User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch5

Mormon handcart pioneers FAC
I agree with you about "Ibid." being difficult to maintain. (Another editor introduced the "Ibid." style to this article.) I've now converted them back to full references as you suggested.

Thanks again for taking the time to review and comment on this article. — BRMo 21:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Laika
Thanks, I've reverted it - hopefully it will stick. Yomangani talk 22:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Response
I removed him from several "see also's" you put him in because he was not notable enough to be in many of them. We can not have the Dominican Republic article with an internal link to one unknown writer. The NACLA article as well shouldn't have him in a see also section, one article on a publication doesn't make it necessary to put him in the see also section for that publication. This works for the other articles aswell.--Jersey Devil 00:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I apologize for what may have come across as an uncivil tone.--Jersey Devil 01:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Alzheimer's disease
Thanks a bunch for your comments on Alzheimer's. For the Notable section, I did a small edit but have not elaborated this into a section like Tourette's.  I was thinking of mentioning the first case of Alzheimer's disease Nov 3 1906 as the lead to this section and then identify a few others. I think Rita Hayworth deserves special mention because of fundraising that has been done in her name by the Alzheimer's Association. We do have the list of people with AD that I link to in the new Notable Section. Given what we have, would you prefer the list in see also, or would a paragraph be better? --Chrispounds 04:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Peer review/California Gold Rush/archive1
Apologize for asking, but could you steer me a bit better -- when you said: "the article needs serious attention to inline citations" regarding the above Peer Review. Was that only a reference to shortening the ibid refs, or did you have something else in mind? thx! NorCalHistory 06:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

VandalWatch
You're welcome. :) Anyway I just started to use VandalProof 2 some minutes ago and now I became a vandal-killer... NCurse work 17:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the Lyme disease suggestions. You gave me a lot of work. :) NCurse work 18:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Look, if my RfA would have a good end, you could nominate the article because I'd be able to watch it much more closely. So don't worry, it must be featured, this article is really among the BEST ones in wiki. NCurse work 18:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

John Dee - "Bio template is a killer every time"
Hi Sandy. If that pagename is consistently causing you problems, let's set up a WP: shortcut. WP:BIOT, WP:BIOTODO, WP:BIOTD are all available, you fancy any of those? --kingboyk 21:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not the page name so much as it is so hard to edit that page, with everything run together the way it is. Any ideas?  I always add the items wrong there.  Sandy 21:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure... I know it's transcluded all over the place and since I wasn't involved in setting it up I don't know how much change it can stand before something breaks :) I'd advise having a little word with User:Plange, she's very helpful and if she knows you're having trouble with it she'll come up with something I'm sure. --kingboyk 21:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:CITE Talk page
Howdy - don't know if you've been following it, but I'm sure it won't come as a surprise that the issue is still being discussed (what needs to be cited) and I'm feeling like it's not really getting anywhere. Was wondering if you and some of the other seasoned editors/admins could weigh in? I'm thinking that someone with your experience and clout will help cut through the issue and help bring it into focus. Right now, everyone's talking in circles... I'm not advocating for a particular side, BTW, just that I respect your opinion and so think whatever you make of the situation can only be good for WP. --plange 00:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I think you formulated it well, thanks for weighing in! I know it's complete nonsense, and sometimes borders on arrogance (one even said he'd like non-science editors to show a little humility), but the problem is that these 3 or 4 could potentially change WP:CITE's guidelines if some cooler heads don't weigh in. In fact, someone just changed the page based on that bogus straw man straw poll. Sigh. The time wasted in arguing this is amazing, when they could just be spending it citing their articles instead. Problem is, on one of their points, I don't know enough about science to determine what needs to happen-- it was that it's harder to refute POV-warriors on bogus stuff since no serious publication would bother publishing a refutation, and so their argument is that requiring inline cites gives the POV-pushers a weapon to counter their attempts to keep psuedo-science out-- my response was that WP:RS should be able to take care of this, since if the source for the bogus stuff is bad/not reputable, it can be dismissed, but they said that it wasn't that easy. Sigh again. --plange 02:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, I went back to the pre-debate version and checked-- it's the right one you reverted to... Thanks! --plange 02:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * re: notifying others, I think it's time to call in the troops, since this is a coordinated effort on the other side from WP:Physics -- I had asked you, Kirill and Walkerma to weigh in, as you guys are the ones I know well and whose opinions I value. I hadn't thought of Yannismarou--I've gotten to know him from WP:BIOGRAPHY and he's doing great work. I'm a relative newbie, and so don't know others to call, nor do I know enough of the nuances of policies, etc., to weigh in properly myself. :-) --plange 02:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just saw your post-- sounds good! I'll notify Yannismarou... --plange 02:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Military history of Puerto Rico
Sandy, I think the article is now ready for copyediting. Do your thing, you have my blessings Tony the Marine 04:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I like it. Tony the Marine 17:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Crap I gave this article a copyedit, but I think my changes might have undone some of your most recent ones. Go back and check if I screwed up anything significant.UberCryxic 18:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

For now, you can go through the article and make any changes you see fit. I will be away for a few hours so when I come back I'll give it another look and see if there still are outstanding issues with prose. Right now the prose is acceptable for a FA, at least in my opinion.UberCryxic 18:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sex pistols
Do you mind having another look? If you list specific sentences where you have an OR or prose concerns, I'll try to deal with them myself. Simply removing sentences/clauses often works well. A lot has been done and I think it a pretty good page. Marskell 11:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

1 featured article per quarter
Check it out and sign up! Marskell 15:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Soxaholix Peer Review
Hi. I have responded to your concerns about copyvio linking at the article. I'd like to know if the changes satisfy your concerns. I also have an e-mail statement from the author of the site that the author of the WSJ article gave him permission to post the article in the fashion that he did on his website and that an upcoming site redesign will remove the article for the future. I don't think any of this is a deal breaker for the article and that you might not have recognized 3 of the sources as highly notable, independent, awarding groups and not blogs. Added with the recognition from a major newspaper as being worthy of an article, I'm confused by your claim of a lack of reliable sourcing. I'd really like to discuss this issue (at the Peer Review would be fine), but I thought to contact your talk page to make sure you knew I was interested in dialogue on the topic. Thanks. ju66l3r 16:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Inline Citations
I'll take a look over there. Indeed, there's a quote on Wikipedia by Jimbo Wales himself stating he originally wished for inline citations to stop physics theorists posting their stuff all over Wiki. I'll try finding it if it hasn't been quoted yet. LuciferMorgan 18:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Your watchlist
Thanks Sandy. I think the article is attracting a lot more attention because it is the featured article on the Philosophy Portal, including sometimes negative attention. I do think it's best not to encourage this guy, but if you have some time and care to look at the talk history, I'd love to hear an outside perspective. Edhubbard 21:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sandy. I think that Francesco and I have been pretty vigilant about trying to make sure that the article doesn't deteriorate, and there have even been a few improvements since the FAR, but it hasn't changed much.  I think if anything that seems OR, weasily or unreferenced gets added, then one of us (me, you or Francesco) will be sure to be on it.  Edhubbard 21:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Quickly
Cause I just noticed it: beware strawpolls. There should be a consensus to have a strawpoll not a strawpoll per lack of consensus. Marskell 00:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Respectfully remove yourself with a (likely repeated) comment on what exactly you feel. I understand that users can get a bee in their bonnet because our policies imperfect, but we don't strawpoll every evening because of that fact. Engaging a strawpoll validates the user, and sometimes you have to chose not to do that. Marskell 00:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I'll let my comments there speak for themselves, and I've noticed your strike-throughs. The intent of the questions may not be bad, but they seemed to have been asked as an outcome of attrition (if you're too damn tired to say something else, just check here). And, much as I talk above myself, I do know something about how to design an opinion poll (suffice it to say that Wikitalk rarely get it right...). Off to bed. Marskell 00:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Quotation
I would like to quote you "I'm not a great copyeditor". I could only wish to be half as good as you. Thanks! Tony the Marine 02:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Barack Obama
Thanks for highlighting those missing inline citations. I think the ones you signaled are all OK now. Please let me know if you have more suggestions for improving the article. --HailFire 12:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Cell nucleus footnotes
I fixed up the rest of the footnotes in that article except for some I wasn't sure about. Is it OK to have footnotes from inside a sentence (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_nucleus#Anucleated_and_polynucleated_cells). Cheers Also: Re. layout and Further reading vs References according to WP:LAYOUT it is acceptable to have either before the other, nevertheless, I do prefer it the way you've done it.ShaiM 14:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm adding PMIDs, then I'll go see what I can do to score some more reviews...ShaiM 15:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:MED
Dear Sandy,

I was a bit surprised reading on the WP:MED talk page that you didn't consider yourself a member because you don't have specific medical qualifications... shame on you! We are desperately looking for hardworking laypeople like yourself! Since you've contributed so much to medicine on wiki (especially of course, TS), I've listed you as a participant; again, no criteria to be a member, no diplomas needed! Also, no strings attached, that doesn't mean you have to change anything.

If you want, you can enter specific interests in that table (TS? FAR?).

grtz from a fan, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Cite problems list
When moving stuff down, I think you'd better cut all the subsequent mentions as well on the various sub-lists you've created. Just do a crtl-F when it's up in edit mode. Marskell 16:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. It must not have been on the sub-lists. I just looked at the diff and saw the move but no subsequent cuts. Ctrl-F is genius, huh? Certainly helps on that list.


 * Sex Pistols has seen some improvement, BTW. Marskell 16:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

RFA
Thanks for the heads up (and your support). I think the final pound sign was being counted as a vote at least (24 would be the total with that added in). StuffOfInterest appears to think adding that back in will fix it (but I assume that was there when it broke). I added an asterisk back in in the general discussion, so hopefully one of those will fix it. Cheers, Yomangani talk 00:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's right for me: 22/3/0/88%. (Have my 4000th edit too). Yomangani talk 01:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No worries - it's nice to have somebody concerned. Yomangani talk 01:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:FN
I've noticed you mention WP:FN often on FACs. On a few recent FACs I've tested an automated tool to fix the refs, recently applied to Pierre Rossier and Local Government Commission for England. I've just made a major change to the code so I would appreciate some testing on other articles. See User:Gimmetrow/replace.js (description on talk page); this can be added to your monobook with User:Gimmetrow/replace.js. Gimmetrow 05:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Issue at Dream Theater should be fixed. I saw a construct with a comment in one article, like this. . This can be handled but it doesn't seem worth the effort. Gimmetrow 18:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You need to clear your cache so the new javascript loads. Often shift-refreshing some wiki page will refresh the javascript. Gimmetrow 19:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Got it: this is great :-)  Sandy 20:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm still editing the script so you should reload it fairly regularly. Discovered that a tag with trailing spaces is parsed (by cite.php) as a ref definition rather than a re-use, and matches a later. My fix now removes any spaces in named refs to avoid this, but also clobbers spaces in quotes like. Gimmetrow 19:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

California Gold Rush
Watching your progress; it's coming along. The reason I brought up Columbia, California was because of this (unreferenced) mention in its article: "... at its height it was California's second-largest city. It was even considered briefly as a site for the state capitol of California." That has always been a claim, but I've not seen a reference. On a similar note, "Mother Lode" isn't well defined in the article. If Columbia was the heart of the Mother Lode, and the population there was so great as to be considered the state capital, that's something that could be sorted out in the article, with "Mother Lode" better defined. On the other hand, maybe it's not even true :-) Best, Sandy 15:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Sandy - it's been interesting and fun to keep working on this. One quick question - I've just started to get that 30 kb "large article" notice, but I've seen that a number of the recent FAs are "large" (like the recent Lord of the Rings and Lost FAs). Am I right not to be too concerned about the size?


 * Also, I've just been through the comprehensive Starr and Orsi book on the Calif. Gold Rush (Barbarous Soil), and they have an extended chapter on demographics, including a list of the largest 25 or so cities in California in 1850, 1860, and 1870. The list includes such metropolises as Sonora, Rough and Ready, and Yreka.  Columbia doesn't appear anywhere on the list, and is not mentioned anywhere in the chapter.  Also, California Politics to 1899 doesn't mention Columbia in the State Capitol discussion.  Finally, I have asked the original poster of that information if he/she would be kind enough to pass along to me the sources of the information so that the information can be included in other articles.  I'll let you know anything I find out!NorCalHistory 16:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Iron Maiden's FAR
Could you take a look at the comments I've left at Iron Maiden's FAR? I'd like to try helping where I can on this article, but I need some advice. Other than what I've left at FAR, would one book (an official bio) be sufficient to blanket the article with inline citations, or would this be inadequate? Feel free to reply at FAR. Thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan 16:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hungarian Revoultion Peer Review
Sandy, since you were so helpful in providing suggestions for improving the San Francisco article, I was hoping you might find some time to look over the article on the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and provide some feedback on the Peer review page. Thanks for any help. --Paul 01:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your insigtful peer review. We are addressing the points you have raised to strengthen the article to achieve FA status on 23 October, the 50th anniversary of the event. Yes, its ambitious, not quite as ambitious as the revolution itself. Your help is greatly appreciated. Istvan 06:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Parliament Act
Looks like an easy save though it needs some more citations, some restructuring and work on the prose ( and the singular title bugs me every time I have to type it I see you fixed that - thanks). ALoan is digging up some references too. I don't have a problem with it going to FARC - I should think it will take at least the rest of the week to fix up. Yomangani talk 09:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Milgram Experiment
I'm not very good at this kind of stuff, but found an excerpt from Milgram's book online; http://home.swbell.net/revscat/perilsOfObedience.html. If this is helpful then great, but if not my apologies. LuciferMorgan 09:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

BH & UT articles.
Thanks for your input on the Barbara Hambly and Cat's Claw articles. I agree that what is required is a request for comments rather than peer review.

Inicdentally, the link on your user page to citation (*Tutorial on citing references ) is dead.

WLU 16:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Sex pistols (again)
Well this one has become quite lengthy. Punctured's specific points are fair enough where actionable, but he seems to have a general distaste for the whole article that I don't know how to respond to. I suppose this is still on hold, so it doesn't necessarily need a kp/rm, but just an appraisal of where it's at. Marskell 12:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Citation
Your fact tags have been removed by User:Prodigenous Zee on the Iron Maiden article. I'm frankly thoroughly annoyed with the idiot - I'm trying to do real work here, and he's just acting as if he owns the article without doing work. LuciferMorgan 16:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I left a few choiced words at his userpage, and reverted his edits. His opinion is that because an Iron Maiden DVD says stuff like their first album was released to critical acclaim, then that's sufficient proof and doesn't need inline citations long as the DVD is just thrown in the reference section. Frankly this doesn't cut it for me - it contravenes NPOV, and if quoting from a DVD source then an inline cite should still be placed. Nobody at FAR would accept a Maiden DVD which talks them up as a reliable source, nor at FAC. I'm unsure what to do next, my comments are likely to brush him up the wrong way. Suppose I should eventually apologise.


 * If possible, you could try explaining to him about FAR, and tell him if the concerns aren't addressed then the article will lose its FA status. Also, try to tell him about inline citations and verifiability, and how this makes Wiki reliable and is required for FAs nowadays. Also the citation requests help when trying to add cites, encourages editors to help, and therefore helps the article address the FA concerns. LuciferMorgan 17:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I left an apology for being brisk, which'll hopefully cool things over. Some of the info within the article is incorrect, so I'll try correcting this - my additions may need a copyedit though. I'll use the book for citation on certain issues as it uses direct quotes, but as for the band's success I won't use it - for that I feel the Mick Wall book would be inappropriate. LuciferMorgan 17:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about being the bearer of bad news - you're telling me something I already know, as personally I can't see me saving it from FA removal. I don't really have the time - the time I have now is only because I've decided to stop interviewing music artists for awhile, but even that extra time is insufficient. The Metal Wikiproject I find annoying, because if they improved articles as much as they discussed what band is/isn't metal/thrash etc., then the Metal representation on Wikipedia would be amazing. Main problems in metal articles are;


 * 1. No inline citations.
 * 2. Fancrufty statements without supporting citations.
 * 3. Critical statements upon each album/song without supporting citations, which are real weasly. Typical lines begin with "It is generally considered.."


 * Some of the fancrufty statements in the article I'll simply remove, or I'll change the statement. An example would be people saying their first album was successful - instead of this, I'd state it went UK top 10, and maybe quote any critical reviews I can find from the time. LuciferMorgan 17:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

By the looks of your recent edits to the Iron Maiden article, it looks like I've been causing you further work - my deepest apologies. LuciferMorgan 22:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have the Iron Maiden FAR review on my watch list. I'm mostly aware of its problems - there's quite a lot of work to be done. I appreciate any feedback you have though - feel free to leave it at the FAR, in fact, I encourage you to. It may help me a little, and act as a guide. Many thanks in advance! LuciferMorgan 22:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Buffy nomination restarted
Since you have were involved with discussion before at Featured article candidates/Buffy the Vampire Slayer, you might appreciate knowing that the nomination for the Buffy articles has been restared at the same wiki page. I am letting everyone know who might not be aware (whether they were for or against the article becoming featured). Cheers -- Buffyverse 22:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
For pointing me in the direction of the FAR's for Iron Maiden / F-3 Lightning II... it'll be Isambard Kingdom Brunel up next, argh!!!!! :D --PopUpPirate 20:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Tannim on Chavez
I tried to discuss WP guidelines to Tannim, and (s)he asked about citing television shows. If you can manage the act of WP:FAITH, please leave a brief message at User talk:Tannim. I would much rather discuss the appropriateness of whatever quote (s)he finds than constantly revert and re-revert. Thanks, Sandy. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no doubt that Tannim is a sockpuppet, but I don't know what that means policy-wise, and since I'm not an administrator I leave it to others to worry about. I did leave JRSP the same message about Tannim.  I of course don't appreciate Tannim's vandalism, which is why I'd like to get him/her to focus on something else.
 * If I get the time, I'll look over at Lieberman. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Manual of style changes done
Changes to manual of style done as suggested, thanks. EyeMD 07:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Iron Maiden FAR (Continued)

 * Are there a lot more problems you can see then? If so, could you please make note of them on the FAR page? Thanks, I really appreciate the effort you put in. You should be sainted for Wikiwork! LuciferMorgan 10:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiStalking
Sandy, thanks again for your continued enthusiasm and for your new-found interest in articles relating to Connecticut politics and newspapers! Regarding your input on Waterbury RepublicanAmerican and Chris Murphy (politician), please read Wikistalking, as part of our continuing effort to maintain civility. Please be advised that following users around on WP is a violation of the Wikistalking guideline (not a policy!) and is generally frowned upon. Thanks! --Francisx 05:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC) edit: Francisx 19:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Francisx, harassment and mischaracterization of my edits on my user page is unwelcome. I've already mentioned the importance of WP:AGF to you in several places; since we are both following CT election articles, it is likely we will continue to encounter each other on the same articles.  You are welcome to discuss edits on article talk pages.  Please refrain from making characterizations of my edits, and remember to assume good faith.  Sandy 19:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sandy, I don't believe I've questioned your good faith or your honest enthusiasm. In fact, I welcome both. As for your interest in Connecticut politics and newspapers, it appears to have grown rather noticeably in the last few days, as expressed by your contribution history and seems to now very closely mirror my own interests (in fact, aside from a passing involvement with Joe Lieberman, you haven't before expressed an interest in either subject!). I don't consider this harassment, but I would again urge you to familiarize yourself with current Wikipedia guidelines and polices.Francisx 19:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The posts above, in fact, make at least your sixth and seventh failures to assume good faith. In fact, if you review the edit histories of the CT August primaries, you will find that my interest is not new at all, and that I also attempted in all of those articles, equally, to make sure there were no WP:BLP violations on any candidate's article, from any side, encouraging mediation and discussion between tendentious editors, and insisting upon reliably-sourced edits.  Watching what happened there encouraged me to try to set a tone of respect for BLP earlier on in this election.  I will continue, as part of my ongoing Wiki work, to enforce BLP across all biographical articles, to stress its importance, and to make sure that all edits are accurately quoted and sourced to reliable sources.  Working together to make sure Farrell's, Shays' and all other candidate articles are accurate and fair is in your best interest, as later on down the road, anon editors will surely make edits to her article which violate BLP:  it always seems to happen.  I encourage you to respect policy, work together, and cease and desist from the false accusations against me.  Regards, Sandy 19:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's be honest here. Your entire prior contributions to articles on Connecticut consist of edits to Joe Lieberman and Connecticut United States Senate election, 2006 from a week before the 2006 primary election to two days or so after, when the race was receiving a large amount of national media attention. Beyond that, your prior expressed interest in things Connecticut was null. In the last week, you have developed an interest in Connecticut so profound that you've found fit to comment on the supposed political leanings of a fairly obscure newspaper in Waterbury, Connecticut. Please stop misinterpreting my remarks as questioning your good-faith. Once again, I welcome your contributions and your new found enthusiasm for the subject matter. But please make an effort to be mindful of Wikistalking. Warmly, Francisx 20:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but your assertion above about my past edit history is just wrong. And, even if it were true, it still doesn't make a case for wiki-stalking.  I also don't consider the Waterbury RepublicanAmerian "obscure": they are one of the few papers to speak out about Dodd's stances on Chavez and Castro.  Please, put these personal issues and accusations aside, and let's focus on building an encyclopedia.  Thanks, Sandy 20:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Your message
Hello :-) I'll look over the articles and editor's contribution history and give suggestions or warnings as needed. If needed we can ask the community to ban some editors from one or more articles until after the election. Or course, that would be the second to last option. (last resort blocks of course). FloNight 20:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sasha (DJ) FAC

 * Hiya, Sandy. I've made some changes to fix the "choppy" language of Sasha (DJ).  If you get a chance, I'd appreciate any comments you have regarding this.  Thanks!  Wickethewok 21:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

RFA
Thanks, and thanks for keeping an eye on the RFA as it went along (I'll get back to work now). Yomangani talk 22:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Chuck Palahniuk
Thanks for this... and I hope I left messages at all the relevant places. Haven't been active much since FAR was introduced, was just used to good old FARC. Anyhow, cheers Mi kk er (...) 01:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Apolgies
I do apologise. I thought that I had left a note telling you that I was taking the elections issues to the incident noticeboard. I'd normally give it another go around myself, but the andmin trench warfare is sapping my spirit. - brenneman  {L} 11:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sandy, yesterday I looked over the articles before I called it a night. I did not see any defamatory content or true copyright violations. What I saw was 1) a content dispute primarily about the way that the subjects position on various issues should be portrayed. 2) Campaign spam. Some of the information was very similar to campaign material. I do not think we can truly call it copyright violation because the content was adapted from other sources.


 * Suggestion for dealing with the situation. Focus on the content not the editor. I think you need to stop lecturing editors about policy and guidelines. Instead, engage them. Work with the editors and re-write the content together on the talk page of the article. Remove the content from the article if there are serious problems with the content or if most of the editors agree to its removal. Whether it is in or out of the article, on the talk page suggest wording and ask other editors to modify it. If an editor will not work with you to re-write the problem sections and continues to unilaterally reinsert material that is disruptive editing, and a RFC, community probation article ban, or RFAr might be needed.


 * Honestly think that you should ignore the mild incivility issues. It is annoying yes but not serious enough to be blocked for disruption. People in disputes tend to be uncivil. Once the situation calm down and you start working together the civility issues likely will lessen. These are only suggestions. Of course do what you think is best. Take care, FloNight 22:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Attribution
Have you looked at this page yet? Some good to it, some I disagree with.

The latest post on talk concerns creating a reliable source exception for pop culture articles. Strikes me as something that needs resistance and thought you'd agree. Marskell 13:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Your comments
I agree with just about all you say, but I worry to. Do you remember one of my first posts on burn-out? You shouldn't take the whole Wiki-world on your shoulders. When you mentioned working on campaign bios (I also noticed your edits on a wiki-news article yesterday) I wondered how the hell you are managing this (even if you have 24 hrs free). You do too much good work in your corner to worry about all the corners Wiki has. I personally avoid the "low-hanging fruit" (current events etc.). It always ends badly when I edit. I don't want to offer a platitude, but think about where you can focus your energy and focus it there. Trying to ensure all the frequently hit articles in the main space are in order is not possible. Marskell 22:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

YouTube and BLP
I am willing to assist. Tell me the name of the article and I will see what I can do to help. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 01:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Post on my talk page. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 01:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS
You don't see a difference betweEn this and this? The Farrell article contained a source from the person's party on her.(You removed that one.) While the other is was removed from the Shays article containing the opposing parties view. (JzG removed that one.) Stop citing policy that you don't bother reading. From WP:RS: "Material from self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as there is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it..." You are misquoting policy and POV pushing! Arbusto 04:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Calm down, Arbustoo, and be careful with uncivil accusations. Yes, as you've quoted, material from the DCCC can be used in an article about the DCCC.  It is not a reliable source for sourcing commentary in any other article, and particularly not for supporting critical commentary about a living person, which violates WP:BLP.  The DCCC is a reliable source for this article only&mdash;that is, about itself.  Also, since you've given two diffs above showing entirely unrelated edits&mdash;one diff you've given is JzG's removal of DCCC material, and the other is my removal of an incorrect CNN quote, violating WP:BLP for a different reason (the quote was wrong)&mdash;I'm not seeing the comparison you're making.  I hope this clears up the confusion about the using the DCCC as a source for any article other than it's own.  I'm sure you can understand that Wiki content can't be based on obviously partisan and biased sources.  Cheers, Sandy 10:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Use / 68.199.231.122
In the event that you are user 68.199.231.122 out of Westport, Connecticut, please be advised that Sock strongly discourages the use of sockpuppets. See the following 34 suspected examples. If this persists, you may be subject to a checkuser:    --Francisx 06:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Your interest in me is flattering: if what persists? I encourage you to request that Checkuser with haste, so you can learn something about Wikipedia, put your concerns to rest, and focus your time and efforts on building a neutral encyclopedia.  Alternately, you could read through some Wiki policies, like assume good faith and civility, or the guideline discussing tendentious editors: the time you've invested in a brilliant discovery of nothing could be put to better use. Cheers, Sandy 10:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

ATT
Well, the talk page over there has 270 k that you might browse... Your OR concern is precisely the same as mine and I've stated it at length to Slim. The idea behind the page is to avoid rules creep and have a streamlined policy. She pointed out last night that demanding attribution solves the synthesis problem because you are, after all, demanding attribution for the synthesized argument not just its constituent parts. I still like having an individual page to deal with it though...

I think the pop culture thing is of greater urgency; the more voices saying an exception has no place will at least lead to no consensus and a non-addition for the timebeing. Marskell 14:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)