Hey Sandy, I just saw your !vote over on Peter's RfA, and it reminded me of how much I value your input over there. When I see your support, I know that the candidate has won the respect of a person I highly respect. I know that you have absolutely zero interest in becoming an admin, but I was wondering if you knew of any qualified people who might be interested in becoming an admin? I don't think nominating people for RfA's are your thing so if you have any ideas, let me know and I'll vet them. Balloonman ( talk) 17:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Allright, I will surely forget someone, but that's the risk you take. I previously suggested a long list (months ago) to TimVickers, but most of them declined: Colin, Qp10qp, Dr pda, Ling.nut, Outriggr, lots of others, so I won't suggest them again. I believe Epbr123 should be an admin, but he was mauled in his last RfA, so it's probably too soon and I wouldn't blame him if he never went anywhere near the place again. Others include Elcobbola, Laser brain, GrahamColm (should be a co-nom with TimVickers), Karanacs, Kablammo, Mike Searson, RelHistBuff, Ealdgyth, Maralia, BuddingJournalist, and Jbmurray. I would co-nom any of these people, but most of them are likely to decline. Any one of them would be superior candidates to the rush of admin-coached and prepped RfAs that have been cropping up lately, and which frankly give me great pause for the future viability of this Project. Forgot Happyme22, Tvoz and Wasted Time R, will think of more. BrianBoulton (not sure how long he's been on board though). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC) <red-faced again> ... forgot Moni3 !! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Sandy; for your watchlist: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Risker. dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 08:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
See below for an example of one of our fine new crop of admins leaving a personal attack on a talk page over a GA review (within months of gaining the tools). Honestly, something needs to be done about what is going on over at RfA; more eyes are certainly needed on that page. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
BOINK! Ok let me axe you a question. I'm not entirely sure what the conversations refer to in these references to the "latest batch of admins". Can you point me to what their transgressions have been? Also, clearly I'm a content editor who's in her own tiny little world sometimes while doing the article thing. What can a content editor do as an admin that would help their project? I don't even know. I've asked admins to protect the Harper Lee article, and that's pretty much the extent of my requests. (One pooter decided it wasn't a good idea after I spent 2 hours reverting vandalism from the same IP address). He hath caused me to rend my garment. -- Moni3 ( talk) 22:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Some people used to have a 1 FA criterion for adminship. That would have sunk me. I'm as guilty as anyone for not watching RfA. I tend to support the people I know, and know will make good admins, when they come up, and only oppose those I think I need to oppose (ie. if the nomination is not already failing). The others I just let slide on the assumption that they can learn on the job. Probably a dangerous assumption, actually, but not many people have the time to hang around RfA. BTW, I came here from the "joke oppose" thread on AN. My RfA had one of those: see here. It did make me realise what effect even a joke oppose can have, and this one was edited in as an already struck-out one! It also made me realise that RfA is too much of a popularity contest, but that is a story for another day. Carcharoth ( talk) 16:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm up for this, too, if anyone else thinks it's worthwhile. Not that I'm entirely sure which admin tools I'd use. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 18:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, my, just saw another one I missed: Slp1 ( talk · contribs). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I had a look at a RfA some months ago and I saw some poor soul facing the "Spanish Inquisition", having to answer questions like "how do you explain this edit?" and so forth. I thought why would anyone want to suffer this? I saw my name on Sandy's list and I took this as a compliment. But I have to ask myself would it make me a better editor/reviewer? Of this I'm not convinced. GrahamColm Talk 05:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mention this on those other pages, because I don't want other to hear this and start snooping around. I'm gay (openly) but on that myspace page of mine I want it deleted because I have a lot of gay friends that aren't out of the closet. I am but they aren't, and I don't want people looking around at them. Although I am considered about people sending me messages (a valid privacy reason) that's secondary. I want the link deleted. I've seen other pages that have permanently been unviewable, and I would like that to happen to all pages that have that link after it is deleted. QuirkyAndSuch ( talk) 20:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't want it out there in general discussion. QuirkyAndSuch ( talk) 21:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC) Also - I never thought it would be a noticed much before when I first added it because I was barely ever editing before. And I happen to be aditing a lot lately which is unusual for me (check my contributor pages and you'll see) I've done more in the last week or so than I tend to do in a year. I didn't think my user page would ever get as much attention as it has lately. QuirkyAndSuch ( talk) 21:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I found this on wikimedia, and it referes to wikimedia projects (including wikipedia) and contributors:
Personal information and its removal Main article: Privacy policy Definition: "Personal information" typically includes, but is not limited to, name, address, telephone number, precise date of birth, instant messenger contact details, photograph, appearance, food tastes, personal views, and similar details of an individual person.
Two policies govern personal information. Individuals in their role as editors, contributors and readers of Wikimedia projects, should refer to the privacy policy. Information on individuals forming part of an encyclopedia article, are subject to the policy on biographies of living people. "Right to vanish" relates specifically to the former.
The Wikimedia projects will delete personal information about editors and contributors (most likely on user and user talk pages) at their request, provided it is not needed for administrative reasons (which are generally limited to dealing with site misuse issues). Personal information related to encyclopedia articles and persons mentioned therein are not covered by "Right to Vanish". Instead, please see the relevant editorial policy on biographical articles, which contains full details of editorial directives, and actions to take if dissatisfied. QuirkyAndSuch ( talk) 09:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Blnguyen, can you advise on this thread relative to the Hillary Clinton FAC and QuirkyAndSuch ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? The editor had his personal myspace account posted to his user page since March 2006, it was raised on the FAC, he removed his myspace link on May 11, 2008 (two years later) and he now wants the link removed from the FAC. My understanding is that policy doesn't allow me to do that, and that the only way that info can be expunged is if he exercises RTV, but I don't know policy in this area, and I don't want to do something that risks destabilizing the FAC. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, just a heads up that PeerReviewBot has been approved for a one week trial archiving Peer Review, including those already at FAC and FLC. Thanks go to Carl for writing and operating the bot. There will be a test for a week. Assuming it gets approved, the directions for PR and FAC might have to be tweaked.
I have a goofy idea I was wondering what you thought about - what if there were two Peer Reviews and one of them was some sort of "Featured Peer Review" similar to WP:PPR. The idea would be that before going to FAC or FLC, articles would be nominated there and could be nominated to FAC or FLC if enough editors thought it was ready. Perhaps this could also be a way to qualify articles for WP:LOCE. If the only problem was a copyedit, that would put it in line for a copyedit, and then FAC. There would also be regular peer review for articles that just wanted to improve, and get ready for GAN. The other advantage would be that splitting peer review would avoid size issues we now face at PR, and allow reviews on FPR to run longer if needed. What do you think? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
So, on the first, if I see a FAC that has an open peer review, I should check back later? This is really going to throw me off, since I check every FAC when it first appears, to make sure the talk page is prepped for GimmeBot, so this will force me check twice (which I may forget, so GimmeBot may get stalled).
Anything to let peer reviews run longer would be good, but I think the current problem there is the amount of overhead taken up in the new automated system. I don't even go to PR anymore because I can't/won't wait to load the page (takes too long). I'm still unsure why all those templates and busy-ness are needed, and wonder if the page couldn't get back to a reasonable load time with longer PRs if the overhead and excess templates within templates were dropped. I noticed from WP:FAS that the volume at peer review has remain pretty much unchanged for several years, while everything else has increased, so the shortened PR time to allow for extra automated overhead still doesn't make a lot of sense to me. We need longer/stronger peer review, and I don't see that all that automation overhead is solving a problem.
On LOCE, that's a dead issue; nothing is happening there, we removed it from the FAC instructions because it's dead and no longer a viable option. No one is managing the lists there, and we haven't gotten a FAC copyedited from anyone there for as long as I can remember. (It worked when Gzkn was around, but he left.)
The general idea of a pre-FAC peer review or check has been discussed many times at WT:FAC and always defeated, because the fundamental problem across all content review areas is a severe lack of reviewers. Adding another step to the process won't increase the reviewer pool, and won't assure the rigorous review that articles (should) get at FAC; it will just be another content review stop that needs to be "staffed". What we need is for peer review and GAN to really have better defined niches in terms of steps along the path; they both can be hit-and-miss, so a lot of the work needed on articles isn't even mentioned until an article shows up at FAC ... which then becomes glorified peer review for unprepared articles (sigh). I still believe the solutions are in lengthening (back to the month we used to have) and strengthening the role of PR, and better defining the role of GAN and subjecting it to some sort of quality controls. Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't say I paid attention regularly (and at the moment I have extremely limited editing time) but on those occasions when I could contribute, I went to the FAC urgents first. There might be others with the same approach, so it might be worth maintaining. Mike Christie (talk) 01:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, I’ll maintain it if it’s something a non-director/delegate is able to do and, if so, you’re willing to train me in (i.e. explain what makes one urgent) . Since Gimmebot stole my main tag gig, I need something to fill the void (guns and religion only do so much…) Hope you feel better, by the way. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to explain why I wikilinked the dates in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-05-12/Dispatches which you subsequently reverted. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Autoformatting and linking (same as WP:MOSDATE and WP:DATE), dates should be wikilinked so that each user sees dates in the date format specified in their preferences. (Note: The comma in the date is optional; it is automatically added if needed for the date format preference.) Many articles follow this convention, including WP:MOSDATE itself. I dislike edit wars; would you please reconsider your edits. Thanks. Truthanado ( talk) 02:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship, and for your support in advance of it as well. I’ve learned a great deal from the way you conduct yourself on Wikipedia, and hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker ( talk) 13:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
My FAC reviewers have suggested I withdraw my nomination and seek a peer review. Can you help with the withdrawal of Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Marriott_School_of_Management? Thank you. -- Eustress ( talk) 15:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi SandyGeorgia, your comment "here" I want to clarify a bit. First, I have the utmost respect for this editor Eubulides ( talk · contribs), he tries so hard to be fair and listen to everyone. As for being involved, not exactly. I watch the chiropractic page to help me understand this practice for RL since a member of my family is using a chiropractor. I am not involved in this article. I don't think I have ever edited on the article itself and the postings that I do have were to try to calm things down when things got really heated, which didn't help but I don't think my attempts hurt anything. My last contribution was the Rfa which requested opinions from outsiders about the 'big change' in the article that got the article recently blocked. I stated I was for the change because as someone who is 'learning' about the practice, I found the changes made it easier for a non-medical person to find the information and understand more. I have to say now, I'm sorry I even responded because of the problems that has occurred since, with revert wars and attacks. I went to Slp1 because he/she was the only one on a board who answered questions about the article and I thought he/she might be interested in giving input to the talk page. I did this with hopes that maybe another outsider making comments about all the disputes would prevent the escalation that has happened.
I don't know if what I am saying is clear, sorry if it's not, not feeling well myself (saw you were under the weather too lately, hope you are feeling better.) I want you to know so I am open about things that I am not in the medical field at all. If you have any questions for me please do not hesitate to tell me at my talk page, or here (please put Crohnie in the comment section so I catch it.) My plans in regards to this article are to be an outside observer. I do not plan on making anymore comments since the Rfa seemed to be ignored or some kind of problem which to be honest, I still don't understand why asking the community for input got ignored like it was. I don't like controversy like this and avoid it when it gets too much for me. Again, I hope I make sense here but if I don't please accept my apologies because my medications make it hard for me most of the time and I have to work real hard to edit. I am an editor here to help me with focusing and using the brain cells I have left. ;) I try to enjoy being an editor and usually, mostly I do. I also hope that the little bit of editing I do help the project that I am working on. I hope you are feeling better and have a wonderful weekend. -- CrohnieGal Talk 16:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
If you have a moment, could you comment on my last query at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Featured articles/FA-Team#King Arthur article? Many thanks. qp10qp ( talk) 23:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking, which may take overnight or more.
In the meantime, I had to share that I have this sitting in my living room. I can't shake the idea that he looks like Dr. Bunsen Honeydew. -- Moni3 ( talk) 02:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Uh, I didn't do this, but it made me laugh out loud and get tears in my eyes. The next time you're feeling overwhelmed with all of life's problems and the horrible things people do to each other, remember that there is a cat who manages a train station in Japan. The cat gets a train station hat. And a promotion to "super stationmanager". Kind of gives your life meaning and perspective, doesn't it? -- Moni3 ( talk) 20:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I am shipping one of the many extra raccoons I have wandering about my house to Brianboulton to familiarize him with their characteristics and habits. I was going to send you a link to a lolcat that made me laugh, but I found something else instead. Per this site, I need to make you a graph referring to the correlation between the number of posts someone leaves while you're sleeping and the probability of someone being a dink.
I just wanted to let you know - if you're feeling overworked on FAC, please let me know, and we can go about bringing in a third person to help share the work. Raul654 ( talk) 02:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Have a nice day.
. --
Realist2 (
'Come Speak To Me')
03:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey Sandy, One thing, when you update the tally on RfA's it is nice to put the count in the summary rather than the word "tally". For example, this. That way people who see the edit in their watch list can see what the current count is. Balloonman ( talk) 03:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey Sandy, I don't think the military brat article is of FA quality anymore and have nom'ed it for FAR. Could you confirm that I nomed it for FAR correctly? Balloonman ( talk) 03:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Please review the citations of this article again. They should be fixed now. Thanks for your help. — Wackymacs ( talk ~ edits) 08:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar of Nomination Thanks |
![]() |
Sandy: Thank you so much for suggesting, encouraging, and nominating my RfA. None of this would have happened, let alone so surprisingly smoothly, without you. Thank you for your thoughtful and careful (and far too generous) nomination, for keeping the tally ticking, and for generally watching over things. And thank you above all for putting your trust in me. I do hope to deserve it. And whenever you need someone with administrative tools for some FA-related task, just shout. Again, thanks so much. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 15:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC) |
Hey Sandy, I'm writing to you specifically because you are the most experienced editor I know. I am asking you to tell me the truth: how do you think I would do in an RfA? Best, Happyme22 ( talk) 23:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to withdraw Gilberto Gil from its FAC, at the recommendation of Jbmurray. This is the place to request this sort of thing, right? -- Kakofonous ( talk) 10:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar | |
You certainly deserve this, for all the work you do to help others on WP. Every time I've come here with a question, you have always given a useful and prompt response. You do this for everyone else that comes here too, as well as contributing insightful commentary to discussions, working incredibly hard on articles, and leading much of the featured content process. Thanks. -- Kakofonous ( talk) 15:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC) |
The quote you questioned was discussed within Talk:Natalee Holloway/Archive 3 in the section ""... a pretty, blonde, and white...". We tried to get clarification on how to address the issue, as the punctuation was added by whoever typed the spoken quote (if that makes sense), but never heard back from anyone. It's not a matter of commas or dashes, but where the correct pause in her spoken words actually was. Should we simply leave the punctuation as it appears in the source? - auburnpilot talk 19:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
By the way, there other issues about logical punctuation on quotes that need to be looked at (whether punctuation is inside or outside of quotes); I find several instances that are incorrect, so all should be reviewed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Can I change my sig to "Fight the power, printed sources are better than online!"�??? Please Mama Sandy? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I have responded to your concerns about the article's sources. Thanks for your input! -- Hemlock Martinis ( talk) 02:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Since you were on the receiving end of quite a few of her personal attacks, you might want to weigh in on it here. -- 130.127.3.249 ( talk) 05:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
why I did all the mushroom edits.....Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I am so sorry about the article.
I messed something up and was previewing it.
Then I got really busy with other stuff and couldn't get back to it. So I saved it in a rush.
I felt guilty about it ever since that edit. Thanx for reverting the edit back that makes it so much easier for me!
AnnieTigerChucky (
talk)
20:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it safe to ignore Mojska's oppose, pending proper elucidation? Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 04:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
User talk:Raul654#Donald Bradman and WP:SIZE Hope you're well. -- Dweller ( talk) 11:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I can't make ctrl-f work, either. I'll fix them for you. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, I hope you are feeling better. I just wanted to let you know that I've had it with the Roman Catholic Church FAC again and I am going to try to stay away from it. I don't have a lot of wiki time right now and I'd rather spend it doing something not as stressful. I'll leave it to your judgement to decide if my objections have been addressed (good luck reading through the essays the article editors have posted!) Karanacs ( talk) 13:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Woody, why is Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela being redirected to South America throughout templates? What is behind this and how can I track it down? This isn't right; do we redirect France, Spain and Germany to Europe? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela is not being redirected to Wikipedia:WikiProject South America, they still exist as separate entities. As far as I can tell, it is a reasonable attempt at template rationalisation and pooling resources. The banner still links to Venezuela, it only uses one template to do so though. Why have three project templates when one will do? Woody ( talk) 14:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Who says Wikipedia is for anemic geeks whose violins are temporarily in the shop for repair? My arteries are being cleaned out right now by a helpful editor fixing all the problems in Mulholland Dr., and asking pointed questions about my citations and NPOV. I appreciate the health boost, particularly during FAC. It's like a glass of V-8. -- Moni3 ( talk) 19:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This is perfectly odd. I've searched every place I know to search, and all I can find is that this random change was applied only to Venezuela and Catholicism. I reverted the change at Venezuela. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, you might want to keep an eye on this; the nominator has removed the {{ FAC}} from the talk page twice now; once after I left a reminder on his/her talk page. Don't want to kill the beloved Gimmebot. ;) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 00:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
...for restoring the commentary on the Roman Catholic Church FAC page to some sense of its original order. Much appreciated. Majoreditor ( talk) 01:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Those guys need a hobby.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
More: the three possible areas to cover are:
I'll get started next week!-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank you for your update on the counts and adding the marriage proposal comment. "Marriage proposal here" It caught my attention and I had to take a look, and I had a good laugh. I needed that! :) Hard to explain, guess I am easy to amuse but thanks for bringing it to my attention. -- CrohnieGal Talk 12:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
... for all your help with the current dispatch, and for encouraging myself, Karanacs, and (especially) Jbm to get on with it. I have reverted the latest changes. There is more that can be said, but it can't all be said in this dispatch. We have a good focus now and a carefully copyedited text. I'd like to maintain it until it is posted. Geometry guy 22:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Degu nominated here but not transcluded. Nom has 0 edits to article; article eminently unready (a total of 2 citations). FAC removed by me, nominator notified. {{ db-maintenance}} the FAC page? Maralia ( talk) 23:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
hey the naked brothers band are all midgets everyone knows that they are in their 40's —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spagett ( talk • contribs) 00:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I've done a lot of work on the Soundgarden and if you see it's me and User:-5- that's been working hard on it so don't redraw it. -- Freedom (song) ( talk) 14:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
No, not Star Wars but something else. Both films are on removal. Ultra! 15:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I’ve just made a comment on possible reform of the TFA system on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article. I’d appreciate if you had a look and perhaps weighed in. Cheers! Lampman Talk to me! 16:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello there Sandy. I always love the edits you make to my FAC's. However, I am a bit puzzled by this edit. Every single other tropical cyclone article (to my knowledge) has the storm path map at the top left of the storm history, including every other featured hurricane article I have done. Might this be a case where it would be better to go against the MOS for the sake of consistency? Cheers. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 16:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, my fac for Assata Shakur was recently failed despite the fact that the only unresolved objections were a few hours old (I'm busy during the day and couldn't fully respond to/fix them). Was this because it had been on the fac page for too long overall? Or was it your judgement that the standing objections were too severe to be resolved on this nomiation?
Sorry for my lack of familiarity with the current procedures; I somehow had it in my head that objections had to stand a little longer before a nomination was closed. What is the ettiquette on renominating? You can respond here; I'm watchlisting your talk page. Savidan 21:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, SG. Long time no type. Quick query: The cite templates usually add a period at the end of the footnote. Is there any way around this? I don't see any reason why footnotes should end with a period, do you? Hope all is well! Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Me too, but ROTFL! That's funny; ya gotta love Wikipedia: I wonder if you can publicize this to the GA reviewers, who often request people to add cite templates in order to pass GA. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 23:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind dropping a note at the GA project talk page to let them know that it doesn't help with FA reviews? I have seen them say things like, using the templates will help you later when you bring the article up to FA consideration. The project talk page is here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles. Al the best! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 00:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Did the bot do its thing tonight? I didn't see a message on my watchlist like i usually do.... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello Sandy. I don't know why it was not closed back in time, but the Zinta FAC is still on.
I have some important things to tell you
I need your comments on the matter. Looking forward to your reply, Shahid • Talk2me 09:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Sandy,
I went to sleep last night thinking I would request a reboot in the morning because all the responses seem to focus on whether there are too many pictures. Most have either gone from opposed to neutral because they are not sure about the propriety of the extensive use of {{ multiple image}}. One or two have not returned to state an opinion on the redesign which eliminated squeezing and clutteredness. User:Tony1 responded this morning with some comments that may change the dynamics of your decision, but a reboot would not be a bad thing given the amount of text I have added and formatting that I have changed since some of the early respondents. I will address User:Tony1's concerns momentarily to the best of my ability.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 13:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, altough we obviously disagree about which way TFAs should be chosen, I do apreciate all the work you do over at FAC/FAR and your encouragement and guiding of FA writers and reviewers. Also I appreciate how hard and frustating it can be to argue by yourself against multiple people. Maybe we can get someone else who shares your concerns to participate, to get some of the weight off your shoulders? Acer ( talk) 19:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
FYI - my schedule is going to be particularly busy over the next two weeks (I'll be graduating and driving to Louisiana for my summer job). I will probably not be around very much - especially on the weekends. I'll be queuing up a bunch of main page FAs shortly, and that should carry us into mid-June. Is there anything that needs my attention immediately? If anything comes up while I'm away, I'm sure you can handle it -- I think you've been doing a wonderful job. Raul654 ( talk) 23:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Gimme, I'm back on June 3; let me know about you so I can pr/ar a bunch before. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I could, but do you mean a straight copy or one set in a broader scope of comments? The latter is undesirable, since the update should be as NPOV as possible. If the former, it begs the question of why the update appears in the Signpost in some months but not others.
However, I can do it if it's necessary. TONY (talk) 04:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Three months is too much—people won't read something that long. Besides, it's not three months since the initial (one-off) three-monther. OK, will do. We really do need to conduct a few interviews around the place to keep up our sleeves for contingencies. TONY (talk) 04:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Is this the norm? I guess I wouldn't mind, only Windows 2000 just got closed and delisted with absolutely no reasoning. Seems a bit unfair considering that I spent at least 50 hours researching and writing the article. Yes, some time ago now and I have retired, but I would think that 5-10 minutes of the delisting editors time to explain their reasoning would be a. respectful, and b. more encouraging and transparent.
10 minutes of their time vs. my 50 hours editing seems pretty fair to my way of thinking. - Tbsdy lives ( talk) 07:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Tbsdy, I just figured out (from trying to sort Marskell's response about feeling bad for you, when I didn't see you had edited the article) what Tbsdy stands for ... <smacks self in forehead> ... I'm sorry for being so slow on the uptake. I didn't really engage that review, and if I had realized you were back and wanted to work on it, I would have helped, but it appeared that no one was working on it. SandyGeorgia 14:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I know I'm just giving grist to your mill, but... people want TFA to be more like DYK? Hmmm. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 13:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
For the kind words in your co-nomination, for keeping and eye on things and for the congratulations! I really do appreciate the confidence, and will do my best to live up to it. Let me know if there is any way I can help you out with the extra buttons: though I think I'll need a bit of time to figure out what they do!!! All a bit scary what ghastly things I could do! Have a great holiday when it comes. -- Slp1 ( talk) 19:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
An unknown editor placed a "disputed" tag at the beginning of the Schizoid personality disorder page because they believe that "SPD is not a personality disorder". I undid this tag and explained that SPD is in the DSM and ICD. The author has re-placed the same tag. Are you able to help resolve this issue, or call on someone who can assist? Thank you, (from Goddessculture) 121.222.26.16 ( talk) 06:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I move the message because you may have not noticed. Please remove after you read it:
Sandy I must know what is your opinion of the following case: Girolamo asked to source all of Zinta's Filmfare awards and nominations. I thought it was unnecessary because it's very well sourced in the daughter article List of Preity Zinta's awards and nominations, which I'd worked very hard on. It only adds unnecessary 10KB long text. IMO, the awards article is a part of this very article; it is linked only in Zinta's article. That's why I think references for awards (which also have Wikilinks themselves) are not needed. Please tell me, what do you think? Shahid • Talk2me 09:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
While Wayne Gretzky was undergoing its FAR/FARC, I listed it at the League of Copyeditors, not taking into consideration the gridlock at the project. Maralia was kind enough to provide his copy-editing services, and the article retained FA status. My question now is how do I go about removing it from the list of requests? The instructions don't explicitly say how editors who requested help can withdraw that request. Thanks. Giants2008 ( talk) 01:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, I saw your comments in the edit history. Just a note, some of your comments were incorrect regarding capitalization within section headings. We capitalize the sacraments that appear in the section headings and Marriage is one of the seven sacraments. Liturgy of the Hours a liturgical practice that is also the name of a book used in the liturgical practice and it also needs to be capitalized. While I lower-cased Middle Ages in Church history, I am not sure that is correct and I am pretty sure that Renaissance is supposed to be capitalized so I left that. If you are a more intelligent person than me on capitalization issues, especially regarding the history section, please feel free to correct me - and I would appreciate your help in the matter very much! NancyHeise ( talk) 10:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if it is completely unreasonable to ask that the Zinta FAC be temporarily re-opened. I was literally in the middle of adding some new comments regarding the article when Raul promoted it. While I don't want to stop this article from being an FA, I also strongly feel that it still has issues (some big, most small) which should be (and likely would have easily been) addressed first - something I imagine would take no more than 2-3 days. Is there anything that can be done? It would be poor form to place it on FAR immediately, but I'd like to at least have the opportunity to finish going over the article first. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 02:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
"be sure to link it in at {{ FCDW}} and {{ FCDW/T}}, and the newsroom". Unsure how to do these three things. TONY (talk) 06:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Apologies for not responding earlier this weekend; I was out of town in an unexpectedly-long trip (I should have been back home two days ago, but alas, Stuff Happens™) and I'm still available to write the dispatch if needed. Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 07:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
You marked this one "not promoted", but I think, if you'll look again, all opposition comments were addressed. -- GRuban ( talk) 13:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the mishap... Actually my connection was dying out and coming back while writing the comment ...so I had to rewrite my comment for support... and didn't realize that I had commented twice...just now when I received user:Rurfrich message did I come to know about it...please understand it was an embarrasing mishap... - KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 ( talk) 13:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your longstanding help with the aritcle and your support. Thank you!!! Shahid • Talk2me 13:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
|
The Indian Cinema Barnstar | |
Unfortunately there's only tow halves to the darned half barnstar. Not to worry, there's more to have. For the Priety Zinta article, you definitely deserve this and much much more. Aditya( talk • contribs) 15:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC) |
Have a good trip. I'm in and safe and setting up. Probably won't be fully operational until tomorrow sometime. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words and travel safely. There have been some responses and better yet some reviews - have to see how long this lasts. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it resolved now? Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 01:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, you wrote this on Awadewit's talk page:
I was so excited for this article, that it finally made it after so many FACs and so much work, that I almost added a note of congratulations to the FAC when I closed it. I'm so glad I didn't see this thread sooner, as it deprives me of that little joy of promoting the article, and saddens me that FAC is perceived this way :-( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
First off, I'm so sorry that I made you sad! You do so much hard, valuable work for Wikipedia, so I feel bad that I said/did something that took away the fun and joy. In spite of my frustrations in getting The Wiggles to FA, I do think that editing WP is loads of fun. If I didn't, I'd be gone. The experience has been very valuable to me--my writing has improved and I've learned a great deal.
Please understand, though, that I was simply venting my frustrations. I think that I took on too big a project my first time through the FAC process (which is so typical for me). It's an article about a little-known music group, for a genre of music that isn't accepted in the field, with relatively little written about them. As a result, this article didn't get the same kind of feedback that most other articles seem to get, and I stand by my assertion that it's due to the systemic bias of Wikipedia. I realize that it's not naturally the kind of article that busy people tend to want to focus on. I also stand by my assertion that due to the subject matter of this article, it received more stringent criticism than other articles. To be honest, it frustrated me to have to explain the same points over and over again, to folks who didn't know much about the group.
That doesn't mean that I don't think that the FAC process isn't valuable--it is. I also understand that there aren't enough volunteers to keep up with the demand. The Wiggles suffered from that. It makes me want to become one of those volunteers, or to participate in LoCE. I put in a lot of work to improve this article, but it was worth it. I'm so proud of myself! It makes me want to do more, and I will. I suspect the next time I do this will go easier and smoother.
At any rate, thanks for promoting "my" article. ;) -- Figureskatingfan ( talk) 04:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the Lewis Hamilton FAC is a drive-by nomination. The nominator had not edited the article prior to its nomination, and has only made one edit since, which was unrelated to the FAC. I also didn't see any indication that the primary editors of the article were notified. I'm not an editor for this page, but are my suspicions justified? Giants2008 ( talk) 04:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks like we were right... Thanks for your help. Rudget ( Help?) 10:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, somebody told me that you were on a plane but you seem to be around. Just for info, the nom has struck through my comments at this FAC. I have left a note on their user page asking for the <s> and </s> to be removed. Best wishes, Graham. GrahamColm Talk 15:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi --
Hoping to talk about the Son-Rise entry. I have just finished reading the book (reviewing the program with interest as a close relative of an autistic child) and updated the entry as a result, but...
I noticed that you "undid" my entry altogether, with your notes showing "important source text deleted". However, I actually modified the text only slightly and in accordance to the source text itself. I had the book in front of me at time of edit, as I have it again now for this message. Below is a summary for the changes and items found in the book:
The author does not state a hypothesis equivalent to the child choosing to become non-autistic... But rather, the author writes of "motivating" or "inspiring" the child to "seek involvement", "make new connections and open new channels" leading to learning and progressing. The items in quotes are the authors exact words. The only reference to "choice" that I found was in the title of a chapter "Raun's Choice". That in itself does not equal what is written in the Wiki entry: "it hypothesizes that treated children will decide to become non-autistic" (as you reverted the text back to).
The final sentence was restructured and updated to use the word "attributes" rather than "claimed". The restructure and word "attributes" communicates the same message yet does not imply a bias or opinion as the word "claimed" does (since according to guidelines the entries should not do such things).
I have searched the internet and found this full chapter to be available online at: http://www.autismtreatmentcenter.org/contents/resources/son-rise_tmc/index.php Sorry, couldn't find it at Google Books (so no direct way to search the text unless you have another means?).
Please advice. I look forward to your reply. Since Wikipedia is an important source for information for many, it seems appropriate to update these types of inaccuracies.
Thanks! Web researcher365 ( talk) 19:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Would it be possible for me to go ahead and nom another? I know I have Hubert Walter up right now, but the Equine Wikiproject has Thoroughbred about ready to go, so it'd be a co-nom with at least two others, so it wouldn't be just me that would have to focus on dealing with comments. If you're uneasy, it can wait til Hubbie's done, but he's looking pretty set right now, I hope. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I am requesting the withdrawal of both FACs because I would like to work at my own pace to address the concerns that have been brought up. Thanks! Gary King ( talk) 02:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Just saw you closed this as promoted. Thanks so much for all your help with this, Sandy; I never realize how much work you put into these things. Thanks again, - auburnpilot talk 03:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Have you seen the Donald Bradman PR? I presume you've little/no knowledge of cricket, so do you mind if I solicit an opinion from you on my talk page about the issue I raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket#Is this POV: Bradman is "generally acknowledged as the greatest batsman of all time"?. Cheers! -- Dweller ( talk) 15:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I had to smile at your critique of H2O's supports at FAC... I'm not familiar enough with them to know the veracity of them, but I know that I stopped contributing to FAC because I realized that I wasn't critical enough to be a valued contributor there. My skills/interest lie elsewhere. But it did sound like me. Balloonman ( talk) 18:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
←I strongly concur on your opinion about medical articles. Cruft starts creeping in, and then someone might read the article and think that AIDS is caused by excessive beer drinking. Well, we do what we can. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
LOL. Well, maybe the redheaded cousin? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey Sandy, I notice you quoted me in your ArbCom evidence (I noticed my ears burning). Here's the diff in question if you'd like to insert it. MastCell Talk 21:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I dont think this article meets FA critera anymore, it might need delisting swiftly im afraid, thoughts? --— Realist2 ( Come Speak To Me) 03:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
With great regret, I feel I have to withdraw Peter Wall from FAC. I have indicated as such also on the FAC. Thanks. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 06:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey Sandy, I just saw your !vote over on Peter's RfA, and it reminded me of how much I value your input over there. When I see your support, I know that the candidate has won the respect of a person I highly respect. I know that you have absolutely zero interest in becoming an admin, but I was wondering if you knew of any qualified people who might be interested in becoming an admin? I don't think nominating people for RfA's are your thing so if you have any ideas, let me know and I'll vet them. Balloonman ( talk) 17:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Allright, I will surely forget someone, but that's the risk you take. I previously suggested a long list (months ago) to TimVickers, but most of them declined: Colin, Qp10qp, Dr pda, Ling.nut, Outriggr, lots of others, so I won't suggest them again. I believe Epbr123 should be an admin, but he was mauled in his last RfA, so it's probably too soon and I wouldn't blame him if he never went anywhere near the place again. Others include Elcobbola, Laser brain, GrahamColm (should be a co-nom with TimVickers), Karanacs, Kablammo, Mike Searson, RelHistBuff, Ealdgyth, Maralia, BuddingJournalist, and Jbmurray. I would co-nom any of these people, but most of them are likely to decline. Any one of them would be superior candidates to the rush of admin-coached and prepped RfAs that have been cropping up lately, and which frankly give me great pause for the future viability of this Project. Forgot Happyme22, Tvoz and Wasted Time R, will think of more. BrianBoulton (not sure how long he's been on board though). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC) <red-faced again> ... forgot Moni3 !! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Sandy; for your watchlist: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Risker. dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 08:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
See below for an example of one of our fine new crop of admins leaving a personal attack on a talk page over a GA review (within months of gaining the tools). Honestly, something needs to be done about what is going on over at RfA; more eyes are certainly needed on that page. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
BOINK! Ok let me axe you a question. I'm not entirely sure what the conversations refer to in these references to the "latest batch of admins". Can you point me to what their transgressions have been? Also, clearly I'm a content editor who's in her own tiny little world sometimes while doing the article thing. What can a content editor do as an admin that would help their project? I don't even know. I've asked admins to protect the Harper Lee article, and that's pretty much the extent of my requests. (One pooter decided it wasn't a good idea after I spent 2 hours reverting vandalism from the same IP address). He hath caused me to rend my garment. -- Moni3 ( talk) 22:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Some people used to have a 1 FA criterion for adminship. That would have sunk me. I'm as guilty as anyone for not watching RfA. I tend to support the people I know, and know will make good admins, when they come up, and only oppose those I think I need to oppose (ie. if the nomination is not already failing). The others I just let slide on the assumption that they can learn on the job. Probably a dangerous assumption, actually, but not many people have the time to hang around RfA. BTW, I came here from the "joke oppose" thread on AN. My RfA had one of those: see here. It did make me realise what effect even a joke oppose can have, and this one was edited in as an already struck-out one! It also made me realise that RfA is too much of a popularity contest, but that is a story for another day. Carcharoth ( talk) 16:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm up for this, too, if anyone else thinks it's worthwhile. Not that I'm entirely sure which admin tools I'd use. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 18:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, my, just saw another one I missed: Slp1 ( talk · contribs). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I had a look at a RfA some months ago and I saw some poor soul facing the "Spanish Inquisition", having to answer questions like "how do you explain this edit?" and so forth. I thought why would anyone want to suffer this? I saw my name on Sandy's list and I took this as a compliment. But I have to ask myself would it make me a better editor/reviewer? Of this I'm not convinced. GrahamColm Talk 05:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mention this on those other pages, because I don't want other to hear this and start snooping around. I'm gay (openly) but on that myspace page of mine I want it deleted because I have a lot of gay friends that aren't out of the closet. I am but they aren't, and I don't want people looking around at them. Although I am considered about people sending me messages (a valid privacy reason) that's secondary. I want the link deleted. I've seen other pages that have permanently been unviewable, and I would like that to happen to all pages that have that link after it is deleted. QuirkyAndSuch ( talk) 20:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't want it out there in general discussion. QuirkyAndSuch ( talk) 21:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC) Also - I never thought it would be a noticed much before when I first added it because I was barely ever editing before. And I happen to be aditing a lot lately which is unusual for me (check my contributor pages and you'll see) I've done more in the last week or so than I tend to do in a year. I didn't think my user page would ever get as much attention as it has lately. QuirkyAndSuch ( talk) 21:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I found this on wikimedia, and it referes to wikimedia projects (including wikipedia) and contributors:
Personal information and its removal Main article: Privacy policy Definition: "Personal information" typically includes, but is not limited to, name, address, telephone number, precise date of birth, instant messenger contact details, photograph, appearance, food tastes, personal views, and similar details of an individual person.
Two policies govern personal information. Individuals in their role as editors, contributors and readers of Wikimedia projects, should refer to the privacy policy. Information on individuals forming part of an encyclopedia article, are subject to the policy on biographies of living people. "Right to vanish" relates specifically to the former.
The Wikimedia projects will delete personal information about editors and contributors (most likely on user and user talk pages) at their request, provided it is not needed for administrative reasons (which are generally limited to dealing with site misuse issues). Personal information related to encyclopedia articles and persons mentioned therein are not covered by "Right to Vanish". Instead, please see the relevant editorial policy on biographical articles, which contains full details of editorial directives, and actions to take if dissatisfied. QuirkyAndSuch ( talk) 09:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Blnguyen, can you advise on this thread relative to the Hillary Clinton FAC and QuirkyAndSuch ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? The editor had his personal myspace account posted to his user page since March 2006, it was raised on the FAC, he removed his myspace link on May 11, 2008 (two years later) and he now wants the link removed from the FAC. My understanding is that policy doesn't allow me to do that, and that the only way that info can be expunged is if he exercises RTV, but I don't know policy in this area, and I don't want to do something that risks destabilizing the FAC. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, just a heads up that PeerReviewBot has been approved for a one week trial archiving Peer Review, including those already at FAC and FLC. Thanks go to Carl for writing and operating the bot. There will be a test for a week. Assuming it gets approved, the directions for PR and FAC might have to be tweaked.
I have a goofy idea I was wondering what you thought about - what if there were two Peer Reviews and one of them was some sort of "Featured Peer Review" similar to WP:PPR. The idea would be that before going to FAC or FLC, articles would be nominated there and could be nominated to FAC or FLC if enough editors thought it was ready. Perhaps this could also be a way to qualify articles for WP:LOCE. If the only problem was a copyedit, that would put it in line for a copyedit, and then FAC. There would also be regular peer review for articles that just wanted to improve, and get ready for GAN. The other advantage would be that splitting peer review would avoid size issues we now face at PR, and allow reviews on FPR to run longer if needed. What do you think? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
So, on the first, if I see a FAC that has an open peer review, I should check back later? This is really going to throw me off, since I check every FAC when it first appears, to make sure the talk page is prepped for GimmeBot, so this will force me check twice (which I may forget, so GimmeBot may get stalled).
Anything to let peer reviews run longer would be good, but I think the current problem there is the amount of overhead taken up in the new automated system. I don't even go to PR anymore because I can't/won't wait to load the page (takes too long). I'm still unsure why all those templates and busy-ness are needed, and wonder if the page couldn't get back to a reasonable load time with longer PRs if the overhead and excess templates within templates were dropped. I noticed from WP:FAS that the volume at peer review has remain pretty much unchanged for several years, while everything else has increased, so the shortened PR time to allow for extra automated overhead still doesn't make a lot of sense to me. We need longer/stronger peer review, and I don't see that all that automation overhead is solving a problem.
On LOCE, that's a dead issue; nothing is happening there, we removed it from the FAC instructions because it's dead and no longer a viable option. No one is managing the lists there, and we haven't gotten a FAC copyedited from anyone there for as long as I can remember. (It worked when Gzkn was around, but he left.)
The general idea of a pre-FAC peer review or check has been discussed many times at WT:FAC and always defeated, because the fundamental problem across all content review areas is a severe lack of reviewers. Adding another step to the process won't increase the reviewer pool, and won't assure the rigorous review that articles (should) get at FAC; it will just be another content review stop that needs to be "staffed". What we need is for peer review and GAN to really have better defined niches in terms of steps along the path; they both can be hit-and-miss, so a lot of the work needed on articles isn't even mentioned until an article shows up at FAC ... which then becomes glorified peer review for unprepared articles (sigh). I still believe the solutions are in lengthening (back to the month we used to have) and strengthening the role of PR, and better defining the role of GAN and subjecting it to some sort of quality controls. Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't say I paid attention regularly (and at the moment I have extremely limited editing time) but on those occasions when I could contribute, I went to the FAC urgents first. There might be others with the same approach, so it might be worth maintaining. Mike Christie (talk) 01:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, I’ll maintain it if it’s something a non-director/delegate is able to do and, if so, you’re willing to train me in (i.e. explain what makes one urgent) . Since Gimmebot stole my main tag gig, I need something to fill the void (guns and religion only do so much…) Hope you feel better, by the way. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to explain why I wikilinked the dates in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-05-12/Dispatches which you subsequently reverted. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Autoformatting and linking (same as WP:MOSDATE and WP:DATE), dates should be wikilinked so that each user sees dates in the date format specified in their preferences. (Note: The comma in the date is optional; it is automatically added if needed for the date format preference.) Many articles follow this convention, including WP:MOSDATE itself. I dislike edit wars; would you please reconsider your edits. Thanks. Truthanado ( talk) 02:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship, and for your support in advance of it as well. I’ve learned a great deal from the way you conduct yourself on Wikipedia, and hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker ( talk) 13:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
My FAC reviewers have suggested I withdraw my nomination and seek a peer review. Can you help with the withdrawal of Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Marriott_School_of_Management? Thank you. -- Eustress ( talk) 15:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi SandyGeorgia, your comment "here" I want to clarify a bit. First, I have the utmost respect for this editor Eubulides ( talk · contribs), he tries so hard to be fair and listen to everyone. As for being involved, not exactly. I watch the chiropractic page to help me understand this practice for RL since a member of my family is using a chiropractor. I am not involved in this article. I don't think I have ever edited on the article itself and the postings that I do have were to try to calm things down when things got really heated, which didn't help but I don't think my attempts hurt anything. My last contribution was the Rfa which requested opinions from outsiders about the 'big change' in the article that got the article recently blocked. I stated I was for the change because as someone who is 'learning' about the practice, I found the changes made it easier for a non-medical person to find the information and understand more. I have to say now, I'm sorry I even responded because of the problems that has occurred since, with revert wars and attacks. I went to Slp1 because he/she was the only one on a board who answered questions about the article and I thought he/she might be interested in giving input to the talk page. I did this with hopes that maybe another outsider making comments about all the disputes would prevent the escalation that has happened.
I don't know if what I am saying is clear, sorry if it's not, not feeling well myself (saw you were under the weather too lately, hope you are feeling better.) I want you to know so I am open about things that I am not in the medical field at all. If you have any questions for me please do not hesitate to tell me at my talk page, or here (please put Crohnie in the comment section so I catch it.) My plans in regards to this article are to be an outside observer. I do not plan on making anymore comments since the Rfa seemed to be ignored or some kind of problem which to be honest, I still don't understand why asking the community for input got ignored like it was. I don't like controversy like this and avoid it when it gets too much for me. Again, I hope I make sense here but if I don't please accept my apologies because my medications make it hard for me most of the time and I have to work real hard to edit. I am an editor here to help me with focusing and using the brain cells I have left. ;) I try to enjoy being an editor and usually, mostly I do. I also hope that the little bit of editing I do help the project that I am working on. I hope you are feeling better and have a wonderful weekend. -- CrohnieGal Talk 16:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
If you have a moment, could you comment on my last query at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Featured articles/FA-Team#King Arthur article? Many thanks. qp10qp ( talk) 23:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking, which may take overnight or more.
In the meantime, I had to share that I have this sitting in my living room. I can't shake the idea that he looks like Dr. Bunsen Honeydew. -- Moni3 ( talk) 02:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Uh, I didn't do this, but it made me laugh out loud and get tears in my eyes. The next time you're feeling overwhelmed with all of life's problems and the horrible things people do to each other, remember that there is a cat who manages a train station in Japan. The cat gets a train station hat. And a promotion to "super stationmanager". Kind of gives your life meaning and perspective, doesn't it? -- Moni3 ( talk) 20:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I am shipping one of the many extra raccoons I have wandering about my house to Brianboulton to familiarize him with their characteristics and habits. I was going to send you a link to a lolcat that made me laugh, but I found something else instead. Per this site, I need to make you a graph referring to the correlation between the number of posts someone leaves while you're sleeping and the probability of someone being a dink.
I just wanted to let you know - if you're feeling overworked on FAC, please let me know, and we can go about bringing in a third person to help share the work. Raul654 ( talk) 02:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Have a nice day.
. --
Realist2 (
'Come Speak To Me')
03:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey Sandy, One thing, when you update the tally on RfA's it is nice to put the count in the summary rather than the word "tally". For example, this. That way people who see the edit in their watch list can see what the current count is. Balloonman ( talk) 03:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey Sandy, I don't think the military brat article is of FA quality anymore and have nom'ed it for FAR. Could you confirm that I nomed it for FAR correctly? Balloonman ( talk) 03:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Please review the citations of this article again. They should be fixed now. Thanks for your help. — Wackymacs ( talk ~ edits) 08:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar of Nomination Thanks |
![]() |
Sandy: Thank you so much for suggesting, encouraging, and nominating my RfA. None of this would have happened, let alone so surprisingly smoothly, without you. Thank you for your thoughtful and careful (and far too generous) nomination, for keeping the tally ticking, and for generally watching over things. And thank you above all for putting your trust in me. I do hope to deserve it. And whenever you need someone with administrative tools for some FA-related task, just shout. Again, thanks so much. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 15:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC) |
Hey Sandy, I'm writing to you specifically because you are the most experienced editor I know. I am asking you to tell me the truth: how do you think I would do in an RfA? Best, Happyme22 ( talk) 23:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to withdraw Gilberto Gil from its FAC, at the recommendation of Jbmurray. This is the place to request this sort of thing, right? -- Kakofonous ( talk) 10:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar | |
You certainly deserve this, for all the work you do to help others on WP. Every time I've come here with a question, you have always given a useful and prompt response. You do this for everyone else that comes here too, as well as contributing insightful commentary to discussions, working incredibly hard on articles, and leading much of the featured content process. Thanks. -- Kakofonous ( talk) 15:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC) |
The quote you questioned was discussed within Talk:Natalee Holloway/Archive 3 in the section ""... a pretty, blonde, and white...". We tried to get clarification on how to address the issue, as the punctuation was added by whoever typed the spoken quote (if that makes sense), but never heard back from anyone. It's not a matter of commas or dashes, but where the correct pause in her spoken words actually was. Should we simply leave the punctuation as it appears in the source? - auburnpilot talk 19:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
By the way, there other issues about logical punctuation on quotes that need to be looked at (whether punctuation is inside or outside of quotes); I find several instances that are incorrect, so all should be reviewed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Can I change my sig to "Fight the power, printed sources are better than online!"�??? Please Mama Sandy? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I have responded to your concerns about the article's sources. Thanks for your input! -- Hemlock Martinis ( talk) 02:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Since you were on the receiving end of quite a few of her personal attacks, you might want to weigh in on it here. -- 130.127.3.249 ( talk) 05:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
why I did all the mushroom edits.....Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I am so sorry about the article.
I messed something up and was previewing it.
Then I got really busy with other stuff and couldn't get back to it. So I saved it in a rush.
I felt guilty about it ever since that edit. Thanx for reverting the edit back that makes it so much easier for me!
AnnieTigerChucky (
talk)
20:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it safe to ignore Mojska's oppose, pending proper elucidation? Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 04:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
User talk:Raul654#Donald Bradman and WP:SIZE Hope you're well. -- Dweller ( talk) 11:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I can't make ctrl-f work, either. I'll fix them for you. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, I hope you are feeling better. I just wanted to let you know that I've had it with the Roman Catholic Church FAC again and I am going to try to stay away from it. I don't have a lot of wiki time right now and I'd rather spend it doing something not as stressful. I'll leave it to your judgement to decide if my objections have been addressed (good luck reading through the essays the article editors have posted!) Karanacs ( talk) 13:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Woody, why is Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela being redirected to South America throughout templates? What is behind this and how can I track it down? This isn't right; do we redirect France, Spain and Germany to Europe? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela is not being redirected to Wikipedia:WikiProject South America, they still exist as separate entities. As far as I can tell, it is a reasonable attempt at template rationalisation and pooling resources. The banner still links to Venezuela, it only uses one template to do so though. Why have three project templates when one will do? Woody ( talk) 14:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Who says Wikipedia is for anemic geeks whose violins are temporarily in the shop for repair? My arteries are being cleaned out right now by a helpful editor fixing all the problems in Mulholland Dr., and asking pointed questions about my citations and NPOV. I appreciate the health boost, particularly during FAC. It's like a glass of V-8. -- Moni3 ( talk) 19:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This is perfectly odd. I've searched every place I know to search, and all I can find is that this random change was applied only to Venezuela and Catholicism. I reverted the change at Venezuela. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, you might want to keep an eye on this; the nominator has removed the {{ FAC}} from the talk page twice now; once after I left a reminder on his/her talk page. Don't want to kill the beloved Gimmebot. ;) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 00:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
...for restoring the commentary on the Roman Catholic Church FAC page to some sense of its original order. Much appreciated. Majoreditor ( talk) 01:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Those guys need a hobby.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
More: the three possible areas to cover are:
I'll get started next week!-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank you for your update on the counts and adding the marriage proposal comment. "Marriage proposal here" It caught my attention and I had to take a look, and I had a good laugh. I needed that! :) Hard to explain, guess I am easy to amuse but thanks for bringing it to my attention. -- CrohnieGal Talk 12:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
... for all your help with the current dispatch, and for encouraging myself, Karanacs, and (especially) Jbm to get on with it. I have reverted the latest changes. There is more that can be said, but it can't all be said in this dispatch. We have a good focus now and a carefully copyedited text. I'd like to maintain it until it is posted. Geometry guy 22:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Degu nominated here but not transcluded. Nom has 0 edits to article; article eminently unready (a total of 2 citations). FAC removed by me, nominator notified. {{ db-maintenance}} the FAC page? Maralia ( talk) 23:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
hey the naked brothers band are all midgets everyone knows that they are in their 40's —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spagett ( talk • contribs) 00:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I've done a lot of work on the Soundgarden and if you see it's me and User:-5- that's been working hard on it so don't redraw it. -- Freedom (song) ( talk) 14:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
No, not Star Wars but something else. Both films are on removal. Ultra! 15:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I’ve just made a comment on possible reform of the TFA system on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article. I’d appreciate if you had a look and perhaps weighed in. Cheers! Lampman Talk to me! 16:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello there Sandy. I always love the edits you make to my FAC's. However, I am a bit puzzled by this edit. Every single other tropical cyclone article (to my knowledge) has the storm path map at the top left of the storm history, including every other featured hurricane article I have done. Might this be a case where it would be better to go against the MOS for the sake of consistency? Cheers. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 16:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, my fac for Assata Shakur was recently failed despite the fact that the only unresolved objections were a few hours old (I'm busy during the day and couldn't fully respond to/fix them). Was this because it had been on the fac page for too long overall? Or was it your judgement that the standing objections were too severe to be resolved on this nomiation?
Sorry for my lack of familiarity with the current procedures; I somehow had it in my head that objections had to stand a little longer before a nomination was closed. What is the ettiquette on renominating? You can respond here; I'm watchlisting your talk page. Savidan 21:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, SG. Long time no type. Quick query: The cite templates usually add a period at the end of the footnote. Is there any way around this? I don't see any reason why footnotes should end with a period, do you? Hope all is well! Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Me too, but ROTFL! That's funny; ya gotta love Wikipedia: I wonder if you can publicize this to the GA reviewers, who often request people to add cite templates in order to pass GA. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 23:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind dropping a note at the GA project talk page to let them know that it doesn't help with FA reviews? I have seen them say things like, using the templates will help you later when you bring the article up to FA consideration. The project talk page is here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles. Al the best! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 00:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Did the bot do its thing tonight? I didn't see a message on my watchlist like i usually do.... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello Sandy. I don't know why it was not closed back in time, but the Zinta FAC is still on.
I have some important things to tell you
I need your comments on the matter. Looking forward to your reply, Shahid • Talk2me 09:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Sandy,
I went to sleep last night thinking I would request a reboot in the morning because all the responses seem to focus on whether there are too many pictures. Most have either gone from opposed to neutral because they are not sure about the propriety of the extensive use of {{ multiple image}}. One or two have not returned to state an opinion on the redesign which eliminated squeezing and clutteredness. User:Tony1 responded this morning with some comments that may change the dynamics of your decision, but a reboot would not be a bad thing given the amount of text I have added and formatting that I have changed since some of the early respondents. I will address User:Tony1's concerns momentarily to the best of my ability.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 13:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, altough we obviously disagree about which way TFAs should be chosen, I do apreciate all the work you do over at FAC/FAR and your encouragement and guiding of FA writers and reviewers. Also I appreciate how hard and frustating it can be to argue by yourself against multiple people. Maybe we can get someone else who shares your concerns to participate, to get some of the weight off your shoulders? Acer ( talk) 19:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
FYI - my schedule is going to be particularly busy over the next two weeks (I'll be graduating and driving to Louisiana for my summer job). I will probably not be around very much - especially on the weekends. I'll be queuing up a bunch of main page FAs shortly, and that should carry us into mid-June. Is there anything that needs my attention immediately? If anything comes up while I'm away, I'm sure you can handle it -- I think you've been doing a wonderful job. Raul654 ( talk) 23:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Gimme, I'm back on June 3; let me know about you so I can pr/ar a bunch before. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I could, but do you mean a straight copy or one set in a broader scope of comments? The latter is undesirable, since the update should be as NPOV as possible. If the former, it begs the question of why the update appears in the Signpost in some months but not others.
However, I can do it if it's necessary. TONY (talk) 04:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Three months is too much—people won't read something that long. Besides, it's not three months since the initial (one-off) three-monther. OK, will do. We really do need to conduct a few interviews around the place to keep up our sleeves for contingencies. TONY (talk) 04:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Is this the norm? I guess I wouldn't mind, only Windows 2000 just got closed and delisted with absolutely no reasoning. Seems a bit unfair considering that I spent at least 50 hours researching and writing the article. Yes, some time ago now and I have retired, but I would think that 5-10 minutes of the delisting editors time to explain their reasoning would be a. respectful, and b. more encouraging and transparent.
10 minutes of their time vs. my 50 hours editing seems pretty fair to my way of thinking. - Tbsdy lives ( talk) 07:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Tbsdy, I just figured out (from trying to sort Marskell's response about feeling bad for you, when I didn't see you had edited the article) what Tbsdy stands for ... <smacks self in forehead> ... I'm sorry for being so slow on the uptake. I didn't really engage that review, and if I had realized you were back and wanted to work on it, I would have helped, but it appeared that no one was working on it. SandyGeorgia 14:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I know I'm just giving grist to your mill, but... people want TFA to be more like DYK? Hmmm. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 13:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
For the kind words in your co-nomination, for keeping and eye on things and for the congratulations! I really do appreciate the confidence, and will do my best to live up to it. Let me know if there is any way I can help you out with the extra buttons: though I think I'll need a bit of time to figure out what they do!!! All a bit scary what ghastly things I could do! Have a great holiday when it comes. -- Slp1 ( talk) 19:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
An unknown editor placed a "disputed" tag at the beginning of the Schizoid personality disorder page because they believe that "SPD is not a personality disorder". I undid this tag and explained that SPD is in the DSM and ICD. The author has re-placed the same tag. Are you able to help resolve this issue, or call on someone who can assist? Thank you, (from Goddessculture) 121.222.26.16 ( talk) 06:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I move the message because you may have not noticed. Please remove after you read it:
Sandy I must know what is your opinion of the following case: Girolamo asked to source all of Zinta's Filmfare awards and nominations. I thought it was unnecessary because it's very well sourced in the daughter article List of Preity Zinta's awards and nominations, which I'd worked very hard on. It only adds unnecessary 10KB long text. IMO, the awards article is a part of this very article; it is linked only in Zinta's article. That's why I think references for awards (which also have Wikilinks themselves) are not needed. Please tell me, what do you think? Shahid • Talk2me 09:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
While Wayne Gretzky was undergoing its FAR/FARC, I listed it at the League of Copyeditors, not taking into consideration the gridlock at the project. Maralia was kind enough to provide his copy-editing services, and the article retained FA status. My question now is how do I go about removing it from the list of requests? The instructions don't explicitly say how editors who requested help can withdraw that request. Thanks. Giants2008 ( talk) 01:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, I saw your comments in the edit history. Just a note, some of your comments were incorrect regarding capitalization within section headings. We capitalize the sacraments that appear in the section headings and Marriage is one of the seven sacraments. Liturgy of the Hours a liturgical practice that is also the name of a book used in the liturgical practice and it also needs to be capitalized. While I lower-cased Middle Ages in Church history, I am not sure that is correct and I am pretty sure that Renaissance is supposed to be capitalized so I left that. If you are a more intelligent person than me on capitalization issues, especially regarding the history section, please feel free to correct me - and I would appreciate your help in the matter very much! NancyHeise ( talk) 10:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if it is completely unreasonable to ask that the Zinta FAC be temporarily re-opened. I was literally in the middle of adding some new comments regarding the article when Raul promoted it. While I don't want to stop this article from being an FA, I also strongly feel that it still has issues (some big, most small) which should be (and likely would have easily been) addressed first - something I imagine would take no more than 2-3 days. Is there anything that can be done? It would be poor form to place it on FAR immediately, but I'd like to at least have the opportunity to finish going over the article first. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 02:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
"be sure to link it in at {{ FCDW}} and {{ FCDW/T}}, and the newsroom". Unsure how to do these three things. TONY (talk) 06:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Apologies for not responding earlier this weekend; I was out of town in an unexpectedly-long trip (I should have been back home two days ago, but alas, Stuff Happens™) and I'm still available to write the dispatch if needed. Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 07:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
You marked this one "not promoted", but I think, if you'll look again, all opposition comments were addressed. -- GRuban ( talk) 13:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the mishap... Actually my connection was dying out and coming back while writing the comment ...so I had to rewrite my comment for support... and didn't realize that I had commented twice...just now when I received user:Rurfrich message did I come to know about it...please understand it was an embarrasing mishap... - KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 ( talk) 13:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your longstanding help with the aritcle and your support. Thank you!!! Shahid • Talk2me 13:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
|
The Indian Cinema Barnstar | |
Unfortunately there's only tow halves to the darned half barnstar. Not to worry, there's more to have. For the Priety Zinta article, you definitely deserve this and much much more. Aditya( talk • contribs) 15:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC) |
Have a good trip. I'm in and safe and setting up. Probably won't be fully operational until tomorrow sometime. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words and travel safely. There have been some responses and better yet some reviews - have to see how long this lasts. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it resolved now? Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 01:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, you wrote this on Awadewit's talk page:
I was so excited for this article, that it finally made it after so many FACs and so much work, that I almost added a note of congratulations to the FAC when I closed it. I'm so glad I didn't see this thread sooner, as it deprives me of that little joy of promoting the article, and saddens me that FAC is perceived this way :-( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
First off, I'm so sorry that I made you sad! You do so much hard, valuable work for Wikipedia, so I feel bad that I said/did something that took away the fun and joy. In spite of my frustrations in getting The Wiggles to FA, I do think that editing WP is loads of fun. If I didn't, I'd be gone. The experience has been very valuable to me--my writing has improved and I've learned a great deal.
Please understand, though, that I was simply venting my frustrations. I think that I took on too big a project my first time through the FAC process (which is so typical for me). It's an article about a little-known music group, for a genre of music that isn't accepted in the field, with relatively little written about them. As a result, this article didn't get the same kind of feedback that most other articles seem to get, and I stand by my assertion that it's due to the systemic bias of Wikipedia. I realize that it's not naturally the kind of article that busy people tend to want to focus on. I also stand by my assertion that due to the subject matter of this article, it received more stringent criticism than other articles. To be honest, it frustrated me to have to explain the same points over and over again, to folks who didn't know much about the group.
That doesn't mean that I don't think that the FAC process isn't valuable--it is. I also understand that there aren't enough volunteers to keep up with the demand. The Wiggles suffered from that. It makes me want to become one of those volunteers, or to participate in LoCE. I put in a lot of work to improve this article, but it was worth it. I'm so proud of myself! It makes me want to do more, and I will. I suspect the next time I do this will go easier and smoother.
At any rate, thanks for promoting "my" article. ;) -- Figureskatingfan ( talk) 04:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the Lewis Hamilton FAC is a drive-by nomination. The nominator had not edited the article prior to its nomination, and has only made one edit since, which was unrelated to the FAC. I also didn't see any indication that the primary editors of the article were notified. I'm not an editor for this page, but are my suspicions justified? Giants2008 ( talk) 04:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks like we were right... Thanks for your help. Rudget ( Help?) 10:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, somebody told me that you were on a plane but you seem to be around. Just for info, the nom has struck through my comments at this FAC. I have left a note on their user page asking for the <s> and </s> to be removed. Best wishes, Graham. GrahamColm Talk 15:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi --
Hoping to talk about the Son-Rise entry. I have just finished reading the book (reviewing the program with interest as a close relative of an autistic child) and updated the entry as a result, but...
I noticed that you "undid" my entry altogether, with your notes showing "important source text deleted". However, I actually modified the text only slightly and in accordance to the source text itself. I had the book in front of me at time of edit, as I have it again now for this message. Below is a summary for the changes and items found in the book:
The author does not state a hypothesis equivalent to the child choosing to become non-autistic... But rather, the author writes of "motivating" or "inspiring" the child to "seek involvement", "make new connections and open new channels" leading to learning and progressing. The items in quotes are the authors exact words. The only reference to "choice" that I found was in the title of a chapter "Raun's Choice". That in itself does not equal what is written in the Wiki entry: "it hypothesizes that treated children will decide to become non-autistic" (as you reverted the text back to).
The final sentence was restructured and updated to use the word "attributes" rather than "claimed". The restructure and word "attributes" communicates the same message yet does not imply a bias or opinion as the word "claimed" does (since according to guidelines the entries should not do such things).
I have searched the internet and found this full chapter to be available online at: http://www.autismtreatmentcenter.org/contents/resources/son-rise_tmc/index.php Sorry, couldn't find it at Google Books (so no direct way to search the text unless you have another means?).
Please advice. I look forward to your reply. Since Wikipedia is an important source for information for many, it seems appropriate to update these types of inaccuracies.
Thanks! Web researcher365 ( talk) 19:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Would it be possible for me to go ahead and nom another? I know I have Hubert Walter up right now, but the Equine Wikiproject has Thoroughbred about ready to go, so it'd be a co-nom with at least two others, so it wouldn't be just me that would have to focus on dealing with comments. If you're uneasy, it can wait til Hubbie's done, but he's looking pretty set right now, I hope. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I am requesting the withdrawal of both FACs because I would like to work at my own pace to address the concerns that have been brought up. Thanks! Gary King ( talk) 02:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Just saw you closed this as promoted. Thanks so much for all your help with this, Sandy; I never realize how much work you put into these things. Thanks again, - auburnpilot talk 03:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Have you seen the Donald Bradman PR? I presume you've little/no knowledge of cricket, so do you mind if I solicit an opinion from you on my talk page about the issue I raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket#Is this POV: Bradman is "generally acknowledged as the greatest batsman of all time"?. Cheers! -- Dweller ( talk) 15:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I had to smile at your critique of H2O's supports at FAC... I'm not familiar enough with them to know the veracity of them, but I know that I stopped contributing to FAC because I realized that I wasn't critical enough to be a valued contributor there. My skills/interest lie elsewhere. But it did sound like me. Balloonman ( talk) 18:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
←I strongly concur on your opinion about medical articles. Cruft starts creeping in, and then someone might read the article and think that AIDS is caused by excessive beer drinking. Well, we do what we can. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
LOL. Well, maybe the redheaded cousin? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey Sandy, I notice you quoted me in your ArbCom evidence (I noticed my ears burning). Here's the diff in question if you'd like to insert it. MastCell Talk 21:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I dont think this article meets FA critera anymore, it might need delisting swiftly im afraid, thoughts? --— Realist2 ( Come Speak To Me) 03:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
With great regret, I feel I have to withdraw Peter Wall from FAC. I have indicated as such also on the FAC. Thanks. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 06:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)