User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch3

Tourette's
Hi! It's been quite long that TS is in peer review. IMO, most of the concerns there have been addressed (except the lead, which should summarise the article). You can think about wrapping up the review mow, and gradually get it readied for FAC, if you wish so. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

MIdgely and G. Patrick Maxwell Rfd
About your question about the pdf file and the Rfd. I have withdrawn the Rfd (if I am able to do so). I am sick of the pages and pages and pages of venom by Midgely, that amounts to nothing more than a free-for-all forum for personal attack. No administrator has done anything to stop it.MollyBloom 02:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info, but my (additional) question was about a possible violation of WP:EL, which I need to understand, or needs to be addressed, regardless of the AfD outcome. Sandy 02:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Copyvio by link?

It is late here and I can't see what the point you are worried about amounts to, but there is a copyvio tag you should put on a page from which you have removed material on the grounds of copyvio. That makes a link to the place where people who understnad this watch to see what happens. I would think it very surprising if a link was a violation of copyright - how would the Web work? Midgley 03:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC) You need this link WP:COPYVIO. Was the problem that the PDF involved contained part of a NYT article? Simplest thing to do is to replace the URL reference with the NYT reference - NYT date page number. Or you could tell whoever put it in as a reference it won't do. WP:NOT a collection of links. Thanks for joining in the editing. Midgley 03:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"Many doctors are published, and that doesn't always amount to a hill of beans." Yep. Same is true for lawyers, too, actually. 90% of my former law professors would merit entry, on these standards. Also, I wish I could help you about the Wiki rule, but I am not that famiilar with it. I will look at it though. Right now, I am just tired. Oh, and I asked a doctor friend of mine about the 'Best doctors in the US' or whatever that was. She said it was meaningless, and similar to "whos who in america" which I do know about. If she is correct (and I suspect she knows about which she speaks) then including that as an accolade is very deceptive. We will see if the article gets deleted. I am just glad the personal insults and ridiculous fighting has stopped. MollyBloom 00:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

NYT copyright warning
Here is a copy of the NYT copyright warning. It seems you may have made a good catch. I do not believe that PDF had the cpyright info on it, and it didn't even have the NYT logo, which I observed. That is unusual. Copyright Notice All materials contained on this site are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of The New York Times Company or in the case of third party materials, the owner of that content. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content. However, you may download material from The New York Times on the Web (one machine readable copy and one print copy per page) for your personal, noncommercial use only. Links to Web sites other than those owned by The New York Times Company are offered as a service to readers. The editorial staff of The New York Times was not involved in their production and is not responsible for their content. For further information, see Section Two of the Member Agreement. To contact other Times departments, see the Site Help area of our Member Center.MollyBloom 01:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, this one was pretty obvious from the get-go, to anyone who knows web copyright stuff. But, what is not at all obvious is all the gobbledy-gook writing on WP:Copyvio.  I have no clue what they expect *me* to do, other than delete the link.  Sometimes Wiki writing makes me crazy.  Sandy 01:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Deleting the link was a good start. Glad I am not the only one that finds some of the instructional or guideline wiki writing confusing.  I tried to follow instructions for opening a mediation, and found the instructions obtuse.  Or maybe I was jsut tired.  Thank goodness, a more formal mediation is no longer necessary, anyway.  Now I can get back to editing WikiLaw, hmmm, except copyright, which is clearly not my expertise.  ;-(  MollyBloom 02:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not only that the writing is obtuse and confusing: months into this, I still feel like a total, useless newbie, because everytime I ask about something I don't understand, someone tells me to read something I've already read and didn't understand the first time !!  ... oh well !  Sandy 02:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Tic - Oliver Sacks
Hi Sandy,

I just dug up my copy of the two books. The essay on the Tourettic surgeon is definitely in An Anthropologist on Mars, it is entitled "A Surgeon's Life" and can be found on page 77 of the first edition. There are two brief portraits of TS patients in The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat, but neither is about the surgeon. My guess is that the person writing up the conference program simply confused the two books. I'm glad to see you're keeping a careful watch on accuracy! GabrielF 03:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Guy Noir
I had no idea there was a Wiki article on Guy Noir. Now I do. ;-)

Compromise?
Hi there, I have apparently been successful at generating a potential compromise regarding biopsychology article. (at the RFC)Perhaps you will go look at it, thanks. Prometheuspan 03:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have that page on my watchlist, and/or don't know which page you're referring to: if there is something I should look at, please point me towards it.  Sandy 11:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Need Your Help, re copyright and blanking
Here is the latest. DrOlvier blanked the section on the legal precedent, and added the pdf file back again. Here is the comment:

Your comment, Sandy: which contains a link to a PDF on smilesbydavis.com, which appears to contain a copy of a New York Times article, in violation of the NY Times copyright. WP:EL states that ""External sites can possibly violate copyright. Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page." I am deleting the information again.  The person who is adding this link should verify that smilesbydavis.com has permission to reprint a NY Times article. Sandy 23:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is Rob Oliver's:
 * By this logic nearly every link on wikipedia is going to require written releases to be linked to. Fair enough. We can just replace it without the link or you can link it to [] which their paid-access archive if you wish. However, other editors (if you hadn't noticed) have been using the {facts} tag as an obstruction tool.Droliver 03:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

ANd here is mine:
 * Oliver, Everyone else on this article and on the Rfd has agreed to stop insults, except you.  You keep it up.  You keep blanking.  Are we going to have to file a complaint ?  Please be civil and stop blanking properly referenced sections.  Also, be sure that the citations actually reference the claim you are making.  This is the problem with your citations.  Please review WP:AGF.
 * no Oliver. If you look at the NYT rules on copyright, this PDF article violated it in a number of ways.  YOU find the replacement if you want to link it.  Otherwise it goes.MollyBloom 04:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Any help is welcome. Now Rob is the only one blanking sections and going against what others have advised.MollyBloom 04:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I responded on the talk page, and hopefully others will understand the situation now, but I'm not interested in following the degenerating discussion over there. I guess, if the copyvio link continues to appear, someone will have to add a copyvio tag, to get Wiki involved. Civility is needed. Sandy 11:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Oliver has vandalized the legal precedent section, removing it repeatedly and I tried to replace it each time. The admin Brainer, fortunately, decided to revert back to the article as it was before Oliver's edit war. Brainer pointed out that this version is the consensus of the editors on the talk page. (That includes you).

Thank you for being so observant about the NYT article. That is very odd to have a pdf file like that. NYT articles are easy to link to, even if they are archived.MollyBloom 06:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Chavez
Lengthy discussions consolidated in an active talk subpage, here. Please feel free to post to the subpage. Active Chavez talk will be moved to subpage. Sandy 15:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

updating prose size
Checking prose size is easy but a bit hackish. Just click on the printable version of the page, select all, copy, paste into an edit window, chop out headers, footers, TOC, and the references, cites/notes, see alsos and external links sections. Hit preview to see the page size warning. Almost all that is left is prose. :) --mav 18:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support
Dear , Thank you very much for your support on my recent RfA. I am pleased to announce that it passed with a tally of 72/11/1, and I am now an administrator. I'll be taking things slowly at first and getting used to the tools, but please let me know if there are any admin jobs I can do to help you, now or in the future. —Cuivi é nen 02:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Words not to use
In a way I agree with you (about wikipedia neutrality not the truth) and you would win this debate if it were not for this:

"As an example: Jean-Marie Le Pen's National Front party is described by almost all commentators outside of the party as being "far right", but they themselves deny this qualification. This has to be documented as such in the article of that party.

It may be admissible, for the sake of brevity and given the overwhelming preponderance of terminology, to refer to the Front or Front politicians as "far right" in other articles, if some quick indication of its political position is necessary. But in a main article, there is room to describe rather than label such groups."

This is my opinion: My real world radar is exactly like this, clear evidence of bias means adding nouns and adjectives that the individual in question rejects. How then to deal with it? Simply state what they did, do, will do and let the reader decide. I kind of dislike wikipedia's neutrality but not objective stance. I am a fan of both Accuracy and precision, not just accuracy.Flanker 03:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * But it misses the forest for the trees, what you are arguing is getting around the intended rule and why it was made, sure an editor cannot say X but you cannot find just about anyone or any article claiming he is X and write every single time you say left that random guy said he is X left. Garcia calling him a "dictator with a fat wallet" is worse far more relevant than a random article, but still should not be included because it is not important, perhaps a perfect case can be found to add to the article but it has to be very important to introduce labels that are rejected.Flanker 20:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Tom DeLay FAC
I believe that I have addressed your objections about the need for a references section and about the external links. If you agree, please consider striking your objections and/or voting "Support". Thanks, NatusRoma | Talk 05:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

About a change in the article
I am just wondering why it is that you changed the initial paragraph from:

Asperger syndrome, also called Asperger's syndrome, AS, or the more common shorthand Asperger's, is characterized as one of the five pervasive developmental disorders, and is commonly referred to as a form of high-functioning autism. In very broad terms, individuals with Asperger's have normal or above average intellectual capacity, with atypical or poorly developed social skills often with emotional/social development or integration happening later than usual as a result.

to:

Asperger syndrome – also called Asperger's syndrome, AS, or the common shorthand Asperger's – is one of five neurobiological pervasive developmental disorders, and is characterized by normal intelligence and language development, but deficiencies in social and communication skills.

I think that the paragraph before the change goes more in depth while still remaining concise. I can see that you have tried to make it shorter and simpler, but I think you have taken out some necessary information. For example, the fact that Asperger's "is commonly referred to as a form of high-functioning autism" should remain in the opening paragraph. I have also noticed that you have changed "normal or above average intellectual capacity" to just "normal intelligence." Most sources reveal that individuals with Asperger's do indeed tend to have normal or above average intellect rather than just normal intelligence.

These are just some of my thoughts on the opening paragraph upon reading it and comparing it to the previous version of it.
 * Please sign your talk page entries with four tildes (~) ... thanks :-) I agree that a lot of that information is needed:  somewhere. There is such a problem with lack of basic definitions and terms, citations and references, that the lead didn't make sense, so I cut it back, in the hopes that others will begin to grow the article in ways that makes sense to people who aren't familiar with AS.  I'm familiar enough to know what the lead was trying to say, or what it thought it was saying, but it wasn't making it.  The average reader would be lost in the lead.  The lead should briefly summarize the entire article, which it's not doing at all, yet.  The phrase "commony referred to" in the lead sounds like weasle wording.  And, referring to it as "high functioning autism" is technically not correct anyway, so why confuse the issue in the lead?  "Normal intelligence" refers to no impairment in intelligence as part of the criterion:  later in the article, the research which may or may not indicate superior intellectual capacity can be covered.  The lead needs to stick to basic definitions, as does the entry to the article.  I couldn't get past the first section, since two of the first four paragraphs were unintelligible, and quoting the DSM verbatim is a serious copyright violation.  I'd like to help out, but it sure seems like there's a lot of resistance on the talk page.  Please do let me know if I can help.  Regards, Sandy 04:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Karmak
Hey, thanks for bringing that to my attention. I have no idea what the dispute was (I'm going to look now), but that "The MAN" guy certainly needed to cool off a bit :) - FrancisTyers · 19:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks back to you ! Sandy 19:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Convert refs
I did it. Let me know if I can help again :) --Esprit15d 18:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Minor and major review
Having had a hand in merging FARC to FAR and looking after it now, I just wanted to ask one thing... Let's take it easy nominating. Not to discourage in the slightest! FAs need review of course. It's just that I am actually a little worried that the page may get overwhelmed and individual reviews may go forgotten... Not that you have nominated a lot--just that you were thinking of it on Tony's talk.

What would be really ideal is if everything nominated gets at least a copy-edit from some disinterested party. When it's quiet, nominate one yourself.

Practice what you preach, of course :). I've been holding off nominating a couple myself and trying to rouse myself to actually read through the ones already there instead. Marskell 22:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I wish I knew how to find stub sorting categories.
SandyGeorgia, I've got just the treat you've been salivating for! When I do stub sorting, basically I keep that in one tab and Category:Stubs in another tab, then open each stub in seperate tabs and flip back and forth. There are quite a few people that sort the "Stubs" category, but I'll let you in on a hint if you happen to want to do some stub-storing yourself: A lot of people use "bio-stub" and other "main" stub types instead of narrowing them down further, which means that there's plenty to do there! Have a great day! ~Kylu ( u | t )  18:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types

Question-Three Mile Island
You were one of the last major contributers to Three Mile Island that i can find a talk page to, so i guess it would be appropiate to ask this question to you. Would Image:Three_Mile_Island_radar.jpg be a good idea for the page? If so, where do i put it? Thanks-11kowrom 21:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, I wish I could help, but I only sorted one category on TMI, and really don't know much about it, or the copyright issues on images. Sorry not to be of more help.  Sandy 21:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Autism mess
Hi Sandy. Re your recent post in the Anti-psychiatry article perhaps this already archived discussion may be of your interest?: Talk:Anti-psychiatry/Archive 5. —Cesar Tort 19:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

TS page
No problem! (Actually, I had no clue how to do it myself until User:Bobblewik taught me how to do it very recently) At User:SandyGeorgia/monobook.js, you can add, and then ''after saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes. Mozilla/Safari: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), IE: press Ctrl-F5, Opera/Konqueror: press F5.''

Once that is over with, while editing an article, click on the peer review link right next to the log out link, and a box will pop up with the suggestions (unfortunately though in template form). Andy t 21:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for comments
Thanks for all your comments on Peer review/Down syndrome/archive1. I guess the peer review is officially closed (although I still have it on watch). I'm too close to the project, but I think it has improved based on your comments and criticisms. Thanks, again. TedTalk/Contributions 03:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. It's a darn good article !  Sandy 03:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

FAR/Asperger
I think articles like this benefit from a little longer in the review period and I think the best thing to do is exactly what you've done: go to the review and say "please, keep this open a while." Someone pausing over it to move it to FARC (it's only been been me to this point, but that can't always be the case) will accomodate extra time, I'm sure. Update, for better or worse, what's going on before a week is up and take it as the case develops. I don't know what the absolute upper limit for leaving things in each period should be (a full month really has to be tops, I've thought to myself) but do note that the final de-listing is more important than the previous step of moving from review to FARC. That is, even if it did get moved you'd still have another period that can be extended if work is going on. Hope that makes sense, Marskell 18:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Medical genetics
I'm working hard now to get new wikiproject ready. I'd like Tourette syndrome to be the first FA of the project. Of course as your work, but maybe as a team we could help in reaching FA state. If you have comments, suggestions, please don't hesitate. NCursework 18:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Just list yourself among the participants. I think I'll move the project into wiki namespace tomorrow. If we see your name, we will be able to help in that article. Regarding the topic, we won't be hundreds but a bunch of people can get together and work hard. :) NCursework 18:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the link. :) I expressed my POV. NCursework 13:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Afd
Saw you question about Afd on Articles for deletion/Jennifer Robinson (politician) The bottom of this page has all that information Articles for deletion if you are interested.--John Lake 00:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you need any help just yell.--John Lake 01:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I ran across some comments at Articles for deletion/Tim Crutchfield & Articles for deletion/Jennifer Robinson (politician) that you might be unfamiliar with the AfD process. If so, you should check out (and bookmark--I have) Template:AfD in 3 steps--it lays it our pretty simply. Good luck! -- Scientizzle 00:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome messages
I noticed you left a welcome message and test-2 message on User:MarkWolf. Please try to make sure you leave this stuff on the user's talk page. I have corrected everything, but try to remember for the future. thanks. -- Will Mak  050389  03:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That is quite all right, just wanted to make sure you knew, because there are people out there that I've found that put these messages on a user page because they simply do not know procedure. Happy editing! -- Will Mak  050389  03:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

FBI
I have worked on the article. Please check it out. :) --Shane (T - C - E) 02:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Doh. I was always taught before the period. I will correct as needed. --Shane (T - C - E) 02:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

AS
OK, there's a rather long list, but I'll have a look. Cheers Tony 07:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just proposed something on Marskell's page. Tony 12:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Asperger Syndrome
Hey man,

I haven't had time to have a look at the article properly yet, but I'm withdrawn my previous statement from WP:FAR and will wait and see how the works going.

Seumas

Thanks for cleaning up my references! It's been so long since I was at university I can't remember how to format the bloody footnotes anymore. I guess they're citations now. Anyway, it's great working with you! Could you please go over the whole list of citations and make sure they are all in a consistent format?Pokey2006 05:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

footnotes/reference sections etc.
Well, my edit summary was a bit misleading, as I don't know of a guideline for section ordering, if there is one I'd like to know as well (knowing WP I'm sure it at least has a non-guideline someplace) :). Anyway, in this case, its based off of some edit someone else did to one of a featured articles I work on and a lot of them seem to be drifting towards the single-reference-section. Anyway, I think what you've done with the further reading stuff is correct (I'll revert myself as well, but it doesn't seem neccesary now...).

As for the original research - yes, I sense your frustration and without patrolling it will likely fall (again?) to that. I don't know if I can offer insight, but it is a highly inefficient process. This article seems to be an example of a Walled_garden_(wiki) once the eyes of the FA(R)C editors turn away, which is sort of why it is exciting to get some real work done at the moment on a real informative article on an important subject. The inherit beuty of it is that once the next (probably inevitable) FARC comes around you might get another chance to really improve the article with another group of determined editors. I can say that in my year or so of experience patrolling articles like this (low traffic but with large amounts of advocacy), doing so all by yourself is a really fruitless process and you inevitably get involved into useless things like constant edit wars just trying to keep the quality what it was before - and that's if you're willing to put the time into watching you watchlist every day. So, the crazy thing that seems to work is to wait until you find a group of determined editors and then perform the real work then (it seems highly messed up to me, though, but wikipedia is a still a concept in the beta stage I guess). One can always revert to the old version and restart from there :\. RN 04:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

History of Russia
Hi—Minor, I'd say, since the prose looks OK. If no one deals with it during the review period, then it goes to FARC. :) Tony 01:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Selena FAC
I left a reply to the in the Selena FAC. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 23:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, can you do some as an example. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 23:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yea this format is more accurate than the cite web, I did found number four easily, and looking number 2 looks like it came from a book, looking at another site. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 00:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I used ref number 7 for that. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 00:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Jaranda wat's sup 01:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok I changed the last ref, the Bush quote came from a book I found out by recearching, should I ref the book? Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 03:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok fixed all the refs, I'll try to get the book later on and get the George Bush quote Jaranda wat's sup 04:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I remove it as it's a multiple ref, I need to find some old magazines :). Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 04:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok Hoopydink did a decent copyedit even though I needed to revert half of it per prose concerns, as for references and expansion, I went to the main libary today and couldn't find anything :(. Can you check again. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 06:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok I left an reply. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 19:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok I removed an unsourced paragraph, and not much more really needs sourcing as they can be looked for in the refs already. Staringold also did a checkover of the article. Please review again. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 01:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I just sourced the Tom Brakow comment, and redirected the Tejano Music award to Tejano music, as it's probaly won't be much more than a stub. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 03:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok I used several more refs, an fact tag would be better, I'll try to fix any more concerns. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 05:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Jaycey Harper
Wrong. The onus for disambiugation lies with the editor who removed the original content of the page and replaced it with their own, i.e. a cut and paste move. I have corrected this oversight. McPhail 14:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Tourette syndrome
I appreciate your feedback very much. However, it’s not strictly necessary—unlike you, I haven’t done anything major for the article.

Regarding improving the article and related ones, I’d like to help, of course, but I can’t contribute anything other than technical changes (standard copyediting etc.), because the topic is far outside any field of which I have the minimum necessary knowledge.

As for an image, do you mean this one? If not, please be more specific. I’ll upload it for you, if you wish, and I could then put it in the article if I knew where to place it and which caption to use.

—xyzzyn 17:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * More stuff.
 * Do the following tuples of names (semi-automatically extracted from the wikicode) each refer to the same person?
 * Cohen AJ, Cohen DJ
 * Leckman, Leckman JF
 * Scahill L, Scahill LD
 * Simkin, Simkin B
 * Where they do, maybe (i. e. if it doesn’t make looking up the citations more difficult) the different instances should be unified.


 * They are two different Cohens (TS was Donald, deceased, the other one moved along to other areas, I believe), but there is only one Larry (Lawrence) Scahill and one Jim (James) Leckman in TS. All three are highly published and well known:  you will see them on most of the quality TS research.   There is no doubt with the Leckman and Scahill published research, the different initials refer to the same person.  And, the Simkin is one person (not a TS person, behind the Mozart silliness).  The problem there is (I think?) that some are the names as used on PubMed, while some are books (very few).  I was under the impression that I shouldn't change PubMed cites.  Do you know if that is incorrect?  I always take the names as from PMID, because I thought that was how to cite PubMed.  When there are two names, I thought that usually means something along the lines of ... Scahill was L in Pubmed, until another L came along, and then they made him LD.  So, his earlier work may be as L, his later work as LD.  At least I think that's how it works (??).  I think the only ones we can change, to make them more consistent with the PMID sources, is the Simkin book (we can make it agree with Simkin in PubMed), the Leckman/Cohen book (I probably used their names because it felt more comfortable to refer to them by name, but could make them consistent with PMID), and the Advances in Neurology series, when they are editors (as books).  Let me know if I've got that wrong, in which case we should certainly use Leckman JF, Scahill, LD etc.  I thought if I changed the exact cite from what it was in PubMed, that made it harder for people to search for the research in the future.  Whatever you think best (you may know this areas better than I do).  I have no medical training or background, so if you see things I'm goofing up, please do speak up!


 * By the way, have you had a look at WP:CITET? Some templates might be useful for the article. Although the use of citation templates requires more typing (especially to convert an article that did not use them previously), it has the advantages that the formatting is more uniform and that details of the citations are easier to organise.


 * I *really* hate using WP:Cite. It always seems to get something wrong, and the cites don't come out correctly or consistently.  And it's so much easier just to grab the cite from PubMed (at least for me). And it chunks up a ton of KB, adding to the article size.  Maybe I can be convinced to try again, but then I'd also go have to change the daughter articles, to keep everything consistent. ugh -- steep learning curve here !  Tell me why again why I should like the cite templates ? :-))


 * Stuff I might do eventually (if you agree):
 * change "ASCII quotes" to “proper quotation marks” (‘British’ ones, if you prefer those),
 * that would be great - I'm often on my laptop and don't know how to get special characters with a num keypad, though. My only concern is that if you change them now, I'll have to learn how to insert them from my laptop for any new text, in order to maintain consistency.
 * change the ASCII apostrophes (‘the workers' supervisor's cat’) to proper apostrophes (‘the workers’ supervisor’s cat’; if you think this apostrophe looks just like a single closing quotation mark, you’re right),
 * Ditto
 * change hyphens—‘-’—to other things and
 * change them to ndash and mdash? I've never figured out the difference and when to use what, so if you can do that, it would be great.
 * remove serial commas (I’ve seen someone object to an FAC once because of those; also, I don’t like them…).
 * Please feel free to do that and more: if you haven't noticed, I'm not a particularly good writer, and my prose is often tortured.  I'm working my way through the article, trying to clean up prose and catch missing references, still have major sections to write, moving things to daughter articles as the size gets too big, etc.
 * Feel free to strike out stuff.
 * Ok - THANKS ! By the way, I don't consider the article even close to FA:  there is still so much to do!
 * —xyzzyn 20:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC) I did not mean to imply any kind of lightning… bloody synchronicity. I hope you get a good connection back soon (along with minor details like getting your house repaired…). 23:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * —xyzzyn 20:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL ! It's all your fault. (had an edit conflict, got your text a bit goofed up, too hard to straighten it out on a dialup).  Sandy 23:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I’m a bit busy and have been unable to reply. Sorry. I will get to this in two or three days. —xyzzyn 01:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Macedonia (terminology)
Remember the "(i.e. historic)" thing? I tried to clarify what it means. Your help in rephrazing will be greatly appreciated. Thanks again for all your suggestions... :N i k o S il v e r: 10:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I got your note, and will get back to the article as soon as I can. My house was hit by lightening, zapping phones, computers, cable modem and more.  I have one slow dialup on an old laptop.  I'll try to get to it later today, as I'm still dealing with household damage.  Sandy 11:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Jesus! In mid July? I hope everyone is ok! Screw the rewording and get back to household damage repair! :N i k o S il v e r: 12:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Macedonia (terminology)
Thank you for your comment. Large scale modifications have taken place since you made it. For more details, please refer to the link above, and to the article itself. :N i k o S il v e r: 12:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Macedonia (terminology) again...
Hi. How's everything with the lightning? We added a lot of text and zapped the article too! Can you give it a look for copy-edit suggestions if it isn't much trouble to you? You can edit them directly for speed if you wish (we can always revert you, hah!) :N i k o S il v e r:  11:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Wait 2 mins! Edit conflict that ruined your last 2 edits due to rv. I'll restore them... :N i k o S il v e r: 12:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Fixed everything, including all your suggestions. Only in your last one (about tense), the contemporary existing are both the Slav state (last) and the Greek region (-3 from end). The SFRJ SROM (-2 from end) is the predecessor of ROM/FYROM (last) state. :N i k o S il v e r:  12:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Forgot to respond about "thin line of text in intro due to larger maps" (you mean vertical line of text?). Actually the maps weren't changed. It is your prev zapped PC that had bigger resolution. I guess your "old laptop" is 800x600? In any case, the standard today is at least 1024x768, leaving more than half of the width for the text. Try browsing from any other pc whenever you have the time, but I wouldn't change it, unless it's really-really-really too thin. Is it? :N i k o S il v e r:  12:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, just logged in myself. Let's keep the conversation in my talk from now on for continuity, if you don't mind.
 * Francis would want the "partisan" word. We'll have to rephrase.
 * I'll try to cite the no concrete evidence sentence.
 * I am reluctant to choose one format for the refs. On the one hand, the notes are something that belongs to the text and there were even disputes on whether we should include something above or below. On the other hand the refs for sources will intermingle with the notes, making the notes less readable. This is a fragile delicately balanced controversial article. Let's avoid such modifications. :N i k o S il v e r:  19:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please have a look at it
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medical Genetics/Participants... Thanks NCursework 20:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

FAR
Thanks, Sandy, I'll add a note about upper case to the instructions. Schizophrenia? Why not list it to motivate them? Although someone asked me to look at History of Puerto Rico the other day; I did the start, but it's pretty bad. I didn't have the heart to list it. Tony 01:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't let that stop you getting more practice at copy-editing: we desperately need your work, especially as a reviewer in the FAC and FAR rooms. Tony 01:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevis article
Sandy, thank you so much! Your comments are really helpful. I will check the statement issued by the Tourism Department about the lack of other 5 star hotels, first thing. You are right: that sentence seems a bit too Nevis-centric :). I am going through your list tonight. I'm so glad you responded. Please let me know if you see other problematic things, if you have the time (and if you are not chased offline by lightning). I added some references just now, but some are government issued press releases, or statements from the Nevis Island Administration's website rather, and might need more research. About politics: The issue of secession is still unresolved and very controversial. There are a lot of different reports about the economic impact of session, none from the federal government in Saint Kitts. The previous Nevis administration complained officially and in the press about the lack of transparancy and the inability of the Nevis representatives to gain access to the numbers, for example about how international aid to the federation is used, how much is received, etc, etc. Nevis just changed government a couple of days ago, so we'll have to wait and see what happens next. Next week, the new Premier will most likely issue a statement about what his majority party intends to do about constitutional reform or secession. It's really up in the air still, so nobody knows exactly where the island stands in that regard. It's not just a Wikipedia confusion...it's real. :) Pia 23:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

race
I wouldn´t say I am the principal author - I think Rikhurzhen has contributed more than me, and Guettarda and others have made significant contributions. I agree it a long article, but I see no way out when it comes to such a controversial topic as race. Let me just say that we have an article that I believe complies with all our policies scrupulously, and is up-to-date on the best research from diverse points of view. Achieving this was no easy task given that over the past several years some editors deleted any suggestion that race is a social constuct, while other editors deleted any mention that race is biological. Just be aware of the contentious process that people like me and Rik and Guet. and others had to deal with to write an accurate and nPOV article. user:Slrubenstein
 * I hope I didn´t sound defensive - I see all Wikipèdia articles as works in progress and we should always be looking for improvements. I only wanted to call attention to context you would find if you went back far enough in the archives, before the article became stable over a year (or two?) ago.  You should definitely notify Rikhurzhen, Guettarda, and frank Sweet.  POM also has made many important contributions. SR

Phishing article
Hi, do you think that it should be moved to the FARC list or taken out of the FAR process? It's been there since 23 July. Changes are here:. PS, what about the Wikipedia article? Tony 14:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Libya

 * Comment Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for Wikipedia articles. Please provide independent, reliable sources, and please update your sources to include a full bibliographic style, so that your sources can be better identified.  Sandy 15:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you mean by not using other Wikipedia pages as sources but in what way does the Libya page not include 'a full bibliographic style, so that the sources can be better identified'. I would appreciate if you could give a suitable example related to the Libya page so that I can fix it. Please reply to my talk page. Thanks --Jaw101ie 15:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. I've fixed the references and will attempt to smooth out the prose. I do however have doubts to your objection regarding POV issues.


 * I knew from the beginning that fixing the Libya article would be tricky. One has to draw the dividing line somewhere when it comes to Gadaffi and Libya as the two are not synonymous. Before fixing the article, it was mostly Gadaffi's life span, showcasing all of his ups and downs. I made a concise version of both his HORRIBLE MISTAKES but at the same time had to include some of his better decisions to make the article "balanced" as you've stated. I am neither pro nor anti Gadaffi.


 * As regards your concerns over the phrase "Libya turning a new leaf", I heard the phrase for months on the news about Libya's 2003 decisions. Don't agree? Why not try - "Libya renounced weapons of mass destruction, paving the way for a further blossoming of relations with the West" - Published Tuesday July 11 2006. (Note: Chavez visited Libya on the May 18 2006, nearly a month before the BBC published the above article)


 * Thank you for your review all the same, I will attempt to see the article in your eyes.


 * Regards, --Jaw101ie 19:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read additions to 'Libya' above --Jaw101ie 21:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I really don't want it to seem as if I constantly keep snapping at your comments because that's not my intention. It's just a case of not completely understanding what you mean, my fault : (  To refernce my article I looked at other featured countries, Pakistan, South Africa and Nauru among others. In what way are Libya's references lacking in comparison with these other featured articles?

Many thanks for your time,


 * I now see what you mean. I'll try to fix tomorrow morning and ask for your opinion. (It's 2 a.m. here in Ireland and I'm getting tired even though the time shows up to you as 00:58)


 * Thanks again

--Jaw101ie 00:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've taken it relatively easy today! Football, barbeque and a trip to the forest.

I did however find time to begin addressing your worries over the Libya article. I've changed the bibliographic style of the first ten references. I've also requested of another Wikiepdian to copyedit the article with fresh eyes.

I myself have re-read the history section several times and made some of my own copyedits.

Could you please tell me (if you have time) if:

1- The History Section meets criterion 2(a) and is FA standard.

2- The first ten references are correct and are FA standard.

Thanks a lot, Regards,

--Jaw101ie 01:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sandy, I have responded to your POV objection on the Libya featured article debate. It would be interesting to hear your response, if only for the fact that any further objections could help us build a better article. --(Mingus ah um 19:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC))

Hi Sandy,

I just wanted to ask how long it usually takes before an article is archived or promoted from the day it is nominated for FA status. Also, could you please tell me, does everybody need to "Support" for it to be promoted.

Thanks, --Jaw101ie 23:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please consider striking your objection to lack of referencing in the Libya article.

I have spent the last three days thoroughly increasing the number and quality of references. I have also updated the bibliographic style to be comprehensive and organised.

There are now over 60 references in the page and almost every paragraph and fact is referenced at least once if not more.


 * Thanks for the comments. I'll work on perfecting the referencing tomorrow. As for the prose I think your advice about forming a network is good. I may give your friend Tony a call although I'm afraid he may massacre me. We'll see, but I'll definitely need some help with the copyedit. As for now I'm gonna take a break. I worked hard on the article today, started 12 noon, finished midnight, but it's getting there.


 * Thanks again for your advice. I think of it as heavy gold. Wonderful to look at, hard to get it into action and get it moving; gold nontheless.


 * hope it's a better Libya tomorrow, pun unintended!

--User:Jaw101ie 00:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sticking with tradition, I thought I'd let you know what has been changed in the Libya article today:


 * I've put all the references (bar one which wouldn't fit) between parentheses. I've also referenced the 'Gadaffi and the Jews' section in religion which you brought up. I also redirected more references to the official primary source rather than secondary, a concern which was raised by one of the opposes.


 * Regarding copy-editing, today was quite a success. I approached several members of the Editorial Team 1.0 (At least I think that's what it's called) to sift through the article. Culture and Politics have been copy-edited as well as History (that section I felt was quite well copyedited anyway).


 * The next sections will be religion and geography. (I think Foreign Relations has been done but I'll check it out). Geography should be done by tomorrow.


 * Hopefully after all the sections are done, I'll approach Tony (nicely of course) for the final sieve.


 * Feel free to check the article out.

--Jaw101ie 22:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll check it as soon as I can, but I'll wait a bit to make sure the copyediting has finished. Sandy 22:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sandy,

Look what I just found on the top right of the Libya page,



--Jaw101ie 02:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry I will. I still have a few references to fix, a few sections to copyedit and then the final copyedit of the whole thing to bring all the sections together & finish it off. Thanks for your all support throughout, it's much appreciated. I wouldn't have been able to do it without your guidance.

--Jaw101ie 13:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

AS(2)
"... I guess the newbie lesson that I learned is to not get involved in trying to salvage a star you're voting on. From now on, I only vote :-)." In fact, I'd say editing is more important than voting. I hope this one experience hasn't turned you off. You've obviously pushed to make the article better even if there is no consensus on what version is right. And again, after it goes to FARC there'll still be two weeks of editing, so don't lose hope. Marskell 15:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikiprojects list
Nice work on the projects list. It will help the process greatly. I will try to remove the inactive projects to help focus our efforts. Joelito (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Simplifying the FAR/C process?
Hi Sandy After a little experience with the new system, the issue of whether articles can be moved directly from minor review to FARC has come up in relation to Phishing. Tim Marskell and I discussed this a little while ago, and I think we concluded that it's OK to do so; otherwise the whole process could take six weeks to delist an article, which he feels is too long. This brings me to a more basic question: should the minor and major review lists be merged? One reason not to have the minor review process is that it may act as a disincentive to contributors to take up the spade and improve the article ("Oh, just a minor tweak will do it; there's only a little bit to do; someone else can do it"). The system would be simpler if binary rather than ternary, and those who run the room (seems to be you, Tim, Joel and I at the moment) would find it a little easier to keep track of time issues. I'm copying this text to the others, and to the FAR discussion page. Tony 22:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Sandy. My idea is to drop the "Major" word. That might address your qualm. In a few minutes, please see my proposed revisions to the leading text of the FAR/C page. Tony 23:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, it's there now, on the talk page. Ironically, my idea of 'simplifying' the structure is accompanied by lots more text at the top. Ahem .... Tony 23:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed now (I hope!). Tony 00:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, someone else has just inserted a comment at the bottom, which looks fine (no pink ... and your temporary comment wasn't in pink on my screen, either). Try now. Tony 00:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, your comment looks normal. Let it be a lightning strike! Tony 00:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Baden-Powell House
Hi Sandy, the concerns you pointed out for the Baden-Powell House article on WP:FAC regarding prose have been addressed. And in general the article has been given prose improvements in most sections. As you have an apparent eye for it, would you be so kind as to have another look, to see where further improvements might be called for? Feel free to make changes yourself. Your help would be much appreciated. Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 07:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC).
 * Hi Sandy, thanks for pointing out again two sentences for further improvement. Of course I have taken care of it. And as you suggested I had a full read-through again, and indeed found some prose improvements. I'll also ask Tony again for his assessment. Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 22:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC).

Aleksandr Vasilevsky
You asked to be "pinged" when the copyedit of this article and FA candidate was completed. I just completed one which I hope resolved the majority of the grammar problems with the article. Cla68 17:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Your vote on Aleksandr Vasilevsky FAC
Hello,

You objected at the first version of the Aleksandr Vasilevsky article. Since then, a detailed copyedit was performed by several users (Mzajac, Kirill Lokshin, ScreamingEagle, Mno and others).

Can you please review the article and point out remaining deficiences, if any, and change your vote if it is necessary? :)

Thanks, Grafikm (AutoGRAF)  08:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Wali Khan
Hi Sandy, I was hoping you could have another look at the Wali Khan article I was working on, a more detailed break down of where it needs improvement would be appreciated. I haven't had time to go through everything so there is still plenty that needs done. Thanks --Zak 21:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Sandy! I think I've sorted out the references now, have another look and get back to me. --Zak 18:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Medical article images
Feel free to paste this somewhere else if it doesn't make sense to have it on your Talk page. Jkelly 22:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Image:Tourettecollage.jpg may or may not be in the public domain; it is possible that it was created by a web design contractor and only licensed for publishing. Someone would need to write and ask to be certain.  That said, I'd take it to WP:IFD for general encyclopedic uselessness -- it is a collage of smiling children with the word "tourette" written on it.  If we really needed such a thing, and I cannot imagine why we would, we could create it ourselves.
 * Image:Hans Asperger.jpg isn't great (why do we need this specific image and not any other? what does that line about detracting from the person in the rationale mean? who is the photographer? who is it the copyright holder?  where was it first published?), but if we set our standards that high, we'd have to delete tens of thousands of images.
 * Image:Asperger kl2.jpg is as above. We probably don't need two images of this guy in the article, both claiming "fair use" on the basis that they are absolutely essential for showing what the guy looked like.
 * Image:Kanner kl2.jpg as above, but different person.


 * Regarding Image:Tourettecollage.jpg, if there’s no reason other than it being a collage of faces for having it, it should not be hard to put together some cc-by-sa pictures from openphoto.net as a replacement. (Especially if I know which ones to use. ) —xyzzyn 22:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course we can create images ourselves! That is one of the reasons that we insist that all images at Wikimedia Commons allow derivative use.  I recommend GIMP as an image editor.  Jkelly 22:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Prince (musician)
Yeah, turns out it was never featured. An IP added the star here. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Already have. Can't say the fact that this didn't get caught earlier doesn't disturb me a little. I guess we don't have the technical capabilities yet to watch where a template is included, but that seems like something we should have... savidan(talk) (e@) 23:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll make sure someone notices it, but I don't think that FAR is actually that visible of a place. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So I'm presuming that the start was there on the talk page, but the article wasn't listed as an FA. The admins would probably do a fine job in patrolling for this, if alerted. Tony 02:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Baden Powell H
Hi Sandy

Do you think it's now good enough to strike out your obj? It's looking a lot better; if only all nominators reacted positively to our critiqueing (i.e., by conscripting others to do the copy-editing). Tony 02:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I know you come on later in the day than I do (time change), and I was actually waiting to hear from you. My copy editing and knowledge of grammar is not as strong as yours, and I saw a couple of things I honestly wasn't sure about.  If it passes you, it passes me ...


 * I see the issues, though ... I sure do wish others would actually *read* and check the articles before supporting. The FAC process is a perfect time to get the little stuff cleaned up. Sandy 02:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I just had another look, and I see you got to the things I wasn't sure on. I think it's looking very good. Sandy 02:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I guess I want to show them that there's a reward for responding to our entreaties to work hard at the prose. It's good PR to strike out objections when it happens (all too seldom, sadly).

ANI
Hi, I noticed this post at WP:AN/I, I thought you might like to comment. - FrancisTyers · 15:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If you could write a few words I'd be grateful, sorry to have put you in this position by a bit of an enthusiastic defence! - FrancisTyers · 19:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem, there is no rush :) - FrancisTyers · 19:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I archived the talk page, left a note on WP:AN/I letting people know, and also left a note for Z asking not to respond and advising taking this to WP:MEDCAB. If you feel it would help, feel free to file a request first. - FrancisTyers · 16:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

IG Farben Building
Thanks for your comments regarding the IG Farben Building FAC listed here. I've re-edited the article to hopefully now resolve the citation issues you had as well as layout amendments, image notation and another proof read. I'd be very grateful for any further comments you may have. --Mcginnly 16:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, many thanks again for all your constructive comments. I've completed another really thorough edit and was wondering if you'd be so kind as to have another (hopefully last) read over it for typos, grammar, prose, punctuation etc. Regards--Mcginnly 22:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

One last thought - For comprehensiveness, I've been considering including a translation of the plaque erected at the front of the building honouring those who suffered as a result of IG Farben's activities. The two main reasons I hesitate are 1.It would have to be my own translation (I can't find an English source) 2.Much of the information on the plaque is already repeated in the text, save for a 3 line verse at the end. - Perhaps adding it as a footnote might be more appropriate. What do you think?--Mcginnly 22:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Re the lead - Thanks for your suggestion but I've finally translated the correct paragraph in the housarbeiten.de source (probably the most comprehensive) It clears up the ambiguity, the building was completed in 1930 and the grounds and the rest of the complex in 1931, which is why the different sources list different completion dates. Yipee! --Mcginnly 22:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is also variously known as the Poelzig Ensemble or Poelzig Complex, and previously as the IG Farben Complex, and the General Creighton W. Abrams Building

Strictly speaking the 'variously' is redundant, but it combines with the 'previously' to reinforce the structure of the sentence. But I'll cut it if you prefer :-) --Mcginnly 00:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for your support and assistance at the FAC. I think I'll do a bit more polishing before submitting next time.--Mcginnly 14:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Tyrannosaurus
Although I can't be 100% sure, I feel I, & others, have addressed many of your concerns for the article. Please see my comments there... Spawn Man 01:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

New responses & task completion comments on the above page. I look forward to your response & hope it is enough to gain your support... Thanks, Spawn Man 00:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC).

AS
Thank you for your offer, however I personally find it impossible to resolve anything when the only reaction of the other party is to manipulate and misrepresent the facts of what has happened. That solves nothing and there is nothing to base negotiation or mediation upon.

I am afraid that your choice of behavior has placed me in a situation where I would genuinely find it impossible to believe any assurance you might give concerning the confidentiality of email, or anything else. I am afraid that is out of the question, and would also be pointless, as I do not have even the slightest doubt of the accuracy of my impressions and the only resolution for that is for you to cease from the behaviors in question. Which you have done and will probably continue to do as long as you feel there is an audience of admins, as far as I am concerned "problem solved" as long as that continues.

This is not even remotely relevant to whether somebody archives the talk pages, or not, as the history remains, so I have no idea why you are trying to claim the two are interdependent? --Zeraeph 18:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * May I direct you here and to my comment above for my final answer. --Zeraeph 01:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You are entitled to your opinion on whether User talk:Torinir is the appropriate place for this discussion, thus: I, however, am entitled not to share that opinion. I do not believe I have any more to say to you on this topic. ‎--Zeraeph 01:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: MedCab
Just trying to help MedCab clear up some backlog. :-p Torinir  ( Ding my phone  My support calls   E-Support Options  ) 23:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Filed new incident
I am totally at a loss what else to do with you, so that you cannot cliam this was in any way covert: --Zeraeph 02:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no point in trying to discuss this with you, or enter mediation, while you consistently refuse to be truthful. --Zeraeph 04:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * See above for answer --Zeraeph 05:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Case
With regards to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-23 User:Zeraeph, I am quite happy to dialogue with you about it and provide some assistance. If you want, you can email me (ask at my userpage) or talk at my userpage anyway. Anyhow, let's sort this mess out (evidently quite a sensitive issue with the parties involved). --BarryC (talk) Uncyc 19:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, try again now. --BarryC (talk) Uncyc 21:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

FAC
It is rather obvious where the biographical information came from and none of the points mentioned are contnentious, to provide links to any number of articles that all say the same thing is not useful for the reader. I'm in favor of providing as manny references as are useful to make it easy to follow up on details in an article and I think this article has all it needs.--Peta 01:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I can see where you're coming form - I also write a lot of science based articles - and there is it very useful to provide references to research, or controvertial subjects where it is necessary to provide cites to back up all sorts of things. But where you have a simple biographical article with one or two good sources then repeat linking the same source is just not useful. I though the annu rev genetics article was free onine, now I see that it isn't, but the PNAS article has the same info, but a bit less detailed. Inlines don't make things true - which is a dangerous trap both writers and reviewers seem to have fallen into.


 * Also I have added an inline for that part of the article - and made it very obvious in the refs section where to look for more biographical information.--Peta 01:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

FAC for Adi Shankara
Hi, regarding your opinion on Featured article candidates/Adi Shankara, I did a major copy-edit and removed the lists into a seperate article. Do check it out.--Babub→ Talk 12:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you have any more objections, do give them. Thanks--Babub→ Talk 14:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, regarding your comments, I feel I've addressed them. Do look at the article once again for any more comments.--Babub→ Talk 11:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

IGN building
Hi, didn't see your note on my page about this until this morning. I've copy-edited it.Tony 02:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

PS I got one of these scoutint things too. Sweet of them, but I thought I was trying to make its promotion harder, not easier! Tony 02:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Dali article
I'm going be gone until late Tuesday and will be unable to make any substantial edits to the article. If you can keep an eye on the nomination for me (or even address some of the new gripes?), I would appreciate it. --DanielNuyu 08:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Chavez
Indeed there does seem to be a drop in the levels of understanding on the Chavez pages. I hope that this is a blip merely born out of "page fatigue". The rate of editing on the pages by both Flanker and yourself has been extraordinary over a sustained period so it's inevitable that tempers may fray occasionally. Still, the civility remains at a far higher level than I'm used to on the Fidel Castro page where users are often unable to distinguish between academic analysis and a food fight (one editor is presently calling another editor a "bitch" and a "whore" and there is an almost perminant need for an rfc on any number of users). I didn't understand the wholesale removal of large sections of the criticism page and the rejection of the amnesty material. It is my belief that amnesty reports are simply the best and most neutral summaries of any human rights situations. And thus should be mirrored in any articles which deal with these issues at the exclusion of less neutral sources. This problem comes up time and time again, from both sides, I always advocate saving the time and hassle by simply parroting amnesty and moving on. --Zleitzen 11:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure what I'd recommend, if you think that his behaviour is a big problem and you have been through mediation, then I would recommend an RfC for the editor, see here. I wouldn't recommend describing what he is doing as "blanking", especially considering some of the content probably should be removed, such as: Critics claim that rampant corruption reaches the highest levels of Venezuelan airport and security officials, that billions of dollars have been siphoned away from social programs by corrupt officials, and that leaders of the military have limited oversight, creating an environment in which impunity and corruption develop. "removal of sourced information" might be a better description. Blanking is usually associated with vandalism, and what he is doing might be objectionable, but it isn't vandalism. - FrancisTyers · 13:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Version 1.0 project
Hi, saw that you posted a note on their talk page. I have to say that I think that project is ill-conceived and directionless. They have what appears to me to be quite ineffective quality control, and I wonder why a CD/DVD is necessary to disseminate/promote something that is online anyway. I think it will be an embarrassment if sent out to journalists and the like to promote WP. Have you had any contact with them? Tony 14:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Err wierd edit :D
I saw your edit to my template page, how on earth did you end up there? Ever so slightly random!

Anyway good luck with that mediation I hope it turns out ok. See you around --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 21:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * AHA!! My fault I forgot to Subst the template so it took you straight to my page. oops :D --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 08:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi and requests
Hi sandy, how are you? Remember we talked quite a lot on Tourette's syndrome a few months back? Why do not you go for an FAC of it?

Anyway, I have two requests for you. Following your comments in the FAC of Adi Shankara, I tried to copyedit to some extent. The prose was noy really very good. Hpwever, you may take yet another look after 2 days.

However, my prime request is for the peer review of Satyajit Ray. is working great to improve the article. The article reads very good, though we have some concern on its length and style. This biography is largely based and styled on his works rather than events in his life. So we are thinking for some copyedit/suggestions from wikipedians who are not familiar with the works of Satyajit Ray. Could u please have a look? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

History Section
I've put the history section back in based on your arguments Sandy. Sorry to hear about the bad news. --Zleitzen 20:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Giver and Thunderball
thanks for the notices about the FARs - please be aware that to get peoples attention our wikiproject uses Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/GeneralForum for its discussions. Thanks :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  07:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi
Email reply to you that I sent the other day has just bounced back. Tony 09:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)