Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:29, 16 April 2007

Nor'easter alert — FLOODED 02:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


If you want me to look at an article, please provide the link.
I usually respond on my talk page, so watch the page for my reply.
To leave me a message, click here.

This editor is not an administrator and does not wish to be one.

Featured article removal candidates view edit Boogeyman 2 Review now Shoshone National Forest Review now Northrop YF-23 Review now Bart Simpson Review now Emmy Noether Review now Concerto delle donne Review now FACs needing feedback view • edit Operation Matterhorn logistics Review it now User:SandyGeorgia/FAs for review About me Talk to me To do list Tools and other useful things Some of my work Nice things Yukky things Archives Archives 2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · 2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013–2015 · 2016–2017 · 2018 · 2019 · 2020 · FA archive sorting · 2021 · 2022 · 2023 Jan–Mar (DCGAR) · 2023 Apr–Aug · 2023 Aug–Dec · 2023 Seasons greetings · 2024 · 2025

Loss of information on musicals

Hello, Sandy. At Talk:The Sunshine Boys you wrote: "Weird, there used to be a real article there. But merging the two now will be quite a mess; is this occurring throughout the musicals? Straight plays? Films? What's up here?"

Yes, unfortunately, there has been loss of information from many articles about musicals, particularly plot synopses and cast lists. Also, they are being re-organized so that many of the section headings are removed, and instead there is just a long introduction containing all the background and production history information, followed by the list of musical numbers and awards history. I believe that the articles should make an effort to follow the guideline formed by a consensus of editors at the musicals project on this page: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure. Thanks for your interest. I have been worried about this for some time. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 23:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, SS; I'll get on this when I can, but I am really swamped now. What a mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Bloom, Ken (2004-10-01). Broadway Musicals : The 101 Greatest Shows of All Time. New York, New York: Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers. ISBN 1-57912-390-2. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Kantor, Michael (2004). Broadway: the American musical. New York, New York: Bulfinch Press. ISBN 0-8212-2905-2. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Botto, Louis (2002-09-01). Robert Viagas (ed.). At This Theatre. Applause Books. ISBN 1-55783-566-7. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Larson, Jonathan: Interviews and text by Evelyn McDonnell with Katerine Silberger (1997). Rent. New York, New York: Ros Weisbach Books. ISBN 0-688-15437-9.

Good references. I added some of these to the Musical Theatre article. The Rent article already cited the Rent book. -- Ssilvers 20:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

MEDMOS

First things first, absolutely. I've removed my "call for volunteers"... I have a gift for straying off-topic, don't I? Fvasconcellos 00:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You do? How about me? As soon as I saw the problems at Prostate cancer, I started working on them. That was dumb :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

History of Poland...

...has quietly become an extremely long review. I don't know what to do with it. I know Piotrus will address things when they are directly suggested to him, so I hate rm'ing. Marskell 20:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I see you've struck. I'm going to kp unless you have anything new to say now. Marskell 17:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I won't say POV in the deliberate sense of the term, because Piotrus is an excellent editor. I'd say you've got a hard topic for the unfamiliar to distinguish b/w the obvious and not-so-obvious. We've had this conversation in other contexts... ;). In brighter news, I'd tentatively guess our keep ratio is moving from a spike to a trend. Marskell 18:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Reign in Blood

Hi Sandy, about two months ago you gave this article a brief overview and said it did'nt have enough content for FA (i agreed with your view). Since then the article has basically doubled in size, pictures added etc and i was hoping you could take another look to see if it's ready for FAC? I know your'e busy with travel and other requests but whenever you get time, or if don't then no problem, thanks for your time :) M3tal H3ad 14:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, as always greatly appreciated :) M3tal H3ad 02:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. If you get the time could you please take a look at the FAC. I didn't get your comments on other FA's and i was hoping you could look at this one, i know you're busy but if you ever get some spare time, thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by M3tal H3ad (talk • contribs) 07:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Moon

Hi, I've responded to your comments here. Regards, Nick Mks 17:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Reminder to myself: Song Dynasty. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Martin Brodeur

Would you mind looking this article over? It's currently going through FAC and I feel it needs more work. Maybe your comments would be helpful, as the editors are responding fairly well to my objections. Quadzilla99 18:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Will try to get there soon, but I'm just getting home and I have a long list :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

question

A long time ago, I wikilinked to a section regarding citations (in WP:CITE or some other guideline) that said something like... "The two main styles are footnotes and Harvard, but in come cases a particular field will use its own referencing style, and in that case, that style may be used instead" .

I can't seem to find it now. Do you recall that bit?

Thank you for your time and trouble, --Ling.Nut 00:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you look at WP:CITE/ES? I don't recall ever seeing that text. Maybe it's at those goody scientific guidelines, that came out of the GA mess, but I don't have that page bookmarked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the idea I'm talking about, but that's actually just a footprint of text that has been deleted from WP:CITE. I had to go back to 6 August 2006 to find it; don't have time to find the diff where it was removed:

• When writing a new article or adding references to an existing article that has none, follow the established practice for the appropriate profession or discipline that the article is concerning (if available and unquestioned).

One day a few months from now I might write an essay about the history of the edits to WP:CITE, and who made them, and when, and how much consensus the change actually reflected. :-)Ling.Nut 01:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

And how 'bout my typo (above); I put goody when I meant goofy :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem on the citation page

OK, I'll explain what pda fixed. There was an improperly closed html tag on the page. It's probably been there a while, but had no noticeable effect. A recent change to how html pages are generated in the mediawiki software affected unclosed html tags such as that page had. But some browsers still handle the resulting html in a way that looks right, so not everyone can see it. Gimmetrow 01:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

ah, ok, thanks Gimmetrow; I was writing on your page while you were writing on mine! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Reagan See Also Section

Hey Sandy. Does Reagan's page evan need a "See Also" section, because everything in it is, in someway, incorporated into the article? Why don t you just delete it? Happyme22 17:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking at them one by one; did I miss those? If you have *no* See also, someone will complain :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Homer's Enemy FAC

I have responded to your comment on the FAC. None of the stuff that needs citation (other than fan response) comes from any "unreliable sources". I explain further on the page. -- Scorpion 18:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Polite request...

Hey Sandy. I see from your contribs you've been quite busy, but after all the help you provided on metformin back in January I couldn't stop myself: I'm thinking of putting orlistat up for GA status, and would really appreciate it if you could have a cursory look at it later. I know you've got MEDMOS on your hands and probably a dozen FACs, so feel free to just leave this on the backburner until you have some free time... I'll owe you one more, and if I can help with anything, let me know. Thanks, Fvasconcellos 20:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll get on it right after lunch. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I've replied to most of them anyway, even if only as reminders to myself. I'll start working on what I can ASAP. I've worked on all but two; it's amazing how after reading an article over and over we stop noticing what's amiss... Thanks again, Fvasconcellos 22:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

So, I've gone ahead and put it up for GA. I think I've covered everything you mentioned in your thorough review. There's still a couple of things I'd like to tweak, but I figure it's gonna sit in GAC for ages anyway :) Fvasconcellos 00:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

By year nomination lists

Just FYI - I've updated FA vs. FFA and the mainpage appearance dates for each of the by-year nomination lists (like Misplaced Pages:Featured articles nominated in 2007) - using various scripts rather than manual methods. As far as I know, these lists now accurately reflect the content of FA and FFA, and the TFA archives. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've got my hands full tracking ArticleHistory and making sure WP:FA and WP:FFA are accurate, so I can't keep up with yet another list. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Gwoyeu Romatzyh

Many thanks for your rigorous but fair assessment of Gwoyeu Romatzyh, which was eventually promoted to FA on 3 April. I'm sure that your suggestions helped the article on its way. All the best. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 21:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

admin

Hey. I was lookign at some of your contribs and was surprised to find out you weren't an admin. Then again, I've heard you weren't interested in adminship. If I were to nom you, would you accept? It seems like you're quite busy without the admin load though, lol.--Wizardman 00:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I noticed two noms from last week, so obviously you'd make a brilliant admin. Though if you don't want to take the plunge I understand. Waiting until your number of support votes can beat Phaedriel's huh? :P--Wizardman 01:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, Wizardman. No, I'm not waiting for anything; I'm too busy to wait :-) Just not interested. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Reagan References

Hey Sandy. Thanks for all of your work on the Reagan article. It's much appreciated. Keep it up! Thanks, Happyme22 02:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I do have one question, though. Once the page numbers are added to the book references, will they all go back into the "a. b. c." format? Im just thinking about FAC....Also, I own a copy of Ronald Reagan's autobiography, but it's the second printed edition, so the page numbers do not correspond with those in the first edition. Is that okay? You seem to know what you're doing, so please get back to me. Thanks, Happyme22 02:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the page numbers aren't combined back into named refs, and that is fine at FAC. If you add page numbers from a different edition, be sure to change the main reference given in References to indicate the edition you're using, so that page numbers agree with the version/edition cited in references.

Did you do the other refs? If you did, it would help if you would:

Use shorter ref names.

Not leave empty fields, they chunk up the article size

Be sure to add dates and authors, and use correct titles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks a lot. I'll try to work on the templates. I use Template:Citeweb and Template:Citebook. Are those good? Thanks for your help. I didn't know how bad these were! Happyme22 05:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Not if you're citing a news source or a press release, or using cite book to cite a web source, or cite web to cite a book source. Most of the templates were used incorrectly, and it's harder to fix them than to just convert them myself. I suggest you just add the inline links , and let someone else work on formatting the references. The bigger chore will be finding the missing page numbers on book sources. After a trip to the library, perhaps you can start filling in page numbers? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Quick one re FAR

Need some advice here :) I am cognisant that some people take things personally when they're not meant personally, always difficult when you work with the people concerned over a range of projects. I've become aware of an article which probably does not meet current FA requirements, and was passed about 2 years ago. A *lot* of work would be required to get it to the current standard, in my opinion and that of a few others. However, it has been used at several times in the past year as a "model" from which to construct other articles based on its status. What is the best way to raise this at FAR? Orderinchaos 11:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Two things you might do to head off trouble at the pass: raise the deficiencies first on the talk page of the article; or, make a query at the talk page of FAR to gauge reaction. Also, remember that FAR is featured article review; no longer necessarily FARC, so you can position your concerns as a need for updating/review. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Bolding of articles featured on main page

Hi, thanks for taking over the bolding of articles while my bot was not working (server problem, over Easter when I am away of course...). It should (hopefully) work ok from now on. Cheers, Schutz 13:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem; I may have missed some though. Better double check. Glad you're back on board! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Japan FAC

Hi, again. I think you took care of all the PDF files - I didn't realise you were having such problems accessing them. Also I thought you might be busy but had lost interest or something in the FAC, as you were doing so much other stuff.

As to opposition, you are to be honest the only person with real objections - Hong is being a bit too vague, so he can't really block the nomination with such a large majority clearly in favour. John Smith's 15:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, when I'm traveling, on a slow dialup, or on one of my older computers, PDFs always hang the computer, and it's time consuming to get out of that. I'll have a new look soon (still trying to finish up here and get to my "real" computer :-) I'm sorry I never saw your earlier message; that's scary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The bot can handle {{oldpeerreviews}}, they don't need to be split. Gimmetrow 17:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, but will I remember? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

{{Oldpeerreviews}} is essentially unused now, with all instances changed to ArticleHistory. Probably won't come up often. Currently only used on one other article which will probably be converted after its current GA nom is done. Gimmetrow 18:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA?

Well, the obvious question. Would you like one? Simply south 20:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to create the page yet unless....

Thanks for asking, Simply south, but I'm really not interested. I do appreciate the thought. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. Regards. Simply south 21:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered one of these Template:User wikipedia/Anti-Administrator? The box text is better than its name. You may need to scatter it liberally about your talk page :-)

Good tip, thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

More MEDMOS

Sandy, I'll review your MEDMOS ToDo list tomorrow and try to action some points. What's your view on the Village Pump? JFW didn't seem to want to use that forum. I think it would be good to have widespread WP acceptance. On the other hand, we'd probably have to battle with a load of ignorant comments from folk who've spent about 2 seconds before leaping in with their POV. Colin° 22:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I intended to aggressively get on it today, but I've got some stomach thing bugging me, which is also giving me a headache, so I'm doing mindless work instead. I'm not a fan of the Village Pump idea either, for exactly the reason you mentioned. I think we should just reactivate the proposal, and if Radiant complains, just tell him there was never a consensus against the guideline, we just got busy and didn't finish. We mostly agree on everything and are just nit-picking the fine details. (Reminds me of what happens I ask the Medicine Project for help on a TS article; I spend so much time educating ... :-) Let's go to the Village Pump *after* we have a consensus vote which should show widespread consensus amongst ourselves. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Distractions and being busy elsewhere mean I haven't got round to this yet. But I'm not the only one :-) Perhaps tomorrow... BTW, and this may only distract you further, I've just received a copy of Kushner in the post. Cheers, Colin° 21:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I know; I keep putting out other fires. (Kushner doesn't distract me; it's firmly in my summer plans :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I see you've started work on this. I can sleep soundly knowing my WP:DASH issues are fixed :-). I've got to go out now.... Colin° 18:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, What's your concept of how the next phase should go? The main projects were alerted a week ago, so have already had a chance to comment. How about we go for an FA style support/oppose discussion? Do you want to do the honours? Colin° 19:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I suspect—could be wrong—that the reason Radiant tagged us as historical could be partly related to the fallout about WP:ATT. There were bad feelings that something became policy without a very broad discussion, so I suspect Radiant was saying we really needed to go broader. Have we gone already to that first full list of WikiProjects I posted—the main Medicine projects? If so, we have no opposes in that camp, and I'd feel better if we went to another level of notifications of other projects. In particular, I'm still concerned about Psychology — some of the folks over there had all of those "terminology" problems on the Asperger FAR. Anyway, we just need to get as broad support as possible before we gauge consensus, via a poll or whatever (remember, "polls are evil"). What do you think? Do we put up a Support/Oppose call for consensus now, and then notify, or do we notify other projects, asking for further discussion, and wait to poll? I'm really not sure ... (I hate policy discussions and writing ... ugh ... and you're much better at it than I am.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrt Radiant, I think tagging old unloved pre-policies with {{historical}} is just a maintenance thing he does. WP:MEDRS was tagged months ago. The bit about the village pump is standard text.

I notified Pharmacology, Medicine and Clinical medicine on the 5th April. Given the shared participation, that should have alerted most folk on the Preclinical and Genetics sister projects. I'd actually be surprised and upset if suddenly a massed voice of MED participants voiced strong opposition since they've all had months to review the text. So my feeling is that it is like an article that's been on peer review long enough and is ready for FA. If there are lots of oppose then clearly we misjudged it and can withdraw for a longer review. I don't think it is ready or suitable for a "show of hands" type poll. I'd rather that "voters" gave an opinion like on FA. I haven't done this before, so am as clueless as you claim to be. So lets ask all the medical-related projects to comment on its readiness for becoming a Guideline, and create a new section for them to do so. Whether and when the village pump is asked can wait till we see the reaction. Does that sound OK? Colin° 19:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good—but we've got to bring in the Psychology group now, as they could have issues. We should ask people to register support or opposition, but *not* set up a poll per se, since "polls are evil" - make sure we're just asking for comment. Do you want to set it up or should I? You may not realize it's tax preparation crunch weekend in the USA :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've got to go watch some silly TV for an hour. If you haven't done it by then I'll do it. What about the archiving the discussion of the last week? Do we move to an archive 2 or use {{Discussion top}} {{Discussion bottom}}? Colin° 20:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

How about if I just add it to the existing archive ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Done—at the Psychology project talk page, they were already talking about us/me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

A class?

There's GA candidacy and FA candidacy, but would there be anything for people to give an article a review to bump it up to A-class? - Pandacomics 01:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the WikiProject involved, but you can always consider peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Nafaanra

I see you're working on it right now, thanks for that. I'll wait until you're ready, already had an edit conflict once. Best, — mark ✎ 13:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a further look this evening or somewhere tomorrow. — mark ✎ 14:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help in getting Nafaanra off the citation problems list. Much appreciated. — mark ✎ 11:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Tamil language FARC

Hi, Thank you for your many helpful comments and copyedits. I've fixed all the things I could think of. Would you be kind enough to put some tags in the article where you believe it can be improved so that we can rectify them quickly and keep the FA? Thanks.--Aadal 20:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Toronto Raptors

as you may have noticed i wasn't particularly expecting (or requested) the article to be nominated. now that it has been, i'm not too sure what to make of it either. i'm not going to pretend i relish "defending" the article since i didn't think it was ready for a FAC, but at the same time i was always working on it to make it more than a GA. the long and short is that i need more time to work on it, but perhaps if the nomination isn't taken off it can be an opportunity to listen to some feedback on the article. however, this is all bearing in mind that i've stated the article will no doubt undergo some structural changes in the near future. Chensiyuan 17:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

i have little objectivity remaining in myself to assess the article. if you would be kind enough to look briefly at the article and can spot some fundamental problems, that would be good. if you don't fancy doing that (quite a tedious task if you're not into basketball), then my tentative answer is i would rather not undergo a harrowing FAC failure, inasmuch as i don't think the article lacks quality. Chensiyuan 18:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I will incorporate changes where necessary. I am going to sleep first though, as it's 3 am over here now. Would let you know about whether to speedyobject soon. Chensiyuan 18:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Toronto Raptors FAC

I wanted to write to Tomer T regarding this nom (and possibly others), but seeing you already did that, I will refrain. I think it should be specifically written, perhaps on the WP:FAC page, that the nominee has a responsibility to oversee the process they've started (if it isn't already somewhere, I know it's standard practice, but now and then such rogue nominations spring up). Cheers, anyway, Ouro (blah blah) 19:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

We do have instructions that deal with that; I left him another note. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've decided to not sit on the fence any longer and try to tackle this FAC nomination. Chensiyuan 05:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

What's going on

Rick, I apologize for the confusion, but I'm completely losing the train of what the issue even is on the Today's featured article request talk page. The situation started as Tony the Tiger wanting to change a process (that's not broken, doesn't need fixing, and has been defeated twice) for choosing main page articles, leading him to partially and incompletely strike articles from your list. Your list was working; I was concerned at why he was introducing another means of tracking something that is already tracked elsewhere. Now we've morphed to talking about why Gimmetrow is running GimmeBot, and whether stars should be blue or rust. I should probably bow out, because I'm no longer sure what we're trying to solve or what the concerns are? If you want to keep up with Tony's work, that's fine — I'm not sure what the issue is? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. And I apologize, too - the conversation has splintered and I'm sure I'm sounding vastly more annoyed than I actually am (I'm only a teeny tiny bit annoyed). Your summary is certainly close enough. You objected to Tony's attempts to indicate FFAs in the by-year lists. When I started these lists I meant them to reflect FFA by using strikethrough font. Tony wasn't inventing this, he was simply going through (manually) and indicating some. It seemed you were interpreting this as something that someone would be expecting you to do. Like most things around here, if you wanted to no one would be stopping you (but no one was asking or expecting you to, either). Pretty much specifically to address your concerns, I spent a fair amount of time developing automated ways to update both FFA status and mainpage appearance dates for all articles in these lists. Your response was "As of today, they're out of date" (which comes across as both critical and unappreciative) and you seemed to be arguing that these lists have no value unless they can be kept absolutely current.

I never had any intention of updating these on a daily (or hourly) basis, but this is certainly possible by augmenting the automated tasks that are already done. I've thought for a while that how the automation works is mildly broken (Mark adds a FAC transclusion to the monthly FAC log, and some indeterminant time later GimmeBot notices this and does the rest - if Mark ran a bot himself all of this could be done immediately, with no delay). So, thinking about making the by-year lists more current, to make them absolutely current we could add updating them to the "FA bot" activities and, if we're futzing around with bots anyway, I'd like to try to turn it into something Mark runs directly. This is substantially different from GimmeBot (which Mark doesn't run), and your comment "That would be GimmeBot, ..." comes across as dismissive (or perhaps simply misses the point).

In any event, I'll talk to Gimmetrow about the possibility of adding some code to GimmeBot to update the by-year lists. If this doesn't work out for any reason, I'll continue updating them (probably roughly monthly). If you don't like them being up to a month out of date, I'm open to other suggestions (your disclaimer idea is actually fine with me). If you want to completely ignore these lists, that'd be fine with me, too (by which I mean I am distinctly not expecting or asking you to do any maintenance of them). If anyone ever complains to you about problems in them please let me know.

The bit about the WBFAN stars is a completely separate thread. I think I misunderstood this comment:

In the repromotion case, both stars are blue (not rust), because articles are considered featured unless they're in FFA (but not in the repromotion list at the bottom). IMO, it's a mistake to show a demoted FA (FFA) as an FA in the by nominator lists. Often, FAs are demoted and re-promoted by another author; the original author no longer has an FA in that case. Can this be fixed ?

I thought you were suggesting no star at all, but based on your most recent comment I gather you're suggesting the original nom's star should stay rust colored regardless of whether the article is repromoted. I didn't mean the response I added today to sound snippy (does it?), but I would prefer not to make it work the you're suggesting (and not just because it would be harder :) ). IMO, what the star designates is the original achievement and the color of the star simply indicates the current status (FA or FFA) of the corresponding article. And, quite sincerely (no snippishness implied), if you feel strongly about this please bring it up at WBFAN's talk page.

Is there anything else we need to talk about, or are we OK? For my part, I'm OK. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey. I think this clears things up; lots of misunderstandings along the way. If making the dozen or so re-promoted stars another color is a lot of work, it's certainly not worth worrying about. I lost the train somewhere along the way that what Tony had started manually was now semi-automated by you, so that concern is addressed as well. Mark is always on board for anything that will make his job easier, but we just had a bad bot experience. Some group wanted something done with an automated FA and FFA counter; we went through a ton of work, I had to babysit it for months, it kept breaking and never worked so I had double work, and now we've abandoned the bot and are back to where we started. So ... I'm a bit bot-weary/leary :-) (GimmeBot excepted, because He Can Do No Wrong.) And, I'm not sure you'll convince Mark to do the work of running a bot unless he's convinced it's much simpler than what he has to do now. As to my concerns about the multiple lists, as part of the ArticleHistory construction, Gimmetrow and I just spent weeks to months digging through various old lists, diffs and archives, so I'm thinking of some poor soul who comes along five years from now and can't figure out who's on first with respect to different lists of FA history. Some sort of explanation on your archive lists—maybe pointing to the "official" FAC and FAR archives—might help prevent some editor five years from now from going through the kind of confusion we went through trying to sort out the ArticleHistory templates. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Atheism

I've made your suggested changes. Thanks for the help! If you have any more suggestions, please list them on the FAC page. If not, please consider changing your vote to either Weak or Strong Support. Thanks again! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-12 14:42Z

• I'm fairly sure that all the refs have been fixed as you requested. Please let me know if you have any more suggestions. As for "an uninvolved editor who will critically analyze the prose and structure of the article rather than support it for FA because it's much improved over a month"... the following users in their Support mentioned nothing about the improvement: Dark_Dragon_Flame, EnemyOfTheState, Dwaipayanc. And who's to say that the ones who do mention the "vast improvement" didn't check out the prose? If you can cite problems, I'll fix them. Otherwise, please consider changing your vote to Weak or Strong Support. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-12 17:09Z

• I've resolved your listed problems. Also, User:Enuja has gone through the entire article with a fine comb, and listed various problems with prose. I've attempted to resolve all of them. Let me know what you think. If your concerns have been rectified, please consider changing your vote to Weak or Strong Support. If not, please change it to Weak Oppose and list further concerns. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-13 14:33Z

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Shuttle-Mir Program

Just to say that i've started on the changes you suggested to improve my article and have posted a reply on the FAC page, along with a question. Thanks very much for reviewing it! Colds7ream 19:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have made further changes to the article, and have posted another reply on the FAC page. Many thanks, Colds7ream 20:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead section expanded - still awaiting a review from the League of Copyeditors. Colds7ream 17:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No response from the League, so i've done a copyedit myself. Better? Colds7ream 13:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Farc?

Should we FARC Scooby-Doo. How did an article with this atrocious referencing make FA and get on the main page?Rlevse 23:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't review it :-) If it's that bad, I suppose someone will FARC it after the five-ish day waiting period, but I've got too many other irons in the fire to take on a cartoon article. I haven't really read it, so don't know how bad it is. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy!

Hi Sandy,

I just wanted to say thank you for your incredibly scrupulous review of Encyclopædia Britannica and, more generally, for all the work you do reviewing other articles at FAC. We're very blessed to have you. I'll do my best to make my articles as fine as possible before they reach FAC. See you around, maybe at the MCB WikiProject, Willow 11:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Lesch-Nyhan

Hey Sandy! Have you listed this article in FAR? I'd like to improve it with you. I also try to find editors of the medical genetics project to join us.

Don't want to list it at FAR if we can improve it first. All the reference material is there; we just need to fix it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Working party

Sandy, I've discussed the poll outcome with Jimbo, and he thinks it would be a good idea to form a bipartisan working party to develop a compromise proposal. He would like to see the working party include the best people from the No votes. I would very much like to see you as part of that, as you made some excellent points during the discussion. Would you be interested? Nothing has been worked out yet — we would have to decide on members, numbers, where to hold the discussions etc. The aim would be to gather a small group (I'm thinking up to 10) able and willing to focus on the main issues so the discussion is as constructive as possible, and who have a good understanding of the letter and spirit of the policies, and of the project in general. I've opened a discussion about it here. SlimVirgin 19:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Russian-Circassian War

Hi Sandy,

Could you please turn those perceptive razor sharp critiquing skills onto the above article for me? A peer review wasn't very helpful and both I and Tony the Marine remember how well you reviewed the Mozambican War of Independence article, and are hoping you could perhaps do the same with this one, no hurry of course, whenever you have a little time :)

Thanks Sandy, SGGH 19:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, SGGH, I'm way over-committed right now. If I can, I'll try to get over there, but no promises. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The Will Rogers Follies

I made some changes to this article, but they keep getting reverted.  :-( Best regards, -- Ssilvers 20:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

A couple of editors came by the article and helped out. It's improving now! Also check out Into the Woods. A productive day, but we need to get more editors involved in musical theatre articles! Best regards, -- Ssilvers 22:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Another good one (Into the Woods)—oh, no! I promise to catch up over there just as soon as I can, but I've been really really swamped. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming

Has been unprotected. You might make some of your changes there. I still have several problems with the page though. --Blue Tie 21:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Not recruiting. But you seem neutral and you are editing. Request you take a look at the opening paragraph hereand here relative to this discussion where I make my case and find very little valid response to my points and here where I justify again. I consider this edit to be appropriate for helping NPOV. Your thoughts will be interesting to me or if you think the opening can improve maybe you can use my ideas.--Blue Tie 22:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Blue Tie. It's abundantly apparent that there is some massive POV pushing going on over there. In my experience, POV on Misplaced Pages has little remedy and no hope for cure. I'd rather not get involved in the content issues, as it's crazy making; I need to confine my involvement to examination of the FA criteria. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Okie doke. I understand that and I value your contributions. I was interested in your insights because you seemed well grounded and neutral. --Blue Tie 00:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

And to stay that way, I'd best not even begin to analyze the POV pushing over there. It's what disappoints me most about Misplaced Pages—the fact that NPOV is supposed to be the core policy, and it's so NOT. It really troubles me to get involved in articles where it's so obvious. Been there, done that, Hugo Chávez, where the bully pack rules, and there is no possibility of that article ever approaching neutrality. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

See also and repetition of links in article

Thank you for dialog on the issue of the See also section and repetition of links in articles. I am trying to get more clear on this because I still have been unable to find any documentation of prior consensus on this. I am wondering if you would be willing to raise this format point on the talk page for the article Hinduism, which uses what I think you would describe as a link farm. I have raised this question there at Talk:Hinduism#See also section and navigation issues but have not gotten any discussion there. If you would please give your opinion there it may stimulate debate that will help the article. If we can find any prior poll or discussion on why the policy makes sense it would be helpful. At what point does a link list become a link farm, for example? Others have commented that having the links in one place is useful, regardless if the links appear in the article. I agree with your points that it is good to work the links into the text and that an excessive number of links is not good. Buddhipriya 22:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I left a response on that talk page. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, it may help prime the pump. Buddhipriya 00:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

MED RS

Hi Sandy, It's nice to hear from you! Maybe I've given you the wrong impression, but I'm afraid I have nothing to add to that conversation. I do like popular science though. Great work, BTW, on all the articles you've been getting into shape. –Outriggr § 00:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Outriggr (nice to "see" you)! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Renal Tubular Acidosis

Hi Sandy, If you have a moment, could you take a look at renal tubular acidosis which I've been polishing for a while, and would like to get to GA or even FA condition, and would thus like an outside opinion, if that's OK.FelixFelix 08:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll get to it sometime this weekend, Felix. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Puzzled

Hi Sandy, its me again. Gotta a question for you: cruising through the list of article on the page Misplaced Pages:Featured articles with citation problems I came across USS Missouri (BB-63), which puzzles me. Missouri was my former big project, before moving over to Iowa class battleship I updated the citations on the page and, following you advise on the USS Wisconsin FAR, put the article through a Military History Wikiproject peer review which you yourslef contributed to. In numerical terms Missouri has more citations than Wisconsin does and has been readded to our in-house list of Featured Articles, so I am puzzled as to why Missouri would be listed as a Feauted Article with citation problems. Is this a oversite on someone's part, or do I need to try harder to update the our Missouri article? TomStar81 (Talk) 09:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Tom. Not to worry; that list was prepared by someone else long ago based on a quick check of all FAs at the time. If the article is adequately cited—and if others concur—we'll remove it from the list. AFter I catch up on some other things this morning I'll look at it and post to the citations list talk page if it's ready for removal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Tom. I had a look, and made some sample edits to show work you might want to do on the article; there are still some minor WP:MOS issues. The citations list is not a proxy for WP:FAR; if the article is well-cited and if others concur, we can remove it from the list. Others will be more likely to concur if the article is as clean as possible at the time I suggest removal from the list, so while doing the final WP:MOS cleanup and tweaking isn't required, it can't hurt. I did see some statements that look like uncited opinion (example: Still, the battleship has secured her place in history, and her role as a museum in Pearl Harbor ensures that future generations will not forget her contribution.) You might want to slightly rephrase things like that so that come across as editorializing. How about if you give it one final pass, and then I'll propose it for removal? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Took a sweep through the article to check for the little things you suggested. Two uncited comments have been removed (though they may be readded at somepoint in the future if I can find a source), and the dates have been linked to the best of my ability (its hard to spot defects when you've written/re-written the article :-) In addition, a lot of numerical quantites have had "nbsp" tags added for conformities sake. From where I stand the article shouldn't have a problem clearing the criteria for removal from the list list of FA's with no citations. Thanks for the input, I apreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll post to the citations talk page, Tom, but we usually wait a few days for someone else to endorse removal, and to make sure no one objects. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Fetal alcohol syndrome

Hi Sandy... thanks for your kind comments and encouragement on my user page--they were quite cogent. I know the field and community around FAS and FASD are still struggling to explain them coherently, and it is just playing out similarly in the Misplaced Pages community. The great thing is that this helps me clarify my own thinking (and writing) about the topics and moves the field forward in a very positive way (even if other FASD types are not on Misplaced Pages right now). My recent pause in activity was not so much about being scared off--welcomed thanks for the concern :)--but trying to figure how I can contribute well-thought edits and the reasoning behind them, as many of the concerns put forward are quite valid or understandable. (I am also travelling to Spain in about a week, so last minute details have kept me busy, also.) I will definitely be taking your advice, and clunk along, learning all the way. MLHarris 13:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

sources all foreign language...

Hi,

Does FA care whether the sources for a language are overwhelmingly foreign-language? Would that alone fail a nom?

Thanks --Ling.Nut 14:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, I think at WP:RS (but you'll have to look in the talk page archives). The conclusion has been that English-language sources are strongly preferred when available, but if there are none, other language sources can be used. Editors should take care with original research vis-a-vis translation. There was also discussion somewhere back in the talk page archives of WP:ATT. For an example of an FA for which there were no English-language sources (I helped the editor), see El Hatillo Municipality, Miranda (look at the peer reviews). It probably helped that I could vouch for the accuracy. There have probably been other FAs that have failed if people didn't feel comfortable with the sourcing; as in all things Wiki, it depends on a lot of factors, but in theory, you can use other language sources if nothing is available in English, but you shouldn't ignore English sources when they're available. The bottom line is that people need to feel that they can verify anything contentious or surprising, so it also depends on the subject matter. Also see featured article Same-sex marriage in Spain — again, I could vouch for the Spanish on the FAC since I speak and read Spanish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll look into the links you provided... later! --Ling.Nut 14:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hamersley

Thanks for your work on it today :) Curiously, despite the often weird vandalism it's endured while being the TFA (some of it quite sneaky! medieval suburb?), a few people have managed to improve its compliance with the relevant standards. Orderinchaos 22:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Shahbag FAC

Hi Sandy, I think we have handled the biblio-formatting issue you raised at Shahbag FAC. Can you please take a look again and recomment? Thanks. --Ragib 06:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit and comment. I have replied to your question about Banglapedia. --Ragib 00:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

ATT working group

SandyGeorgia, as you know I have not been active in the post-poll discussions. Just so you know, I voted for the ATT merger but the fact is, it doesn't really bother me if the merger failed/fails (I do care, strongly, about keeping the content of the V and NOR policies; how they are organized on what pages is just not that important to me). I just want to be up-front about my own position with you.

The reason I am writing is because I want to ask you to step back and reconsider your comments yesterday concerning Slim Virgin and Jossi (and I think you refered to another). Please know that I believe your intentions were good. I think you wanted to avoid reproducing previous intractable conflicts, and I think you wanted to suggest people come to this new discussion with open minds. But I think the way you expressed yourself defeated thos intentions. You wrote at some point "perception is everything." It is important that people perceive one another as acting in good faith. It would harm the process if people personalized the discussion. My problem is, I think you contributed to personalizing the discussion.

What you call "declarative statements" were - as best I can tell - at least impersonal statements by Slim Virgin and others about what the brief of the working group is. I am not a member, so I may be mistaken, but I do believe I know two things: first, Slim Virgin has been in direct communication with Jimbo and has been trying to communicate to others what he has said (and no one to my knowledge has suggested that she is either lying about being in communication with Jimbo, or telling the truth but misrepresenting what he has said); second, the main "declarative statement" is that the purpose of the working group is not to reconsider/change policy. This seems pretty non-controversial to me. But I want to emphasize that she was being impersonal.

My reading of the talk on that page is that SMCandlish is repeatedly personalizing things, singling out a group of three (including Slim Virgin) as a faction trying to puch a point of view. I think this is your reading too, and it is the reason you wrote "perception is everything." But you seem to be blaming Slim Virgin for this perception (that there is a block of people pushing their own POV - that is, that specific members of the group are acting in bad faith). You started off constructively when you wrote "I've just caught up with all of the posts made overnight while I slept, so most of this is not directed at any one person, rather comments made by many people. I have a problem with any declarative statements about what the working group is to do and any preconceived notions about where any of the proposal stands" because here you are not addressing anyone personally. But you then almost immediately singled out the "perceived" group of three - and in that instant you became another person specifically questioning the good faith of other people on the working group. You are right that perception is everything, but I believe that most of what you wrote after that actually added to the perception that three people are acting in bad faith. I thought you would have wanted to fight perceiving things in terms of personal fights, that are not about principles but about personal feelings, i.e. in bad faith.

SMcandlish was wrong to single out Slim Virgin and the other two personally. If he thought that Slim Virgin's proposal for moving forward was unconstructive he should simply have explained why and proposed an alternative. You certainly tried to explain why and tried to propose an alternative - which is why I am so surprised and frankly upset that you then went on to do what SMcandlish was doing - personalizing the conflict. If there is any perception that three people (including SV) are a gang acting in bad faith, the way I read the talk page the two people largely responsible for that perception are you and SMcandlish.

I won't comment on SV's (or whomever it was) proposal, whcih you described as "declarative" or your counter-proposal - that is for the people on the working group to sort out. But I think you did everyone, including yourself, a major disservice by personjalizing it, indirectly calling into question SV's good faith, and directly adding to the perception that SV is part of some gang of three that is disruptive, uncompromising, and forcing their own POV on others.

It is Misplaced Pages so you are free to respond however you want to but frankly I would rather you not respond to me - if you disagree with me, you simply need not respond at all and your lack of response will be sufficient to register that you disagree with me. But please take some time to think about these - maybe sleep on it. And if you do see my point, then do not respond to me but rather make whatever you feel to be the appropriate response on the Community Discussion page. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for writing; I did think about those comments, I do agree with much of what you say, and I did subsequently respond to that effect. Did you not see my subsequent response, or are you saying it wasn't sufficient clarification? If so, what is lacking? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is a long and complex discussion so I could easily have missed something. But looking at your responses from 15:27 and 20:56 on 14 April, I'd say that - look, it is up to you - there is more that you can say. Specifically, when you reitterate that perception is everything you could reflect more on how what you wrote added to the perception (or seemed to validate the perception) that SV and others form a POV-pushing group - perhaps you can take more responsibility for creating/confirming/strengthening that perception (even if that was not your intention).

I also think you could be more vigilant about how some of the editors who seem to have this "perception" may themselves actually be acting in bad faith and are amking claims about this perception specifically to attack SV and others and discredit them, personally, rather than their views. You wrote, "I agree there was no nefarious plan, but I'm saying, let's not give anyone who is disgruntled further reason to feel that way." If you agree that there is no nefarious plan (on SV+2's part) then I really think you need to consider the possibility that some (obviously not all, not even most perhaps) who appear "disgruntled" are themselves being uncivil and acting in bad faith. To be blunt, to me when you say let's not give them further reasons it sounds like you think that their disgrntlement is reasonable and that SV's behavior is unreasonable. I think you are trying not to take sides but I think your language takes sides, and you take SMcandlish's side over SVs. You know the saying, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. SV has not complained a lot. Her declarative statements are at least as far as I can tell impersonal. SMcandlish is squeaking a lot. But sometimes the squeaky wheel should not get the grease - i.e. the one who keeps complaining should not constantly be appeased, and others should not have to censor themselves because someone else keeps complaining. I have seen this in many pages, in many disputes, the person who complains the most is often the source of the problem. Obviously I think SMcandlish is, but do not take my word for it. When you have time try rereading his interactions with SV, Jossi, and whoever the third is (Crum? Marskel? I don't know) and ask yourself what is motivating Smcandlish and what are the effects of his actions. Then make your own judgement.

You didn't ask for it, but just in case here is my advice for dealing with conflicts in general. I do not disagree with you about the importance of perception. But I do think that "perception" draws us towards a black box - we can never really know what others perceive, what they think, what goes on inside their heads. All we know is what they write on talk pages. And on talk pages, I think that it is much easier to identify and talk about constructive and unconstructive statements than perceptions. I would encourage you to worry less about perceptions and more about who spends mor etime making constructive comments (whether you agree with them or not) and who spends more time making unconstructive comments. In my experience this is the only way really to move forward in disputes. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with some of what you're saying, but I do think I already rectified this with my subsequent comments. And, I think if I jump back into it now, it will only stoke the fire further. My gut is that the best way forward is what I've already done; apologize for giving the wrong impression (did you not see that I already did that?) and be more aware of the sources of non-constructive comments and failure to AGF. I suspect anything further at this point will only feed the problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I must add my own protest to that of Slrubenstein's. It would be bad enough to simply equate SV's actions with SMcCandlish and his enablers; that would be insult enough, given the incredible amount of hard work SV has put into clarifying and simplifying three policy/guideline pages into one, versus the non-stop obstructionism and sophistry coming from "the other side". But to actually imply that SV is actually more at fault than these editors! And this from an editor who, up until now, I have admired! It beggars belief. Standing on the fence, or saying now that you would do more harm than good by re-opening things, isn't nearly good enough. To rectify this you would have to retract your statement, and identify the unconstructive opportunists and their fellow obscurantists for who they really are. Jayjg 00:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder treatments

What exactly are you going for? It needs some serious copy editing, and you know I'm not a great writer... Are you concerned with the content? POV? On a side note, hope the storm's not hitting you too hard. I'll be glad to help, if I can :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I can name the refs if you like, take that off your hands. At least it's a start. Never mind, that was quick. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It's just a wreck overall; I'm trying to do whatever I can, and thought you could fix anything glaring related to the meds. Storm hasn't hit full force yet, but the dogs are freaked out, and had me up all night. Worried. Not out of the woods yet. (I wondered who left me a talk message while I was fixing named refs :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC) PS, I'm going to add PMIDs next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If you've got more important stuff to do, feel free to leave that to me (or not :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful :-) I'll leave it in your capable hands. As you can see (above), I've got a lot of irons in the fire :-) (I'd much rather just edit articles :-) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow; you really are going to fix it. NICE ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course :) I've got a serious problem—can't say no. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You're the best. I just got a phone call that I have overseas guests coming for an overnight stay tonight, during the storm! <ugh> Just what I needed. Glad you're taking care of that article; it's the kind of wreck that makes me crazy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

(dedent) No problem. Ref formatting and PMIDs done, but the prose is in dire need of work and an accuracy check wouldn't hurt; I'll have to leave that to someone more knowledgeable, or do some deeper digging myself. Good luck, and if there's anything else I can do, just drop me a line. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, all we can say is we left it better than we found it :-) I'm unwatching it so it won't make me crazy. Guests headed for the train and changed their minds when they saw how strong the winds were ... te he he. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That might be a good idea :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't stand it ... I was halfway through naming the refs, and got an edit conflict with you, so I bowed out. You're as bad as I am :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Sorry! Either way, now it's personal. This article is going somewhere, if it takes me all day. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Bolding of FA

Hi, to answer the question you added in your edit summaries... the bot is working, but it does not like articles with "strange" characters in the title (yesterday it was ",", today it is "+" and "-"). I should work on that... otherwise, it should be ok. Cheers, Schutz 15:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

ah, ha ! I see. Thanks for letting me know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Dextroamphetamine

Hello, since I got tic disorders information on the ADHD treatment article competely wrong, I might have gotten the tic disorder information wrong on the dextroamphetamine articlein the "clinical uses of dextroamphetamine" section. YOu might want to check this. Thanks a lot for helping fix my errors on the ADHD treatments!! :)Edward Bower 17:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Arnold or his work, and there's no link to his article. If you can tell me what specific study he cites, I can check it out. I'll also check my own sources later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I can email you the PDF of Arnolds that I got most of that information from (it's a scan from interlibrary loan at my unversity, not a real postscript PDF). But if you aren't comfortable with that then I can just list the studies that he references in that article. (He's prof. emeritus at Ohio State, I believe).Edward Bower 17:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Give me a minute; I'm looking through my own files now. As far as I can tell, Arnold is not a heavy hitter in ADHD research. His name doesn't come up in anything I've got. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I may have found it; still checking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/104454603321666171 That is one paper with Arnold as an author, but that one isn't about tic disorders, the one that mentions tic disorders is a different one(the one that i talked about that I have a scanned PDF of).Edward Bower 18:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I found the actual studies, but they used very high doses of both meds, so some of the conclusions are a bit off. At any rate, that's done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, help me

I'm sorry but I don't know how to do some of the very basic things on here, like send messages, etc (although I am trying, and improving). Thanks for the tips. Hutchesc 19:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hutchesc, I responded on your talk page. You can post your questions there, and I'll try to help you. I'm in the midst of a big Nor'easter, so if I'm not around over the next day, someone else will surely help. You can always put {{helpme}} on your talk page, along with your question, and someone will appear to help you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this the only way to communicate on here? That's the biggest thing. I don't know how to 'talk' to people. Fortunately, you have a buttom thats says, 'click here to talk to me', or I'd be lost.

Yes, talk pages are the vehicle for communicating on Misplaced Pages. It's clumsy, but Misplaced Pages isn't really a "chat" site, and most communication is on the talk pages of articles, where editors try to work out issues about the content of the article. You can respond on your own talk page by either clicking on the edit button of the last entry on the page, and adding a response, or by adding a new section like this:

== New section name ==

Put your message here. And then sign by entering four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your message.

You might want to respond on your talk page (I have it on my watchlist), and others may help you there, also—I say that because I don't know if I'll be around the rest of today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Referencing the same thing, different sections

A couple of us are working on Warwick railway station, Perth and I thought it probably best to seek guidance on this before expanding any further - two of the references in there so far are government or survey reports, with different sections referenced. Obviously duplicate referencing take away from readability and add bulk, but the normal way of dealing with it (eg Authorname (year), pp.x-y) isn't available to us. Any suggestions regarding abbreviating second and subsequent mentions? Thanks as always :) Orderinchaos 20:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure when I'll get to this, Order; you're about #10 on my list <yikes> ... I'll do my best. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for peer review

I have come to value your insight regarding WP:MOS issues and I would like to invite you to participate in this peer review: Misplaced Pages:Peer_review/Ganesha. Any comments you wish to give would be appreciated, and you may make them on the peer review page itself if you wish. Thanks in advance for any comments you may have. Buddhipriya 21:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Song Dynasty article

I'm not sure what's going on. You'd think that league of copyeditors would be on the ball, but it's been quite a while since I left them a message to copyedit the article. Maybe they are just really swamped or busy. I don't know. In any case, I think the article looks pretty good so far. --PericlesofAthens 00:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)