User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch8

Brabham
I see you're running scared of ELAC.... :D

Thanks - fair points, and ones I can do something with. I'll wait and see what Outriggr can contribute before I do any more to the article. Cheers. 4u1e 16:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL !! Good luck, and let me know when you want a new review :-)  Sandy (Talk) 16:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Need copyediting help!
Hi SandyGeorgia! Knowing you are sometimes working on FAC and FAR, I (no doubts like many others) come to you for help. You helped me withdraw Serial Experiments Lain from FAC, the main reason being poor qualitiy prose. Could you please offer advice on structure and/or copyediting? I've gone around the list you gave Balloonman, and some others, but the subject seems to be a little too obscure to attract attention :).--SidiLemine 17:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to help, but copyediting really isn't my forté. I usually focus more on looking at the references, WP:LAYOUT, WP:MOS, and things like that.  Sorry, Sandy (Talk) 00:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Jayne Mansfield
Please, check the article on Jayne Mansfield. It needs massive copyedit. - Aditya Kabir 19:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comments left at Talk:Jayne Mansfield. Sandy (Talk) 00:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Mainpage date tag
Well, I replied to the talkpage as you requested, but I'm not exactly sure what this is all about. Am I going to be replaced by a bot, do people have trouble with the way I do it, or are you all just curious. I kinda wanna keep doing it as it's like, my favorite function here on WP and I've been doing it for 15 months now, but, I guess it can't last forever if I'm gonna be replaced... so, what's up? -- SmthManly  / ManlyTalk  / ManlyContribs  23:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh, ok, sorry i overreacted, i really was fine with giving it up if i had to, i was just dissapointed, if you guys have a whole project for this I'd be willing to join. I will continue to add my own template and am fine with the intergration of it into one template which can just be changed over... I'll also take on any other tasks you have, just not too many because I do have a full time job, lol.  I'm 100% sure that after I add the "to come" template, the "to come" part is removed by a bot operated by User:Schutz, the bot doesn't have a specific name and just uses his screename, but it's this bot that changes the templates over every day at 00:01 UTC, unless someone beats him to it, you can also try contacting him about that part, but for the last 15 months or so it's been me adding the "to come" and his bot removing it, with a few exceptions here or there (like users who request an FA for a certain date and get their wish, they tend to watch the empty template and as soon as they see their article chosen for that date they add the tag themselves, but that happens once in a blue moon really). --  SmthManly  / ManlyTalk  / ManlyContribs  00:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

RE:Chess
I'm a big chess enthusiast, so I'll see what I can do! :) Gzkn 01:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wonderful - thanks SO much !! Sandy (Talk) 01:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

years
thanks for dewiking them - Bytebear and I have been trying to remove some wikilinks gone crazy that were added yesterday and keep getting restored by various people. -- Trödel 04:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ah, I didn't realize that was going on - I was just trying to get back to what was passed on FA, since I reviewed the article at FAC. I always wonder why the original author isn't babysitting the article as it gets slammed on the main page :-) Sandy (Talk) 04:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for editing. I'll try to watch the article as much as possible while it stays on the front page, but I can't be available all 24 hours, so I also have to depend on other editors.  BRMo 04:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Military brat (U.S. subculture)
Hi Sandy, I've revamped the article per your and Outriggr's recommendations---about 20-25 hours of work over the past week! If you get the chance, I'd appreciate a review. Ignore the intro, I haven't worked on that yet... Since it needs to be a summary of the article, it is going to be the last thing I work on.Balloonman 09:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

El Hatillo
Hi Sandy. It has been a long time since you did that PR for me in El Hatillo Municipality, Miranda. It took me a long time, but I slowly went through all of your concerns and most of them are done. Some stuff have changed in the article, so I would appreciate it if you could work with me on a final revision and help me with a cleanup (copyediting is my strongest weakness :D). If you are interested we could start by checking my replies to your PR in Talk:El Hatillo Municipality, Miranda, I don't think it's too far from FA. Let me know. Saludos.--enano (Talk) 18:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hola, thanks for the ref cleanup. I replaced the broken link with a different reference, and I agree with all your other comments. Regarding the needed citations method, either way is fine for me, so whatever is easier for you (I'm guessing tags?). I changed the template to 100% width. If you think 60% or 70% is better, just let me know. Fixing the "Catalogo del Patrimonio Cultural Venezolano" will take me a bit more time, but I will get started right now.--enano (Talk) 00:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm done with subdividing the book into chapters. I also did some research about Baltasar's year of arrival to El Hatillo, and it turns out only one source differed from the others, so I deleted the note. I prefer to keep the discussion in the article's talk page, bur inline comments are also perfect (you mean using this " "?).--enano (Talk) 02:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wonderful. I will begin addressing you comments. Thanks.--enano (Talk) 03:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

''Both of these are private; can you list some public facilities and other sports that don't require membership. Isn't there a paintball park near there? Do people bike up there?''
 * I could, but I have looked for references to back it up and haven't found any. Remember I had a sentence about Polideportivo La Boyera? I removed it due to lack of verifiability.--enano (Talk) 04:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll go to a bookstore later and see if any of the English-language tour guides have anything useful. Sandy (Talk) 14:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

8149 + 209 = 8358: how does that relate to the 8525?
 * Although it's not mentioned in the reference, it's assumed—or I assumed—that the rest of the students did not finish the school year. Maybe they moved out of El Hatillo in the middle of the year or dropped school for another reason. Do you think that should be clarified?--enano (Talk) 23:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was one of my worries as well. I will also try to find some references that can replace the Spanish ones. And please, don't feel any rush, enjoy your holidays, and if you wish we can stop now and resume after you are less busy.--enano (Talk) 00:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hope you understand. Absolutely ;-).--enano (Talk) 00:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. The International Music Festival is not the same as the Jazz Festival, I believe I have made that clear in the art section with a recent edit. I will try to go to the store at Tamanaco, but the problem is that most tour guides show information specific to the town and not the whole municipality, and the kind of facts in these guides are very touristic. If I look for an English guide exclusive for the municipality I will be searching forever; I went to a small public library in El Hatillo a few month ago and they only had two books about El Hatillo in Spanish (I'm guessing none exist in English elsewhere). I will look for English Caracas or Venezuela guides at Tamanaco, and if I look carefully I may also find English replacements for news articles at ElUniversal.com. Saludos.--enano (Talk) 04:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * You're quite welcome. Sharkface217 00:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Cladistics FAR
Thanks for letting me know. Slightly bad timing, as I just (finally) nominated cell nucleus, the MCB collaboration from September, but I'll try to take a look at it this weekend. Looks like Aranae had some very useful comments for cleaning up and updating the text. Opabinia regalis 04:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Scouting
Hi. Since you're in such a helpful mood with Balloonman-;), could you look over my FAC on Scouting. The one big objection was the writing--it was written by several different people is a likely major reason, me being one. I fixed everything they specifically mentioned and have not been able to do much with the rest of it. I'd appreciate it. If you want to leave your initial comments here or my talk page, that's okay, the FAC itself is okay too. I'll be working on them right away. I really mean this when I say it--I saw your list of good reviewers/copyeditors on Balloonman's talk page and had no idea I was well thought of that way; I'd include you on my own such list. We are often too close to our own articles to see everywhere they need tweaked.Rlevse 10:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry I haven't gotten to this - I'm still working on El Hatillo (two messages up), and have a busy weekend. I haven't gotten to Samsara's Darwin yet either. Sandy (Talk) 14:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi. I am following the Scouting FAC and noticed this thread. Thank you for offering to help. I see Spangieer did some copyedit and left a comment, but he didn't actually vote. The Scouting FAC is now 3rd from the bottom of the list. If you can find the time, and I know you're busy, to still work on it, I'm sure we'd all be greatly appreciative. Many thanks and happy holidays.Sumoeagle179 10:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder: I changed the section heading so it will be easier for me to remember.  Sandy (Talk) 11:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That frag was just added today by someone else, I'd removed that section and merged it. See today's history. Please look over the rest. I've rm'd the frag.Sumoeagle179 22:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Tony's at it again. He often makes good point when he's specific, but the bottom line is no one but he satisfies himself. See entry of 27 Dec if you haven't already about the fragment.Sumoeagle179 21:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Tony's the best - it's good to heed his commentary :-) I'll go have a look at that - I've been swamped.  Sandy (Talk) 21:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We do, we always fix what he tells us, but he only tells a few specifics and expects people to mind read the rest and 99.99% of us aren't as good as him. For example, on this he beats up the intro, says the rest needs "major surgery", but doesn't tell you what he wants. How on earth are we supposed to figure it out? It's not like fixing ref format, you know. To top it all off, he has snotty attitude all too often.Sumoeagle179 01:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This article made FA today. If you still have the inclination and time, we'd all appreciate and value your input to improve this (or any Scout related) article. We all think very highly of your copyedit skills. Thank you for past, present, and future asssistance.Rlevse 00:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Tourette vandal blocked
I got him and reverted what was still fresh. Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'm cleaning up the older vandalism - he was busy ! Sandy (Talk) 18:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

V for Vendetta
Hi Sandy. Would it be possible to help facilitate a closure of the V for Vendetta FARC? I'm aware that only Jeff can close it, but I was wondering if you could act as a catalyst, since you've very familiar with this process. Thanks. I will give Jeff a reminder, now. --P-Chan 07:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

On Hippocrates
Regarding comprehensiveness, what do you think could be elaborated? I thought "Works" could be and started the section. Let's see if works on it further. IMO, the article touches all aspects. Maybe it needs some good supporting fork articles. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless someone else takes over the article, I don't hold out much hope for the article improving. My sense is that Rmrfstar uses WP:FAC in place of WP:PR.  Sandy (Talk) 18:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Order of St. Patrick
Are you OK with this one to close? Marskell 16:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep - in general, if I don't speak up, that means I don't object. By the way, there's a discussion on ANI about Dubai IPs, raising a problem which is similar to the IP problem you have, here. Sandy (Talk) 17:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

ANI
As a result of reverting systemic blanking of certain comments by a banned user, I've had to remove a few edits you made (due to edit conflicts) on ANI. I apologise, and ask if you could kindly reinstate them. Thanks and sorry. – Chacor 02:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not to worry - will do. Sandy (Talk) 02:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Various things
I've made another update to the ref fixer to handle another ref template. Are you perhaps an admin? With all the templates being protected, it is difficult to fix coding problems in them. Speaking of which, what's up with the combo FA template? Gimmetrow 14:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't heard anything else about the combo template, but I notice on his user page that is busy til after the holidays.  No, I'm not an admin, but Yomangani is.  Sandy (Talk) 14:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek article review request
Hello. I've been doing some work on the article Where No Man Has Gone Before (TOS episode) recently. I recently made a peer review request, but have yet to recieve any suggestions (bar the automated peer reviewer). Since you are an FAC regular, I wondered if you might have any thoughts on the article, or be able to suggest other users who might willing to review or copyedit it. Morwen - Talk 16:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Morwen, I'm having computer problems - I just will not be able to get to this - I'm really sorry. However, the first thing I noticed was TOS all over the place, and it took me a very long time to figure out what TOS meant :-)  Sandy (Talk) 15:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

TOFA Templates
It doesn't look like all the templates and images are protected; am I missing something? Sandy (Talk) 23:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Which ones are not protected? --  tariq abjotu  23:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, Tariq - can't remember all from when I checked, but I looked at all at the bottom of the edit page, and saw that some of the cite templates (like book and web) weren't protected. I don't understand images, but it looks like not all of them are covered, either.  Perhaps I'm not understanding something? Sandy (Talk) 23:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, cite book and cite web have been protected since July. You can see this in the edit history. pschemp | talk 00:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, pschemp. Why do some show a protected template, and others don't?  Sandy (Talk) 00:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Where exactly are you looking? If the edit history is long and something was protected a while ago you might have to scroll down the history a bit. The other way to check is to try to edit it. pschemp | talk 00:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I see it in the history (I didn't see it before because I didn't scroll down far enough); I mean why isn't there a protect template on the actual page, like on the other protected templates? Sandy (Talk) 00:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that little notice about protection had been conceived or was in wide use at the time those were protected. Another thing is that the addition of the note doesn't necessarily mean it is protected, a favorite vandal trick is slapping protection notices on things. So, the only sure way is to check the history. It doesn't bother me in the least that the note is missing though. Those particular templates are so high use that there will never be a need to unprotect them. pschemp | talk 00:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, pschemp. Sandy (Talk) 00:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, one easy way to identify a protected template: there will be a "view source" tab rather than an "edit this page" tab. Gimmetrow 00:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ah, ok, thanks so much, Gimmetrow. It looks like Tariqabjotu has a full time job.  Sandy (Talk) 00:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I've unfortunately run into this a bit lately, and the response time with editprotected is a lot less than desirable. Gimmetrow 00:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Nominating
I am considering nominating the article Ford BA Falcon for Good Article status, so could you please check or review the article and if you can add anything to it please do. Senators 02:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Rodney Marks
Thanks for your work in editing these articles. Inevitably given how extensive the edits were, I have a couple of minor quibbles:

1. I do not think it is plausible to state there is no evidence that a third party was involved in the death - the police and coroner quite clearly say this is the most likely option, and more likely than suicide or accidental death. Although I do not think the original text was unreasonable on this point, as a compromise, I have replaced the words "no evidence" with "no certainty".

2. In the Antarctic treaty system, your edits removed any evidence of the dispute - which is the relevance of the case to that article. I have added a single scentence, stating the New Zealand police had criticsed the NSF and Raytheon for failing to assist with the inquiry.

I hope these changes are acceptable to you. Winstonwolfe 04:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Responses on article talk page. Sandy (Talk) 13:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, will reply there Winstonwolfe 21:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Marks
Interesting; the references look OK, but I don't really know for sure. User:Petaholmes is good at scientists' articles. I'll ask her. Tony 13:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Buffalo Skull of Diligence
I originally awarded this when my FA on the Mandan was on the mainpage. It was given to those editors who reverted vandalism. After watching the arguments on the ELAC page, especially your passionate arguments in favour of FA, I felt you should be given a little something. Your work on FAC and FAR is admirable, though thankless, I'm sure. Please accept this humble token of my gratitude. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 21:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou
Thank you for your comments and editing towards the Ford BA Falcon article, but if you can could you please tell other Wikipedians for their recomendations towards the Ford BA Falcon article.SenatorsTalk 03:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

OK then
I understand you don't have much time, good luck with your other articles.SenatorsTalk 03:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Latter Days
Ok, I've copyedited. Would you mind taking another look? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please would you mind reviewing your vote on the FAC? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, article has been thoroughly copyedited by two respected copyeditors now, would you mind taking a look? I think it's OK now. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added citations for your paragraph. I can't do anything else about the paragraphs you've raised because the information you want was never given. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yo, I've fixed what I could. I would apreciate it if you would once more review your vote, because I really think there's little else you could object to now. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Popular culture FACs
Hi Sandy, having been involved with the Sex Pistols FAR and now Punk rock, and from looking at recent promotions, I have a concern that popular culture articles are being ignored by stong reviewers during candidacy and well, slipping through the net. Not all these articles are bad, some are very good, but articles do tend to improve dramatically due to FAC feedback, and that feed back is currently lacking. I've been working in the background on a few, will venture into the bear pit of actual FAC discussion soon, just wanted your openion on how to progress this concern. + Ceoil 23:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. The only solution is for editors who are interested in those topics to start giving them the kind of tough and comprehensive reviews that, for example Hippocrates is getting right now.  Other than glancing at the structure of the article and the references, I can't usually add too much to those articles, and it's not possible to get involved in every FAC, so I tend to overlook them unless they are glaringly bad.  Maybe you can start recruiting editors who might be willing to work on the reviews, and the situation will improve over time?  Also, a lot more "junk" slips through the cracks in other areas as well, so it's not only pop culture.  There just aren't enough really serious reviewers, and there are always plenty of "fans" to Support, without always (apparently) being aware of the standards. Sandy (Talk) 00:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The 'fans' are always easy to spot, but tend to be the only voices. There are a number of good editors working on pop. culure articles; I'll just annoy them into FAC commentary, and become a thorn myself. OK plan, I suppose. Thanks. + Ceoil 00:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you need assistance?
If you need me (Senators) to help you with anything I am glad to, such as reviews, article checks and general assistance. Contact me on my talk page for help. SenatorsTalk 00:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's very kind, Senators. If you just watch my talk page, you'll see editors asking for help on their articles.  The editors who care to ask someone to review their articles are worth investing time in.  I can't get to all of them :-)  Sandy (Talk) 00:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Server problem?
Purchased and installed a new firewall - Merry Christmas to me, thanks to Wikipedia. Problem solved. It appears that Wikipedia changed something in its software that couldn't get by my old firewall. Sandy (Talk) 19:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

References Ohio Wesleyan University
Dear Sandy,

In your review of Ohio Wesleyan University, you mentioned that for news sources (I should use cite news). The template that I saw includes the reference within the article. I am confused how I should cite news sources properly. Could you change the BBC reference for cite news and I'll do the rest. Also, I fixed most of the references issues that you brought. When you get a chance, could you take a look and provide more suggestions? WikiprojectOWU 20:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What is your timing? - I'm having computer problems . Sandy (Talk) 20:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I've done what I can, but I'm having computer problems (I believe Wikipedia altered something in their code which can't get past my firewall), so it was very hard going - I'm having to work on an old, slow laptop. Which brings up the point - always indicate PDFs, so people on old computers/browsers will know not to attempt to download them :-)

I've changes many refs just to give you a sample of the work needed - you will need to go through the diffs of all of my changes to see the kinds of things I did.

I don't use cite news, because the cite templates stink. They chunk up the size of the article, give irregular results, and don't use a consistent style across the different templates. So, on news sources, I just typed them out manually. You can type anything you want in between ref tags, and it comes out exactly as you type, without all the extra garbage from the cite templates. News sources (all sources) need author (last name first), article title, publisher, publication date, and last access date on websites. Many of your news sources weren't identified as such, and didn't include the author or the publication date - you need to go through and check them all. For example, The Transcript was indicated as a websource, not a news source, and had no authors and pub dates - check all of them.

Another important consideration on websources is that future readers need to be able to locate the source should the links go dead or change. That means you should provide the full and complete name on the article - something like OWU Catalogue won't help someone find the source if the article name changes in future versions of the catalog, so please go through every source and make sure you've used the correct title. I fixed several of those.

Also, not all of your named refs were used correctly. Sources which are only used once don't need to be named - just adds extra KB to your article. Sources which are used more than once should point to the same named ref - I found occurrences where you hadn't used the same named ref to point to one source - need to go through and check all refs for repeats.

If you review all of the diffs of the ones I did change, you'll see what kind of review work you still need to do throughout. Looks like you're on your way to an FA - good luck~ Sandy (Talk) 15:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Chess again
Sandy, please, can you look at Chess and tell us what is needed to finish the FARC successfully? And of course, Merry Christmas to you!--Ioannes Pragensis 22:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to get to it - I'm having computer problems. Is the copyedit done and do you feel satisfied with it (I saw Gzkn is on wikibreak)?  Sandy (Talk) 22:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I need Information for editing guideline
There is a user called User:Opp2 in Talk:Dokdo. He seems to be bias, and many editors in Wikipedia notice the issue. He claims that he will "delete the description about Japanese contradiction and terra nullius for NPOV and clearing the fabrication if no one can confirm a Japanese government's original source." I don't think this is a good idea, and I am afraid that Dokdo article will be edited in a wrong biased way, especially without coordination between editors. So I told him several times that he is bias and he doesn't simply have enough witness to simply support his argument. He is being really tough to protect himself against criticism from a lot of opposing editors. He demands for wikipedia editing guideline. The quote by this user: "Do you say that the lie and POV have to leave at Wikipedia? Is that written in the guideline? Please teach where of the guideline to be being written."

I want your feed back right away and help us in Dokdo Talk Page. Thank you.--User:Kingj123 02:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for the barnstar, I really appreciate it. I think Ioannes Pragensis did more than anyone else did. And in fact, he is the one that prodded me into doing it! Bubba73 (talk), 03:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sandy, thank you very much, too, and wish you Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!


 * And moreover, you deserve a barnstar, too, for your valuable help during the whole process. --Ioannes Pragensis 07:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for protecting the British African-Caribbean communty article during its trial by fire, and for fixing a few stray refs before hand. Much appreciated!--Zleitzen 08:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Question from Flag of Lithuania FAC
I am using the English language tags because I am using a mixture of English and Lithuanian references and I want to denote what is in English and what is in Lithuanian. I started adding the English tags after Featured article candidates/National emblem of Belarus. During that FAC, I had used several English language sources but users had a hard time finding out which ones were English (the unmarked ones) and the Russian/Belarusian links (which were marked). Since then, I have marked the English sources if I am using a mixture of different languages for my sources, which also include a Czech website. I hope this answers your question, but if you want me to remove the English tags, then I can go ahead and do that. Thanks for your concern. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't think of a good reason to remove them if you feel they're really needed. Regards, Sandy (Talk) 20:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I know this is the English Wikipedia and people, like us, assume that most of the links are in English. There are some folks who can't do that, so I figured it would be easy to have it. But thanks for the concern. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Lifted your barnstar design
Looks quite nice! It's good to know that all the time I wasted fiddling with the layout wound up being useful. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

New antisemitism
Sandy, can you help with something, please? On December 19, a new account,, suspected by several unconnected editors of being a sockpuppet, turned up at New antisemitism and put the FAC tag on it. This has been a troubled article since its creation, for obvious reasons, and we've had a lot of sockpuppetry, and malicious and disruptive editing; and Systemex only edited between December 15 and 19. I therefore removed the tag, deleted the nomination page, and removed it from the FAC page.

Unknown to me, restored the nom a couple of hours later. That account had not made an edit since November 27, and had never edited New antisemitism, but knew to turn up on December 19 to restore the FA nomination.

I didn't know this had happened, and nor did any of the regular editors of the article, so the discussion took place without us. The only people who opposed were two people who've caused problems on Israel/antisemitism pages, and one editor,, who didn't edit between August 27 and December 22, before opposing on December 24, and therefore I'm guessing another sock. See the discussion here.

I've put a lot of work into this article, and I hate to see the facfailed tag on it because of a nomination by a sockpuppet, which the regular editors didn't take part in. I've removed the tag from the talk page on those grounds, but Dr Zak (one of the opposers) is taking great delight in returning it. As you posted the tag, would you consider removing it? I think if you removed it, he would accept it. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Since I've been restoring the tag I should give a rationale for this. The FAC nomination was clearly frivolous, but while the nomination was ongoing several people made serious comments: Jkelly (stability), Aminz (neutrality) and myself (undue weight, possibly). Just discarding this paper trail is iffy (we keep notes on frivoous AfD's, too) and simply not respectful to whoever commented. Besides, does this tag degrade the quality of the article? I think not. I'd recommend to keep the tag up. Dr Zak 20:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

SV, I thought something was probably amiss when it showed up at FAC: I'm sorry I didn't ask then, so we could have just removed it as a spurious WP:POINT nomination. Anyway, the main reason for having a failed FAC on the talk page is for archival purposes, when subsequent FACs are submitted. I'll set up the archive and list it on the talk page, which should be an intermediate solution that will please everyone. Sandy (Talk) 20:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Sandy, that's a good compromise. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's great. Thanks again, Sandy. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Dr Zak 20:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
A short message to you: I wish you happy holidays, and may 2007 bring good things. – Outriggr § 07:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks and welcome :) Fvasconcellos 14:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: I've fixed a tiny typo on your FAR box. Hope you don't mind!
 * Cool - thanks! Do you think that box is a good idea, and will be helpful? Why are we whispering? :-) Sandy (Talk) 14:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it's a good idea, though I don't get involved in FAs much, unless I "stumble" across them, as was the case with DS and TS. I have no idea why we were whispering :) Fvasconcellos 14:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

A question
Hello, for music articles to meet GA status are fan-sites allowed? thanks, happy holidays!. M3tal H3ad 00:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, M3tal, I saw your question last night, saw some of the issues, and wanted to put together a long response as soon as I get a minute (I'm still in the midst of holiday busy-ness) - there are many issues there. Stick to your guns :-)  Sandy (Talk) 14:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I left notes on the peer review. Fan sites aren't usually reliable sources, especially not when they are basically self-published, and there's an additional issue when they violate copyright. Sandy (Talk) 22:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow thanks for taking the time to do that! :) M3tal H3ad 01:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

FAC
I think I will take your suggestion and drop GA reviews. There are just too many poorly done GAs, and its a meaningless appellation as such. I would like to see folks go harder on FA candidates to strive to get much better prose, and more stable, because of their excellence, articles as a fact of life on Wikipedia, though. KP Botany 01:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Prose size script
Hi Sandy, When trying to work out how to calculate prose size I came across your instructions for copying and pasting from the printable version of a page. This seemed somewhat tiresome, so I've taken advantage of the holidays to come up with a better solution. I've written a script which calculates prose size (and various other sizes) and highlights the readable prose. Since you seem to quote the prose size quite often at FAC/R I thought this might be of interest to you. Instructions for use and more details at User talk:Dr pda/prosesize.js. --Dr pda 06:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Gsoh, Dr pda, this is wonderful news - I'm still in the midst of holiday busy-ness and just trying to keep up - will look at it as soon as I have a moment. Nice !!  Sandy (Talk) 14:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Beautiful - works like a charm !! Sandy (Talk) 22:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Glad you like it. Dr pda 00:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Rf/Ent and Ref/Note
I recently discovered the Rf and Ent templates have a problem if the tag parameter has a leading space - the resulting html links don't match. I found a simple-enough fix. Then I discovered that Ref and Note seem to have the same problem. These are used on nearly 9000 pages, so I would think if spaces in templates were common, people would have run across this bug before. Have you ever heard of this? Do you think it would cause a fuss trying to get this fixed, given the number of pages involved? Gimmetrow 07:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey Gimmetrow - Happy Holidays, and wishes for a healtful and joyous New Year! I haven't personally encoutered that, but I'm not at all surprised.  I can't imagine that it would cause a fuss, because I suspect that many of the articles that use it are somewhat abandoned.  The only FA I've been eyeing that uses note ref is Stuttering, and IMO that article needs (badly) to be updated.  I suspect that few get involved in updating because they can't deal with the wieldy, outdated referencing mechanism.  Are you thinking of doing a script to fix it?  Sandy (Talk) 14:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just had another look - stuttering uses something else (fn) ? Sandy (Talk) 14:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks a lot for your help on the notable organ donars and recipients page. I need all the help I can get to make this page as good as it can be. Remember 15:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Salsa music
Aha, the plot thickens. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Luna Santin 00:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say more, but the beans might be listening. ;) Will see what I can do with this, if it becomes a pattern. Luna Santin 00:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

OWU
Hi Sandy,

I know that you are involved with helping out USER:WikiprojectOWU with her OWU page (to which I am a proud alumn.) But I do have a question regarding the  template that is being used there. Wesleyan is used in the name of several universities including one that is simply known as "Wesleyan." Thus, I feel that having a template for OWU that labelled Wesleyan is questionable. I think the template should be renamed OWU and I believe that this is an easy fix for an admin---but what hoping that you could confirm that and give us your thoughts on the template name. Balloonman 17:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A bot could have fixed it more easily, but I just rolled up my sleeves and did it. see   Someone else can go through the process of getting the now-empty template:Wesleyan deleted.  Sandy (Talk) 17:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks, I wasn't sure what the proper procedure/naming conventions were so I figured that I'd ask an expert. Balloonman 20:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Japan FA nomination
Hi, I have actually spent a fair bit of time improving citations. If you still have problems with the article, it would be more helpful if you could make the changes you feel are necessary.

As to stability, as I mentioned on the FA page, the people who normally dispute the content are either out to make trouble or are POV pushing. The argument is rarely "this source is inadequate", it's "I know I am right and I will not listen to anyone under any circumstances". The biggest troublemaker is Hong, who is now on record as saying he would not agree to the result of any poll on the content he disputes, despite the fact I asked everyone to agree to the result by taking part in it, so that we can resolve the matter. That shows he will never back down. So what should we do - cave in to his whims? Maybe you can explain to me how we are supposed to satisfy someone that has made in plain he will only be satisfied with his POV. Thanks, John Smith&#39;s 21:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Cite the article - it's largely uncited. Doing so will help resolve POV issues.  Sandy (Talk) 21:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What does "cite the article" mean? It's very easy for you to say that. If you claim it is largely uncited then please put cite tags in the right places. I can't second-guess you. Also I have told you why citations will not resolve the disputes, as they do not concern uncited areas! In some cases people will even try to twist an existing citation to support their POV it is about attitudes, not citations. John Smith&#39;s 21:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * John Smith -- as a rule of thumb, a properly written intro will need few, if any, cites. Aside from that, all but the shortest of paragraph's should have at least one cite to make FA. Many of the Japan paras have no cite at all. I know I jumped in here, but just trying to help.Sumoeagle179 21:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sandy has very kindly started to add citation req tags, so your comments are welcomed. If Sandy can continue doing that, then it will help the article greatly. On a side-note, though, Sandy if you could please put a message on my talk page with the "inadequate" citations I will do my best to correct them later on. I do not want to seem rude, but I simply do cannot analyse citations as you do. Your guidance would be appreciated in dealing with the citation issue of the article. John Smith&#39;s 21:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Honestly, John, your approach to FAC has been quite antagonistic - when cooperative editors ask for help on FAC, I often do *all* of the citation work for them, as I find it sometimes quicker to correct the ctiations myself then have to spell each one out for someone somewhere. I have *many* other articles to attend to, and I tend to enjoy working on those whose editors are sincerely looking to improve the article, respecting input of reviewers who try to help.  Sandy (Talk) 21:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There - I've given you some samples beginning at the bottom of the article, as I don't like to fill up an article with cite tags - particularly the top of the article - until I know editors find it helpful. I've also added inline comments - pls remove them after addressing them.  If you need more of this later, I can add more tags - don't want to overburden you yet - this should give you a sample of the work needed.  Sandy (Talk) 21:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sandy, I am sincerely looking to improve the article. Your comments thus far have been very helpful in understanding what needed to be done to the page. I am sorry for getting off on the wrong foot, but I was tired and angry at the constant POV editing by people that have made it clear they are not interested in helping improve the article. You just got caught in the cross-fire - again, sorry. I hope you will find the time to modify existing citations to fit the necessary requirements when you have the time. You can add as many cite tags as you like - I'm sure they will be dealt with as and when people have the time to dig up the info. John Smith&#39;s 21:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * NO problem - let's start over. IF what I've done is helpful, I'll do more later.  As to analyzing citations, it's pretty simple - news sources need author (when available), article name, publisher, publication date (when available), book sources need page numbers, and web sources need author (when available), last access date (always), and some indication of the publisher (website, whatever).  I can do more samples if needed.  Sandy (Talk) 21:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I spent almost an hour and a half cleaning up what refs were there, but I only finished from Economy on - haven't touched the top of the article yet. This should give you an idea of what to do with the rest of the references. While I was in there I saw massive amounts of uncited data, and some prose issues. Getting the article thoroughly cited will be the top priority - prose can be adjusted later. That's all I can do for now. Sandy (Talk) 22:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:refs after full-stops
Citing_sources From citing sources

Footnotes at the end of a sentence or phrase are placed immediately after the punctuation. For example: President Bush called for a halt to the violence,[3] and opposed a timetable for withdrawal.[4] i guess it's to keep it looking organized, which it does. M3tal H3ad 01:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Also WP:FN says it needs a dash after the reference if it's in the middle of a sentence. M3tal H3ad 01:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Refs come after punctuation, with no space, when they follow punctuation, but they don't *have* to follow punctuation - you missed this part on WP:FN: Place a ref tag at the end of the term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers.[3]  If the note refers to only one part, word, or phrase in the sentence, it's OK to put it there, even if there's no punctuation.  What WP:FN triex to explain is not to do this[2].  (ref before punctuation).   Sandy (Talk) 01:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well i was told to put it after punctuation and not in the middle of a sentence, many editors do the same thing :S. M3tal H3ad 01:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I know - a lot of people are misreading WP:FN. The purpose of WP:FN is to remind editors not to put the ref before punctuation.  But, here's an example a mid-sentence cite:
 * Contemporary prevalence estimates range from 1 to 3 per 1,000 to 10 per 1,000; the latter yields an estimate of 530,000 school-age children with Tourette's in the United States, based on 2000 US census data.
 * See how each fact has to be cited, even though one is mid-sentence, yet refs always follow punctuation. Best, Sandy (Talk) 02:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, thanks for clearing that up. I striked my comment on diplodocus. M3tal H3ad 02:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Ernest Emerson article
Sandy,

An overzealous editor with ulterior motives was threataning to delete the pages, etc without enough sources...saying the claims were without basis, etc (it's in the history from more than 1 month past) I thought this individual was some type of administrator as he constantly harped about sources, etc to the other people who started work on the article. Then he would claim the sources weren't good enough, etc.

I figured showing many varied sources saying the same thing would be sufficient and for a while they were appearing after every sentence and detracting from the article, itself.

Please advise if I should remove any or if one or 2 are sufficient for the claims being made.

Thanks --Mike Searson 05:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I responded on the peer review - which took me a while to find - pls remember to provide links back to the article and peer review when responding to others :-) Good luck - you've got a nice start there!  Sandy (Talk) 14:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Only Fools and Horses
Hi. I've added all your requested citations to the article, save for one. The citation for "and was named one of the top 20 cult television programmes of all-time" in the Cultural Impact section is already there, at the end of the author's quote. Cheers. SteveO 14:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Titanium refs
I've scanned the code of the 16:12 revision, these named references have no content defined in their first occurrence and need(ed) to be fixed: Femto 16:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * BuildingBlocks451
 * BuildingBlocks452
 * BuildingBlocks453
 * BuildingBlocks455
 * EnvChem
 * Thanks, Femto, I *think* I've fixed most of those, but I'm not sure - I'm thoroughly disgusted at how high-maintenance this article has become. The error which was bombing out part of the text was the failure to close a ref tag on named ref EnvChem.  Sandy (Talk) 16:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe if you stopped trying to fix refs one at a time... (and if the refs had been better laid out in the first place, but that is what I'm trying to fix Physchim62 (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think they're fixed now - but what the heck, I've lost patience. Sandy (Talk) 16:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

New signature
For some reason, several editors recently have confused with me another user named Sandy, which kinda bugs me, so I'm changing my sig to make it clear I am *not* a dancer. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, just got your post :) I am really sorry, it was an honest mistake.. I think that I was tired and didn't pay much attention, and since I also ran into the other Sandy in the RfC etc, I just completely mixed up what was going on. Sorry about that, and happy new year! Baristarim 04:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I admit having confused the other Sandy with you (thankfully temporarily), as I had met you first and him later. Nice change, but be careful because you may be accused of discrimination for that! Welcome to the club of those who want to be disambiguated! ;-) NikoSilver 15:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * :-) Georgia's in the USA, too !! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Just try not to e.g. rename your airport to e.g. Kartlos, or to e.g. claim descent from Kartlos himself, or to e.g. disprove that Georgians descend from the ancient Georgians or to e.g. try to annex it... NikoSilver 15:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you think it's funny :-) Now I know how it feels to need to be disambiguated, and I'm not happy about it.  I liked being Sandy :-)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Health, happiness, love, sex, glory and money for 2007 Sandy! You'll always be plain Sandy to me, even if you start dancing, (or move to Georgia)! After all, I met you first! ;-) NikoSilver 16:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You need to see this
Specifically, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Daniel10--Rmky87 17:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know - I don't believe ten-year-olds should be on public fora, but I guess that's not my problem. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome.--Rmky87 01:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's coming from the mess at Featured picture candidates/Ajaxf. IMO, we need to speedy remove future FACs.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm the one who tagged the sockpuppet accounts. I'm curious as to why they need to be brought to the attention of SandyGeorgia in particular. —Psychonaut 17:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's related to nominations and comments on other noms at WP:FAC (see, for example, Featured article candidates/Red Panda). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply to replace.js from WP:FAC/Henry_Kissinger
I'm sure it's you, but you call replace.js "Gimmetrow's marvelous ref fixing script". Once more, thank you very much:)--Pethr 18:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * oh. I didn't know that was called replace.js (dumb me).  Thanks :-)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Eventually, I'm going to rewrite the code and put it somewhere like fixrefs.js so the name is clearer. Gimmetrow 18:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

FAC tags
Thanks for the offer, Sandy. Just tell me what to do, and I will be happy to help you with the tags. It sounds like a relaxing chore, actually, and something to calm me down after editing the controversial articles I have been engaged with lately. Jeffpw 19:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer, Jeff - here's the job I picked up recently. When Raul fails a WP:FAC, someone has to put the facfailed template on the article talk page - that involves editing the talk page, and switching the fac template to facfailed (just add failed to fac).  You can see a recent sample here.  How to know when FACs fail?  Put WP:FA or WP:FAC on your watchlist, and you'll know when Raul archives failed noms and promotes FAs.  He adds the failed ones to the archives by month, for example, Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/December 2006 and Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/January 2007.  You can check those files, by month, to see which ones he's failed - then you just edit the talk pages of the articles and switch them to failed.  Every now and then someone asks "why'd you do that?", and you just point them to the archive, mentioning that Raul decides.  Thanks for the help - this is one less thing for me to do :-)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds great. I have added WP:FA and WP:FAC to my watchlist, and will start checking the December archives today. This should be fun. :-) Jeffpw 20:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to check to see if the archives are linked to the tag, if that's what you mean, but don't have a clue as to how to fix them. If you explained what to do, though, I'm sure I could pick it up in no time. By the way, Sandy: you're fast! I am half way through the December archive, and every article I have checked so far ahas already had its tag changed! :-) Jeffpw 20:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So if an article has failed multiple times, in theory it is possible to include the archives of the previous nominations in the most recent nomination, and then leave just the most current FA Failed tag on the talk page? That would certainly make the page scan better. Likewise, I would think it would be possible to consolidate the peer reviews so as to only have one tag. It just seems silly to have more tags than talk on a talk page. Jeffpw 20:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I consolidated the tags on Charizard, so there are now 2 tags less (I added a link on the second peer review to the first one, so that was one tag gone, and I saw that all the previous FAC nominations were included in the last nom, so I deleted the 4th failure--sad little article, that one!). Sure, I can check the new nominations, to see if they have been previously nominated. I actually find this rather soothing work, Sandy. Who'd a thunk janitorial work could be so rewarding?!? Jeffpw 22:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The onlt things I have deleted are the extra tags, and then only after I provided an archive link like here: Peer review/Charizard/archive2. So nothing is lost for anyone who wants to see everything. I just put it all in one place. On another matter, I have found two articles on the FAC list that were former Fas, but when I click on the link to the former nomination, I get directed to the current nomination. Maybe that's because they are old FAs, from before the current system? The pages in question are DNA and Cyrus the Great. Jeffpw 22:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, that's when it gets tricky - follow that here on my talk page, so we can keep it one place, OK? That (most often, most likely) means that the person submitting the new FAC didn't properly archive the old FAC.  But, not worth worrying about.  Raul told me (look somewhere back in my archves) that he doesn't care about preserving old FACs when an article has been promoted, demoted, then re-promoted - he prefers to erase the history on re-promotions.  But, the way to find out if the new nom overwrote the old nom (without archiving) is to look back in its history.  Also, on those cases we have to take extra care that they are handled correctly on WP:FFA - see the list at the bottom there - if FFAs are noted on the nom (as I did on DNA), then I'm more likely to remember to handle them correctly on WP:FFA.  I'll have a look at those two now, and get back to you  22:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I checked them both - Cyrus the Great has a link to its former FAC (see the prose submitted with the nom). DNA is a former featured article, demoted, so I added a link to the demotion to the FAC page - in those cases, if the article is re-promoted (it will be, because TimVickers is an FA machine), Raul erases the old history from the talk page - hence, including the FFA link in the current nom will help future editors track down any confusion.  I hope that's as clear as mud?  Mostly, I'm the one who needs to know about re-promoted FFAs (like DNA), because they get handled differently at the bottom of WP:FFA, and I have to make sure we don't mess up the count on former featured articles. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, all current candidates have their archives on the nomination page now--surprising how many people forget to do that. Anyway, the only trouble I had was with those two I mentioned. I still don't understand why the tag on the talk page redirects to the new nomination, but I suppose the longer I do this, the clearer it will become. AZlso, there is a new nomination with the same problem--Talk:Ford Taurus|Ford Taurus. What's weirder is that I went back into the history of the FAC page, and when I looked at the old page from last May, the new nomination is there! . That really puzzled me. Could you shed some light on how that happens? And we can keep the whole convo on this page--you're watchlisted, so I can see if you reply. Jeffpw 23:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Former noms can be archived with the same template on the talk page, but you'll notice that the nom defaults to the current nom, unless you specify a parameter to an older nom - it can be good to leave an old nom on the talk page, so new editors understand how to archive them. I'll go look at Ford Taurus to give you an example.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, Ford Taurus is a perfect example of the kinds of goofs that make me crazy - the new nominator didn't archive the old FAC - just wrote over the top of it - you can see that by looking at the history on the FAC. I'll fix it (it's never optimal), and you can see how I fix it, including the old archive on the talk page.  Give me a minute.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Ford Taurus
New Current FAC nom (after my changes):
 * Featured article candidates/Ford Taurus, look at its history now.
 * Look at the history of the older one (now archive1) - you'll see there are probably at least two former FACs buried in there, based on the dates:  Reviewing the diffs in history, in fact, you find that each time they submitted a new FAC, they just erased the old one and wrote over it, never archiving the old FAC.  This is a good example of why it's a good idea to leave old FACs on the talk page, rather than combining them all, so that (hopefully) future editors will "get it".  It's really hard to do it correctly once it's messed up.  This time I (check my contrib history to see how I did this):
 * Moved the current nom to archive 1
 * Copied his current nom into the current FAC file, replacing the automatic redirect inserted by the move
 * Revert the moved article (archive1) back to what it was before he overwrote it, so it is what it was before the current nom - that is, two older noms
 * Then cut and pasted the even older FAC into archive2, so now we have, resurrected from the current FAC nom history:
 * Featured article candidates/Ford Taurus/archive1
 * Featured article candidates/Ford Taurus/archive2
 * Then added them both to the current FAC
 * Then left a record of both on the talk page, by changing the parameters in the article talk page facfailed templates - notice how to do that
 * Follow my contribs and you can see all the steps - I've never found a great way to do this. You can see why I'm glad to have some help on this :-) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

FAC instructions
Jeff, it happens because nominators don't follow these instructions, which are as clear as can be at the top of WP:FAC: Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If the article you are submitting has had a previous FAC nomination, use the Move button to archive the previous FAC discussion. For example, Featured article candidates/Television → Featured article candidates/Television/archive1. Remember to change the old  template on the talk page to.
 * Thanks for the clear instructions, Sandy, and for your very helpful edit summaries! They make it so easy to follow your logic. I have checked all the new nominations, and everything is now in order. I am also messaging editors who forget to add the archive to the new nomination. Jeffpw 09:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am now working my way through the FARC archives, then will start on the FFA page. This should give me a merry couple of weeks! One question: I saw no way to get the original failed nomination of Goomba as an archive. It was apparently overwritten in the second nomination. The original discussion is still preserved on the talk page. Jeffpw 11:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That one's strange - anyway, I don't think it's worth worrying over - that's an example of where Raul has stated that he's not worried about preserving the history on talk pages once it's been demoted. It has the nom that succeeded, and the FARC, so that's a good enough record.  Nice work - I'm so glad to have someone else who realizes all that goes in to it!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Just got home from work. I'll spend an hour or so checking and changinf it all before the ball drops here. Happy new year! Jeffpw 19:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Minor help needed
Hey Sandy,

I know you have a ton of experience in making articles great. I need a bit of help with Space warfare in fiction, a page I've been working on for a while. I am having some difficulty with getting sources for it and I know you have lots of experience in that area. Any help you could render would be appreciated. Thanks!  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  01:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, and happy new year!  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  01:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, Sharkface - that one is really out of my ballpark - wish I could help, but don't know what to look for. Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

RE:Intrusive thoughts
I look forward to seeing it! Gzkn 02:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I did a bit last night, but much more to do still. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Gerald Ford
I don't know if you noticed, but the refs on this article went to an utterly deplorable state. I started working on them a few days ago and am currently down to ref 31 (reused Shane Scott ref). You can get an idea of how bad they got by checking #32 and later. I'll finish fixing them, but it'll take me a few days.Sumoeagle179 03:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I got through Domestic policy, but kept getting logged out after every edit, so give up for the evening. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I used all cite format and you didn't. Shouldn't we be consistent? Please advise.Sumoeagle179 12:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I just had a look, and I think you mean that you used the cite templates (WP:CITET), which are only a means of getting the references formatted; the same thing can be accomplished without using the templates. I hate the cite templates because 1) they chunk up the size of the article and are cumbersome, 2) they give inconsistent results with changing parameters (cite news doesn't work the same as cite web, and so on), and 3) they mess up punctuation.  I find it far easier, faster, and less clunky to just type out the same information the cite templates produce, with the cite templates giving a whole lot of extraneous overhead and work.  The important thing is that one style is displayed on the final footnotes, in the final result, regardless of the method used to accomplish the style (whether templates or manually).  For example, I think I used the same date formatting as you did, last name first on author, etc.  If I did anything differently, it's very easy to change in between ref tags, while very hard to change on the cite templates.  Also, if you like the cite templates, be sure to use cite news for the news and media sources - which is awful - that's another reason I don't use them.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, so final display is what is important. I like the cite templates because you don't have to worry about format, it formats for you but I don't like them (or any inline footnote) because it makes reading the article harder. I liked the old ref/note system better, but that is passe now. Rlevse told me once he also has this same love/hate relationship with the cite templates.Sumoeagle179 14:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep - I guess I do them manually because I have a bit more control that way :-) I'll work on more of the Ford refs later today if I get time.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Me too. I'm down through the assissination attempts right now.Sumoeagle179 15:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

FAC
Re AC/DC FAC. Thanks for the tip - I know about as much about this band as you do, but will do; have made some light edits to the lead and will comment later when I've read the whole thing. FAC:Sasha is a deserving pop culture candidate IMO, but it hasn't had a lot of input during its review. I know you (always, as your so helpful!) have a lot on, and it does have a good chance of promotion anyway; but maybe you could give the citations five or ten minutes. Thanks. + Ceoil 03:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I focused on the copy, missed that retrieval dates are missing on some of the refs. Can work on that. Tks. + Ceoil 04:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I found a lot missing - considering this is their second time through, I was surprised, hence, object. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem and thanks; I've left a note on the FAC page, and hope this can be resolved. This is exactly why FAC candidates need more reviewers with different skill sets; but as you've pointed out, reviewers can't be everywhere. I have to admit my concern is usually with copy. I need to be more vigilant re sources. + Ceoil 05:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's frustrating to me that few other reviewers check the references, and that every time I do a random check, I find so many gross problems on so many articles. I do wish others would do spot checks for WP:V.  I often don't take the time to read an article until I know it meets WP:V on a random check. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Germany
Hi, Sandy, this is about the Germany FAC. Could you please take another look at the article. I tried to implement the changes you suggested. TSO1D 23:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look at it later tonight or tomorrow. Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)