Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Electronic waste for anyone who's familiar with how to do it :) Gary King ( talk) 17:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Just because the alternative would be extremely embarrassing, I'd like to point out the typo was introduced earlier today by an editor addressing issues brought up at FAC. :-) -- Xover ( talk) 18:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, I hope you can help with a couple of MOS questions in areas that don't usually come up in articles I edit. I'm still working with Petergans on Acid dissociation constant, and I had a question about WP:ACCESS. There are two navboxes in the top of the article; I see an embedded comment from you about one saying that it should be a template. Is the issue that WP:ACCESS specifies a sequence for items in the lead, and that navboxes should precede the introductory text? Is that what you mean by "properly placed"? Why should it be a template in that case (other than to simplify editing)? And generally, is there any layout guide for navboxes? There are two navboxes in this article; I don't see anything in WP:LAYOUT about navboxes outside the lead, so is there any guideline for that? Thanks for any help. Mike Christie (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I called for a peer review and corrected what it said. Isn't that collaborating to the article enough? Just curious. -- Fixman Praise me 22:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination.
![]() |
User:SandyGeorgia/arch45 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:EVula/Userboxes/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, I notice that
User:Ms2ger has added a brief description of the causes of errors to
Category:ArticleHistory error with the result that it is no longer a redlink. I don't know whether you think this is more or less useful. My first reaction would be that people who don't know how to fix the errors will no longer be even less likely notice the error category (as it's not redlnked), while those who check the category to find errors already know how to fix them.
Dr pda (
talk)
02:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
$
#
Hi Sandy. Just come out of heavy client work all day long. So much for the day of rest. "East–west" is a relationship of opposites, so an en dash is appropriate. Tony (talk) 09:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, a query: Was Vithoba Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vithoba/archive1 failed because of a lack of consensus or because the nominators were not convinced on the reliability of sources? I'm considering it upgraded to A-class, and need this input. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
That was my bad. I've removed the nomination. Ceran →( sing→ see → scribe) 14:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Finally. Thankfully. Luckily, I"m pretty caught up at FAC. Now to go check on the house and the horsies. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, if you get a chance, would you mind looking over Christmas 1994 nor'easter for WP:ACCESS/MOS issues that I might be missing? I'd really appreciate it. Thanks, – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I believe I have addressed your comments on the FAC. Could you review my changes and replies?
Thanks for commenting,
-- Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 02:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
According to his edit history, TomStar81 ( talk · contribs) has an article up on FAC that failed a short time back. Did you notice any difference in his behavior after the FAC concluded? 68.72.221.24 ( talk) 03:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if it's barking up the wrong tree, but we ought really to think of some way to address this problem. It's a systemic failure if FAC which should be thorough and rigorous falls down when it's, erm, thorough and rigorous. -- Dweller ( talk) 14:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Netley Abbey image review completed. Awadewit ( talk) 14:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, regarding the Did You Know dispatch, do you know when it's due, so I can have a reasonable deadline? Thanks. – How do you turn this on ( talk) 17:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, I noticed this thread - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tired of cleaning up after Mac - at ANI and thought of you and AnnieTigerChucky. I've worked with Mac some, but I'm not sure I've been of much help. :\ Anyways, I suspect that you are busy, but if you have time, could you take a look? Thanks, -- Iamunknown 01:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
really decide that semi-protection was the way to go?! Oh well. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 07:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Have you considered adding "GA is not a prerequisite for FA" to WP:WIAFA or Wikipedia:Featured article advice? Just askin'. Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 00:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
“I wonder if Chávez can stop referring to the United States with such hatred, if only for a few days,” said Lucy Martínez, 44, a teacher at a primary school in Petare. “It would be nice to get a break from that.” Saw this, thought of you. Still high as a kite. I'll come back to work in a few days once I feel like I'm not part of the news. -- Moni3 ( talk) 15:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, I ask you this because you have used databases to find information on Johnson. I was wondering if you could (if you have any time) look up anything on Samuel Richardson having Parkinson's. Quite a few biographers pick up on the idea. I've found two works (Israel Wechsler's Clinical Neurology and H. Houston Merritt's A Textbook of Neurology) that have been used in part of the biographical diagnosis. However, its hard to find clinical works that discuss such things. Ottava Rima ( talk) 16:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)I don't know how good these may be and I can't access all of them, leery of non-medical (literature) sources: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
re. this - I wasn't aware the article/image was at FAC at the time, and only found out this yesterday when someone started attacking me on Commons over it. See here. Giggy ( talk) 00:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Transcluding this will henceforth become my first step in attempting to chill things at FACs. -- Dweller ( talk) 13:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
The FAC for Third Battle of Kharkov does have a support, and nobody really has commented on it since then. If that's not enough support (well, it's not enough to pass, but I think it sends a signal that there not be a lot of obvious things people can point out that are wrong with the article), I will withdraw the new nomination. Thanks! JonCatalán (Talk) 15:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey Sandy, what formatting were you referring to? Thanks, Grsz 11 →Review! 02:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Well like those two for example. The first is a Cite news and it links, while the second is a Cite web that correctly, doesn't link. Per the MOS, no dates should be linked, even in references, correct? Grsz 11 →Review! 03:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Any clue why 39 won't format right? Grsz 11 →Review! 04:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Replied to a bit of an old discussion, so dropping a post here. See here if you have time. Carcharoth ( talk) 05:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I should explain the "asking in three places" thing. I'm more used to quiet areas of the wiki where you have to rattle on people's doors and their neighbours to get any response. I forgot this area is (obviously!) more active. I also prefer to get several people involved and direct them to one place, but didn't quite get the "one place" thing going here. Gimmetrow has, as can be seen, found an existing category (quite why that category isn't documented anywhere, I don't know - if I'd been able to find that category, I could have avoided distracting you all). It is linked to from precisely three places, if you exclude Category:Wikipedia featured article review candidates (I wouldn't have thought of looking there, because once closed they are no longer candidates). The old discussion involving this category was here (January 2007). Having said that, I now need to discern which FAR saves were demoted later. One reason for all this is to identify the FARs where the amount of work done was effectively equivalent to creating the article from scratch. Don't worry, I'm not going to try and suggest that this is a reason for them to be on the main page again, but I do think the efforts at FAR should get more recognition than they do. But that is a discussion for another day. I'll pop back to Gimmetrow and Marskell's talk pages and update the threads, which are effectively finished now, and thank Gimmetrow for finding that category. Carcharoth ( talk) 06:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I have in mind a TFAR nom for 9 January, and it's not the Shackleton biography which is in my opinion unsuitable for a number of reasons. I have listed my pending nomination of Nimrod Expedition as you suggest, and after 9 December will nominate it formally. I've left a note to this effect on WT:TFAR. Brianboulton ( talk) 23:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
You undid my GAN header in Talk:Boston campaign, specifically referencing Template:Articlehistory in your edit summary, which implied that that was the place where I would learn how to properly do a GAN. Its documentation says nothing of the sort, so your edit summary was not helpful. You also could have checked with me (who made the edit in question) before undoing my work.
If there was an error in my use of Template:Articlehistory, you should have fixed that, but left the GAN header, since a moment's check would have indicated that the article is in fact in GA review right now.
I'm going to revert your change. If part of what I did is broken, please fix only the part that's broken. Thank you. Magic ♪piano 00:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
It's been a long time, but I think we decided against having ongoing processes in AH for, among other reasons, the difficulty it poses at closing. If WP:FAC/SomeArticle is closed, and AH already contains an action with that link, is it the current process or an older FAC? This matters not just to avoid duplicate entries, but because the pages get moved. Since someone could have changed it (fully or partially) by hand before the bot gets there, it's not really obvious what to do automatically. Gimmetrow 20:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Followed up here. Notifying you because I let off a bit of steam about 'make work'. Sorry. Carcharoth ( talk) 08:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Microsoft may be screwed, but a translated version of Planetary habitability is now an FA in Slovenian. Win some, lose some. Marskell ( talk) 14:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but no magic there. I first searched PubMed for "depression epidemiology" without any search limits. ("Major depressive disorder" wouldn't be as good, due to terminology clash.) PubMed secondary indexes are delayed, so for a recent source PubMed doesn't know whether a free copy is available, or whether the source is a review; you have to find that out for yourself, I'm afraid. But these recent sources were obviously reviewish and I happened to know that Can J Psychiatry is free so I went and found the publisher's website myself.
The book I found with Google Scholar, with its "recent articles" search; I find that works better if you want to widen your search horizon to the last 5 years or so, for a broad topic like depression anyway. Too bad that source isn't free. Eubulides ( talk) 20:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Sandy, for striking what you had said on Marskell's talk page. I'd appreciate it if you could do the same at WT:SIGNPOST. I would point out what I had said there in support of what you and Ral had said, but you focused on what I said about the role of editors (I actually have moderate real-world experience of editing, so I know how difficult it can be to get people to write stuff). I would offer to help out with stuff (anything), but I think it might be best to back off for a while. If you ever do want to ask for help with anything, my talk page is always open. Carcharoth ( talk) 21:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I would bake you some real ones. I am sorry for all the unpleasantries you have had to endure in your efforts to do your job regarding RCC FAC. I hope that the next one will prove to be more civil. We will be discussing FAC etiquette at the next peer review. NancyHeise talk 00:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if this sounds a bit rude (or something along those lines), but what's going on with the FAC for Kiko? I renominated it on October 19, and it's been 20 days (being that it's November 8) and there has been no opposition to it. Is there something I'm missing as to why this article isn't being passed? I've been patiently waiting with the article but now there hasn't been any input from reviewers 11 days. Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 01:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia,
Thanx for responding for more feedback on improving the article.
I'm sorry for not using the talk page.
I keep going back from editing Wiki to doing other stuff, and to be honest I get a little lazy to use the talk page sometimes.
But, I'm sorry for that and will continue to discuss changes on the talk page. Thanx!
ATC
(talk)
03:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello Sandy! Could you tell me why you closed the Byzantine navy FAC? There was the single outstanding issue of copyediting, but I had contacted other users and was in the process of contacting others as well. Could it be re-opened? Cheers, Constantine ✍ 10:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
The DMOZ search template (Dmoz2) is being considered for deletion because it violates WP:ELNO #9. I'm sending you this notice because of your previous participation in the TfD discussion for the DMOZ category template. Anyone interested in discussing the fate of Open Directory Project (DMOZ) search links is invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Dmoz2. Thank you. Qazin ( talk) 07:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
FYI, may want to watchlist Talk:Curb bit and Talk:Lever. You will understand why. May be new area? Thanks. Montanabw (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, I'm still working on acid dissociation constant, and I think we're getting a lot closer. I have a reference question or two for you.
First, there are multiple paragraphs that have no citations. Take a look at this section, for example. I will be posting a note to the talk page to ask about this, but I suspect that the situation is that the material is generic, to a chemist, and all of it would be covered by a single textbook. What's the standard citation approach for multiple paragraphs in this situation? Does one simply slap the cite on the end of each paragraph? Or is there a standard way of indicating that a given reference covers an entire section, avoiding individual citations? I know I've seen this topic come up before, but it's never come up on an article of mine so I don't recall the resolution.
Second, I wanted to draw your attention to the references in this section. Many of them have no page number because they cover the entire topic mentioned: the section discusses the importance of pKa, so each "important" topic is supported by a reference that discusses that entire topic. I haven't seen this done before but it seems reasonable to me. Is there an issue with this approach?
Thanks for any help. Mike Christie (talk) 01:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
this -- Dweller ( talk) 10:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, with Gimmebot on a schedule now I'm not sure what to do with withdrawn FACs. There is one here: [11]. Karanacs ( talk) 15:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Haven't seen you around much, everything good there, I hope? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
About the huggle edits, I think I got carried away, Ill be more careful in future. Andy ( talk) 19:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Andy (
talk) has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Reverted and please accept the cookie! :-) Andy ( talk) 19:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, I know you are a wiz on the citations thingy. We have been trying to get Ireland back to a GA from which it was recently demoted. I see you are not too active in the last few days but would you possibly have a look at the citations which should all now be using templates and tell me if there are any improvements we could make. Much appreciated whenever you get some time. Cheers ww2censor ( talk) 02:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, ok. No problem. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 22:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Waterfall Gully. I've checked in and cleaned it up I hope. YellowMonkey ( click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 02:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Ron Paul has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured quality. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Andrew Kelly ( talk) 05:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
If you want me to restore the old version of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ron Paul and remove the current version (pasting useful comments to Talk:Ron Paul), just give me the nod. DrKiernan ( talk) 15:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
After another user nominated the article, I followed the instructions and notified all users who had made a significant number of edits to Ron Paul. I later realized that it had been nominated at the wrong place. I decided not to remove the messages because users would still get the "new messages" message, and it could cause more confusion if they didn't actually have a message. I was so eager to get involved in getting the article to FA status that I didn't realize it was nominated in the wrong place. I apologize for contributing to the confusion. Please let me know if there is anything I need to do to help clean this up. -- Andrew Kelly ( talk) 23:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering what you thought of an idea I have. Before the Post goes out, do you think it would be better to modify Wikipedia:FCDW/Halloween to rotate through the 3 different sets; over them all being displayed at once? A link could then be included in the box to see them all at the same time. I think it would look better than the huge offset we have now. But maybe not? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Electronic waste for anyone who's familiar with how to do it :) Gary King ( talk) 17:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Just because the alternative would be extremely embarrassing, I'd like to point out the typo was introduced earlier today by an editor addressing issues brought up at FAC. :-) -- Xover ( talk) 18:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, I hope you can help with a couple of MOS questions in areas that don't usually come up in articles I edit. I'm still working with Petergans on Acid dissociation constant, and I had a question about WP:ACCESS. There are two navboxes in the top of the article; I see an embedded comment from you about one saying that it should be a template. Is the issue that WP:ACCESS specifies a sequence for items in the lead, and that navboxes should precede the introductory text? Is that what you mean by "properly placed"? Why should it be a template in that case (other than to simplify editing)? And generally, is there any layout guide for navboxes? There are two navboxes in this article; I don't see anything in WP:LAYOUT about navboxes outside the lead, so is there any guideline for that? Thanks for any help. Mike Christie (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I called for a peer review and corrected what it said. Isn't that collaborating to the article enough? Just curious. -- Fixman Praise me 22:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination.
![]() |
User:SandyGeorgia/arch45 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:EVula/Userboxes/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, I notice that
User:Ms2ger has added a brief description of the causes of errors to
Category:ArticleHistory error with the result that it is no longer a redlink. I don't know whether you think this is more or less useful. My first reaction would be that people who don't know how to fix the errors will no longer be even less likely notice the error category (as it's not redlnked), while those who check the category to find errors already know how to fix them.
Dr pda (
talk)
02:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
$
#
Hi Sandy. Just come out of heavy client work all day long. So much for the day of rest. "East–west" is a relationship of opposites, so an en dash is appropriate. Tony (talk) 09:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, a query: Was Vithoba Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vithoba/archive1 failed because of a lack of consensus or because the nominators were not convinced on the reliability of sources? I'm considering it upgraded to A-class, and need this input. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
That was my bad. I've removed the nomination. Ceran →( sing→ see → scribe) 14:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Finally. Thankfully. Luckily, I"m pretty caught up at FAC. Now to go check on the house and the horsies. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, if you get a chance, would you mind looking over Christmas 1994 nor'easter for WP:ACCESS/MOS issues that I might be missing? I'd really appreciate it. Thanks, – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I believe I have addressed your comments on the FAC. Could you review my changes and replies?
Thanks for commenting,
-- Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 02:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
According to his edit history, TomStar81 ( talk · contribs) has an article up on FAC that failed a short time back. Did you notice any difference in his behavior after the FAC concluded? 68.72.221.24 ( talk) 03:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if it's barking up the wrong tree, but we ought really to think of some way to address this problem. It's a systemic failure if FAC which should be thorough and rigorous falls down when it's, erm, thorough and rigorous. -- Dweller ( talk) 14:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Netley Abbey image review completed. Awadewit ( talk) 14:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, regarding the Did You Know dispatch, do you know when it's due, so I can have a reasonable deadline? Thanks. – How do you turn this on ( talk) 17:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, I noticed this thread - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tired of cleaning up after Mac - at ANI and thought of you and AnnieTigerChucky. I've worked with Mac some, but I'm not sure I've been of much help. :\ Anyways, I suspect that you are busy, but if you have time, could you take a look? Thanks, -- Iamunknown 01:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
really decide that semi-protection was the way to go?! Oh well. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 07:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Have you considered adding "GA is not a prerequisite for FA" to WP:WIAFA or Wikipedia:Featured article advice? Just askin'. Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 00:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
“I wonder if Chávez can stop referring to the United States with such hatred, if only for a few days,” said Lucy Martínez, 44, a teacher at a primary school in Petare. “It would be nice to get a break from that.” Saw this, thought of you. Still high as a kite. I'll come back to work in a few days once I feel like I'm not part of the news. -- Moni3 ( talk) 15:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, I ask you this because you have used databases to find information on Johnson. I was wondering if you could (if you have any time) look up anything on Samuel Richardson having Parkinson's. Quite a few biographers pick up on the idea. I've found two works (Israel Wechsler's Clinical Neurology and H. Houston Merritt's A Textbook of Neurology) that have been used in part of the biographical diagnosis. However, its hard to find clinical works that discuss such things. Ottava Rima ( talk) 16:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)I don't know how good these may be and I can't access all of them, leery of non-medical (literature) sources: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
re. this - I wasn't aware the article/image was at FAC at the time, and only found out this yesterday when someone started attacking me on Commons over it. See here. Giggy ( talk) 00:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Transcluding this will henceforth become my first step in attempting to chill things at FACs. -- Dweller ( talk) 13:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
The FAC for Third Battle of Kharkov does have a support, and nobody really has commented on it since then. If that's not enough support (well, it's not enough to pass, but I think it sends a signal that there not be a lot of obvious things people can point out that are wrong with the article), I will withdraw the new nomination. Thanks! JonCatalán (Talk) 15:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey Sandy, what formatting were you referring to? Thanks, Grsz 11 →Review! 02:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Well like those two for example. The first is a Cite news and it links, while the second is a Cite web that correctly, doesn't link. Per the MOS, no dates should be linked, even in references, correct? Grsz 11 →Review! 03:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Any clue why 39 won't format right? Grsz 11 →Review! 04:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Replied to a bit of an old discussion, so dropping a post here. See here if you have time. Carcharoth ( talk) 05:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I should explain the "asking in three places" thing. I'm more used to quiet areas of the wiki where you have to rattle on people's doors and their neighbours to get any response. I forgot this area is (obviously!) more active. I also prefer to get several people involved and direct them to one place, but didn't quite get the "one place" thing going here. Gimmetrow has, as can be seen, found an existing category (quite why that category isn't documented anywhere, I don't know - if I'd been able to find that category, I could have avoided distracting you all). It is linked to from precisely three places, if you exclude Category:Wikipedia featured article review candidates (I wouldn't have thought of looking there, because once closed they are no longer candidates). The old discussion involving this category was here (January 2007). Having said that, I now need to discern which FAR saves were demoted later. One reason for all this is to identify the FARs where the amount of work done was effectively equivalent to creating the article from scratch. Don't worry, I'm not going to try and suggest that this is a reason for them to be on the main page again, but I do think the efforts at FAR should get more recognition than they do. But that is a discussion for another day. I'll pop back to Gimmetrow and Marskell's talk pages and update the threads, which are effectively finished now, and thank Gimmetrow for finding that category. Carcharoth ( talk) 06:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I have in mind a TFAR nom for 9 January, and it's not the Shackleton biography which is in my opinion unsuitable for a number of reasons. I have listed my pending nomination of Nimrod Expedition as you suggest, and after 9 December will nominate it formally. I've left a note to this effect on WT:TFAR. Brianboulton ( talk) 23:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
You undid my GAN header in Talk:Boston campaign, specifically referencing Template:Articlehistory in your edit summary, which implied that that was the place where I would learn how to properly do a GAN. Its documentation says nothing of the sort, so your edit summary was not helpful. You also could have checked with me (who made the edit in question) before undoing my work.
If there was an error in my use of Template:Articlehistory, you should have fixed that, but left the GAN header, since a moment's check would have indicated that the article is in fact in GA review right now.
I'm going to revert your change. If part of what I did is broken, please fix only the part that's broken. Thank you. Magic ♪piano 00:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
It's been a long time, but I think we decided against having ongoing processes in AH for, among other reasons, the difficulty it poses at closing. If WP:FAC/SomeArticle is closed, and AH already contains an action with that link, is it the current process or an older FAC? This matters not just to avoid duplicate entries, but because the pages get moved. Since someone could have changed it (fully or partially) by hand before the bot gets there, it's not really obvious what to do automatically. Gimmetrow 20:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Followed up here. Notifying you because I let off a bit of steam about 'make work'. Sorry. Carcharoth ( talk) 08:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Microsoft may be screwed, but a translated version of Planetary habitability is now an FA in Slovenian. Win some, lose some. Marskell ( talk) 14:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but no magic there. I first searched PubMed for "depression epidemiology" without any search limits. ("Major depressive disorder" wouldn't be as good, due to terminology clash.) PubMed secondary indexes are delayed, so for a recent source PubMed doesn't know whether a free copy is available, or whether the source is a review; you have to find that out for yourself, I'm afraid. But these recent sources were obviously reviewish and I happened to know that Can J Psychiatry is free so I went and found the publisher's website myself.
The book I found with Google Scholar, with its "recent articles" search; I find that works better if you want to widen your search horizon to the last 5 years or so, for a broad topic like depression anyway. Too bad that source isn't free. Eubulides ( talk) 20:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Sandy, for striking what you had said on Marskell's talk page. I'd appreciate it if you could do the same at WT:SIGNPOST. I would point out what I had said there in support of what you and Ral had said, but you focused on what I said about the role of editors (I actually have moderate real-world experience of editing, so I know how difficult it can be to get people to write stuff). I would offer to help out with stuff (anything), but I think it might be best to back off for a while. If you ever do want to ask for help with anything, my talk page is always open. Carcharoth ( talk) 21:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I would bake you some real ones. I am sorry for all the unpleasantries you have had to endure in your efforts to do your job regarding RCC FAC. I hope that the next one will prove to be more civil. We will be discussing FAC etiquette at the next peer review. NancyHeise talk 00:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if this sounds a bit rude (or something along those lines), but what's going on with the FAC for Kiko? I renominated it on October 19, and it's been 20 days (being that it's November 8) and there has been no opposition to it. Is there something I'm missing as to why this article isn't being passed? I've been patiently waiting with the article but now there hasn't been any input from reviewers 11 days. Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 01:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia,
Thanx for responding for more feedback on improving the article.
I'm sorry for not using the talk page.
I keep going back from editing Wiki to doing other stuff, and to be honest I get a little lazy to use the talk page sometimes.
But, I'm sorry for that and will continue to discuss changes on the talk page. Thanx!
ATC
(talk)
03:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello Sandy! Could you tell me why you closed the Byzantine navy FAC? There was the single outstanding issue of copyediting, but I had contacted other users and was in the process of contacting others as well. Could it be re-opened? Cheers, Constantine ✍ 10:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
The DMOZ search template (Dmoz2) is being considered for deletion because it violates WP:ELNO #9. I'm sending you this notice because of your previous participation in the TfD discussion for the DMOZ category template. Anyone interested in discussing the fate of Open Directory Project (DMOZ) search links is invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Dmoz2. Thank you. Qazin ( talk) 07:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
FYI, may want to watchlist Talk:Curb bit and Talk:Lever. You will understand why. May be new area? Thanks. Montanabw (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, I'm still working on acid dissociation constant, and I think we're getting a lot closer. I have a reference question or two for you.
First, there are multiple paragraphs that have no citations. Take a look at this section, for example. I will be posting a note to the talk page to ask about this, but I suspect that the situation is that the material is generic, to a chemist, and all of it would be covered by a single textbook. What's the standard citation approach for multiple paragraphs in this situation? Does one simply slap the cite on the end of each paragraph? Or is there a standard way of indicating that a given reference covers an entire section, avoiding individual citations? I know I've seen this topic come up before, but it's never come up on an article of mine so I don't recall the resolution.
Second, I wanted to draw your attention to the references in this section. Many of them have no page number because they cover the entire topic mentioned: the section discusses the importance of pKa, so each "important" topic is supported by a reference that discusses that entire topic. I haven't seen this done before but it seems reasonable to me. Is there an issue with this approach?
Thanks for any help. Mike Christie (talk) 01:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
this -- Dweller ( talk) 10:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, with Gimmebot on a schedule now I'm not sure what to do with withdrawn FACs. There is one here: [11]. Karanacs ( talk) 15:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Haven't seen you around much, everything good there, I hope? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
About the huggle edits, I think I got carried away, Ill be more careful in future. Andy ( talk) 19:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Andy (
talk) has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Reverted and please accept the cookie! :-) Andy ( talk) 19:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, I know you are a wiz on the citations thingy. We have been trying to get Ireland back to a GA from which it was recently demoted. I see you are not too active in the last few days but would you possibly have a look at the citations which should all now be using templates and tell me if there are any improvements we could make. Much appreciated whenever you get some time. Cheers ww2censor ( talk) 02:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, ok. No problem. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 22:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Waterfall Gully. I've checked in and cleaned it up I hope. YellowMonkey ( click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 02:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Ron Paul has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured quality. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Andrew Kelly ( talk) 05:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
If you want me to restore the old version of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ron Paul and remove the current version (pasting useful comments to Talk:Ron Paul), just give me the nod. DrKiernan ( talk) 15:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
After another user nominated the article, I followed the instructions and notified all users who had made a significant number of edits to Ron Paul. I later realized that it had been nominated at the wrong place. I decided not to remove the messages because users would still get the "new messages" message, and it could cause more confusion if they didn't actually have a message. I was so eager to get involved in getting the article to FA status that I didn't realize it was nominated in the wrong place. I apologize for contributing to the confusion. Please let me know if there is anything I need to do to help clean this up. -- Andrew Kelly ( talk) 23:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering what you thought of an idea I have. Before the Post goes out, do you think it would be better to modify Wikipedia:FCDW/Halloween to rotate through the 3 different sets; over them all being displayed at once? A link could then be included in the box to see them all at the same time. I think it would look better than the huge offset we have now. But maybe not? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)