Massachusetts Institute of Technology has been through a GAR (kept) and PR in the past three months in preparation for a FAC in the near future. The primary stumbling block seems to be the Research activity section which is a mass of "over-linked" (but really easter egged) blue and probably worthy of some Summary style. I've let the article sit for a few more weeks to see if anything developed from other editors after the PR and GAR, but nothing has. I know of no way to equitably slice and dice it. I would appreciate your thoughts and any suggestions you had for that section or the rest of the article. Cheers! Madcoverboy ( talk) 19:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, I bet the title above caught your atention (smile). I just finished a new article titled Puerto Rican scientists and inventors. I'm not doing the FA or FL thing for now, but some one commented that it should be an FLC. I would like for you to look at it whenever you can (Take your time, no rush). Tell me what you think. Gracias, Tony the Marine ( talk) 00:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey, you said that there were several dabs needing fixes. I saw the links, but I don't understand what you want me to do. Add (disambiguation) to the end of each? Limetolime Talk to me • look what I did! 23:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for promoting Beth Hamedrash Hagadol (Manhattan, New York), and Congregation Beth Elohim previously. Jayjg (talk) 03:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
First off, I'm really sorry if you took it the wrong way. Later, after I posted that, I told another user that we could use at least a 2nd delegate director. I just feel that someone running FAC should not be nominating for it either. I don't wanna take away what you probably do best, but you are better off running FAC, not contributing to it. The main example is Samuel Johnson, which would have passed faster, had you not nominated it (you of course would earn the FA in still). I believe, personally that Raul is too busy and cannot handle the page. This would mean everything would be on your time. The personal thing is, I would suggest letting others nominate and you go ahead and control what goes on. I would say the same for FT, FP, FL, FS and so on. You have a great position. Also, I will retract my biasness statement towards you, as I wrote it an a rant mood, but I think things need to be followed better at FAC, and most of the power is yours :). You could be the one that makes FAC a really good place to go to. I hope this clarifies things.Mitch32( UP) 04:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, Ealdgyth said you are the goddess of WP:ACCESS. Can you do a peek at Horses in warfare, which we are trying to get ready for FA, and see if anything is screwed up? I don't get a few of the access formatting issues, though I should. Dr pda said there might be a couple of problems with image placement. Can you look things over and maybe comment at the peer review? Thanks! Montanabw (talk) 08:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
The "Main" template is used when that article is a sub-article of this article: this article summarizes that article, using Summary style. Most of the instances I saw there only called for links to the articles, or maybe seealso templates. We wouldn't include a "Main" template for every link in an article. For an example of the use of Summary style, see the sub-articles I excerpted at Tourette syndrome, where I pulled out History of Tourette syndrome, Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome, etc. and summarized them back to the main article. Very different from the common links: for example, I wouldn't put a "Main" template to the tic article even though the "Classification" section is about tics. See WP:LAYOUT. Think about whether it would make sense to bring the entire sub-article into this article: if it would, then it's summary style, and a main template is appropriate. If it wouldn't, it's just a link, to learn more info on the topic. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the friendly post, I shall ruminate on the best way to structure a piece about Featured Portals. Cirt ( talk) 19:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Sandy—I'll try to shift back a little to FAC et al by this weekend. Tony (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
YM, that's four FACs at once ... and the first still hasn't gotten support. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I started a Signpost article about DYK's upcoming Christmas theme at Wikipedia:FCDW/December (as you suggested). Any thoughts on more content that could/should be added? I left a message in the DYK discussion area asking other DYK regulars to contribute to the article. By the way, there continues to be DYK/FA/FP discussion for April Fool's 2009, so a Signpost article definitely needs to be planned before and/or after April 1st. Royal broil 05:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I found this Turkish government brochure which I want to use as reference. It's clearly an on-line PDF of a real paper publication, but I don't know what template to use. Cite:book and cite:journal would both be missing data (dates, isbn, doi etc), but cite:web doesn't seem appropriate. I'd be grateful for your view, thanks jimfbleak ( talk) 18:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, I think it is clear that you and Tony1 need adminship solely for the fact that admin don't tend to block other admin for random, ridiculous, absurd, silly, or premature reasons (most of the time). Its a good defense mechanism. Ottava Rima ( talk) 01:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly. Seriously, we've had our disagreements, but you should consider Adminship. First off - you'd most likely pass, and second, as Ottava says above, it would be a good defence mechanism. ~the editorofthewiki ( talk/ contribs/ editor review)~ 01:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I think of it this way. As a Jaguar owner myself (pictures of my beautiful Jaguar XJ-S on request), I take exception to those who scrape my car in crowded parking lots and dont own up to it. Just as I take exception to administrators who ... and don't own up to it. I'm up for (another) block if that's what it takes to make some people see sense. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 03:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
You might have to prepared for a lot of Trojan horse opposes by people who are acutally peed off that their substandard article didn't get through, etc . It's happened before. YellowMonkey ( click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I'm another who fits into the category where I could use some extra tools but am not interested in adminship. There ought to be a new title where the better editors, who are more active or most important (like Sandy) of the non admin editors are given a few more buttons. Count Blofeld 17:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy. As we've discussed, I will not be able to daily monitor Wikipedia and the Featured article review. Happily, the workload there has been shrinking because so many of the older FAs have already been processed. It really isn't a lot of work at the moment. User:Joelr31 isn't especially active either, but he can probably handle closures. I will ping him to offer an opinion here. And I will, hopefully, stop by from time to time to make closures myself.
There are only two issues. One is segmenting the reviews (Review commentary/FARC commentary) and moving to FARC. This is really a janitorial thing that can be assigned to anybody. The only real question at FAR, as you know: are people working? If people are working, no need to move to FARC. If people are working, no need to make a final closure. Three weeks, three months, whatever. In the interests of content improvement, hard deadlines have disappeared at the review.
The other issue is pointy, flame war reviews, where an article is nominated and the conversation gets nasty in the first 48 hours. Best to simply close these, although it's a case-by-case decision. Joel and I may not notice such instances given infrequent editing, so I think you or Raul might stop by the page once a day or two to check for this.
A great number of excellent editors have made saves over the years. This year, Ceoil and DrKiernan have probably been the two most important assets, so you might want to keep them in the loop on any changes to the review structure, if you or Raul feel changes need to be made.
Peace be with you Sandy, Marskell ( talk) 15:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
My apologies, but this comment got lost in all of the commotion and I just noticed it. Thanks for the note, I appreciate it. One thing I've always done since I've been an administrator is listen to the community. Of course I have my personal opinions on every issue, as does everybody else, but I am more than comfortable with listening to the community and using their input to make what are typically better decisions for the community as a whole. I thought this was evident with my unblock, but some seem to think otherwise. Regards, Rjd0060 ( talk) 16:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Can I use it? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, if you suspect JeanLatore, you can go ahead and message me on my talk page. Oddly enough, Son of Bob was not JeanLatore, but an editor in good standing. Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, done (for now). 557,134 edits summarized and the smoke detector hardly ever went off after the third set of firemen came and smashed it. I listed you too 'cause I was sure it would push the edit count over a million - oh well.
I share your opinion about TimVickers. And even before I'd run the data, I'd agree about Tim, just from what I've seen from day-to-day.
Looking through all that data though, there is a pretty obvious candidate for ArbCom, one who is pretty darn familiar with building an encyclopedia and all that entails from the effort. I can't canvass of course, so all I can do is hint: starts with "S", ends with "andyGeorgia". :) Franamax ( talk) 06:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
First edit | Total edits | Main- space edits1 | Name | Top article | Top article edits2 | Top article ass'mt | FAs | Top WP Fam | Top WP Fam edits | AN edits | Top 5 articles, ass'mt3 | Top 5 article plus talk edits | Ratio Top5/AN4 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2006-06 | 40567 | 65% | TimVickers | Evolution | 1,100 | FA | 13 | FAC | 653 | 442 | 3FA, 2GA | 5,107 | 12 to 1 |
2006-02 | 86886 | 46% | SandyGeorgia | Tourette syndrome | 1,135 | FA | 2 | FAC | 10,534 | 650 | 4FA, 1B | 6,631 | 10 to 1 |
I've included stats for Tim Vickers because IMO he represents the gold standard in excellence in balance between dispute resolution skills, policy understanding, civility, and mainspace editing. This summary shows each editors' top mainspace article contributions as well as their top Wikipedia (family) area of activity (for example, as expected, my contribs at FAC are disproportionate), and proportional time spent contributing quality articles versus engaging the Administrators' noticeboards.
As a sample of how to view this data, Tim has healthy participation at the Administrators' noticeboards (over 400 edits) and extensive participation at his top Wikipedia family of pages (FAC, over 650), yet he remains a balanced content contributor, with 13 FAs, having contributed more edits to 9 articles than to AN. He has 12 times as many edits to his top five articles as he does to AN. He has 2.5 times as many edits to his highest-edited article ( Evolution) as he does to AN. This shows an editor with quality mainspace contributions, significant input on dispute resolution issues, but a priority, commitment and balance towards mainspace editing.
We need ArbCom members who have demonstrated a commitment, first and foremost, to understanding how dispute resolution applies to building quality articles in mainspace, and understand article building skills. We need Arbs who are in touch with the community and with article building. We don't need more career ArbCom members who don't know what content contributors deal with, who don't understand what goes in to building our best content, who can't write an ArbCom decision, who haven't been through the process of contributing top quality, and who spend a disproportionate amount of their time rubbernecking the trainwrecks at AN/I instead of building articles. Balanced editing, with evidence of effective dispute resolution skills but a focus on building content, is the criteria I'll be looking for this year.
Numbers are only one element in the toolbox for evaluating ArbCom candidates: I expect to support some candidates who fall outside of my concerns about top content contributions, and oppose some who fall within the range, based on other knowledge of those candidates. Those who fall at the extremes, though, need analysis and justification; I'm unlikely to support a candidate who has neither contributed in the article writing trenches, nor shown me enough to know that s/he won't add to "more of the same" issues affecting the current ArbCom composition and recent deliberations. Numbers must be interpreted with caution (normal disclaimers re: editcountitis), but editors who have not made substantial contributions to article space need to have demonstrated how they can bring balance to some of the long-standing issues that have been raised relative to the composition of the current ArbCom. We need editors who understand the challenges of building a professional reference work and who are engaged with the community at the level where this work occurs. This may not be true every year, but it's an issue this year, as demonstrated by the problems that surfaced in ArbCom deliberations this year and the increasing disregard shown to top content contributors in dispute resolution processes. We only have one chance per year to alter the tone and composition of ArbCom, and in the past, we've perhaps leaned too heavily towards career bureaucrats and too far from those engaged in the trenches, building top content, working with the community, undertanding the recurring issues.
First edit | Total edits | Main- space edits1 | Name | Top article | Top article edits2 | Top article ass'mt | FAs | Top WP Fam | Top WP Fam edits | AN edits | Top 5 articles, ass'mt3 | Top 5 article plus talk edits | Ratio Top5/AN4 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2005-01 | 44,049 | 36% | Carcharoth | Ptolemy (name) | 208 | Start | 0 | AN | 2,850 | 2,850 | 1FA, 1A, 1C, 1start, 1none | 987 | 1 to 2.9 |
2006-05 | 44,821 | 69% | Casliber | Major depressive disorder | 758 | B | 23 | FAC | 1,784 | 215 | 4FA, 1B | 3,269 | 15.2 to 1 |
2002-02 | 165,969 | 89% | Charles Matthews | Bampton Lectures | 249 | None | 0 | RFAR | 1,028 | 31 | 1A, 2start, 2none | 871 | 29 to 1 |
2004-02 | 11,256 | 58% | Cool Hand Luke | Salt Lake City | 58 | GA | 0 | RFAR | 450 | 219 | 4B, 1start | 563 | 2.6 to 1 |
2003-05 | 9,074 | 17% | Coren | Zoophilia | 26 | B | 0 | AFD | 764 | 471 | 3B, 1stub, 1none | 142 | 1 to 3.3 |
2005-03 | 26,742 | 44% | Fish and karate | Edward Low | 152 | FA | 2 | AFD | 2,869 | 1,930 | 2FA, 2GA, 1C | 608 | 1 to 3.2 |
2006-01 | 4,336 | 44% | George The Dragon | Gretna F.C. | 20 | Start | 0 | AFD | 157 | 156 | 1FA, 1GA, 2B, 1start | 112 | 1 to 1.4 |
2006-11 | 28,001 | 60% | Gwen Gale | Amelia Earhart | 437 | B | 0 | AN | 1,556 | 1,556 | 1GA, 4B | 3,163 | 2 to 1 |
2006-04 | 13,098 | 68% | Hemlock Martinis | Sinestro Corps War | 141 | FA | 1 | AFD | 361 | 68 | 1FA, 3B, 1none | 597 | 8.8 to 1 |
2004-09c | 30,978 | 47% | Jayvdb | W. H. R. Rivers | 51 | B | 0 | AFD | 5,165 | 256 | 2B, 1C, 1stub, 1none | 236 | 1 to 1 |
2003-02 | 15,594 | 57% | Jdforrester | United Kingdom | 85 | B | 0 | RFAR | 2,167 | 87 | 3B, 1C, 1none | 404 | 4.6 to 1 |
2005-03 | 19,404 | 24% | Jehochman | Search engine optimization | 426 | FA | 1 | ANI | 1,981 | 1,981 | 1FA, 2GA,a 1B, 1none | 1,075 | 1 to 1.8 |
2004-05 | 6,332 | 54% | Kmweber | Princeton, Indiana | 29 | C | 0 | RFA | 350 | 126 | 1B, 2C, 2List | 114 | 1 to 1.1 |
2004-08 | 8,187 | 38% | Lankiveil | Nundah, Queensland | 61 | B | 0 | AFD | 2,676 | 44 | 2GA, 3B | 217 | 4.9 to 1 |
2007-01 | 8,913 | 40% | lifebaka | Magic: The Gathering | 53 | GA | 0 | DRV | 1,023 | 298 | 1GA, 2C, 1start, 1List | 235 | 1 to 1.3 |
2007-09 | 4,238 | 13% | Privatemusingsb | Socrates | 45 | B | 0 | NTWW | 408 | 177 | 1B, 2start, 2none | 162 | 1 to 1 |
2005-12 | 9,984 | 45% | Risker | James Blunt | 578 | GA | 2 | RFAR | 352 | 284 | 1FA, 2GA, 1B, 1start | 1,587 | 5.6 to 1 |
2005-11 | 60,858 | 42% | Rlevse | List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) | 865 | FL | 12 | SCOUT | 2,551 | 1,605 | 5FA | 3,210 | 2 to 1 |
2006-02 | 12,397 | 72% | RMHED | Deaths in 2006 | 271 | B | 0 | AFD | 1,369 | 98 | 1B, 1start, 3List | 496 | 5 to 1 |
2005-09 | 18,958 | 43% | Roger Davies | Hamlet | 253 | FA | 4 | MILHST | 3,606 | 30 | 4FA, 1B | 839 | 28 to 1 |
2004-10 | 21,046 | 43% | Sam Korn | George W. Bush | 72 | GA | 0 | AFD | 653 | 424 | 2GA, 2B, 1C | 261 | 1 to 1.6 |
2005-06 | 25,557 | 50% | Shell Kinney | Shiloh Shepherd Dog | 57 | B | 0 | CPYRT | 1,824 | 410 | 4B, 1start | 578 | 1.4 to 1 |
2006-02 | 6,530 | 25% | SirFozzie | Colin Cowherd | 85 | Start | 0 | ANI | 848 | 848 | 1GA, 3B, 1start | 289 | 1 to 2.9 |
2006-05 | 6,371 | 58% | TFM | Michael Richards | 35 | C | 0 | RDESK | 347 | 149 | 1FA, 3B, 1C | 348 | 2.3 to 1 |
2005-10 | 10,892 | 38% | Vassyana | Taoism | 146 | GA | 0 | NOR | 645 | 298 | 2GA, 3B | 842 | 2.8 to 1 |
2005-02 | 42,854 | 37% | White Cat | Starfleet ranks and insignia | 456 | B | 0 | RFAR | 1,494 | 1,220 | 3B, 2C | 2,538 | 2 to 1 |
2005-09 | 17,409 | 52% | WilyD | Peter Jones (missionary) | 414 | A | 0 | AFD | 1,632 | 294 | 1GA, 1A, 1B, 2none | 1,719 | 5.8 to 1 |
2006-03 | 50,787 | 72% | Wizardman | Art Houtteman | 178 | FA | 2 | AFD | 2,461 | 280 | 1FA, 1GA, 1start, 1List, 1none | 581 | 1.6 to 1 |
2006-11 | 44,063 | 18% | WJBscribe | Ruth Kelly | 71 | GA | 0 | CHU | 4,324 | 719 | 2GA, 3B | 380 | 1 to 1.9 |
There's something at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flight 19/Archive2 as well: I think Moni got tangled up in upper and lower case ? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I want to withdraw the nomination for Tropical Storm Kiko (2007) since it will take a while before the article is completed. It will then need a peer review and copyedit. I think I'm supposed to ask for the withdrawal... :) Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 01:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
In response to the previous edit summary:
-- Cryptic C62 · Talk 05:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, I added a support on Casliber's FAC. I stated that I am breaking my declaration that I wouldn't participate at FAC anymore. Mattisse has some how used that to try and claim like I haven't a clue about pages and that I shouldn't have a say. Yes, I still watch pages nominated for FAC. Yes, I occasionally contact individuals directly. Mattisse's comments are part of the reason why I don't want to participate at FAC. Instead of focusing on the criteria, its just an excuse to trash others.
Can something be done? Can Mattisse be told to stop? Could my whole section, vote and all, just be moved to the talk page instead of junking up the FAC? Sigh. Ottava Rima ( talk) 20:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Funny though, the nice antispychiatry opinionated person did lead me to an intriguing and fascinating book, which I then spent the next 45 minutes reading and I will probably buy off Amazon or something (tax deductible too XD)...Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 04:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy. I have mentioned you at the bottom of Talk:Russian submarine K-152 Nerpa/GA1. Could you comment on the correct formatting of cite web publishers? Thank you very much. Jehochman Talk 22:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Is this the passage the two of you are asking about ?
The first comment in the references section still applies. It wasn't just that one reference. It's any reference that ends with a .com or .ru or anything else, unless that is actually the name of the company that publishes the website.
- Ah, I think that we disagree on formatting references. User:SandyGeorgia has drilled into my head (at WP:FAC) that the publisher for a web reference is always the domain name, not the actual name. That is the convention I have followed. Can you check with her or others? Jehochman Talk 21:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I have no interest in wading into or trying to deal with the fallout of the GA process, where even the most straightforward, uncontroversial statement is likely to end in personal attacks, but I am aware of no guideline that demands that we cite publishers one way or the other. Oft times, there is no name available, and we use the URL, oft times the publisher name is clear and makes more sense: consistency is what matters. (When I worked with Jehochman at FAC, it was on an article in the computer field that used blog sources, where perhaps the URLs made more sense. On an article extensively cited to news sources, for example The New York Times, BBC, etc., it would certainly make more sense to use the name.) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy - Just an FYI - my bot is temporarily offline (the machine it runs on seems to need a new power supply or something). I'm not sure how long it will take to get it fixed, but until it is the bot will not be botting. -- Rick Block ( talk) 00:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I know absolutely nothing about the Portuguese Wikipedia's inner workings, let alone its FA process—I'm not active there at all (can't even remember the last time I edited). Tell you what: I'll do some digging, get some preliminary data, and find a local user/admin to confirm it. Would that be OK? Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 13:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
My apologies. I'm a new editor (I just joined when it was suggested to me to do this entry) and a new marketer. My limited experience using Wikipedia as a visitor has been to read about products (e.g. Guitar Hero) so I had thought my entry was acceptable. My desire for needy people to learn about this new resource (there really isn't anything else out there for kids) overwrode my judgement on a Friday night after a long week. Please know I do value high ethics and am simply used to not HAVING vested interests - for over 10 years I have been exclusively in the donation business (donating my writings, donating my websites, donating my time to other people's profit-making DVD's, documentaries, and books).
For the record, the Cook & Blacher (2007) article is 'real' (Evidence-based psychosocial treatments for tic disorders. Cook, Clayton R.; Blacher, Jan. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice. Vol 14(3), Sep 2007, pp. 252-267) and I have no conflict-of-interest when it comes to the TSA consortium bookset. The data I supplied regarding CBIT was presented in Chicago at the 2008 American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry conference and is being submitted for journal publication by the authors (of which I am not one). I will await a reply for a few days, and will then in all likelihood simply cancel my account. Thank you for the obvious time investment you've put into this resource - if all additions are reviewed so promptly and thoroughly (I see you give Brad Cohen's information close scrutiny as well...) then the rigour for wikipedia is both unexpected and impressive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdmckinl ( talk • contribs) 14:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I have a question about your recent edit to SS Ohioan. You moved an image per the accessibility policy/guideline. First, the image goes with the section it was in as that's the section that deals with sending the troops home. Secondly, that move creates a large whitespace in IE7 even though it doesn't in FF2: image. While I understand the importance for Wikipedia to be accessible, this seems like something that was functioning fine. It's not always possible to have images directly under section headings due to infoboxes. We should also strive to make sure Wikipedia apperas the same on all browsers. So what do we do now? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
--
MPerel has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi Sandy,
You recently left some notes regarding the nomination for Joel Selwood "here". Just regarding your concern over the use of hyphens, I'm confused as to the standard that is being demanded here. It seems there are varying standards, from the time it was looked at for GA promotion (similar concern was expressed there and eventually settled upon) to now, where again, various users seem to disagree with each other's preference on its use. I thought this was settled upon once more in the few issues I addressed during the FA nomination process so far (where, again, the use of hypens throughout was re-done already)?
Also, if you could elaborate more on your concerns for the infobox, that would be great! As of now, I am unsure what the issue is, and am thus not sure how to go about addressing any such concerns.
Cheers, Boomtish ( talk) 05:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, I'd like to add your guide to the Guide template {{ ACE 2008 guides}}, could you subpage it so there will be a permanent place to point at? Thanks. MBisanz talk 06:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Sent you a good news mail. Its very do-able, and we are delighted to be able to honor like this. Ceoil ( talk) 00:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I noted you moved Cosmic Latte's comments about canvassing to the article talk page. Do you feel the warning on the FAC talk page belongs on that article? -- Moni3 ( talk) 03:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey there Sandy, Here is a name that you might be familiar with, whom I am very impressed. I hope that I'm not offbase, but if he is as strong of a candidate as I think he is, you might be interested in co-noming him. For me to come to you with a candidate as a co-nom, you have to know that I have a strong sense of his chances of passing... and think that you might share those views! I know that he is interested.--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon 05:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I've placed myself on editor review at Wikipedia:Editor_review/Cosmic_Latte, and I'm reaching out for feedback to editors who seem to be reasonably familiar with my work. If you have a moment to comment there, your feedback would be most appreciated. Thanks, Cosmic Latte ( talk) 07:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Thought I'd say "hello". Night night Sandy. -- Dweller ( talk) 23:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
What do you think about archiving the entire FAC talk page? I think we need some sort of dramatic break with this ongoing nightmare. Awadewit ( talk) 05:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Looking again, if we do a bold archive/restart, need to keep "Multilingual Wikipedians needed" and the last section, "Context". Other notability, TFA discussions would benefit from a restart anyway. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
All right, that's five of us who seem to agree, so I'll do it, but we'll need to keep the page on track. I just popped the last 250 contribs, from here, into Excel and found the last 250 postings are:
and no one else with more than about 10. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering - if there were so many articles that were brought in under "Brilliant Prose" (or whatever it was called) and then later renamed FA, couldn't it be easier to just reclassify those articles as Brilliant Prose as a separate category and just have them go through the FA nom if they want to achieve FA status? Otherwise, it seems that a lot of the pages of the Filiocht circle will just be degraded when the politics behind not changing them is to keep the page as it was under Brilliant Prose? Having a mass change of those to a non "featured article" descriptive might end a lot of the fighting. I don't know. Ottava Rima ( talk) 15:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not seeing Wikipedia:Fac#Battle_of_Lipantitl.C3.A1n transcluding properly... -- Dweller ( talk) 16:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, I saw your note to Ling.Nut; is Marskell gone permanently, or temporarily? What happened? Mike Christie (talk) 14:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I've responded in full to the nominator's reply to my oppose, but I think it's best if I discontinue my involvement at that FAC. The aggressive tone is offputting, incorrect responses annoying, but the lack of interest in improving the article beyond that which PR and prior c-e managed makes FAC pointless, other than if it's to rubber-stamp an article that's ready. And it's not. -- Dweller ( talk) 15:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Seems it's been a year since your appointment as Raul's delegate at FAC today - and what a fantastic one you've been as well! So I guess, happy 1st birthday, and keep up your excellent dedication and hard work! Best wishes, – How do you turn this on ( talk) 15:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
The FAC for Reception history of Jane Austen is going to get unwieldy with my oppose; Awadewit suggested moving it to talk, but I thought that you had recommended against that previously I could be wrong, just want to clarify so you don't get angry at me and have to clean up my mess (more than usual). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk)
Hi Sandy,
Thought you might be interested to know that WikiDashboard now runs on the live version of Wikipedia. It's similar to the tool for finding the top contributors to an article, except it also shows the distribution of their edits over time (so for example you can see which major contributors have not edited it for a while). See for example WP:FAC, where you can see where you started as FA delegate. (Note that, despite its appearance, WikiDashboard is not on the wikipedia.org domain, as you quickly find out if you click the edit tab by mistake!) Dr pda ( talk) 00:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
As requested (sorry for the delay in getting back to you)...updates have been made to keep Redwood National and State Parks from having to go through FAR....the changes made can be seen in this editing history here...is anything else needed? Thanks for bringing the issues to my attention.-- MONGO 07:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey Sandy, is this oppose actionable? Gary King ( talk) 03:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy and thanks for your message. Having a great time on tour and keeping safe thankfully. Missing you guys - difficult to male serious contributions from an iPod sitting round a pool all day! Hope you are well, more soon The Rambling Man on tour ( talk) 04:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, this just came up on my talk page and I knew you would be the one to go-to. Are you seeing less FA with infoboxes in the lead section or has it remain unchanged? And, has the use of infoboxes ever come up during a FAC? In other words, is there a preference? Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 07:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, there is a proposal in the works to identify what can be cited and what cannot be cited from the Internet Movie Database at Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. There is discussion going on at the talk page. To my recollection, IMDb has been rejected as a reliable source when film articles undergo the FAC process. I recall that you were part of that discussion. I was wondering if you have some time, could you look at the proposal and the ongoing discussion and weigh in with your thoughts? It would be greatly appreciated! :) — Erik ( talk • contrib) 15:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Sandy have you seen this discussion? Graham. Graham Colm Talk 16:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
"my own prose stinks" says the woman who added some of the best written lines to the Johnson article. Pshaw! Ottava Rima ( talk) 20:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology has been through a GAR (kept) and PR in the past three months in preparation for a FAC in the near future. The primary stumbling block seems to be the Research activity section which is a mass of "over-linked" (but really easter egged) blue and probably worthy of some Summary style. I've let the article sit for a few more weeks to see if anything developed from other editors after the PR and GAR, but nothing has. I know of no way to equitably slice and dice it. I would appreciate your thoughts and any suggestions you had for that section or the rest of the article. Cheers! Madcoverboy ( talk) 19:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, I bet the title above caught your atention (smile). I just finished a new article titled Puerto Rican scientists and inventors. I'm not doing the FA or FL thing for now, but some one commented that it should be an FLC. I would like for you to look at it whenever you can (Take your time, no rush). Tell me what you think. Gracias, Tony the Marine ( talk) 00:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey, you said that there were several dabs needing fixes. I saw the links, but I don't understand what you want me to do. Add (disambiguation) to the end of each? Limetolime Talk to me • look what I did! 23:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for promoting Beth Hamedrash Hagadol (Manhattan, New York), and Congregation Beth Elohim previously. Jayjg (talk) 03:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
First off, I'm really sorry if you took it the wrong way. Later, after I posted that, I told another user that we could use at least a 2nd delegate director. I just feel that someone running FAC should not be nominating for it either. I don't wanna take away what you probably do best, but you are better off running FAC, not contributing to it. The main example is Samuel Johnson, which would have passed faster, had you not nominated it (you of course would earn the FA in still). I believe, personally that Raul is too busy and cannot handle the page. This would mean everything would be on your time. The personal thing is, I would suggest letting others nominate and you go ahead and control what goes on. I would say the same for FT, FP, FL, FS and so on. You have a great position. Also, I will retract my biasness statement towards you, as I wrote it an a rant mood, but I think things need to be followed better at FAC, and most of the power is yours :). You could be the one that makes FAC a really good place to go to. I hope this clarifies things.Mitch32( UP) 04:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, Ealdgyth said you are the goddess of WP:ACCESS. Can you do a peek at Horses in warfare, which we are trying to get ready for FA, and see if anything is screwed up? I don't get a few of the access formatting issues, though I should. Dr pda said there might be a couple of problems with image placement. Can you look things over and maybe comment at the peer review? Thanks! Montanabw (talk) 08:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
The "Main" template is used when that article is a sub-article of this article: this article summarizes that article, using Summary style. Most of the instances I saw there only called for links to the articles, or maybe seealso templates. We wouldn't include a "Main" template for every link in an article. For an example of the use of Summary style, see the sub-articles I excerpted at Tourette syndrome, where I pulled out History of Tourette syndrome, Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome, etc. and summarized them back to the main article. Very different from the common links: for example, I wouldn't put a "Main" template to the tic article even though the "Classification" section is about tics. See WP:LAYOUT. Think about whether it would make sense to bring the entire sub-article into this article: if it would, then it's summary style, and a main template is appropriate. If it wouldn't, it's just a link, to learn more info on the topic. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the friendly post, I shall ruminate on the best way to structure a piece about Featured Portals. Cirt ( talk) 19:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Sandy—I'll try to shift back a little to FAC et al by this weekend. Tony (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
YM, that's four FACs at once ... and the first still hasn't gotten support. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I started a Signpost article about DYK's upcoming Christmas theme at Wikipedia:FCDW/December (as you suggested). Any thoughts on more content that could/should be added? I left a message in the DYK discussion area asking other DYK regulars to contribute to the article. By the way, there continues to be DYK/FA/FP discussion for April Fool's 2009, so a Signpost article definitely needs to be planned before and/or after April 1st. Royal broil 05:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I found this Turkish government brochure which I want to use as reference. It's clearly an on-line PDF of a real paper publication, but I don't know what template to use. Cite:book and cite:journal would both be missing data (dates, isbn, doi etc), but cite:web doesn't seem appropriate. I'd be grateful for your view, thanks jimfbleak ( talk) 18:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, I think it is clear that you and Tony1 need adminship solely for the fact that admin don't tend to block other admin for random, ridiculous, absurd, silly, or premature reasons (most of the time). Its a good defense mechanism. Ottava Rima ( talk) 01:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly. Seriously, we've had our disagreements, but you should consider Adminship. First off - you'd most likely pass, and second, as Ottava says above, it would be a good defence mechanism. ~the editorofthewiki ( talk/ contribs/ editor review)~ 01:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I think of it this way. As a Jaguar owner myself (pictures of my beautiful Jaguar XJ-S on request), I take exception to those who scrape my car in crowded parking lots and dont own up to it. Just as I take exception to administrators who ... and don't own up to it. I'm up for (another) block if that's what it takes to make some people see sense. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 03:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
You might have to prepared for a lot of Trojan horse opposes by people who are acutally peed off that their substandard article didn't get through, etc . It's happened before. YellowMonkey ( click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I'm another who fits into the category where I could use some extra tools but am not interested in adminship. There ought to be a new title where the better editors, who are more active or most important (like Sandy) of the non admin editors are given a few more buttons. Count Blofeld 17:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy. As we've discussed, I will not be able to daily monitor Wikipedia and the Featured article review. Happily, the workload there has been shrinking because so many of the older FAs have already been processed. It really isn't a lot of work at the moment. User:Joelr31 isn't especially active either, but he can probably handle closures. I will ping him to offer an opinion here. And I will, hopefully, stop by from time to time to make closures myself.
There are only two issues. One is segmenting the reviews (Review commentary/FARC commentary) and moving to FARC. This is really a janitorial thing that can be assigned to anybody. The only real question at FAR, as you know: are people working? If people are working, no need to move to FARC. If people are working, no need to make a final closure. Three weeks, three months, whatever. In the interests of content improvement, hard deadlines have disappeared at the review.
The other issue is pointy, flame war reviews, where an article is nominated and the conversation gets nasty in the first 48 hours. Best to simply close these, although it's a case-by-case decision. Joel and I may not notice such instances given infrequent editing, so I think you or Raul might stop by the page once a day or two to check for this.
A great number of excellent editors have made saves over the years. This year, Ceoil and DrKiernan have probably been the two most important assets, so you might want to keep them in the loop on any changes to the review structure, if you or Raul feel changes need to be made.
Peace be with you Sandy, Marskell ( talk) 15:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
My apologies, but this comment got lost in all of the commotion and I just noticed it. Thanks for the note, I appreciate it. One thing I've always done since I've been an administrator is listen to the community. Of course I have my personal opinions on every issue, as does everybody else, but I am more than comfortable with listening to the community and using their input to make what are typically better decisions for the community as a whole. I thought this was evident with my unblock, but some seem to think otherwise. Regards, Rjd0060 ( talk) 16:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Can I use it? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, if you suspect JeanLatore, you can go ahead and message me on my talk page. Oddly enough, Son of Bob was not JeanLatore, but an editor in good standing. Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, done (for now). 557,134 edits summarized and the smoke detector hardly ever went off after the third set of firemen came and smashed it. I listed you too 'cause I was sure it would push the edit count over a million - oh well.
I share your opinion about TimVickers. And even before I'd run the data, I'd agree about Tim, just from what I've seen from day-to-day.
Looking through all that data though, there is a pretty obvious candidate for ArbCom, one who is pretty darn familiar with building an encyclopedia and all that entails from the effort. I can't canvass of course, so all I can do is hint: starts with "S", ends with "andyGeorgia". :) Franamax ( talk) 06:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
First edit | Total edits | Main- space edits1 | Name | Top article | Top article edits2 | Top article ass'mt | FAs | Top WP Fam | Top WP Fam edits | AN edits | Top 5 articles, ass'mt3 | Top 5 article plus talk edits | Ratio Top5/AN4 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2006-06 | 40567 | 65% | TimVickers | Evolution | 1,100 | FA | 13 | FAC | 653 | 442 | 3FA, 2GA | 5,107 | 12 to 1 |
2006-02 | 86886 | 46% | SandyGeorgia | Tourette syndrome | 1,135 | FA | 2 | FAC | 10,534 | 650 | 4FA, 1B | 6,631 | 10 to 1 |
I've included stats for Tim Vickers because IMO he represents the gold standard in excellence in balance between dispute resolution skills, policy understanding, civility, and mainspace editing. This summary shows each editors' top mainspace article contributions as well as their top Wikipedia (family) area of activity (for example, as expected, my contribs at FAC are disproportionate), and proportional time spent contributing quality articles versus engaging the Administrators' noticeboards.
As a sample of how to view this data, Tim has healthy participation at the Administrators' noticeboards (over 400 edits) and extensive participation at his top Wikipedia family of pages (FAC, over 650), yet he remains a balanced content contributor, with 13 FAs, having contributed more edits to 9 articles than to AN. He has 12 times as many edits to his top five articles as he does to AN. He has 2.5 times as many edits to his highest-edited article ( Evolution) as he does to AN. This shows an editor with quality mainspace contributions, significant input on dispute resolution issues, but a priority, commitment and balance towards mainspace editing.
We need ArbCom members who have demonstrated a commitment, first and foremost, to understanding how dispute resolution applies to building quality articles in mainspace, and understand article building skills. We need Arbs who are in touch with the community and with article building. We don't need more career ArbCom members who don't know what content contributors deal with, who don't understand what goes in to building our best content, who can't write an ArbCom decision, who haven't been through the process of contributing top quality, and who spend a disproportionate amount of their time rubbernecking the trainwrecks at AN/I instead of building articles. Balanced editing, with evidence of effective dispute resolution skills but a focus on building content, is the criteria I'll be looking for this year.
Numbers are only one element in the toolbox for evaluating ArbCom candidates: I expect to support some candidates who fall outside of my concerns about top content contributions, and oppose some who fall within the range, based on other knowledge of those candidates. Those who fall at the extremes, though, need analysis and justification; I'm unlikely to support a candidate who has neither contributed in the article writing trenches, nor shown me enough to know that s/he won't add to "more of the same" issues affecting the current ArbCom composition and recent deliberations. Numbers must be interpreted with caution (normal disclaimers re: editcountitis), but editors who have not made substantial contributions to article space need to have demonstrated how they can bring balance to some of the long-standing issues that have been raised relative to the composition of the current ArbCom. We need editors who understand the challenges of building a professional reference work and who are engaged with the community at the level where this work occurs. This may not be true every year, but it's an issue this year, as demonstrated by the problems that surfaced in ArbCom deliberations this year and the increasing disregard shown to top content contributors in dispute resolution processes. We only have one chance per year to alter the tone and composition of ArbCom, and in the past, we've perhaps leaned too heavily towards career bureaucrats and too far from those engaged in the trenches, building top content, working with the community, undertanding the recurring issues.
First edit | Total edits | Main- space edits1 | Name | Top article | Top article edits2 | Top article ass'mt | FAs | Top WP Fam | Top WP Fam edits | AN edits | Top 5 articles, ass'mt3 | Top 5 article plus talk edits | Ratio Top5/AN4 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2005-01 | 44,049 | 36% | Carcharoth | Ptolemy (name) | 208 | Start | 0 | AN | 2,850 | 2,850 | 1FA, 1A, 1C, 1start, 1none | 987 | 1 to 2.9 |
2006-05 | 44,821 | 69% | Casliber | Major depressive disorder | 758 | B | 23 | FAC | 1,784 | 215 | 4FA, 1B | 3,269 | 15.2 to 1 |
2002-02 | 165,969 | 89% | Charles Matthews | Bampton Lectures | 249 | None | 0 | RFAR | 1,028 | 31 | 1A, 2start, 2none | 871 | 29 to 1 |
2004-02 | 11,256 | 58% | Cool Hand Luke | Salt Lake City | 58 | GA | 0 | RFAR | 450 | 219 | 4B, 1start | 563 | 2.6 to 1 |
2003-05 | 9,074 | 17% | Coren | Zoophilia | 26 | B | 0 | AFD | 764 | 471 | 3B, 1stub, 1none | 142 | 1 to 3.3 |
2005-03 | 26,742 | 44% | Fish and karate | Edward Low | 152 | FA | 2 | AFD | 2,869 | 1,930 | 2FA, 2GA, 1C | 608 | 1 to 3.2 |
2006-01 | 4,336 | 44% | George The Dragon | Gretna F.C. | 20 | Start | 0 | AFD | 157 | 156 | 1FA, 1GA, 2B, 1start | 112 | 1 to 1.4 |
2006-11 | 28,001 | 60% | Gwen Gale | Amelia Earhart | 437 | B | 0 | AN | 1,556 | 1,556 | 1GA, 4B | 3,163 | 2 to 1 |
2006-04 | 13,098 | 68% | Hemlock Martinis | Sinestro Corps War | 141 | FA | 1 | AFD | 361 | 68 | 1FA, 3B, 1none | 597 | 8.8 to 1 |
2004-09c | 30,978 | 47% | Jayvdb | W. H. R. Rivers | 51 | B | 0 | AFD | 5,165 | 256 | 2B, 1C, 1stub, 1none | 236 | 1 to 1 |
2003-02 | 15,594 | 57% | Jdforrester | United Kingdom | 85 | B | 0 | RFAR | 2,167 | 87 | 3B, 1C, 1none | 404 | 4.6 to 1 |
2005-03 | 19,404 | 24% | Jehochman | Search engine optimization | 426 | FA | 1 | ANI | 1,981 | 1,981 | 1FA, 2GA,a 1B, 1none | 1,075 | 1 to 1.8 |
2004-05 | 6,332 | 54% | Kmweber | Princeton, Indiana | 29 | C | 0 | RFA | 350 | 126 | 1B, 2C, 2List | 114 | 1 to 1.1 |
2004-08 | 8,187 | 38% | Lankiveil | Nundah, Queensland | 61 | B | 0 | AFD | 2,676 | 44 | 2GA, 3B | 217 | 4.9 to 1 |
2007-01 | 8,913 | 40% | lifebaka | Magic: The Gathering | 53 | GA | 0 | DRV | 1,023 | 298 | 1GA, 2C, 1start, 1List | 235 | 1 to 1.3 |
2007-09 | 4,238 | 13% | Privatemusingsb | Socrates | 45 | B | 0 | NTWW | 408 | 177 | 1B, 2start, 2none | 162 | 1 to 1 |
2005-12 | 9,984 | 45% | Risker | James Blunt | 578 | GA | 2 | RFAR | 352 | 284 | 1FA, 2GA, 1B, 1start | 1,587 | 5.6 to 1 |
2005-11 | 60,858 | 42% | Rlevse | List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) | 865 | FL | 12 | SCOUT | 2,551 | 1,605 | 5FA | 3,210 | 2 to 1 |
2006-02 | 12,397 | 72% | RMHED | Deaths in 2006 | 271 | B | 0 | AFD | 1,369 | 98 | 1B, 1start, 3List | 496 | 5 to 1 |
2005-09 | 18,958 | 43% | Roger Davies | Hamlet | 253 | FA | 4 | MILHST | 3,606 | 30 | 4FA, 1B | 839 | 28 to 1 |
2004-10 | 21,046 | 43% | Sam Korn | George W. Bush | 72 | GA | 0 | AFD | 653 | 424 | 2GA, 2B, 1C | 261 | 1 to 1.6 |
2005-06 | 25,557 | 50% | Shell Kinney | Shiloh Shepherd Dog | 57 | B | 0 | CPYRT | 1,824 | 410 | 4B, 1start | 578 | 1.4 to 1 |
2006-02 | 6,530 | 25% | SirFozzie | Colin Cowherd | 85 | Start | 0 | ANI | 848 | 848 | 1GA, 3B, 1start | 289 | 1 to 2.9 |
2006-05 | 6,371 | 58% | TFM | Michael Richards | 35 | C | 0 | RDESK | 347 | 149 | 1FA, 3B, 1C | 348 | 2.3 to 1 |
2005-10 | 10,892 | 38% | Vassyana | Taoism | 146 | GA | 0 | NOR | 645 | 298 | 2GA, 3B | 842 | 2.8 to 1 |
2005-02 | 42,854 | 37% | White Cat | Starfleet ranks and insignia | 456 | B | 0 | RFAR | 1,494 | 1,220 | 3B, 2C | 2,538 | 2 to 1 |
2005-09 | 17,409 | 52% | WilyD | Peter Jones (missionary) | 414 | A | 0 | AFD | 1,632 | 294 | 1GA, 1A, 1B, 2none | 1,719 | 5.8 to 1 |
2006-03 | 50,787 | 72% | Wizardman | Art Houtteman | 178 | FA | 2 | AFD | 2,461 | 280 | 1FA, 1GA, 1start, 1List, 1none | 581 | 1.6 to 1 |
2006-11 | 44,063 | 18% | WJBscribe | Ruth Kelly | 71 | GA | 0 | CHU | 4,324 | 719 | 2GA, 3B | 380 | 1 to 1.9 |
There's something at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flight 19/Archive2 as well: I think Moni got tangled up in upper and lower case ? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I want to withdraw the nomination for Tropical Storm Kiko (2007) since it will take a while before the article is completed. It will then need a peer review and copyedit. I think I'm supposed to ask for the withdrawal... :) Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 01:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
In response to the previous edit summary:
-- Cryptic C62 · Talk 05:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, I added a support on Casliber's FAC. I stated that I am breaking my declaration that I wouldn't participate at FAC anymore. Mattisse has some how used that to try and claim like I haven't a clue about pages and that I shouldn't have a say. Yes, I still watch pages nominated for FAC. Yes, I occasionally contact individuals directly. Mattisse's comments are part of the reason why I don't want to participate at FAC. Instead of focusing on the criteria, its just an excuse to trash others.
Can something be done? Can Mattisse be told to stop? Could my whole section, vote and all, just be moved to the talk page instead of junking up the FAC? Sigh. Ottava Rima ( talk) 20:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Funny though, the nice antispychiatry opinionated person did lead me to an intriguing and fascinating book, which I then spent the next 45 minutes reading and I will probably buy off Amazon or something (tax deductible too XD)...Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 04:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy. I have mentioned you at the bottom of Talk:Russian submarine K-152 Nerpa/GA1. Could you comment on the correct formatting of cite web publishers? Thank you very much. Jehochman Talk 22:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Is this the passage the two of you are asking about ?
The first comment in the references section still applies. It wasn't just that one reference. It's any reference that ends with a .com or .ru or anything else, unless that is actually the name of the company that publishes the website.
- Ah, I think that we disagree on formatting references. User:SandyGeorgia has drilled into my head (at WP:FAC) that the publisher for a web reference is always the domain name, not the actual name. That is the convention I have followed. Can you check with her or others? Jehochman Talk 21:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I have no interest in wading into or trying to deal with the fallout of the GA process, where even the most straightforward, uncontroversial statement is likely to end in personal attacks, but I am aware of no guideline that demands that we cite publishers one way or the other. Oft times, there is no name available, and we use the URL, oft times the publisher name is clear and makes more sense: consistency is what matters. (When I worked with Jehochman at FAC, it was on an article in the computer field that used blog sources, where perhaps the URLs made more sense. On an article extensively cited to news sources, for example The New York Times, BBC, etc., it would certainly make more sense to use the name.) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy - Just an FYI - my bot is temporarily offline (the machine it runs on seems to need a new power supply or something). I'm not sure how long it will take to get it fixed, but until it is the bot will not be botting. -- Rick Block ( talk) 00:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I know absolutely nothing about the Portuguese Wikipedia's inner workings, let alone its FA process—I'm not active there at all (can't even remember the last time I edited). Tell you what: I'll do some digging, get some preliminary data, and find a local user/admin to confirm it. Would that be OK? Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 13:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
My apologies. I'm a new editor (I just joined when it was suggested to me to do this entry) and a new marketer. My limited experience using Wikipedia as a visitor has been to read about products (e.g. Guitar Hero) so I had thought my entry was acceptable. My desire for needy people to learn about this new resource (there really isn't anything else out there for kids) overwrode my judgement on a Friday night after a long week. Please know I do value high ethics and am simply used to not HAVING vested interests - for over 10 years I have been exclusively in the donation business (donating my writings, donating my websites, donating my time to other people's profit-making DVD's, documentaries, and books).
For the record, the Cook & Blacher (2007) article is 'real' (Evidence-based psychosocial treatments for tic disorders. Cook, Clayton R.; Blacher, Jan. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice. Vol 14(3), Sep 2007, pp. 252-267) and I have no conflict-of-interest when it comes to the TSA consortium bookset. The data I supplied regarding CBIT was presented in Chicago at the 2008 American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry conference and is being submitted for journal publication by the authors (of which I am not one). I will await a reply for a few days, and will then in all likelihood simply cancel my account. Thank you for the obvious time investment you've put into this resource - if all additions are reviewed so promptly and thoroughly (I see you give Brad Cohen's information close scrutiny as well...) then the rigour for wikipedia is both unexpected and impressive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdmckinl ( talk • contribs) 14:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I have a question about your recent edit to SS Ohioan. You moved an image per the accessibility policy/guideline. First, the image goes with the section it was in as that's the section that deals with sending the troops home. Secondly, that move creates a large whitespace in IE7 even though it doesn't in FF2: image. While I understand the importance for Wikipedia to be accessible, this seems like something that was functioning fine. It's not always possible to have images directly under section headings due to infoboxes. We should also strive to make sure Wikipedia apperas the same on all browsers. So what do we do now? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
--
MPerel has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi Sandy,
You recently left some notes regarding the nomination for Joel Selwood "here". Just regarding your concern over the use of hyphens, I'm confused as to the standard that is being demanded here. It seems there are varying standards, from the time it was looked at for GA promotion (similar concern was expressed there and eventually settled upon) to now, where again, various users seem to disagree with each other's preference on its use. I thought this was settled upon once more in the few issues I addressed during the FA nomination process so far (where, again, the use of hypens throughout was re-done already)?
Also, if you could elaborate more on your concerns for the infobox, that would be great! As of now, I am unsure what the issue is, and am thus not sure how to go about addressing any such concerns.
Cheers, Boomtish ( talk) 05:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, I'd like to add your guide to the Guide template {{ ACE 2008 guides}}, could you subpage it so there will be a permanent place to point at? Thanks. MBisanz talk 06:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Sent you a good news mail. Its very do-able, and we are delighted to be able to honor like this. Ceoil ( talk) 00:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I noted you moved Cosmic Latte's comments about canvassing to the article talk page. Do you feel the warning on the FAC talk page belongs on that article? -- Moni3 ( talk) 03:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey there Sandy, Here is a name that you might be familiar with, whom I am very impressed. I hope that I'm not offbase, but if he is as strong of a candidate as I think he is, you might be interested in co-noming him. For me to come to you with a candidate as a co-nom, you have to know that I have a strong sense of his chances of passing... and think that you might share those views! I know that he is interested.--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon 05:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I've placed myself on editor review at Wikipedia:Editor_review/Cosmic_Latte, and I'm reaching out for feedback to editors who seem to be reasonably familiar with my work. If you have a moment to comment there, your feedback would be most appreciated. Thanks, Cosmic Latte ( talk) 07:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Thought I'd say "hello". Night night Sandy. -- Dweller ( talk) 23:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
What do you think about archiving the entire FAC talk page? I think we need some sort of dramatic break with this ongoing nightmare. Awadewit ( talk) 05:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Looking again, if we do a bold archive/restart, need to keep "Multilingual Wikipedians needed" and the last section, "Context". Other notability, TFA discussions would benefit from a restart anyway. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
All right, that's five of us who seem to agree, so I'll do it, but we'll need to keep the page on track. I just popped the last 250 contribs, from here, into Excel and found the last 250 postings are:
and no one else with more than about 10. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering - if there were so many articles that were brought in under "Brilliant Prose" (or whatever it was called) and then later renamed FA, couldn't it be easier to just reclassify those articles as Brilliant Prose as a separate category and just have them go through the FA nom if they want to achieve FA status? Otherwise, it seems that a lot of the pages of the Filiocht circle will just be degraded when the politics behind not changing them is to keep the page as it was under Brilliant Prose? Having a mass change of those to a non "featured article" descriptive might end a lot of the fighting. I don't know. Ottava Rima ( talk) 15:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not seeing Wikipedia:Fac#Battle_of_Lipantitl.C3.A1n transcluding properly... -- Dweller ( talk) 16:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, I saw your note to Ling.Nut; is Marskell gone permanently, or temporarily? What happened? Mike Christie (talk) 14:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I've responded in full to the nominator's reply to my oppose, but I think it's best if I discontinue my involvement at that FAC. The aggressive tone is offputting, incorrect responses annoying, but the lack of interest in improving the article beyond that which PR and prior c-e managed makes FAC pointless, other than if it's to rubber-stamp an article that's ready. And it's not. -- Dweller ( talk) 15:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Seems it's been a year since your appointment as Raul's delegate at FAC today - and what a fantastic one you've been as well! So I guess, happy 1st birthday, and keep up your excellent dedication and hard work! Best wishes, – How do you turn this on ( talk) 15:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
The FAC for Reception history of Jane Austen is going to get unwieldy with my oppose; Awadewit suggested moving it to talk, but I thought that you had recommended against that previously I could be wrong, just want to clarify so you don't get angry at me and have to clean up my mess (more than usual). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk)
Hi Sandy,
Thought you might be interested to know that WikiDashboard now runs on the live version of Wikipedia. It's similar to the tool for finding the top contributors to an article, except it also shows the distribution of their edits over time (so for example you can see which major contributors have not edited it for a while). See for example WP:FAC, where you can see where you started as FA delegate. (Note that, despite its appearance, WikiDashboard is not on the wikipedia.org domain, as you quickly find out if you click the edit tab by mistake!) Dr pda ( talk) 00:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
As requested (sorry for the delay in getting back to you)...updates have been made to keep Redwood National and State Parks from having to go through FAR....the changes made can be seen in this editing history here...is anything else needed? Thanks for bringing the issues to my attention.-- MONGO 07:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey Sandy, is this oppose actionable? Gary King ( talk) 03:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy and thanks for your message. Having a great time on tour and keeping safe thankfully. Missing you guys - difficult to male serious contributions from an iPod sitting round a pool all day! Hope you are well, more soon The Rambling Man on tour ( talk) 04:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, this just came up on my talk page and I knew you would be the one to go-to. Are you seeing less FA with infoboxes in the lead section or has it remain unchanged? And, has the use of infoboxes ever come up during a FAC? In other words, is there a preference? Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 07:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, there is a proposal in the works to identify what can be cited and what cannot be cited from the Internet Movie Database at Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. There is discussion going on at the talk page. To my recollection, IMDb has been rejected as a reliable source when film articles undergo the FAC process. I recall that you were part of that discussion. I was wondering if you have some time, could you look at the proposal and the ongoing discussion and weigh in with your thoughts? It would be greatly appreciated! :) — Erik ( talk • contrib) 15:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Sandy have you seen this discussion? Graham. Graham Colm Talk 16:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
"my own prose stinks" says the woman who added some of the best written lines to the Johnson article. Pshaw! Ottava Rima ( talk) 20:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)