Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:56, 22 October 2009

If you want me to look at an article or a FAC, please provide the link.

If you are unsure if a FAC is closed, please see WP:FAC/ar.

To leave me a message, click here.

Template:FixBunching

Archives

2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · 2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013–2015 · 2016–2017 · 2018 · 2019 · 2020 · FA archive sorting · 2021 · 2022 · 2023 Jan–Mar (DCGAR) · 2023 Apr–Aug · 2023 Aug–Dec · 2023 Seasons greetings · 2024 · 2025

Template:FixBunching

Template:FixBunching

Template:FixBunching

WALL-E review

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

Virginia

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)

en dash

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

Need help with a FA

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 20:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages 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)

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° 21:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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)

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 01:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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 05:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

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 18:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope

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

Source run...

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)

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)

Question

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)

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)

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)

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)

So, in effect, some random guy who does nothing on Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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.) – iridescent 19:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

Lindsay Hassett with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

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)

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

Hey

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

Replied

I've replied at my talk. UnitAnode 21:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Trichotillomania

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/Trichotillomania the hebrew ver http://he.wikipedia.org/%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 yakir.zadok@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.71.249 (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

Note from Ottava Rima for you

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 14:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Re:Hat in hand

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

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)

Bioidentical Hormone Replacement Therapy

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)

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)

Question

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

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)

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

Saturday tune

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

Incase I might be able to help

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 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 15:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

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 16:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

See Misplaced Pages:Main Page featured article protection. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Re

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

Attachment theory

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 scribs 16:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 scribs 16:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you read that New Scientist article? Fainites scribs 17:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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)

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 scribs 19:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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

Email

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

I like the IDEA of the form

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. UnitAnode 15:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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! :) UnitAnode 15:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't count on me! My attention span for dealing with the antics there will wane quickly. 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)

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. UnitAnode 15:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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! UnitAnode 15:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

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

ArbCom clarification on Mattisse's Plan

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

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

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

rev

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

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)

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

Thanks

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

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)

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)

Your revision - Autism Speaks

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)

Basshunter vandalism

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; 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)

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)

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

Supernatural (season 1)

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)

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  00:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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)

Apology

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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 |  16:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

Max Weber

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 19:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

Ping

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

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)

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

Washington Post no-show

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)

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)

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 20:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Refs following punctuation

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Asperger edits

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....

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

RFA threshold

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

Yes!! He was!! Jehochman 03:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Interview

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

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)

FYI

Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates#fourth lev headers Dabomb87 (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent comments of yours

I am trying very hard not to comment at all on matters pertaing to Mattisse. However, it would be very cowardly and wrong of me not to publicly state that I endorse your most recent edits, regarding Mattisse, 100%. It rather looks at the moment as though it is just you who sees the problem this way, that is not the case, but others are just too sick and tired of headbanging to support you. If I post, I will be accused of drama-mongering and trolling by her mentors. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Giano (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you able to refresh my memory? Since I'm not an admin, I can't locate the deleted FAR, which was removed so she could nom a (??) Geogre FAR instead, after she got into a talk tussle. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm one of those in the "sick and tired of headbanging" group, but I don't see anything wrong in what SandyG's said either. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)