Hi there Sandy, I have been recommended by Ritchie333 to look for you on FAC. One of my works, Piccadilly line, was recently promoted to GA instantly. I have the intention to take this into DYK, but it is way too early for a special occasion hook on 15 December (date when the line was first opened). I am wondering if I am able to take this to FA status at its current condition so I am asking for some feedback whether I would have enough time to work on the article before I bring it to FAC in I suppose 3-4 weeks' time. Thank you very much :D Much love Vincent LUFan ( talk) ( Kenton!) 15:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello. Would you be able to give input on the proposal(s) made on the talk page?Thanks. [2] Prcc27 ( talk) 15:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Greetings! This month celebrates our second (I think) new medicine FA in 2020, a handful of newly reviewed GAs, and of course another month without major on-wiki disaster. The newsletter's featured section is off again, but please continue to drop comments and ideas at the
newsletter talk page. Here is what's new this month:
Complete blood count nom.
Spicy, his first FA! |
Parkinson's disease now a
featured article removal candidate. Discussion
here |
News from around the site
Discussions of interest
For a list of ongoing discussions in WP:MED-tagged articles, see
Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Discussions
Also, a reminder to see
Article Alerts for a list of medicine-related AfDs, CfDs, merge discussions, and more!
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Ajpolino ( talk) 00:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Dear SandyGeorgia, more than 10 years ago you helped me with citations on an FA review for Minneapolis. We use citation templates. Could be wrong, but I recall that four things are essential (title, url, publisher and accessdate). This week an editor who is possibly more in touch with current reality came up with this edit. Would you be so kind as to weigh in on this thread? No problem if not. Generally I would prefer not to let Minneapolis slip into Wikipedia:Former featured articles. Thank you. - SusanLesch ( talk) 15:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't believe IPs can initiate FARs according to the usual instructions, because it requires creating a new page which IPs cannot do. Nikkimaria ( talk) 21:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Nikkimaria I thought we used to have a parameter in the notification template for when someone else nominated and a second editor is only notifying; am I deluded? If so, I will manually write the notifications. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you remember making a comment at the Dali FA about a grammatical error I'd made concerning plural vs singular goats... At the time I somehow could not understand what was wrong but I was looking at the article just now and I suddenly understood what the error was and I facepalmed so hard I think it registered on the Richter scale. Anyway, I figured you might find it funny, 'cause I definitely had to laugh at myself for not getting something so obvious the first time around :P ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 08:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
No, I cannot - suggest just tag db-author. Nikkimaria ( talk) 20:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Peace? The Rambling Man ( Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
As I asked TRM... can we move the whole who did what when dispute off the FAC talk? I don't have much time for wiki as it is and having to sort through all that interpersonal discussion is just making me want to drop the whole FA process as it stands right now. I asked him to take it to user talk and I'm going to ask you also. I haven't dug into who started the personalization, and I don't want to do so... it's immaterial to me and my growing tiredness of the whole FA process. So I'm asking you to help improve the situation by at the very least going elsewhere. This doesn't mean I know who started what.. .it's that I want it over and someone has to be the better person and take steps to get it away from the FAC talk. -- Ealdgyth ( talk) 17:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate you taking the time to provide a review for Hector. I know it wasn't the most exciting event that took place hurricane-wise that season. Noah Talk 19:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Remind me, there was a script somewhere that corrects hyphens and dashes which you recommended for pre-FAC prep work, but I don't remember where it was. I need it for Quelccaya Ice Cap. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 12:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Note the the FACBot has merged the old AfD template, and, as bonus, sorted the milestones into chronological order. [5] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
The Worm in my Egg Cream Award | |
This is for helping me get Squirm it's Featured Article status. Went a long way to get it to there and could not have done it without you. GamerPro64 14:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC) |
... for noticing the mess. Tho' I wasn't practicing to deceive anyone, I still managed to weave quite the tangled web. I hope I have untangled it. All the best, and a happy new year! Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Hey Sandy, can you confirm that most (all?) FA nominations are "self-nominations"? ("My" one and only FA was nominated by someone else, a practice that at the time—"Brilliant prose" days?—I assumed was fairly common, but now I think is virtually non-existent). Thus if there are many editors (like me) who have no interest in nominating "their" articles, then FAs will almost certainly not represent our best work. Paul August ☎ 15:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Just to say I'm not sure you'll get much engagement at WT:FAC at the moment; sections like the one I capped exhaust people and reduce their interest in commenting. I will just mention that the stats I collect are certainly limited in what they show, but I think they're useful so long as they're not overinterpreted; and that not doing them wouldn't increase my reviewing -- there's no overlap in the time I spend on one vs. the other. I think you already know that I don't agree with your diagnosis of FAC, and hence, unsurprisingly, I disagree on the recommended treatment. We have a decade of evidence that exhortations to increase effort don't work. If there's something that can be improved, I don't believe it will be done by asking people to step up. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 18:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Water is the most important part of beaver habitat, and they require a yearly supply that is sufficient for swimming, diving, floating logs, protection of lodge entrances and safety from land-dwelling predators.Do they get an annual delivery from the Culligan man? Can they go nine months without water as long as they get it once a year? What the heck. At that article, such continues ... the writer should have developed a collaboration with good copyeditors years ago, and must know by now that you can't prep a broad article for FAC in three days. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the post on the FAC talk page. Apologies for posting on your talk page, but I was uncertain if this really fit with the current discussion. I agree with you that opposes should be used more often, but I would hope that they are done in a way that is not personalized against the nominator. I have reacted very poorly to oppose declarations in the past, and it is honestly something I am still working on. I know that it is absolutely impossible to avoid having a nominator respond negatively to an oppose declaration, but I wish there were more objective ways of opposing.
I remember a few years back when more reviewers opposed, and the discussion and overall tone would turn quite hostile very quickly from both sides of the conversation. I think the deteriorating relationship between nominator and reviewer could be linked to larger issues with the FAC and participation in that area of Wikipedia. That could just be me though. Anyway, I just wanted to voice my concern, because while I agree with you about the need for more opposes, I hope they return in a more constructive manner and not in the rather toxic or personalized ways that I have seen in the past.
Apologies again for the random message. I was just curious about your response to this. I do not consider myself to be an experienced Wikipedia editor at all so these kinds of discussions are best suited for those far more experienced than myself. Anyway, I hope you are having a great end to your week. Aoba47 ( talk) 19:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Apologies for yet another message, but I just wanted to let you know that it is standard practice to put music charts side-by-side. See the "Style" (Taylor Swift song) article for an example. I do not see why it would be a MOS:SANDWICH since having these charts side-by-side does not disturb the layout. Just wanted to let you know about that. Aoba47 ( talk) 23:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Aoba47 on cue, the Signpost provides an example of precisely what I mentioned in this Newsroom discussion. At the talk discussion referenced, there are a number of disgruntled editors lamenting
This is succinctly summarized in that discussion here, and explained in depth here by Worm That Turned.
What is of interest to our discussion here is that the Signpost would even consider running a piece on what amounts to sour grapes. Why? Because those are the editors the Signpost is more apt to gear their publications towards. In fact, in the Arb section draft while the Medicine case was underway, it was apparent that the Signpost editors weren't following the issues at all, and did not seem aware that one arb did not appear to be even reading the evidence upon which they based proposed findings without evidence, or understanding the basics of the case (as in who filed it and why).
When editors hold opinions that sync with the Signpost's opinions, the Signpost is inclined towards covering them. And that is why most readers have signed off of reading the Signpost. We elected these arbs to do exactly what they are doing-- with the exception of the one who is having a hard time keeping up with basics. There is a lot of handwaving there about context et al, because some of the editors opining there reject the basic tenets of Wikipedia that the rest of us have to abide by. Bst, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
There's always something new for me to not be aware of. At Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Collaboration_of_the_Month#Nominations you and GB both have the "Daily average page views for 2019". Where, pray tell, can I find that number for a page? Ajpolino ( talk) 15:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Greetings,
I've seen you discuss the problem of publications copying Wikipedia articles and wanted to get some assistance. This paper published in 2020 is remarkably similar to our article at Nevado Sajama:
The terrain is characterized by a continuous ice cover in the central sector of the mountain, exposures of bedrock, deposits and rock glaciers in some sites, alluvial fans and scree in the periphery of Sajama and moraines forming a girdle around the upper sector of Sajama.(article) with
The terrain is characterized by a continuous ice cover in the central sector of the mountain, exposures of bedrock, deposits and rock glaciers in some sites, alluvial fans and scree in the periphery and moraines forming a girdle around the upper sector of Sajama.(publication)
It is situated in Sajama National Park and is a composite volcano consisting of a stratovolcano on top of several lava domes.(article) with
It is an extinct composite volcano with a stratovolcano on top of several lava domes.(publication)
Changes in the subduction regime took place during the Oligocene and directed an increase of volcanic activity in the region.(article) and
Changes in the subduction regime took place during the Oligocene and directed an increase of volcanic activity in the region.(publication)
Volcanoes in the region have ages ranging from Pleistocene to Miocene[15] and grew on top of earlier ignimbrites; the whole volcanic activity was controlled by faults.(article) and
Volcanoes in the region have ages ranging from Pleistocene to Miocene and grew on top of earlier ignimbrites; the whole volcanic activity was controlled by faults.(publication)
Starting in the lake Laguna Huana Kkota on the northwestern foot of Sajama, the Tomarapi River flows first northeastward, then east, south and southeast around the northern and eastern flanks of the volcano; the Sicuyani River which originates on Sajama joins it there. The southern flanks give rise to the Huaythana River which flows directly south and then makes a sharp turn to the east. On the western side of the volcano originates the Sajama River which flows due south and increasingly turns southeast before joining the Lauca River.[11][9] The other rivers draining Sajama and its ice cap also eventually join the Lauca River and end in the Salar de Coipasa.(article) and
Starting in the lake Laguna Huaña Kkota on the north-western foot of Nevado Sajama, the Tomarapi River flows firstly eastward, then east, south and southeast around the northern and eastern flanks of the volcano; the Sicuyani River which originates on Nevado Sajama joins it there. The southern flanks give rise to the Huaythana River which flows directly south and then makes a sharp turn to the east. Sajama River originates on the western side of the volcano, and it flows to the south and increasingly turns southeast before joining the Lauca River. Other rivers draining Nevado Sajama and its ice cap also eventually join the Lauca River and end in the Salar de Coipasa(publication)
Given that the article was last expanded in 2018 in a big batch of piecemeal edits and I don't see any attribution anywhere nor compatible copyright rules. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 13:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus there are some of the pieces, and I can add the backwards copy template, but first we should provide proof that you didn't copy the highlighted phrases from a different source ... As to pursuing this beyond adding the backwards copy template, I can tell you that my experience was not ... productive time spent ... and the copyvio at dementia with Lewy bodies is much more extreme than this (where Fymat took almost the entire article verbatim). Once we add some proof that the copied portions were your original words (which means going back to check diffs where you added some of those copied words), then we can a) add the backwards copy template, and b) add the website to Mirrors and forks. If you want to go further than that, I would only do that via email ... as I believe Wikipedia has sold us a bit of a bill of goods as to how much we can defend against plagiarism. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Next, examining a specific passage fully duplicated:
The terrain is characterized by a continuous ice cover in the central sector of the mountain, exposures of bedrock, deposits and rock glaciers in some sites, alluvial fans and scree in the periphery of Sajama and moraines forming a girdle around the upper sector of Sajama.sourced to page 361 of Smith and Lowell.
Since I was pinged, concerning the bit about 'predatory journals', this one is seems to be published by the Hungarian National Museum. If there's a copyright issue, it's very possible it simply eluded the reviewers (it's not something most small reviews, or the editors of small journals usually pay attention to). While it may or may not be a super high quality journal (I'm really unqualified to opine here, since I know very little on archaeology), it doesn't strike me as predatory. It is indexed in Scopus for what it's worth. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 18:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Jo-Jo, here are the next steps:
The SPFLT Achievement Patch | ||
For your contributions to the Manned Orbiting Laboratory FAC (and probably a million other things you've done -- you're a pillar of WP Neopeius ( talk) 04:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC) |
(and my apologies for Pinging you -- I didn't know you hated pings with a passion.)
Sandy, I've been thinking about the possibility of combining templates, as we discussed at WT:FAC, and I'm not sure it's the best way to handle that information. Some of the constituent pieces will need to be used in different places -- for example the new peer review sidebar can go on user talk pages by itself, and so can the FAC urgents and FAR urgents, but there's no reason to assume anyone who wants any of those three would want all three. So I'm starting to think they need to remain separate. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 10:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
I realise you are flat out and your time is hen's teeth...BUT...can you look at the Portrait of a Musician FAC. High potential 1st time nominator. Ceoil ( talk) 11:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot on which article we discussed the problem of DYK archiving and link to the archive per wrong day. I woke up thinking that it wouldn't be a problem if the archiving was done immediately with posting. Sure, there would be occasional cases when a hook is pulled or reworded, but repairing that also in the archive should be a minor problem, compared to the programmed inconsistency, leading to wrong links day by day. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, SandyGeorgia!
I have finished my Primary_ovarian_insufficiency revisions. Please let me know if you see anything else I need to address.
Talk:Primary_ovarian_insufficiency#Review_changes has the notes:
Thank you, Dan / Memdmarti ( talk) 17:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Greetings. This month marks the return of the project's long-dormant
collaboration of the month! With some luck and effort, perhaps we can keep it going. I hope you're all finding ways to remain sane during another tumultuous month. Ready or not, here is what's happening around the project:
Seminal vesicles nom.
Tom (LT), reviewed by
Berchanhimez |
Parkinson's disease now a
featured article removal candidate. Discussion
here |
News from around the site
Discussions of interest
For a list of ongoing discussions in WP:MED-tagged articles, see
Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Discussions
Also, a reminder to see
Article Alerts for a list of medicine-related AfDs, CfDs, merge discussions, and more!
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Ajpolino ( talk) 20:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, SandyGeorgia! Thank you for inviting me to /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hemothorax/archive1#Hemothorax
1) Clarification needed:
Diberri-Boghog at http://tools.wmflabs.org/citation-template-filling/cgi-bin/index.cgi?
appears to be another name for what I (you?) have called
Wikipedia template filling at https://citation-template-filling.toolforge.org/cgi-bin/index.cgi
Diberri-Boghog forwards to Wikipedia template filling at https://citation-template-filling.toolforge.org/cgi-bin/index.cgi
Is that correct?
2) Are we restircted to a <ref name=":8"> reference naming style?
Thank you, Dan Memdmarti ( talk) 05:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
The reference naming style (using numbers like "ref name=":8"") interferes with my manually correcting references and noting page numbers. If there are no objections, I would like to change that naming style to a AuthorYearPage (when available) like ref name=Seligson2020p98. Note: Seligson (ref name=":8") does not have a page number and I have used an invented p98 as an invented example only. I also note that Seligson may need to be replaced as it is a StatPearls ref. If you want to wait until there is clarification of sources like StatPearls, emsworld.com, fpnotebook.com, symptoma.com, rn.com, please wave me off.
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, SandyGeorgia!
Regarding "ref name=":8"": While setting up my key, I had an epipheny, someone else may be using a key that changing the naming style would mess up. I changed course and created a key in my sandbox at User_talk:Memdmarti/sandbox/hemothorax#Key_for_ref_name=":xyz" . Thank you, Dan -- Memdmarti ( talk) 18:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Sandy. You may have received a ping (I don't like them, either) earlier on about this article which I want to nominate at FAC. It passed GA three weeks ago and was on DYK yesterday. I've raised a PR request as that should be a useful preliminary. Since it passed GA, I've done some fine-tuning and added a few extra sentences but will not touch it again now while the PR is current.
I've had a lot of involvement at GAN but only three (plus one just started) FAC reviews done and I haven't nominated an FAC before. Gerda says you would be a good person to approach about the logistics and mechanics of the nomination and review processes. Providing you have time (and please say so if you don't), I'd appreciate any help and advice you can provide. All the best, Sandy, and keep safe. No Great Shaker ( talk) 15:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, I think I've seen you point out more MOS:SANDWICH violations than anyone else. I don't have much of an eye for the finer points of page layout and style, so I often need to rely on folks like you with a sharper sense for these kinds of things. But last night I bumped into Signs_and_symptoms_of_HIV/AIDS#Acute_infection, which made me laugh out loud and think of you. Unless it's something funny with my screen, perhaps even I can catch the occasional MOS violation. Anyway I hope all is well on your end. Another exciting week begins! Ajpolino ( talk) 16:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi,SandyGeorgia! If I click “thank” at Diff, does it create a pingie-thingy? Do pingie-thingies include both "Alerts" and "Notices"? Thank you, Dan -- Memdmarti ( talk) 14:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, you pinged me on What's a Nice Girl Like You Doing in a Place Like This asking "why did the peer review script not archive this on talk?". I'm not sure why that didn't happen. The script was developed by another editor User:WritKeeper, and seems to work most of the time. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 23:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I've taken your point on board and will make no further comment. As soon as I made the SPI report, the guy disappeared only to re-appear tonight. The quacking is deafening. I would appreciate you taking a look at some of the other comments, they too are casting aspersions. W C M email 02:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Sandy,
I'm going around the FA list and found a recent promotion ( Binary search algorithm - 2018) that has a gigantic talk page. I don't think we need threads from 2011 called "terrible state of this article" in a recent FA's talk page so I set to archive the thing, but then I got afraid I would break something in it (silly, I know). Could you please take a look? Sorry to bother. RetiredDuke ( talk) 22:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
In case you want to learn the tricks :) GimmeBot used to:
That's it ! I figure if I do it enough, other editors will catch on and start cleaning up their own article milestones. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello. Evrik nominated the article for DYK, but hasn't been active since October. Would you be okay with adopting the nomination and addressing the concerns raised about the nomination, or do you think it should be closed? Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 15:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
The Reviewers Award | ||
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of the thorough, detailed and actionable reviews you have carried out. This work is very much appreciated. Gog the Mild ( talk) 21:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC) |
I retroactively vest that authority just in case User:Gog the Mild has egregiously overstepped his bounds. Hi Sandy! I hope you’re well.😊 Anythingyouwant ( talk) 23:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Not gonna name the specific one, to avoid all implications of canvassing, but one of my two active ones is one of the longest currently at FAR. Wikipedia:Featured article review/Battle of Shiloh/archive1 from May was painfully long. As a point of advice, what's the general limit to people's willingness to read FAR noms in length? I like to be as comprehensive as possible when nominating for FAR, but I don't want to hit the TLDR point. I also tend to edit WP while listening to Turnpike Troubadours, which may contribute to a tendency to ramble. Hog Farm Bacon 03:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Laguna del Maule (volcano)/archive2. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 11:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
In your peer-review of Elisabeth College you wrote
As a US reader whose boys went to a private all-boys school, I am completely confused about why an "independent" school is also referred to as a public school. I guess an independent school in the UK is not private??
In confessing you are half way there. If you look at the Clarendon Commission who investigated financial misconduct you find that there are only 9 true public schools, Public Schools Act 1868 put this into law and two of the schools fought in court not to be included in the new financial restrictions imposed on these 'public schools'- and won the right to remain 'private' schools.
There was a great marketing advantage to calling your self a public school. Public Schools Yearbook was published for the first time in 1889, listing 30 schools, mostly boarding schools, and the term Great Public School seeps in. This I think is where I draw the line, between public and private.
We have a list of 24 public schools on the 1911 postcard.
The Fleming Report has an appendix on naming problem, and comes up with no conclusion. There was a passage from 1581 about educating privately at home, rather than publicly in a school. (early argument against Home Schooling!). Its final recommendation to include all HRA and Direct Grant School is far too wide to be useful.
Our article Public school (United Kingdom) is good but confusing to read and I think would benefit from a few lists that could be taken from the Fleming report.
You and I, could set up an independent school tomorrow but to be a public school you need to have history: at the very least to have been mentioned by Fleming- but more properly to have been included in the 1889 Public Schools Year book. Which is verifiable. ClemRutter ( talk) 12:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
In the URFA instructions, you talk about 3 experienced FA reviewers to mark one as okay. Would I qualify as an experienced FA reviewer? I'd say I'm experienced for the GA process (249 GA reviews), but I'm newer to FAC/FAR. Hog Farm Bacon 23:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
And perhaps a bit of PTSD even ... when I saw Wikipedia:Featured article review/Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami/archive1 ... all those FACs of Catholic Church ... sorry I've been scarce, friend just lost her battle with breast cancer and I'm going to be reeling from it for a while. -- Ealdgyth ( talk) 01:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
A draft nom statement. Am I laying it on too thick? Ajpolino ( talk) 02:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | |
Thank you so much for your help on helping me improve " Cups (song)"! I really do appreciate your help! The Ultimate Boss ( talk) 23:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC) |
I stumbled upon this when fixing up some old peer reviews: Talk:Anna Hazare. I know talk page sprawl is a passion of yours and thought you might appreciate this :). -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 22:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, SandyGeorgia. I have a limited opening from now until January 15 in which to make any changes we need to Minneapolis. Several of us have been working on it and a few of the points you raised have already been addressed (cf. Talk:Minneapolis#To_Do_for_FAR and Talk:Minneapolis#Geology). Thank you. - SusanLesch ( talk) 18:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
... is getting so long it's almost painful to look at. The more I'm involved with FAR, the more I see why people complained about the bronze star rapidly losing value. This is gonna take years to resolve, it looks like. Thankfully, [[Wikipedia:There is no deadline|there is no deadline]. Hog Farm Bacon 06:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
When I was working up my guide today, it struck me that Arbcom is really really lacking in female viewpoints. Not a single candidate this year is female and it shows. And most of the guide writers are male and THAT shows. I'm not usually one to cry about bias on Wikipedia but while the main editor base is actually getting more female (at least from my point of view) ... the upper reaches seem to be getting more male. I think we need to start working to get some of the female editors to step up and start taking on more leadership .. any talk page stalkers have suggestions? -- Ealdgyth ( talk) 16:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Back to Ealdgyth's initial question ... maybe we should explore the reasons for lack of desire to be an arb. (For me, they are a subset of the broader "lack of desire to be an admin".) Or better ... what makes Risker different that she wanted to be an arb (and was a good one)? And how do we find another Risker? Because ... I've seen quite a number of female admins I would seriously oppose at ArbCom. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Not a single candidate this year is female and it shows.I hadn't thought too much about the guides being predominantly written by males also but I am also extremely skeptical that the guides substantially influence (or even predict outside consensus candidates) the election. My one thought about how to address this imbalance is to view it as a multi-year project. It took several years of many editors bugging both Primefac and TonyBallioni before they decided to run, to name two candidates from this year who had been perennially mentioned. It might be worth having conversations with more of the female arbs to see what motivated/pushed them to run. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm currently working on the
Erin O'Toole article and am unsure about how I should approach adding material to the article. The article is not too long so size constraints should not be an issue (
not now, anyway). I recently found
some international coverage of O'Toole's approach to the working-class. Most of the material was already in the article, though I am not sure whether to include more. I think the change in stance from 2013-2015 to now is important (I have not added it yet because I am unsure about how to format it) but am not sure about whether the gambling that this shift...will revive the party's electoral fortunes
should be in the article. As well, I am unsure of where to place things in the article. For example, I put his "anti-coruption committee" proposals within his political positions, though it may be better put within the other sections of his biography given that was his reaction to the
WE Charity scandal. Thanks,
Username
6892 (
Peer Review) (I'm trying to engage with FA regulars early, though the PR is a pre-GA one) 01:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Username6892 do you feel like you have been given enough to work on for now? Knowing you are in competent hands with Wasted Time R and Anythingyouwant, I have failed to get back to you, as I've been so busy so many places. If you've got enough to go on, I will archive this section and wait to hear back from you if you want a fresh look. Please let me know, best regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Le Panini has given you a
Turkey! Turkeys promote
WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a turkey, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy Thanksgiving!
Le Panini
Talk 16:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Spread the goodness of turkey by adding {{ subst:Thanksgiving Turkey}} to their talk page with a friendly message. |
Eric Youngstrom has given you a *second*
Turkey! Why? Well... Just read that Turkeys promote
WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day yet another notch better -- a second turkey makes sure you have leftovers to extend the holiday and share with friends!
As a digestif, [ here] are some slides that I will post on the Wikimedia Usergroup tomorrow (it's late here, and I am full of turkey!). Please also check your email for some things that I am still in negotiations to be able to upload to Commons (or I will just make a new recording -- the slides are already CC BY 4.0). Happy Thanksgiving! Eyoungstrom |
Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom ( talk) 05:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi there Sandy, I have been recommended by Ritchie333 to look for you on FAC. One of my works, Piccadilly line, was recently promoted to GA instantly. I have the intention to take this into DYK, but it is way too early for a special occasion hook on 15 December (date when the line was first opened). I am wondering if I am able to take this to FA status at its current condition so I am asking for some feedback whether I would have enough time to work on the article before I bring it to FAC in I suppose 3-4 weeks' time. Thank you very much :D Much love Vincent LUFan ( talk) ( Kenton!) 15:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello. Would you be able to give input on the proposal(s) made on the talk page?Thanks. [2] Prcc27 ( talk) 15:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Greetings! This month celebrates our second (I think) new medicine FA in 2020, a handful of newly reviewed GAs, and of course another month without major on-wiki disaster. The newsletter's featured section is off again, but please continue to drop comments and ideas at the
newsletter talk page. Here is what's new this month:
Complete blood count nom.
Spicy, his first FA! |
Parkinson's disease now a
featured article removal candidate. Discussion
here |
News from around the site
Discussions of interest
For a list of ongoing discussions in WP:MED-tagged articles, see
Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Discussions
Also, a reminder to see
Article Alerts for a list of medicine-related AfDs, CfDs, merge discussions, and more!
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Ajpolino ( talk) 00:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Dear SandyGeorgia, more than 10 years ago you helped me with citations on an FA review for Minneapolis. We use citation templates. Could be wrong, but I recall that four things are essential (title, url, publisher and accessdate). This week an editor who is possibly more in touch with current reality came up with this edit. Would you be so kind as to weigh in on this thread? No problem if not. Generally I would prefer not to let Minneapolis slip into Wikipedia:Former featured articles. Thank you. - SusanLesch ( talk) 15:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't believe IPs can initiate FARs according to the usual instructions, because it requires creating a new page which IPs cannot do. Nikkimaria ( talk) 21:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Nikkimaria I thought we used to have a parameter in the notification template for when someone else nominated and a second editor is only notifying; am I deluded? If so, I will manually write the notifications. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you remember making a comment at the Dali FA about a grammatical error I'd made concerning plural vs singular goats... At the time I somehow could not understand what was wrong but I was looking at the article just now and I suddenly understood what the error was and I facepalmed so hard I think it registered on the Richter scale. Anyway, I figured you might find it funny, 'cause I definitely had to laugh at myself for not getting something so obvious the first time around :P ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 08:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
No, I cannot - suggest just tag db-author. Nikkimaria ( talk) 20:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Peace? The Rambling Man ( Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
As I asked TRM... can we move the whole who did what when dispute off the FAC talk? I don't have much time for wiki as it is and having to sort through all that interpersonal discussion is just making me want to drop the whole FA process as it stands right now. I asked him to take it to user talk and I'm going to ask you also. I haven't dug into who started the personalization, and I don't want to do so... it's immaterial to me and my growing tiredness of the whole FA process. So I'm asking you to help improve the situation by at the very least going elsewhere. This doesn't mean I know who started what.. .it's that I want it over and someone has to be the better person and take steps to get it away from the FAC talk. -- Ealdgyth ( talk) 17:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate you taking the time to provide a review for Hector. I know it wasn't the most exciting event that took place hurricane-wise that season. Noah Talk 19:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Remind me, there was a script somewhere that corrects hyphens and dashes which you recommended for pre-FAC prep work, but I don't remember where it was. I need it for Quelccaya Ice Cap. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 12:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Note the the FACBot has merged the old AfD template, and, as bonus, sorted the milestones into chronological order. [5] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
The Worm in my Egg Cream Award | |
This is for helping me get Squirm it's Featured Article status. Went a long way to get it to there and could not have done it without you. GamerPro64 14:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC) |
... for noticing the mess. Tho' I wasn't practicing to deceive anyone, I still managed to weave quite the tangled web. I hope I have untangled it. All the best, and a happy new year! Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Hey Sandy, can you confirm that most (all?) FA nominations are "self-nominations"? ("My" one and only FA was nominated by someone else, a practice that at the time—"Brilliant prose" days?—I assumed was fairly common, but now I think is virtually non-existent). Thus if there are many editors (like me) who have no interest in nominating "their" articles, then FAs will almost certainly not represent our best work. Paul August ☎ 15:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Just to say I'm not sure you'll get much engagement at WT:FAC at the moment; sections like the one I capped exhaust people and reduce their interest in commenting. I will just mention that the stats I collect are certainly limited in what they show, but I think they're useful so long as they're not overinterpreted; and that not doing them wouldn't increase my reviewing -- there's no overlap in the time I spend on one vs. the other. I think you already know that I don't agree with your diagnosis of FAC, and hence, unsurprisingly, I disagree on the recommended treatment. We have a decade of evidence that exhortations to increase effort don't work. If there's something that can be improved, I don't believe it will be done by asking people to step up. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 18:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Water is the most important part of beaver habitat, and they require a yearly supply that is sufficient for swimming, diving, floating logs, protection of lodge entrances and safety from land-dwelling predators.Do they get an annual delivery from the Culligan man? Can they go nine months without water as long as they get it once a year? What the heck. At that article, such continues ... the writer should have developed a collaboration with good copyeditors years ago, and must know by now that you can't prep a broad article for FAC in three days. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the post on the FAC talk page. Apologies for posting on your talk page, but I was uncertain if this really fit with the current discussion. I agree with you that opposes should be used more often, but I would hope that they are done in a way that is not personalized against the nominator. I have reacted very poorly to oppose declarations in the past, and it is honestly something I am still working on. I know that it is absolutely impossible to avoid having a nominator respond negatively to an oppose declaration, but I wish there were more objective ways of opposing.
I remember a few years back when more reviewers opposed, and the discussion and overall tone would turn quite hostile very quickly from both sides of the conversation. I think the deteriorating relationship between nominator and reviewer could be linked to larger issues with the FAC and participation in that area of Wikipedia. That could just be me though. Anyway, I just wanted to voice my concern, because while I agree with you about the need for more opposes, I hope they return in a more constructive manner and not in the rather toxic or personalized ways that I have seen in the past.
Apologies again for the random message. I was just curious about your response to this. I do not consider myself to be an experienced Wikipedia editor at all so these kinds of discussions are best suited for those far more experienced than myself. Anyway, I hope you are having a great end to your week. Aoba47 ( talk) 19:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Apologies for yet another message, but I just wanted to let you know that it is standard practice to put music charts side-by-side. See the "Style" (Taylor Swift song) article for an example. I do not see why it would be a MOS:SANDWICH since having these charts side-by-side does not disturb the layout. Just wanted to let you know about that. Aoba47 ( talk) 23:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Aoba47 on cue, the Signpost provides an example of precisely what I mentioned in this Newsroom discussion. At the talk discussion referenced, there are a number of disgruntled editors lamenting
This is succinctly summarized in that discussion here, and explained in depth here by Worm That Turned.
What is of interest to our discussion here is that the Signpost would even consider running a piece on what amounts to sour grapes. Why? Because those are the editors the Signpost is more apt to gear their publications towards. In fact, in the Arb section draft while the Medicine case was underway, it was apparent that the Signpost editors weren't following the issues at all, and did not seem aware that one arb did not appear to be even reading the evidence upon which they based proposed findings without evidence, or understanding the basics of the case (as in who filed it and why).
When editors hold opinions that sync with the Signpost's opinions, the Signpost is inclined towards covering them. And that is why most readers have signed off of reading the Signpost. We elected these arbs to do exactly what they are doing-- with the exception of the one who is having a hard time keeping up with basics. There is a lot of handwaving there about context et al, because some of the editors opining there reject the basic tenets of Wikipedia that the rest of us have to abide by. Bst, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
There's always something new for me to not be aware of. At Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Collaboration_of_the_Month#Nominations you and GB both have the "Daily average page views for 2019". Where, pray tell, can I find that number for a page? Ajpolino ( talk) 15:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Greetings,
I've seen you discuss the problem of publications copying Wikipedia articles and wanted to get some assistance. This paper published in 2020 is remarkably similar to our article at Nevado Sajama:
The terrain is characterized by a continuous ice cover in the central sector of the mountain, exposures of bedrock, deposits and rock glaciers in some sites, alluvial fans and scree in the periphery of Sajama and moraines forming a girdle around the upper sector of Sajama.(article) with
The terrain is characterized by a continuous ice cover in the central sector of the mountain, exposures of bedrock, deposits and rock glaciers in some sites, alluvial fans and scree in the periphery and moraines forming a girdle around the upper sector of Sajama.(publication)
It is situated in Sajama National Park and is a composite volcano consisting of a stratovolcano on top of several lava domes.(article) with
It is an extinct composite volcano with a stratovolcano on top of several lava domes.(publication)
Changes in the subduction regime took place during the Oligocene and directed an increase of volcanic activity in the region.(article) and
Changes in the subduction regime took place during the Oligocene and directed an increase of volcanic activity in the region.(publication)
Volcanoes in the region have ages ranging from Pleistocene to Miocene[15] and grew on top of earlier ignimbrites; the whole volcanic activity was controlled by faults.(article) and
Volcanoes in the region have ages ranging from Pleistocene to Miocene and grew on top of earlier ignimbrites; the whole volcanic activity was controlled by faults.(publication)
Starting in the lake Laguna Huana Kkota on the northwestern foot of Sajama, the Tomarapi River flows first northeastward, then east, south and southeast around the northern and eastern flanks of the volcano; the Sicuyani River which originates on Sajama joins it there. The southern flanks give rise to the Huaythana River which flows directly south and then makes a sharp turn to the east. On the western side of the volcano originates the Sajama River which flows due south and increasingly turns southeast before joining the Lauca River.[11][9] The other rivers draining Sajama and its ice cap also eventually join the Lauca River and end in the Salar de Coipasa.(article) and
Starting in the lake Laguna Huaña Kkota on the north-western foot of Nevado Sajama, the Tomarapi River flows firstly eastward, then east, south and southeast around the northern and eastern flanks of the volcano; the Sicuyani River which originates on Nevado Sajama joins it there. The southern flanks give rise to the Huaythana River which flows directly south and then makes a sharp turn to the east. Sajama River originates on the western side of the volcano, and it flows to the south and increasingly turns southeast before joining the Lauca River. Other rivers draining Nevado Sajama and its ice cap also eventually join the Lauca River and end in the Salar de Coipasa(publication)
Given that the article was last expanded in 2018 in a big batch of piecemeal edits and I don't see any attribution anywhere nor compatible copyright rules. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 13:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus there are some of the pieces, and I can add the backwards copy template, but first we should provide proof that you didn't copy the highlighted phrases from a different source ... As to pursuing this beyond adding the backwards copy template, I can tell you that my experience was not ... productive time spent ... and the copyvio at dementia with Lewy bodies is much more extreme than this (where Fymat took almost the entire article verbatim). Once we add some proof that the copied portions were your original words (which means going back to check diffs where you added some of those copied words), then we can a) add the backwards copy template, and b) add the website to Mirrors and forks. If you want to go further than that, I would only do that via email ... as I believe Wikipedia has sold us a bit of a bill of goods as to how much we can defend against plagiarism. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Next, examining a specific passage fully duplicated:
The terrain is characterized by a continuous ice cover in the central sector of the mountain, exposures of bedrock, deposits and rock glaciers in some sites, alluvial fans and scree in the periphery of Sajama and moraines forming a girdle around the upper sector of Sajama.sourced to page 361 of Smith and Lowell.
Since I was pinged, concerning the bit about 'predatory journals', this one is seems to be published by the Hungarian National Museum. If there's a copyright issue, it's very possible it simply eluded the reviewers (it's not something most small reviews, or the editors of small journals usually pay attention to). While it may or may not be a super high quality journal (I'm really unqualified to opine here, since I know very little on archaeology), it doesn't strike me as predatory. It is indexed in Scopus for what it's worth. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 18:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Jo-Jo, here are the next steps:
The SPFLT Achievement Patch | ||
For your contributions to the Manned Orbiting Laboratory FAC (and probably a million other things you've done -- you're a pillar of WP Neopeius ( talk) 04:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC) |
(and my apologies for Pinging you -- I didn't know you hated pings with a passion.)
Sandy, I've been thinking about the possibility of combining templates, as we discussed at WT:FAC, and I'm not sure it's the best way to handle that information. Some of the constituent pieces will need to be used in different places -- for example the new peer review sidebar can go on user talk pages by itself, and so can the FAC urgents and FAR urgents, but there's no reason to assume anyone who wants any of those three would want all three. So I'm starting to think they need to remain separate. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 10:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
I realise you are flat out and your time is hen's teeth...BUT...can you look at the Portrait of a Musician FAC. High potential 1st time nominator. Ceoil ( talk) 11:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot on which article we discussed the problem of DYK archiving and link to the archive per wrong day. I woke up thinking that it wouldn't be a problem if the archiving was done immediately with posting. Sure, there would be occasional cases when a hook is pulled or reworded, but repairing that also in the archive should be a minor problem, compared to the programmed inconsistency, leading to wrong links day by day. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, SandyGeorgia!
I have finished my Primary_ovarian_insufficiency revisions. Please let me know if you see anything else I need to address.
Talk:Primary_ovarian_insufficiency#Review_changes has the notes:
Thank you, Dan / Memdmarti ( talk) 17:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Greetings. This month marks the return of the project's long-dormant
collaboration of the month! With some luck and effort, perhaps we can keep it going. I hope you're all finding ways to remain sane during another tumultuous month. Ready or not, here is what's happening around the project:
Seminal vesicles nom.
Tom (LT), reviewed by
Berchanhimez |
Parkinson's disease now a
featured article removal candidate. Discussion
here |
News from around the site
Discussions of interest
For a list of ongoing discussions in WP:MED-tagged articles, see
Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Discussions
Also, a reminder to see
Article Alerts for a list of medicine-related AfDs, CfDs, merge discussions, and more!
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Ajpolino ( talk) 20:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, SandyGeorgia! Thank you for inviting me to /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hemothorax/archive1#Hemothorax
1) Clarification needed:
Diberri-Boghog at http://tools.wmflabs.org/citation-template-filling/cgi-bin/index.cgi?
appears to be another name for what I (you?) have called
Wikipedia template filling at https://citation-template-filling.toolforge.org/cgi-bin/index.cgi
Diberri-Boghog forwards to Wikipedia template filling at https://citation-template-filling.toolforge.org/cgi-bin/index.cgi
Is that correct?
2) Are we restircted to a <ref name=":8"> reference naming style?
Thank you, Dan Memdmarti ( talk) 05:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
The reference naming style (using numbers like "ref name=":8"") interferes with my manually correcting references and noting page numbers. If there are no objections, I would like to change that naming style to a AuthorYearPage (when available) like ref name=Seligson2020p98. Note: Seligson (ref name=":8") does not have a page number and I have used an invented p98 as an invented example only. I also note that Seligson may need to be replaced as it is a StatPearls ref. If you want to wait until there is clarification of sources like StatPearls, emsworld.com, fpnotebook.com, symptoma.com, rn.com, please wave me off.
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, SandyGeorgia!
Regarding "ref name=":8"": While setting up my key, I had an epipheny, someone else may be using a key that changing the naming style would mess up. I changed course and created a key in my sandbox at User_talk:Memdmarti/sandbox/hemothorax#Key_for_ref_name=":xyz" . Thank you, Dan -- Memdmarti ( talk) 18:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Sandy. You may have received a ping (I don't like them, either) earlier on about this article which I want to nominate at FAC. It passed GA three weeks ago and was on DYK yesterday. I've raised a PR request as that should be a useful preliminary. Since it passed GA, I've done some fine-tuning and added a few extra sentences but will not touch it again now while the PR is current.
I've had a lot of involvement at GAN but only three (plus one just started) FAC reviews done and I haven't nominated an FAC before. Gerda says you would be a good person to approach about the logistics and mechanics of the nomination and review processes. Providing you have time (and please say so if you don't), I'd appreciate any help and advice you can provide. All the best, Sandy, and keep safe. No Great Shaker ( talk) 15:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, I think I've seen you point out more MOS:SANDWICH violations than anyone else. I don't have much of an eye for the finer points of page layout and style, so I often need to rely on folks like you with a sharper sense for these kinds of things. But last night I bumped into Signs_and_symptoms_of_HIV/AIDS#Acute_infection, which made me laugh out loud and think of you. Unless it's something funny with my screen, perhaps even I can catch the occasional MOS violation. Anyway I hope all is well on your end. Another exciting week begins! Ajpolino ( talk) 16:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi,SandyGeorgia! If I click “thank” at Diff, does it create a pingie-thingy? Do pingie-thingies include both "Alerts" and "Notices"? Thank you, Dan -- Memdmarti ( talk) 14:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, you pinged me on What's a Nice Girl Like You Doing in a Place Like This asking "why did the peer review script not archive this on talk?". I'm not sure why that didn't happen. The script was developed by another editor User:WritKeeper, and seems to work most of the time. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 23:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I've taken your point on board and will make no further comment. As soon as I made the SPI report, the guy disappeared only to re-appear tonight. The quacking is deafening. I would appreciate you taking a look at some of the other comments, they too are casting aspersions. W C M email 02:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Sandy,
I'm going around the FA list and found a recent promotion ( Binary search algorithm - 2018) that has a gigantic talk page. I don't think we need threads from 2011 called "terrible state of this article" in a recent FA's talk page so I set to archive the thing, but then I got afraid I would break something in it (silly, I know). Could you please take a look? Sorry to bother. RetiredDuke ( talk) 22:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
In case you want to learn the tricks :) GimmeBot used to:
That's it ! I figure if I do it enough, other editors will catch on and start cleaning up their own article milestones. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello. Evrik nominated the article for DYK, but hasn't been active since October. Would you be okay with adopting the nomination and addressing the concerns raised about the nomination, or do you think it should be closed? Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 15:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
The Reviewers Award | ||
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of the thorough, detailed and actionable reviews you have carried out. This work is very much appreciated. Gog the Mild ( talk) 21:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC) |
I retroactively vest that authority just in case User:Gog the Mild has egregiously overstepped his bounds. Hi Sandy! I hope you’re well.😊 Anythingyouwant ( talk) 23:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Not gonna name the specific one, to avoid all implications of canvassing, but one of my two active ones is one of the longest currently at FAR. Wikipedia:Featured article review/Battle of Shiloh/archive1 from May was painfully long. As a point of advice, what's the general limit to people's willingness to read FAR noms in length? I like to be as comprehensive as possible when nominating for FAR, but I don't want to hit the TLDR point. I also tend to edit WP while listening to Turnpike Troubadours, which may contribute to a tendency to ramble. Hog Farm Bacon 03:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Laguna del Maule (volcano)/archive2. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 11:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
In your peer-review of Elisabeth College you wrote
As a US reader whose boys went to a private all-boys school, I am completely confused about why an "independent" school is also referred to as a public school. I guess an independent school in the UK is not private??
In confessing you are half way there. If you look at the Clarendon Commission who investigated financial misconduct you find that there are only 9 true public schools, Public Schools Act 1868 put this into law and two of the schools fought in court not to be included in the new financial restrictions imposed on these 'public schools'- and won the right to remain 'private' schools.
There was a great marketing advantage to calling your self a public school. Public Schools Yearbook was published for the first time in 1889, listing 30 schools, mostly boarding schools, and the term Great Public School seeps in. This I think is where I draw the line, between public and private.
We have a list of 24 public schools on the 1911 postcard.
The Fleming Report has an appendix on naming problem, and comes up with no conclusion. There was a passage from 1581 about educating privately at home, rather than publicly in a school. (early argument against Home Schooling!). Its final recommendation to include all HRA and Direct Grant School is far too wide to be useful.
Our article Public school (United Kingdom) is good but confusing to read and I think would benefit from a few lists that could be taken from the Fleming report.
You and I, could set up an independent school tomorrow but to be a public school you need to have history: at the very least to have been mentioned by Fleming- but more properly to have been included in the 1889 Public Schools Year book. Which is verifiable. ClemRutter ( talk) 12:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
In the URFA instructions, you talk about 3 experienced FA reviewers to mark one as okay. Would I qualify as an experienced FA reviewer? I'd say I'm experienced for the GA process (249 GA reviews), but I'm newer to FAC/FAR. Hog Farm Bacon 23:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
And perhaps a bit of PTSD even ... when I saw Wikipedia:Featured article review/Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami/archive1 ... all those FACs of Catholic Church ... sorry I've been scarce, friend just lost her battle with breast cancer and I'm going to be reeling from it for a while. -- Ealdgyth ( talk) 01:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
A draft nom statement. Am I laying it on too thick? Ajpolino ( talk) 02:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | |
Thank you so much for your help on helping me improve " Cups (song)"! I really do appreciate your help! The Ultimate Boss ( talk) 23:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC) |
I stumbled upon this when fixing up some old peer reviews: Talk:Anna Hazare. I know talk page sprawl is a passion of yours and thought you might appreciate this :). -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 22:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, SandyGeorgia. I have a limited opening from now until January 15 in which to make any changes we need to Minneapolis. Several of us have been working on it and a few of the points you raised have already been addressed (cf. Talk:Minneapolis#To_Do_for_FAR and Talk:Minneapolis#Geology). Thank you. - SusanLesch ( talk) 18:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
... is getting so long it's almost painful to look at. The more I'm involved with FAR, the more I see why people complained about the bronze star rapidly losing value. This is gonna take years to resolve, it looks like. Thankfully, [[Wikipedia:There is no deadline|there is no deadline]. Hog Farm Bacon 06:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
When I was working up my guide today, it struck me that Arbcom is really really lacking in female viewpoints. Not a single candidate this year is female and it shows. And most of the guide writers are male and THAT shows. I'm not usually one to cry about bias on Wikipedia but while the main editor base is actually getting more female (at least from my point of view) ... the upper reaches seem to be getting more male. I think we need to start working to get some of the female editors to step up and start taking on more leadership .. any talk page stalkers have suggestions? -- Ealdgyth ( talk) 16:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Back to Ealdgyth's initial question ... maybe we should explore the reasons for lack of desire to be an arb. (For me, they are a subset of the broader "lack of desire to be an admin".) Or better ... what makes Risker different that she wanted to be an arb (and was a good one)? And how do we find another Risker? Because ... I've seen quite a number of female admins I would seriously oppose at ArbCom. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Not a single candidate this year is female and it shows.I hadn't thought too much about the guides being predominantly written by males also but I am also extremely skeptical that the guides substantially influence (or even predict outside consensus candidates) the election. My one thought about how to address this imbalance is to view it as a multi-year project. It took several years of many editors bugging both Primefac and TonyBallioni before they decided to run, to name two candidates from this year who had been perennially mentioned. It might be worth having conversations with more of the female arbs to see what motivated/pushed them to run. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm currently working on the
Erin O'Toole article and am unsure about how I should approach adding material to the article. The article is not too long so size constraints should not be an issue (
not now, anyway). I recently found
some international coverage of O'Toole's approach to the working-class. Most of the material was already in the article, though I am not sure whether to include more. I think the change in stance from 2013-2015 to now is important (I have not added it yet because I am unsure about how to format it) but am not sure about whether the gambling that this shift...will revive the party's electoral fortunes
should be in the article. As well, I am unsure of where to place things in the article. For example, I put his "anti-coruption committee" proposals within his political positions, though it may be better put within the other sections of his biography given that was his reaction to the
WE Charity scandal. Thanks,
Username
6892 (
Peer Review) (I'm trying to engage with FA regulars early, though the PR is a pre-GA one) 01:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Username6892 do you feel like you have been given enough to work on for now? Knowing you are in competent hands with Wasted Time R and Anythingyouwant, I have failed to get back to you, as I've been so busy so many places. If you've got enough to go on, I will archive this section and wait to hear back from you if you want a fresh look. Please let me know, best regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Le Panini has given you a
Turkey! Turkeys promote
WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a turkey, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy Thanksgiving!
Le Panini
Talk 16:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Spread the goodness of turkey by adding {{ subst:Thanksgiving Turkey}} to their talk page with a friendly message. |
Eric Youngstrom has given you a *second*
Turkey! Why? Well... Just read that Turkeys promote
WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day yet another notch better -- a second turkey makes sure you have leftovers to extend the holiday and share with friends!
As a digestif, [ here] are some slides that I will post on the Wikimedia Usergroup tomorrow (it's late here, and I am full of turkey!). Please also check your email for some things that I am still in negotiations to be able to upload to Commons (or I will just make a new recording -- the slides are already CC BY 4.0). Happy Thanksgiving! Eyoungstrom |
Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom ( talk) 05:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)