| Revision as of 21:23, 20 August 2007 editSandyGeorgia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors279,123 edits →More Reagan FAC: yes, but← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:36, 21 August 2007 edit undoGiggy (talk | contribs)Rollbackers30,896 edits FARNext edit → | ||
| Line 137: | Line 137: | ||
| ::Sandy is precisely correct (of course), it depends on how big the flaw (or perceived flaw) is and what Raul654 thinks of it. Most articles Sandy supports make it to FA.] 21:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC) | ::Sandy is precisely correct (of course), it depends on how big the flaw (or perceived flaw) is and what Raul654 thinks of it. Most articles Sandy supports make it to FA.] 21:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::But many articles I Oppose also make it :-) ] (]) 21:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC) | :::But many articles I Oppose also make it :-) ] (]) 21:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == FAR == | |||
| ] has been nominated for a ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are ]. Reviewers' concerns are ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:36, 21 August 2007
If you want me to look at an article, please provide the link.
I usually respond on my talk page, so watch the page for my reply.
To leave me a message, click here.
I kind of need some help
Hey girl I see you have the same problems I do sometimesdo you think you could help me out with with my dispute http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/The_13th_4postle against JRSP and FlankerCarlitos 17:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Improving Asperger syndrome article
I just quickly scanned Asperger syndrome and you're right, it could stand improvement. I'm afraid I won't have time in the next few weeks to do anything major. Do you have anything in mind? I could just write a quick review of the whole page, sort of a kneejerk reaction, if you think that'd help, and put it on the talk page.
Before doing major work, what do you see as the priorities in this area? I just now looked at (and reorganized a bit) List of autism-related topics. Wow. It's enormous. Eubulides 18:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- I REALLY do see your point, but at the same time, if you are going to tag the article again, you really DO need to explain exactly what inaccuracies you see in the citations etc. I know it is a pain, but "guess the inaccuracy" is a game that could take for ever to play.
- Wherever there are inaccuracies I am 100% with you, but I have a slow connection, clinical shock ($800!!! YIKES!!) and houseguests at the weekend, so help me out here and specify the inaccuracies?? --Zeraeph 00:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Task force for WP:MED
I'm hoping for some help from someone familiar with WikiProject Medicine. I would like to create a Pregnancy and Childbirth Task Force. Does WP:MED have any task forces? Would I be better off creating a child (no pun intended) WikiProject? I'd rather avoid the bureaucracy involved in that if possible. I would appreciate any guidance. If you know of a person better able to help me, feel free to steer me that way. (I first tried User:Eubulides, who suggested I contact you.) Thanks! --Ginkgo100 21:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Cleveland 2
Hi Sandy. Any last comments on this one? Marskell 15:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Ronald Reagan edits
Hey thanks Sandy for helping out the Ronald Reagan article (again haha). You always do the little "behind the scenes" edits that are much appreciated by me and many other. Best, Happyme22 18:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- My pleasure. You know, if you want to get an article about a conservative featured on Wiki, it has to be more perfect than a liberal article. You really should fix the MOS stuff before bringing it to FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- My mistake, but I think this FAC is going to work! I just wanted to thank you again for registering a 'support' on the Reagan FAC page, for all of your tireless efforts to fix the article due to the MOS. Best, Happyme22 18:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Sandbox goof
Sorry, Sandy! I wasn't planning to "promote" Fun Home myself — I was just trying to see if I could get {{ArticleHistory}} to work to combine the existing GA, peer review and FAC templates on Talk:Fun Home. I eventually decided to wait until the FAC closes, but didn't want to lose the info about the "oldid" fields, so thought I'd keep it in my sandbox for now. I didn't realize that would cause problems.
Does the FAC closrue bot automatically change the templates to {{ArticleHistory}}? If so, that's cool. If not, I'll make the necessary changes after the FAC closes (however it closes). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- No problem! Yes, the bot updates articlehistory, and more (there's archiving of the FAC, clearing the old fac file, updating Project assessments, and tagging the FAC closed); best to let the bot do it all once the FAC closes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I think I was unclear: what I meant to ask is if the talk page doesn't have the {{ArticleHistory}} template on it, but does have things like {{GA}} and {{peerreview}}, will the bot replace those with {{ArticleHistory}}? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- The bot will get them all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Cool. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- The bot will get them all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I think I was unclear: what I meant to ask is if the talk page doesn't have the {{ArticleHistory}} template on it, but does have things like {{GA}} and {{peerreview}}, will the bot replace those with {{ArticleHistory}}? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Paracetamol
Hi Sandy! Quick question—what do you think of an unofficial review (perhaps posted at WT:PHARM) of paracetamol? It's in pretty bad shape, and we at the project (ooh! cabal!) would like to avoid FAR :P Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'll help if you initiate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm working on it piecemeal, doing some very minor things; will probably be mostly off-wiki over the next few days, but I'll keep going whenever I get a chance (hey, the nights are young :) Perhaps we (and others) could work on a Sandbox version? Spam over at WP:CLINMED? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Blanking frenzy at the Alexithymia page
Sandy, do you know of a way to stop Zeraeph from going on a "blanking rage" on the alexithymia page? I deleted an unreferenced sentence of his (the contentious one) and in return Zeraeph is blanking huge portions of the reference paragraphs as "not fully referenced". Is there some rule against that kind of blanking frenzy, or is it a matter of following him and restoring each point he blanks?
PS. I know you've got your hands full with the goings on at the AS page (where you are proposing some very worthwhile corrections!), but thought I'd run it by you. Soulgany101 02:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- I see the article has been protected by an admin, so I'm not going to look further tonight; I'm disgusted enough about what went on at Asperger syndrome, and I'm up to my eyeballs right now editing another article, where I can be of more use. When things get heated, it's time to move on to another area of Wiki for a while. You may know that Zeraeph was upset by a car accident today, so leaving this for another day may be a wise course. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I understand. Maybe Zeraeph was going through something personal. I won't conjecture more but will say I'm pleased that the article was locked from further blanking. BTW, I note that Zeraeph has a problem with the way the references/citations are written, which may account for the blanking. I thought you had fixed most of that? Anyways, I've got nothing more to add to that article, and I think its in pretty good shape.... certainly the most comprehensive and well-referenced effort for that entry to date. Thanks again for all your tidying, I hope your work remains intact. I'm drifting away from that entry now too to work on more productive projects, as I suspect that Zeraeph would try and vandalize any effort at clean-up I attempted. Soulgany101 04:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- On the other hand, maybe he should spend more time trying to fix his own refs rather than expecting you to do it for him? --Zeraeph 04:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Please don't brawl on my talk page; tomorrow's a new, hopefully better day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Editing contibution
Sandy, I appreciated all your valuable editing work on the Alexithymia entry, in particular the concise use of referencing for book references (which I will use in future!).
|
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
| For your huge and selfless contribution in formalizing the references on the Alexithymia page. Soulgany101 10:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC) |
Oh boy
I'm still pretty shakey today, but, after "settling my nerves", with a little "Australian Nerve Tonic" I KNOW I jumped to some conclusions, some of them were remarkably good, but some were...er...UNgood. Thanks for understanding.
I really DID flip at the appearance of surname + date (only) cites. Soulgany101 can be a bit slap happy with things like refs (he's new, and some of the citation formats ARE like crochet wearing boxing gloves). I have tidied up after him before, no problem, I just couldn't understand why he was refusing to explain what was going on to let me do that and was taking some kind of offensive instead.
Of course I now realise I was probably misunderstanding and wiping out the work I asked you to do myself, which I am REALLY sorry about, that must have seemed crazy, but I have honestly never seen citations done that way before.
Anyway, I think you will find that the AS editors have come to terms with your concerns and are happy to discuss them now. --Zeraeph 14:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:MOSBOLD vent
Grrr. I inexplicably like using boldface for trade names when it is IMHO meaningful, i.e. the name under which a drug was first introduced or a distinct formulation (SR/XR). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
"Trickle Down Economics"
Sandy the coverage of Trickle Down Economics in the Reagan article is just fine - what do you think, and why was that user on the FAC page so adamantly oppsed to it? He just didn't like what it said, but he didn't know what to change it to, right? I don't think his opposition is going to have a huge effect, though. Happyme22 00:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- oh, I think folks will come up with anything they can to keep it from being featured :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- I fail to understand Article size consideration (which you stated in its nom). Can you explain what actually is the the limit? Would also appreciate if you take part in this India article related discussion. New sections (Sport, Transport, Media) have not been created keeping in mind Article size limits (but now there seems to be a new dimension to it!?). Your opinions will give some direction to these debates. KnowledgeHegemony 15:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
A few
Does the strikethrough on Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Casablanca (film) mean you're happy with it? Also, there's Spoo up there; I realize the sourcing isn't perfect but it's the canonical example of IAR wrt using usenet posts. Also don't know what to do with Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Sverre of Norway. Cheers, Marskell 13:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Publisher for newspapers
Hi Sandy, got a question for you. I noticed that you added publisher information to many of the citations used in Harold and Inge Marcus Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering. Some of the ones you added were for The Digital Collegian, which, while it is Penn State's student newspaper, it is run independently of the university, much like a local newspaper would. Should Penn State still be listed as the publisher in that case? For example, what would you put for the publisher of the work New York Times? --Spangineer (háblame) 02:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Work vs. Publisher has never been well defined (to me, at least) in the cite templates, so I may have gotten them backwards from the way you're using them in the article. I wouldn't worry too much about what to put; I just wanted something to be there so readers would have an idea where the info came from. I always put newspapers as publisher and don't really know what to do with Work, but I could be doing it wrong, so whatever you want to do ... Saludos, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Battle of Normandy FAR
Further information: ]I just looked at my watchlist for the last time before I am moving (and taking my PC with me). Would it be too great a favour to ask, if I asked you to notify the contributors you meant of this FAR? Thanks :) User:Krator (t c) 20:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- No prob, will do, good luck on the move! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Went well User:Krator (t c) 10:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Asperger Syndrome in Belgium
Now that would be a real nightmare......cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- ohmigosh, you made me fall of my chair !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- But seriously..I typed some stuff on the talk page and was amazed at how much text then appeared. I'm a bit flat out this week but will post an idea on the talk page.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I'm worried that "the path to hell is paved with good intentions", and they don't seem to understand how bad it is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Maletagate, valijagate
Sandy, you are right. Most Argentinian newspapers are talking about the valijagate now. I think it should be best to redirect then. --Periergeia 09:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
More Reagan FAC
Hi again Sandy. Sorry to keep bothering you about the Reagan FAC, but I have to get your opinion. There are 10 supports and really only one serious opposition (from User:Wikipediatoperfection). I was reading on the WP:FAC page and it said that the editors need to come to a concensus. Does this mean that even with 10 suports the article stands a good chance of not passing because of Wikipediatoperfection and he/she is still thinking that there is POV everywhere? Happyme22 21:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- That really depends on how Raul reads the consensus and whether he deems the remaining opposes are significant. All you can do is respond to the best of your ability to the opposes, and wait to see how it develops. The POV-pushing Opposes are apparent, but that's what an FA will attract; it's up to Raul to decide if they're worthy. I think the best suggestion so far has been that the article should use more scholarly sources; if I were you, I'd go get those recommended books and start using them for citations. I'd help, but I'm up to my eyeballs trying so salvage Asperger syndrome, which is a trainwreck featured article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sandy is precisely correct (of course), it depends on how big the flaw (or perceived flaw) is and what Raul654 thinks of it. Most articles Sandy supports make it to FA.Rlevse 21:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- But many articles I Oppose also make it :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sandy is precisely correct (of course), it depends on how big the flaw (or perceived flaw) is and what Raul654 thinks of it. Most articles Sandy supports make it to FA.Rlevse 21:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
FAR
Asperger syndrome has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Giggy 01:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)