Sandy: Is this source sufficient: [1]? I know nothing about the article or the subject, but did a search for some text and this came up. Regards, Kablammo 01:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
No problem, thank you for getting back to me! I guess I'll see about including academic interpretations on the film article before I do a content fork. Appreciate the feedback! — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 03:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, I notice you've removed the notability tag from Bryan Jepson without providing an explanation. I'd appreciate if you could let me know why you think he meets the criteria at either Wikipedia:Notability (people) or Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I tagged this article four months ago, so unless someone edits it soon to explain why he's notable, I intend to nominate it for deletion. Thanks, Sideshow Bob Roberts 05:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Even though the India FARC is closed please put the MRT one on hold first. We are trying to put the house in order by addressing the concerns first with the nominator directly so that we can possibly avoid the process altogether. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 13:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey stranger!
Can you take a look into and opine as needed on this request and join the beating up on Frank! I could use any general advice on the 1632 series overall, as at the moment, I'm mainly a one man band. Hopefully, now that I've worked out some templates and methods, (Things are becoming much easier to shorten, as links to explanatory sections such as characters and 1632 institutions allow cutting a lot of verbiage. See 1634: The Ram Rebellion for a good "Bad" example of what "verbosities" needed fixing... that's next on the To-Do in articles.) Any way, my need right now is cites, and cites approaches and that the bargain link! Thanks! // Fra nkB 16:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I am writing for your opinion on an issue where I believe you are one of the best arbiters on WP. There was an issue at Jon Burge, where a past version was stubbed by a pair of admins who question the validity of the sources with respect to WP:BLP concerns for a very controversial figure. Could you please weigh in at Talk:Jon Burge/Archive 1#Stubbed.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:LOTD) 17:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
How does Seattle look to you now? There's a few at the bottom that could use an extra kp or rm. Someone seems to work on Riel every day or two, so I can't pull the trigger. -- Marskell ( talk) 18:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Although I appreciated the constructive criticism at my RfA, and also the opportunity to respond to it, I have to admit that your comment made me chuckle. Thanks for that, and for your support. I look forward to working with you more to harmonize Wikipedia's processes ;-) Geometry guy 20:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sandy. Awadewit and Qp10qp have taken a look at John Knox. I consider myself lucky as they are both historians and they have very high standards. I hope I earned their support. You took a look as well, but a lot has changed since Qp10qp's review. I have since corrected the ndashes. Could you take one more look? And don't spare any criticisms. Thanks! -- RelHistBuff ( talk) 23:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Conscientous Wikipedia editors should not be added to Conflict of Interest lists by a bot, with no warning, no notification, and no means of remedying the wrong. My name has been wrongly listed for more than six hours, I've not been able to get any idea what to do about it or how to remedy this, and nothing has been done in spite of all of these posts.
Wikipedia editors should know that by merely googling up a news source to cite an article that ended up at AfD, a conflict of interest can be claimed against you. This is not right.
Six hours of wrongly being listed as a COI is too much. This is not the right way to treat Wikipeople who care about their reputation. Good night. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 06:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Sandy, I'm sorry this sat for hours without being responded to. The reports are not intended to imply you are COI editing. They are merely bot generated lists to help human editors review additions of links that have raised concerns but have not yet been black listed. Many additions, like your own, are made in good faith to improve the project, being on the page isn't supposed to imply otherwise. I've replied to your post at WikiProject Spam, and suggested wording changes for the reports to Dirk. I hope this goes some way to reassuring you that your intentions are not being questioned. -- SiobhanHansa 14:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
This business troubled me a lot. Thanks to everyone who helped sort it out, but it's not sorted properly until the underlying issue is addressed.
By pure chance—because I followed What links here on an article that I had cited after it was submitted to AfD, to see if it was orphaned—I encountered my name listed on a spam page and a Conflict of Interest Report. Spam and COI are hefty labels for any editor, and particularly one who has gone to great pains to avoid any such issue. I was, to say the least, shocked to find myself there. More troubling was that I was unable to figure how to resolve it, so that needs to be cleaned up so future editors don't go through this.
Here's another reason it mattered to me. The article— ¿Por qué no te callas?—was at AfD, its notability questioned. Anyone checking on notability might check "What links here"—as I did—to see if the article could be merged elsewhere or to see if it is orphaned. Editors who don't know me or my editing would have noticed on the very short list at What links here that it was linked to a Spam and COI report. So editors who don't know my editing would see my name as someone involved in COI editing. This needs to be fixed. Not only could it have influenced editors' opinions of me; it could have influenced the AfD, as not everyone would necessarily take the time to understand that I happened to end up on that list because I googled a news source that had been previously involved in a COI. This is not right, and I hope it will be addressed. I was the last to know, because the bot that dumped my name to a spam and COI list didn't dump that same information to me.
In my case, it was resolved by someone else removing my name from those lists; what if I had removed my name? What is the process for resolving this? Having your name associated with COI and spam is not pleasant. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you add add a "wikitable" on the section Crew instead of the list that is there on The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie articale, Thanks! -- AnnieTigerChucky ( talk) 22:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I already did that on the cast, songs, and special appearance section. Should I revert them back? -- AnnieTigerChucky ( talk) 22:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to post directly on your talk page, but the last couple of times I've posted comments on the FARC page it has been a couple of days before there was a response. Can you take a look at what I've done on the Seattle, Washington article and see if I've checked off your concerns about WP:MOSDATE, WP:DASH, and WP:OVERLINK? [3] I also had a question about WP:UNITS. Do things like "4,000 years" and "1,000 people" require a no break space?-- Bobblehead (rants) 23:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Oops, my mistake...that doesn't usually happen, my bad. Sorry to hassle you, Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 07:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear SandyGeorgia, According to this website http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/tic_code/about.php, Miles is 12 not 10, I don't think that Imdb is always accurate and when I watched the movie I am almost positive they said he is 12. Thanx! -- AnnieTigerChucky ( talk) 18:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Sandy!
The Zinta article has gone through major c/e, reliability and neutrality issues were addressed, it was toned down etc. A big part of it was cut down (even the 65% success ratio haha... :)). Could you please tell me what your opinion on that is now? mmm and could you please help with some MOS problems if you have the time for it?
Best regards, Shahid • Talk2me 23:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I've commented there. Thanks for bringing the issue to my attention. Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 16:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Sandy. Thanks for your review of the article and your helpful comments. I'll work on it this week. Sorry about deleting that old talk, I'll get the hang of this one day, I am learning all the time. Best wishes, Graham. --GrahamColm 18:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Working Woman's Barnstar | |
SandyGeorgia, I award you the Working Woman's Barnstar for your efforts to assist in the development of Youngstown, Ohio, a working man's city, in it's attempt to become a Featured Article. While the outcome is not yet known, your edits and advice clearly improved the article. Daysleeper47 ( talk) 20:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC) |
If you have a minute I would be grateful for some help and advice on the Stuttering page. User:Tdkehoe has reappeared along with an IP that I presume is him. User:Stutterman also reverted the article to the version before your and my edits, with an interesting edit summary [4] that makes me think it may also be Tdkehoe. I have reverted back, but would be glad of some other eyes on the situation, especially one who knows the history. -- Slp1 ( talk) 01:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Slp, if you have time, can you re-summarize for me the conflict of interest issues? If not, I'll dig up what I can, using the info I seem to recall you gave on the FAR as a starting point. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Briefly, as noted on his userpage, Tdkehoe is the inventor of several anti-stuttering devices, including the SmallTalk and School DAF and he owns Casa Futura Technologies which makes and distributes them. He has been upfront about this, including mentioning at the peer review [5] where I first got interested in his edits and made some suggestions (which he didn't follow). There was a report to COIN [6] but nothing much was done it seems, except advert and cleanup tags being added. I notice boosterism of his own products on the Anti-stuttering devices (as compared to those of other manufacturers). Also very positive portrayal of the therapeutic use of devices that page and the Stuttering page, as it was when I first started working on it seriously. Does that help? -- Slp1 ( talk) 02:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Someone mentioned on #wikipedia that you were knowledgeable about evolutionary psychology. To my amazement you also turned up in the history of banned user Sadi Carnot [7]. I wonder if you might chime in here: [8] Thanks, Keith Henson ( talk) 02:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
"Controversy article for a Democrat resoundingly removed; controversy article for a Republic kept. I could have told you that and saved you the trouble. Gee, shouldn't the result have been the same for the same reasons? Not on Wiki ..."
Yes, the result definitely should have been the same. But the admins were right to close them as they did, given the 'votes' (Giuliani: delete-or-redir-after-merge 18, keep 13, confused/unsure 3; Gore: delete-or-redir-after-merge 13, keep 4, confused/unsure 2). I can think of other explanations — natural variance due to small sample size, or variance due to AfD not framing the issue very well in the first place (it was not being proposed to delete controversial material from WP!) — but your explanation may indeed be the correct one, and if so it really makes WP look bad. If you have influence on any Higher Powers, maybe you can get them to intervene at a project-wide level and enforce a consistent posture. Wasted Time R ( talk) 12:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, I came across the COI when the article came up for peer review and added the COI tag to the user in question's talk page then. I also listed it at
WP:COI/N, but it was archived fairly quickly with no comments (if you want I can dig to find the listing). I have little COI/N experience and even less with stuttering / these devices, so I made a few edits to trim some of the most egregious material and mark a few questionable images, then have not done much with the article since. I have the article on my watchlist, but I think some changes have slipped in under my radar - i.e some very dodgy refs I deleted are now back in. I have been working on improving an article for an FAC I did not plan to be in (another editor nominated an article that was good, but not really ready, then has done almost nothing since), so I apologize it took me until now to reply. I had thought of relisting this at COI/N, putting the whole article up for RfC, or just asking Athaenara, who is my COI guru (and now is "enhanced, with new super admin cleaning power!")(she also did some cleanup on the article back then). I would be glad to trudge back into this mess, but would appreciate any advice you might have. Thanks for bringing this back up (and thank you for all the work you do around here, please accept this WikiThanks from me as a token of my respect and gratitude),
Ruhrfisch
><>°°
13:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
(unindent)Thanks for your support on Presque Isle. I have asked Athaenara and she has replied on her Talk Page, suggesting we list User:Tdkehoe at the WP:COI/N noticeboard as a single purpose account with COI problems, trying to be as succinct as possible. I will do this today, thanks again, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello. We have put the above mentioned article into a FAC for the 2nd time and it is still running. Meanwhile, we would appreciate it if you can show us your exceptional reviewing and bug hunting skills again in that article. Happy editing! -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 15:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I know you're busy but I've done a sortable list of common words requiring transmogrification into other English spelling variants. It covers about 80% of the variants I've encountered so far. The idea is to de-mystify EngVar conversion, as I'm sure fear of the unknown is the root cause of many disputes. It's here. Could you please take a look and add, delete or comment? Many thanks,-- ROGER DAVIES talk 20:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sandy,
Thanks for the flower earlier this week. You asked me to let you know the next time I submitted my article to FAC... so I'm letting you know, and in not quite as cryptic a way as I did on Ceoil's page. :) –
Outriggr
§
01:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, the page rapidly jumped back above 35 as of yesterday, after being below 30 not long ago. I think we have a good chance of five or six more saves by the end of the month. Mariah Carey and Privilege of Peerage both have keep comments. Edward Teller does as well, but there's still some uncited material. Sociocultural evolution is an orphan at the bottom but is clearly in remove territory.
In other notes, I checked again and currently 233 of 309, or 75%, of removals have come from the list since June last year. That's down from 82% earlier this year but still a remarkably large number of removals are coming from that ever shrinking group, which is good. Twelve of the fifteen in FARC right now are from the list—four-fifths from just 12% of the overall.
Do you know what our oldest FA is? I believe it may be Anno Domini, which was added to the first iteration of the page six years ago. (By Larry Sanger, of course—he was quite busy in December 2001, starting NPOV in the same month.) Marskell ( talk) 05:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
From first iteration, to check for oldest FA:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
There are extenuating circumstances - the fair use images. How anybody approced this thing with those FU images without any critical commentary is beyong me. There is currently an edit war, which makes it not stable. How do I find the FA discussion, anyway? Corvus cornix talk 22:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I took it to WP:FUR, but don't expect this to be over. The fair use images have to come off the article, or there is no need for fair use rationales for anything, since any screenshot can be used for any actor article, based on the claims for fair use in this article. Corvus cornix talk 22:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't my intention to disrupt FAR, by an stretch of the imagination. I made a nomination, you removed it because it wasn't in the proper format, I followed the instructions to put it in the proper format and you removed it again saying it hadn't been long enough since the original discussion. So I've stopped using the FAR process. I don't generally follow that process, and the only reason I even know that the article is considered a featured article because of a mention on a Talk page. It floored me that an article with such an egregious problem of copyright violation had been made an FA, and so I though I would address it at what I thought was the proper forum. I've gone to the FAR talk page as you have suggested, and as I said, I've gone to FUR. Corvus cornix talk 23:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The first time you removed the nomination, you had not told me anything yet. I only knew that it had been done because I looked at my contributions and saw that my edit to the page was not the last one, so I went to see what somebody had said, and saw that you had archived the discussion with a cryptic edit summary about not following procedure. So I went back to the nomination page and saw some instructions about putting a template on the article Talk page and then clicking on a link to create the nomination page, so I did that, and then, only after I had done what I thought was the correct process the second time, did you tell me that there was a rule about having to wait. Corvus cornix talk 23:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, this looks like a big miscommunication. The first time you archived it, I thought you were being overbureaucratic because I hadn't put everything into the exact proper format, I had no idea that there was a policy problem, and I was trying to do my best to fix what I thought was a bad format. I didn't think there was anything I needed to talk to you about. Corvus cornix talk 00:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Your edit summary, the only thing I had to go on the first time, said moved to archive, please read instructions at WP:FAR. Corvus cornix talk 00:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
That will work. Thanks. Corvus cornix talk 00:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there seems to be a major revolution going on concering fair use images that is only being addressed by about five people. I'm going to mention it at the Village Pump. Corvus cornix talk 00:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Remind me in a week or so, hopefully this will have died down then and sense will be restored. Corvus cornix talk 00:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
What is going on? This morning, Corvus cornix removed two FU images from Cillian Murphy for supposedly violating fair use and I reverted once with this message: "this is fair use critical commentary; both performances are discussed by critics in this article; the images have not undergone official review and ongoing discussion has no consensus for removal". Whatever Corvus may say, the two roles pictured are discussed by critics in the article (The New York Times, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Village Voice and The New Yorker are quoted) as per "critical commentary", and the discussion is ongoing at Non-free talk and the review of a third image. I have participated in good faith in all of the above (there is no consensus as of yet). Why am I being accused of being a problem for this? Also, the images were ratified at FAC three weeks ago. Why would there be an FAR over three fair use images? What has happened while I was away from the computer? This is all very confusing. Thanks, Melty girl ( talk) 02:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Sandy, you may notice some new links in the toolbox when editing. Someone is running a script which overlinks dates. Gimmetrow 03:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
There are two new buttons. They work separately; you have to click on each. The format fixer was grabbed from part of the AndyZ's review script; it just removes some spaces. The date delinker works for the most part, though it will miss some things. Gimmetrow 03:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Going over your edit history, I've realized you truly are a wiki cop, in the good sense. You know, someone who does all the dirty job for the rest of us... ☆ CieloEstrellado 01:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Will do, no problem—I'll see if I can get to it tonight. Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 13:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
rather than my change to "prefer what most readers would most easily ...", a certain bloody-mindedness starts to show. All I get is "Disagree", "straw-man argument".
And guess who's weighed in now: our old friend Anderson. See also the bottom of talk. Tony (talk) 01:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I've gone through the plot section and cleaned up and clarified a bit of the story. However, I think it should boil down to whether you, as someone who hasn't played Halo, can understand it (keeping in mind that the game springboards off Halo 2's plot, and unless we threw in a "Previously, on Halo" paragraph we couldn't sit there and introduce every character and situation). David Fuchs ( talk) 00:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
So have you proposed a merger? Would there be resistance to copy-editing? Tony (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Please explain why you deleted Tony Belcastro from the list of people with high-functioning autism? How much verification do you need? Letters from his doctor? His social security records? Is he any less worthy of anyone else on that list? Are you questioning his diagnosis? If so, please explain.. I am sure his doctors would love to hear it. Indichik
...busy working on the d-thing. Am investigating using Perl or Python to extract the tons of data I have... ..If you'd read User:Ling.Nut/V-challenged, I'd be sincerely grateful. Feel free to edit. Ling.Nut ( talk) 08:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed earlier that an editor ( Lightmouse) removed various [[1601 in literature|1601]] links from the Hamlet article: diff here. I asked why on their talk page and was given a very strange reply. Can you take a quick look (as you're much more familiar with policy and so forth than I am) and let me know what you think please? It seems very close to disruptive editing to me. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 19:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I am notifying all interested parties that I have listed the articles Anti-stuttering devices and Stuttering at the Conflict of Interest/Noticeboard, as well as Tdkehoe's conflict of interest in editing these. Please participate in the process there. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Is there a written policy that categories should be in any sort of order? I know alpha is preferred though. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've put the Radiohead article up for a peer review, and would welcome your opinions on it. Thanks. Atlantik ( talk) 21:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
DEar Sandy,
I recently edited porque no que callas, because it is full of factual errors. I just corrected one. explicitly the King rebuke to chavez DID not win him the aplause of the general audience. What happend is the pes Zapatero kept speaking. no one applauded. Please keep the fact strait. Bejamin Munoz UIUC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.13.174 ( talk) 22:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I just sent you an important email. Raul654 ( talk) 03:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Delegation Raul654 ( talk) 20:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I see a few more FAs which are not FA standard and I created FARs for them. But I did not put the FARs on the main FAR page or do the notifying because Macintosh is still on FAR and Premier League is on FARC. When can I put the new FARs on the main FAR page? After Macintosh moves to FARC or after Macintosh and Premier League finish FARC? I think I can try to shephard three FARs at one time. -- Kaypoh ( talk) 07:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
|
<font=3> Thanks for your comments and support -
Presque Isle State Park made
featured article today! Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC) |
![]() |
---|
Hi Sandy. Thanks for checking over the article and the support. I was fortunate to have fussy and demanding partners, Awadewit and Qp10qp, on the content part. And it was watching the comments from you and others on FAR that taught me about the MoS. Hopefully, I will be back again with another article. -- RelHistBuff ( talk) 17:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar | |
For excellent Copy- editing Knowledge Hegemony 17:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC) |
For me at least. Hi Sandy,
I and others, have managed to get Hepatitis B virus up to GA status and I am waiting now for someone to pick Rotavirus from the list. Thanks for all your help, guidance and understanding. GrahamColm Talk 19:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to know the reason why Yomangani left the wikipedia. Was there some kind of dispute or so? I was following his archives, but couldn't find any reason. Perhaps you know it, so I am asking you. DSachan ( talk) 20:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
We don't seem to have an article on him. We have one on Uta Frith, who co-authored a book on him. I daresay that the reason we haven't got an article is that to write it, one would need to read that particular, single book on him. That page is a bit dreadful, isn't it? qp10qp ( talk) 22:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey. Not sure if you watched the talk page or not, so in case you didn't I figured I would drop in to thank you for your help with MOS in regards to The Preuss School UCSD. It was pretty through and very good work. I should be able to get it done soon. At that point, I will probably ask you to look at it again. At any rates, thanks a lot. SorryGuy 07:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
We have created a Firefox add-on that automatically generates footnote reference code for whatever web page you are looking at. All you have to do is right click on the web page and select WPCITE. This can save a lot of time when citing sources. The add-on, wpcite.xpi, is now available for download from Mozdev. SandyGeorgia, I hereby dedicate this tool to you, for all the great work you have done. - Jehochman Talk 18:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- <ref>
- {{cite web
- |url= http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/27/health/27docs.html
- |title=Dr. Michael E. DeBakey and Dr. Denton A. Cooley - Heart Surgeons - New York Times
- |publisher=www.nytimes.com
- |accessdate=2007-11-27
- |last=
- |first=
- }}
- </ref>
(outdent)
More work needed :-) I would have to manually clean that footnote :-) Can you run a few more, for example, on a press release to see if they generate cite press release ? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
How does it automatically tell who the author is? By getting it out of some hidden HTML field? Raul654 ( talk) 19:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed your reply to me in Wikipedia talk:Featured articles and your comments in Wikipedia talk:Citing sources and was wondering if you could take a look at the Swedish language article. I have been working on the references for the article, and pointed out in the talk page that the article needs more references and general reference fixing. There is another editor, User:Peter Isotalo, who has been generally opposed to changes to the article, as can be seen in the talk page, partly because it is a Featured Article. So it would be helpful if you could intervene and let me know if my comments are off-base or not. Thanks! – panda ( talk) 20:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi SandyGeorgia. I don't think you remember me. But you really helped me a lot during the FAC nomination for Ahmedabad. I remember that you were really good at checking the references. I have nominated Satellite Instructional Television Experiment for FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Satellite Instructional Television Experiment. The article is a short one and has only 20 refs. But I now have 2 oppose votes saying that the number of refs are not enough (only 1 ref/paragraph, etc.) My view is that counting just the number of references is not a good way to judge an article. My primary source for the article has been a 60-70 page UN report on the experiment. There are not many sources on the internet and elsewhere for the topic. The experiment was conducted back in 1975 when there wasn't even TV in India and hence the lack of refs. But the UN report is really good and comprehensive. I feel that the article is comprehensive and adequately referenced. Can you take a look at the article and make any suggestions? Thanks a lot for your time. - Aksi_great ( talk) 05:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The only potential danger I see would be if you allowed yourself to overidentify with the process—or, more precisely, allowed others to overidentify you with the process and therefore hold you to blame for its faults. Oddly, one way to avoid this might be just to accept FAC's faults and get along with them, as Raul does. Everyone knows that substandard articles are regularly passed, and I know you've sometimes complained about that yourself. But I suspect, and I think Raul has worked this out, that this is a lesser evil than becoming too rigorous. The latter would tend to put editors off from bothering to improve articles, which is the last thing we want. So what I'm getting at is that I think you would need to decisively shift your role from reviewer to closer; for example, I know you are a stickler for good refs but if a review has a majority of supports despite dodgy refs, maybe it will be wiser to hold your nose and wave it through. It's the same for all the criteria, really, because, actually, few successful candidates meet all the criteria, if we're being honest. Raul is a smooth operator, in this respect. Very cleverly, he avoids saying much about anything, unless really pushed. He lets people get on with arguing, without feeling the need to put his five pence worth, and thereby he avoids becoming the target. Even when people specifically petition him or ask him to explain himself, he remains fairly brief and emotionally uninvolved yet manages to be inoffensive. This is probably wise practice, and I expect you might have to adopt a portion of the same. Or people will turn you into the mother of the whole process and nag you to distraction: in that position, you could never win. Anyway, best of luck! qp10qp ( talk) 06:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to the FA-closing job/role. A difficult path lies ahead but you will be able to overcome any difficulties. I know I have not been very active recently on Wikipedia but do not hesitate to contact me via email if you need any help. Joelito ( talk) 15:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to intrude on your and Raul's well-deserved positions but we have to show this user that all his edits will be reversed or he will never stop. The article is improving steadily and once I've cleaned the final three sections, I think it may well be FA standard and a suitable candidate, if nominated by an established user. DrKiernan ( talk) 08:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Since you have helped the Jayne Mansfield article to become what it is today, I'd like to draw your attention to another article split off from the main one - Jayne Mansfield in popular culture. It has been nominated for deletion a second time here, and the supports so far are three way - "Delete", "Keep" and "Merge" - with a few comments thrown in (mostly by the nominator and I). Would you take a look at the debate and the article? Even if you stay away from voicing your view on the debate page, you can advise me on my talk page (may be lend a hand, too). I hope I am not canvassing :P. Aditya( talk • contribs) 14:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Sandy,
I would like to share with you that today, November 28, 2007, I was honored by the Senate of Puerto Rico with the "Resolution of the Senate Number 3603" in appreciation for my work in Wikipedia regarding Puerto Rican military related articles. I was given the resolution on behalf of the Senate by the President of the Puerto Rican Senate, the honorable Kenneth McClintock. It was a total surprise which I did not expect and that is why I want to share this news with you are my friend. Tony the Marine ( talk) 06:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't expect it. I recieved an e-mail from the Senate informing me that Senator McClintock was going to be in Phoenix and that he wanted to meet me. I thought that it was a casual meeting and I went by myself. When I arrived at the hotel there was a convention of Congressman and I was greeted by numerous people who to my surprise knew about me. I was taken to a special room set aside for the event and was introduced to various senators and people representing the different political parties of Puerto Rico. Then Senator McClintock arrived we hugged and shock hands and suddenly I was presented with the high honor. I could not believe it and I even said "Are you sure you're talking about me?". Then the camaras started flashing.
They kept it a total secret and wanted to surprise me, that is why it isn't on any link yet, since it was yesterday. I wish that I would have known, I would have taken my family. Anyway, they all took a vote and agreed to invite me to Puerto Rico this coming Memorial Day (expenses paid) and McClintock told ne that I will be part of a "Think Tank" that he will create.
Finally, I was introduced to various U.S. Congressman and so on. What a day! You can imagine how happy my fanmily was when I returned home with the resolution. Well Sandy, here I am taking up your space and sharing my adventure. Take care, Tony the Marine ( talk) 21:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Hola Sandy.. I need some help with this article please, needs some expansion on the current crisis.. and more from the other side of the story.. Colombia-Venezuela relations, Saludos.-- F3rn4nd0 (Roger - Out) 09:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Sandy. I'm honestly touched that you noticed. I had that Pound poem up about dying of alcohol for a few days—a kind of dark humour for myself. Dark humour has its uses, but it seemed stupid when I woke up this morning, so I replaced with a (still gloomy) poem from Leonard Cohen. Where would I be without the poets? Gosh, I'd have traded in my chips long ago. And where would any of us be without flowers? No life without flowers! With love, Marskell ( talk) 20:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking of reframing it in questions.
And oh yeah, this edit was annoying. Since the bot resolves redirects, the bot found a discussion that was supposed to have been closed back on Nov 18, and would have closed it again when processing a couple days ago. Gimmetrow —Preceding comment was added at 03:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Done. I have moved the comments to the article's talk page -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me/ My edits 04:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
In the past what would happen was I would look at the page history for WP:FA and find the edit where Raul654 added the new FAs. I usually do this, but someone else doing it this week. But, there is no interaction between me and Raul to get the F&A done. It merely involves looking through the page history. And soon there will be a bot that gets most of the information together and I just proofread it. Does this answer all you r questions? The Placebo Effect 18:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no one else volunteered to fulfill the request, which was archived. — TKD:: Talk 18:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Sandy: Is this source sufficient: [1]? I know nothing about the article or the subject, but did a search for some text and this came up. Regards, Kablammo 01:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
No problem, thank you for getting back to me! I guess I'll see about including academic interpretations on the film article before I do a content fork. Appreciate the feedback! — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 03:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, I notice you've removed the notability tag from Bryan Jepson without providing an explanation. I'd appreciate if you could let me know why you think he meets the criteria at either Wikipedia:Notability (people) or Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I tagged this article four months ago, so unless someone edits it soon to explain why he's notable, I intend to nominate it for deletion. Thanks, Sideshow Bob Roberts 05:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Even though the India FARC is closed please put the MRT one on hold first. We are trying to put the house in order by addressing the concerns first with the nominator directly so that we can possibly avoid the process altogether. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 13:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey stranger!
Can you take a look into and opine as needed on this request and join the beating up on Frank! I could use any general advice on the 1632 series overall, as at the moment, I'm mainly a one man band. Hopefully, now that I've worked out some templates and methods, (Things are becoming much easier to shorten, as links to explanatory sections such as characters and 1632 institutions allow cutting a lot of verbiage. See 1634: The Ram Rebellion for a good "Bad" example of what "verbosities" needed fixing... that's next on the To-Do in articles.) Any way, my need right now is cites, and cites approaches and that the bargain link! Thanks! // Fra nkB 16:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I am writing for your opinion on an issue where I believe you are one of the best arbiters on WP. There was an issue at Jon Burge, where a past version was stubbed by a pair of admins who question the validity of the sources with respect to WP:BLP concerns for a very controversial figure. Could you please weigh in at Talk:Jon Burge/Archive 1#Stubbed.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:LOTD) 17:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
How does Seattle look to you now? There's a few at the bottom that could use an extra kp or rm. Someone seems to work on Riel every day or two, so I can't pull the trigger. -- Marskell ( talk) 18:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Although I appreciated the constructive criticism at my RfA, and also the opportunity to respond to it, I have to admit that your comment made me chuckle. Thanks for that, and for your support. I look forward to working with you more to harmonize Wikipedia's processes ;-) Geometry guy 20:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sandy. Awadewit and Qp10qp have taken a look at John Knox. I consider myself lucky as they are both historians and they have very high standards. I hope I earned their support. You took a look as well, but a lot has changed since Qp10qp's review. I have since corrected the ndashes. Could you take one more look? And don't spare any criticisms. Thanks! -- RelHistBuff ( talk) 23:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Conscientous Wikipedia editors should not be added to Conflict of Interest lists by a bot, with no warning, no notification, and no means of remedying the wrong. My name has been wrongly listed for more than six hours, I've not been able to get any idea what to do about it or how to remedy this, and nothing has been done in spite of all of these posts.
Wikipedia editors should know that by merely googling up a news source to cite an article that ended up at AfD, a conflict of interest can be claimed against you. This is not right.
Six hours of wrongly being listed as a COI is too much. This is not the right way to treat Wikipeople who care about their reputation. Good night. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 06:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Sandy, I'm sorry this sat for hours without being responded to. The reports are not intended to imply you are COI editing. They are merely bot generated lists to help human editors review additions of links that have raised concerns but have not yet been black listed. Many additions, like your own, are made in good faith to improve the project, being on the page isn't supposed to imply otherwise. I've replied to your post at WikiProject Spam, and suggested wording changes for the reports to Dirk. I hope this goes some way to reassuring you that your intentions are not being questioned. -- SiobhanHansa 14:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
This business troubled me a lot. Thanks to everyone who helped sort it out, but it's not sorted properly until the underlying issue is addressed.
By pure chance—because I followed What links here on an article that I had cited after it was submitted to AfD, to see if it was orphaned—I encountered my name listed on a spam page and a Conflict of Interest Report. Spam and COI are hefty labels for any editor, and particularly one who has gone to great pains to avoid any such issue. I was, to say the least, shocked to find myself there. More troubling was that I was unable to figure how to resolve it, so that needs to be cleaned up so future editors don't go through this.
Here's another reason it mattered to me. The article— ¿Por qué no te callas?—was at AfD, its notability questioned. Anyone checking on notability might check "What links here"—as I did—to see if the article could be merged elsewhere or to see if it is orphaned. Editors who don't know me or my editing would have noticed on the very short list at What links here that it was linked to a Spam and COI report. So editors who don't know my editing would see my name as someone involved in COI editing. This needs to be fixed. Not only could it have influenced editors' opinions of me; it could have influenced the AfD, as not everyone would necessarily take the time to understand that I happened to end up on that list because I googled a news source that had been previously involved in a COI. This is not right, and I hope it will be addressed. I was the last to know, because the bot that dumped my name to a spam and COI list didn't dump that same information to me.
In my case, it was resolved by someone else removing my name from those lists; what if I had removed my name? What is the process for resolving this? Having your name associated with COI and spam is not pleasant. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you add add a "wikitable" on the section Crew instead of the list that is there on The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie articale, Thanks! -- AnnieTigerChucky ( talk) 22:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I already did that on the cast, songs, and special appearance section. Should I revert them back? -- AnnieTigerChucky ( talk) 22:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to post directly on your talk page, but the last couple of times I've posted comments on the FARC page it has been a couple of days before there was a response. Can you take a look at what I've done on the Seattle, Washington article and see if I've checked off your concerns about WP:MOSDATE, WP:DASH, and WP:OVERLINK? [3] I also had a question about WP:UNITS. Do things like "4,000 years" and "1,000 people" require a no break space?-- Bobblehead (rants) 23:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Oops, my mistake...that doesn't usually happen, my bad. Sorry to hassle you, Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 07:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear SandyGeorgia, According to this website http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/tic_code/about.php, Miles is 12 not 10, I don't think that Imdb is always accurate and when I watched the movie I am almost positive they said he is 12. Thanx! -- AnnieTigerChucky ( talk) 18:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Sandy!
The Zinta article has gone through major c/e, reliability and neutrality issues were addressed, it was toned down etc. A big part of it was cut down (even the 65% success ratio haha... :)). Could you please tell me what your opinion on that is now? mmm and could you please help with some MOS problems if you have the time for it?
Best regards, Shahid • Talk2me 23:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I've commented there. Thanks for bringing the issue to my attention. Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 16:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Sandy. Thanks for your review of the article and your helpful comments. I'll work on it this week. Sorry about deleting that old talk, I'll get the hang of this one day, I am learning all the time. Best wishes, Graham. --GrahamColm 18:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Working Woman's Barnstar | |
SandyGeorgia, I award you the Working Woman's Barnstar for your efforts to assist in the development of Youngstown, Ohio, a working man's city, in it's attempt to become a Featured Article. While the outcome is not yet known, your edits and advice clearly improved the article. Daysleeper47 ( talk) 20:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC) |
If you have a minute I would be grateful for some help and advice on the Stuttering page. User:Tdkehoe has reappeared along with an IP that I presume is him. User:Stutterman also reverted the article to the version before your and my edits, with an interesting edit summary [4] that makes me think it may also be Tdkehoe. I have reverted back, but would be glad of some other eyes on the situation, especially one who knows the history. -- Slp1 ( talk) 01:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Slp, if you have time, can you re-summarize for me the conflict of interest issues? If not, I'll dig up what I can, using the info I seem to recall you gave on the FAR as a starting point. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Briefly, as noted on his userpage, Tdkehoe is the inventor of several anti-stuttering devices, including the SmallTalk and School DAF and he owns Casa Futura Technologies which makes and distributes them. He has been upfront about this, including mentioning at the peer review [5] where I first got interested in his edits and made some suggestions (which he didn't follow). There was a report to COIN [6] but nothing much was done it seems, except advert and cleanup tags being added. I notice boosterism of his own products on the Anti-stuttering devices (as compared to those of other manufacturers). Also very positive portrayal of the therapeutic use of devices that page and the Stuttering page, as it was when I first started working on it seriously. Does that help? -- Slp1 ( talk) 02:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Someone mentioned on #wikipedia that you were knowledgeable about evolutionary psychology. To my amazement you also turned up in the history of banned user Sadi Carnot [7]. I wonder if you might chime in here: [8] Thanks, Keith Henson ( talk) 02:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
"Controversy article for a Democrat resoundingly removed; controversy article for a Republic kept. I could have told you that and saved you the trouble. Gee, shouldn't the result have been the same for the same reasons? Not on Wiki ..."
Yes, the result definitely should have been the same. But the admins were right to close them as they did, given the 'votes' (Giuliani: delete-or-redir-after-merge 18, keep 13, confused/unsure 3; Gore: delete-or-redir-after-merge 13, keep 4, confused/unsure 2). I can think of other explanations — natural variance due to small sample size, or variance due to AfD not framing the issue very well in the first place (it was not being proposed to delete controversial material from WP!) — but your explanation may indeed be the correct one, and if so it really makes WP look bad. If you have influence on any Higher Powers, maybe you can get them to intervene at a project-wide level and enforce a consistent posture. Wasted Time R ( talk) 12:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, I came across the COI when the article came up for peer review and added the COI tag to the user in question's talk page then. I also listed it at
WP:COI/N, but it was archived fairly quickly with no comments (if you want I can dig to find the listing). I have little COI/N experience and even less with stuttering / these devices, so I made a few edits to trim some of the most egregious material and mark a few questionable images, then have not done much with the article since. I have the article on my watchlist, but I think some changes have slipped in under my radar - i.e some very dodgy refs I deleted are now back in. I have been working on improving an article for an FAC I did not plan to be in (another editor nominated an article that was good, but not really ready, then has done almost nothing since), so I apologize it took me until now to reply. I had thought of relisting this at COI/N, putting the whole article up for RfC, or just asking Athaenara, who is my COI guru (and now is "enhanced, with new super admin cleaning power!")(she also did some cleanup on the article back then). I would be glad to trudge back into this mess, but would appreciate any advice you might have. Thanks for bringing this back up (and thank you for all the work you do around here, please accept this WikiThanks from me as a token of my respect and gratitude),
Ruhrfisch
><>°°
13:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
(unindent)Thanks for your support on Presque Isle. I have asked Athaenara and she has replied on her Talk Page, suggesting we list User:Tdkehoe at the WP:COI/N noticeboard as a single purpose account with COI problems, trying to be as succinct as possible. I will do this today, thanks again, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello. We have put the above mentioned article into a FAC for the 2nd time and it is still running. Meanwhile, we would appreciate it if you can show us your exceptional reviewing and bug hunting skills again in that article. Happy editing! -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 15:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I know you're busy but I've done a sortable list of common words requiring transmogrification into other English spelling variants. It covers about 80% of the variants I've encountered so far. The idea is to de-mystify EngVar conversion, as I'm sure fear of the unknown is the root cause of many disputes. It's here. Could you please take a look and add, delete or comment? Many thanks,-- ROGER DAVIES talk 20:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sandy,
Thanks for the flower earlier this week. You asked me to let you know the next time I submitted my article to FAC... so I'm letting you know, and in not quite as cryptic a way as I did on Ceoil's page. :) –
Outriggr
§
01:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, the page rapidly jumped back above 35 as of yesterday, after being below 30 not long ago. I think we have a good chance of five or six more saves by the end of the month. Mariah Carey and Privilege of Peerage both have keep comments. Edward Teller does as well, but there's still some uncited material. Sociocultural evolution is an orphan at the bottom but is clearly in remove territory.
In other notes, I checked again and currently 233 of 309, or 75%, of removals have come from the list since June last year. That's down from 82% earlier this year but still a remarkably large number of removals are coming from that ever shrinking group, which is good. Twelve of the fifteen in FARC right now are from the list—four-fifths from just 12% of the overall.
Do you know what our oldest FA is? I believe it may be Anno Domini, which was added to the first iteration of the page six years ago. (By Larry Sanger, of course—he was quite busy in December 2001, starting NPOV in the same month.) Marskell ( talk) 05:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
From first iteration, to check for oldest FA:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
There are extenuating circumstances - the fair use images. How anybody approced this thing with those FU images without any critical commentary is beyong me. There is currently an edit war, which makes it not stable. How do I find the FA discussion, anyway? Corvus cornix talk 22:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I took it to WP:FUR, but don't expect this to be over. The fair use images have to come off the article, or there is no need for fair use rationales for anything, since any screenshot can be used for any actor article, based on the claims for fair use in this article. Corvus cornix talk 22:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't my intention to disrupt FAR, by an stretch of the imagination. I made a nomination, you removed it because it wasn't in the proper format, I followed the instructions to put it in the proper format and you removed it again saying it hadn't been long enough since the original discussion. So I've stopped using the FAR process. I don't generally follow that process, and the only reason I even know that the article is considered a featured article because of a mention on a Talk page. It floored me that an article with such an egregious problem of copyright violation had been made an FA, and so I though I would address it at what I thought was the proper forum. I've gone to the FAR talk page as you have suggested, and as I said, I've gone to FUR. Corvus cornix talk 23:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The first time you removed the nomination, you had not told me anything yet. I only knew that it had been done because I looked at my contributions and saw that my edit to the page was not the last one, so I went to see what somebody had said, and saw that you had archived the discussion with a cryptic edit summary about not following procedure. So I went back to the nomination page and saw some instructions about putting a template on the article Talk page and then clicking on a link to create the nomination page, so I did that, and then, only after I had done what I thought was the correct process the second time, did you tell me that there was a rule about having to wait. Corvus cornix talk 23:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, this looks like a big miscommunication. The first time you archived it, I thought you were being overbureaucratic because I hadn't put everything into the exact proper format, I had no idea that there was a policy problem, and I was trying to do my best to fix what I thought was a bad format. I didn't think there was anything I needed to talk to you about. Corvus cornix talk 00:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Your edit summary, the only thing I had to go on the first time, said moved to archive, please read instructions at WP:FAR. Corvus cornix talk 00:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
That will work. Thanks. Corvus cornix talk 00:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there seems to be a major revolution going on concering fair use images that is only being addressed by about five people. I'm going to mention it at the Village Pump. Corvus cornix talk 00:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Remind me in a week or so, hopefully this will have died down then and sense will be restored. Corvus cornix talk 00:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
What is going on? This morning, Corvus cornix removed two FU images from Cillian Murphy for supposedly violating fair use and I reverted once with this message: "this is fair use critical commentary; both performances are discussed by critics in this article; the images have not undergone official review and ongoing discussion has no consensus for removal". Whatever Corvus may say, the two roles pictured are discussed by critics in the article (The New York Times, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Village Voice and The New Yorker are quoted) as per "critical commentary", and the discussion is ongoing at Non-free talk and the review of a third image. I have participated in good faith in all of the above (there is no consensus as of yet). Why am I being accused of being a problem for this? Also, the images were ratified at FAC three weeks ago. Why would there be an FAR over three fair use images? What has happened while I was away from the computer? This is all very confusing. Thanks, Melty girl ( talk) 02:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Sandy, you may notice some new links in the toolbox when editing. Someone is running a script which overlinks dates. Gimmetrow 03:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
There are two new buttons. They work separately; you have to click on each. The format fixer was grabbed from part of the AndyZ's review script; it just removes some spaces. The date delinker works for the most part, though it will miss some things. Gimmetrow 03:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Going over your edit history, I've realized you truly are a wiki cop, in the good sense. You know, someone who does all the dirty job for the rest of us... ☆ CieloEstrellado 01:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Will do, no problem—I'll see if I can get to it tonight. Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 13:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
rather than my change to "prefer what most readers would most easily ...", a certain bloody-mindedness starts to show. All I get is "Disagree", "straw-man argument".
And guess who's weighed in now: our old friend Anderson. See also the bottom of talk. Tony (talk) 01:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I've gone through the plot section and cleaned up and clarified a bit of the story. However, I think it should boil down to whether you, as someone who hasn't played Halo, can understand it (keeping in mind that the game springboards off Halo 2's plot, and unless we threw in a "Previously, on Halo" paragraph we couldn't sit there and introduce every character and situation). David Fuchs ( talk) 00:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
So have you proposed a merger? Would there be resistance to copy-editing? Tony (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Please explain why you deleted Tony Belcastro from the list of people with high-functioning autism? How much verification do you need? Letters from his doctor? His social security records? Is he any less worthy of anyone else on that list? Are you questioning his diagnosis? If so, please explain.. I am sure his doctors would love to hear it. Indichik
...busy working on the d-thing. Am investigating using Perl or Python to extract the tons of data I have... ..If you'd read User:Ling.Nut/V-challenged, I'd be sincerely grateful. Feel free to edit. Ling.Nut ( talk) 08:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed earlier that an editor ( Lightmouse) removed various [[1601 in literature|1601]] links from the Hamlet article: diff here. I asked why on their talk page and was given a very strange reply. Can you take a quick look (as you're much more familiar with policy and so forth than I am) and let me know what you think please? It seems very close to disruptive editing to me. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 19:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I am notifying all interested parties that I have listed the articles Anti-stuttering devices and Stuttering at the Conflict of Interest/Noticeboard, as well as Tdkehoe's conflict of interest in editing these. Please participate in the process there. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Is there a written policy that categories should be in any sort of order? I know alpha is preferred though. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've put the Radiohead article up for a peer review, and would welcome your opinions on it. Thanks. Atlantik ( talk) 21:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
DEar Sandy,
I recently edited porque no que callas, because it is full of factual errors. I just corrected one. explicitly the King rebuke to chavez DID not win him the aplause of the general audience. What happend is the pes Zapatero kept speaking. no one applauded. Please keep the fact strait. Bejamin Munoz UIUC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.13.174 ( talk) 22:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I just sent you an important email. Raul654 ( talk) 03:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Delegation Raul654 ( talk) 20:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I see a few more FAs which are not FA standard and I created FARs for them. But I did not put the FARs on the main FAR page or do the notifying because Macintosh is still on FAR and Premier League is on FARC. When can I put the new FARs on the main FAR page? After Macintosh moves to FARC or after Macintosh and Premier League finish FARC? I think I can try to shephard three FARs at one time. -- Kaypoh ( talk) 07:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
|
<font=3> Thanks for your comments and support -
Presque Isle State Park made
featured article today! Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC) |
![]() |
---|
Hi Sandy. Thanks for checking over the article and the support. I was fortunate to have fussy and demanding partners, Awadewit and Qp10qp, on the content part. And it was watching the comments from you and others on FAR that taught me about the MoS. Hopefully, I will be back again with another article. -- RelHistBuff ( talk) 17:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar | |
For excellent Copy- editing Knowledge Hegemony 17:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC) |
For me at least. Hi Sandy,
I and others, have managed to get Hepatitis B virus up to GA status and I am waiting now for someone to pick Rotavirus from the list. Thanks for all your help, guidance and understanding. GrahamColm Talk 19:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to know the reason why Yomangani left the wikipedia. Was there some kind of dispute or so? I was following his archives, but couldn't find any reason. Perhaps you know it, so I am asking you. DSachan ( talk) 20:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
We don't seem to have an article on him. We have one on Uta Frith, who co-authored a book on him. I daresay that the reason we haven't got an article is that to write it, one would need to read that particular, single book on him. That page is a bit dreadful, isn't it? qp10qp ( talk) 22:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey. Not sure if you watched the talk page or not, so in case you didn't I figured I would drop in to thank you for your help with MOS in regards to The Preuss School UCSD. It was pretty through and very good work. I should be able to get it done soon. At that point, I will probably ask you to look at it again. At any rates, thanks a lot. SorryGuy 07:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
We have created a Firefox add-on that automatically generates footnote reference code for whatever web page you are looking at. All you have to do is right click on the web page and select WPCITE. This can save a lot of time when citing sources. The add-on, wpcite.xpi, is now available for download from Mozdev. SandyGeorgia, I hereby dedicate this tool to you, for all the great work you have done. - Jehochman Talk 18:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- <ref>
- {{cite web
- |url= http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/27/health/27docs.html
- |title=Dr. Michael E. DeBakey and Dr. Denton A. Cooley - Heart Surgeons - New York Times
- |publisher=www.nytimes.com
- |accessdate=2007-11-27
- |last=
- |first=
- }}
- </ref>
(outdent)
More work needed :-) I would have to manually clean that footnote :-) Can you run a few more, for example, on a press release to see if they generate cite press release ? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
How does it automatically tell who the author is? By getting it out of some hidden HTML field? Raul654 ( talk) 19:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed your reply to me in Wikipedia talk:Featured articles and your comments in Wikipedia talk:Citing sources and was wondering if you could take a look at the Swedish language article. I have been working on the references for the article, and pointed out in the talk page that the article needs more references and general reference fixing. There is another editor, User:Peter Isotalo, who has been generally opposed to changes to the article, as can be seen in the talk page, partly because it is a Featured Article. So it would be helpful if you could intervene and let me know if my comments are off-base or not. Thanks! – panda ( talk) 20:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi SandyGeorgia. I don't think you remember me. But you really helped me a lot during the FAC nomination for Ahmedabad. I remember that you were really good at checking the references. I have nominated Satellite Instructional Television Experiment for FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Satellite Instructional Television Experiment. The article is a short one and has only 20 refs. But I now have 2 oppose votes saying that the number of refs are not enough (only 1 ref/paragraph, etc.) My view is that counting just the number of references is not a good way to judge an article. My primary source for the article has been a 60-70 page UN report on the experiment. There are not many sources on the internet and elsewhere for the topic. The experiment was conducted back in 1975 when there wasn't even TV in India and hence the lack of refs. But the UN report is really good and comprehensive. I feel that the article is comprehensive and adequately referenced. Can you take a look at the article and make any suggestions? Thanks a lot for your time. - Aksi_great ( talk) 05:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The only potential danger I see would be if you allowed yourself to overidentify with the process—or, more precisely, allowed others to overidentify you with the process and therefore hold you to blame for its faults. Oddly, one way to avoid this might be just to accept FAC's faults and get along with them, as Raul does. Everyone knows that substandard articles are regularly passed, and I know you've sometimes complained about that yourself. But I suspect, and I think Raul has worked this out, that this is a lesser evil than becoming too rigorous. The latter would tend to put editors off from bothering to improve articles, which is the last thing we want. So what I'm getting at is that I think you would need to decisively shift your role from reviewer to closer; for example, I know you are a stickler for good refs but if a review has a majority of supports despite dodgy refs, maybe it will be wiser to hold your nose and wave it through. It's the same for all the criteria, really, because, actually, few successful candidates meet all the criteria, if we're being honest. Raul is a smooth operator, in this respect. Very cleverly, he avoids saying much about anything, unless really pushed. He lets people get on with arguing, without feeling the need to put his five pence worth, and thereby he avoids becoming the target. Even when people specifically petition him or ask him to explain himself, he remains fairly brief and emotionally uninvolved yet manages to be inoffensive. This is probably wise practice, and I expect you might have to adopt a portion of the same. Or people will turn you into the mother of the whole process and nag you to distraction: in that position, you could never win. Anyway, best of luck! qp10qp ( talk) 06:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to the FA-closing job/role. A difficult path lies ahead but you will be able to overcome any difficulties. I know I have not been very active recently on Wikipedia but do not hesitate to contact me via email if you need any help. Joelito ( talk) 15:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to intrude on your and Raul's well-deserved positions but we have to show this user that all his edits will be reversed or he will never stop. The article is improving steadily and once I've cleaned the final three sections, I think it may well be FA standard and a suitable candidate, if nominated by an established user. DrKiernan ( talk) 08:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Since you have helped the Jayne Mansfield article to become what it is today, I'd like to draw your attention to another article split off from the main one - Jayne Mansfield in popular culture. It has been nominated for deletion a second time here, and the supports so far are three way - "Delete", "Keep" and "Merge" - with a few comments thrown in (mostly by the nominator and I). Would you take a look at the debate and the article? Even if you stay away from voicing your view on the debate page, you can advise me on my talk page (may be lend a hand, too). I hope I am not canvassing :P. Aditya( talk • contribs) 14:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Sandy,
I would like to share with you that today, November 28, 2007, I was honored by the Senate of Puerto Rico with the "Resolution of the Senate Number 3603" in appreciation for my work in Wikipedia regarding Puerto Rican military related articles. I was given the resolution on behalf of the Senate by the President of the Puerto Rican Senate, the honorable Kenneth McClintock. It was a total surprise which I did not expect and that is why I want to share this news with you are my friend. Tony the Marine ( talk) 06:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't expect it. I recieved an e-mail from the Senate informing me that Senator McClintock was going to be in Phoenix and that he wanted to meet me. I thought that it was a casual meeting and I went by myself. When I arrived at the hotel there was a convention of Congressman and I was greeted by numerous people who to my surprise knew about me. I was taken to a special room set aside for the event and was introduced to various senators and people representing the different political parties of Puerto Rico. Then Senator McClintock arrived we hugged and shock hands and suddenly I was presented with the high honor. I could not believe it and I even said "Are you sure you're talking about me?". Then the camaras started flashing.
They kept it a total secret and wanted to surprise me, that is why it isn't on any link yet, since it was yesterday. I wish that I would have known, I would have taken my family. Anyway, they all took a vote and agreed to invite me to Puerto Rico this coming Memorial Day (expenses paid) and McClintock told ne that I will be part of a "Think Tank" that he will create.
Finally, I was introduced to various U.S. Congressman and so on. What a day! You can imagine how happy my fanmily was when I returned home with the resolution. Well Sandy, here I am taking up your space and sharing my adventure. Take care, Tony the Marine ( talk) 21:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Hola Sandy.. I need some help with this article please, needs some expansion on the current crisis.. and more from the other side of the story.. Colombia-Venezuela relations, Saludos.-- F3rn4nd0 (Roger - Out) 09:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Sandy. I'm honestly touched that you noticed. I had that Pound poem up about dying of alcohol for a few days—a kind of dark humour for myself. Dark humour has its uses, but it seemed stupid when I woke up this morning, so I replaced with a (still gloomy) poem from Leonard Cohen. Where would I be without the poets? Gosh, I'd have traded in my chips long ago. And where would any of us be without flowers? No life without flowers! With love, Marskell ( talk) 20:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking of reframing it in questions.
And oh yeah, this edit was annoying. Since the bot resolves redirects, the bot found a discussion that was supposed to have been closed back on Nov 18, and would have closed it again when processing a couple days ago. Gimmetrow —Preceding comment was added at 03:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Done. I have moved the comments to the article's talk page -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me/ My edits 04:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
In the past what would happen was I would look at the page history for WP:FA and find the edit where Raul654 added the new FAs. I usually do this, but someone else doing it this week. But, there is no interaction between me and Raul to get the F&A done. It merely involves looking through the page history. And soon there will be a bot that gets most of the information together and I just proofread it. Does this answer all you r questions? The Placebo Effect 18:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no one else volunteered to fulfill the request, which was archived. — TKD:: Talk 18:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)