User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch12

Thank you
for re-structuring the Hinduism talk page templates. Much appreciated. GizzaChat  &#169; 05:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Bot work
I guess you want to get a bunch ready before you go on travel. It takes longer to process the formerFA templates due to the page moving, and there are 800 or so articles with featured. Then I suppose I'll go through the articles with formerFA, formerFA2, farcfailed, FARpassed and variations. Speaking of which, I noticed someone already created a redirect to the ArticleHistory template - another thing for code to look out for. Still finding hidden things from curious links in the archives, which slows things down. The page info generated before was filtered so it had a good concentration of FA-related pages. Other versions with less filtering had 1400 and 900 pages. The latter is probably a reasonable estimate of the FAC pages not linked on appropriate talk pages, but includes about 100 redirects in the WP:FAC prefix. Gimmetrow 11:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Refs
If you get a chance before you jet off, could you have a quick look at the refs for Red Barn Murder. I'm planning on putting up for FAC and this is the first one I've done that has been sourced mostly from books rather than the web. Cheers, Yomangani talk 12:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Very sensible idea. Done. Yomangani talk 14:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Done that too. I used to have the footnote dates linked on all my articles by using accessdate=date month|accessyear=year but people kept changing them to accessdaymonth= instead (which is not linked), so I eventually caved in and started putting that, and now it appears they want them linked anyway...bit annoying. Yomangani talk 16:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:West Indian cricket team in England in 1988
Thanks for tidying the boxes. Should the current status be logged as FA candidate? --Dweller 14:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

George Calvert
Thanks for correcting my errors on the talk page. It's my first time nominating for FAC. - Mocko13 01:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for fixing the banners on Talk:Go (board game). I was going to ask you to do it, but I didn't think it was important enough. --Ideogram 04:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Pashtun people
I moved all the categories in the article to Category:Pashtun people. You can find them there. I'll try to follow the rest of your advice as well. Thanks, Khoikhoi 11:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, can you respond as to whether your vote on the article has changed or not? I've made significant changes and have addressed the issues others raised in addition to yourself and would appreciate your further input and whether you believe it can be featured again. Thanks and take care. Tombseye 21:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Kakapo
Hey; I'm still a little worried about Kakapo. &mdash; Deckiller 13:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's been fun :) Your work was extremely instrumental in turning it around though. &mdash; Deckiller 14:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The Bot
Humph. There's no point to the thing if it'll be constantly stalling. Gimmebot, however, has fast become one of my best friends. Perhaps Gimme would look after Jmaxbot, but I'm not sure the traditions regarding bot "ownership."

I'm off at RfA, BTW. Not stumping (at least not yet! ;). But you did ask for a notification. Marskell 14:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * has put in a query to ; not sure of the protocol either. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Promoted facs
Hi! Thanks for the note. I did not know this automatic updating by GimmeBot. Thanks. I shall be aware! Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

A humble request
Hello Sandy. After all of your recent help with maintaining the FA status of The Quatermass Experiment and Quatermass and the Pit, I was wondering whether &mdash; if you happened to get the time, I know you're very busy! &mdash; you'd be able to cast your expert eyes over Nigel Kneale, which I have put up a peer review request for? It's an article I've worked quite hard on of late, and am very keen to take to FAC. As I said, I know you're already very busy and probably get snowed under with such requests, but I thought as one of the experts on what makes an FA I'd see if there was any way I could make use of your expert opinion. Many thanks. Angmering 22:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That's okay, no problem! Going somewhere nice, I hope? :-) Angmering 22:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Gosh, thank you! I hope it's not too dull a piece of travel reading for you! Angmering 11:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

St. Petersburg, Russia
I have been a real idiot in that FAC. I appologize. If you feel it must be removed from FAC asap. please feel free to do so. --Parker007 00:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Follow up
Dear Sandy,

As you have been incredibly helpful with improving the references for the Ohio Wesleyan University article, I wanted to check in again and ask you for your opinion before I finally nominate the article. Do you think the references need more work? Or any other part of the article? Thank you so much again!!! LaSaltarella 04:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Houston
Sandy, if you get time to reread this article, which has had a lot of work done, please do so, in particular because you often check areas that I don't. Thanks. KP Botany 19:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thor Halversson
The Campus Watch thing (pasted from a blogsite that evidently manipulates the article and, amazingly, one run by holocause deniers called http://www.fpp.co.uk/) is confusing and adds nothing to the entry for Halversson. I agree with JSRP it should not be in the article.

Restoration Literature
I feel Restoration literature needs to go to FARC for reasons I listed on the review page. &mdash; Deckiller 12:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Featured article categories
Why did you revert my edit to WP:FA? Yes, paracetamol is a medicine, but you could easily expand the definition to Baby Gender Mentor, Caffeine, Enzyme, Enzyme inhibitor and Enzyme kinetics, as they all have medical qualities to them. Paracetamol could easily fit in either section; it's a drug used by doctors, but all drugs are chemicals made by chemists. I put it in the chemical section, with the other chemicals, as I felt the biology and "MEDICAL" section was bloated and it got lost in there, in spite of a better reason - Jack · talk · 17:05, Thursday, 22 February 2007

The article on Leonard Orban...
...has now been copy-edited and I made changes following your remarks in Peer review/Leonard Orban. Maybe you can take a look at the prose now. I hope it is not a problem that I have nominated the article as a GA candidate. --Michkalas 14:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
I know you are traveling, just to let you know that El Hatillo Municipality, Miranda has been promoted to featured article. Thank you very much for all your reviews and copy edits, the article wouldn't be FA without you. Please accept this barnstar as a thank you.--enano (Talk) 20:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Final revision of Abbas Kiarostami
Hi SandyGeorgia!

Over the last few months I have been working on Abbas Kiarostami to make it a feature article. The article have been copyeditted numerous times and also it had peer review for A-class assessment. It also passed GA assessment. Based on the feedbacks I got from peer reviewers and also during GA assessment, I think the article is pretty much ready to become FA. However it may be better to have a final round of copyeditting preferably by English native speakers. Would that be possible for you to help me in this final stage? That would be a great help. Thanks. Sangak 11:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The original article was splitted into two articles: Abbas Kiarostami and Cinematic style of Abbas Kiarostami. My idea is to joint nominate them for FA. Several wikipedians recommended me to contact you as you are an excellent writer and editor. Any comment will be very much appreciated. Sangak 21:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you are busy. I am also planning to take a long wikibreak from March 1st. I am exhausted. I've just nominated the article for FA assessment. Cheers Sangak 07:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

FAR
I'm really liking the current state of FAR; it's not as overwhelming as it was a couple weeks ago, and I feel we can easily process and boost articles that have people working on them already. &mdash; Deckiller 23:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and understood. I disagree about Abyssinia, Henry being just a retelling, but I explained on the review page. &mdash; Deckiller 17:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Take care
With all that's going on. Marskell 19:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ann Arbor FAR - a final look
I looked over the citations in the article and corrected the formatting as much as possible. However, I should note that most of the sources do not list an author of the particular passages cited (see my response in FAR for more details). Also, I am using the cite template, which may or may not be complete in format, though it was one of the suggestions that I have been given regarding the citations themselves. PentawingTalk 21:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

While I'm thinking of it

 * I think the V1.0 bot could be made to track the FA and FFA numbers through the ArticleHistory template. There would be a category:ArticleHistory by quality, and subcategories like ArticleHistory FA-Class articles. Could make this count FFAs too. Been thinking about this as we've gone over 1000 pages with ArticleHistory and I'm starting to see them edited incorrectly, possibly well-intentioned now, but eventually vandalism. The 1.0 bot would generate a log of all changes to class categories. Gimmetrow 05:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, for your FFA work, note that Dreyfus affair has recently been renamed from Dreyfus Affair. Would it be easier to have re-promoted articles in CAT:FFA or not? I have an idea which would put them in the * part of the category. Gimmetrow 04:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter to me if they are in the cat or not (as long as I know what to count), but some people who have worked on re-promoted articles may care if they are categorized as FFAs. Yomangani has one (Platypus - maybe two, can't remember), so maybe we should ask his opinion?  Yes, the number of errors in articlehistory will be an ongoing concern; I've been noticing the problem as well.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A few more things. An anon (from USMA) tried to FAC Tony Eveready but was prevented, ended up putting a nomination text at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Tony_Eveready, and added fac to the article talk page. I would have fixed the nomination if I didn't think it would get WP:SNOWed anyway. If it is not fixed, the talk page qualifies for speedy deletion as db-talk.

It is possible to track FFAs without using the FFA/GA status. It takes a bit of logic/code, but it can be done, even displaying the appriate text if we really want. I think this would make the status a lot clearer to people. FA > GA > FFA > FFAC > DGA > FGAN. Pick the first that applies.

If you think it's easier to keep track of the FA/FFA counts on the page itself, you should probably abandon the template. Unfortuately a few other pages use it. It's also possible to combine the two templates into one, with the resulting number chosen by option, ie or. Just an idea, but it would mean only one page would need editing rather than two when an article is removed at FAR. Gimmetrow 03:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Having them combined in one template would make it much easier, and might make having them in a separate file worthwhile. Who can set that up?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be easy to set this up, but this number is used in other places, eg WP:GA, and the redirects wouldn't work without changes, and the main redirect is a .js page which would require an admin. Any idea if the jmax-bot is going to get going? Gimmetrow 23:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

As for the FFA stuff, you can see how this works now in the Category:Wikipedia former featured articles. (Note: Pashtun people was re-promoted.) Current FAs are in a special part of the category, but the FFA icon/text is not shown on the talk page. FFA/GA is treated as a display option. Compare Talk:Euro with Talk:Algorithm. OK? Gimmetrow 23:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Things aren't going well on this trip, and the weather has made things worse; I'll catch up on all of that when I get back. I only have about half an hour online, on a very slow dialup.  I don't know if anyone is going to fix the bot; I keep asking, it's making me crazy.  Thanks, Gimme, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't blame the bot...
I just screwed up on Ridge Route. OK, it's been, like, twice. And the last time I had an excuse... Marskell 20:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll do this when I remove. But now we have more work, not less. Stupid. Marskell 14:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft history section.
Hi. I saw your comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business and Economics re. the Microsoft FAR. What are your thoughts about the history section? I think it should be cut dramatically to summary style - at present the section is an almost 100% duplication of the History of Microsoft article. I had a go and was quickly reverted. As I said at the FAR page and Talk:Microsoft I'm a 100% remove FA status until this section is cut down. Have a look at my edit, I made what I thought were the bare minimum cuts. To be honest I think more could go. Mark83 23:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Antioxidant FAC
Hi there, Sandy. I wondered if you had time to review this article? The FAC nomination is here. Thank you. TimVickers 05:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, Tim; I'm traveling, but hope to have a good internet connection this weekend, when I should be able to review. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ernest Emerson
Hi Sandy,

I know you're busy, but can you give this article a "once-over" again...it's up for FAC, too! --Mike Searson 22:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy! I don't think it would have gotten this far without your help! --Mike Searson 04:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Greetings
Hey Sandy, Happy Holi !!!--Dwaipayan (talk)

14 - 19
The record for January. Not bad at all. I moved four off the page today, and a whack more will go tomorrow, which means we'll drop back below 30 for the first time in a while. Marskell 11:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Wall of Honor
Sandy, just a short note to let you know that I have inducted you into the "Wall of Honor". Cheers! Tony the Marine 04:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)



Coeliac disease FAC
Welcome back (at least partially), you were missed. *sigh of relief* Care to weigh in when you have time? :) Fvasconcellos 03:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey! Just had a quick glance because I'm catching up on small things, but can't really get back into looking seriously until Thursday.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Take your time! One more to put under the magnifier? :) Hope you had a nice trip, Fvasconcellos 14:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

In trying to catch up, I'm leaving these til last. I'm not yet ready to support Coeliac disease, and am going to have to spend a lot of time in it, and I know I can support any article of Tim's, but I have to read it first (he makes teensy-tiny minor typos, so I think I should read it before I support, which will take time :-) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Busy Sandy, will you remember me, half-way up your talk page? No. 33 of 71 sections ;-). Hi Sandy, I've made some comments on this FAC but I'm not nearly as familiar as you with the standards. Have I been fair? Why no comments from other FAC regulars? I know you are terribly busy and it looks like you won't have enough time for a thorough review. Do you know who else may be able to comment/help? Regards, Colin°Talk 23:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, Colin; yes, I thought you were fair. I keep trying to figure out what to add there; can't put my finger on the problems I have with the article, haven't figured out how to write it up, and don't know what to say there.  Has me stumped.  I'll go try again.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

new FAC
Yo, when you get back, do you mind looking through this FAC? I respect your judgement. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Wonderbra FAC
Hi Sandy,

Thanks again for taking the time to read the article and offer your suggestions for improvement. I made several adjustments to hyphen/dash use and added details on the evolution of the Wonder-Bra to Wonderbra trademark. I did not remove the links to the ads hosted by Youtube. Take a look at my comment and let me know what you think.

Best regards,

--Matt Mattnad 13:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sandy. I appreciate your concern about Youtube, and your inclusion of the lawsuit link as evidence that copyright infringement has risks. It's good that you're raising the copyright questions, but I'm not sure the Viacom lawsuit is comparable or fair. Instead of creating a big public debate I figured we could try to work this out here.

I think you're suggesting, without actually saying it, that Wikipedia could be sued like Youtube for linking to materials of uncertain copyright status (it's pretty clear that Viacom's TV shows were both under copyright, and had commercial value that was being infringed upon and exploited for commercial gain by Youtube). In the case of the Wonderbra commercials, it's not at all clear that they are under copyright, and furthermore, unlike Youtube, Wikipedia is not the host of these commercials.

So I guess you are worried about a theoretical risk. On this theory, if Wikipedia is genuinely concerned about possible copyright infringement with external links, then ever bit of content that we link to would have to be affirmatively checked for copyright - not just assumed. But we don't do that because it's impractical and frankly unnecessary since the test is knowingly and intentionally linking to infringing material. As a case in point, there are many featured articles that link to external content with unproven copyright status.

So I guess it comes down to this. The commercials are very helpful to demonstrate the branding strategy taken by Wonderbra in the 1960s to 1970s and enhance the communication of the article. We do not know if they are still protected by copyright, so why then would we remove the links on the basis of assumed, rather than demonstrated copyright infringement. If we apply that logic, then all external links must be to only proven copyright safe material. Accordingly, many external links should be removed, including those of featured articles, pending affirmative copyright checks.

Now, there may be another reason for your objection: Do you think Youtube's a bit unsavory and would it be better to have links to the other sites with the commercials? That's an alternative we could consider. -Mattnad 18:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 *  But we don't do that because it's impractical and frankly unnecessary ...   Actually, we do; WP:EL specifically address this issue.  We aren't supposed to link to anything with a oopyright vio.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But there's a difference between demonstrable, knowing, copyvio, and assuming copyvio by default. There's a great discussion on this here Wikipedia talk:External links/YouTube. It articulates many concerns about how editors  take on the mantles of copyright judge and jury without necessarily knowing the facts.  Hey, it's up to you to reconsider your objection.  You've been a super contributor to the quality of the article's format.  All I'm proposing is that the links are not necessary against the guidelines. -- Mattnad 18:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yikes, 251KB of differing opinions; here's what Wiki says
 * From Wikipedia:Copyright: If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work.
 * Do you know they are not copyright vios? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you're asking for affirmative proof of no copyvio which goes beyond the WP guidelines and the law (at least as articulated in the guidelines). One could use that argument like an atom bomb in Wikipedia to eliminate many, if not most external links - how do you "know" they really have copyright etc.  It was this kind of affirmative test that I felt was impractical and unnecessary. Please note I'm totally agreeing with you that editors must eliminate demonstrable copyvio.    Anyway, this is an interesting discussion and a lot of fun, but how about we sleep on it for a few days.  regards.  -Mattnad 19:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Spanish
Per your e-mail, I'm not going to use that weblink; I may ask for a sentence or two to be translated at some point. I have to add urls to make the Retrieved on dates make sense, but otherwise Norte Chico is ready. Marskell 13:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

AALAS
Hi Sandy; it looks like the organisation may have submitted the article itself - you could try and contact them and as for permission to use the text under the GFDL (instructions here). It'd still need a huge cleanup, but it saves you from writing a new article. If permission comes after deletion, the article can always be restored. If they don't give permission you can go ahead and write a new article on the temporary subpage and it'll be moved over the copyvio when the 7 days is up. --Peta 21:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Jordan and Microsoft
Sure; I'll take a look when I get a chance. I agree that Microsoft needs some more time. &mdash; Deckiller 23:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Re: John Major
Hey thanks for posting John Majors nomination for a review on all those project talk pages, it never occured to me! Hopefully the article can be improved! Thanks again. LordHarris 01:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing!
No problem, I'll advise you if I come upon anymore. Great job, btw! -- SmthManly  / ManlyTalk  / ManlyContribs  04:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Nigel Kneale
Cheers Sandy. Hope the travelling's going well! Angmering 07:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

A few things
So the long and short of it: I do update FFA template, but not the FA template for the moment?

Re your question about length: WP:SS and WP:LENGTH are guidelines, not policy. Whether an article has 30, 40, or 50k of readable prose does not by itself determine whether it passes or is removed, IMO. It should be case-by-case and commonsensical. See something I just started: User:Marskell/FA/FAQ that goes over it.

Thx for zipping through Norte Chico. Marskell 08:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Refs & Adam Gilchrist
Hey, just wanted to quickly thank you for going through my unsightly references and merging them! All the best... The Rambling Man 08:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

George VI of the United Kingdom
Yes, I recall that User:ErleGrey just added GA to the class parameter in the WP:Biography template and didn't add the GA template itself. The id number of the reviewed version was oldid=107054364 at 15:52 12th February. DrKiernan 17:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Cite templates
Hi, picking up on your comments at Featured article candidates/Trembling Before G-d‎, can you explain what trouble the cite templates cause? If there's an issue it should be addressed now so they could be modified or deleted rather than waiting for everyone to get familiar with the using the templates. I would be interested in hearing your views. WjBscribe 19:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of problems with them; I'll organize my complaints and get back to you. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheers- seems likely something that should be discussed, especially if they are detrimental to the quality of articles. WjBscribe 19:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's see if I can remember all of my gripes with them :-) I'll add more as I remember. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * They terribly chunk up the size of the article, and slow down access time, while providing the same info that can be input manually.
 * They mess up punctuation (look at antioxidant), causing unsightly spaces after article titles, etc.
 * The foreign language icons seem to work in some but not in others; I've had limited success in getting on cite news or cite book, although it does seem to work in cite web, so I have to add the icons manually outside of the cite template.
 * My biggest complaint is the lack of consistency across templates; it's hard to recall all of those issues. Different templates handle same parameters differently.  Author names and date formatting should be consistently employed across all templates.  As I recall, what one does for author or date is different on, for example, cite news than it is on cite web.


 * You know, some people would have started Citation template problems by now, just to have a place for these notes. Regarding size and access time, do you mean for editing? The rendered article should be cached, afaik. What’s broken in antioxidant? Also, if you have an example where the language icon stuff is broken, I’ve got some time to look at it. —xyzzyn 19:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not enough time for everything :-)
 * Yes, for editing; when an article has a ton of refs (as medical articles do), the cite templates really chunk up the editing time. Whenever one of TimVicker's (very well referenced) FAs is on the main page, I'm not able to help vandal fight because the pages take so long to load.
 * I was helping out on the FAC for Same-sex marriage in Spain when we had a terrible time getting the Spanish icon to work in cite news, and ended up adding them all manually. I also recently manually added one to Norte Chico civilization.
 * As an example, look at the awkward spacing in ref # 98 on antioxidant, following the article title and the PMID. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sandy, I think you're one of the few people who are conscious of the link symbol appearing odd before quotes and other punctuation. Same thing on ref #6. Perhaps propose some changes on the template talk pages. Gimmetrow 01:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm… just thinking out loud, but would it be an improvement if ‘defining’ ref elements could be collected in the references section, right before and , but, especially after looking at antioxidant in edit view, I must admit that it makes the article’s code awfully hard to read (even more so for somebody who wasn’t there when it was written). A possible solution, and a feature regularly requested at m:Talk:Cite.php, would be to put the text of the citations (such as the various cite templates or hand-written citations) in a location separate from the actual article.

So I made a patch for Cite.php that adds that feature. Here’s how it works. Suppose we have an article that goes like this (sorry for the nonsense, but I can’t think of anything good right now): blah foobar baz bar foo foooo fooo. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.

FASD
I've not edited that page for a long time, Sandy. The new stuff does look scholarly, just a little too technical. Regarding the title, FASD is correct. FAS is a subset of it. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, I noticed you hadn't been there in months, which is partly why I was concerned. Not sure why you say FASD is the correct name, though, since the article acknowledges the correct name of the diagnosis as FAS ?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a spectrum disorder: Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder. FAS is the most severe diagnosis within the spectrum, but there are others, and the others are likely to be more common, though under-diagnosed. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Alleged definitions of spectrum disorders are highly problematic throughout lots of realms of medicine (e.g.; Tourette syndrome); there is no medical defintion of such, and the current diagnosis is still FAS, as far as I can tell. The current name goes against naming conventions, MEDMOS, and hits on both names on any important search.  Until a medical authority defines it credibly as a spectrum disorder, we should stick to convention&mdash;is there something I'm missing?  According to what diagnostic entity do we call it Spectrum Disorder? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Chagas disease
I just noticed this on your FAR box, and thought you might like to know I've been watching and reading it for months now, not knowing how to help. It is undercited, loaded with redlinks (I'd say "infested" but that pun would be too much) and the prose is achingly Portuguese-influenced in places. I really wish I could help out on this one, but I don't know how... :( I will keep it on my Watchlist, and if the time comes for FAR/FARC, I'll chip in. Fvasconcellos 23:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can entice TimVickers, Colin and others to help us tackle it (in April, after I'm home from travel)? I think we can fix it; the one that's in really bad shape is Lesch-Nyhan.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be nice. Nothing like a team effort :) Fvasconcellos 14:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can get Tim on board while I'm gone, with the idea of an April project? We can probably fix it without taking it to FAR.  If Colin helps, and maybe JFW reviews, it won't need FAR.  Maybe Opabinia will help.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Tim's working on metabolism right now—I'll talk to him about it later,as something tells me he has a trypanosomic interest :) JFW is probably focusing on coeliac disease as it's on FAC now. I'll leave a note to him and Colin and ask what they think. Fvasconcellos 14:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't use those big words on my blonde-ish brain when I don't have time to look them up ;-) At least you could wikilink 'em for me ! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You made me do it. Trypanosome Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * * Shock, horror* You used an external reference first? There's a search box right there on your left! Fvasconcellos 15:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Guilty as charged. And thanks for provoking the very bad memories of the awful time I spent in grad school, undiagnosed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)  (And, for your pharmaceutical interest, metronidazole did nothing; quinacrine worked after I threatened to do bodily harm to the doctor if he didn't give me some. He claimed it might make me deaf; I said, I'll take deafness over this ! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh man. That is harsh. And thank you for that—I just noticed quinacrine has no structural formula. Woo-hoo! Fvasconcellos 15:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You're telling me. Completing grad school and starting my first job with a year of that, undiagnosed.  And now Tony1 and Marskell are joking about same on their talk pages&mdash;not funny from over here!  OK, go fix those articles; now you owe me twice ;)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

All done. Feel free to cash in the favors when you wish :) Fvasconcellos 15:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Watch
Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Zenosaga/Neanderthal theory
 * P.A.N.D.A.S.

FAs
I saw your message on Tony1's page. Couldn't agree more. I was astounded at the lack of scrutiny of Banksia epica, which I took through a couple of weeks ago. Since then I've seen a number of articles go through with basic problems like spelling errors. Is this situation truly just because of Tony's absence? Hesperian 05:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A lot of it is the lack of Tony; he often picked up prose problems, which freed others up to look at other things. The real problem is that articles get support from "fans", while no one seriously reviews the problems, so they'll end up promoted based on fan support.  .... Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sandy - when working on my first article for FA I dreaded Tony taking a look, as if you have his support then you got a very brilliant article. He's very hard to please with an article, which is a great thing when you want to improve an article. LuciferMorgan 01:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Bias of Footnoted Authors
Hi Sandy, remember me from the nighmarish Roe v. Wade FAR? :-)

I've got a brief question for you, if you don't mind. At the abortion article, one of the footnotes cites an author, but does not mention that the author is a pro-life activist. I inserted that info into the footnote, but now it's being deleted, here. Is there some Wikipedia policy I can cite that encourages Wikipedia editors to disclose info about people cited in footnotes? Thanks.Ferrylodge 02:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any policy or guideline that will help resolve this. But ... the edit summary doesn't give a valid reason for the deletion:  "breaking up the flow of references" is just a silly explanation, and you can put anything you want between ref tags.  If that's the reasoning, another option is to add the content directly to the text. IMO, the footnote is a much more logical place for the info and that's where I would add it, but you can make the offer to add it directly to the text instead and see if that results in a more logical response.  Another option: create an article on Elliott Institute (if it meets notability), and link to it.  Since I don't follow abortion debates, I have no idea if that person or Institute is notable, but if so, you can create the articles to contain the text.  I'm still not interested in abortion debates :-)  Good luck, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thx. :-)Ferrylodge 02:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Poetry
Off already? Did you have ref format concerns you wanted to list on poetry? He's jumbled explanatory notes with source info, unfortunately. Marskell 08:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, put the note up a day early. Will look.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)  Had a look, thinking I'd just quickly fix them myself.  Not so; what a formatting mess&mdash;I could fill in some of the missing info, but since I couldn't fill in page numbers or editions, no reason to even start the job, which is bigger than I thought.   And since none of our literary experts bothered to comment, I can't see lodging a Remove based only on sloppy and incomplete footnotes&mdash;tired of being a punching bag.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Jordan FAC
The Michael Jordan FAC has been re-listed (which was probably a good idea). Thought you'd like to know, here's a quick link. Quadzilla99 14:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually joined in July 2006 so a lot of that stuff pre-dates me. I nearly had a heart attack because it could well have been true. Phew! Quadzilla99 22:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

PANDAS
I had a look, tinkered with the prose a little and watched the page. TimVickers 17:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Aspartame refs
I am hopeless at refs/cites, so if I make them wrong I apologise and please take charge. It's like I have dys-cite-ia:)Merkinsmum 22:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * lol yes I will have fun, you have a good time:)Merkinsmum 22:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)