User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch30

Miss Hogg photo

Dare I say this... Ima Hogg is sort of hot[1]! I just finished composing a polite, vaguely slick and somewhat professional sounding email to several contacts at the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston (including the people at the former Hogg home, Bayou Bend) inquiring about the origins and copyright status of the photo. It's Saturday now, but hopefully someone from the museum will reply to me by early next week, if only to tell me to sod off. If I find the information I need, I'll formally ask for licensing permission. It's very possible that the photo is in the public domain; I'll let you know what I find out. Cheers, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're the best; would it help to get Raul involved to make it happen faster? Also, on the talk page, there's some other sites that have a whole ton of other images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I heard back from a lady at the museum today. She forwarded me the phone number and contact info of the museum's "Rights and Reporoductions" department. Maybe a very experienced Wikipedian like you or Raul should give them a call. Shall I forward you the info?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She also sent me a link to their general reproduction policies. The "Fair Use Permitted" section might be relevant here...--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.mfah.org/policies.asp

I wouldn't know what to do with it if you sent it to me, since I'm a wreck on images; sending it to me would just slow things down. Raul654 (talk · contribs) has gotten very active on images lately, and he can probably expedite. Would you mind summarizing to him on his talk page, and asking if he can help expedite? Alternately, if Raul can't move on it, perhaps Elcobbola (talk · contribs) will know what to do; Elcobbola follows my talk page, so he may weigh in before we have to bother Raul. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. For now, I've dropped a note on Elcobbola's talk page.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I’ve always considered a case for fair use of this and the existing image to be valid. The only hang up was NFCC#1, which requires “no free equivalent is available, or could be created”. Unless you have a shovel, “could be created” is out, so the question seems to be how strict one wants to be in analyzing availability. It appears that reasonable efforts have been made to locate free alternatives and have been unsuccessful (impairment has been lack of author/publishing info.) That being the case, I’m satisfied that the FU criteria are met and that either the … ahem … “push up” or existing image could be appropriately used with a FU license. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images give me a headache. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just be glad you don't have to read Title 17. Bad pie. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have happy news. An archivist from the MFAH emailed me today to say that this image is in the public domain. She also made an offer to assist us in researching the article. I forwarded the email to you--and I'm sending Elcobbola a message as well. Perhaps s/he can advise how to upload with the proper tags.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You 'da man !! (Well, you and elcobbola, but he wears stilettos to work :-) Can you drop the good news on the Ima Hogg talk page ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done[2].--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work, indeed. I'll get the image uploaded to the commons (although I'm going to have to make a brand-spankin' new PD license template; I scoured, but apparently no one has utilized an image with the particular PD criterion I have in mind before). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 23:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FA?

Are we ready to nominate Ima Hogg for a FA? Corvus cornix_talk 16:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not even close; Karanacs has been working mostly alone, there is a lot of content on the talk page that needs to be included, and she mentioned on the talk page that she had started a sandbox of her notes as she read, but she needs other people to work the text in. Also, images still pending. Others need to dig and help Karanacs, as she's reading the sources and trying to add the material at the same time; she's been doing a lot of it on her own. Once she gets everything in, it may need to be massaged for final flow, so a FAC nom this week is probably premature, unless a lot happens really fast. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I hadn't seen the comment about the sandbox. I'll take a look at that and try to incorporate it. There are images of Ima when she was young which are probably out of copyright, but we don't know who the photographer was, so we can't really say when they died. I'm going to go over to the Houston Portal and ask if anybody can get some photos of Bayou Bend. Corvus cornix_talk 17:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we assume that http://www.cah.utexas.edu/exhibits/WinedaleStory/blue1/blue1b.html is out of copyright? Corvus cornix_talk 18:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak images, can you run it by Elcobbola (talk · contribs) (including the page where you found it). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ima Hogg

I don't know what happened here. I meant to add the Dallas Morning News source, but I don't know how the other bit got jumbled up there. I fixed this and the book referencing as well. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 18:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind if I try re-writing the lead? If it's not up to snuff, we can let The Fat Man Who Never Came Back give it a whack. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 21:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I will do it today or tomorrow. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 17:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There. I have a history of writing lengthy leads, so you might want to consider trimming it. I also picked up Bernhard's bio from the uni library today. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 20:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maria de Lujan Telpuk

I see you made several edit to Maletinazo and thought you might want to contribute to Maria de Lujan Telpuk before it appears on the main page as part of WP:DYK.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had hoped to see you add some of the spanish sources that you did here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find anything in the reliable Spanish-language publications about her; in fact, I had never heard of her. I'm also not enthralled with the idea of writing about an Argentine Playboy model ... maybe if she were Venezuelan, I could manage it :-) If you have any Spanish-language source you want me to look at, pass them over and I'll try to add something, but if I had my druthers, she'd be AfD'd as completely consequential to the event :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RCC FAC

I tried to resist replying, but gave in eventually. I think my responses don't detract from readability, but if you think they do, I give you carte blanche to do as much radical cutting/moving as you think necessary.

Thank you for all your hard work. Relata refero (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That thing is a monster. I have my opinions on the article, but I just don't have the energy to wade in and deal with the whole situation. I don't need another editor after my blood (I have the fall out from the whole Franco-Mongol alliance Arb-Com to deal with still). If it's still hanging around FAC when I get back from the horse show, I might wade in. And kudos to the folks still sticking in there... I'm impressed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy the horse show; herding cattle vs. herding cats :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cite templates

As I understand Wikipedia:Citation templates, the publication date is bracketed but not the accessdate, right? Thanks, Amerique^dialectics 23:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to tell, because every type of cite template is different, and they keep fiddling with them. Point being, look at the bottom of the article and you can see when errors are occurring. I may have gotten them all, not sure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy,

I don't know what happened, bu the reflist at UCR seems to be broken. I first noticed the issue after I added some citations today and found that clicking the in-text cite link redirects to another references in the reflist rather than the numbered one. Cites 80, 105 and 106 were giving me this problem specifically, but I've found others since then. I went back into article history and determined that this problem didn't exist before the {{Citation}} templates were replaced with citet tags. I don't know what to do short of re-replacing all the citet templates with citations. Amerique^dialectics 21:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking now ... the unnecessarily long and complicated ref name tags don't make it easy. Give me time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started a thread on the issue here:Wikipedia:Help_desk#problems_with_reflist._citations_at_University_of_California.2C_Riverside (sorry for non-MOS formatting;-) Some suggestions have trickled in. Amerique^dialectics 21:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to go off-line. Thanks for helping. Will try to work on this tomorrow. Amerique^dialectics 21:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I pinged Gimmetrow; he'll know what it is.[3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UCR - maybe it was me :)

I messed with the UCR article for awhile, I finally copied the whole thing into my Sandybox :) and it worked fine, so I went back and added the ?action=purge, then went to, umm, brush my teeth, tried again & it was OK. Checked at VPT and Steve Sanbeg has already said it's OK now and recommended the exact thing I'd tried. I don't have the exact timeline but I wish to stake my claim for credit ;) And yes, that ?action=purge helps a lot of things, it re-indexes the wiki search engine, updates images, all kinds of stuff. I'm gonna ask in a squeaky little voice "I think I fixed it, mayn't I have a cookie?" :) Franamax (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You want a cookie after you brushed your teeth? Has your mother not spoken to you about that? ;) Risker (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's wonderfully kind of you, Franamax; I hope when Amerique checks back in here tomorrow, s/he will give you that cookie, since you solved his/her problem !! I simply don't have time to go over there and look, but if you say it's fixed, I take your word for it. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c oh how I hate that:) Risker - Yeah she has, but that's why every time I go shopping now I stand on the cart and go whipping down the aisles riding it. I have really serious problems with authority. SG - In any case, I see now that AWeenieMan did a major cleanup on the UCR references in-among my actions, so I guess I'll have to give him what's left of the cookie... Franamax (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any indication there of anything anyone did that fixed it, so it's all a mystery to me. I'm glad it's solved; it's not what I need on my plate at this particular moment, but I felt obligated to help since the article is at FAC. Whatever you all did, I'm glad it's fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all, for helping me out on that. I thought I had broken the thing somehow. Amerique^dialectics 20:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the further learning department..

You said on the University of California, Riverside article (in an edit summary) "this incorrect date linking *still* needs to be fixed throughout, scroll to the bottom of the page and see the errors caused" .. Do I need to edit the page to see these errors? What exactly am I looking for? (In other words, I'm not seeing anything...) The clueless one...Ealdgyth - Talk 23:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed them all, so you can't see them now , but they had done this:

[[2008]]-[[03-04]]

which was coming out looking like this:

[[March 4]] [[2008]]

when it should look like this:

2008-03-04

If you looked through the citations at the bottom you could see that, although if you have your user prefs set different than mine, you might not have seen it the way I did. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. That's probably it. I have mine set to show day-month-year (it's what I had drilled into me as I was training as a historian) so that's probably it. I don't think I'll be able to catch that one for you, sorry. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never before encoutered that particularly odd way of (mis)formatting dates, so I don't think we need to worry about it. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't happy with the color either, but I was trying to make my stuff look different than yours so you could distinguish easily. Suddenly I though "Gray!" (the other color, yellow, was going to be just as bad) No problems!Ealdgyth - Talk 00:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I think I got them all. I don't see any other issues in the references, they all look fine to me, but I also wouldn't have noticed that issue in the first place. Best, Amerique^dialectics 01:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elderly

Well, this has turned out to be a fine mess. It's probably good for me to know how the nominators feel. :) --Laser brain (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was just looking at that and pondering the best course of action. It would be best if an uninvolved (that is, not you, not me) party would drop him a note and explain why he's off-base and how to cap comments. It's best for a third party to do that. It's probably better if you try not to engage invalid commentary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'll probably choose a... less commercial topic as my next target. --Laser brain (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully someone will drop him a note; in general, it would be helpful if the FAC community would help manage some of the invalid opposes, premature supports and any other issues at FAC, so I can remain neutral and not get into any tangles on FACs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would, but I'm err... still tying up Franco-Mongol stuff. And I stepped into the RCC FAC again (I couldn't help myself! Bainton's OLD!). I wanted to review the Elderly Instruments article myself, but got bogged down with the 8/9/10 or so FACs that started, so I didn't get a chance. It looked good though Laser Brain! Ealdgyth - Talk 03:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, Ealdgyth; not sure how you're doing all you're doing! Unless someone else drops a note to that editor by tomorrow, I'll do it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a summary of the FAC process [4] on his talk page. Hopefully that will help. Karanacs (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Karanacs; very nice, and hopefully will help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might try to incorporate that into some of the guidelines, that was very well written and gentle but helpful for new reviewers. Me, I'd save it somewhere in my userspace to copy/paste if I needed it again (but i'm lazy and do that a lot) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to see the instructions become too complex/overwhelming (not WP:FA and WP:PR) just to account for the rare exceptions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look

Hi Sandy. I am gearing up for "Irreplaceable"'s FAC. Do you have free time to take a look on the article if there are any problems and/or issues? Thanks in advance. --Efe (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the peer review, and I see that Lucifer and M3tal were there; if you've satisfied them, you should be FAC ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They do not answer directly. Anyway, thanks for the reply. If they'll have no objections anymore, I'll proceed then. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 06:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources at RCC FAC

I don't know if you can do this, but I would appreciate other opinions regarding some source issues I have raised at the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 05:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't go there; just keeping the FAC on track is a full-time effort anyway :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I'll try to find other cool heads. Awadewit (talk) 05:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Church

Hi Sandy, I saw your comment on the FAC page about not being able to find the issue about capitalization. This is the comment I copied and pasted from the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami FAC page - It was Karanacs comment. The Miami FAC is here: [[5]]

"diocese and archdiocese should not be capitalized unless referring to a specific one (see first sentence of history section). Not done. Karanacs 13:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC) OK now it is done, sorry I missed all the dioceses thanks for following through.NancyHeise 18:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC"

I'm out

This new generation of Wikipedia editors is full of egotistical wikilawyers who have no concept of two things: a.) realism and b.) history. It's come to the point where their lack of common sense, maturity, and respect has driven me away from the project. Just reading the crap across the Wikipedia, as well as my own experiences, has turned me off from this project more than any vandal could ever do. 70.188.165.96 (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darn it. I just saw that, and I'll miss you. Please e-mail me anytime. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a slow death. I guess my recent minisurge of activity was just my last gasp. My Wikipedia character died a fairly lonely death, but alas, that is the nature of this cyclical beast. 70.188.165.96 (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could sense that your heart didn't seem to be in it; I wish we/I could have done something differently. Have some fun in real life; things may change ... the weather is starting to turn :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oba-mania/phobia hits Wikipedia

It's become pretty frenzied over at Barack Obama these days, especially now that the cat's out of the bag that the article has become one of Wikipedia's most popular. It would be easy to remove excesses and restore FA quality, but it wouldn't last more than a few minutes under these conditions. Would it be useful to poll other FA reviewers for their advice on this? Or is it better to just relax and enjoy the show taking comfort in your advice that the article's long-standing FA rating can't come unstuck so easily? I've been hanging out more on the article's talk page. That's a change of approach for me after a year and a half of hands-on editing, but moderating discussion and steering consensus is no less challenging and can be just as fun. --HailFire (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You already know the answer to that :-) If it comes to FAR, it will be there for about six weeks, and by then, this will have blown over. But you could ask Marskell (talk · contribs)'s opinion. FAR does not solve transitory issues :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry to keep pestering you, but I'm running out of ideas. How to deal with stuff like this? --HailFire (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go have a look now, but general question: considering all the recent news, do you need or have you posted somewhere asking for general help on the article? For example, at ANI or the BLP noticeboards? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I looked at the talk page. First, considering all the recent news, it's not as bad as it could be :-) Looks manageable. Second, the current readable prose size is 41KB, which is reasonable, and the article could even grow a bit if needed, so I'm not sure more needs to be moved to daughter articles. On the other hand, WTR's arguments against summarizing content to daughter articles hasn't convinced me (he used same argument at McCain, and I believe we have to remember we're writing an encyclopedia, not a book, and we have to keep article size within reason -- it's "not our job" to worry about click through). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try your suggestions. But it's this element that has me really worried. If the FAR process means nothing to an editor, just where does that leave our community? I mean, what choices are left when an editor states stuff like Time to stop leaning on the FA broken reed. It's well established that it's bogus, but to open another FAR? Would you forgive me for going that route? I don't see how else such extreme levels of disregard for our established processes can be addressed. --HailFire (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC and FAR are community processes; they are only as good as the input the community provides (just like the rest of Wiki). Of course you can initiate a FAR anytime you want, but I'm of the opinion that it won't solve the issues there. What you really want are more eyes on the article during the election, and I think there must be better ways to achieve that. A well-written, well-cited article is not de-featured because of minor disagreements that will inevitably arise during the election. You can open a FAR, but I'm concerned it won't generate the help you need. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly think all we need are some FA quality control experts to reconfirm that the article isn't total crap. It worked the last time. There really is only one editor now editing the article who is hellbent on ignoring consensus and getting his own way at all costs. Nobody else comes close, not even me. <joke!> I think FAR can help, and perhaps a high visibility article like this one (the most read article on Wikipedia according to compete.com), requires a FAR every 6 months? --HailFire (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's your only goal, a FAR could work, but it could be there for as long as six weeks; seems like overkill for dealing with one editor, so make sure that's what you want. Try to remember that the fun has only just begun; we're not even close to November. Are you sure things are bad enough for a FAR now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the previous FAR lasted three weeks, and the article's content hasn't changed much since, except for some very recent and excessively detailed additions that (to me, at least) aren't very subtle in their purpose of frightening white people. It's seems a shame to see so many long hours of consensus building getting torched when lots of people are visiting and probably judging the quality and potential of Wikipedia generally by what they find in this article. I'll sleep on it. Thanks again for listening. --HailFire (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The previous FAR lasted only three weeks because 1) it was nommed by a sockmaster, and 2) the article wasn't attracting as much attention then. Pls remember that FAR is not dispute resolution, and doesn't work well as dispute resolution. There are other venues for addressing the issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The situation appears much improved following some radical surgery by another editor. Perhaps this was my biggest stumbling block--having been such an active participant in developing the article over the last year and a half, the prospect of starting over a key section seemed more like amputating a limb than getting a badly needed haircut. Actually, the reality was probably somewhere in between, but the end result after a very short interval is a substantial improvement over what was there early yesterday. Thank you, as always, for your expert guidance and calming influence. --HailFire (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA thanks

		Thanks for the support
		Thanks for your support on my request for adminship, which passed 92/2/2. Though I have the mop now, you'll still be seeing plenty of me around, as I intend to reach #1 on WP:WBFAN. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, while I'm here, I notice Effects of Hurricane Ivan in the Lesser Antilles and South America was put on the urgent FAC list. Is the FAC on hold until there are more reviews, or are you just giving it more time? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hink, I'm hoping for a review from an experienced reviewer, just to solidify the support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS, don't look now, but you're already No. 1 at WBFAN :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. Oh, and I know I've been the unofficial #1 person at WBFAN. I just would like to see it official, meaning reaching FA #59 :) ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I asked three people for their opinions. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That works. I asked two people from that list. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC, Sources, and you (otherwise known as the part where the beautimus damsel rides off into the sunset for a bit)

Okies, I think everything that's been addressed by nominators/editors on the FAC page is either struck out or been queried. You may assume that if i have capped something but left stuff out, I'm not yet convinced, except for the Rokeby Venus where it's a support vote even though they are sorting out the quotations. Anything from now on, I'll try to deal with while I'm on the road. If not, that's why I left "comments" and not "support/opposes" (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 02:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I hope you have a great time, but I really hope you're back soon !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah. If something gets dealt with and resolved and I've not struck it yet, I trust you to know that I'd prefer that the article goes ahead and gets promoted without the formality of me striking. Or in other words, I trust you to interpret my meaning of my concern. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks; now go have fun !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Readable Prose

Sandy, is readable prose something you calculate yourself or is there a place to click on the page and just see the number already calculated?NancyHeise (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's explained at WP:SIZE; have you read the page? It tells you how to calculate it manually, or you can go to Dr pda (talk · contribs)'s userpage, where he lists the prose size script that you can install to your monobook. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cannon

No, I'm nearly done with the section on modern artillery now, and I'll take care of the lead in a few hours (unless someone has done it by then). Maybe taking it off WP:FAC until then would be better. · AndonicO ^Hail! 13:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that already. Cheers, · AndonicO ^Hail! 14:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. · AndonicO ^Hail! 14:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The General in His Labyrinth

Hi Sandy, and thanks for looking at the refs. Some of them may be incomplete, and at least one looks suspect, but if anyone can get them sorted it's you ;) EyeSerene^talk 20:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't trouble with that article again. The inuse template has a purpose -- so an editor won't lose a lot of work to edit conflicts. I let Wassup know before I put the article in use, he still persisted, I lost my work, I got tangled in numerous conflicts, and I'm not even sure the refs care correct now. Over and out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate everyone decided to jump in at the same time. I honestly believe it was a genuine misunderstanding though; you're both excellent editors and I can't believe there was any slight intended. Thank you for your help all the same; your time is much appreciated. Best regards, EyeSerene^talk 21:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, ES; I just get really frustrated when that happens. I'll get over it. Eventually :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell - we've all been there ;) It's only Wikipedia... have one on me.

EyeSerene^talk 21:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm totally confused. I mean, surely, we're not expecting the inuse template to stop people from editing in the midst of heavy flow? Marskell (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not in this case, even when someone just wants to help out with some quick cleanup. :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sandy. I just got out of class with all of the fellow members of the WP:MMM project. I was very sorry to see all the confusion that had taken place, ironically at the same time as we were discussing the novel itself in class. I can quite understand your frustration and disappointment. I do hope that you don't tar the whole of WP:MMM with the same brush. I can tell you that our student editors, though as novices they of course do make the odd mistake, are astonishingly appreciative of what you and everyone at the WP:FAT have been doing. We are deeply in your debt. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 21:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, just a quick question... I noticed at some point that you'd mentioned that there were lost of violations of one particular MOS rule on The General in His Labyrinth. I thought I'd find where you said that and look up the rules and try to put things right. I'd vaguely remembered you'd mentioned WP:MOSBLOCK, but that can't be right. But the conversation got so dispersed earlier today I can't find where you said this. Can you point me in the right direction? (NB I think I've pretty much got the references under control there. Though I think the point is going to be to reduce the reliance on quoting the book, and that in part by reducing the large number of minor characters named and described. But that's for a little further on.) Many thanks. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

No, I didn't see it. I just saw Wassup's last edit. There's a lot of new editors on this articles, so I'd edit in small chunks. Marskell (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes!

Sorry! I just realized what I've done. I'll clean up the mess. Cheer! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a half hour to repair what I messed up. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I totally apologize. This whole mess is a complete misunderstanding. Seriously. Totally apologize. When you wrote to me:

"I can't bear to look at the failure there to use named refs; are you working in there now, or can I put it in use to clean up the refs?"

I thought you put the {{inuse}} tag for me ...as I said I would work on the reference name problem. This is obviously self-centered of me ...I didn't mean to be rude at all. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your hard work will be replaced!. I know it doesn't help but this sort of thing has happened to me too. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The General in His Labyrinth

I believe I've recovered your effort and did further copy editing at The General in His Labyrinth. The ref name problem is more or less resolved. Please, don't say 'never again' with this article. I only started to edit this article today. The regular contributors shouldn't lose the experience of someone like yourself just 'cause I blundered through. I'll remove myself from editing the page from now on. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what goes-around-comes-around. All my editing work on the page has been undone. All of mine and your careful edits of ref names: Gone. At this juncture, you're allowed a bit of schadenfreude on my part. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS needs work

I finally got around to modifying AIDS#Epidemiology (and the epidemiology part of AIDS's lead) up to a state where the stuff that was wrong has been either fixed or moved to another (more-appropriate) section. A lot of problems, remain, though:

AIDS#Epidemiology doesn't cover a lot of topics that it should, including changes with time, risk factors, and comorbid conditions.
The brief part of the other sections that I read carefully also seem to have a lot of problems. Much of the material is outdated or repetitive. For example, until I just now fixed it, AIDS#Prognosis did not even mention basic details like mean survival time after infection. I have the vague sense that this article hasn't seen careful attention in some time.
HIV seems to be a fork of AIDS; what's up with that? For example, HIV#Epidemiology appears to be a copy of an older (and buggier) version of AIDS#Epidemiology.

From what I've seen, AIDS is no longer of featured-article quality, alas, and it'll take quite some work to fix it. Eubulides (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am too busy to start a FAR on AIDS right now, but it's ripe for FAR if someone else has the time. I did put in an "oppose" for HIV, based only on a review of HIV#Epidemiology; thanks for mentioning that. Eubulides (talk) 08:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to volunteer to FAR it. I've been working on the article with others, but it needs some clean up. If may opine, did it get to this state because our standards for FA have increased over the years, or because it wasn't carefully watched and a lot of cruft crept in? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both. Here's the featured version; five-second flyover shows multiple MoS breaches (check out WP:MSH), loads of uncited text, and a massive external link farm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

maletinazo

will do thanks for the tip. I do not have a citation at the moment just a source. Will wait for that citation to reveal the rest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angeluz222 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Ima

Sorry about that!! I saw that you were doing ref cleanup and hoped that if I worked on one paragraph at a time there wouldn't be big issues. I have a few non-Wiki things I have to take care of now, so I'll be out of the article for at least a few hours. Have fun! Karanacs (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good! My prose is awful, especially in the first draft. Karanacs (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've kept my nose to the grindstone, and I think I've got the bulk of the information out of my notes and into complete sentences in the article. The sentences, however, are probably awful. I'll log on as much as I can this weekend to try to massage it, but any help that you can find is greatly appreciated :) Karanacs (talk) 02:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Giants: Citizen Kabuto

Just saw your articlestats note. I had previously posted this - should I put something like that out of order at the top, in the future? Maralia (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should be up top when there are differences like this, and stats should be updated when the FAC is close to closing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. What's the idea behind updating stats near closing? Although in this case it's obviously demonstrating that the nominator did nothing, I've not heard of updating stats once a nomination has begun. Maralia (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes that stats change dramatically during the nomination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS

AIDS has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I'm supposed to state that I notified everyone? I'm an FAR-virgin, so please forgive me. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Komodo dragon

I know you're busy, but might I ask that you read the aforementioned article, which I have been working on and give me some feedback? I think it's pretty much ready for FA, but I'm very cautious. bibliomaniac 15 Midway upon life's journey... 02:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing publishers on many sources so I can't evaluate reliability of sources, punctuation problems on image captions per WP:MOS#Captions, WP:DASH vs. WP:HYPHEN issues throughout (example: ... In June 2001, a dragon seriously injured Phil Bronstein -- executive editor of the San Francisco Chronicle and then-husband of film actress Sharon Stone -- when he entered ... and Megalania prisca - A huge extinct Varanid lizard), endash issues on page ranges in citations (ask Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to run his script), more endash problems in the text (example: ... There are approximately 4,000-5,000 living ... ), I didn't check the prose because your prose is better than mine :-) Maybe you can ask MikeSearson to read through it, since you did Blue Iguana? Biggest problem is your citations are not complete: see WP:CITE/ES. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE Operation Igloo White

The following is the answer given last year to another editor wishing to push an article of mine to FA:

The answer is emphatically no (see my comment on my user page). Have had two articles pushed up the FA ladder by other editors, neither of which made it because: the prose was not up to the editor's opinion of "excellent", they were too long and too detailed (and, therefore, should be split or shortened), they were not geared for the "average" reader, blah, blah, blah. I won't waste my time on rewriting an A-Class article to suit them. That's not what I'm doing this for. I have better things to waste my time on, like writing new articles. I don't have an opinion on the process because I refuse to participate in it, all I can say is that it seems too much like "ticket punching" and ego stroking. RM Gillespie (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC status

Sandy, just wanted to let you know that I may be another day or so responding to comments on the Æthelred of Mercia FAC. I have been incredibly busy at work and am traveling today; I may get to it tonight but it might be Friday or Saturday. It does have three supports and no opposes so I am not too worried about it, but two of the supports have made good comments that I will be addressing. I don't know if you'll promote or wait, but either way I wanted to let you know I'm not ignoring the comments, I just can't get to them for a day or so. Mike Christie (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about link

A while ago you provided a link to a page where, if you filled in the article name, you could retreive the number of edits each editor had made to the article since it's inception. I copied that link but now it does not work. Could you provide that link again? Thanks! Mattisse (Talk) 17:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the infobox on my user page, called article stats. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It doesn't work when I move it to my page. I'll try again -- or maybe it immovable! Mattisse (Talk) 05:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I thread regarding your work on Autism Speaks

I think you're the nicest "wikipedia troll" I have met so far. Have a nice day! Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't even live under a bridge :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not with that attitude... ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saving diffs here about ongoing personal attacks on me at AN/I:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive390#Wrong Planet on autism articles again,
Fenric notification,
- Removed attempt to discuss attack
- Second discussion removed
Alex Plank notification. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI diff SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem

What seems to be the problem? --Shark face 217 19:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa whoa whoa. I followed the link you posted on his talk page. I strongly, strongly suggest you get some formal dispute resolution instead of waiting for a reply. --Shark face 217 19:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far, I'm giving him a chance to retract; I was hoping you could get through to him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do. But I have a bad feeling that things will get much worse before they get better. --Shark face 217 20:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check his talk page. --Shark face 217 20:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, deflection of everything raised to strawmen, and apparently no intent to retract. Next. Thanks, anyway; I was hoping he'd listen to someone else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I suggest you disengage on his talk, there are a lot of eyes on this one now. I think if he carries on like this he will be blocked - actually he's bloody lucky he's not blocked now. Guy (Help!) 20:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Guy; there's doesn't seem to be much else I can do. I appreciate your efforts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider me an informal arbitrator in this case. See his talk page for my argument. --Shark face 217 02:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Guy's advice to stay away from his talk page is best and I believe I should follow that advice; Alex has shown so far no inclination to retract. Striking the false claims is a simple matter, SOP; that he won't do it is interesting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be what concerns him ...

As I'm sure you're aware, the word 'lying' implies a purposeful deceit. You have no reliable way of knowing what I nor any other of wikipedians believe to be the truth. Consequently, to claim that I would knowingly state something untrue not only shows a lack of good faith but also demonstrates a certain amount of prejudice against the validity of what I have to say.

... so I've acknowledged that he may have believed it at some point, and apologized if he felt I was calling it a willful intent to deceive.[6] I can't find a case where striking anything will be more helpful than an apology about implications of his intent, since the fact remains that the statements aren't true, regardless of word choice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have done what I can. It's now up to the both of you to settle it yourselves. See his talk page and put down specifically what you are willing to strike out, as well as what you wish him to strike. --Shark face 217 19:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Shark, but one of us seems to be missing something, maybe it's me. JzG advised me to stay away from his talk page; I think that's sound advice. He's not listening to anyone, and he's not going to listen to me on his talk page (and this has taken me away from my FAC duties for two full days now, it's time for this to end). There's nothing new on his talk page since yesterday, and he has (at least as of the last time I checked) still not stricken the untrue statements about me, which I've made plainly clear many times on the An/I, yet he ignores. So, I'm just not clear what you're asking. I did see a comment by you on his talk page that confuses me; you seemed to be saying the dispute is about a particular article, so I'm concerned that you might not have followed what's really going on here ("move onto improving Wikipedia, not fighting over an article"). It's not about any specific article (rather tendentious editing on a series of articles, COI, and off-wiki canvassing); it's about him believing and repeating things that were said about me on his board by a now banned Wiki user. The COI editing issues are resolved by extra eyes on those articles, so I can disengage, considering the campaign against me that has been waged on his website, Wrong Planet, and now furthered by him on Wiki. This is simply him bringing his off-Wiki beliefs to Wiki, not about a particular article. I was hoping he would listen to someone trusted about the importance of not making unfounded statements about someone on Wiki, and not dragging off-Wiki beliefs to Wiki, but it doesn't seem that he's heard that message, from you or from anyone else. I've extended an apology to him on AN/I, so I've certainly done my share, yet he refuses to budge (as of the last time I checked, and this is becoming an enormous timesink). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of neutrality, I will say both sides of this issues have made mistakes in their campaign. Some errors are, of course, much more egregious than others. I will say this: if you feel that there will be no progress made, drop the issue and move on. This is eating up the time of myself, you, Perl, JzG, and several other users who I am sure are monitoring the goings on here as well as the original post at WP:ANI. If there is no headway to be made, I suggest the entire thing be dropped. If you wish, you could always lodge a formal complaint, but personally I find that petty and not worth the effort. It's best both parties just move and return to what we are here for: improving and editing Wikipedia so that every human can access the entire sum of human knowledge. --Shark face 217 20:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; the entire sum of human knowledge now includes the untrue notion that I'm a banned Wrong Planet user. Let's just move on and let the attack stand; I really shouldn't worry about petty things like my character or integrity. Thanks for trying, Shark. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried my best, and that's the most you can ask for from a mere man. --Shark face 217 22:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Day of Spring!

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Re: Signpost Dispatch for the 24th

I've added some material on the shells and their different features, but I have no idea if it's the sort of thing you were looking for; so comments would be welcome (particularly if you wanted something different). Kirill 01:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dispatch: list punctuation

Reads better when punctuated as a single sentence. I left a note on Broughton's talk page. Tony (talk) 02:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advice requested

I'm not sure what to do with this comment. It smells like a troll to me but I don't want to be dismissive of any legitimate comments. --Laser brain (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've been busy! (I have a question abt citing Enc. Brit.)

Sandy - It's been some time since we've chatted, and you look like you're having a lot of fun! I have a question from the dim dark past ... I seem to remember a reluctance to use the on-line Encyclopedia Britannica as a cited source, but before I spend time roaming around WP policies, guidelines, etc., do you happen to know/remember what the current policy/guideline/suggestion is about citing to the on-line Enc. Brit.? All the best, NorCalHistory (talk) 09:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, especially where a citation is to a "premium" article (I think that means you've got to pay to see the article).NorCalHistory (talk) 10:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, NorCal; how are you? I know it's not optimal; I'm not sure what the reasons are. Perhaps you can inquire at WP:RSN? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent thought ... glad to see you're having so much fun! NorCalHistory (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]