 event, so patently the copyright hasn't been expired 25 years, since it's only 10 years since the event. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Advice needed

Hey, there. Per my note at the bottom of here, should I just ignore any further comments made by SoniaSyle? I'm not wanting to waste further space arguing with her or spend any more time catering to her "my way or no way" attitude, but I also don't want it to seem like I am ignoring commentators. Thanks, Pyrrhus16 19:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it appears to be somewhat resolved now. Thanks anyway, Pyrrhus16 16:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Depression (mood)

Hi. I came across this article the other day and did a minor edit. But the article is poorly cited and of dubious accuracy. After defining depression it goes into a rambling discussion of various mood disorders that are already better covered at Mood disorder. It gets 1500 hits a day and the last person to edit left this. I would prefer that user, and the other 1499, were directed to a good page and I would like to replace the present Depression (mood) with User:Anthonyhcole/Depression_(mood). What do you think? Anthony (talk) 08:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Belay that. I just looked at your work load. I'll take it straight to the article talk page. Anthony (talk) 01:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't had time for this. Most of Wiki's psych article overrely on primary sources and violate WP:MEDRS; Casliber (talk · contribs) might be able to help with that one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Enter the Grave

Any reason that as opposed to allowing me several days to amend the article's lead, which I explicitly asked for, your fellow FA person decided to simply ignore my request and class it as a failed FAC? That's pure and utter bullshit on Karanacs' part. Real waste of time Wikipedia is these days with cowboys like him running the show, not to mention the others who attempt to change FA criteria so as to deliberately exclude lesser covered topics like heavy metal from ever having featured content. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

LuciferMorgan, if I may be so bold as to answer for Sandy, your FAC had been up for three weeks with no supports (or opposes, really, but it's the supports that count in this case). When FACs have been up for that long without attracting attention, it is often better that they be archived and given a fresh start in a few weeks. Karanacs was acting well within her discretion as an FA delegate. Dana boomer (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Dana had it exactly right. My decision had nothing to do with the comments on the nomination, but with the lack of declarations. To keep the list at a relatively manageable level, we don't allow articles to be up for indefinite time periods. If an article has garnered no supports in 3 weeks then it is generally archived. Reviewers tend to bypass nominations that have been open that long without any support (especially if there are other comments, even if those comments have been resolved), which makes it less likely for the nomination to reach consensus for promotion after that timeframe. Perhaps in a few weeks there will be a different pool of reviewers and you'll have an easier time getting eyes on the article. If you have issues with my actions in the future you are more than welcome to address those to me on my talk page rather than someone else's. Karanacs talk 18:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC) (and I'm a she - but I do own cowboy boots!)

Don't forget User talk:Carcharoth

Thank you for your very kind message about David A. Johnston, but you missed Carcharoth, who was edit-count-wise the primary contributor. I think that they deserve a little note too. Awickert (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Awickert (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Driveby alert

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elizabeth II/archive1 Dabomb87 (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

History section in country articles

Hi Sandy,

I just wanted to get your opinion on how long the History section should be in an ideal (featured) article about a country. The guidelines at WP:COUNTRIES state that it should be "about 4 to 6 paragraphs, depending on complexity of history". However, looking at the Canada article, which is featured, it appears to have 15 paragraphs across four sub-headings. Is this a case of the article remaining featured despite the section being too long, or do you think there are exceptions to the rule stated on the WP:COUNTRIES project?

The reason I ask is that I am planning shortly to get my teeth into the History section of the Rwanda article, with the long term goal of getting that article featured. The History section is currently way too long, rambling and fairly unstructured (although as mentioned by another editor there is a fair amount to say about the complex history of the people of that country), and I want to know how much licence I have to reduce its size, and what would be considered reasonable at FAC. Thanks — SteveRwanda (talk) 09:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

If there's really such an awful lot to say about Rwanda's history, then the better approcah is probably to adopt the summary style, and write a separate History of Rwanda article, which can be summarised in 4–6 paragraphs in the main article, with a {{main}} tag at the top of the section. Malleus Fatuorum 14:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

(I see that there's already a History of Rwanda article, so problem solved.) Malleus Fatuorum 14:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The key for FAC is comprehensiveness and staying focused on topic (difficult to do in summaries, sometimes). No reviewer is going to set a hard and fast "X" paragraph rule; they'll look at how the history is presented in proportion to the rest of the article. If it's 50% of the article, it's probably too big. If it doesn't give readers an adequate overview of the key events in the history, then it's probably too short. Good luck - that would be an excellent addition to the Featured Article list (and the main page). Karanacs (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips, guys. I actually merged a lot of the current content into History of Rwanda last year, so won't actually be destroying information. I can have a bit more confidence about getting that section into shape now, and negotiating with other editors on what should be said if there are issues with that. SteveRwanda (talk) 08:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

About an RfC/U

Hi Sandy. Of the RfC/Us that are active, the one certified in late April could do with some of the sorts of formatting changes that were needed in the NancyHeise RfC/U. Although I'd usually fix it up, this is one of the few RfC/Us where I prefer to recuse. Would you mind taking a look at it, making whatever formatting changes are needed, and watching it until it closes? Formatting changes can include handling conversations/threaded discussions, removing signatures unless they are endorsements or accompanying an additional comment, etc. It won't matter if you're short on time or something; whatever you can do in the time that you have available would be great! :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can do that (I appreciate when you helped on the other one), but until tonight, I won't even have time for a peek-- I'll get there, though! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops almost forgot I'd even made this request. No worries...as long as you get there in the end. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome

Hi. I reverted your March 3 edits, and explained why here. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 07:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to correct several of your mistakes (like the uncited claims about the Quincy episode), and will add more sources once I'm home in a few weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't made any uncited claims. Rather, it is the material I removed from the article that was not properly cited. As I stated on the article's talk page, sites whose content is user-generated, such as imdb and TV.com, are not considered reliable by Wikipedia under WP:RS, and neither of those two webpages make any mention of the episode in question being "seminal", being the first episode to depict Tourettes, or of people with the condition seeking diagnosis of it after seeing it. The TV.com page in particular never even mentions Tourettes. That's not a "claim", uncited or not. It's a fact. As I have given some detailed examples like these on the Talk Page, I'm not sure why you're continuing to claim ignorance of my rationale, as you did when you wrote the edit summary "restore yet another strange deletion of cited material", but if you want to refute the fact that the relevant policies are violated by this material, you can do so on the article's Talk Page. Otherwise, please stop reverting the article, and claiming the uncited or poorly cited material is actually cited. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 04:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

1) Yes, you made unfounded, incorrect and uncited claims about the Quincy episode. 2) You removed material that can be cited to other sources, rather than putting a citation tag on it (I will look for those sources once I'm home, in a book I have at home). 3) You removed attribution to a source. Please stop being obnoxious and edit warring, raising inane issues on my talk page, and if you want additional citations, then add a cn tag, and I will provide them when I'm home. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

And now we've got ... surprise ... admin John showing up there. Why the sudden interest in an obscure and useless article (mostly full of junk I siphoned out of the main TS article years ago to get the riff-raff out)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Recentism tag

Hi, no one like to hear such news, but I thought I should let you know that I've deleted a recentism tag you placed on Medical cannabis. I've presented my reasoning for doing so on the article's talk page, and would be glad to discuss there if you object. Ohiostandard (talk) 11:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

A thorough read of WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS may help clear up your confusion-- that article is a classic example of an overreliance on primary studies and recentism at the expense of secondary reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of the Yosemite area/archive1

I think it is ready for another look. :) --mav (reviews needed) 22:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Help

Hi I´m new around here and want to learn how to edit and how to create new pages. Could you teach me how to use this? o help me with some questions that i have. Thanks! BredoteauU2 (talk) 01:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Some initial policy pages that might help guide your editing are WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:UNDUE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sandy! The poor guy needs to be told what he's getting into! The addictiveness. The vindictiveness. The vindication. The vacations that prevent insanity. Show the poor guy some mercy, and give him the real scoop.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You already did (but he still needs to read WP:BLP, et al). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Drive-by alert

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dad's Army/archive1; primary contributor just opposed. Ucucha 21:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks Ucucha. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Lovaas technique

People haven't called ABA, "Lovaas method" since the late 20th century, and it can be easily confused with the Applied behavior analysis article and is hard to find the article (Lovaas technique). Shouldn't it just be renamed to Applied Behavior Analysis? And the "current" Applied behavior analysis article seems redundant to the Behavior modification article. Shouldn't the behaivor modification and ABA article be merged? The early childhood intervention article could say: Applied behavior analysis (ABA, also known as Intensive behavior intervention, IBI, Early intensive behavioral intervention, or EIBI).... and to also read that this was implemented by Dr. O. Ivar Lovaas. (And in the history section it could describe the whole process with the aversive and behavior modification program, and B.F. Skinner and O. Ivar Lovaas which developed the Lovaas method.)

Wasn't the Behavior modification method picked up as a researched-based experimental project by Dr. Ivar Lovaas to use as an abusive approach (with the use of aversive developed by B.F. Skinner) for autistic children when it was thought to be a form of Schizophrenia in the '60s-'70s? And then in the '90s I believe it became a non-abusive/non-aversive approach and the name was revised to ABA? ATC ^{. Talk} 02:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

ATC, I haven't had time to look at this, and Eubulides was the expert, but he's no longer editing. I will try to look once I return from travel, next week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Greetings

The ruined city of Ani requires your attention. The thread is "Incivility in dispute over Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome". Regards, SGGH ^ping! 15:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, SGGH-- did I miss a good party? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)