User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch45

FAC needs withdrawing

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Electronic waste for anyone who's familiar with how to do it :) Gary King (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Took care of it, thanks. Maralia (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Maralia; I just finished my watchlist and I must go prepare my cutesy custom-made treat bags for the neighborhood children. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ubuntu – not significant contributor. Article is not in terrible shape but a lot of information should be referenced. Gary King (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Was just looking at that ... will probably withdrawn unless ThumperWard comes in and says it's ready. Thanks, Gary ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

RCC FAC 2

Sandy, if it makes things easier for you, I do not have a problem with a restart. I am afraid that you and Raul will think that some items are still unresolved when they have substantially been resolved already and opposers have not struck comments or continue to object even after their comments were addressed or their position found to lack scholarly references to support their personal views on the Church. [1] NancyHeise ^talk 15:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Typo in R&J's first section

Just because the alternative would be extremely embarrassing, I'd like to point out the typo was introduced earlier today by an editor addressing issues brought up at FAC. :-) --Xover (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know ... was a bit worrying, although I didn't have time to step back through diffs to find the origin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Navboxes

Sandy, I hope you can help with a couple of MOS questions in areas that don't usually come up in articles I edit. I'm still working with Petergans on Acid dissociation constant, and I had a question about WP:ACCESS. There are two navboxes in the top of the article; I see an embedded comment from you about one saying that it should be a template. Is the issue that WP:ACCESS specifies a sequence for items in the lead, and that navboxes should precede the introductory text? Is that what you mean by "properly placed"? Why should it be a template in that case (other than to simplify editing)? And generally, is there any layout guide for navboxes? There are two navboxes in this article; I don't see anything in WP:LAYOUT about navboxes outside the lead, so is there any guideline for that? Thanks for any help. Mike Christie (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you check at the talk page of WP:ACCESS? I seem to recall asking there, and Graham saying he had no problem on his screenreader, but I could be wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer -- you did ask, here, and Graham made a couple of suggestions. I'll pass those along to Petergans. Mike Christie (talk) 22:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike; it's hard for me to keep all the different FACs straight :-) If you're ever unsure, just ask at the talk page of ACCESS, and Graham (who uses a screen reader) will weigh in. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: FAC withdrawn

I called for a peer review and corrected what it said. Isn't that collaborating to the article enough? Just curious. --Fixman^{Praise me} 22:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

From the WP:FAC instructions:

Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination.

Please make sure other editors agree the article is ready before nominating. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy SandyGeorgia/arch45's Day!

User:SandyGeorgia/arch45 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as SandyGeorgia/arch45's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear SandyGeorgia/arch45! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:EVula/Userboxes/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:ArticleHistory error

Hi Sandy, I notice that User:Ms2ger has added a brief description of the causes of errors to Category:ArticleHistory error with the result that it is no longer a redlink. I don't know whether you think this is more or less useful. My first reaction would be that people who don't know how to fix the errors will no longer be even less likely notice the error category (as it's not redlnked), while those who check the category to find errors already know how to fix them. Dr pda (talk) 02:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why that was done, I also don't know what he's doing to the actual template, and I thought the redlink was useful. I also don't know if I can undo it, since I don't understand it. Summary: no, I'm not happy with it, and I do wish editors would discuss with Gimme or on the talk before making these adjustments. I also have no idea what the documentation on that page is trying to say. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The changes to the template do not affect its functioning, there are just a set of new standard CSS classes called mbox-something which are designed to standardise talk page templates (i.e. size, colour etc). To convert the category back to a redlink the category page would need to be deleted, which requires an admin. What the documentation is trying to say is that different types of errors appear under different types of "sortkey" in the category, i.e. under $ if there's a missing actionX, or under # if there's a currentstatus but no action1, or without any sortkey for errors in all the other parameters. For example when I looked at the category yesterday, it looked like

$

• Talk:Dog

#

• Talk:Whale shark

because of the kinds of errors the two articles had. The documentation could possibly be moved to Category talk:ArticleHistory error or Template:ArticleHistory/doc if it is needed.Dr pda (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for filling me in ... looks like Gimme fixed it. I much prefer the redlink, as it may get the attention of some editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

dash it

Hi Sandy. Just come out of heavy client work all day long. So much for the day of rest. "East–west" is a relationship of opposites, so an en dash is appropriate. Tony (talk) 09:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Vithoba

Hi Sandy, a query: Was Vithoba Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vithoba/archive1 failed because of a lack of consensus or because the nominators were not convinced on the reliability of sources? I'm considering it upgraded to A-class, and need this input. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The sourcing issues were never really examined as far as I can tell; I archived it because of the combination of prose issues, unclear consensus on sourcing, and a long time on FAC without gaining significant support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sandy; wanted to clarify something. Had there been no other issues with prose, would you have passed it, or would you have still failed it based on the unclear consensus on sourcing and long time on FAC without gaining support? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to deal in hypotheticals; usually when sourcing issues aren't clear, nominations don't gain consensus to promote from reviewers, as reviewers sometimes wait for clarity on sourcing before supporting. I archive, typically, when there is little support but a growing list of unresolved issues: in this case, prose, sourcing and Ling.Nut's other concerns. Some of the responses to the sourcing concerns weren't convincing (for example, saying other articles use a source doesn't make that source reliable). I suggest review of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for the wrong arguments to make about sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I personally agree with your comments too; when reading through it, I felt the same way about at least a couple of the responses to sourcing concerns. Anyway, cheers for the prompt response. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

That was my bad. I've removed the nomination. Ceran →(sing→see →scribe) 14:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Home

Finally. Thankfully. Luckily, I"m pretty caught up at FAC. Now to go check on the house and the horsies. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Review request

Sandy, if you get a chance, would you mind looking over Christmas 1994 nor'easter for WP:ACCESS/MOS issues that I might be missing? I'd really appreciate it. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see anything obvious, but I'm not sure where MoS stands lately on linking of states, might want to check that, since I'm finding it hard to keep up with the ongoing MoS changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, considering Yellow Evan's block log, why are you opposing a FAC based an edit war with him? [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yellow Evan has a long history of disruption and edit warring. Even though his edits might have been destructive, and Cyclonebiskit was reverting in good-faith, his edit warring would still cause the instability that WIAFA prohibits. However, please let me know if I'm completely misunderstanding 1E, and I'll promptly change my vote. Also, thank you for checking that article; I'm not aware of any MoS guideline that advises against state links. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of Yellow Evan's history (I filed one of the 3RR reports); 1e should not be used against an article when an editor with a history of disruption briefly caused an issue there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, but since Evan's creation of the article, it has undergone on-and-off, sometimes constant, dispute and edit warring. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

ah, you mean there's more to the story :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The history shows quite a bit of reverting/warring/dispute. Disagreements about image alignments, as an example, existed in late September, and there was initially a dispute regarding the article's fate. There were also additions of original research, and given Evan's tendency to own articles, I'm concerned that such events might occur in the future. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

From what I've seen of his editing, that would mean that his editing issues should be dealt with rather than the article being affected. We shouldn't allow a tendentious editor to prevent an article from being the best it can be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, very true. Yellow Evan has been blocked several times (as you saw from his block log), although I'm wary of blocking him indefinitely. Persistent editing disruption is indeed a valid reason for blocking, but he seems to want to contribute in good-faith. Do you have any suggestions? I really hate to oppose an FAC for the reasons that I did. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to best handle it; it's just that my memory was jogged to his behavior when we were dealing with the hurricane main template. It seems like he's disrupting hurricanes a lot, and it's unfortunate if articles are being affected. Maybe if it continues some kind of editing restrictions would be in order; I don't know how much worse it's gotten, but I did see he's been blocked two more times. That's four blocks in very short order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Burger King legal issues

I believe I have addressed your comments on the FAC. Could you review my changes and replies?

Thanks for commenting,

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 02:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Important question

According to his edit history, TomStar81 (talk · contribs) has an article up on FAC that failed a short time back. Did you notice any difference in his behavior after the FAC concluded? 68.72.221.24 (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I've known Tom for quite some time (see my barnstar page) and have been through several FAC archive cycles with him. As far as I could tell, he reacted no differently to this one than usual, and FACs that didn't pass didn't seeem to trouble him much. He usually came back the next time with the same good cheer as usual. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been an avid reader of his material for some time now, his abrupt depature has caught several people off guard. I was trying to see if he had left any subtle hints about his mental state before leaving, and thought you may have seen something abnormal since you closed his last FAC. Oh well, the search goes on... 68.72.221.24 (talk) 03:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Tom explained in detail his reasons for taking a break. Did you even read his userpage, or the FAC you refer to? This entire line of inquiry is extremely distasteful. Maralia (talk) 03:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Have to agree with Maralia. He said enough there, the burden of keeping up at school seemed to be catching up to him, and there were other personal issues. Other than that, he seemed to be himself from everything I could see. I think this conversation has gone far enough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Going further back into his contribution history I can see that now. I was just quietly hoping that somewhere maybe he had hinted at the personal problems so that we could have leant some encouragement instead of finding out after the fact that he was under so much stress. By chance would any of you know him personally? I would like to offer my best wishes for his safe return, but the template on his talk page indicates its locked, and as an anon my ability to edit such pages is limited to using templates so others may add my words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.72.221.24 (talk) 03:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

His userpage is protected; his talk page is not. You should be able to post there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, his talk page is semi-protected. You will have to register an account to leave him a message. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No it's not, see this...Roger copied over the pp template too. You should be able to leave a message. :) —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 04:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church FAC idea

Sorry if it's barking up the wrong tree, but we ought really to think of some way to address this problem. It's a systemic failure if FAC which should be thorough and rigorous falls down when it's, erm, thorough and rigorous. --Dweller (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, are you recused from judging the consensus on this article again? It's been open a long time and still seems very much like the last FAC, so I am personally curious as to what is being looked for in the FAC comments to close this one. I realize that you likely can't answer the question, but just on the off chance that I catch you in a sleep-deprived moment I thought I'd ask ;) Karanacs (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I like the way you phrased that: I'm always sleep-deprived lately :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Even with no more baseball to keep you up late? How will you survive the next few months? Karanacs (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm hoping Daylight Savings Time will help :-) And I've been known to put extraordinary effort into my Christmas decorations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think maybe just getting used to long FACs for really important/vital-type articles we may just have to do, as long as everyone strikes comments etc..At least mine seems to be (sort of) heading in the right direction now. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

<sigh> ... I'll spend some more time trying to clean it up again, but I'm not going to give up on the idea that editors will learn to use the talk page and thread their comments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Allright, I did some cleanup at MDD, but it's certainly a Dog's Dinner. On the first two RCC FACs, I spent close to 24/7 just re-threading and adding sigs, and that paid off (their FACs are clean now), so there's hope ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Netley Abbey

Netley Abbey image review completed. Awadewit (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Dispatches

Hi, regarding the Did You Know dispatch, do you know when it's due, so I can have a reasonable deadline? Thanks. – How do you turn this on (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Check the FCDW talk page :-) I hope that's good enough. Best wishes, – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll get to that after the Nov 4 mainpage thing dies down. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Mac

SandyGeorgia, I noticed this thread - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tired of cleaning up after Mac - at ANI and thought of you and AnnieTigerChucky. I've worked with Mac some, but I'm not sure I've been of much help. :\ Anyways, I suspect that you are busy, but if you have time, could you take a look? Thanks, --Iamunknown 01:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

did we...

really decide that semi-protection was the way to go?! Oh well. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't my understanding in the discussions at TFA/R and at AN/I, but ... whatever. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The deal was that it was to remain at semi unless there was vandalism or edit warring. (Same with the other 3 pages.) I've left a message with YellowMonkey as well, but it may be time to think about returning to full protection, as that last vandalism was long planned. Perhaps someone should set up an editable subpage for the talk pages so that new/unregistered accounts can comment on the articles, though. Risker (talk) 07:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that it would be reduced to semi until they actually went live on the main page. C'mon, it's obvious these are going to get hit; also that it's not good, today of all days, for people to come across these pages in a vandalized state. Where would we go to seek consensus on full protection: it's gonna be when, not if, surely. I'm on Pacific time, so am up for a while. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The trick is in the unless clause: there's no chance that vandalism isn't going to be constantly heavy ... and obnoxious. So our readers will get to see "nigger shit". I've got to go to bed: by the time I wake up, plenty of damage will be done, and regular editors will run out of reverts of semi-legit edits, which will also put less-than-quality articles forward for the world. Frustrating change of events. But I've got to go to bed: glad Jbmurray can be around for a bit. I don't know if Raul is still up (he's on EST), so you may have to fight that one out alone at AN/I, or maybe at Talk:Main page. I think it's ridiculous. And discouraging. I'd rather unwatch the whole lot then see "nigger shit" shown to our readers on election day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm off for a bath. When I get back, if there's been significant vandalism, I'm full protecting. --jbmurray (talk • contribs)

It's the edit warring that's breaking out now that is worrying me more. I might well have protected by the time you get back. Risker (talk) 07:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see you just fully protected one of them. I support that. (Haven't even gone for my bath!) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've got to get some automated vandal tools: takes me too long to deal with them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Same here! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If anybody has time, Yahoo links go dead, this citation should be replaced: [3] 'Night ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Question

Have you considered adding "GA is not a prerequisite for FA" to WP:WIAFA or Wikipedia:Featured article advice? Just askin'. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It may be worth considering, but this is the first time I've seen it come up in a very long time ... don't know if it's needed ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Why single out GA as not being a prerequisite? Peer review isn't a prerequisite either. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Because reviewers do bring it up from time to time...actually they bring up peer review too, though not so much. (maybe something like desirable but not necessary) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If anything needs to be added, why not a blanket "there are no prerequisites for FA, although ..."? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Current events

“I wonder if Chávez can stop referring to the United States with such hatred, if only for a few days,” said Lucy Martínez, 44, a teacher at a primary school in Petare. “It would be nice to get a break from that.” Saw this, thought of you. Still high as a kite. I'll come back to work in a few days once I feel like I'm not part of the news. --Moni3 (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Richardson

Sandy, I ask you this because you have used databases to find information on Johnson. I was wondering if you could (if you have any time) look up anything on Samuel Richardson having Parkinson's. Quite a few biographers pick up on the idea. I've found two works (Israel Wechsler's Clinical Neurology and H. Houston Merritt's A Textbook of Neurology) that have been used in part of the biographical diagnosis. However, its hard to find clinical works that discuss such things. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be out all afternoon, but I'll (try to remember to) work on it tonight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

PS, if you're in a hurry, Eubulides (talk · contribs) or Tim Vickers (talk · contribs) are more likely to have better journal access than I do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Scheuer JL, Bowman JE (1994). "The health of the novelist and printer Samuel Richardson (1689-1761): a correlation of documentary and skeletal evidence". Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 87 (6): 352–5. PMC 1294567. PMID 8046708. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

• Shapin S (2003). "Trusting George Cheyne: scientific expertise, common sense, and moral authority in early eighteenth-century dietetic medicine". Bulletin of the history of medicine. 77 (2): 263–97. PMID 12955961.

I don't know how good these may be and I can't access all of them, leery of non-medical (literature) sources: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I just needed something to chew around a bit as I seek out the next biography to finish working on. You always seem to know how to find interesting medical related articles. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No magic here: I just searched PubMed and scholar.google.com SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Group (mathematics)

re. this - I wasn't aware the article/image was at FAC at the time, and only found out this yesterday when someone started attacking me on Commons over it. See here. Giggy (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not hard to see why Elcobbola gave up. Thanks for letting me know, Giggy: I become more and more disenchanted with the interaction with sibling projects. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Verily, I noticed the image when reviewing the FAC. I didn't mention the cube because I initially assumed, as the image is featured, that the issue was merely faulty understanding on my part. Indeed, that is why I only raised the question at the Commons village pump instead of initiating a deletion discussion. When Giggy (appropriately and innocently) opened the deletion discussion, I became involved there and forgot to make note at the FAC. That was my omission; apologies to Giggy for any and all undue flak and abuse. I have no idea about the shenanigans/conspiracies/etc. to which the Johnny-come-lately editors are referring; I've unwatched that circus. Эlcobbola _talk 01:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see you, Ec :-) That's one ugly mess over there. I'm really sorry if my innocent comment on Raul's page set any of that in motion. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Template page created in my userspace

Transcluding this will henceforth become my first step in attempting to chill things at FACs. --Dweller (talk) 13:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I put the coding in the edit summary. --Dweller (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Multiple FACs

The FAC for Third Battle of Kharkov does have a support, and nobody really has commented on it since then. If that's not enough support (well, it's not enough to pass, but I think it sends a signal that there not be a lot of obvious things people can point out that are wrong with the article), I will withdraw the new nomination. Thanks! JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for pointing out those pages. Most of the cases should be isolated; I fixed the section headers (I didn't notice that some of the words were capitalized), and in regards to the footnotes sometimes I missed some if I reused them or not (there are over 90 footnotes, so sometimes I can't keep track of them all!). Nevertheless, everything you've gone over my talk page should be fixed by tonight. Thanks! JonCatalán^(Talk) 07:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

When you have a lot of refs, the way to find repeats that you missed is to grab the printable version, put it in Excel, edit replace out the gobble-dy-gook before each citation, and sort. Voila, repeats show up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I forgot; you may withdraw the Battle of Khafji nomination if you'd like. I will renominate it when Kharkov's is finished. Thank you. JonCatalán^(Talk) 07:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Pittsburgh Penguins

Hey Sandy, what formatting were you referring to? Thanks, Grsz^{11 →Review!} 02:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's a sample of two citations (as displayed by my user prefs):

^ Sager, Joe (2008-02-26). "Gill brings physical presence to Pens", Pittsburgh Penguins. Retrieved on 2008-09-29.

^ Sager, Joe (June 23, 2008). "Penguins Add Size, Skill And Depth at Draft". Pittsburgh Penguins. Retrieved on October 21, 2008.

Some dates are unlinked ISO, others are linked; some accessdates are unlinked ISO, others are linked dates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as the linking goes, it's a template issue that I've asked about before, only to be linked to a discussion that has produced nothing. It's disappointing. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 03:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Tell me how you want the citations to appear, and I'll show you some samples of how to do it. Do you want unlinked Month day, year ? Few people working on the citation templates understand how to do it or spend a lot of time actually citing articles, but I'll be glad to show you some samples of how to achieve whichever format you want to use. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well like those two for example. The first is a Cite news and it links, while the second is a Cite web that correctly, doesn't link. Per the MOS, no dates should be linked, even in references, correct? Grsz^{11 →Review!} 03:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The citation templates are inconsistent, and the people who work on them don't get it. Again, if you want me to show you how to fix them, with samples, tell me what date format you're using and I'll leave some sample edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, if Cite news works, I'd like it all to be consistent with that, as it seems a petty issue to fail over. So if there is a way to prevent the Cite webs from linking, I guess that's what I need. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 03:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be easiest to use the YYYY-MM-DD, as most of them are fine like that already. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 03:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I just checked WP:MOSDATE (which changes by the day), and it says:

• YYYY-MM-DD style dates (1976-05-31) are uncommon in English prose, and should not be used within sentences. However, they may be useful in long lists and tables for conciseness. (If the only purpose why they are used in a particular table is ease of comparison, consider using 1 November 2008.) Because some perceive dates in that style to be in conformance with the current ISO 8601 standard, that format should never be used for a date that is not in the (proleptic) Gregorian calendar, nor for any year outside the range 1583 through 9999.

A FAC doesn't fail over date formatting: I'm only offering to teach you how to do it correctly, since the people working on the cite templates don't get them right, they're inconsistent, and they're constantly changing. I recommend formttting all your dates as unlinked Month day, year. Would you like for me to do a few samples? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Samples: consistently delinked dates in the month day, year format, whether in cite news or cite web. Results in this:

^ Rossi, Rob (December 7, 2007). "Penguins assign Recchi to minors". Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Retrieved on October 23, 2008.

^ Associated Press (December 8, 2007). "Thrashers claim veteran forward Mark Recchi", ESPN. Retrieved on October 23, 2008.

^ "Pens acquire Hossa, Dupuis from Atlanta". Pittsburgh Penguins (February 26, 2008). Retrieved on September 29, 2008.

^ Sager, Joe (February 26, 2008). "Gill brings physical presence to Pens", Pittsburgh Penguins. Retrieved on September 29, 2008.

^ Sager, Joe (June 23, 2008). "Penguins Add Size, Skill And Depth at Draft". Pittsburgh Penguins. Retrieved on October 21, 2008.

^ "2007–08 Schedule". Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Penguins. Retrieved on September 26, 2008.

Revert if that's not what you want. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Any clue why 39 won't format right? Grsz^{11 →Review!} 04:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

November 11 FA

Replied to a bit of an old discussion, so dropping a post here. See here if you have time. Carcharoth (talk) 05:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to have segued into a FAR saves thingy. I'm now hunting for a list of FAR saves. See here and here, in case you are interested. Carcharoth (talk) 06:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the Shrine of Remembrance (anyone can do that), and anyone can review the FAR archives ... it's just elbow grease. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have the elbow grease ready. Just waiting for comments from Marskell first (he is the right person to ask right - I thought of asking Joel, but I've talked with Marskell more in the past). Carcharoth (talk) 06:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You're on a roll, working wonders on my watchlist. Gimmetrow and I deal with such things; it's really unclear to me what the make work is about, but if Gimme can do it easily, it's up to him. I don't know what you would do with the list, frankly. Gimme is overworked, so I hope it's not taxing for him to generate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Populating a category is easy. I could do that myself, but didn't want to tamper with ArticleHistory and break it. The other stuff is more time-consuming, and I don't expect anyone else to do it. I'll do it if I find the time. I'll let your watchlist cool down now! Carcharoth (talk) 06:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If someone can tell me why that awful ad banner came back and why I can't make it go away again, I may get in a good mood again :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you know? If you donate some money, it goes away... :-) (that's a joke!) Carcharoth (talk) 06:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I should explain the "asking in three places" thing. I'm more used to quiet areas of the wiki where you have to rattle on people's doors and their neighbours to get any response. I forgot this area is (obviously!) more active. I also prefer to get several people involved and direct them to one place, but didn't quite get the "one place" thing going here. Gimmetrow has, as can be seen, found an existing category (quite why that category isn't documented anywhere, I don't know - if I'd been able to find that category, I could have avoided distracting you all). It is linked to from precisely three places, if you exclude Category:Wikipedia featured article review candidates (I wouldn't have thought of looking there, because once closed they are no longer candidates). The old discussion involving this category was here (January 2007). Having said that, I now need to discern which FAR saves were demoted later. One reason for all this is to identify the FARs where the amount of work done was effectively equivalent to creating the article from scratch. Don't worry, I'm not going to try and suggest that this is a reason for them to be on the main page again, but I do think the efforts at FAR should get more recognition than they do. But that is a discussion for another day. I'll pop back to Gimmetrow and Marskell's talk pages and update the threads, which are effectively finished now, and thank Gimmetrow for finding that category. Carcharoth (talk) 06:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You seriously lit up my watchlist like New Year's Eve just when I was trying to get rid of that blasted ad banner. Every time I see it I want to throw the computer off the balcony. Well, now it's gone. Don't know why it came back, don't know why it left. And I sure don't know how you plan to decide which FARs were "trivial", since few are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's good to know. Save me having to weed out frivolous FARs (I have seen them in the past, but maybe the truly trivial ones, nominated by trolls, are not recorded in ArticleHistory). Make sure no one gets hit by the computer! Must go and do something else now! Carcharoth (talk) 07:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I hate to tell you this when I'm still trying to recover from Wiki asking me for money again, but the fastest record of the trivial FARs ... is in my brain. I could probably look at the list and pick out most of the closes without need for action ... like Ronald Reagan and Macedonia (terminology). Not tonight, though. Wiki makes me too mad when they want money and time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI, there's now an option on the Gadgets tab under Preferences to permanently suppress the banner. (A message to this effect shows up on my Watchlist page) Dr pda (talk) 07:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Dr pda ... turns out that some editor thought it would be cute to disable that ... it's at VP:T ... someone disabled the gadget earlier. I also have code in my monobook.css, but couldn't make that work either. Anyway, the gadget is engaged again. Thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ernest Shackleton, WT:TFAR,

Thanks for your note. I have in mind a TFAR nom for 9 January, and it's not the Shackleton biography which is in my opinion unsuitable for a number of reasons. I have listed my pending nomination of Nimrod Expedition as you suggest, and after 9 December will nominate it formally. I've left a note to this effect on WT:TFAR. Brianboulton (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to Talk:Boston campaign

You undid my GAN header in Talk:Boston campaign, specifically referencing Template:Articlehistory in your edit summary, which implied that that was the place where I would learn how to properly do a GAN. Its documentation says nothing of the sort, so your edit summary was not helpful. You also could have checked with me (who made the edit in question) before undoing my work.

If there was an error in my use of Template:Articlehistory, you should have fixed that, but left the GAN header, since a moment's check would have indicated that the article is in fact in GA review right now.

I'm going to revert your change. If part of what I did is broken, please fix only the part that's broken. Thank you. Magic♪piano 00:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No, thank you, but I'm not going to fix only the part that is broken, because I've already fixed it once, and editors attempting multiple times to correct GA articlehistory errors may be blocked, even if they're only correcting errors. You have incorrectly listed a current GA nomination within articlehistory. The instructions I pointed you to, at Template:Articlehistory, explain that articlehistory is not for current processes. The page is populating Category:ArticleHistory error, and someone else will need to correct it now, since I already did once ... sorry I can't be more help :-) By the way, when the GA closes, the faulty articlehistory will stall the bot, so you might want to get it corrected in advance. Good luck and you're welcome, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying -- your intent was not clear from the edit summary. I'll fix the template. Magic♪piano 00:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem, and I'm sorry if the edit summary wasn't clear enough. Clearing GA errors daily is a chore, and although I waited six hours, no one else got to them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It's been a long time, but I think we decided against having ongoing processes in AH for, among other reasons, the difficulty it poses at closing. If WP:FAC/SomeArticle is closed, and AH already contains an action with that link, is it the current process or an older FAC? This matters not just to avoid duplicate entries, but because the pages get moved. Since someone could have changed it (fully or partially) by hand before the bot gets there, it's not really obvious what to do automatically. Gimmetrow 20:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, by the way, here's a good one, that would create quite a mess on closing: [10] It showed up in the error category, which led me to have to correct it on daily GA error sweep, which led me to notice and comment on a mistaken statement about citations in the lead of a GAN, which led to a stunning personal attack on me that has gone unaddressed ... so, I won't be updating that ah again ... ah, Wiki :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It's surprising what makes a controversy. It would be easier to just maintain the Obama page sometimes. Gimmetrow 21:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Or Palin :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Palin's problem wasn't controversy. It was lack of a general understanding of MoS. You would think that people would mind grammar, image placement, huge formatting problems or the like on a hot topic article with lots of activity. >.< Ottava Rima (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought Palin's problem was that someone had the gall to improve the article on her the night before the announcement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I still think that her daughter's pregnancy taking up what, three paragraphs the one day was probably up there with "classic" moments of that page. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Guess what? Other than the day of the announcement, I've never read the article. I did mess with MoS stuff here and there, but I know better than to engage the text of politician's articles on Wiki. I'm not surprised, though, at what you report. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Haha, I tried to help with the MoS and balance the article in order to accommodate an expansion. Those were fun times. One of the reasons why I disagree with current political figures going to FAC. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Now the fun's at FAR: poor Marskell, having to deal with Obama over and over again. (I want all those designer suits being shipped back: I've always had Condoleezza suit envy. :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

FARPassed and ArticleHistory

Followed up here. Notifying you because I let off a bit of steam about 'make work'. Sorry. Carcharoth (talk) 08:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I follow Marskell's talk page (well, actually, I follow all the talk pages of all the people most involved in FAC and FAR). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It's OK

Microsoft may be screwed, but a translated version of Planetary habitability is now an FA in Slovenian. Win some, lose some. Marskell (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No magic

Thanks, but no magic there. I first searched PubMed for "depression epidemiology" without any search limits. ("Major depressive disorder" wouldn't be as good, due to terminology clash.) PubMed secondary indexes are delayed, so for a recent source PubMed doesn't know whether a free copy is available, or whether the source is a review; you have to find that out for yourself, I'm afraid. But these recent sources were obviously reviewish and I happened to know that Can J Psychiatry is free so I went and found the publisher's website myself.

The book I found with Google Scholar, with its "recent articles" search; I find that works better if you want to widen your search horizon to the last 5 years or so, for a broad topic like depression anyway. Too bad that source isn't free. Eubulides (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, Sandy, for striking what you had said on Marskell's talk page. I'd appreciate it if you could do the same at WT:SIGNPOST. I would point out what I had said there in support of what you and Ral had said, but you focused on what I said about the role of editors (I actually have moderate real-world experience of editing, so I know how difficult it can be to get people to write stuff). I would offer to help out with stuff (anything), but I think it might be best to back off for a while. If you ever do want to ask for help with anything, my talk page is always open. Carcharoth (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I struck that as well, but for the record, your initial post there does read as if you endorsed what HDYTTO was saying (that the problem was with Ral). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Frankly? At that point I was more concerned about whether Ral was OK. His last edits had been getting the Signpost ready for publication (such as here), and then nothing for over a week. I didn't want some hue and cry to go up and then we find that he'd been hit by a bus or something (I didn't want to say that at the time, though). Which is why I posted there advising to hold off for a bit, and then e-mailed him. Have a look here and then at what someone else posted here. I was, if you must know, extremely pleased to see Ral back, which is probably why I got so upset by what you said. Anyway, deep breath and move on. I have a great deal of respect for the work you do, and I apologise if I upset you at all during any of this. Carcharoth (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Carcharoth: you raise a good point about being hit by a bus (which is an angle that hadn't occurred to me when reading through all of that). I read those exchanges through the prism of my own frustration at how often other editors drop the ball on the Dispatches, knowing that if others won't write, the resource can't be there for them when they demand it, and thinking how unfair it was for Ral to be held accountable for the lack of writers. There is nothing as frustrating as people asking for a Dispatch slot, and then dropping the ball, so I have to scramble the day before. I'm sure I take it too seriously, but I'm actually proud of most of the Dispatches, and probably having a hard time accepting that they will likely go by the wayside because of lack of interest. Ah, well ... I'm glad we got that sorted, and I apologize for "lumping" you in with others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you misread what I meant Sandy. The problem isn't with Ral, it's that the Signpost lacks any kind of direction at the moment. Without Ral, there's no Signpost pretty much. I'd like to help him with it, but my offers (three times so far) have been ignored. There's no way I want to just start writing something, because I don't want to a) Waste my time repeating something done already b) Stepping on people's toes, and getting them irritated if I do the wrong thing. The suggestion we got a new editor-in-chief wasn't because I think Ral does a bad job, but because it's clear the Signpost isn't going anywhere without someone pushing it forward. Best wishes, – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If you were my neighbor

I would bake you some real ones. I am sorry for all the unpleasantries you have had to endure in your efforts to do your job regarding RCC FAC. I hope that the next one will prove to be more civil. We will be discussing FAC etiquette at the next peer review. NancyHeise ^talk 00:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the kindness, Nancy: I am certain you will prevail, and I'm very glad you've decided to continue. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Kiko (2007) FAC

Sorry if this sounds a bit rude (or something along those lines), but what's going on with the FAC for Kiko? I renominated it on October 19, and it's been 20 days (being that it's November 8) and there has been no opposition to it. Is there something I'm missing as to why this article isn't being passed? I've been patiently waiting with the article but now there hasn't been any input from reviewers 11 days. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: Autism

SandyGeorgia,
Thanx for responding for more feedback on improving the article.
I'm sorry for not using the talk page.
I keep going back from editing Wiki to doing other stuff, and to be honest I get a little lazy to use the talk page sometimes.
But, I'm sorry for that and will continue to discuss changes on the talk page. Thanx!
ATC (talk) 03:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Byz. navy FAC closed?

Hello Sandy! Could you tell me why you closed the Byzantine navy FAC? There was the single outstanding issue of copyediting, but I had contacted other users and was in the process of contacting others as well. Could it be re-opened? Cheers, Constantine ✍ 10:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Open Directory Project (DMOZ) Links

The DMOZ search template (Dmoz2) is being considered for deletion because it violates WP:ELNO #9. I'm sending you this notice because of your previous participation in the TfD discussion for the DMOZ category template. Anyone interested in discussing the fate of Open Directory Project (DMOZ) search links is invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Dmoz2. Thank you. Qazin (talk) 07:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Two to watchlist, just in case

FYI, may want to watchlist Talk:Curb bit and Talk:Lever. You will understand why. May be new area? Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 23:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

FAC precedents for scientific article citations

Sandy, I'm still working on acid dissociation constant, and I think we're getting a lot closer. I have a reference question or two for you.

First, there are multiple paragraphs that have no citations. Take a look at this section, for example. I will be posting a note to the talk page to ask about this, but I suspect that the situation is that the material is generic, to a chemist, and all of it would be covered by a single textbook. What's the standard citation approach for multiple paragraphs in this situation? Does one simply slap the cite on the end of each paragraph? Or is there a standard way of indicating that a given reference covers an entire section, avoiding individual citations? I know I've seen this topic come up before, but it's never come up on an article of mine so I don't recall the resolution.

In the past, I've done just what you suggested: slapping a citation onto the end of each paragraph. That way, there's no question in the reader's mind whether specific material is covered by a ref or not. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Second, I wanted to draw your attention to the references in this section. Many of them have no page number because they cover the entire topic mentioned: the section discusses the importance of pK_a, so each "important" topic is supported by a reference that discusses that entire topic. I haven't seen this done before but it seems reasonable to me. Is there an issue with this approach?

Thanks for any help. Mike Christie (talk) 01:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've copied this question over to WT:FAC, which is where I should probably have posted it in the first place. Thanks for the reply above, Cryptic C62; I'm just looking for one or two more opinions. Mike Christie (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Fyi

this --Dweller (talk) 10:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The correct answer is to quit in disgust. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, cmon... --Dweller (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It was a joke. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Phew. There's been enough useful contributors quitting in disgust of late! --Dweller (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Like me? Or are you emphasizing the "useful" part? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

How to handle withdrawn requests

Hi Sandy, with Gimmebot on a schedule now I'm not sure what to do with withdrawn FACs. There is one here: [11]. Karanacs (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You okay?

Haven't seen you around much, everything good there, I hope? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

About the huggle edits, I think I got carried away, Ill be more careful in future. Andy (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Andy (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Reverted and please accept the cookie! :-) Andy (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ireland

Sandy, I know you are a wiz on the citations thingy. We have been trying to get Ireland back to a GA from which it was recently demoted. I see you are not too active in the last few days but would you possibly have a look at the citations which should all now be using templates and tell me if there are any improvements we could make. Much appreciated whenever you get some time. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not tangle with GA as I don't stay on top of their changing criteria. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It's only the citations I would like you to look at for their consistency rather than for any specific GA guidelines but it is ok if you say no even to that. ww2censor (talk) 03:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

See my note at User talk:Ww2censor#Ireland. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Withdrawn FACs

Oh, ok. No problem. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Waterfall Gully, South Australia

Waterfall Gully. I've checked in and cleaned it up I hope. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 02:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll catch up on FAR when I can, thanks for the note. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul

Ron Paul has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured quality. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 05:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want me to restore the old version of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ron Paul and remove the current version (pasting useful comments to Talk:Ron Paul), just give me the nod. DrKiernan (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Dr, I just caught up with the rest of the mess, and see you moved it to FAC: I thought it was an incomplete nom (and checked Andrew Kelly's contribs, saw no FAR nom, but saw him hitting dozens of users with notifications). Yes, I guess now it neeeds a fac template on the talk page and a redirect at the old FAR, since he's hit so many user talk pages. There's no fac template (if you move one, you have to remember to fix the template on article talk). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't apologise, it's my mess. However, I do not think the damage too great, and I think we should continue with the nom for the time being. It will become apparent within the next few days whether I or the nominators can improve the article, and whether regular editors (such as Mariagloria) think the article is ready. If they do not think it ready, or the effort to improve is insufficient, then the nom can just be archived in the normal way in a few days time. DrKiernan (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see what happened now. Since I'm not an admin, I don't see the deleted FAR page, and to a non-admin, his contribs show as if it was never created, so I thought it was a malformed nom. And, since I processed my talk page before going to FAC, I didn't see the move there. Kind of messy now. Ah, well :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Its passive features like that which justifies you being made a sysop. I find the features extremely useful for my work. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

After another user nominated the article, I followed the instructions and notified all users who had made a significant number of edits to Ron Paul. I later realized that it had been nominated at the wrong place. I decided not to remove the messages because users would still get the "new messages" message, and it could cause more confusion if they didn't actually have a message. I was so eager to get involved in getting the article to FA status that I didn't realize it was nominated in the wrong place. I apologize for contributing to the confusion. Please let me know if there is anything I need to do to help clean this up. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FCDW/Halloween

I was wondering what you thought of an idea I have. Before the Post goes out, do you think it would be better to modify Wikipedia:FCDW/Halloween to rotate through the 3 different sets; over them all being displayed at once? A link could then be included in the box to see them all at the same time. I think it would look better than the huge offset we have now. But maybe not? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That Signpost has already run: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-11-08/Dispatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)