Kirill Lokshin (talk | contribs) |
→Fight or scuffle: RfC |
||
Line 252:
== Fight or scuffle ==
I don't see the difference... Does "fight" imply that it was intended on the parts of both parties? '''[[User:Blnguyen|<font color="GoldenRod">Blnguyen</font>]]''' (''[[User talk:Blnguyen|<font color="#FA8605">bananabucket</font>]]'') 02:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
==RfC==
I've started drafting an RfC that you might be interested in [[User:Cla68/Sandbox/RfC draft|here]]. Please feel free if you'd like to participate in adding anything to it that you feel might be relevant. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 02:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
|
Revision as of 02:30, 28 March 2008
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
FACs needing feedback view • | |
---|---|
2023 World Snooker Championship | Review it now |
Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945 | Review it now |
Susanna Hoffs | Review it now |
2023 Union Square riot | Review it now |
About me | Talk to me | To do list | Tools and other useful things | Some of my work | Nice things | Yukky things | 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 Jan– |
Request
Hey Sandy, I know you are one busy gal, but I was wondering if you could check out this discussion regarding this diff. Thanks a lot, Happyme22 (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'll go look, but 1) I have no idea what that edit summary is trying to say, and 2) the edit introduced a real mess of incorrect punctuation and grammar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again, but Arcayne and I have worked out the content up to one single word. Can you give us your opinion? :) Thanks so much, Happyme22 (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, Happy, I'm sorry to let you down, but today I just can't. Between trolls, vandals, spam, my regular watchlist, my regular duties, and personal attacks on my integrity and character, I am fresh out of time to actually work on articles. I'm sorry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
RandomImage
Image wasn't random ... was there as a playful attempt at gaining attention for content that many will find too obscure and boring. :) Best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think we want every FAC doing that, and the reason we eliminated graphics per the WP:FAC instructions is that they horribly slowed down the load time on the page. It was cute, though :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
unregistered FAR
Sorry about creating the extra work; I should have thought twice before initiating an FAR. But now that the process has started, I'll let it reach whatever conclusion the community thinks is best. I figure the worst that is likely to happen is that people will remove the unsightly {{unreferencedsection|date=January 2007}} template from the article; what I am hoping for, though, is that the section in question will be augmented with inline citations. Demotion of that article from WP:FA to WP:GA should only be used if the consensus is that a problem exists but nobody knows what to do about it. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- FYI, articles don't get demoted from FA to GA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit summary
All right, I'm sorry; I was hasty. Would you mind looking next time to see if there is discussion before you claim there ain't any? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note, PMA; two things, though. Have you noticed my last four posts at WT:MOS, about discussions that can't be found and AFACT were never had? Also, discussion doesn't equal consensus; if the "rest of the world" is to be able to keep up with MoS, it can't be indiscriminately changing from one day to the next. Some sort of paradigm where changes are discussed and noticed would help (it's not like any of it is day-to-day urgent); I keep having to hear about them by chance at FAC, and by the time I get over there to check, I find no discussion, no consensus, just daily changes. That really should stop. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- It sounds like you are making unnecessary work for yourself. MOS is not a finished product; it is very far from perfect; and criterion 2 says that FA should follow it. Articles should follow any guideline, with the caveat of {{guideline}} about common sense and occasional exceptions. If an article seems well-written, it should be supported, and if MOS seems to deprecate what the article does, we've probably found one of the exceptions. If an article seems badly written, the writing should be questioned, although it's probably a good idea to check that you haven't met an idiom with which you are simply unfamiliar (see the FAC for Flag of Germany for an example or two). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I will try to remember to tell you if I propose any material changes. The next, after this exponential notation business, should be WP:ELLIPSIS, which looks completely accidental. If you know of any discussion resulting in the present haphazard ordering, please let me know. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have had to change my mind; the rule against periods in captions is just too silly not to dispute. I believe the discussion is WT:MOS#Periods in captions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. That guideline makes perfect sense to me (assuming you're talking about not punctuating sentence fragments), but I don't have time to get over to a MoS discussion today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Possibly another WP:ENGVAR case.
- It is unidiomatic to me not to end the preceding phrase with a period, and I would feel so even if it were a caption by itself. (But all I have done is to tag and begin discussion; and all I want is for the punctuated style to cease to be a FAC oppose; we have better things for FAC to do.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's been said before, but I'll say it again; to my knowledge, a FAC has never failed strictly on MoS issues. If someone seriously opposed only on punctuation, it 1) could be easily be fixed by anyone, hence 2) wouldn't hold up a nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Claiborne/archive1, which was so failed. This exemplifies two real problems with MOS: it enshrines views on punctuation which are not universal, and the effort to repunctuate against the Sprachgefühl of the author wastes everybody's time. Second, there are genuine, if minor, problems with the article; if the MOScruft had been fixed, it would have been promoted with them unfixed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- We've discussed that article about four times at WT:FAC; it was not failed on MoS, and it would not likely have been promoted if MoS issues had been corrected. It also failed its second nom six months later, when other issues were uncovered, and the nominator bailed out for the second time. PMA, we've been over this many times at the talk page of FAC; why do you persist in that idea, when the issues in the second nom can be plainly seen? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Claiborne/archive1, which was so failed. This exemplifies two real problems with MOS: it enshrines views on punctuation which are not universal, and the effort to repunctuate against the Sprachgefühl of the author wastes everybody's time. Second, there are genuine, if minor, problems with the article; if the MOScruft had been fixed, it would have been promoted with them unfixed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's been said before, but I'll say it again; to my knowledge, a FAC has never failed strictly on MoS issues. If someone seriously opposed only on punctuation, it 1) could be easily be fixed by anyone, hence 2) wouldn't hold up a nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- If it had not been for the MoScruft, we could have gotten directly to the second FAC, which did expose real issues. My objection to the first FAC is that it was a waste of time, which did not improve, or relevantly evaluate the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Which happened because the nominator stopped responding (twice); no fault of FAC, and no fault of MoS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- If I had gotten what he did, I would have stopped responding too. You have Carcharoth's intelligent criticism to blame for my still hanging around (and your own efforts to make FAC a respect-worthy process, not yet successful). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Which happened because the nominator stopped responding (twice); no fault of FAC, and no fault of MoS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Advice requested (short advice)
You were right right right about the morass of POV in Che Guevara. Now I am being told by an admin to write up specifically all my complaints about the page as part of his "intervention". I am unwilling to do all that work again as I did that in many places plus the FAR comment page should be enough. However, when I suggested the FAR comments page (and gave him a link to it), plus sent him your stats link, the Admin templated me for improper response and said the next time I would be blocked. Is it proper if I just bow out and say I am not interested any more? Or will I get template and punished for that?
You can just answer yes or no. I know you are sick of me. Mattisse (Talk) 23:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
FAC withdrawal
FYI, the actual page is still there, so I'd assume it could be archived without impacting the bot (but you'd know better than I). ;) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 13:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, Elcobbola; a mess for cleaning up. When a premature FAC is withdrawn, I handle it differently than this, but ... When a FAC with significant opposes is withdrawn (which must be by the nominator), it has to be moved to the archive file (which triggers GimmeBot to botify it to articlehistory), and the talk page has to be checked (the fac tag has to be left there for Gimmebot. IF they're removed it, as they had in the case, they need to be reminded of WP:FAC/ar. Also in this case, I found a wreck with the peer review files ... did what I could for GimmeBot, decline to sort it out further, ditto for GA, but that is the norm). You can check my contribs if you want to see the steps to put all the pieces back where they should have been for GimmeBot. Thanks again ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
resolution
I've made a proposal on the noticeboard [1]. I suggest we make further comments on the respective talk pages. I have a feeling we'll be able to work out any misunderstandings that have lead to both of us becoming upset at each other. Perl (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- And I responded there; I don't like to split discussions, the discussion is there and on your talk page, please don't split it into three places. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
re:FAC notes
Thanks. I kind of got mad at myself on that one. I have the article prepared but I don't have the copyediting done. I need to do that before I take it to FAC. I only have one FAC planned right now but that is currently at GAN. I think I just got by really easy on Godsmack. If you looked at the text, I wasn't a big part of the debate of the sources for Opeth, it was mostly Indopug and Skeletor, just to clarify. I'll be sure to have the text combed through really nice next time. Thanks again, Burningclean [speak] 19:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- No kidding. For some reason nobody really gets into the deep text in my PRs. If you look at the one for Opeth, Indopug didn't say all that much. Burningclean [speak] 19:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
FAC for Southern Vectis
Thank you for contacting me about this. I had seen that Southern Vectis had been nominated for being a featured article, but I didn't really know what to do with it as I am not familiar with the FAC process. I read the FAC page, but didn't really understand what to do under the circumstances. As you say, the nomination was made by a new user who has only made 15 contributions to the article. In fact, they tried to nominate the article a while ago but did it wrong. They probably don't yet have enough experience to realise that the article is not yet ready at all!
As for withdrawing the nominations, as I said above I'm not familiar with the FAC process, but if you think it's the best opinion then go ahead!
Meanwhile, I'm going to take some of the advice under given by other users under the FAC entry, and fix it anyway, regardless of the FAC! -- Thanks, Arriva436shout! 12:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Chocolate Covered Bannanas as a sock of Felipe Garcia?
Hi Sandy, you may not have the energy to care, but the user that called you a racist is probably a sock of another user, Felipe Garcia, who, in various incarnations, has been blocked for five or six vandalism only accounts. I have filed a report here. I just saw his attack on you in his "contributions" and thought that I would let you know what I've been finding out today, following up from the Kyle Petty page, which was on my watchlist. I think you're a great editor, and I'm sorry you recieved that sort of attack. If you'd like to comment, any additional evidence would be great. Edhubbard (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kind words, Ed ... good to see you. I don't know the fellow; I saw vandalism on an article I watch, reverted, left him a warning, and got attacked. Standard stuff. I don't know the profile, and I've got my hands too full of other issues; let me know if there is something specific I can do to help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Sandy, I think that AngelOfSadness and I have this covered. It just makes me angry to see someone I really like and admire here get attacked. So many of the good people I first interacted with here have been driven off, or have driven themselves off. I think you've got a tough enough skin to deal with some angry vandal (angry sock vandal) but I wanted to let you know what was going on. Cheers Edhubbard (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for thinking of me, Ed, and for your ever kind words; that one caused me no problem at all, not even a second thought. Random vandalism, as far as I knew, revert and ignore. If there's more to it and you need my help, please let me know. Now, personal attacks on my integrity and character are a whole 'nother story; in the end, the failure of AGF is what drains our time away from joyful work on articles and will chase away so many of us, much faster than trolls and vandals. Vandals are not a problem for me; established editors who violate AGF and NPA are Wiki's biggest problem, IMO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Sandy, I think that AngelOfSadness and I have this covered. It just makes me angry to see someone I really like and admire here get attacked. So many of the good people I first interacted with here have been driven off, or have driven themselves off. I think you've got a tough enough skin to deal with some angry vandal (angry sock vandal) but I wanted to let you know what was going on. Cheers Edhubbard (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Bing
Mail. Ceoil (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Plans for 4/1 DYK
So what are you people going to do for the April Fool's day Did You Know section? I have some (possibly lame) suggestions (although surely you know I'm far too lazy and unskilled to contribute any writing). I do, however, have a wiki pal who can churn out, like, a zillion DYKs per week. Maybe she can help...... --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC) Incidentally, an article about you people is on one of my DYK ideas. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know anything about DYK, and don't even know where/who to ask ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 21:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. I have commenced spamming that page with my silly ideas.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- I couldn't understand why "The Dispatch" in "The Signpost" didn't link to the discussions. You didn't know about them. The discussion mechanisms were carried over from last year at the same place. You didn't place the Featured Article comment in the right page. I'll copy it there. I glanced at Ima Hogg. Is there anything that I can do to help? Royalbroil 03:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, Royal, I was in the dark until Nishkid's post today :-) If you want to link it in to the Dispatch, go ahead !! Yes, we have some questions at the bottom of Talk:Ima Hogg, which should be to FAC by Wednesday ... would you mind peeking in there? We're not certain if the article needs to have unusual content, or if it's just the TFA blurb that will be written hoaxish. Ima Hogg has been a quick collaboration, all assistance welcome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- I couldn't understand why "The Dispatch" in "The Signpost" didn't link to the discussions. You didn't know about them. The discussion mechanisms were carried over from last year at the same place. You didn't place the Featured Article comment in the right page. I'll copy it there. I glanced at Ima Hogg. Is there anything that I can do to help? Royalbroil 03:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. I have commenced spamming that page with my silly ideas.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 21:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Tel Aviv FA
Hi SandyGeorgia, Ive replied to your query at the Tel Aviv FAC. Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, I've left some comments at the FAC. The article reads like it was written by a cricket fan for cricket fans, (i.e. non-encyclopaedic). On my first read through Clem Hill is the better article, but sadly I have no time to write a review now. Will, Monday afternoon, (England) be O.K.? You'll be having your breakfast then. Best wishes, Graham.--GrahamColmTalk 21:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi there. I've added an explanation for the stats like 4/69 the first time it is mentioned, eg "took four wickets for the loss of 69 runs (4/69)" before using the shorthand. hopefully things are better now. Feel free to continue probing for incomprehensible things. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments in getting the article more accessible. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear SandyGeorgia,
I have a question. On the wikitable for the list of Naked Brothers Band episodes, I want to add -- the Writer, Producer, Director, Executive Producer, Music Supervisor/Producer, and Composer (Music Score). I tried adding -- !Writer !Director...etc. in the appropriate spot and previewed it, but it did not work. Can you explain to me how to do so?
AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- I won't be able to get to that today, Annie; maybe someone else who follows my talk page will help or I will get to it tomorrow or the next day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Annie, I had a look and I don't see an easy or attractive way to do what you want to do. I suggest you browse here for another article that does something similar, and copy from there. Good luck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
The least you can do is reply to me and say you don't wish to be involved. Your complete and total ignoring of my request is very dissapointing. I worked really hard to comply with all your requests about that article, and you basically just blew me off. I'm pretty sure I don't deserve that. Take a look at Marskell's page...I've laid out all the evidence that shows he is completely mistaken. If I sound upset I'm sorry, but I am. I expect more from Wikipedia. pschemp | talk 04:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Pschemp, I am sorry for not replying and that you feel slighted; the problem is that I really can't start down the slippery slope of responding to e-mails about Marskell's decisions at FAR. That would be unkind and inappropriate of me. Now that you've raised this on-Wiki, I will join the conversation on Marskell's talk page (after I catch up on my watchlist today). I'm sorry you felt ignored, but I hope you understand that it wouldn't be right for me to respond to e-mails about Marskell's FAR decisions, and that puts me in a very bad spot. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- "Ask me on wiki" would have been enough. I wasn't asking you to go be unkind or inappropriate, just to join in on the on-wiki discussion. sorry if that wasn't clear. When you spend 3 months of your life researching an article only to have it defeatured, its hard to remain calm. Take your time. I know you are busy so I appreciate your input.pschemp | talk 20:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm more than busy; I'm swamped :-) Your suggestion for how to handle such situations is a good one, and one I will use in the future. I've found myself several times in uncomfortable positions wrt e-mail, and being somewhat new to this, was unsure how to handle it. Thanks, and I'll catch up tonight, have some real life appointments today, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- "Ask me on wiki" would have been enough. I wasn't asking you to go be unkind or inappropriate, just to join in on the on-wiki discussion. sorry if that wasn't clear. When you spend 3 months of your life researching an article only to have it defeatured, its hard to remain calm. Take your time. I know you are busy so I appreciate your input.pschemp | talk 20:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The FAR was closed under an erroneous assumption. Therefore it should be restarted or voided. Thank you for your input though. You really didn't need to do that in the middle of the night though! O_o I'm in no rush. pschemp | talk 05:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy. I am the author of this FAC. I am particularly concerned about the attitude of a reviewer user:Ncmvocalist who seems to be up to some sort of propaganda on this FAC. He has already provided his views and objections. But not being satisfied with this, he seems to be coming back again and again to the FAC and may be trying to create a fuss, hence damaging the opinions of other prospective reviewers. I request you to leave a message for him to move on and delete his comments (with the exception of that which has his objection). His attitide and mud-slinging is nothing short of FAC obstruction. I will notify an admin about his behaviour because his attitude seems to be an unnecessary distraction to the FAC process.Thank you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- There are six Opposes on that FAC; you might try to avoid too much focus on only one of the Opposers and focus instead on satisfying the other five. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I must point out that the opposes by Aadal and Anwar are frivolous. Aadal says some things are misleading but the sources emphatically suport what is written in the article. Anwar asks for something (focus on Muslim writers) which is grossly UNDUE and which none of the sources on the subject consider important enough to discuss. Neither Aadal nor Anwar have any sources of their own either to back their claims. Both simply flew in (Aadal especially, who made an appearance on wp after several months), made some noises, slapped their predetermined opposes and left. Sarvagnya 19:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's great to have FAs awarded, however, they should be to a high enough standard. There is no consensus by the broad Wikipedia community, particularly on the content of this article, as well as other criteria. The issues raised by editors outside of the particular ethnic working group are valid as far as the criteria are concerned and is not something that can be overlooked based on the group's desire to have another FA added to its stats. Overlooking such issues is how sub-standard articles are prematurely awarded FA, and the standard drops across the board when these substandard articles are cited as an example of an FA. The above editor continues to attempt to show authority over the FAC process, as the group's desire may not be satisfied as a result of the lack of consensus by the broader Wikipedia community. I therefore request you to take care and come to your own conclusions by looking into who has voted which way, and why, and how the criteria are satisfied/unsatisfied as far as that vote is concerned (and not be unduely influenced by the biassed opinion of the editor above). Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- I must point out that the opposes by Aadal and Anwar are frivolous. Aadal says some things are misleading but the sources emphatically suport what is written in the article. Anwar asks for something (focus on Muslim writers) which is grossly UNDUE and which none of the sources on the subject consider important enough to discuss. Neither Aadal nor Anwar have any sources of their own either to back their claims. Both simply flew in (Aadal especially, who made an appearance on wp after several months), made some noises, slapped their predetermined opposes and left. Sarvagnya 19:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ok. Thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please see here for the admin response. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Hi Sandy. I just want to thank you for that bit. I now realize that I should become more familiar with Wikipedia before I start nominating articles and such. RedBaron5142 (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The President (novel)
I just wanted to say thank-you for looking over our article. I'm sorry if past edits you have done have been reverted, i was unaware. We appreciate any help with cleaning up you can give us as we are very new to wikipedia and don't quite know how to do all the things that you do, especially when it comes to the better article. We, the MMM team are really just trying to compile information out there on this book and make it accessible to other people searching for information on it. I am aware that a lot of work still needs to be done so any technical work with references and citations and wikipedia rules would really be appreciated if you have the time. If you have any spate time, we really appreciate your input. The link to the page is: The President (novel)--Mfreud (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sandy, just a follow-up to User:Mfreud's query, and regarding this diff: as far as I'm aware none of your edits to this article have been reverted (this was your first one); and it might be helpful to know which other edits have been reverted, as I can't find an example, beyond the edit conflicts over The General in his Labyrinth that you had with User:Wassupwestcoast. Many thanks. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 04:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Correct, it's the first time I've worked on The President, but I had worked on two of your articles (can't remember which was the other one). I like to work via sample edits in edit summaries, so others can learn by example; my sense is that's not working here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- And here I did ask you about what may have been in one of your edit summaries, so I could follow up on your suggestions, but I haven't heard back from you. I know you're busy, of course. I'm just pointing out that we have indeed been trying to follow your advice! Again, I'd remind you that nobody in this project except for me had ever edited a Wikipedia article before, let alone been involved in a Featured Article nomination. We have a whole bunch that are on the verge of GA status. I'm beginning to worry that the demands of the Manual of Style may mean that we have bitten off more than we can chew by thinking we could bring an article to featured status. And this even with the help of the FA-Team. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, it's not too much; you just need one person whose time isn't as fractured as mine is :-) When I have a few moments to work on an article, I want that time to be instructive so it can benefit other editors, who can learn from my edit summaries. That's why I got so frustrated about that situation on El general, because the little time I had to give all of you that day was lost. This is also why I've recommended you seek the assistance of Epbr123 (talk · contribs). MoS fixes are easy; you only need someone who knows MoS, and to allow them time to instruct your editors. Were my edit summaries on The President instructive to your students ? I try to work in short steps so they can see each item as I'm addressing it, and learn from it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- And here I did ask you about what may have been in one of your edit summaries, so I could follow up on your suggestions, but I haven't heard back from you. I know you're busy, of course. I'm just pointing out that we have indeed been trying to follow your advice! Again, I'd remind you that nobody in this project except for me had ever edited a Wikipedia article before, let alone been involved in a Featured Article nomination. We have a whole bunch that are on the verge of GA status. I'm beginning to worry that the demands of the Manual of Style may mean that we have bitten off more than we can chew by thinking we could bring an article to featured status. And this even with the help of the FA-Team. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Irreplaceable
Hi Sandy. Ive addressed some of your concerns in this FAC; but please state to those remaining unresolved objections why they fail to meet WP:RS. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for crashing/hiding comments; I am not aware of the policy. Thank you Sandy. --Efe (talk) 05:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
FAC "credit"
Hi - I added FightingStreet as a co-nom with Jappalang. I don't think there's any particular reason not to, and the reason to is a WP:AGF-based assumption that he was intending to help at the FAC before he decided to leave. Are you OK with this? -- Rick Block (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- If I could throw in my .02 cents, I do think there is a particular reason not to: he continued editing regularly in the two week interval between the nom and his retirement, without ever editing the article or the FAC page. I would agree RE AGF if he had gone inactive, or if there was less of an interval between nom & retirement, but short of someone opening a nom with 'This is a drive-by nom!', I don't think there could be a much clearer case for one. Curious to hear what Sandy thinks. Maralia (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm a chicken on these cases :-) I'm clear when someone needs to be added, but less clear on the slippery slope of leaving someone out. Maralia and the stats make a very strong case for this particular situation (I can't recall another quite this strong), but I believe this would be a precedent-setting first ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Turn this around. Even if it was a "drive by", so what? Would the article have been at FAC if he hadn't taken the time to nominate it? Does listing him as a co-nom cause any harm? -- Rick Block (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
cricket fa jargon
If you get more probs, drop me a line. Happy to help if it's not a weekend. --Dweller (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Dweller, thanks so much for the offer; I'd be so pleased if you'd help out on BInyguyen's nom, with any jargon that went over my head. I haven't looked yet today, and won't sit down to review FAC until later tonight (spring cleaning yard work beckons). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Getting support/oppose comments on FAC
Hi Sandy. I have a question concerning getting comments on a FAC. The last FA that I worked on was stuck for a while at two "support" votes. I tried to get out the vote (without canvassing) by posting neutral messages on related (but not directly connected) Wikiprojects. That resulted in no response at all on the FAC, although it got someone from Milhist to promptly tag the article under their umbrella! Compared to what I see on other FACs, my articles don't seem to attract much interest. So how do I get people to vote without canvassing? I thought about asking people I know, e.g., people that have reviewed my articles in the past. Is that considered ok? --RelHistBuff (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Giano handles that topic well at User:Giano/A fool's guide to writing a featured article; really, it's OK to let editors knowledgeable in the content area know that an article is at FAC, no different than, for example, so many WikiProject announcement templates like {{MCOTWannounce}}. The problem is when a nominator, for example, pings 100 people and enthusiastically asks them to support his article :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Another place to go fishing for reviewers is by looking at who reviews similar articles at WP:GAN and ask if they might be willing to review your article. It's worked for me in the past. Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Or, even better, consider the most active FA reviewers, since GA reviewers aren't necessarily good judges of FA quality. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've started leaving a note on my talk page asking for comments on my FACs (see User_talk:Karanacs right now). That will get the attention of anyone coming to visit you, or anyone who watchlists your page. I don't mind taking a look at this article - which one is it? Karanacs (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- The article made it to FA; fortunately two more reviewers came by as the FAC slowly approached the bottom of the list. But, thanks anyway! I will drop a note on your talk page if my next FAC attempt starts to look like it's being ignored. Your talk page message is a great idea as well. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've started leaving a note on my talk page asking for comments on my FACs (see User_talk:Karanacs right now). That will get the attention of anyone coming to visit you, or anyone who watchlists your page. I don't mind taking a look at this article - which one is it? Karanacs (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Or, even better, consider the most active FA reviewers, since GA reviewers aren't necessarily good judges of FA quality. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Another place to go fishing for reviewers is by looking at who reviews similar articles at WP:GAN and ask if they might be willing to review your article. It's worked for me in the past. Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
FAC urgents
CAn I put my own stuff on that template? Is that allowed? Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Double Seven Day scuffle isn't getting much. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- I try to keep the urgents list a manageable size by only including articles that have been up the longest and don't have enough input for consensus; a lot of the newer noms don't yet have feedback, but since they aren't yet close to being closed, I'd like to get reviewer attention on the older noms needing a decision. If we add all the newer noms, then the "urgents" list could grow to include most of FAC, and would no longer be "urgents". Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think reviewers are reluctant to comment on this article because of its nature, and length. Assessing whether the criteria have been satisfied isn't as clear-cut as certain other FACs, I think. More participation from some of the more experienced editors of WikiProject Vietnam may help - as this may settle the issue of whether the article is comprehensive enough. Contacting such editors from the project may be a good place to start, and while waiting for a response, something that can be fixed further is prose - particularly for an article of this length, you'd need really outstanding prose (similar to the professional standard you'd expect to see in an encyclopedia) to reflect Wikipedia's best work. I think I'd seen a typo or something (lated?) in the lead itself when I briefly looked at it again. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Heh, most of the guys in WPVN aren't inerested in minding other people's business... That might be a good thing for FAs in some ways because there won't be an auto-block vote, but it could conversely allow people to sneak in hoaxes if they wanted to. It's ok, there's a bit more traffic now. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Back from hols
Do you have a bell that rings when your watchlist changes? How do you respond so quickly :-)? I only noticed Genetics a few days before my hols and I was just so busy that I couldn't spend the time. I'm still busy with work/home but should find a little more time to work on KD over the next few weeks. Anything else happening in MED/FAC land? Colin°Talk 18:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Infobox
Removed, sorry for not reading through the talk page. --Kakofonous (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Confusion
The proposal:
- {{WikiProjectBanners}} - deleted
- {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} - will have
|collapse=
parameter.
- Posting
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapse=yes}}
will post a collapsed template, consisting of one line, just like {{WikiProjectBanners}} always was. - Posting
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapse=no}}
will post an expanded template, just like {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} always was.
Does this clarify the situation at all? Equazcion •✗/C • 02:26, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)
- Several issues, questions. First, it was certainly rude of that melon person to do this just when the Signpost Dispatch article about banners was published. Anyway ... second, when s/he briefly installed collapsibility on the Shell, it resulted in always collapsible on my browser, unless I click it open. That's what the Projects don't want. Third, more complex installation, already an issue on the Shell; not what editors want. Fourth, those of us who have featured articles that get spammed with all kinds of crap put everything and the kitchen sink in to the banner. The Shell only allows you to put in those that have the nested option; I don't think you can dump everything in there. We want to bury it all. Honestly, besides the fact that Melon Doesn't Like It and put up a TfD just as the Signpost Dispatch article explaining banners was published, what is the benefit to Wiki of modifying 12,000 templates that editors like? This is irritating make work, for no good reason. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Okay... Firstly, I'll ask that you try not to let your anger at HappyMelon to influence your judgment of the basic idea here. To be perfectly honest that guy tends to piss me off too, but try to judge the idea on its own merits.
- Now, the posting of the shell with collapse=yes would mean that the template is collapsed when you first open that page. But, leaving the parameter out entirely, by posting
{{WikiProjectBannerShell}}
, will mean it stays expanded by default.
- Now, the posting of the shell with collapse=yes would mean that the template is collapsed when you first open that page. But, leaving the parameter out entirely, by posting
- The point about what can and can't be contained in the shell template is valid. Not everything can go in there -- however, everything that should go in there can. There are certain templates that never will be able to simply because they're not supposed to be hidden, such as articlehistory, BLP warnings and other notices. The only things these templates are meant to group are project banners.
- The point about the amount of work it'll take to make the switch is also valid, but no one who didn't want to do it would be forced to. I imagine the deletion would be put off until it was removed from all pages -- which could be done gradually by anyone who felt like volunteering. Although, I think this will be a moot point, because in all probability a bot will be created to handle the task. Happy-Melon has a bot account so I have a feeling he'll take up that task. Regardless, creating work for people who don't mind doing that work shouldn't really be a concern, in my humble opinion at least.
- Glad we got the first point out of the way :-) Melon seems fond of clutter.
- About putting everything and the kitchen sink in there, look at Talk:Tourette syndrome. No one who has tagged that article helped write it or maintain it; I put everything in the banner, I don't need all the clutter. I'm not talking about BLPs, etc. If Kirill tells me that can be solved, that point is addressed. But we've still got 1) make-work to convert something that is working fine, and 2) more complicated installation. Melon turned his bot loose on another goofy task recently (still trying to sort out all those changes at peer review, which haven't resulted in more peer reviews, but have resulted in more complicated instructions), and even if s/he doesn't mind the make-work, what about the tax on the servers? Do we really need to fix something that isn't broken, leaving a bunch of complicated code on talk pages, including nested parameters? Thanks for taking the time to work through this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- I really don't think adding "|collapse=yes" qualifies as "more complicated installation". I frankly find that claim a bit silly.
- Again, Melon's possibly-inappropriate behavior shouldn't have any bearing on this issue.
- There is almost no tax on the servers. People can't make the edits fast enough to amount to a significant added burden on the servers, and bots have rules for number of edits per minute specifically to address that concern.
- This isn't a fix. Not every implemented proposal is a fix of a problem. This is an attempt at improvement -- in this case, uniformity, and even simplicity. It's simpler and more intuitive to have one template that can accomplish two nearly identical tasks via a parameter, than to have two separate templates that do almost the same thing. But this is where the subjectivity enters in, so these are things to discuss at the TfD. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:05, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)
- Banners doesn't require a nested parameter; installation is easier/quicker. Thanks for educating me about the servers. Agree with uniformity if we can do the same things, and I don't believe the Shell accommodates everything the Banner accommodates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't accommodate everything, but that's for a reason. It's not supposed to be used on everything. Aside from that, though, I think the rest of this is really just a matter of opinion, and it'll come down to how many feel one way vs. the other. I'm glad we could sort out the miscommunication. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:31, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)
- It banners is deleted, someone will end up recreating something to do exactly what it does; eliminate useless clutter on talk pages. We'll just change one banner for another. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- And one set of alleged (I've not seen them since the debate was settled) edit wars for another. Still looks like drama and make work to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- It banners is deleted, someone will end up recreating something to do exactly what it does; eliminate useless clutter on talk pages. We'll just change one banner for another. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't accommodate everything, but that's for a reason. It's not supposed to be used on everything. Aside from that, though, I think the rest of this is really just a matter of opinion, and it'll come down to how many feel one way vs. the other. I'm glad we could sort out the miscommunication. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:31, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)
- Banners doesn't require a nested parameter; installation is easier/quicker. Thanks for educating me about the servers. Agree with uniformity if we can do the same things, and I don't believe the Shell accommodates everything the Banner accommodates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- This isn't a fix. Not every implemented proposal is a fix of a problem. This is an attempt at improvement -- in this case, uniformity, and even simplicity. It's simpler and more intuitive to have one template that can accomplish two nearly identical tasks via a parameter, than to have two separate templates that do almost the same thing. But this is where the subjectivity enters in, so these are things to discuss at the TfD. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:05, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Here's a template that implements Banners through (a slightly modified) BannerShell: {{WikiProjectBanners/Test}}. No bot substitutions, no parameter changes, no changes in appearance; only two template edits, and we're down to one underlying shell. Kirill 19:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Meh. I doubt Raul will care all that much, so long as the appearance remains the same; but please feel free to take it up with him if you prefer. Personally, I don't really feel like wading into the firefight at TFD at the moment. ;-) Kirill 02:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- All that's needed to implement this is to replace the code in {{WikiProjectBanners}} with that in {{WikiProjectBanners/Test}}, and the code in {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} with that in {{WikiProjectBannerShell/Test}}. I suspect, however, that doing so while the TFD is running will cause no end of screaming about how we're gaming the system and so forth; but I'll follow your lead in the matter. Kirill 02:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose leaving a note that the problem has been solved couldn't hurt, although I doubt it'll get much attention in the general shouting. I think that what's most likely to happen is that the TFD will be closed without consensus, and we'll be free to implement the changes afterwards. Kirill 02:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Action potential
I'll look it over, but that's getting pretty far from my comfort zone I'm afraid. Hope you are well and happy, all the best. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- I had a look, but I would have to both re-write it and source it from scratch - it is not close to FA level at present. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
re: clarify
If you really want to know what I meant, you'd have to go through the history and read my more heated rants about Wassup and other things which I later removed for the sake of peace. Trust me. It's not worth knowing. Wrad (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Expected return
Would have been home tonight except for an issue with the wheel assembly on the car that necessitated a six hour visit to a dealership in Arkansas to have the whole thing replaced. So we are on the road another night, but at least with internet tonight. Will be back editing Saturday. (Have to do a rush photography order Friday night and Saturday morning). What exactly were you wanting me to do about the discussion you mentioned on my talk page? (I'm all excited, I picked up a great book for the article on D. Wayne Lukas and caught a great shot of a pelican catching a fish this morning, so even the car breaking down hasn't dimmed my good mood!) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Nothng really; I just parked it there to see which way that develops. Hopefully we'll adapt the wording in the instructions at WP:FAC so that it will become less of an issue. Have a safe trip home! Do you have time to review the FAC for Ima Hogg tonight? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Miss Ima
Thanks for making those tweaks to Miss Ima's article. You beat me to it by just a few minutes :) Karanacs (talk) 01:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- You are too hard on yourself—your prose is fine. I'm treating myself tonight to wikifun in the evening, so let me know if anything else needs doing. Karanacs (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- and.. thanks for the invitation to the party. Graham. --GrahamColmTalk 02:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Fight or scuffle
I don't see the difference... Does "fight" imply that it was intended on the parts of both parties? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
RfC
I've started drafting an RfC that you might be interested in here. Please feel free if you'd like to participate in adding anything to it that you feel might be relevant. Cla68 (talk) 02:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)