User talk:SandyGeorgia.html



If you want me to look at an article or a FAC, please provide the link.

If you are unsure if a FAC is closed, please see WP:FAC/ar.

I usually respond on my talk page, so watch the page for my reply.
To leave me a message, click here.
The current time is Wednesday, 03:34 UTC.

Christmas theme for DYK article

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. Royalbroil 05:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your start ... perhaps you can add more wording to encourage editors to contribute, explaining how to contribute, deadlines and such ... assume the reader has never heard of DYK and doesn't even know where to start. You can pull some of it from the earlier DYK Dispatch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Has there been any discussion about the possible bias of featuring Christmas on this day? Awadewit (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I was a little surprised at that myself :-) If there hasn't been, there will be if the Dispatch goes out with no attempt to balance coverage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK has a purposeful bias and always will (it even notes that a large portion should be American based, for example, because of its user base). Ottava Rima (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm also surprised that there's a push to have a Christmas theme, just like I was surprised that there was a Halloween theme, because both are based on religious holidays. Some Christians are very opposed to Halloween because they feel it glorifies the occult. I never would have pushed for a theme on either topic. Royalbroil 13:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Many other websites have a themed front page on holidays. We can't please everyone. By having a "theme" to work on, it perhaps encourages more people to start writing and expanding new articles that they otherwise wouldn't have. For example, I worked on Halloween Pennant, something I'd never even heard of before it was suggested as a possible article to use. I think it's a good idea (well I did suggest it, at least the Christmas one). I don't think people are going to get that upset because it's "biased". We have articles for events on other days, why can't we for Christmas?

Ottava, the note on the next update page is disputed by me and at least another editor. – How do you turn this on (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You can dispute anything you want, but it all boils down to the idea that en Wikipedia caters to its audience, which always puts a primary emphasis on the US. In such an idea, it would be wrong not to mention Christmas. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this can be resolved on the DYK pages, and then the Dispatch can be written. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be a fairly equal amount of support and opposition to the idea. My thought right now is to not run the article. Royalbroil 03:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't have to make a final decision until next Tuesday at the earliest, so you can take more time to see what develops. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

FAR and away

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)

Raul is away at a conference and may be very busy catching up once he gets back at the end of this week. I see you closed and segmented several, so nothing at FAR is urgent right now; I'll continue to watch for flare-ups and put heads together with Joelito, Ceoil and DrKiernan once Raul is home and settled. Godspeed, my friend; I am honored and priviledged to have been in the presence of your work and friendship on Wiki, and will look forward to seeing you, however infrequently, whenever you pop back in. Be well, always, never too far away, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Even though I am not very active I am always watching FAR. I have, intentionally, let Tim handle the majority of cases since FAR as we know it today is his conception. However, I will take a more active role in the future. I will gladly participate in any discussion if FAR leadership changes are needed. Joelito (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have only three concerns/questions:

1. That we always work in a way that keeps Marskell's seat at the table, for when he returns to fulltime editing.
2. Do we need another person to segment or can you handle that as well?
3. All too often, situations come up (at both FAC and FAR) where I need admin help. Between Raul, Marskell and you, I could usually find someone if there was a FAR flare-up, but now we may need another means of locating an admin in sticky situations (for example, I don't like to remove TFA FAR noms if it's an FA that I promoted, as that feels like a COI). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I thought I had replied to this already.

1. Tim will always have a spot even if it has to be mine.
2. I can handle everything as long as the FAR quantity is low (less than 30). However, I wouldn't mind if we picked someone to share the tasks. Joelito (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
3. We might need another admin for those situations in case I am not available. Joelito (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I have ideas, but will wait to hear from Raul, once he's home and settled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: Comment

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)

A new anti-drama bot?

Can I use it? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

May you never feel the need. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that drama (or at least my amount of involvement in it) tends to decrease when I go ballroom dancing... that's something you can always try, right? :D Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Reminds me of an old joke:

"You're not going out in those baggy old trousers are you?"

"They're not baggy, they're bandleaders' trousers."

"Whaddya mean, bandleader's trousers?"

"You know, plenty of ballroom."

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's say that those ballroom trousers don't have much ballroom... although it is even worse for the ladies. If you just saw professional "international latin" costumes for women... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive FACs

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)

uContribs - ArbCands

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)

You Are a Gem: thank you (although I'd rather not see my name on that list :-) Can you summarize the results like this?

• User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes

Samples

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.

Arbcom candidates

• ¹ Talk plus article
• ² Article only, not talk
• ³ The article assessment does not necessarily reflect the ArbCom candidates involvement in achieving those assessment levels
• ⁴ Ratio of Top 5 article and talk page edits to AN edits; article and talk edits are included as a measure of editor interaction
• ^a Another GA, Russian submarine K-152 Nerpa, was passed after these numbers were generated
• ^b Accurate edit counts not included yet due to multiple accounts
• ^c Misleading date: only two edits until March 19, 2006, when Jayvdb became an active editor. Has heavy activity at Wikisource's featured text and a featured text page there: s:Finished with the War: A Soldier’s Declaration.

I like your ideas for analysis. Unfortunately I can't do any of that with automation, so it will go onto my could-do/should-do list (and you've already got it half finished, hint-hint lol). If you or someone else with a good data parser wish to add a section to my page, feel free to do so - it's not my page anymore, it belongs to the wiki.

As to interpreting the ratios, while I generally agree, some caution is in order. Edit counts to an article reflect several factors, among them edit-warring and vandal-fighting. My most-edited articles include hair and fingernails and some subjects taught in grade school - they ended up on my watchlist and are favourite vandal targets. I've also noticed that the GA/FA process spawns a huge number of edits, most of them quite minor (correcting typogrammos, reshuffles, reformats). Of course this is essential work, but the plain edit count only indicates obsession, not progress. ( ;) ) I refuse to believe that Tim or Casliber have made >500 major contributions to Evolution and Lion - the count just reflects their attention to detail and desire for excellence, it doesn't stand well as a ratio.

Similarly, straight counts in the AN area aren't necessarily informative. You would need to look at whether those edits increased or decreased the drama, added to or removed from the quantitative information as opposed to opinions, were accompanied by edits to user talk pages to elicit information or calm feelings, etc. It's very difficult to reduce to a simple ratio, although when a candidate has 100 article edits and 10000 noticeboard edits it becomes pretty clear.

I do agree with you though, article-building and collaboration are very important. That's why I combined the page/talkpage counts, to look at "works well with others" and did the family summaries for "contributes widely in a particular area".

If you don't wish to have your listing appearing on the page, go ahead and comment it out. I go by the simple rule that someone who asks for others to be listed, gets listed - but it's your preference. I'd rather that 600 editors would ask to be in the list and I had some magic genie to run them all. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride... :) Franamax (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I was afraid I'd have to do that myself :-) Yes, I understand well the pitfalls of editcountitis, but trends are already demonstrated in the little bit I've done so far. In terms of looking for balanced editing, I think this works as a proxy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

re: Flight 19

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 was just looking at that. I think we now only have /archive1 and /archive2. The links seems to all work okay. The problem was Moni creating /Archive2/archive1 and /Archive2/archive2 but that's now sorted and they've now been deleted. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Blah blah poop. --Moni3 (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Chuckle. By the way, did Sandy ever mention that I missed something different out in each of the first twenty or so FACs I archived? A remarkably impressive display of absentmindedness/incompetence, even if I say so myself :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I got to learn when nobody (except Gimmetrow) was watching, when he and I built all the articlehistories. Gimme knows where the bodies are buried. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawing FAC

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)

Cyclone, pls add a note on the FAC, and I'll get to it when I archive on Saturday; good luck ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Interview (part 2)

In response to the previous edit summary:

1. Noted.
2. I did. Neither his position as editor-in-chief nor the slowness of his responses should prevent us from conducting an interview. If he wants to use it once it's done, great! If not, oh well!
3. Except for #1, I presume. New list posted here. Assuming you actually want to.

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 05:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Cryptic, I'm sorry this got lost in my talk page. I've been swamped lately, and it's not likely I'll be able to carve extra time away from real life for this until after the holidays. I'm glad to see others pitching in to help with the Signpost ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse

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)

I moved that to talk (Sandy, please let me know if you want me to revert myself). That FAC has gotten so off-track that I'm afraid to review the article. Karanacs (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Karanacs—I tried to move that bit to talk earlier, but the incredible load time for a 300kb page combined with four edit conflicts eventually made me throw up my hands. What a nightmare. Maralia (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a ton of personal commentary on that FAC, and Sandy. of you are okay with it, I will happily take the time to move it all to the FAC talk page. Karanacs (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have frequently dropped hints, but perhaps I should be more direct. It is diffiult for me (as the closer) when the community doesn't deal with the scuffles that (rarely) happen at FAC, as that obligates me to engage (as I've had to several times on that FAC) when I should be a neutral observor. I've delegated (at various times, and I may have forgotten someone) FAC tasks to Karanacs, Elcobbola, Moni3, Maralia, Woody, Roger Davies and Dweller: if any of you think commentary on that FAC would be better moved to talk, you are welcome to do it. If you move anything to talk, though, remember that the links to the talk tab don't show when you're viewing the entire FAC page, so links need to be left, and then those links have to be updated when the FAC closes and moves to archive (in other words, it's a lot of work to have to move commentary ... more desirable would be if reviewers would confine their long commentary to article or FAC talk, rather than overwhelming the FAC with off-topic discussion). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I missed noticing this particular problem until it got totally out of hand—never in my wildest dreams would I have imagined such drama at a Casliber FAC. It shouldn't be your responsibility, but you certainly watch them all much more closely than anyone else; maybe drop a note here for your talk-page watchers whenever you notice something unsavory brewing? I'm sure that a mere 'help needed at X' or 'could someone look at Y' would draw a few sets of fresh eyes. Maralia (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I can set up something, along with the whole "WikiLife Without Marskell" Chapter, that will work to notice admins when attention is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Ottava: I'd like to extend my sincere appreciation for your support of this article, into which I have put a considerable amount of effort. And let me assure you that you are not the first to have difficulties with Mattisse's attitude. See, for example, here, or see any of my "commentary on Mattisse's commentary" (to paraphrase Karanacs) about your support. By the way, I realize that our initial encounter was less than pleasant, so I hope that my defense of your FAC support, in addition to being a sincere contribution to the FAC discussion, might serve to help make up for my poor response to you on my talk. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

99% of the time I'm grumpy. The other 1% of the time I am overly protective. I supported the article because I've watched it grow. I care more about promoting lots of effort and the desire to improve things to an encyclopedic state than I actually bother with some of the trivial disputes. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Same here. Although I've been with the article only since June of this year, I feel pretty much the same way. It has certainly come a long, long way from its state at the previous FAC. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:43, 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)

Help with GA

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)

Hi Sandy. I'm the GA reviewer on this particular article, and it would be great if you stopped by. I guess I thought from reading Ealdgyth's comments at numerous FAC's that I was in the right, butwho knows. If you could drop a comment on the review page, it would be fantastic. Dana boomer (talk) 19:38, 22 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)

Okay, I have done as you suggested. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 02:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Rick Bot temporarily offline

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)

Looks like it will be about a week. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Faster than expected - it's back already! -- Rick Block (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

FCDW

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)

If it's too much trouble, don't worry: Awadewit also knows someone who can do it. But all that is needed is to follow the mold at WP:FCDW/OtherWikis, and put in some basic data; you don't really have to be involved. I just read the Spanish pages and gathered the basics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, it's in my sandbox. See if there's anything else you'd like me to find out :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

That's fine (speedy, too :-) Would you mind adding it to WP:FCDW/OtherWikis? We'll eventually synthesize and prosify the whole shebang. Thank you, you're a dear (does that statement make you a FAC cabalist?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably :) Graham Colm ^Talk 21:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Same to 'ya :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. I've tried not to make any subjective assessments ;) Let me know if you need anything else. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

habit reversal edits

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)

SS Ohioan

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)

Will look in a bit (but I'm on IE7 and I don't see a white space) because I'm still processing FAC closes. An option is to move it up within its section, rather than leaving it at the bottom, where it appears to belong to the next section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Passing along the wikilove

--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.

Joel Selwood FA nomination

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)

GA is unrelated to FAC, and attention at peer review is variable depending on who shows up: the standard at FAC is compliance with MoS and correct grammar. If previous reviewers missed the hyphenation problems, they still need to be sorted. The infobox is huge and dominates the article with too much information, but that isn't a FAC issue (it's a personal pet peeve). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:SandyGeorgia#Arbcom_candidates

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)

Not yet, please: it's still very much a work in progress, and I need to revamp it a bit. I will get to that today or tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Pong, ping

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)

You have a goofy IP: I have no e-mail :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You do now. Ceoil (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Acting in contentious articles

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)

Let's take it slow, try to avoid any more drama (there's enough of that at WT:FAC). Everyone gets one false start :-) I left him a personal note, and hopefully the message is clear; let's stay on topic and avoid commenting on people. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I had another general thought (for your feedback): before penalizing/labeling a FAC with a tag (which may chase off previously uninvolved reviewers), we should exhaust the options of addressing behaviors with the individual editors. Perhaps we would only put a tag on the FAC when we've had to abandon all hope that editor behaviors on the FAC will improve? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If the general idea is to leave a warning tag off of the FAC until, say, the 4th section break or so, then I don't mind it. As I stated on the FAC talk page, FAC regulars policing FACs for bad behavior will be new. I'm just trying to get a feel of process. Since doing nothing hasn't helped much, I figured overreacted will be just as harmful, but I'm not quite sure of the middle way yet. --Moni3 (talk) 03:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concern: it's new territory, which is why I suggest we start slow and hopefully warnings, tags, and such won't become necessary at all (it's a shame we have to even contemplate this). If you see something while I'm not online, though, I trust your judgement ... our guide should be what is best for encouraging article review, keep the endgame in sight, which is a well reviewed article. If the FAC is managed better this time, there shouldn't be a need for section breaks anyway: long lists should go elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

RfA candidate

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)

Editor review

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)

Hello

Thought I'd say "hello". Night night Sandy. --Dweller (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Dramatic move

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)

I agree a good prune will probably help calm things. --Dweller (talk) 11:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read WT:FAC yet today, but that sounds like a possibility worth considering. Unless more of same will continue. I'd like to hear others' thoughts and catch up before deciding. I'm also troubled that I spent five hours reading through FAC yesterday and found very few FACs that I can close, so something needs to be done about this drama, as it seems to be interfering with reviews now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I've looked over WT:FAC now. The conversations about Context and Notability are important, but every thread started seems to derail into distractions and off-topic MDD drama (as last time we tried to discuss issues, there were derailments into Samuel Johnson drama), so a fresh start might allow for refocusing on the issues ... but not if the derailments continue. If others agree, I'll archive it all, but I want to be sure that all of the Context/Notability topics end up in one Archive, so they can be easily found in the future. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what practical outcome can be reached by rehashing the disastrous first FAC for MDD. It does not seem to help the FAC now, nor the article, nor the feelings of the editors involved; Mattisse has stated she "prefer(s) hostility" per her talk page, and aside from Casliber's puzzling posting of the chronology of events, none of the other editors seem to be upset about it. The only good I can see from referencing it, is to ensure it does not happen again. Unless there is some good to the project that can come from going over this time and again, it's bordering on disruptive. The only thing I can see to do to get over this is let the first FAC for MDD die, and we become more vigilant at watching FACs coming up to remove personal commentary, rude replies, etc. --Moni3 (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the current concern is that the disruption has moved to WT:FAC, where other discussions are derailed to MDD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I'll assume I was being unclear (it happens), but discussing the constant referencing to MDD on the FAC talk page was what I was trying to address. Gangbusters for me. --Moni3 (talk) 14:15, 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)

The context discussion at the end of the page seems unblemished, but I'm not sure what purpose most of the rest is serving other than a venue for people to poke each other with sticks. I'd archive it all apart from the context discussion (and the multilingual bit if you still need that) and encourage people not to accept the sticks when they are handed out. Yomangani^talk 14:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with that, too. I've started to watch all the FACs for turns of snippiness and have put a few on watch as a result. I don't know if it would benefit the FAC to announce on the talk page that FAC X is being watched for issues of civility, or just nudge you on yours at some point. What would you prefer? --Moni3 (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's play it by ear; we risk making a mountain out of a molehill and giving undue attention where not needed, when we've really only had three very difficult FACs in a year (RCCs, Johnson and MDD). Let's talk if something comes up? I plan to discuss RCC before it comes back again with Nancy and put something in place. (Actually, I planned to do that last time, but she archived the peer review and re-nommed the article in one fell swoop, catching me by surprise when I thought work was still underway.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 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:

• 60 Mattisse (24%)
• 34 Awadewit (14%, attempting to discuss WIAFA proposed changes)
• 30 SandyGeorgia (12%, including several posts to archive)
• 22 Wrad (9%)

and no one else with more than about 10. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been unwell. I promise to return to being more verbose once I'm better. --Dweller (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Question about FAR

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)

We've already dealt with almost all of those articles (see Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles); there are very few BPs left that haven't been reviewed. A separate process now is too late, and I daresay Marskell handled the older FAs quite well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, when BP changed to FA years ago, there was a vote on the BP articles that had not yet gone through the FAC process as it was then. Those that passed became FA, those that did not were removed. In the ArticleHistory template, the BP articles removed at that time are even recorded as a failed FAC. There are very few FAs left with only this BP pass. Gimmetrow 15:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Transclusion problem

I'm not seeing Wikipedia:Fac#Battle_of_Lipantitl.C3.A1n transcluding properly... --Dweller (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that earlier and forgot to look at it. Fixed now; was missing a closing noinclude tag after the tools. Maralia (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That was me, when I added the tools :-) I've been staring at it, trying to find the error, since Maralia got to it while I was staring ! Thanks, Maralia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Good mistake. I only looked at it because I thought it hadn't had a review yet! --Dweller (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Marskell?

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)

User talk:SandyGeorgia#FAR and away. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I take it he's taking an indefinite wiki-break. I hope he's in good health, and everything's fine. If you're in contact with him please pass along my best wishes. Mike Christie (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Croatia national football team

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)

That's par for the course with CNFT. Image issues from the second and third FACs still (!) haven't been resolved; Fasach Nua and I were called biased and racist for our efforts. Эlcobbola _talk 15:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I did the image check for this article. What did I miss? --Moni3 (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, the images are fine. It's the text I was failing it on. In fact, it was the Lead... I didn't get any further. --Dweller (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not bothering with reviewing it, honestly. I didn't take the level of abuse that Elcobbola or Fasach took, but it was enough to make me decide it wasn't worth the bother. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Seems like I'm in very good company. Although that's reassuring to me, it's a shame for the article. And reflects extremely poorly on the nominator. --Dweller (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I have a thick skin. I'll keep plugging at it. It would be an embarrassment to have an article with such substandard prose as a FA. Why can't they get a good solid copyedit from a native English speaker?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

1 year

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)

Thanks for the nice note ... although I didn't begin working at FAC until December, and I almost immediately took a break in exchange for a delightful sidetrip to ArbCom, and didn't resume FAC work until late January ... so not really a year :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk page discussion?

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)

Awadewit knows how to thread properly and track and keep up with conversations and responses on FAC, so it's fine to respect whatever her preference is ... she won't let it turn into a dog's dinner, and I've seen her manage very long FAC discussions with no problem ... in the event you all decide to move to talk, just be sure to leave a link. As long as the FAC remains readable, I'm indifferent to whether it goes to talk or stays on FAC: whatever is easiest for the participants. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiDashboard

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)

Doc, you come up with the most interesting stuff (when are you up for a Dispatch?). Interesting. And scary: if I'm reading the purple bar across the top correctly, the dropoff in FAC traffic in the last month has been more dramatic than I thought. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

RNSP

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)

Thanks, Mongo