Can you please take a look at Vithoba and comment on any problems present on the article? Thanks. -- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 13:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Hi, I have added some more links about the author and method of gathering data. Can someone please check as the reviewer has left "out (RS issue) for other reviewers to decide for themselves"?-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 17:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
why not Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SandyGeorgia? Nergaal ( talk) 16:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there one page that has a list of all the cool codes that can be used? I just ran across hab and hat, and I was wondering what else I don't know. I've looked around, but I find some lists with endless discussion on how to use them. I just want a simple list that gives a brief description on what it does, then move on. It seems everything is tossed everywhere. For example, I know that there are format codes to convert between kg and lbs, but it always takes me 20 clicks of the button to find it (of course, I finally said, "I'm going to bookmark this stuff"). There should be one location to find anything for experienced editors. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Any solid plans to scale back from weekly? It's too much! Perhaps we could alternate with another feature ... Tony (talk) 01:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for an accurate and sensible closing statement on the Space SF FAC. I don't particularly enjoy seeing a FAC fail (first time that's happened to me, actually), so I hope some good can come from it. I particularly wanted to thank you for saying you're glad I brought it to FAC to try to focus the debate. I appreciate it. Mike Christie (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion#Featured article star. I have to say I'm actually surprised it was the only one. Maralia ( talk) 04:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, I'd like to withdraw Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tea & Sympathy. I have no idea when I'm going to have the time to do the rewrite that's needed, but I doubt it will be this year. Thanks. Giggy ( talk) 08:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
If I'm breaking any Wikipedia or FAC rules by saying this, I'm quite genuinely open to being trout-slapped.. but I'm saying it publicly: please hold off on Location of European Union institutions for a while. See my note on its FAC; it is completely hosed image-wise, but I may not have much free time in the next two days or so. I wanna give the whole thing a very good once-over. However, I am not sure how soon I can revisit. Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 11:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
USS Nevada (BB-36) | ||
Thank you very, very much for your constructive criticism on the
FAC that the
USS Nevada (BB-36) recently went through. Looking back, I see that the article's formatting was definitely not FA-quality before you came along... Cheers, —Ed
17
for President
Vote for Ed 14:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Nevada underway off of the U.S. Atlantic coast on 17 September 1944. |
Well here it is. Brace yourself, it's not pleasant. -- Scorpion 0422 01:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Seventh inning, Bosox down 7-0, I turned off the TV. I goofed around a bit, made myself a fruit smoothie, watched ER (just to laugh at all the mistakes, which is better than MastCell, who watches House to get ideas on how to edit medical articles), and got some gas in my Motorcycle. I returned to my computer to write some pithy and quite cruel comments to you about the Bosox. But I thought to myself, "self, just so you don't feel like a complete twit, check mlb.com, just in case." Damn fat lady. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy. I've responded here. D.M.N. ( talk) 18:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Fantastic work! I owe you a drink and candy of your choice when you're done.-- Tznkai ( talk) 19:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Three supports really is too few to promote any type of featured content. I've offered to self-nominate for delisting any of my featured sound credits that got promoted on a questionable majority. With regard to your query for dispatch content, I believe Shoemaker already wrote a couple of FS pages? If you remind me which ones and give a deadline (at least 2 weeks please due to prior commitments) I'll see what I can do. Best wishes, Durova Charge! 20:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey, just wanted to let you know, I changed one of the links in {{ Clips of tics}}; the original link went to the news article there, but the embedded video didn't work anymore (it would play an ad but then stop without playing the actual video). The new link has a prominent link in it to get back to the original article; is there anything else you would like me to do to make the article more easily available, or is it more important to link directly to the video, as it does now? — Politizer( talk • contribs ) 22:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Sandy - I'll be away from Rick Bot for about a week, so won't be adding the bot-assisted new entries to WP:FA2008. I may add some manually (or you could) and the bot should update WP:WBFAN automatically (the bot should run once a day at its usual time). Just an FYI so you know what's going on. -- Rick Block ( talk) 01:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd like your opinion here. -- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 13:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, it's Limetolime. Listen, I have cleaned up the page and I would REALLY appreciate if you could take a look at it. Thanks! Limetolime Talk to me • look what I did! 19:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Although Yellow Evan, the nominator, has been temporarily blocked, can you allow this article to remain an FAC? I'm only asking this because I've withdrawn my opposition to the article due to some support and also because he wasn't the main contributer to the article. His last major role in the article was on September 14, 2008 (save the first two paragraphs of the storm history). [1] Since then, I've completely redone the article and now have finished updating it per the Tropical Cyclone Report. I'd be grateful if you could allow it to be up for FA again. Regardless, thanks for hearing me out. Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 00:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I've looked for some other ones to use, but with a storm that remains out to sea, there are hardly any other sources that don't just say the same thing. Unless, having sources that say the same thing is better than having one source explain it all. I've added two refs to Fox news as of now. Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 05:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:Chocolate Hills. I left a message at User talk:Lenticel; don't know if it will help. Mike Christie (talk) 03:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, it appears that the fat lady was given a a new song sheet. This is CRAZY!!!!! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, is it possible to have the date autoformatting removed from the template that says "This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 22, 2007." I see that the promotion date is also autoformatted. Let me know if I'm able to do it—I can't make out the names of the individual templates. This is non-urgent, of course. Tony (talk) 06:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Sandy. I was wondering if I could i have your endorsement for the Rollback privilege. If you take a look at my contribs, you'll see I've been trying to pack a punch in vandalism. Would you help me make a harder and faster punch? Knippschild ( talk) 08:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey Sandy, Mike Christie was unaware of this one and asked me where it arose, I couldn't help him and thought you'd know...Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, is Blofeld's objection actionable? I find it a bit vague if he doesn't say what he wants that he feels to be missing. YellowMonkey ( click here to chose Australia's next top model!) 03:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, bathers, maybe I should link common nouns again. YellowMonkey ( click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 02:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
May I ask why Lockdown was not promoted when two seconds before it was close I had just addressed the opposes and asked what there is I could do to change them. I'm just wondering since it doesn't make alot of sense to me that I was trying to address comments and it was closed.-- Will C 04:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello - I have some questions for you regarding this linking issue - I believe that "Japan," "Pearl Harbor" and "World War II" must be linked. It is relevant as per WP:OVERLINK, because it was the context and cause of the college's wartime role and must be made clear. Also, I don't get why "U.S.," the country, in the first sentence should not be linked - it is as important as linking Maryland. You are describing where the college is, so surely the nation deserves a link. Your implementation of the policy may just be too strict for its own good. Thank you, Shiva (Viṣṇu) ( talk) 23:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, I just wanted to say thanks for the excellent report you wrote for the Signpost. The detail and statistics is really useful and interesting. cheers -- pfctdayelise ( talk) 01:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm done with my unexpected stint as groom and plan to stay at the hotel in the morning for a bit and catch up on FAC stuff. I'm utterly exhausted tonight, but wanted to let you know things were in control. Our trainer's filly went Top Ten, which was great! And we connected with a trainer to do our saddleseat filly, which is good. But tomorrow isn't anything important so I'm going to stay at the hotel and veg for a while. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, I have been asked to move Rhinemaidens (Wagner) to Rhinemaidens by User:Brianboulton. I am fine making the move, but since the article is at FAC, I wanted to check with you first. Is this OK? SHoudl the FAC also be moved or what? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
That is, move the article, move the FAC, rename the FAC at WP:FAC and fix the article title in the article. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Now you know why I have to watch these buggers: the worst is that, when they're done wrong, I can't fix them or move them back without calling in an admin. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, you always seem to be railing about WP:ACCESSIBILITY problems in articles, here's a question: Are collapsible tables allowed in prose? Here is the article in question: List of awards and nominations received by S.H.E. Dabomb87 ( talk) 03:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, I'm most of the way through a FAC review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Acid dissociation constant. I expect to be supporting once I've completed the review; I may hold off to see what clarifications can be done on the areas I've highlit, but the article is, as far as I can tell, well-written and almost as clear as it can be expected to be. I am a bit concerned that the nominator is on vacation and though he is making an effort to respond, may be limited in his responses to some degree till he's back home. So this is a request for a little lenience on the timescale. We don't have many highly technical articles, and this hasn't been much reviewed so far. (It's certainly stretching my scientific abilities to their limit, and beyond; I can see why people aren't jumping in.) I think articles like this are rare enough we should let them run a bit long, especially when there's a temporary hitch in the nominator's ability to respond. Just a suggestion; I know you keep an eye on this sort of thing anyway, but I thought I'd mention it. Mike Christie (talk) 03:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I have only now found this discussion. It would have been helpful if I had known about it earlier! In fact I have now completed revision of the article in the light of all the comments previously posted and request that the candidate be reinstated with immediate effect. Petergans ( talk) 16:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, in hopes of encouraging more reviewers at FLC, I've been considering a "reviewer of the month" sort of thing. However, I remember that at one point you compiled a list of top reviewers at FAC but haven't done it recently. Is there a reason for this? Thanks, Scorpion 0422 04:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I guess the question of how successful I was at building comraderie was answered in the last hour.
I'm not running GimmeBot, so reviewers and nominators will have to sort talk pages and FAC closings now as was done in the past (see User:SandyGeorgia/FA work). Raul and I move the files to archive; the rest is up to the community now.
Maralia, if you have any new ideas of how to approach awarding reviewers without all the work, perhaps an audience can found at WT:FAC.
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, in the past when I have attempted to help you I have only succeeded in making your job more difficult. You have placed this message on the FAC page "Extensive interrupted commentary; please add the — [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] — continues after insertion below template, by locating the diffs and adding the timedate stamp and sig to the interrupted oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)" and I don't know what you are talking about. I want to help you but I am afraid of repeating a common theme in our working relationship. Could you please just do it once as an example for me to follow, just to make sure there is no misunderstanding this time? I'm sorry I am not a more intelligent person on these types of issues. NancyHeise talk 10:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering what the standards of sourcing were for a list. I'm trying to get List of spherical astronomical bodies in the Solar System to FL status but I'm not sure what is required as far as sourcing. If the list were to be fully sourced, then between 200 and 400 citations would be required, plus the inline citations would completely overwhelm the text. I'm not sure what to do. Serendi pod ous 10:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd just finished removing the last cite from the lead - with great misgivings I should add - when I looked again at the review page and saw your comment! Serves me right for not having both windows open at once. Anyway I can easily put the "hard data" ones back in. Fainites barley 20:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
You've got mail. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's nice people think I'm essential, but I'm not. Wiki got along fine before I got active, and will probably get along fine long after I retire. I have various reasons to keep the FA stuff going, so that will likely continue, but the irregularity is a drain. Let's get FA/FAR/FL on a schedule, with updates on a fixed 2 days a week at a specific time. Could you work around knowing the bot will usually run shortly after 23:59 Tuesdays and Saturdays, for instance? Gimmetrow 23:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
[5] Gimmetrow 00:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I have withdrawn this. Apparently now I can't even translate articles - I'm beginning to wonder if it's ever worth the effort bringing this to FAC. ~one of many editorofthewikis ( talk/ contribs/ editor review)~ 22:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
(outdent:) OK, I must have missed this. But why is Gimmebot blocked?! -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 05:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry about that. It looks like my attempt to save you a few minutes backfired with the time you had to spend leaving talk page messages. I didn't want to archive the JFK FAC the usual way as the bot was out of action, but I was certain I'd followed each step to the letter for manual archiving, save for the updating of {{ articlehistory}} (which I was told would stall the bot should it have chosen that moment to gallop into action, though I'm familiar with how to do it). Consider me suitably enlightened. All the best, Steve T • C 22:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar | ||
You do so much to keep FAC going, including going to some serious lengths to make sure that conversations are understandable, various points are clear and so forth. Your work does not go unnoticed or unappreciated. Thank you for all the hard, and often tedious, work you put into the project. Vassyana ( talk) 04:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC) |
I forget why, but many (if not all) templates seem to hate "external" links (it breaks them). Regardless, I wanted to point out for the record the kind of work you do in this regard and what specific actions spurred me to slap a barnstar on your talk page. It is exactly the kind of work that helps keep the FA process moving and I seriously doubt you are thanked often enough for that kind of tedious housekeeping. [7] [8] [9] Be well, Vassyana ( talk) 04:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi sandy,
This is going to seem like the lamest excuse; but, my apartment got broken into. Thus, I don't have any computers with internet access (this post was done on my blackberry). Since I will not have home internet, or a computer.that is being used from work, can I withdraw the nom and re-apply without prejudice next week when I can be sure ill be able to respond to objections?
Thanks, Lazulilasher ( talk) 06:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
One citation template to find them,
One citation template to bring them all,
And in the darkness bind them [evil inconstancies].
Yeah so there's a discussion about a new template I wrote going on at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and apparently people would like to hear what you have to say about it. The scope is to merge most of the commonly used templates into one to procude uniform reference formatting. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 14:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey SandyGeorgia. Kilbad ( talk · contribs) has asked me to ask around a few people to get their opinions on the current catagorisation tree proposed at this discussion, as he seems rather eager to get going with the work but would like a few more opinions. Any chance you could have a quick look and post your thoughts? Cheers. — Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 15:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, your summary of opposes on this page is an honorable attempt to summarize issues but I want you to know that many of these have been answered and remain unstruck. Others are not possible for me to answer because they are asking me to do things that are incorrect. The vast amount of data on the talk page to support article text that some reviewers just can not believe came from scholars is evidence of this. Is this article seriously going to fail FA if I do not do every single thing these opposers want me to do even if it is factually incorrect and unsupported by scholars? Also, the image of Pope Pius XII in the Nazi cartoon is part of the Featured Article Pope Pius XII, why can't I use the same picture on Roman Catholic Church when it is discussing the same issue? NancyHeise talk 01:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I've suggested a trial run of flagged revisions with featured articles here if you'd like to comment on the idea. Cla68 ( talk) 13:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I removed a FAC nom for the Sarah Palin article, as I didn't think it was helpful to leave it up for very long. I hope that's okay, and want to make sure I followed all the necessary steps properly. -- Aude ( talk) 18:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
My talk page has reached the point that I don't know what's being asked of me or told to me. Perhaps you can (re)clarify anything you need me to do.
Sure would have been nice to know Giant Otter was going up today. Marskell ( talk) 09:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the info about [11]. I guess I didn't read that part and just skipped to the "how to nominate" part. I thought it might be fair for it to be featured before the election, since it's a current event that she had more experience than the Gov of California when she became Gov of Alaska, even though she's only my little brother's age.-- Chuck ( talk) 20:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm stuck in Amarillo, the car decided to have transmission issues. We'll get it fixed, but it might not be until Monday until we hit the road. Blech. Luckily, we have internet... They might get us moving tomorrow afternoon, I hope. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy,
As soon as I started contributing at FAC, I was hit with a triple-whammy.. mostly in real-life. To wit:
later, Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 02:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Summarizing:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, just a quick question. Is the Gimmebot going to be run this Saturday (25th) or next week? I wanted to do some FLC closures because our backlog is getting a little long, but if the bot will run tomorrow then I can wait. -- Scorpion 0422 03:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Not absolutely correct, Matthew. The issue is, if you close articles well in advance of the bot run, will the templates remain in place until the bot runs (if not, the bot will stall and there may be errors)? If nominators remove templates or attempt to build articlehistory themselves, we may just get more errors and more stalled bot runs. So, it's best to close noms as close as possible to the bot run, but if you must close some at different times, you have several options: 1) get someone to watchlist the pages to make sure templates stay in place until the bot runs, or 2) get someone to manually process the entire thing, including articlehistory (you can't do them halfway, that will stall the bot), or 3) replace the FLC template with a failed or promoted template (this option isn't optimal, and Gimme hasn't told us if he wants us to do that). Your final question isn't clear: manually building an articlehistory doesn't require the use of the old templates, so I'm unsure what you're asking there. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Why did you close the FAC? Only one person had voted.-- CyberGhostface ( talk) 03:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
You have one from me. It's not brief or particularly heart-warming, so get comfortable before you read it. - auburnpilot talk 05:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
... is suddenly redlinking three out of the four tools. I think I figured out how to fix it, but—story of my life lately—the template is full protected. I put in an {{ editprotected}} request on the talk page. Maralia ( talk) 05:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
What would you do with
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of people with hepatitis C? Remove the strange canvassing, close the nomination, blank it all and restart, or something entirely different? Thanks,
Matthewedwards (
talk •
contribs •
email) 08:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I archived seven today. FAR now has just sixteen listings—lowest level since the inception of the two-step process. Marskell ( talk) 15:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
See here. Does that solve the problem? Gimmetrow 23:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Wondering what hint? I really appreciated you support last weekend; you were a rock as usual. Hope I didnt offend in some way. Ceoil sláinte 21:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Need I say more? They can't wait one hour while I'm busy. Oh, well. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Thought you might be interested to read another discussion at ANI about a content editor accused of incivility when dealing with a tendentious crew. -- Moni3 ( talk) 20:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
vb has two a duplicate Oppose (i.e., two opposes) on RCC. Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 00:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I have placed a response on the article talk page. Can you give some specific advice as to what is needed? Thanks. Pentawing Talk 01:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
FACfailed is cleared. Maralia ( talk) 04:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the archiving of the fac candidate acid dissociation constant was premature, due to a misunderstanding relating to the length of the correspondence. This arose because I have been away for 10 days and was not able to edit the article in that period, so I responded with brief comments on the candidate discussion page. Also, Mike Christie, who is not a chemist, wrote at length with some very helpful comments on the presentation of the chemistry from the laymen's point of view.
I have now returned and have completed the revision of the article in the light of all the comments posted on the candidate discussion page. Having got this far, it seems to me that it would be pointless to go through the candidate process again from scratch. I therefore ask you to re-instate this FAC candidate. If this were a peer-reviewed journal, I would expect the editor to make a final decision regarding publication on the basis of whether the author(s) have responded adequately to the referees' comments. I assume that a similar process applies in WP. Petergans ( talk) 15:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry! After posting this I found an earlier section with the same name of which I was not aware and have added a comment there also. Petergans ( talk) 16:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I had no idea that a delay of 10 days was so important. What I am objecting to is premature archiving, before I had a chance to respond properly and, additionally, removing the possibility of further comments or replies on the candidate page. The present situation is unnecessarily chaotic, with postings in five different locations, three user discussion pages, an archived candidate page, the article itself and its discussion page. Surely it would be better if all matters relating to the FAC candidate were posted in one place?
In any case, I have attended to the issues raised by Sandy. The only one that I don't understand relates to book citations. When citing specific information, pages or whatever are provided. The books cited at the end are references to topics in the applications section, not to any specific material.
Once again I request that the candidacy be re-instated as all the issues previously raised have been dealt with. Petergans ( talk) 16:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
"The conclusion at the top of this thread"..... [13] by which I assume you mean The day I think otherwise is the day I need to get rid of the bit. Again, thanks and happy editing. I'll be delighted, Sandy, if you'd care to explain how that is unfair to Ceoil. I've made my comments in good faith and I can't for the life of me see how this is in any way - to quote you - unfair. Are you mixing up threads or are we looking at a different one? I'm trying to be supportive and helpful here and if I'm not doing that a quiet note on my talk would be useful. Pedro : Chat 22:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
What a nightmare of a thread. Ceoil, you have been suggested to stay away and find something else to edit until you have sufficiently cooled down. Scarian has apologized. Looie496, using "sweetheart" and "little sugar dumpling" is not grounds for desysoping. Closing this because nothing else can be garnered out of this. seicer 02:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
(←) I checked the diffs carefully and didn't miss what was said. The result: "I'm not convinced Wikipedia is actually made better by editors like this." Here's the thing... that might as well be aimed at me. Ceoil does the same sort of work I do (only higher volume and quality), and if all his work is negated by a single comment then just logically everything I've done is only one edit away from being meaningless as well. Countless hours reading through books, thinking about topics, putting it to the page, crossing the t's, looking up the MOS rules, working with the reviewers at GA/PR/FAC, fitting it into the broader quiltwork of articles. Pedro's done none of that. Yet make a single comment that offends him and he's "not convinced Wikipedia is actually made better by editors like this." Sandy, I'm an editor like this too (the difference is only that I've not been accidentally blocked). I'll go have some tea but the catch is this: I'm not angry; just demoralized. -- JayHenry ( talk) 01:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
A parable of sorts. I've done some good work around here, but when I think back on the best edit I've ever made, there's no question what it is. I was checking hooks at DYK, and an editor (we'll call him the noob for now) had made a hook that probably violated BLP--it was his first DYK submission. Somebody flagged it and passed on by. The noob was upset as he'd actually dug up 17 sources on the article, only to see it summarily dismissed, without any clear guidance on what had been done wrong. I'm not sure why I was in a helpful mood that day, but for whatever reason... I saw the editor made a frustrated post on his talk page. Project seemed like a waste of time, to him. He'd worked hard and got no recognition. I think he was one edit away from just giving up on Wikipedia, forgetting his brief encounter with the site ever happened. He almost quit. I said 'good article! don't give up quite yet!' Fortunately for us, he didn't: The point isn't that I'm responsible for those articles (in fact, that'd be the author himself and the support he got from User:Awadewit, User:WillowW, deserving that credit), but the bottom line, the moral of the story if you will, is this: by far the best edits you can make to improve the quality of the encyclopedia are to support the people writing it. -- JayHenry ( talk) 03:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I review four FACs. Yes, four. I'm rather impressed with myself, honestly! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
This Featured Article previously had a Featured Article Review and was kept, see Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Xenu. The current one is at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Xenu. Should the old one be moved/renamed and the new one moved to a page 2 - in keeping with uniformity and so forth? Cirt ( talk) 05:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
This may be up your alley. I've been called away by my Better Half. Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 14:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
What is wrong with the article? Schuym1 ( talk) 15:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
My tools are pretty much works in progress. For instance I'm working on an interface overhaul for checklinks and planned improvement to the dabfinder tool. As Gimmetrow pointed out the readability tool isn't accurate. I knew I needed to do more research on the subject and those were my reasons behind the removal. Additionally, I'm a pathetically at writing, so I doubt that you'll see anything, even documentation, from me. — Dispenser 18:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Sandy,
There has never been such a long FAC to my knowledge; at this stage, I'm trying to do anything I can to keep the page loadable for people on dialup and manageable so reviewers are able to find and respond to their posts. Ioannes is keeping up with his strikes on talk regardless of where you respond, so I'm not worried there. You could start a new talk page section to respond to G guy, or put the responses on the main page. I've linked the talk page sections from the main page. FAC, Raul or I don't necessarily "require" anything of nominators: a FAC can be promoted when all actionable objections have been resolved and consensus for promotion has been reached, or archived when actionable objections have not been resolved and consensus for promotion has not been reached. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I replied to the comments you left. Thanks!-- S R X 20:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I nominated this article and I realize it was too soon. Could you please withdraw it? Thanks. Wildroot ( talk) 22:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Gadsby (book). NB you will find a stormy discussion about how that topic is treated on its talk. But what if a group could do it that way with skill and styl? -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 08:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't quite know how to raise ths, but the Rhinemaidens article, a joint nom of myself and User: Peter cohen, which was promoted to FA on 28 October, has not been added to WP:WBFAN (last update 29 Oct). Is this because I mucked up the co-nom format? It seems a shame as I asked Peter to co-nom, and I think this is his first FA. Brianboulton ( talk) 11:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
FYI, here's how to track those down in the future. (I believe this one is resolved?) First, it's a bot, and sometimes something foils the bot, so it doesn't hurt to check. Also, it depends on when the bot runs. The Bot adds the entries to Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2008; if Rick Block notices a mistake, he manually adjusts those entries. So do I. Then, that page feeds WP:WBFAN. So, whenever you notice a mistake at Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2008, fixing it manually will result in a correction the next time the bot processes WP:WBFAN. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
This FAC is withdrawn. Normally I'd just withdraw it but since it's gotta be synchronized with GimmeBot now, I'll leave it up to someone else. Gary King ( talk) 15:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to use {{ facfailed}} again, because GimmeBot processes them differently. The Nor'easter needs to go to archive for botification, and it can wait until Saturday for Gimme (we'll just watchlist the articles in these cases to make sure the templates stay in place). The Calvin article would have been a withdraw, but two people entered opposes, which makes it harder. I would say to process it as a manual withdraw, without moving it to archive or articlehistory. I'm just catching up this morning, so you may get to those before I do ... haven't read my watchlist. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
In case you didn't know, you can get most of the effect of Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page by having a monobook.css file with a line such as:
.has_been_on_main_page a { color: green; }
This makes all the former mainpage FAs green, for example. Identifying older FAs in bold would be a require some sort of new maintenance, however. Gimmetrow 05:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, you guys didn't already do this? I've had it on my ceiling cat account for a while. (I don't use monobook on my main account because I can't stand it) That's how I schedule them. Raul654 ( talk) 05:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
This is either the worst idea ever made public on Wikipedia or absolute genius. Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 00:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I asked Serendipodous to re-add my name as co-nom to the (old, closed) Scattered disc FAC. Not vandalism etc. Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 01:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem in your refactoring my off-topic comment at the FAC review. But please consider refactoring the off topic comment by Cirt as well. Thanks for your consideration. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Just posted on my talk page, saying that s/he has changed his/her mind vis a vis Scattered disc and now wishes to be given credit for it. Do you think you could add his/her name to Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2008 and to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations? Thanks. Serendi pod ous 07:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
In the edit summary for this revision, when I said "there is a citation," what I meant to say is that there is a site somewhere online to verify it, not that there is already a citation in the article. I just realized after posting that that it probably sounded like I was trying to contradict you, which I didn't mean to; anyway, I just removed "award-winning," entirely, because even though it could be cited, it's not really worth it (the award seems to be a rinky-dink award, and whether or not the film got an award is irrelevant anyway; I don't think the other films mentioned in the article have any information about awards here, either). Anyway, sorry about that edit summary! — Politizer talk/ contribs 17:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Can you please take a look at Vithoba and comment on any problems present on the article? Thanks. -- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 13:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Hi, I have added some more links about the author and method of gathering data. Can someone please check as the reviewer has left "out (RS issue) for other reviewers to decide for themselves"?-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 17:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
why not Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SandyGeorgia? Nergaal ( talk) 16:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there one page that has a list of all the cool codes that can be used? I just ran across hab and hat, and I was wondering what else I don't know. I've looked around, but I find some lists with endless discussion on how to use them. I just want a simple list that gives a brief description on what it does, then move on. It seems everything is tossed everywhere. For example, I know that there are format codes to convert between kg and lbs, but it always takes me 20 clicks of the button to find it (of course, I finally said, "I'm going to bookmark this stuff"). There should be one location to find anything for experienced editors. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Any solid plans to scale back from weekly? It's too much! Perhaps we could alternate with another feature ... Tony (talk) 01:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for an accurate and sensible closing statement on the Space SF FAC. I don't particularly enjoy seeing a FAC fail (first time that's happened to me, actually), so I hope some good can come from it. I particularly wanted to thank you for saying you're glad I brought it to FAC to try to focus the debate. I appreciate it. Mike Christie (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion#Featured article star. I have to say I'm actually surprised it was the only one. Maralia ( talk) 04:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, I'd like to withdraw Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tea & Sympathy. I have no idea when I'm going to have the time to do the rewrite that's needed, but I doubt it will be this year. Thanks. Giggy ( talk) 08:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
If I'm breaking any Wikipedia or FAC rules by saying this, I'm quite genuinely open to being trout-slapped.. but I'm saying it publicly: please hold off on Location of European Union institutions for a while. See my note on its FAC; it is completely hosed image-wise, but I may not have much free time in the next two days or so. I wanna give the whole thing a very good once-over. However, I am not sure how soon I can revisit. Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 11:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
USS Nevada (BB-36) | ||
Thank you very, very much for your constructive criticism on the
FAC that the
USS Nevada (BB-36) recently went through. Looking back, I see that the article's formatting was definitely not FA-quality before you came along... Cheers, —Ed
17
for President
Vote for Ed 14:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Nevada underway off of the U.S. Atlantic coast on 17 September 1944. |
Well here it is. Brace yourself, it's not pleasant. -- Scorpion 0422 01:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Seventh inning, Bosox down 7-0, I turned off the TV. I goofed around a bit, made myself a fruit smoothie, watched ER (just to laugh at all the mistakes, which is better than MastCell, who watches House to get ideas on how to edit medical articles), and got some gas in my Motorcycle. I returned to my computer to write some pithy and quite cruel comments to you about the Bosox. But I thought to myself, "self, just so you don't feel like a complete twit, check mlb.com, just in case." Damn fat lady. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy. I've responded here. D.M.N. ( talk) 18:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Fantastic work! I owe you a drink and candy of your choice when you're done.-- Tznkai ( talk) 19:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Three supports really is too few to promote any type of featured content. I've offered to self-nominate for delisting any of my featured sound credits that got promoted on a questionable majority. With regard to your query for dispatch content, I believe Shoemaker already wrote a couple of FS pages? If you remind me which ones and give a deadline (at least 2 weeks please due to prior commitments) I'll see what I can do. Best wishes, Durova Charge! 20:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey, just wanted to let you know, I changed one of the links in {{ Clips of tics}}; the original link went to the news article there, but the embedded video didn't work anymore (it would play an ad but then stop without playing the actual video). The new link has a prominent link in it to get back to the original article; is there anything else you would like me to do to make the article more easily available, or is it more important to link directly to the video, as it does now? — Politizer( talk • contribs ) 22:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Sandy - I'll be away from Rick Bot for about a week, so won't be adding the bot-assisted new entries to WP:FA2008. I may add some manually (or you could) and the bot should update WP:WBFAN automatically (the bot should run once a day at its usual time). Just an FYI so you know what's going on. -- Rick Block ( talk) 01:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd like your opinion here. -- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 13:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, it's Limetolime. Listen, I have cleaned up the page and I would REALLY appreciate if you could take a look at it. Thanks! Limetolime Talk to me • look what I did! 19:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Although Yellow Evan, the nominator, has been temporarily blocked, can you allow this article to remain an FAC? I'm only asking this because I've withdrawn my opposition to the article due to some support and also because he wasn't the main contributer to the article. His last major role in the article was on September 14, 2008 (save the first two paragraphs of the storm history). [1] Since then, I've completely redone the article and now have finished updating it per the Tropical Cyclone Report. I'd be grateful if you could allow it to be up for FA again. Regardless, thanks for hearing me out. Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 00:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I've looked for some other ones to use, but with a storm that remains out to sea, there are hardly any other sources that don't just say the same thing. Unless, having sources that say the same thing is better than having one source explain it all. I've added two refs to Fox news as of now. Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 05:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:Chocolate Hills. I left a message at User talk:Lenticel; don't know if it will help. Mike Christie (talk) 03:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, it appears that the fat lady was given a a new song sheet. This is CRAZY!!!!! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, is it possible to have the date autoformatting removed from the template that says "This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 22, 2007." I see that the promotion date is also autoformatted. Let me know if I'm able to do it—I can't make out the names of the individual templates. This is non-urgent, of course. Tony (talk) 06:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Sandy. I was wondering if I could i have your endorsement for the Rollback privilege. If you take a look at my contribs, you'll see I've been trying to pack a punch in vandalism. Would you help me make a harder and faster punch? Knippschild ( talk) 08:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey Sandy, Mike Christie was unaware of this one and asked me where it arose, I couldn't help him and thought you'd know...Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, is Blofeld's objection actionable? I find it a bit vague if he doesn't say what he wants that he feels to be missing. YellowMonkey ( click here to chose Australia's next top model!) 03:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, bathers, maybe I should link common nouns again. YellowMonkey ( click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 02:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
May I ask why Lockdown was not promoted when two seconds before it was close I had just addressed the opposes and asked what there is I could do to change them. I'm just wondering since it doesn't make alot of sense to me that I was trying to address comments and it was closed.-- Will C 04:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello - I have some questions for you regarding this linking issue - I believe that "Japan," "Pearl Harbor" and "World War II" must be linked. It is relevant as per WP:OVERLINK, because it was the context and cause of the college's wartime role and must be made clear. Also, I don't get why "U.S.," the country, in the first sentence should not be linked - it is as important as linking Maryland. You are describing where the college is, so surely the nation deserves a link. Your implementation of the policy may just be too strict for its own good. Thank you, Shiva (Viṣṇu) ( talk) 23:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, I just wanted to say thanks for the excellent report you wrote for the Signpost. The detail and statistics is really useful and interesting. cheers -- pfctdayelise ( talk) 01:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm done with my unexpected stint as groom and plan to stay at the hotel in the morning for a bit and catch up on FAC stuff. I'm utterly exhausted tonight, but wanted to let you know things were in control. Our trainer's filly went Top Ten, which was great! And we connected with a trainer to do our saddleseat filly, which is good. But tomorrow isn't anything important so I'm going to stay at the hotel and veg for a while. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, I have been asked to move Rhinemaidens (Wagner) to Rhinemaidens by User:Brianboulton. I am fine making the move, but since the article is at FAC, I wanted to check with you first. Is this OK? SHoudl the FAC also be moved or what? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
That is, move the article, move the FAC, rename the FAC at WP:FAC and fix the article title in the article. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Now you know why I have to watch these buggers: the worst is that, when they're done wrong, I can't fix them or move them back without calling in an admin. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, you always seem to be railing about WP:ACCESSIBILITY problems in articles, here's a question: Are collapsible tables allowed in prose? Here is the article in question: List of awards and nominations received by S.H.E. Dabomb87 ( talk) 03:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, I'm most of the way through a FAC review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Acid dissociation constant. I expect to be supporting once I've completed the review; I may hold off to see what clarifications can be done on the areas I've highlit, but the article is, as far as I can tell, well-written and almost as clear as it can be expected to be. I am a bit concerned that the nominator is on vacation and though he is making an effort to respond, may be limited in his responses to some degree till he's back home. So this is a request for a little lenience on the timescale. We don't have many highly technical articles, and this hasn't been much reviewed so far. (It's certainly stretching my scientific abilities to their limit, and beyond; I can see why people aren't jumping in.) I think articles like this are rare enough we should let them run a bit long, especially when there's a temporary hitch in the nominator's ability to respond. Just a suggestion; I know you keep an eye on this sort of thing anyway, but I thought I'd mention it. Mike Christie (talk) 03:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I have only now found this discussion. It would have been helpful if I had known about it earlier! In fact I have now completed revision of the article in the light of all the comments previously posted and request that the candidate be reinstated with immediate effect. Petergans ( talk) 16:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, in hopes of encouraging more reviewers at FLC, I've been considering a "reviewer of the month" sort of thing. However, I remember that at one point you compiled a list of top reviewers at FAC but haven't done it recently. Is there a reason for this? Thanks, Scorpion 0422 04:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I guess the question of how successful I was at building comraderie was answered in the last hour.
I'm not running GimmeBot, so reviewers and nominators will have to sort talk pages and FAC closings now as was done in the past (see User:SandyGeorgia/FA work). Raul and I move the files to archive; the rest is up to the community now.
Maralia, if you have any new ideas of how to approach awarding reviewers without all the work, perhaps an audience can found at WT:FAC.
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, in the past when I have attempted to help you I have only succeeded in making your job more difficult. You have placed this message on the FAC page "Extensive interrupted commentary; please add the — [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] — continues after insertion below template, by locating the diffs and adding the timedate stamp and sig to the interrupted oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)" and I don't know what you are talking about. I want to help you but I am afraid of repeating a common theme in our working relationship. Could you please just do it once as an example for me to follow, just to make sure there is no misunderstanding this time? I'm sorry I am not a more intelligent person on these types of issues. NancyHeise talk 10:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering what the standards of sourcing were for a list. I'm trying to get List of spherical astronomical bodies in the Solar System to FL status but I'm not sure what is required as far as sourcing. If the list were to be fully sourced, then between 200 and 400 citations would be required, plus the inline citations would completely overwhelm the text. I'm not sure what to do. Serendi pod ous 10:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd just finished removing the last cite from the lead - with great misgivings I should add - when I looked again at the review page and saw your comment! Serves me right for not having both windows open at once. Anyway I can easily put the "hard data" ones back in. Fainites barley 20:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
You've got mail. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's nice people think I'm essential, but I'm not. Wiki got along fine before I got active, and will probably get along fine long after I retire. I have various reasons to keep the FA stuff going, so that will likely continue, but the irregularity is a drain. Let's get FA/FAR/FL on a schedule, with updates on a fixed 2 days a week at a specific time. Could you work around knowing the bot will usually run shortly after 23:59 Tuesdays and Saturdays, for instance? Gimmetrow 23:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
[5] Gimmetrow 00:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I have withdrawn this. Apparently now I can't even translate articles - I'm beginning to wonder if it's ever worth the effort bringing this to FAC. ~one of many editorofthewikis ( talk/ contribs/ editor review)~ 22:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
(outdent:) OK, I must have missed this. But why is Gimmebot blocked?! -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 05:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry about that. It looks like my attempt to save you a few minutes backfired with the time you had to spend leaving talk page messages. I didn't want to archive the JFK FAC the usual way as the bot was out of action, but I was certain I'd followed each step to the letter for manual archiving, save for the updating of {{ articlehistory}} (which I was told would stall the bot should it have chosen that moment to gallop into action, though I'm familiar with how to do it). Consider me suitably enlightened. All the best, Steve T • C 22:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar | ||
You do so much to keep FAC going, including going to some serious lengths to make sure that conversations are understandable, various points are clear and so forth. Your work does not go unnoticed or unappreciated. Thank you for all the hard, and often tedious, work you put into the project. Vassyana ( talk) 04:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC) |
I forget why, but many (if not all) templates seem to hate "external" links (it breaks them). Regardless, I wanted to point out for the record the kind of work you do in this regard and what specific actions spurred me to slap a barnstar on your talk page. It is exactly the kind of work that helps keep the FA process moving and I seriously doubt you are thanked often enough for that kind of tedious housekeeping. [7] [8] [9] Be well, Vassyana ( talk) 04:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi sandy,
This is going to seem like the lamest excuse; but, my apartment got broken into. Thus, I don't have any computers with internet access (this post was done on my blackberry). Since I will not have home internet, or a computer.that is being used from work, can I withdraw the nom and re-apply without prejudice next week when I can be sure ill be able to respond to objections?
Thanks, Lazulilasher ( talk) 06:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
One citation template to find them,
One citation template to bring them all,
And in the darkness bind them [evil inconstancies].
Yeah so there's a discussion about a new template I wrote going on at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and apparently people would like to hear what you have to say about it. The scope is to merge most of the commonly used templates into one to procude uniform reference formatting. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 14:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey SandyGeorgia. Kilbad ( talk · contribs) has asked me to ask around a few people to get their opinions on the current catagorisation tree proposed at this discussion, as he seems rather eager to get going with the work but would like a few more opinions. Any chance you could have a quick look and post your thoughts? Cheers. — Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 15:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, your summary of opposes on this page is an honorable attempt to summarize issues but I want you to know that many of these have been answered and remain unstruck. Others are not possible for me to answer because they are asking me to do things that are incorrect. The vast amount of data on the talk page to support article text that some reviewers just can not believe came from scholars is evidence of this. Is this article seriously going to fail FA if I do not do every single thing these opposers want me to do even if it is factually incorrect and unsupported by scholars? Also, the image of Pope Pius XII in the Nazi cartoon is part of the Featured Article Pope Pius XII, why can't I use the same picture on Roman Catholic Church when it is discussing the same issue? NancyHeise talk 01:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I've suggested a trial run of flagged revisions with featured articles here if you'd like to comment on the idea. Cla68 ( talk) 13:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I removed a FAC nom for the Sarah Palin article, as I didn't think it was helpful to leave it up for very long. I hope that's okay, and want to make sure I followed all the necessary steps properly. -- Aude ( talk) 18:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
My talk page has reached the point that I don't know what's being asked of me or told to me. Perhaps you can (re)clarify anything you need me to do.
Sure would have been nice to know Giant Otter was going up today. Marskell ( talk) 09:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the info about [11]. I guess I didn't read that part and just skipped to the "how to nominate" part. I thought it might be fair for it to be featured before the election, since it's a current event that she had more experience than the Gov of California when she became Gov of Alaska, even though she's only my little brother's age.-- Chuck ( talk) 20:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm stuck in Amarillo, the car decided to have transmission issues. We'll get it fixed, but it might not be until Monday until we hit the road. Blech. Luckily, we have internet... They might get us moving tomorrow afternoon, I hope. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy,
As soon as I started contributing at FAC, I was hit with a triple-whammy.. mostly in real-life. To wit:
later, Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 02:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Summarizing:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, just a quick question. Is the Gimmebot going to be run this Saturday (25th) or next week? I wanted to do some FLC closures because our backlog is getting a little long, but if the bot will run tomorrow then I can wait. -- Scorpion 0422 03:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Not absolutely correct, Matthew. The issue is, if you close articles well in advance of the bot run, will the templates remain in place until the bot runs (if not, the bot will stall and there may be errors)? If nominators remove templates or attempt to build articlehistory themselves, we may just get more errors and more stalled bot runs. So, it's best to close noms as close as possible to the bot run, but if you must close some at different times, you have several options: 1) get someone to watchlist the pages to make sure templates stay in place until the bot runs, or 2) get someone to manually process the entire thing, including articlehistory (you can't do them halfway, that will stall the bot), or 3) replace the FLC template with a failed or promoted template (this option isn't optimal, and Gimme hasn't told us if he wants us to do that). Your final question isn't clear: manually building an articlehistory doesn't require the use of the old templates, so I'm unsure what you're asking there. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Why did you close the FAC? Only one person had voted.-- CyberGhostface ( talk) 03:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
You have one from me. It's not brief or particularly heart-warming, so get comfortable before you read it. - auburnpilot talk 05:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
... is suddenly redlinking three out of the four tools. I think I figured out how to fix it, but—story of my life lately—the template is full protected. I put in an {{ editprotected}} request on the talk page. Maralia ( talk) 05:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
What would you do with
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of people with hepatitis C? Remove the strange canvassing, close the nomination, blank it all and restart, or something entirely different? Thanks,
Matthewedwards (
talk •
contribs •
email) 08:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I archived seven today. FAR now has just sixteen listings—lowest level since the inception of the two-step process. Marskell ( talk) 15:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
See here. Does that solve the problem? Gimmetrow 23:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Wondering what hint? I really appreciated you support last weekend; you were a rock as usual. Hope I didnt offend in some way. Ceoil sláinte 21:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Need I say more? They can't wait one hour while I'm busy. Oh, well. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Thought you might be interested to read another discussion at ANI about a content editor accused of incivility when dealing with a tendentious crew. -- Moni3 ( talk) 20:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
vb has two a duplicate Oppose (i.e., two opposes) on RCC. Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 00:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I have placed a response on the article talk page. Can you give some specific advice as to what is needed? Thanks. Pentawing Talk 01:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
FACfailed is cleared. Maralia ( talk) 04:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the archiving of the fac candidate acid dissociation constant was premature, due to a misunderstanding relating to the length of the correspondence. This arose because I have been away for 10 days and was not able to edit the article in that period, so I responded with brief comments on the candidate discussion page. Also, Mike Christie, who is not a chemist, wrote at length with some very helpful comments on the presentation of the chemistry from the laymen's point of view.
I have now returned and have completed the revision of the article in the light of all the comments posted on the candidate discussion page. Having got this far, it seems to me that it would be pointless to go through the candidate process again from scratch. I therefore ask you to re-instate this FAC candidate. If this were a peer-reviewed journal, I would expect the editor to make a final decision regarding publication on the basis of whether the author(s) have responded adequately to the referees' comments. I assume that a similar process applies in WP. Petergans ( talk) 15:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry! After posting this I found an earlier section with the same name of which I was not aware and have added a comment there also. Petergans ( talk) 16:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I had no idea that a delay of 10 days was so important. What I am objecting to is premature archiving, before I had a chance to respond properly and, additionally, removing the possibility of further comments or replies on the candidate page. The present situation is unnecessarily chaotic, with postings in five different locations, three user discussion pages, an archived candidate page, the article itself and its discussion page. Surely it would be better if all matters relating to the FAC candidate were posted in one place?
In any case, I have attended to the issues raised by Sandy. The only one that I don't understand relates to book citations. When citing specific information, pages or whatever are provided. The books cited at the end are references to topics in the applications section, not to any specific material.
Once again I request that the candidacy be re-instated as all the issues previously raised have been dealt with. Petergans ( talk) 16:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
"The conclusion at the top of this thread"..... [13] by which I assume you mean The day I think otherwise is the day I need to get rid of the bit. Again, thanks and happy editing. I'll be delighted, Sandy, if you'd care to explain how that is unfair to Ceoil. I've made my comments in good faith and I can't for the life of me see how this is in any way - to quote you - unfair. Are you mixing up threads or are we looking at a different one? I'm trying to be supportive and helpful here and if I'm not doing that a quiet note on my talk would be useful. Pedro : Chat 22:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
What a nightmare of a thread. Ceoil, you have been suggested to stay away and find something else to edit until you have sufficiently cooled down. Scarian has apologized. Looie496, using "sweetheart" and "little sugar dumpling" is not grounds for desysoping. Closing this because nothing else can be garnered out of this. seicer 02:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
(←) I checked the diffs carefully and didn't miss what was said. The result: "I'm not convinced Wikipedia is actually made better by editors like this." Here's the thing... that might as well be aimed at me. Ceoil does the same sort of work I do (only higher volume and quality), and if all his work is negated by a single comment then just logically everything I've done is only one edit away from being meaningless as well. Countless hours reading through books, thinking about topics, putting it to the page, crossing the t's, looking up the MOS rules, working with the reviewers at GA/PR/FAC, fitting it into the broader quiltwork of articles. Pedro's done none of that. Yet make a single comment that offends him and he's "not convinced Wikipedia is actually made better by editors like this." Sandy, I'm an editor like this too (the difference is only that I've not been accidentally blocked). I'll go have some tea but the catch is this: I'm not angry; just demoralized. -- JayHenry ( talk) 01:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
A parable of sorts. I've done some good work around here, but when I think back on the best edit I've ever made, there's no question what it is. I was checking hooks at DYK, and an editor (we'll call him the noob for now) had made a hook that probably violated BLP--it was his first DYK submission. Somebody flagged it and passed on by. The noob was upset as he'd actually dug up 17 sources on the article, only to see it summarily dismissed, without any clear guidance on what had been done wrong. I'm not sure why I was in a helpful mood that day, but for whatever reason... I saw the editor made a frustrated post on his talk page. Project seemed like a waste of time, to him. He'd worked hard and got no recognition. I think he was one edit away from just giving up on Wikipedia, forgetting his brief encounter with the site ever happened. He almost quit. I said 'good article! don't give up quite yet!' Fortunately for us, he didn't: The point isn't that I'm responsible for those articles (in fact, that'd be the author himself and the support he got from User:Awadewit, User:WillowW, deserving that credit), but the bottom line, the moral of the story if you will, is this: by far the best edits you can make to improve the quality of the encyclopedia are to support the people writing it. -- JayHenry ( talk) 03:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I review four FACs. Yes, four. I'm rather impressed with myself, honestly! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
This Featured Article previously had a Featured Article Review and was kept, see Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Xenu. The current one is at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Xenu. Should the old one be moved/renamed and the new one moved to a page 2 - in keeping with uniformity and so forth? Cirt ( talk) 05:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
This may be up your alley. I've been called away by my Better Half. Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 14:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
What is wrong with the article? Schuym1 ( talk) 15:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
My tools are pretty much works in progress. For instance I'm working on an interface overhaul for checklinks and planned improvement to the dabfinder tool. As Gimmetrow pointed out the readability tool isn't accurate. I knew I needed to do more research on the subject and those were my reasons behind the removal. Additionally, I'm a pathetically at writing, so I doubt that you'll see anything, even documentation, from me. — Dispenser 18:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Sandy,
There has never been such a long FAC to my knowledge; at this stage, I'm trying to do anything I can to keep the page loadable for people on dialup and manageable so reviewers are able to find and respond to their posts. Ioannes is keeping up with his strikes on talk regardless of where you respond, so I'm not worried there. You could start a new talk page section to respond to G guy, or put the responses on the main page. I've linked the talk page sections from the main page. FAC, Raul or I don't necessarily "require" anything of nominators: a FAC can be promoted when all actionable objections have been resolved and consensus for promotion has been reached, or archived when actionable objections have not been resolved and consensus for promotion has not been reached. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I replied to the comments you left. Thanks!-- S R X 20:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I nominated this article and I realize it was too soon. Could you please withdraw it? Thanks. Wildroot ( talk) 22:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Gadsby (book). NB you will find a stormy discussion about how that topic is treated on its talk. But what if a group could do it that way with skill and styl? -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 08:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't quite know how to raise ths, but the Rhinemaidens article, a joint nom of myself and User: Peter cohen, which was promoted to FA on 28 October, has not been added to WP:WBFAN (last update 29 Oct). Is this because I mucked up the co-nom format? It seems a shame as I asked Peter to co-nom, and I think this is his first FA. Brianboulton ( talk) 11:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
FYI, here's how to track those down in the future. (I believe this one is resolved?) First, it's a bot, and sometimes something foils the bot, so it doesn't hurt to check. Also, it depends on when the bot runs. The Bot adds the entries to Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2008; if Rick Block notices a mistake, he manually adjusts those entries. So do I. Then, that page feeds WP:WBFAN. So, whenever you notice a mistake at Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2008, fixing it manually will result in a correction the next time the bot processes WP:WBFAN. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
This FAC is withdrawn. Normally I'd just withdraw it but since it's gotta be synchronized with GimmeBot now, I'll leave it up to someone else. Gary King ( talk) 15:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to use {{ facfailed}} again, because GimmeBot processes them differently. The Nor'easter needs to go to archive for botification, and it can wait until Saturday for Gimme (we'll just watchlist the articles in these cases to make sure the templates stay in place). The Calvin article would have been a withdraw, but two people entered opposes, which makes it harder. I would say to process it as a manual withdraw, without moving it to archive or articlehistory. I'm just catching up this morning, so you may get to those before I do ... haven't read my watchlist. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
In case you didn't know, you can get most of the effect of Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page by having a monobook.css file with a line such as:
.has_been_on_main_page a { color: green; }
This makes all the former mainpage FAs green, for example. Identifying older FAs in bold would be a require some sort of new maintenance, however. Gimmetrow 05:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, you guys didn't already do this? I've had it on my ceiling cat account for a while. (I don't use monobook on my main account because I can't stand it) That's how I schedule them. Raul654 ( talk) 05:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
This is either the worst idea ever made public on Wikipedia or absolute genius. Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 00:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I asked Serendipodous to re-add my name as co-nom to the (old, closed) Scattered disc FAC. Not vandalism etc. Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 01:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem in your refactoring my off-topic comment at the FAC review. But please consider refactoring the off topic comment by Cirt as well. Thanks for your consideration. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Just posted on my talk page, saying that s/he has changed his/her mind vis a vis Scattered disc and now wishes to be given credit for it. Do you think you could add his/her name to Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2008 and to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations? Thanks. Serendi pod ous 07:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
In the edit summary for this revision, when I said "there is a citation," what I meant to say is that there is a site somewhere online to verify it, not that there is already a citation in the article. I just realized after posting that that it probably sounded like I was trying to contradict you, which I didn't mean to; anyway, I just removed "award-winning," entirely, because even though it could be cited, it's not really worth it (the award seems to be a rinky-dink award, and whether or not the film got an award is irrelevant anyway; I don't think the other films mentioned in the article have any information about awards here, either). Anyway, sorry about that edit summary! — Politizer talk/ contribs 17:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)