User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch68

Bit of a quandry

I don't think it's right or proper not to give the same level of scrutiny to alt text as to any other aspect of an FAC, but it's clear that if I were to do that then I'd end up opposing every single FAC, at least until the alt text project sorts itself out. I can't therefore in all conscience support any FAC, but I don't want to have to keep opposing because of the failings of one wikiproject's over zealousness. I think the only thing I can do therefore is not to comment on any FAC. I'm only saying this so you know my absence at FAC until this is sorted out is not a reflection on FAC itself, for which I have the highest regard. Almost as high as my regard for GAN in fact. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that discussion heading towards any consensus one direction or the other (where is Mike Christie when we need a well-worded RFC?), and the VPT post seems to have gone nowhere. I have noticed that Raul doesn't worry about alt text. Is this hill worth dying on for you? Images one week, dashes the next, alt-text the next ... it usually sorts itself out. The real problem continues to be overlooked by everyone, and I've been saying it for years: there is no central coordination of MOS pages, conflicting and overlapping and everchanging MOS pages, and anyone can make anything a MOS guideline. Chin up! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worth it? Probably not, but it's a hill I've planted my flag on. Sometimes you just have to make a stand. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus, you should have a tree fall on your house or something to cheer you up :) Just look back over the years: try to remember some of the disruptive editors who have come and gone, think of the worst jerks who have graced your talk page or defaced an article, try to remember some of the heaviest disputes about the silliest issues, try to remember Samuel Johnson (!?!?!), and then ... stop and think about the fine editors, fun moments, and beautiful articles, and don't tell me they don't outweigh the momentary things that may get you down. Otherwise, no good reason to be doing this, and you know there are lots of good reasons to be doing this-- go write some Donner text, have a pint, and cheer up! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which: thanks, Malleus, for adding some alt text to Samuel Johnson yesterday. What you added looks good. Eubulides (talk) 04:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My birthday came and went, and nobody yet has added alt text to Tourette syndrome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy birthday. No doubt the alt text could be improved. Just like your other birthday presents, eh? Eubulides (talk) 08:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Actually, that's the best birthday present I got-- watch out, I'll come looking for a repeat next year! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly reminder

It's UberCryxic!!!! Come on, at least get my alias right! You butchered it twice in the CC talk page haha...all in good fun, don't worry.UBER ^(talk) 03:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, it gave me big headaches trying to keep up with that from a dialup (and I wouldn't have been able to on the older, gynormous article) and get your name right (which I knew I had butchered). I could have gotten the whole thing wrong, but you all should know better, and be glad I'm not an admin, or I'd bust all three of you :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we will get punished somehow, and I don't expect anything less. What we did was inexcusable. Anyway, for the name, I notice that a lot of people were getting it flagrantly wrong over the past few days (I saw some of the weirdest combinations), so I just decided to make "Uber" the visible part.UBER ^(talk) 03:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Men will be boys :) Maybe when an admin comes to, you'll all get off scot free, but honestly-- discuss the darn text! What's the deal, Karanacs goes away for the evening, and you boys can't behave? :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said categorically in the talk page that I'm not reverting the article in the next 24 hours. That's my way of punishing myself. No one's perfect, not even you girls :)UBER ^(talk) 03:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a long time since I've revered the article; I defer to Laser brain's opinion on the behavior :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 9 question

Hey. After double checking things, I think Adenhart might be three points, as the last baseball TFA was in December. Could you double check this and note the right point total? Granted that probably makes the competition between the two articles tougher. Been a nice introduction to TFA; how common is that to have two articles on the same day in a war on that page? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a unique mess, with multiple factors involved. I'll look as soon as I have time, but dialup makes it slow. Did you raise the query there so others will look also? It will get sorted before Raul has to schedule, so not to worry ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wizard, I'm unsure, because I can't remember if Similarity in sports is based on sports in general, or one sport in particular. There have been past discussions on that, and it's too hard for me to locate them from dialup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I left a note on that page so someone else can look at it. Last general sports article was Ice hockey tournaments in February, last bio was Sid Barnes in late Jan, fwiw. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you add that info at TFAR? It's hard for me to keep up from dialup ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article review/John Calvin/archive1

Since this was such a WP:POINTy FAR, I've sent it to MFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked yet, but that seems a waste of everyone's time. FAC and FAR have director/delegates specifically for issues like this, and there's no need to involve the entire community in decisions that the FAR delegate can and will make. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I didn't know that the FAR community had a method of handling this. I'll withdraw and G6 the MFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a very sensible decision: thanks! If you look at the bigger picture, the last thing we need is for the entire community to be drug into deciding whether every Barack Obama FAR should be left to run, when not all editors are familiar with the processes or WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fark/archive1

Sorry, but I had to go out of town for a week and didn't have access to Wikipedia. So I didn't get a chance to do anything with the article. Can the nomination be reopened, or should I make the suggested changes and renominated it? WTF? (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editors who opposed are regular contributors: once you've addressed the issues, and checked back in with them to make sure they're satisfied, you're good to re-nominate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dispatches

Taken care of. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for following me around and fixing things! I'm having a hell of a time on dialup, and appreciate it more than ever! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I have seen you at AN/I alot recently which I know is unusual for you. :) I just want to know if there is anything I can do to help out? I hope you are well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Get my cable modem connection restored ? :) :) No, nothing in particular, other than that ! I think that most of the issues that caused me to have to weigh in at ANI should be subsiding now. Although WP:FAR is really backlogged in case you feel up to doing some reviews. Thanks, Crohnie! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to your provider about getting restored. ;) I just tell my hubby, internets not working and he fixes it or lets me know the problem so I don't get too impatient. Patience is definitely not one of my virtues. :) I'll take a look when I can. I'm just returning here after slowing my editing down due to hospitalization (again) and some problems that were going on around here. Feeling better each day though so I hope to be able to help out. Be well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Give It 2 Me/archive1

Officially bringing this [1] to your attention. I'm not sure what the past process has been on closing FACs where canvassing has occurred, and since you'll be pr/ar this weekend I wanted to make sure you were aware. Karanacs (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Have you noticed this ? Ceoil ^sláinte 20:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, just saw it ... since I'm sortof a believer in "there's no such thing as a free lunch", tell me more? Does it have medical journal content? Thanks, Ceoil! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what it has and does not have, though Raul reckons its not great on art history.[2]. I'm short on resources these days, and worst that can happen is dissapointment. Still though, I recokon this will be Best.Ever.Offer. So excited! My life is going to change! Ceoil ^sláinte 22:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Especially if you like setting yourself up for disappointment :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come on! The Encyclopedia of Obesity, Fungal Families of the World, The Encyclopedia of Farm Animal Nutrition. How can you go wrong? Yomangani ^talk 22:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing I'm sure. I dont think I'll bother going to sleep tonight. Password only minutes away. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: No password yet; life still the same. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is working out quite well for me: all my Wikifriends sign up, and I get to bug you whenever I need research material. I'm sorry you won't be sleeping tonight: got something better to do? Like brush up on Farm Animal Nutrition? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Encyclopedia of Fruit and Nuts - where's Sid James when you need him? Yomangani ^talk 23:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taken by Benders' Dictionary of Nutrition. Sid James would no doubt have something to say about that one, too. – iride scent 23:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need free access for fruits and nuts ... just visit my talk more often! Got some fungi, too! I think we should launch a contest to decide who has the funniest talk page ... I'm between Moni3, Malleus Fatuorum, Orangemarlin (still), Ceoil and Iridescent ... except when I'm in a wry mood, and then I like to read Risker's page to see how much fun she's having. And just why is Bish slowing down on the humor, huh ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The funniest talkpage at the moment is undoubtedly Wikiversity:Community Review/Wikimedia Ethics:Ethical Breaching Experiments. Or the most depressing, depending on where you're sitting. – iride scent 23:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From here - depressing. Ceoil ^sláinte 00:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depressing and quite predictable willy waving. I just wish someone would have the balls to block Jimbo Wales. Can you imagine him presented as an RfA candidate? He's never written anything more than unsourced stubs, most of which only survive AfD because of the efforts of his acolytes, he's made more bad blocks than any other administrator would be allowed, and ... well, no need to labour the obvious – he's a clown. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Willy waving, balls, Jimbo and RFA-- I'm not biting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: No password yet; life still the same. I think I might sleep tonight afterall. Blast, I was this close to a new dawn. Frigging internet, promises so much, delivers so little. Ceoil ^sláinte 01:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you calling a tease? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I got it ... they were mining e-mail addresses for a spam list ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it, I really hope not; look at who created the page. Ceoil ^sláinte 02:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hard to impress :) If you're going to abandon me in favor of Bender's Dictionary of Nutrition, be forewarned: hell hath no fury and all that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thou

I gave a more in-depth review here as to why I, too, think this is far short of FA. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yuck. I'm gonna need a bigger hammer. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tourette's

I haven't heard from Tracy re. permission to use those clips yet. We exchanged a flurry of emails between Wed 10 and Fri 12, her last saying "Thanks and I will send you the form below… Is a digital signature/name ok?" and mine saying "Yes, a digital signature or name will be fine. Once you have emailed the declaration to me and permissions-commons@wikimedia.org I'll insert it into the article." And nothing since. I'll email her tomorrow to ask if they will approve a different edit. Would be OK for me to point her to the Tourette's talk page? Anthony (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because TSA is on Long Island, it's quite possible she was hit by the Nor'easter, or has no internet access. You could point her to the TS page, but sending her the direct clip might be faster. Thanks for everything! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glitter is the herpes of craft supplies

Google says so.

Other things Google says:

--Moni3 (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first entry on the autocomplete list on UK Google for "Sandy" is "Sandy balls". Just saying. – iride scent 23:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy's rough on balls. --Moni3 (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People with balls. --Moni3 (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been saving this one for you, Moni (but Wiki has it filtered ... <gasp> ...) direct from WR ... http: // www.ehow.com/ how_5956654_vajazzle-like-jennifer-love-hewitt.html take out the spaces, and then write the bajazzle version. That'll keep you busy for a bit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Moni could just undelete Vajazzle... I don't think she's joined the Legion Of Outcasts yet. – iride scent 00:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the delete discussion ... I want to apply my Turkey Test to see who has a sense of humor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vajazzling. One of the more dubious closes I've seen. – iride scent 00:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone named ReverendWayne didn't like it. I'm waiting for Moni or The Fat Man to add it to Body art. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a most convenient time for me to claim Quaker testimony of simplicity keeps me from making my vajayjay anything but the boring old broken down plain thing it is. --Moni3 (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No such thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quakers do too exist! I've seen them. On cereal boxes or something. --Moni3 (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now try entering "Wikipedia is" on Google. – iride scent 23:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bzzzzzt ... you're losing ground on the funniest talk page contest! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely Malleus holds that title? Of course, not by his own accord... ceranthor 00:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether it's amusing or depressing that "enc" alone on Google is enough to get ED as the first suggestion, ahead of both "Encyclopedia Britannica", "Enchilada", "Enchanted" and "Encryption". I thought Google was meant to have blacklisted them? – iride scent 00:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My talkpage isn't funny at the moment; it's just people shouting at me. – iride scent 00:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought being attracted to a "length of hosepipe" was funny: YMMV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you liked the length of hosepipe, you'll love this. Still inexplicably a redlink. – iride scent 00:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't quite figure what exactly he did to the lucky bike: maybe Malleus will drop by and explain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to have to disappoint, but having sex with a bicycle is way beyond my comprehension. Most of them are such garish colours, obvious sluts. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mine is silver. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mine's a delicate shade of purple, and I do love her so much ... wait, what am I saying? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Short mudguards and a gel saddle isn't an invitation. Brakes mean brakes. Yomangani ^talk 01:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAR

Well I can bite more now that Dana will be closing. I can see a few others at the bottom that are a way off but nobody's biting. I'll ping Malleus and Tony to check the prose on some of htem. Also how did IST end up on the URFA list as it was passed in late 06? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on that first part, please. :) Although Raul has asked me if I would be interested, he has not yet formally named me as a delegate. Just to be safe, statements that I will be closing FARs should probably wait until he makes a final decision one way or the other. Dana boomer (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, he'll also formally put it forward for community approval ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've only bitten on Killer Whale so far beecause everyone else was just going keep and it probably will be kept anyway, so just to prompt a few more upgardes YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

righty ho

righto, Tom B (talk) 04:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

btw if you can work out how to put a margin round this group of pictures: Paul_Kane#Works to give some space between them and the main body of text i'll be impressed. i was quite proud of managing to crack the margin syntax for this table: Battle_of_Trafalgar#British Tom B (talk) 04:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Over my head, but one of TPS will probably know! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Easy. You need to use the "margin-left" attribute. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

right, thanks Tom B (talk) 05:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by alert

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hanoi/archive1. Ucucha 14:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another possible one: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Dark Knight (film)/archive1. Ucucha 00:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TPS ... help ... dang it

I'm traveling, just settled in to pr/ar, and found that the hotel IP is blocked because "it is thought to be an open proxy or zombie computer", as well as an IP used by a sock. What can I do? I can only edit my talk page (I looked at the FAC above, and it needs to be archived, if someone can do that.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Post {{unblock}} here and an admin will make you IP-block exempt - see here – iride scent 22:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock}} I will be in this hotel on this IP at least until Wednesday, possibly until Friday. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ucucha 22:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ucucha ... is that something I have to have some undo after I leave this hotel? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, yes, according to iridescent's link. It can be easily done by any admin—it's just unchecking a box. Ucucha 23:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a hotel, there's a significant chance that it isnt a zombie or open proxy, but was simply used by one already-blocked person when he stayed in the same hotel. Then again maybe the hotel management just didnt configure their Internet security properly. But if you happen to know what the IP address being blocked is it might be worth it to ask the blocking admin if they think it might be safe to unblock (for the benefit of future visitors). —Soap— 23:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (and I'll mention this to hotel management tomorrow). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you should just stay IP-block-exempt - you don't need to undo it. It basically just means that if you try to log in and edit from an IP that has been blocked, you'll be allowed to do so. It's worth keeping the IP-block-exempt bit in case you find yourself in a similar situation again. Admins are automatically IP-block-exempt, and it makes life a bit easier. MastCell ^Talk 00:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. All this is very interesting. You know, if you bring this up with the hotel mamager he is likely to look at you baffeled and worried, without one clue as to what you are on about. Anyway so you've been blocked eh, (makes note on list, under SG) and you hassel poor old hotel managers, eh?(noted, under SG). Very interesting, very interesting indeed. I'm sure you will have nothing to explain or worry about, when it suites me later on to drag up this...affair through my own special prism of truth. I see Iridescent and Ucucha were key in damage control. <evil chuckle>. Your friend, Ceoil (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) I have never known a hotel manager to look baffled or worried at me-- could happen, though. 2) I have lots of lists. 3) Smarmy, methinks! 4) See No. 2. 5) They saved FAC! I was unblocked just in time to promote dozens of articles! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MOS at FAR

I know you are traveling right now, and so may not have time to deal with this, but there are a few FARs that could use a check/re-check for MOS issues if you have the time.

WP:Featured article review/Sydney Newman/archive1 - Dabomb did some MOS work, and Tony went through it, so I think it's ready for you again
WP:Featured article review/Killer whale/archive1 - You requested to be pinged when YM's comments on MOS had been dealt with, which I think they have for the most part. Tony has also been through this one.
WP:Featured article review/€2 commemorative coins/archive1 - Is pretty much split on keep/delist declarations, so could use some more eyes.
~~WP:Featured article review/USS Bridgeport (AD-10)/archive1 - Looks to be headed towards keep, so could use an eye towards MOS.~~ - Removed
Wikipedia:Featured article review/Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907/archive1 - Looks to be headed towards keep, so could use an eye towards MOS.

TPWs also welcome :) Thanks in advance, Sandy. Dana boomer (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, Dana-- I will look at those as soon as I have a free moment (unless some kind TPS gets to them first :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony seems to have softened up from recent FACs and FARs I've seen, or been left behind by the new wave of strict reviewers YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick ping :) I've struck one above that headed the other direction and was removed, and added one that has begun to go towards keep. Dana boomer (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony would LOVE to be "left behind by the new wave of strict reviewers": they are what I'd hoped my reviewing would encourage. Frankly, FAC reviewing is too much like what I get paid a lot to do in real life. I aim to have a reasonable "footprint" with only intermittent presence. Tony (talk) 02:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pebble Toad

You have absolutely no right to delete that information about the Pebble Toad. Oprah just told me it was true on "Life". So you should take it up with her. Your egregious actions are frowned upon and I wish you well in future endeavors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.111.224.42 (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darius I of Persia

Why did you change the articlehistory of Darius I of Persia from Royalty, heraldry and nobility to History? warrior 4321 01:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I can answer for Sandy, the topic parameter in the previous version was incorrectly spelled as "Royality, nobility and heraldry". This caused the page to appear in Category:ArticleHistory error (which is deliberately a redlink to help spot errors like this). Correcting it to Royalty, nobility and heraldry would also have worked. However the GA topic parameter gets translated to one of the ten top level categories anyway (Arts, Language and Literature, History etc) by Template:GA/Topic, so it doesn't really matter which is used. In both cases (and also with {{GA}}) the text would read "Darius I of Persia has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria." Dr pda (talk) 02:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Doc; I could not decipher what was causing the error, so did the only thing I knew to do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright! Thanks for the help. -- warrior 4321 03:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry

Hello Sandy! My FAC for Sherman Minton was closed unsuccessfully Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sherman Minton/archive1 over the weekend. I still personally think it is very close to FA standards. I also have a couple others I have been working on I would like to give another go at On the Banks of the Wabash, Far Away, which also failed a FAC a few months back Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/On the Banks of the Wabash, Far Away/archive1. My question is this: Since Minton just failed, must I now wait two weeks before I try again given the new one-at-time and wait-two-weeks-if-you-fail rule? I don't mind waiting but thought I'd ask! Thanks —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as reviewers are lacking at FAC, yes, you will need to wait two weeks. Have you considered helping out by reviewing articles at FAC ? The article had been up almost three weeks with no support, and the only way to address the backlog is for those who benefit from FAC to help out at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've partially reviewed about ten articles during the time I put those two reviews. But I will review a couple more! Thanks —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

script?

Hey, there used to be a script that would let you edit all the refs in one blow.. can you point me in the right direction? thanks • Ling.Nut 15:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(TPS) User:Dr_pda/editrefs.js. Ucucha 15:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ucucha, that's the one I use. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it pulls up the interface that I remember, but my changes don't save. Yes I did the bypass-the cache thing..anyhow. .. time for me to go to bed See ya. • Ling.Nut 15:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Dr pda/editrefs.js; you have to toggle wikEd text highlighting off. Ucucha 15:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! G'night. • Ling.Nut 15:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I say nothing

Sometimes, my psychic powers scare me. Just call me Cassandra. – iride scent 23:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Sandy Balls for the Beauty Spot Holiday" ... not sure how to read that ... will leave it to minds more polluted than mine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

Congratulations for your work in Hugo Chavez article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.181.103 (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Chavez

Your use of strictly American sources for the Hugo Chavez article can hardly be considered a Neutral Point of View. In particular you seem to be relying heavily on conservative publications like the Economist and New York Times. Try expanding your reading material. --71.214.221.153 (talk) 02:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try extracting your head from your arse. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canada

A few months ago, you commented at this article's FAR. Would you mind revisiting to see if your concerns have been addressed and if you have any further requests? Thanks very much! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent style

Hi Sandy,

Just wanted to confirm that I'm right before I jump in feet first:

FAC measures the desirable "consistent style of referencing" according to what the reader sees on the screen, not according to what the edit sees in the "Edit this page" box, right? As a result, if editors wanted to put half the refs in citation templates and half in exactly matching hand-formatted refs, or half in list-defined refs and half in regular footnotes, then you wouldn't actually care, because these variances would all be invisible to the reader. Right?

(I can't imagine that anyone would actually want to do this, but we seem to need an explanation of what counts as a "consistent style" somewhere.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding is the same as mine: the method by which citations are rendered is not important, but the output has to be consistent (on the other hand, I can't understand why anyone would want to use different styles for rendering output, and per WP:CITE, the citation style established in the article shouldn't be changed without consensus). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply.

CITE is the problem page: we have some editors who (reasonably, based on the absence of a definition) believe that if an article uses list-defined references, then you should definitely not permit any non-list-defined references. I think that this is also a lingering legacy of the citation template wars.

I've made a proposal, which SlimVirgin promptly removed (while I was typing the explanation on the talk page). We'll see what happens. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have never understood list-defined references, but I can see the logic in sticking with one reference style throughout the entire article. I'm uninformed on the pros and cons, though, since I never learned how list-defined references work, and hate the notion of separating references from the text, since that makes it so much harder to edit and verify text. Wish I could be more help! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LDR is easy:

Name all the refs.
Dump all the refs inside the {{reflist}} template at the end of the page after the magic parameter |refs= (and before the closing double curly braces).
In the text, pretend that every single time you use a ref, it's the 'second' use on the page (so you type <ref name=Smith /> inline, rather than <ref>{{endless citation template here...).

That's it: Everything else is the same.

Is LDR desirable for most articles? I don't know about that. I suspect that it could be valuable for certain citation-dense ones, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that part, but have never engaged them, because the idea of having to have three windows open to edit an article makes me COMPLETELY nuts (one to see the text, one to see the ref, and one to open and verify the ref). So, I've never used them. What would be the disadvantage to mixing some LDR with some not? I think the whole thing is awful, but perhaps there are some advantages to having some LDR and others in text? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) LDR is easy to do, indeed. It makes life great for the creator of the article. Unfortunately, it makes editing the article damn near impossible for anyone coming along afterwards (since one has either to edit the entire article rather than the section, and scroll up and down between the text and the reference, or one has to have two separate edit windows open for the text and the references, with all the edit-conflicty consequences of that). And as Sandy says, it makes verification from within the edit window impossible; thus, to review an article one has to have three windows (article-as-displayed, section-being-reviewed and references) open simultaneously and keep flicking between the two. I've said it before, but it bears repeating; despite Wikipedia's long history of quirky features, LDR is in my view the single most harebrained idea ever to have actually been implemented. – iride scent 23:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there are any downsides to mixing LDR with in-text regular refs. You might have to search to find a ref if you need to change it, but you often have to do that for (re-used) non-LDR refs anyway.

From the readers' perspective, the references function combines them all correctly/in order.

At the moment, the discussion at CITE seems to have editors confusing "I pressed the single-quote key twice to turn on italics" text formatting technique with a citation style like Chicago Manual of Style. It may take a while, but they're smart people, and I think they'll eventually figure out that the buttons on their computers are not actually citation styles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PR

Hi Sandy, I will be glad to review The Revolution will not be televised (film) but it may take me a few days. Thanks for asking, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Struck...

Because I already commented. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ... still catching up! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsible tables in an article

Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics ... I never know when they are acceptable and when they aren't. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics/archive1. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good ole MOS ... those things keep changing. They used to be strongly discouraged anywhere, as part of WP:ACCESS, but I see that's gone now. My take on that article is that the use of collapsible tables there does not conform with Wikipedia:MOS#Scrolling lists and collapsible content, and they need to be either moved to navboxes at the end of the article, or somehow incorporated into the article in "show" form. I could be wrong ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive sock posting

Sandy, thanks for removing that rubbish. I wonder whether anyone is taking further action to stop this user from trying to smear people. Tony (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a longstanding problem with a prolific sock, Tony ... lots of people are on it ... just one of those things. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]