User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch62

I understand that no consensus defaults to not promoting, but no one ever said Support or Oppose at

You've kind of answered your own question there; after concerns and comments have been posted, but no overt oppose or support votes are cast, it's difficult for the delegate to determine whether an article should be left on the FAC backlog or closed as unsuccessful. In no way do I speak for Sandy, but this one had been up for two weeks, and the candidacy page was already pretty long without attracting support; experience tells us that the longer that carries on, the less likely it is that the FAC will draw in fresh reviewers willing to wade through the existing comments and then perform their own thorough review. It's not your fault, but it happens from time to time; I can see how that might be galling.

WP:FAC is usually under strain due to a lack of reviewers and, with the page currently 45 nominations long, in this case Sandy seems to have been left with little option but to exercise her discretion and archive the nomination. On your other point, whether there are outstanding issues or not it's usually seen as good practice to wait for two weeks before renominating, as it helps to keep the backlog down to a manageable level. I'm sure that given the high-profile nature of this talk page that when you do bring it back it will be on several reviewers' to-do lists. All the best, and good luck. Steve ^T • C 23:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I find that very hard to believe (the very last thing you said). Thanks anyway. I doubt I'll ever renominate it.

Talk · What keeps her up) 23:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I mean, I just don't get why mine was closed when a great many more that have been open for longer are still open. I'm the only one in my "home" Wikiproject who gives a damn about improving articles beyond Stub-class, so I very much feel personally invested in the nomination and upset by the closure. I get my first GA noms closed because I got mugged, and GA itself is a wait of several months in the first place. Now I have to wait even more time while I don't know what to do to with the article, because I just do. I always thought writing was my biggest strength, guess it's actually a weakness.

Talk · What keeps her up

)

You are not the only one in this position. Recently, we have had a severe shortage of reviewers recently. Shockingly, more people want to nominate than want to review. Hard to believe, isn't it? :) Anyway, please don't give up!

talk) 02:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks Awadewit and Steve. Nosleep, FACs that remain open have Support; Giro was up for several weeks with no support and unresolved sourcing concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I was such a drama queen. I was in a vulnerable state to begin with (I'd strike it all if that weren't horribly visually obtrusive). What exactly was left unresolved or unaddressed? I thought I was getting to everything people raised.

Talk · What keeps her up) 04:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I have been sidetracked trying to review (i.e. clear) some more interesting articles at GAN, as I have a few hovering there. Always a juggling act....Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) As a note to those interested, I am happy to review FAC's; Sandy has occasionally dropped me messages, and though it often takes me a few days to two weeks to get to the article in question, I can and will review. I'm most useful in geology and geophysics, or science/engineering in general, but my writin' aint so bad for a scientist so I'm happy to help in general. Note that Thanksgiving in the USA is coming up, so I will be seeing old friends and not be very active on Wiki until the 1st week of December. Awickert (talk) 04:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you doing a voter's guide again this year? (I seem to recall glancing at the embryonic form of one, but I may be crazy), and if so, do you have an objection to it being posted with the others?--Tznkai (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't figured out what to do with it yet, since there aren't enough good candidates to figure out how I want to evaluate them. I've started it at User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes2009, but it's in no shape to be added to the template yet-- completely unfinished. If we don't get more candidates, I may just have to pick eight and hope for the best :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could run. Jehochman ^Talk 04:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice edit summary, Je, but I've heard that line before. <grin> Go knock on these doors. (MastCell likes doors.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the last time I broached the subject, or a similar one, to MastCell he very graciously told me to go to hell.--Tznkai (talk) 04:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, keep asking, until he tells you to f off, then :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have to pester Bishonen if you want to be told to f off. Jehochman ^Talk 04:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to like the lady and the 'zilla. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bishapod is more my speed and intellect. Jehochman ^Talk 04:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can pester me if you want to be told to f off. You don't even have to bug me to run for something :D Maralia (talk) 05:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice move, Tznkai! I want to see how MC's gonna weasel outta that one (it had better be funny :) Now, go bug this one (the hidden gem of Wiki), and then start on Maralia to submit to RFA so we can bug her next year (the other not-so-hidden gem of Wiki). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aww. I actually really like Slp1 from our very few but entirely pleasant encounters. I feel like it'd be a little mean if I actually managed to convince her to run into this lion's den.--Tznkai (talk) 05:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Undent) In all seriousness, has anyone tried to recruit Slp1 to anything yet?--Tznkai (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm aware of; I've been too busy to recruit :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just seen this, and if you'd been here at the time you would have seen a very good view of my tonsils! I am terribly flattered, but please don't think of me for this. I really don't have the time or frankly the desire, to enter, as Tznkai says, the "lions' den". --Slp1 (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other prospective victims:

• Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Athaenara
• EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EdJohnston
• Akhilleus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Akhilleus

All very solid admins who are not power seekers, Jehochman ^Talk 05:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] I am bothered that Karanacs feels that it is appropriate to close a FAC that had two and a half supports and no closes simply because a few people made some comments just a few hours before. There wasn't even a chance for those users to get back online and respond. If she is going to do that, then this is a serious problem. That FAC went 13 days without any reviews. That is not my fault, and if she is going to hold that against any FAC then I will ask Raul to revoke her right to review because that is really inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs' reasoning (as always) was sound; a new FAC can always be initiated once concerns are resolved, and when a FAC has been stalled at the bottom of the page for a long time, moving it off the page is often the fastest way forward. I would not recommend asking Raul to "revoke" anything, considering that Karanacs acted well within her discretion; that is unlikely to be a wise move. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What "concerns"? Unless people oppose, there is no concern. Or are we going to start saying that people can drive by comment and have a FAC closed before there is even a chance to find out if they really had a problem with anything or if it was just some minor point? And Sandy, there are a lot of people that accuse her of being "close happy". Having a FAC closed with 2 and a half supports and no opposes is definitely inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not accurate ("unless people oppose ... "). OR, I am wholly uninterested in rumors about Karanacs being furthered on my talk page. Promoting an article without sufficient consensus and review would be a problem, since it's hard to reverse a bad decision in that department, but archiving a FAC is never a serious problem-- they can always come back. When a reviewer-- even one who is known to have a beef with you-- suggests prose problems, and then other respected reviewers confirm (even without an Oppose), a close is the right decision, allowing the FAC to come back cleaner, while helping manage the page size of FAC. This is my last response: disparaging Karanacs is not the path you want to be heading down right now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If "comments" are going to be treated as "opposes", and if someone that even Raul said should not be reviewing my pages are going to be respected as having a voice, then this is a serious problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where did "even Raul" say that? To whom are you referring? Anyone who follows FAC is aware of Fowler's issues with you, but when other reviewers confirm prose could be improved, that is factored into the decision. I seriously suggest that you not complicate the FowlerOttavaCageMatch by disparaging Karanac's decisions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you forget

Samuel Johnson's early life so soon? And if "other reviews confirmed prose could be improved" then they would oppose. Not -comment-. There is a major difference between a comment and an oppose, with half the time people commenting and never returning to bother. How does Karanacs even know that a concern still exists when Tony1's comment was just a few hours before the FAC was closed and he was not around to respond? I can't work in such an environment. I wait 13 days for responses after getting three early supports and when I finally do, the FAC is closed a few hours before. That is disrespectful to reviewers and nominators. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

(If I may just chip in Sandy) It's a truism, but true nevertheless: "First impressions make a lasting impression". That's true though not just of the article but of the FAC review. How many times have you (Ottava) seen Tony, for instance say I've only looked at the lead/the first few sections, but already I see problems, or similar? Same with reviews. Once they go off track they're better archived, so that the nominator can regroup, address the issues, and come back with a stronger candidate. Speaking only for myself, I think that Karanacs did you a favour. --

Fatuorum 02:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Seems like a very bad idea. I hope you'll reconsider. Transparency and accountability are vital to a healthy community. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To play devil's advocate: doesn't our shared homeland, along with every other modern democracy on Earth, favor "secret voting"? MastCell ^Talk 04:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently selling my vote to whomever will give me a Google Wave invite, in the good ole tradition of 18th-century British public voting. :)

talk) 04:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

You're a woman Awadewit. You're not entitled to a vote. --

Fatuorum 09:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

No. When people vote in congress a record is usually taken and a record preserved. Same with other vote outcome at local and community decision making processes. Anonymity is already provided, and the community is small enough that it's best to confront vote buying and intimidation head on and expose it. Of course socking and cabalism is a far greater concern, which may be why many from the mafioso set support secret wiki-voting ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we're reverting to public voting, then I say we revert to the London Mob. Whiggery and Liberty through Physical Force of the Labouring Classes. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

18th century? Read Trollope's novels, especially Can You Forgive Her?. Bribery of voters was widespread well into the second half of the 19th century, it was just a little less blatant.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the rigging is clear and there are no

hanging chads (or other problematic hangings to sort out), I can't see why anyone would object. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Because of herd mentality and group think. When I asked my class if they wanted an in-class final or a take-home final, two people raised their hands for take-home. Everyone else looked around at those two and then everyone raised their hands for take-home. Two days later I asked the students to privately write what they preferred on a piece of a paper. The new result, when they didn't feel pressured to vote in a public situation? 50-50 split. Massive difference.

talk) 16:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

CoM, the votes of members of Congress are preserved and identified because Congresspeople are themselves elected representatives, not private citizens. I'm not aware of any major democracy where the voting records of individual, private citizens are a matter of public (or even private) record. Even local decision-making processes (at least in the mid-sized to large municipalities in which I've resided) are performed by "secret" ballot. In the cases where voters are identifiable, the results tend to be 99.96% approval ratings of the sort enjoyed by Alexander Lukashenko and his ilk. MastCell ^Talk 19:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• ArbCom votes on the record, just like Congress. Wikipedia editors should vote privately, just like citizens do when they elect their Representatives. Jehochman ^Talk 21:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I regularly voice and hand vote in large, contested political spaces (I've even publically voted by division). Anyone who's been a member of an association or an owner of a company or collective has voted publically (even if by proxy). The differentiation here seems to be: If you are deliberative, your vote is public. If you are non-deliberative and electing someone to do your job for you, you vote secretly. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be doing any more image reviews at FAC - see

You might want to check in again YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 02:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do Friday afternoon or Sunday. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Not there yet; worry about those quick keeps as much as I worry about the quick delist declarations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The former are the problem. Check again? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 04:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I've put in a request to Manning Bartlett that he be a candidate in the ArbCom election. I don't like to do this, as I'm supposed to be an election coordinator—a civil servant without fear or favour; but I hope people might allow me this latitude just once. Tony (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sleep pattern's standard procrastinating student with capacity for all-nighters, I'd say. How I'll work it around my other commitments...probably by procrastinating on the real life stuff. No, truthfully, law school isn't as much work as we like to pretend it is; real life commitments aren't a concern. They could become a slightly larger one in the last six months of the term, when I'll no longer be in school, but I'm confident that I can deal with it. Finally, nice of you to characterize it as a typo, when in fact I just can't spell. Steve Smith (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy. I hope you look at this FAC again before you do promotions. EyeSerene has really improved the article, and I don't think there are really enough problems for it not to be featured. Obviously, I'm biased, but I'd like some clarification as to whether it's ready or not. TPS'ers welcome.

I understand that Fowler&fowler demands a lot for prose, as I saw with one of the hurricane FACs. So I'm asking for your opinion. Thanks, ceranthor 01:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, are you on? ceranthor 14:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I have houseguests and may not promote until tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have temporarily set up a web test for my tool to convert the pubmed search results into a list of wiki citations. If you change the "url=" value to your desired search,

http://www.spottext.com/wikimed.cfm?url=integrin+signalling

you should get back up to 50 citations in wiki format. While this isn't designed for spamming, it is easier to delete a reference that try to type if by hand. Note you should be able to enter a pmid, http://www.spottext.com/wikimed.cfm?url=19915538 or otherwise return a single entry if that is what you want- your request is forwarded to an eutils search script and should support all features except that I wasn't real careful setting up the web interface so spaces and other things may get mangled. This uses a cygwin bash script to invoke java code and some other pubmed eutils scripts so it is very slow- give it a minute or two to return results. Note this is only temporary for feedback and comments. You should be able to integrate this into your own scripts if desired for testing. This is similar to existing tool for fixing isolated partial links but it allows an editor to get complete search results and just delete stuff he doesn't want. Putting these results on talk pages can be helpful. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the work on improving tools for searching PubMed, but I don't fully understand most of your message, or what this script is doing that Diberri doesn't already do. It is, though, returning authors in a format that is not used or desirable in medical articles (see Diberri author format, one field, truncates long lists with et al, avoids long lists of first and last author names). It's also returning a duplicate URL, where the PMID suffices (URLs are only used when full text of the article is available). It also should convert page ranges from a

WP:ENDASH as Diberri does. Could you please give me an example of how you envision using this tool and what distinguishes it from Diberri? I'm unclear on the purpose; perhaps I'm not following your post. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I ran it by him I guess we could get more feedback from him. Minor formatting issues can be addressed, I just copied whatever eutils returned. From what I gathered, you need to start with some piece of a reference to use his tool, this returns a complete search result and you can edit and integrate while authoring an article, not just clean up citations you've already found. I've used it in a few places and it creates a complete list in a hurry to help add context to some debates. With reasonable search citeria, you can get a complete list with little effort and then edit it down interactively on talk pages. So, AFAIK, this is for authoring not just clean up. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy,

I received the following message regarding edits I made to the article on Basshunter:

"You have made an edit to Basshunter that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you do, you may be blocked for disruption. See the blocking policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)"

The only edits I made were adding a few additional External Links. I don't see how that can be interpreted as "defamatory." Can you clarify?

- Mendle44

I am so sorry; you are correct, and the content was an IP who edited after you.[2] I will remove the warning from your page. My sincere apologies! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Thanks for rectifying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mendle44 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to improve an article to like-FA status, everything like a FA except the nomination process. The article that I want to work on is a stub. Where can I find the exact order of things, like history, see also, references, etc. For example, does see also come before references? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LAYOUT (yes, See also is before references). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for the link. You may commit vandalism and wipe this out, if you wish. :) Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment at the bottom. Theleftorium 20:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, but the FAC page is seriously backlogged, and there's enough work to be done there that I feel you can ask the reviewers who have already weighed in to continue discussion on talk. A proper review of

WP:MEDRS will take some time, and is best done off-FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

In addition to discussion of collaboration on my talk page, thanks for backing up my comments at the Request for Clarification. I have also been concerned that this case has been so incoherent that it isn't easy for Arbitrators to see the wood for the trees, especially with three other cases now occupying the same page history, and all the other work Arbitrators have to do. Indeed I was thinking to email arbcom-l-at-lists.wikimedia.org to make sure these comments weren't missed. However, I believe that our agreement onwiki about this will be noted, and hope it that it will inform the final motions. So thank you again for contributing to clarifications which may prevent a repetition of these unfortunate events. Geometry guy 21:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the motions stand right now, I'm not at all clear what they mean or intend. But, it also seems we're not supposed to criticize, so I'm really unclear what to do next. <eeeeek> It looks like ongoing confusion, which is more of what got us all into the mess to begin with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither, but lets relax, Sandy, and wait. I understand your concern about the mixed bag of motions 5-9, and that is one of the reasons I commented today. However, I have confidence in collective responsibility and consensus of Arbitrators: sensible motions will pass, less clear ones will be dropped or tweaked until consensus is found. We can help by drawing attention to the most relevant information from the case in terms we agree upon, as here. Geometry guy 22:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Just worried because I saw the same problems last time, and they weren't fixed before the case closed, and that's how we ended up where we are. I'll relax :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, wouldn't it be better to do some sort of noinclude command like they do at

That wouldn't reduce the size of the review, to help prevent other reviewers from being frightened off by the size. Also, I've only moved completely resolved commentary to talk; why do we need it on the page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is no where near as long as many FAC discussions. I prefer to keep a full record of the discussion on the FAC page. I have been involved in dozens and dozens of FAC discussions and have never seen significant content removed like that. Why don't you cap it if you want it shorter. That way it is easily accessible and not likely to be overlooked. Since it is so unusual to move FAC content to the talk page the resolved issues are likely to be overlooked the way you've done it. Both noinclude and capping keep the content readily available.--

WP:LOTM) 23:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Capping it does not reduce the page size, nor does noinclude reduce the FAC complexity. FAC is larger than it's been in months right now (maybe years), we tend to get more nominations and less reviews during the US holidays, and the page load time is being affected. I've removed resolved commentary only, and the link is plainly available on each page to anyone who wants to see that info on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I though noinclude (or maybe it is includeonly) reduced page complexity because it would be hidden on transclusion at

WP:LOTM) 23:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

No, I won't, because I don't see the need. Furthermore. I spent hours today moving commentary to talk to benefit nominators and reviewers by reducing the page size so I wouldn't have to archive FACs that haven't garnered support, and could instead allow them to run longer. Considering the time I spent on this, trying to help both reviewers and nominators, I'm not entirely pleased with the complaints over a non-issue (resolved commentary). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there other articles at

WP:LOTM) 23:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

TTT, have you read my answers above or checked my contribs to see how I spent my day? Let me reassure you that I will no longer move comments to shorten reviews of your FACs, even though reviewer fatigue is often an issue on articles nominated by you. I suspect that other nominators and reviewers might appreciate that I'm trying to allow reviews to run longer during the US holidays, and reduce reviewer fatigue at the same time by removing completely resolved issues off of the page to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you won't restore upon closing, would you mind if I did?--

WP:LOTM) 23:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I have restored the commentary moved to talk. I presume you won't complain if a nom has to be restarted or archived because of lack of reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hid the stuff you had moved using noinclude. I think I still have a few more days before it should be restarted because restarts usually occur after about four weeks or a month, in my experience. I am sure you will do whatever is best though.--

WP:FOUR) 06:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

TTT, do you ask yourself why, when I moved comments on at least a dozen pages (if not more), you are the only person taking so much time on this and having a problem with it? I do not appreciate you adding the noinclude, and will remove it. First, it doesn't reduce the size of the FAC since that text is still plainly visible when viewing the FAC in nontranscluded mode, so it won't solve the issue of making FACs less complex for subsequent reviewers. Second, it adds another layer of complexity, by asking reviewers to add comments below the include, possibly introducing errors or the chance that I will miss comments when viewing the page in transcluded mode. Third, the last thing I want to get started is the trend of nominators deciding what to include or not on FACs. *I* moved commentary to talk that I was completely satisfied had been resolved. If you are unhappy with the way I've tried to manage the FAC page size, fine-- I reverted in your case (the only nominator who raised an issue)-- but please don't introduce a new and unhelpful trend at FAC whereby nominators decide what to hide from view. I am reverting your noinclude. Finally, please see the

WT:FAC (which has 900 viewers to the 300 who watch my page) where the entire community can weigh in. Barring community consensus, please leave decisions about what is viewable on the page to the delegates: I don't want to have to start stepping back through diffs on every FAC to make sure nothing was done incorrectly, and I spent a great deal of time reviewing commentary before moving it. If *I* make a mistake, I'm responsible for the steps needed to fix it, but I don't want to see a trend started that will require me to review FACs diff by diff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

In regards to your comment ("I'm sorry, I'm not an admin") on the Clarification page this was created and deleted on 2008-11-11, by way of {{

Thank you so much for doing that homework: the first person to do so for me :) I hope it's no longer an issue, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did leave a second review Friday or Saturday. Its in the middle somewhere. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, they've done some copyediting since. Will take another look pronto. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! (We need to get some things moving on that page.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have posted my third review. They really need to have the article peer-reviewed by several people. Its not at FA level yet. Sorry. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being inappropriately bold with moving the FAR to the FARC. Thing is I knew that it needed a review, but I completely spaced and blocked that fact out. Sorry again! Here's part of a cookie. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy, long time no see. I have a few points at the

Will see what I can do. Two quick notes: Samir (talk · contribs) is the primary contributor to Crohn's disease, and he has recently expressed an interest in getting it to FA status, so he should be more than happy to revamp the article himself if you notify him. Wilson's disease was mostly written by JFW, so I'm sure the same applies.

Oh, and don't forget that strict MoS compliance is not even a GA requirement, and compliance with WikiProject guidelines and topic-specific MoS sub-guidelines is specifically excluded from the criteria; Medicine GAs technically need not comply with MEDRS to gain or retain GA status! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 11:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of things with this... one, do I need to bring back my pile of points or are they being considered from before? and getting to the Fifelfoo points... I'm a bit concerned that in all the concern about formatting of citations, concerns about

I sympthasize :) Do whatever you think best; your judgment is good. I, too, am dismayed to see an emphasis on formatting of citations in the ongoing absence of more strenuous review of reliability of sources, and always appreciate all that you do (which is a lot). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm asking if you're taking into account the sourcing concerns from before the restart, or if I have to bring them back again... (getting ready to head over to the in-laws for Wed and Thurs for the annual Turkey-day overdose on family. That's not helping my mood, this holiday was always first hubby's favorite, so the holiday gets me down.) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) You may need to bring back anything unresolved, although I highlighted on restart that reliability of sources was unresolved. Hopefully, this trend of increasingly longer and longer FACs, focusing on the less important matters, is only a trend and will pass, as so many others do at FAC. If not, we may need to raise the issues on talk. I'm curious to see what Karanacs is able to make of the page when she goes through today, as she may have a different view than mine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm scared :( Just so you know, Sandy, I'll be going out of town tonight and may not have any internet access until Sunday. If lots of comments come through on my FAC nom this week (hee hee, what an unlikely event this time of year), feel free to archive it. Karanacs (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DP was better, and I just finished off the sources review for the day. Should be able to make another pass sometime this weekend, I hope. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be mostly available over the Thanksgiving holiday. Karanacs, please let me know your thoughts once you've gotten through FAC today; I hope you have lots of time on your hands today :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I got sourcing done! And twice in the last week! Now if I could just throw this persistent freaking cold... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, my initial thoughts are unprintable. When I got to number 30 (30!) on the list and realized that these were noms that had been open for weeks with few or no comments I got a bit discouraged. Depending on how Saturday's promotions/archives go (today will be a very small number), it may be best to skip the Tuesday pr/ar and so I can spend that time reviewing instead. Do you think that would cause an uproar? Karanacs (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well <sigh>; I see your reaction was similar to mine. It is the worst I've ever seen it, and I am absolutely loathe to close all of those reviews; some of them are up for the second or third time, and they deserve review. On the other hand, for you to review now would be very time consuming. I'll have to leave that choice to you, but no, I don't think it should cause an uproar. Can you make a call on Bakshi yet? I'm wondering what it would take to get The Purple One back; do you think prostitution would help? <wince, grin> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about bribery? I make truly excellent Christmas cookies (albeit totally covered in sprinkles thanks to the overenthusiastic efforts of a toddler) and will happily sacrifice some to the cause ;) Karanacs (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that would depend upon his appetite for cookies vs. other things. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hubby approves of cookie-sharing, but not sharing of other things ;) Karanacs (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I Don't Do Food". Not sure where that leaves me ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ya'll are aware we're a bunch of dirty old broads, right? Luckily, I have a coffee cake in the oven... (wafts cooking odors under folks' noses). Ealdgyth - Talk 20:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you calling "old"? And we aren't "dirty broads" until Moni shows up. (There are Wookiee cookies in my oven, from my Star Wars cookbook-- better than chocolate chip!) And let's not get into your views on consumption habits! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Jehochman nicks a Wookie cookie, and sneaks out while editors trade recipes...]

Wookiee Cookies. The Star Wars cookbook. This from a person who called me "dorky". MastCell ^Talk 22:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait 'til your fellow "dork" comes 'round here "waving his willy". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wookiee cookies

Is someone going to template me for a copyvio now? That's my contribution to the culinary world. Oh, and eat your pineapple. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, you just made my secret life as a baker much more interesting. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go forth, young Jedi! May your Hoth Chocolate be sweet, may your Dark Side Salsa be spicy, and may the Force always be with you! Cultivate the awareness of a Jedi: never leave the kitchen while something is cooking on the stove or in the oven.[3] (You bake? Watchout, I might stalk you!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add a tablespoon of ground coffee with the dry ingredients. Instant coffee granules work in a pinch, too. Chocolate chips + cinnamon + coffee = heaven (or as close as I'm ever gonna get to it anyway). Maralia (talk) 03:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was not archived, and the opposing commentators were not given enough time to strike their opposition, even though their concerns were addressed. (

The FAC was archived: [4]. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The article shouldn't have been archived. The FAC reviewers were not given time to strike their opposition. All concerns were addressed. (
  talk) 22:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC))[reply
  ]

I'm about to shut down my computer, so whatever you decide to do is fine with me. Sorry I have to leave in the middle of all this. Karanacs (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Busy day with clients: I'll try in about nine hours. Tony (talk) 23:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a frenzied patch at the moment with clients. Sorry to lag; if you can give me another 24 hours, I may be able to put in a good stint there. Weekend looking not bad. 2 December is the work deadline. Sorry, I'm feeling guilty. Tony (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did one of my occasional checks of what's got an FA star/is in an FA category. This article wasn't listing in Category:Wikipedia featured articles due to an AH botched by vandalism; this article was missing its star since it was overwritten with some trivia seven days ago; and the kicker is this article, which had been without its FA star since an edit war in mid-July, when someone reverted to 'the version that was passed at FAC'. Silly humans. Maralia (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Maralia, as always :) On the first (Emporer Penguin), I will ask Gimmetrow to look in here (not sure why that vandalism didn't trigger an ah error); on the second, I'm unsure why JayHenry missed that; on the third, not much we can do except be glad that you do these checks periodically. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The botched AH wasn't really an AH issue: the vandalism changed the template call, so instead of calling {{

ArticleHistory}} it was trying to call {{ArticleHistory hey}}. Not much we can do about that. Surprised the other two went unnoticed by those editors for so long, though. Maralia (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm embarrassed! I had to travel out of the country for work on TFA day, and didn't get back until a few days later (and after the star was removed). The star was taken out in a series of the 19 edits it took someone to write a paragraph about a turkey nicknamed Zelda. I was so dismayed about the turkey that I didn't notice the star got whacked! The article survived mostly intact and I just missed that the FA template got taken out at the bottom of the page. --JayHenry (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like A Boy Named Sue; now I'll be thinking of you on Thanksgiving! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this. I have a script which checks for vandalism of AH templates. With a few thousand articles to check, it takes a while, so I only run it a couple times a month. I also have a script to remove stars from non-FAs. The script also checked for the stars in current FAs, but something changed on the Wiki and broke that function, and I haven't been motivated enough to fix it. Do articles really need the stars? Gimmetrow 03:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange question. Either they all do or none do surely? --

Fatuorum 03:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I know Raul never worried about it; as long as it's listed at

WP:FA, it's featured :) But I'm glad Maralia does these checks. More importantly, Malleus, what do you think of wookieee cookies? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

That's a pretty poor idea. There's no obligation on reviewers to actually work on the article, and neither should there be. It's your responsibility as nominator to deal with any issues that crop up at FAC, and not by pretending that they don't exist. You need to engage with the opposition, either by addressing their concerns or convincingly refuting them. So far it appears that you've done neither. --

Fatuorum 18:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I understand very well the frustrations of FAC, and I'm of the view that there are some articles best not taken there, for a variety of reasons. Maybe yours is one of those? --

Fatuorum 18:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Except that there are no issues. These same two editors are biased against the article and me. Having to get permission from them to renominate the article is a crock. They know that the article is FA quality, and they'll never admit it. They want to drag this out to the point of ridiculousness. That's the reason why this article got up to 9 nominations in the first place. (

talk) 18:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC))[reply

]

Can you think of any other article that's been nominated nine times? No? I think you have to be realistic, and not blame everyone else. Take responsibility. If there were really no issues it would not have required 9 FACs. --

Fatuorum 18:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I will not "take responsibility" because it is not my fault. Look at previous nominations where reviewers enthusiastically supported the article's promotion because it was, in fact, up to FA standards. Every nomination except for the first one has been enthusiastically received, except by the same two guys. I will not "take responsibility" for them sinking the FACs repeatedly based on a bias against me, bias against the article, bias against the subjects, etc. They need to take responsibility for destroying any acknowledgment of the quality of one of the best film biographies that has ever been put together. I am not responsible for someone else's bullshit. (

talk) 18:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC))[reply

]

Ibaranoff24, all of the FACs have given valid, actionable opposes, which you haven't acted on. I can detect nothing other that the opposers need do now, except acknowledge when you have addressed their already clearly stated opposes so that the article can come back to FAC. I am hoping that you will decide to act on those opposes, so that I don't have to put the proposal forward for community input. I don't know how the community will react to the proposal, but unless you can agree to act upon the opposes, I will have to put it forward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I addressed and acted upon their opposes. They will never acknowledge that. That's why the proposal is a bad idea. You're asking me to do something that I have already done. Repeatedly. (
  talk) 18:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC))[reply
  ]
  • I'll wait a few days to see if you are amenable to addressing the valid and clearly stated opposes before putting the proposal forward to the community. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Frankly, after this, I doubt it. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did address the valid and clearly stated opposes. Do you not understand that these editors are unwilling to acknowledge this or put any work into the article themselves? The article features extensively researched material from all readily-available materials that I could gain access to. I can't access anything further that would improve the article. The article is perfect. The article is up to FA standards. The issue is a pair of editors who will not do anything helpful and repeatedly disrupt the promotion of what is clearly the best film biography on this website. I don't need to stand for a fascist proposal that only affects one article and myself. I am the only editor, and this is the only article, that has been targeted in such a fashion by such close-minded, disagreeable characters. (
      talk) 19:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC))[reply
      ]
      • The proposal allows the FAC director/delegates to also approve a nomination; it does not put you at the mercy of only two editors, but to the extent their opposes are valid, the article cannot come back to FAC until they are addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • But I did address them. Why do you not understand this? (
          talk) 19:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC))[reply
          ]
          • You have not consulted numerous proposed additional sources; the article cannot be considered comprehensive or neutral until that has been done. If you want the article to be FAC ready, consulting other sources is essential
            per 1c. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • I also want to make sure you understand the proposal, should I bring it forward. As things stand right now, if you re-nominate Bakshi at FAC without addressing the oppose, either Karanacs or I will remove it; as has been explained to you, we cannot allow reviewer, bot and delegate time to be used on another FAC when the opposes haven't been addressed. The proposal changes nothing wrt whether the nomination can come back to FAC; if the proposal gains consensus, it only allows other editors to remove the nomiation for the delegates, saving us the work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• How can I consult something that isn't available to me? I do not have access to an extensive library of articles. I can't find these articles online. I do not have the money to spend $3 million on eBay to track down every one of those magazines for a Wikipedia article. I cannot consult these articles, simply stated. If these editors cannot consult the articles themselves, they should admit that the article is perfect and that it should have been promoted eight FACs ago. (
  talk) 19:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC))[reply
  ]
  • This is a wiki; collaborate. Find someone who does have access to such articles and ask them to email material to you. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you can't find collaborators, and can't access the sources, you may need to accept that the article can't be FAC-ready until you do, or someone does. It does not meet
      1c; it is not up to reviewers to do this work. I should also point out that continued nominations of this article, considering this has been explained to you, can be considered disruption of FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Ibaranoff24, you say that "When each FAC ends, each editor backs away from the article and makes no attempt to help"—this is plainly untrue, given the post I made this morning to Talk:Ralph Bakshi/Archive 2#Citations for use, specifically to help you address these recurring concerns. I also take issue with your statement that "Every nomination except for the first one has been enthusiastically received, except by the same two guys." FAC #8 had issues brought by several very experienced FAC reviewers, and I have never refused to modify my stance in accordance with improvements to the article (indeed, I called it strong at #9, despite its flaws). Still, for all your disagreeability, I'm willing to help out in any way I'm able. That list of potential sources was a start; hopefully you can find some use for them. Otherwise, please take Sandy's advice. Surely you can see that there is nothing to gain from this constant back-and-forth? Steve ^T • C 19:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Sandy, problems like this are basically the reason I stopped participating at FAC. There is virtually nothing a nominator can do against a filibuster from an established reviewer. In my final FAC I almost failed because a prominent editor filibustered over a single clause of a single sentence based on her misunderstanding of the source material and the type of research involved. I had no recourse but to bow to the absurd demand. I bowed, and then I bowed out. The reviewer filibuster is an anti-consensual power problem (oftentimes the reviewer gets 100% of their way; nominator none) that shouldn't just be brushed off by telling the nominator to fetch more shrubberies. --JayHenry (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of such cases, understand your concerns, and try to avoid letting that affect FACs to the extent I'm able. This case is different; that numerous sources haven't been consulted-- and the nominator admits he hasn't consulted them, yet continues to nominate the article-- is not questioned. The article is largely sourced to one book. See User:SandyGeorgia/Bakshi proposal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos on your extensive remarks regarding AS and medication issues! Nice work, and thanks for the effort. I knew the info was out there in plenty of decently reliable form, but simply didn't have the time to research it myself at the time. Good comments all around! Thanks again. --

Thank you; I knew that text could be sourced, I just had to go looking for it in the full text reviews on my hard drive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you said "

The full description of where to use italics used to be at

MOS:TITLE. Journals, periodicals, newspapers and book names should be italicized; websites should not be italicized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I love that song, "Try to Remember"! :) I remember seeing a production of The Fantasticks as a play way back when, now you've got me thinking all nostalgic-like, and I'll have to go read more about it. :P Cheers, Cirt (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a nice song. I've seen more than a few productions of The Fantasticks, but then, I've seen more than a few of most Broadway productions! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your help with stuff at the Bale Out FAC. :) I was confused about how Fifelfoo's comment would be counted, but then I saw your response below, and thought, no worries. :P ttfn, Cirt (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy, I noticed your report of backlog issues at FAC. I wouldn't say I have extensive academic knowledge (except about obscure sections of English local government) but I have produced plenty of items for publication, and I write professional level (British) English, specialising in turning bureaucratese into plain English. Would I be able to help - I don't want to jump in uninvited. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any and all help is appreciated. FAC pages are currently bogged down in technical issues (images, citation formatting, dabs and dead links, alt text), but getting little review of substantial items (NPOV, verifiability, prose and comprehensiveness). Further, many FACs are appearing ill-prepared, and few reviewers are willing to engage by simply Opposing, as they are then required to revisit their opposes, which often leads to a peer-review-style FAC; if more reviewers opposed ill-prepared FACs, they could be closed sooner. See

list of the oldest FACs in need of review, and these concerns. You don't have to read the full article to oppose; you should read the full article before supporting, though. An additional and ongoing concern is the number of reviewers who Support while ignoring Ealdgyth's diligence in higlighting iffy or questionable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

That's odd. I posted a response, but Wikipedia appears to have eated it. Never mind. It just said thanks, and I'll take a look.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I've ever supported an article while ignoring Ealdgyth's concerns or not, but I doubt it. I may well though have supported in the face of opposes because I didn't agree with them. Not all opposes are equal. --

Fatuorum 03:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I can't for the life of me remember who 'does' tropical medicine. The participant list at WP:MED was no help. I know it's someone blazingly obvious, but my brain isn't working, and I want to poke whoever-it-is to take a look at Malaria vaccine. Help! Hope you had a good turkey day :) Maralia (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GrahamColm or Tim Vickers (pie for breakfast is good :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at the article on Saturday, but Tim is probably more qualified—I only do viruses and a few bacteria, but my immunology isn't too bad—bye the way, we have to wait until Christmas to get our turkey in the U.K. :) Happy Thanksgiving to all of my beloved friends across the pond. I know you all watch this page. Graham.

^Talk 22:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Thankful for your happy thanksgiving I am! ;) Sandy, btw, I'm typing the rest of the background section for 1997 Qayen earthquake as I speak and I'm tweaking it on word. ceranthor 22:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you restarted it? Does that mean I have to start all over? I was writing the background section and was planning on inserting it tomorrow morning... But whatever. Not annoyed, just confused, ceranthor 04:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep doing what you're doing, addressing the issues raised before the restart. The review was so long, stalled at the bottom, and there had been so many changes that it will benefit from a fresh look at the top of the list. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I thought there was a reason for the restart. Thanks :) ceranthor 04:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		WikiProject Vancouver
		You have been featured article status.

- Mkdw^talk 12:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sandy, I know you're super busy these days, but if you have a chance we could use your keen eye on the article. We're especially short on writers with fairly good turn of phrase to re-summarize some of the paragraphs.Mkdw^talk 06:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The closing of Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hawaii_hotspot/archive2 was very much premature. The discussion was still in progress! Why close? And it had 3 supports too! :( ResMar 15:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, this is way way way too premature, I wasn't on much yesterday, there are plenty of older noms out there, it's still very active, you closed it after a finished most of Eud's comments, please open it again and don't give any of this nonsense. I've seen noms last much much MUCH longer, and it's going to be a pain nominating it AGAIN for THE EXACT SAME THING. >< ResMar 15:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, you edit conflicted Eud's response! THIS IS REDICULOUS. ResMar 15:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please chill man. Don't need the caps. Talk calmly to Sandy, not scream bloody hell.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 15:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Res, I'd suggest you calm down plz. I agree the archival was a bit premature, but I'm sure Sandy has a good reason for it. Wait for her response. ceranthor 15:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you would be mad if your FA was cut in half >:( ResMar 16:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, I wouldn't. Plz calm down and wait for Sandy to come on. She might not be on 'til later, FYI. ceranthor 16:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAC is not peer-review; if discussion was in progress, invite the participants to continue on the talk page where you all left off. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And? It won't count for anything so it's comepletely pointless. ResMar 17:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can still get feedback to improve the article, so it's not pointless. Kafka Liz (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bump. ResMar 01:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, she had enough time to respond to Rurch, but not to me. ResMar 01:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember Ruhrfisch hollering at me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed the orange box? >:( ResMar 01:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the -5 hour scew on ur contribs page, (comparing response to latest edit signature), the initial message by me would have been made by the standards at the contribs at exactly 10:38. You have made MULTIPLE edits since then. Yes, I am being ignored. Do I look stupid? ResMar 01:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back to ignoring me. Now this is just plain hurtful. I ask nicely for an FAC to be restarted because it was closed incredibly prematurely. Instead I get a "You're too small time to matter to me" in the face. Sure, perhaps you've got bigger fish to fry. But just ignoring me is ignoring your duties as an FAC delagate. ResMar 02:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down please; you're not acting very reasonably. FA isn't a big deal. Worry about making an excellent article, and if it happens to become featured, then great. Otherwise, FAC isn't generally worth stressing over. Furthermore, all editors, SG included, are mere volunteers, and are not required to respond. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I get it, she's not REQUIRED to respond to me, because she's too HIGH-RANKING to respond to me. Sure, rush to her defense. Rediculous. I'm starting an new FAC. This is off-the-charts reciculous. I'm SURE if you were in my position, Mr. Epic FAs, she would grant what is pretty much a must. ResMar 03:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is a "must". Just take some advice, which is offered to you in a kindly manner, and work for a bit on the article, address all the problems that were brought up, work on your sourcing (the children's encyclopedia is a problem, yes) and come back after a couple of weeks. It's always better to get all your ducks in a row before hitting FAC, with folks having signed off on the exisiting problems. FAC is not a peer review system where the idea is to bring the article up to FA standards, if a large number of problems are pointed out, it's best to work on them outside FAC. I generally get four or five folks to look over any article I'm thinking of bringing to FAC, for prose, comprehensiveness, abilty to be understood by non-specialists, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. N. O. I'm not waiting any. I'm restarting it on the spot. I don't care what you people think of me anymore. I don't have any quipps with anyone but Snady who trod over my nerves and treated me like a pile of rags. I'm restarting the thing. The article IS at FA standards, and there are no issues that can't be fixed.

This jdea that <mute> isn't responsible for her own duties is beyond my grasp. I don't care what you people say. I'm not calming down because she's your "friend". I will treat everything tommorow. The restarted nom is at archive3.

I realize that my outlook was just hurt terribly but I don't care. Just oppose on pure vehenomousness if you want. Tis hurts my pride incomparably. ResMar 03:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we live in very different worlds, Resident Mario, but in my world, you don't get many results by hollering and being rude to people. When you're overcome by a more mature and professional attitude, I can explain to you why the FAC was archived, but if you want me to stay focused on my volunteer Wiki work, I suggest you keep mention of five-hour screws off my page: such talk distracts me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY!?!?! <masters himself> I was calm. Until I was ignored. Then I became angry. Your friends rushed to your defense and now I'm resolute. I have yet recieve an explanation. And as far as I can see, it is not required you give me one, apparently. ResMar 03:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You put three posts on my page, at the start of this thread, hollering at me, and you haven't stopped being rude in the entire time you've been posting here. Nothing about my volunteer job requires me to answer such rudeness. While I have your attention, could you please explain why your user page contains a TFA blurb for an article that isn't featured and hasn't been TFA? I have removed your third FAC; you can bring it back in a few weeks, after you've addressed the sourcing issues raised by two reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly Resident Mario, it really isn't that big of a deal. We've all had FACs closed, and yes it's disappointing, but there's always a reason for it. Calm down and post normally; SandyGeorgia get's lots of messages on her talk, so its possible that your original message was missed. Best bet is to go away for a few weeks and fix what was brought up in the time while the FAC was live; spend that time to take it to a Peer Review if necessary. Then, when you think everything had been addressed, just bring it back. It really isn't anything to get so mad over. There's time for another nomination in the future.

talk, contributions) 03:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I was going to post the same when I edit conflicted with Sandy. Take it down a few notches and walk on a beach or something. This is serious to God not worth the stress and anger. One note on Sandy's page would and did I bet get a dozen or so FAC participants to look at the FAC and the article. I know I did. But this insistence is alarming and makes you, Resident Mario, look like you're unhinged. Relax, take a long break and return refreshed to renominate the article. --Moni3 (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...Wow. Ok. I calmed down. Look: >:( >:| :| :/ :) Ahhhhhh :) Ok NOW do I deserve an explanation? See I've got a smiley :) Oh and no, it's hard to miss a huge orange box staring you in the face. Don't buy that. Sorry. Only other message so far was from the Rhy, who she cordilly responded to. ResMar 03:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what issues? Lets see, 2c Fi said he'd handle himself, Tony never responded back about my fixes (added more so I suppose the others are cleared...?), uh 3 supports, one fully handled technical comment, and some source works. That's it. One day of effort to fix. ResMar 03:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Address the sourcing issues raised by both Fifelfoo and Ealdgyth, and bring the FAC back in a few weeks. Supports over non-reliable sources have little meaning;

WP:V is policy. And please don't vandalize articlehistory to make a point. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Fif's last comment was "I'll handle it for you." And why can't I nominate it now, huh? I can fix these minor problems in a day. ResMar 04:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once you're corrected the sourcing, and if Ealdgyth and Fifelfoo both agree it's ready, you can bring it back sooner (please include diffs in the nom indicating their agreement in the event you bring it back sooner than a few weeks). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I go to NYC and return to this. Sandy, since I'm friendly with ResMar, I've told him to calm down. I think he'll listen to me. Big Red tied bu. :( ceranthor 06:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I left a note on the talk page of the main contributor to Parque Estatal Black Moshannon offering to make the Spanish versions of the two maps if they provided the transltion. I know web translators for German and English are next to worthless. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SandyGeorgia, since the Jesse Draper article was up for deletion, I began fixing it up a lot and it now fits the criteria for non-deletion. Though, the problem is the user who put up the deletion tag has not been online tonight and it said on November 29 if no one proposes it'll be deleted. I don't know how to get in touch and if another administrator would be more convinent to take it down, at the moment. Since User:Steve is not online, do you know of an administrator that is, because time is running out. ATC ^{. Talk} 04:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the tags, which you don't need to be an admin to do. It seems to have got beyond the prod stage; they should take it to AFD at least. Johnbod (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Johnbod ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx too Johnbod! ATC ^{. Talk} 04:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to comment on this but it looks like the nomination has been closed? I am not familar with the process, but was there a reason? Thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 04:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the inquiry. Sourcing issues will usually sink a FAC, and several reviewers raised concerns about the quality of the sources. With the FAC page backlogged worse than it's ever been, FACs with substantial policy concerns are likely to get bogged down and end up at the bottom of the page with little review. A faster route is usually to work the issues off-FAC, and bring it back for a clean pass the next time through. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "Exactly what we don't need on ArbCom this year are mediators who haven't worked in the trenches of article building, dealing with conflict." Yup - couldn't have said it better myself. Of course, I've felt the same way every year (as you probably have). MastCell ^Talk 07:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually ... I was slower to clue in, and I needed a push :) This was my year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have been maintaining a close eye on the FAC urgents list. Perhaps you could detail your precise specifications for the list here? That would make it easier for others that are helping with the list. Thanks!

Anything that doesn't have three full supports, or independent review (uninvolved) or any comments after ten days ... or that is controversial in the sense of needing more eyes to resolve reviewer differences. Thanks again for keeping up with it! The problem has been that Fifelfoo's supports are not full supports, and that is fooling others who maintain the template. (Also, keep in mind that Supports entered without consideration for questionable sources identified by others-- unless they specifically address the text supported by those sources-- are given less weight.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... so it's pretty straightforward then. Don't know why you make such a fuss about it SandyG. *sticks tongue out*. :lol: --

Fatuorum 23:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Dork :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doh... I can keep my descriptions of article quality under Comment headings then to reduce confusion. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except when you oppose. It's OK to oppose on one aspect, but to Support, you should read the entire article and take all of

WP:WIAFA into account. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I think that's what's intimidating to many reviewers. Who wants to be the first to support, if Fifelfoo/F&f/et al might come along shortly afterwards and rubbish the article because a journal title isn't in italics, or worse still there's a misplaced comma? In the firm belief that FA =/= perfect, I probably tend to take a more robust view than some others; if I think there's a serious problem I'll oppose, but I'll also support in the face of relatively minor imperfections. --

Fatuorum 00:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Undork :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking from experience, I can say it's kind of annoying to have your FAC called unprepared when 10 different people have offered support for it. Fifelfoo and Fowler&fowler are obviously here to help, they just seem to be perfectionists. I mean that in the best of ways. ceranthor 00:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be pretty thick-skinned I think, and not just at FAC. So someone thinks your article was "unprepared", so what? Perhaps they're a dork and you ought not to worry about it. For myself, I try to be very respectful and supportive of the work that's been put into any article presented at FAC. They deserve no less. --

Fatuorum 01:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, I have taken a number of actions to modify the impact of my FAC reviewing. Reviewing under Comment headers almost universally now. Items with major issues have their commentary embargo'd for a week to allow 1a-c editors a chance to establish the baseline of the review. Extensive 2c material goes direct to FAC Talk pages, with a link. Intervening in the first week of review only when I'm speaking to 1b/c. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not Fifelfoo I think that your very detailed citation reviews are valuable, and I hope that they'll lead to increased precision. I think we might only disagree on whether or not a "faulty" citation ought to lead to an oppose vote at FAC. --

Fatuorum 01:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Regarding [5]... damn that was fast. I would have appreciated 24 hours at least to respond to the reviewers concerns. The one section he focused on is probably the only section I did not contribute directly to. I don't believe that the rest of the article suffers from the problems he describes. I am confident that I could have quickly addressed (hopefully in less than 24 hours) his problems in that section of the article and the review could have proceeded. Given all of the effort I've put into quickly addressing every single review comment over the last 2 weeks I must admit I'm a little deflated to see how you've handled this. While I was caught off guard by your decision to restart the review, I tried to roll with it. I admit this is the first FA review I've participated in, so my inexperience (and frustration) is probably showing. But this most recent one I just don't get. Why did you feel the need to shut down the review just 3 hours after the comment? --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 23:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When plagiarism concerns are raised, other reviewers are likely to be very skeptical and the text is best re-worked off FAC; the FAC page is so backlogged right now, that the article may again fall to the bottom of the page with little review. As soon as Awadewit gives you a green light on the concerns she raised, you can bring back the FAC (please include a diff from her when you re-nominate). I also noted that many of the previous supports were from involved editors, so the FAC will have a better chance once Awadewit is satisfied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to help you work through the issues - drop me a note on my talk page if you want the help. Also, I'm a "she", btw. :)

talk) 01:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Can you please provide an answer to

Hey Ctj. I'll review the article sometime tomorrow or Tuesday for you, and you can also ask potential reviewers to comment on the article. We have a

urgent FAC list, maybe it should be added there? People who write geography articles are especially helpful. ;) ceranthor 02:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

It is on the Urgents List, along with Denton, Texas. Ctjf83, have you reviewed the Texas article? FAC is backlogged right now, so it's helpful if nominators also review. Since it takes about a dozen reviews to get an article promoted, it would be even more helpful if you'd review several :) Because reviews are stalled right now, we're letting FACs run longer than normal, but if a FAC doesn't garner support in about three to four weeks, it is archived. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I must be blind. Sandy, I've done a review of Bale Out, you may want to check that out. It looks pretty much ready to me, for the next round of promotions. I think I'll be able to do several reviews tomorrow. ceranthor 02:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you both. I'll see if I can review Denton in a day or two.

chat 12:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I still have some copyediting to do. The prose is not as... brilliant as I'd like. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...is not forgotten, but I have more Wikipedia-related e-mails to process that are more important than me getting elected. I'll hopefully get to it tomorrow morning, if you can hold off opposing me until then ;-) Fritzpoll (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't plan to oppose your candidacy, but I'm not sure when I'll be able to complete my Votes page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]