User talk:SandyGeorgia

FACs needing feedback ; view • edit
La Isla Bonita	Review it now
Labyrinth (Taylor Swift song)	Review it now

Hi, I was contemplating renominating the Introduction to Evolution for FA. My intent, for the process to be observed by my struggling group of students in the Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2010. If they observed the many challenges and scrutiny that often occurs they may better grasp the futility of a last minute effort. This particular article has always been tumultuous at best ^{understatement of the year}. Even the demotion was a bit convoluted in that it was nominated for deletion by an enthusiastic editor who immediately deleted it in its entirety; then lost the FA star under an entirely different version. The original has since been restored, hopefully improved and has been stable for some time. My question. Would you consider taking a quick look at the referencing format to see if it still meets FA standards? I will not waste the time if it's an automatic fail on that note. Just a quick glance at format with a thumbs up or thumbs down will suffice - not a detailed critique. If it is not too grotesque - I will nominate in hopes that the former Fa version is still a quality piece of work! Incidentally, both you and User:Malleus Fatuorum are perceived as a sort of deity among my band of high schoolers - someone to fear and respect. --JimmyButler (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion request about external links

Hello, your name was suggested as a knowledgeable editor whose opinion would be valuable. Would you mind taking a look at this query at WP:EL/N? Thanks muchly. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I need your help

Somebody has nominated this article for GA status. I remember you telling me a couple months ago that Legends of America isn't a reliable source. I've been working on replacing the Legends source with reliable sources, but I'm not exactly finished. Can you take a look at the article and tell me if there are any other unreliable sources? I think I found them all (still have to take care of them, though), but I want to get a second opinion. Thanks, The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 17:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why POV?

Hello, could you please specify what you mean in saying that Mozart and scatology is POV? I'm fully aware that this topic is a very loaded one, and for this reason I've stuck very close to what scholarly reference sources say. Yours sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more

Good grief, I really think you are going overboard in your work on Mozart and scatology. Could you please just calm down a bit, wait for a while, and then read the article and check the reference sources before editing further? I am an experienced WP editor and the article was sourced as carefully as I possibly could. In particular, if you read it before editing, you will see that Simkin published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, and that he is not the only one to set forth the Tourette's syndrome hypothesis. I personally feel it is not a good hypothesis, but it is part of the literature on Mozart (see the cited articles on Tourette's syndrome) and readers want to know how professionals have assessed it. Sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you've caught up now ... see the article talk. Simkin's views simply do not enjoy widespread or respected medical consensus, the article has multiple issues requiring cleanup, and is POV until other sources are included. And I am perfectly calm; I do work fast when I see an article that needs work, and I have long ago read everything there is to read on Mozart and TS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Fat Man

At the moment, he's blocked but not banned, so he could actually log in and use his account to edit his talkpage. Editing my talkpage is technically socking, but I'm not given to making a fuss about people socking just to tell me something. I was never involved in the discussions about blocking/banning the Fat Man. Do you want to explain to me why he's not disruptive/whatever it was he's been blocked for, or point me to a good summary of why. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er... Elen, no he can't. See the "cannot edit own talkpage" in his block log? – iridescent 12:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. There's that many on-again off-again entries in the block log I lost track of it. I do feel I'm missing something here - I never followed the guy's career, so I am interested in why Sandy values him so highly. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think because Sandy values those who write stuff, as opposed to those who police stuff. Malleus Fatuorum 14:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too tend to be more tolerant in people who "write stuff"; it was surprising to me, then, to discover that TFM's last 200 article contributions go all the way back to November 2008. The skew toward articles related to the Howard Stern Show may well be a hint as to his current priorities. Or not. But it's been a long time since TFM has really been in the "content contributor" category in any meaningful way. Perhaps this helps to explain the dissonance between those who have not known him for years and thus do not share the "content" memories with Sandy. Risker (talk) 14:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be right. Even the best of us can become jaded, no matter how much we believe in the idea of wikipedia rather than its current implementation. Malleus Fatuorum 14:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EotR, it will take me some time to write the reply this deserves, so I'll get to it after I find the time to pr/ar FAC ... hopefully by today! Glad you asked ... what has happened here is wrong, wrong, wrong, and a disturbing Sign of the Times about the direction Wiki is heading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I've been a bit curious about this as well, so thanks for taking the time to explain. Hope you're well, by the way, and surviving the holiday. Best, Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ever get the time to put together some info about TFM? Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet, but I think about it every day (and feel guilty and negligent :) (If the conversation on Jimbo's talk jogged your memory, yes, I'm talking about The Fat Man in some of my references. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

		Happy Holidays
		Hope you have a lovely holiday season. I have one request: At least once this season, completely ruin someone's attempt to piss you off. If someone cuts you off in traffic or shits on you at work, just smile and wave and tell them Happy Holidays. Maybe they'll be less of an asshole, even if it's just for the rest of the day. Andy Walsh (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Dear SANdy, Merry Christmas. Just two questions, can you reply to my important question above? And secondly, what do you think about the article Bad Romance and its chances of survival if nominated for FAC? If you guys say no, then I won't nominate it, as I don't want to clog the page with underprepared nominations. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs has given you a Christmas tree! Christmas trees promote WikiLove and are a great way to spread holiday cheer. Merry Christmas!

Spread the WikiLove by adding {{subst:User:The Utahraptor/Christmas tree}} to any editor's talk page with a friendly message.

--The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 03:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Card

File:Wikisanta-no motto.png

Merry Christmas At this festive time, I would like to say a very special thank you to my fellow editors, and take the time to wish you and your loved ones a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year. And, in case you can't wait until the big day, I've left you each three special presents, click to unwrap :) Acather96 (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Green and Yellow Present.gif

File:Yellow and Red present.gif

File:Blue and Red Present.gif

Merry, merry

Bzuk (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tis the season...

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. (The image, while not medieval or equine, is by one of my favorite poets and artists, William Blake.) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons Greetings!

	<font=3> Merry Christmas / Happy Holidays, Happy New Year, and all the best in 2011! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Chistmas

Hope it was a good year, it was for me.[1]. Ceoil (talk) 04:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Req opinion of SG and willing TPS

Opinions, please. Potential essay in WP space. --Moni3 (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it pretty much defines a specific attitude. I particularly like the parts about tagging - I cannot stand arriving at a tagged article; it always makes me wonder why the page was tagged but nothing done to fix the problem. Nice job. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tag articles, medical generally, because 1) bad medical info is as bad (dangerous) as a poorly sourced BLP; 2) there's no human way for me to fix them all (today, I was fixing some dab links that took me to scores of medical articles, and almost everyone I checked was dismal, with no chance of me being able to fix them all, I don't have journal access, and researching medical articles ain't easy or quick); 3) maybe someone will fix the issues if they're tagged; 4) our readers should know when they're getting poor medical info; but, most importantly, 5) so I can come back and delete the trash in a month or so if no one fixes it. I think a medical stub is better than misleading medical info-- I sometimes wish we could just blank uncited medical articles so our readers would move on to their next Google hit, where they might get accurate info. Google any medical condition and see where Wiki comes up, because medicine editors have done a phenomenal job of adding templates that link articles like crazy, increasing their google ranking-- people in need of medical info are reading our uncited, poorly cited trash! I also tag POV biopolitical articles when the talk page owners make progress impossible; I don't tag articles when talk page discussion is ongoing and it looks like the issues may be addressed. In short: perhaps you can distinguish between editors who generally build content and sometimes tag articles, and those who only tag articles, particularly of editors they stalk, and have never built a real article themselves. And to close, Wiki is 99.9999% trash-- let's alert our readers to that, since it's not possible to fix it all. Or change policy so that we can delete on sight anything that isn't cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hate the taggers(' sins. hate the sin, not the sinner, gotta remind myself) in general. Think the vast majority (not you Sandy of course) would do better to take a strain and go learn how to research and write. Totally sinks morale to have these people doing drive by tags. Plus it's all crap that should go on the talk pages. Yeah, a lot of wiki articles suck. Duh. Either shoot the project or live with it. But the turdbox droppings that look fancy are just awful.TCO (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think tagging medical articles is valid - readers should know if issues exist on those articles and you have a strong argument Sandy. Most of my work is in the humanities, and it's annoying to click into an article to find, for instance, an absurdly long plot outline and a tag asking for references. Yeah, someone wrote a plot outline and didn't add scholarly material or reviews, and then someone comes along and tags. The tagger should take a moment to supply a reference - they might even learn something. I think a lot of tagging is done to increase edit count. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Well, I also dislike editors who have never built as much as a GA, but spend days on end placing fact tags on articles or statements that aren't causing anyone any harm -- I just think medical articles should be treated like BLPs (and that we should elevate that to policy, but I've been saying that for years ... ) Some people should get a life and go play somewhere else if they're not here to build articles that make a difference to someone, somewhere, somehow. (post-ec to TK) Agree: but not only to increase edit count, sometimes it's merely to plague editors they don't like. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote most of that from my own experience, including an unreferenced BLP I saw blanked (most of which was common knowledge anyway) and a current events article. I have no experience in medical articles. What sense could you or any med article participant make of drive-by tagging? Can you turn it into some kind of purposeful action? With no experience in them, I don't see a point in tagging them and returning later. Maybe you do.

I peruse quite a few articles all the time, many of which are wretchedly written or just trivial compositions. Like you, I understand I can't fix them all. The ones I tag I end up rewriting, like Emmett Till. For various reasons I don't fix issues in some articles.

Perhaps I should make a distinction here, or maybe a more forceful statement of one's entire existence on Wikipedia consisting of tagging. If editors never add content and only tag, that does not improve the site. Or did I make that pretty clear anyway? --Moni3 (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you made it very clear and it's a valid point that needs to be made. Some tagged articles I come across are quite easily fixed, some not as easily fixed but I often place them on my watchlist with the intention of returning to fix. The culture and tag-and-run is one that annoys me - a lot. Thanks btw for the good essay and for getting this conversation started. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think tagging should go in the articles. Put it in the talk page. If no one fixes it there, so what, at least you did not deface the article. What makes a fancy template different than putting little self editing comments into your writing? We know wiki is not finished product. The world knows it. And I would not give any special status to medical articles either. There is bum dope all over wiki. That's life. Either fix it, delete it, or live with it. Or put a comment on the talk page.TCO (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And there's where we differ-- I think bad medical articles SHOULD suffer the disgrace of a tag, should look ugly, should have something that discourages innocent readers from engaging them when they think they're getting accurate, important info that may matter in decisions that affect their health (OK, any reader who believes Wiki is stupid, but there are lots of stupid people out there, and how many of our readers know the difference between an FA and Joe-Bloe's-favorite-fringe-theory medical or psych article?). Fixing an uncited medical article-- even a short one-- often takes weeks, usually requires journal access, and we've got, what, tens or hundreds of thousands of them? Mostly JUNK, because some editors who add info to Wiki have an agenda (surprise, surprise)-- and it's WAY worse in the psych realm, which IMO, is the single worst series of articles on Wiki because they attract more than the usual number of kooks. If I tag 'em, someone often fixes them, our readers are warned, and if no one fixes them, then I'm justified in deleting the garbage so our readers can move on to something accurate when our articles come up first on Google. Yes, I think it's effective for medical articles, because everything in them needs to be right, and little is casual info, like on a BLP, where some of the info isn't harming anyone. A medical article is different than say, Hugo Chavez-- anyone coming to that article most likely isn't looking for info because they probably already know the score, and if they're too stupid to sort the POV or if they trust Wiki for info on Chavez, they were drinking the kool-aid anyway, and they're not likely to make important decisions that could affect their well-being based on what they read about Chavez. But someone googling around for medical info is more likely looking for helpful info without preconceived notions, and likely to hit Wiki first, not know how to sort a trash article from an FA, and be misinformed on something that actually matters. They should be warned. I wish our warning was better for med articles and said something like, This article is uncited, which means there's a very good chance you're reading a load of bullroar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, can you then make some sense of this action for medical articles? Can you suggest say a paragraph about tagging med articles? It's outside my experience. --Moni3 (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say, sort something in your essay to, is the info you're tagging harming our readers? If not, place a talk page post instead. (Someone who tags statements that don't make a hill of beans difference to anyone, and are likely accurate anyway, comes to mind.) And on your earlier question, yes, the tagging often produces results. If someone cares about the article, the tagging will force them to fix it (assuming it's well justified on talk), or give you reason to take them to DR if they remove the tags without fixing the article. If no one cares about the article, it allows someone to stubbify the garbage so our readers won't be misinformed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And another thing, we have BOATLOADS of medical articles, including almost all of our medical GAs, that are full of primary-source original research, often pushing a pet fringe theory. We should be able to delete it all-- it's every bit as important as our BLP policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of it might actually be unsourced second-source research and, as a general rule, I'd put ^{[citation needed]} after such assertions if I knew they were unsourced research. Perhaps delete those later on if they prove to be OR? — Rickyrab | Talk 19:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've used wiki for medical stuff. I been lifting weights and got injured. :( I've used the net for medical stuff. Any time you do patient research on the net, it is an iterative process and you have to weed through some bull. Might as well put a tag on the monitor. And I know lifting forums where they explecitly say, don't be an idiot and ask questions about injuries here, see your doctor. That said, I actually find it helpful BOTH to ask forum questions and to talk to my doc. I know the forum does not now all and I can filter.

P.s. I would make a cute rejoinder saying that we should watch out for bad Pokimon dope here, but teh Wiki actually has pretty stellar Pokimon info. :(TCO (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki is full of POV and fringe stuff. And also just low quality at times. Maybe we should have editors here, or something instead of letting anyone reach out and change our webpage from their side.

Here are the page hit stats on our disclaimer page; TS gets as many daily hits, and Schizophrenia gets 15,000 hits a day. How many of our readers do ya think can even find that teensy disclaimer link at the bottom of the page? And there are LOTS of stupid people on the internet (and some of them are even Wiki editors :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm keeping an eye on this conversation as I'm working on another page, and came across this tagged page ( Women's Army Corps )- I mean, really, doh! Pretty much everything needs expansion. That said, I think Sandy's argument re medical articles is extremely valid. Perhaps if fewer tags were used they'd have a greater impact? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! That ties in to my message of "tag if the article is harming someone", otherwise, take it to talk (for example, put expansion on talk). But I'm also forced to tag when talk page discussion yields nothing, due to tenditious editors, ownership, whatever. But even on that I've changed: because I'm so discouraged about the amount of pure trash on Wiki, I don't even bother if the page doesn't get high views. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think cases of active tendentious editing is different than the tagging-for-sake-of-tagging. I don't run into as much tendentious editing as you, but when I do it's incredibly draining and discouraging. In that we agree, very much. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best solution on tenditious editors used to be "tag and unwatch"; now it's just "unwatch". I'm jealous of those editors who get to edit off in corners where no one bothers them and they rarely have to deal with trolls, stalkers, vandals, spam, POV pushers, and run-of-the-mill kooks -- that doesn't seem to have been my lot on Wiki :) But yea, sometimes tagging is a last resort, but tagging for the sake of tagging on non-med articles is probably rarely productive. Maybe someone will tell us why they do it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think because they don't know what else to do here and don't really want to write an encyclopedia - as Moni's essay suggests. Logging out now, but Happy New Year, by the way! Don't worry too much about the roof - we lost all our gutters in last year's storm - that was fun! - but only a memory now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As much as tagging annoys me, it does have its uses. For example, active WikiProjects will use the categories created by tags to create cleanup lists. There are very few such projects, though. The articles I frequent (music-related) often have months- or years-old tags, many of which don't even apply, but people are afraid to remove them. Any text that would be harmful to someone should just be removed, not tagged. We do this for copyvios, so why not BLPs and med articles? Our exposure would be no less for the latter two, it would seem. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP already says that problematic unsourced material should be removed, not tagged. I think the spirit of that would apply to BLP material with issues other than sourcing. Extending that approach to medical articles... well, why not? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, maybe you, Sandy, or anyone else interested can assist writing this paragraph here. I understand your point that tags should be scarce, but they're not. The essay is to persuade users to shift their attitude from "I'm a tagger and I'm proud!" to "Oh, I should fix that." Your points about med articles are well-taken, but I'm not quite sure how they would be incorporated into the rest of the essay. While medical articles should get a template of some kind, in your opinion, that does not address the problematic behavior of doing the least amount of effort in mass tagging. So I feel rather dim here, and I think I need your help. --Moni3 (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more than usually dim because of lack of sleep, but I'll contemplate this after pots of coffee and when I have time. Medicine articles perhaps need a whole new set of unreferenced or poorly referenced templates; not sure I know how to design those. Will look at that para once I'm coherent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hogmanay greeting

Thank you very much for working with me in 2010 to make the encyclopedia a better place. Regardless of any disagreements we may have had, I want to wish you all the very best for 2011. I look forward to working with you, and I hope for health and happiness to you and your family in the year to come. I therefore send you this glass of the cratur, so you can celebrate, whether it is Hogmanay or New Year's Day where you are. Warmest regards, --John (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[2] See ARWU. And happy new year. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year

Hey Sandy -- I've been away for little while, and I'm probably going to be away for about another week. Just wanted to wish you a happy new year :) Raul654 (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You too! All is well (well, all is normal :) at FAC ... I just saw your response to Dana on your talk and realized I had forgotten to add my Delist on that FAR, when she made the post, and then edit conflicted as you were closing. Happy New Year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Presented to SandyGeorgia on January 7, 2011 for your tireless persistence in editing with precision and style and defending the difficult articles while encouraging others to do the same. I note especially your thorough work across numerous related articles in dealing with the subject of Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent research. A true wikipedian! -- Brangifer (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Your comments at Lear's Fool's RfA were inappropriate and served no real purpose I could see other than to attack two other users. RfA is not a good place for such discussions. I know you are aware of that, and I assume you were just caught in a bad moment... Hobit (talk) 06:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are probably aware of what "they say" about assuming; I think my comments served their purpose. Thanks for stopping by. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Longest articles

At Wikipedia:Help_desk#Longest_articles_list I have sought information on a list of the longest articles as it relates to concerns at Talk:Clint Eastwood/GA1. The only list offered was a list of the longest articles in terms of total characters. I am looking for a list based on readable prose.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could try User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics, which has the ten longest FAs by readable prose size. Don't think I've ever seen a list for all articles, though... Dana boomer (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pyramid head

Hey Sandy. Just letting you know that the FAC nomination for Pyramid head was withdrawn by its nominator. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Happy New Year, Sandy! Dabomb87 (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Why have you never RfA? CTJF83 chat 04:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd try to think of a witty answer for that, but I have a cold, and don't feel at all witty. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She'll run when Hell freezes over, but sadly at the moment it is 14 °F (−10 °C) in Hell, Michigan, so it must be another reason. Imzadi 1979 → 05:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that all? I see a −22 °F (−30 °C) on this map. <sneeze> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, ok, a few days latter, I want a witty answer now! :) CTJF83 chat 01:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still have a cold ... short, non-witty answer is I've never wanted to be an admin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I can live with that response...although I'm sure you'd sail right through...feel better! CTJF83 chat 01:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like to think it's because SandyG has more sense than I did. Malleus Fatuorum 03:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you did better than me CTJF83 chat 03:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MMR

Were you aware of this series of edits? I wasn't sure, I haven't been keeping up on it in detail.--Tznkai (talk) 08:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that editor introduced same at Andrew Wakefield; I cleaned it up and sourced what I could there, and s/he seems to have understood the 3RR issue and reverted it at the MMR article (some of the text at the MMR article is better placed at the Wakefield article). I think that's under control now. We've also had IPs adding that Wakefield is a scientologist; I find lots of blog info on that, but no reliable sources, and the article is now semi-protected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Auto

How can I tell wht percent of my edits are automated or normal? Someone65 (talk) 07:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can run this tool, which will tell you that 13.16% of your edits are automated. Malleus Fatuorum 14:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crat chat comments

I just want to apologise for my tone in my comment to you at the above. Although the basic message is accurate, the tone was a bit overly critical of you, which is not how I meant it to be! As I'm on my mobile phone, the section is too large for me to edit - I would strike some of it and re-word - so I'm leaving a message here instead! I am glad that Deskana has looked at some of those !votes, and understand your concerns. Regards, -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 21:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry-- no problem! It was an unusual situation, which made the whole thing tense. And I've never figured out how to edit from my BB, so you're ahead of me :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to stop bothering with voting at RfA after this most recent debacle; it's very clear how the wind is blowing, and it's not in a direction that I like. Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patience, cricket, grasshopper, whatever ... as long as folks are paying attention, things will eventually work out, the pendelum swings, and then we'll see who's responsible for not paying attention. The community gets what it wants until something big happens, then it's clear who's responsible. The 'crats should be paying attention now-- if they're not, they pay. Either way-- whose problem is it? Don't be discouraged by things you can't change; it all works out in the wash eventually. And now, back to my vaporizer and cold medicine ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear about your cold. Touch wood I've been lucky this winter so far; most Christmases I'm laid low by something or other, but not this one so far. Other than an attack of ennui that is of course. I've taken RfA off my watchlist, as I prefer not to watch the insanity that's developing there. Wikipedia gets the administrators it deserves, not my problem until they come hounding me ... then you ... then ... Malleus Fatuorum 03:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of those stinky colds that hangs on and gives you cotton brain, bah, can't do anything useful except cough. Anyway, the moment for serious concern about what's going on at RFA and on IRC and how it's turning Wiki into a high school playground came and went months ago, when the kids scored a notch in their belts by chasing out The Fat Man (as you said, who's next, taking an editor of stature gives them a sense of power), so I don't know why you let these bumps in the road affect you so much; eventually, when it gets bad enough, people wake up. The pendelum swings, and comes back to center. And if it doesn't, I will in hindsight mark the moment that the kids took over and articles became secondary and hope was lost as the moment when they got away with blocking The Fat Man-- an editor whom a great number of active editors today know tiddley-squat about-- not as the moment when the community promoted an admin who had essentially no involvement in the Project and about whom we have more questions than answers. Either folks will wake up, or they won't-- in the meantime, why do anything differently than you would usually do it? Of course it's irritating that more folks don't pay attention to what's going on at RFA, but sooner or later, we all get bitten. And then when they ask, what happened, you can answer. Patience. In the meantime, have fun, write a great article that will endure long after the playground closes, and don't take it too seriously! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't affect me at all really, I just prefer to spend time and effort somewhere I can maybe make a difference rather than somewhere I clearly can't. And at RfA I can't. And given that I'm currently being hounded by one of the kiddie admins that NYB is so keen on I'm not so sanguine that anything is likely to change there any time soon. Malleus Fatuorum 03:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's not going to change now, but keep the long-term view. When it gets bad enough, either people will notice and it will change, or Wiki will go its merry way and be replaced by something else. Either way, why let the road bumps affect your actions? Malleus, you all too often focus on the tree, not the forest, focus on the battle, not the war. Yes, a candidate about whom we know nothing was promoted to admin; if he behaves and turns out to be a great admin, we all win. If something was amiss, many eyes will hopefully be watching now. You win. If he doesn't pan out, the point is made, and you still win. Win-win; why let it bother you? The real issue is whether Wiki is going to continue to slide into a playground run by children, and that is not something either you or I will fix, change or affect. We work on articles, and do what we can to change the governance or at least raise red flags, but ultimately, this place will be what the folks who run it want it to be, and we won't change that. But thank heavens that Raul had the good sense to set up FAC the way he did-- imagine what trash we'd be putting on the main page if FAC were a drive-by, because-I-like-it-support place like RFA? No, FAC has criteria and you gotta meet 'em and 20 driveby IRC supporters won't offset one well-placed oppose. How unfortunate that the 'crats don't see that opposes are treated inferiorly at RFA, while they carry weight at FAC, which is why FAC works and RFA doesn't. Oh, well! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You make a very good point. Most jobs have some sort of associated job description, with at least an outline of the experience and qualifications required. And I've never seen one say "must be civil". There's a very well-known and successful businessman here in the UK, Alan Sugar, who has a popular TV programme. I doubt that anyone would ever accuse him of being backwards in coming forwards where speaking his mind was concerned. The bureaucrats have shown their true colours, nothing else to say really. RfA is for the children, let them enjoy it while they may. Malleus Fatuorum 04:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(I'd never looked at The Apprentice (UK TV series) article before, and I wish I hadn't now. A dodgey 2007 FA that would struggle at FAC today). Malleus Fatuorum 04:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which RFA sparked this conversion? Feels like I missed something. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 04:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lear's Fool and its crat chat (more the talk page actually). Shubinator (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can blame the 'crats for 1) the way RFA is set up, and 2) what goes on back-channel at Wiki. And I don't think it's within their remit to change the way RFA works. Had RFA been set up correctly, with criteria, as FAC was from the beginning, I think we'd see a very different picture today, where 'crats would be empowered to exercise discretion as we have at FAC. But no, RFA was set up as a vote, so we can't blame the crats. (I saw only one 'crat continuing to sing the "content contributor" line that is surely getting hot press on IRC once all the evidence was presented-- I don't know that the others swallowed it after it was all laid out but that "meme" has certainly taken hold.) If I want to "blame" anyone, I'd be more inclined towards those that let socks run loose and have access to e-mail. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be right, but to continue with the analogy you introduced above you can't win a war without winning at least one battle. Is there a precedent for extending RfAs? Why this one? What additional arguments were presented during the extension period? That was of course a rhetorical question, as there were none; all that happened was that additional votes were cast. Is that really fair to other borderline candidates? That is of course another rhetorical question. I think this affair stinks. Malleus Fatuorum 04:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The extension doesn't matter-- they would have passed it before the extension anyway. I liked the extension because it allowed more potential socks to come out of the woodworks without changing anything. Remember the bar at RFA is very low (and as previously noted, the only place on Wiki where it's lower is ArbCom elections). Again, the problem is that consensus there is nothing like FAC: opposes aren't given weight at RFA unless they are damning and vitriolic. "I like it" counts at RFA-- it would have passed before the extension. And proving the off-Wiki portion, even as clear as it is, is difficult; I knew CU couldn't do it, and you can't prove canvassing unless an IRC kiddie speaks up. What I think really is wrong about this affair? WereSpellChequers needs to scrutinize his candidates more carefully to be sure they're ready. I think his only goal is to get more admins-- I don't think he screens, checks or mentors them in any way, and yet for some reason, his noms garner votes at RFA. Does he even know the candidates he noms, or is he just trying to fill out the admin corp? I've never nommed a candidate at RFA that I didn't know very well for a very long time; maybe that's why I've never had a problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll not comment on WSC, except to say that I broadly agree with your assessment but would probably have framed it a little more robustly. I've made no secret of the fact that I'm very unhappy about the second-class status of ordinary (by which I mean non-admin) editors on wikipedia, and have been for some considerable time now. Writing stuff is far less valued than whacking a few vandals, and having whacked them you're then awarded the right to whack any other editors you take a dislike to after your inevitably successful RfA. But I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that I can do nothing to change that mindset, so I don't intend to keep trying. What will be, will be. Malleus Fatuorum 05:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to put on the funny hat and get you to laugh more! Let me ask you something (that you don't have to answer)-- have you raised teenagers and twenty-somethings? Having done so makes some Wiki interactions more understandable, and makes it easier to let some things slide. Since I can name more than one "child editor" who has matured into a fine adult editor, I'm not going to let the IRC antics get under my skin. Now, if they could affect FAs that go on the main page, I wouldn't stay around here complaining about it-- I'd be gone. If the most they can do is block 'ya and that makes them feel powerful, well, look around-- some really good editors have block logs, doesn't mean a thing anymore. Stop taking it so seriously ... the real thing is writing articles, and those who can't, take it out on Malleus-- consider it flattery. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no children, luckily for them, as I would have been a very demanding parent. What we do here has to be enjoyable, and it increasingly rarely is these days. I'm frankly rather tired of kids like GTBacchus getting away with murder while I get 10-second blocks for God knows what. I guess I lost my sense of humour where wikipedia is concerned some time ago, and I really don't see it coming back any time soon. Malleus Fatuorum 06:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surviving the raising of teenagers leaves one with a sense of humor :) Yes, Wiki is supposed to be enjoyable, and when I get flustered, I find myself muttering, "I already raised my children, and I don't come to Wiki to raise someone else's!" But remember that they grow up in spite of themselves-- at least there's a chance the kids will mature into better adults than some of our more troublesome editors, who are adults even senior citizens. MF, you've got to take a longer term view and have more fun here! Even when you "win one", you don't recognize it! One of the most interesting aspects of Wiki is that idiots and idiocy are inescapable-- we can't cross the street to avoid people we'd rather not interact with-- it's a challenge to your character that you won't find anywhere else in your life. Enjoy it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're very prescient SandyG, but I'm not sure it's a challenge I'm up to. I have never in my life been able to tolerate fools. It's like a switch in my head; "OK, that's enough of your nonsense, you're now officially a fool". In truth I'm enjoying it less and less here, and I really doubt whether wikipedia is big enough to accommodate me and the hundreds of other lowly content-oriented editors who may perhaps sometimes be a little feisty. But I recognise that's my problem, not wikipedia's; the project will march on regardless of me, you, or anyone else. Malleus Fatuorum 06:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I won't try addressing all the issues raised in this thread, but I was struck by your comment that you are "currently being hounded by one of those kiddie admins that NYB is so keen on." I stand by my view that chronological age should not be a selection factor for administrators (as long as candidates show good judgment about what types of issues they will work on). But I don't know that this issue is especially relevant to the RfAs that have been controversial in recent weeks. And as far as I can see, it surely is not relevant to your current dispute with GTBacchus. I suppose I will have to dwell upon the disagreeable details of that bickering if it comes to arbitration, so I won't comment on them now beyond shaking my head, but GTBacchus self-identifies as a graduate student, and he has edited Wikipedia for 8 years. Whatever his merits or demerits, he's not a "kiddie" under any recognized definition of the term. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then he might like to consider not behaving like one. Malleus Fatuorum 16:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with most of your points, NYB, although I don't believe Wiki (or any venture) should allow minors to hold positions like admins. I recognize there's nothing we can do about that, considering we're an internet venture with anonymity. But I'll add that I've always been more concerned about the IRC effect than the kiddie admin issue. Too much of what goes on here is cooked up on IRC, and I continue to believe that crats should have more discretion at RFA, which should work more like FAC, where rules and guidelines apply and delegates don't have to promote unless it's clearly demonstrated that the article complies. As at FAC, the default should be archive unless promotion is proven to be warranted, and "ILIKEIT" should not be a reason to grant someone the tools. Adminship is NOT "no big deal"; conferring it is a much bigger deal than promoting an article to FA, with farther reaching effects, and it continues to trouble me that we don't take it at least as seriously as we take FAC. But that's off-topic from your commentary, I 'spose. As far as my feeble memory can recall, GTBacchus has always been fair to me, but I do wish he'd back off of Malleus (and Malleus of him-- ya'll just let it go). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to be mildly amused by the number of editors – including GTBacchus and apparently NYB – who think it's inevitable that one day I'll be hauled kicking and screaming before ArbCom and banned, but they're so wrong; I certainly won't be kicking and screaming.</joke> So far as GTBacchus and an RfC is concerned, well if he backs off and keeps his nose clean then there will be no need of it. But I do intend to prepare an RfC on the general issue of differntial treatment of admins and non-admins where alleged incivility is concerned, and of course he would feature in that. Other than that I just wish he would leave me alone. Malleus Fatuorum 23:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe NYB thinks you'll be banned by ArbCom. Shubinator (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

banker or barker?

It says barker. You wrote "banker" in the edit summary.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still trying to figure out what a "barker" is ... I think it's a "What's a willy" moment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, it is linked in the third sentence of the article. It's a guy who does like a spiel to get people to ride the carousel. I've never understood how there could be enough money to make a living doing that, actually.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know-- I finally found it. That'll teach me to read the Synopsis first :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind linking it again in the synopsis? Good idea or no? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on whether you think most readers are as dumb as I am :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that does stretch credulity ;-) and it is already linked twice, but I do think a lot of people might click down to the synopsis first.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just me ... I always read musical synopses first! And I guess it's obvious now that Carousel is not in my MT repertoire. But Wehwalt got my attention by singing in his edit summary. And I always think swindlers are bankers! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It worked. The edit summary is supposed to attract attention, in my view. That's why also the link! At least rent the movie, it isn't as good as the play but it is far more convenient.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh noes-- now everyone will sing in their edit summaries, and we'll all have songs stuck in our heads! Would this be when I mention that I hate the musical, Oklahoma! ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So do I, actually, and if I wind up doing all nine shows (I'm working on The King and I (musical) now), I will hate doing Oklahoma! She shudda gone with Jud!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to Sondheim or Schwartz! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll think about it. The R & H articles are in shocking condition though, and they need doing.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maya stelae FAC

Thanks for the comments on the review page of Maya stelae - I've dropped in a lot more links and sorted the hyphens etc. Please let me know if anything else needs sorting out. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CSI effect FAC

Hey mate, you left some comments at the FAC for CSI effect. You also requested that I ping you when I was through with them, which I now am. Here is the relevant diff. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Chainsaw Massacre

User is requesting a Guild ce of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. It has been up for FA several times and you were reviewer of last splat against the wall. I think that to make the article an enjoyable read, it needs a re-org/rewrite more than nitpicking on sentences. See here: [3] Comments? TCO (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editor unilaterally declaring WikiProject advice pages to be part of the Manual of Style

See changes like these: [4][5], which give you a reason to look at the discussion on my user talk page at User talk:WhatamIdoing#I_Am_Trying_To_Cleanup_The_Category. I've already provided background information, e.g., links to WP:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice_pages.

The "new" editor is also deleting appropriate uses of Category:Style guidelines of WikiProjects, e.g., [6][7], but that shouldn't screw up FAC work. I've left at note at WP:MOSCO as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, goodness-- how much of it has he done? If a lot, maybe this needs to go to ANI to get him to stop and to begin the cleanup. Are you the only one dealing with it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He or she has only done one today (WikiProject Poker) and has been asked to stop(User_talk:WhatamIdoing). I don't think there is much issue here other then a misunderstanding. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, no one is coordinating a response, but the editor isn't highly active, and I think that at least most of it has been reverted so far. Recent actions that concern me include this proposed name change to a "Manual of Style (subject)" format. It indicates that we're just not getting it.

Category:Style guidelines of WikiProjects is at CFD now, which I'm unhappy about. Yes, the name is technically 'wrong'. Most of them are essays or infopages, rather than "official" style guidelines. But there are so many bigger problems to deal with.

(I wonder whether the hints about socking on the user's talk page will actually end up at SPI.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Poker, look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Water supply and sanitation by country: Manual of Style , Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines . 65.93.14.196 (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of Sesame Street FAC

Hiya Sandy, I'm a little concerned about the History of Sesame Street FAC. Would you mind giving me some direction? Mostly, my concern is that there's been no movement/discussion/recommendations for weeks, not since I reported back about some image issues. Should I go ahead and follow my own idea about removing all images from this article? Or should I simply wait for more support and/or opposition? Thanks for the help, and for your service to this venerable institution. ;) Christine (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the older FACs are stalled (see my post at WT:FAC; perhaps putting a FAC up over the holidays doesn't work :) Truth is, every time I read through that image discussion, I come away confused ... perhaps it's putting off other reviewers, and removing them (and moving that discussion to the talk page of the FAC), will get things moving. And review some of the FACs on the Urgents list :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That couldn't be *my* fault; I'm always clear in my writing. I think I understand what you're asking, so I went ahead and done it. ;) Good point about the timing; my reason for doing that was similar to some of the lame-duck legislation in Congress, but it didn't work out as well for me. ;) Sandy, I have no guilt about how few reviews I do. I figure that I contribute enough to this project as it is. But I'll think about your suggestion, anyway. Christine (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy 10th

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

Hey Bzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

What goes around, comes around. Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DAW

Would you consider reading Wikipedia:Don't abbreviate Wikipedia as Wiki, please? --Yair rand (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to read it, but I think I get the point anyway :) Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese aircraft carrier Hōshō

This is just an update because you indicated you wanted to close this one, like, now. Everyone has switched to support except Cryptic and Nikki, and hopefully we've dealt with their concerns. I just wanted to point out that, contrary to the timestamp on Cryptic's last requests, they were actually posted today, and some of Nikki's requests are also recent. I don't generally like to leave pings on reviewer's talk page until it's been a while, but if you'd really like to close this one way or the other, I'll happily ping away. - Dank (push to talk) 20:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get there, just starting through FAC, found socks; could you add an unsigned template to solve the date issue ? I'd appreciate it so I don't have to track back. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh socks. The weird thing was, he had a time stamp ... from December! I'll strike through. - Dank (push to talk) 20:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention ... the wanky timestamp was on the article's talk page, which which Cryptic linked from his review. - Dank (push to talk) 20:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, you had some questions in this FAC but it's already been promoted (thanks for that), so please see my reply at Talk:Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Hōshō#Post-promotion_notes. - Dank (push to talk) 03:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I'm not reliable

I'm obliged to confess that after some time the usual mistrust devoted to my person is starting to bother me a little bit. Just noticed your request to "someone" review Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies FAC nomination. If I did not know you, I'd think that you were trying to help me out with more reviews to be sure that the article is good to go. But I know, and you know, that your request is simply because you mistrust me.

I invited Mike Christie and Dana boomer to review the article, since you're very selective of the people whom you trust, but they opted to ignore it. Everytime someone reviews any of the articles I always tell them that the books can be easily found online at google books or that they have English-written editions. I'm not here for self-promotion or because I want somekind of position here at Wikipedia. Or for any political, social or personal agenda. I'm here simply because I like writing about Brazilian history.

Sincerely? I really don't care if people say "that's nice" or "great work" but it wouldn't hurt getting a little bit of respect here. Everytime I had somekind of issue you stood against me. When an editor wrote "oppose" in an article I wrote simply because he disliked an external infobox that had nothing to do with the article itself and even after other editors complained about his behavior (including ignoring requests to explain better his position) you stood against me. When another editor had his own particular ways of intepreting Commons' rules you stood against me. Even after I told you that 2 editors who were both administrators here and at Commons told me that he was wrong. In Hugo Chavez that also happened. I'm seeing 2-3 editors with a political agenda writing pieces of political propaganda disguised as "articles" moving freely and doing whatever they want. For... what? 6 months? Or more? I've been warning about that and you keep staying against me. In all these cases the other editors were considered by you as reliable editors or something similar. I have no idea how could I get my credentials to be considered part of this select and small group but I prefer to stick with my principles.

If I invite editors whom are considered "reliable" by you to review my articles, you complain about it. If I don't or if the ones who review them aren't the editors you consider as reliable you always leave the impression that I might be doing something wrong, such as picking selected editors who would certainly support me. Sandy, you have no idea how frustrating and unmotivating it is to write here. --Lecen (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for more reviews because you canvassed: it's not in the article's best interest to merely close reviews where there is canvassing, so be happy it's continuing and getting reviews-- a better article will result. Yes, there are editors in Chavez with a political agenda who violate every Wiki policy in the book, but your talk page tone doesn't help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against aditional reviews. In fact, if I was, I wouldn't have requested 58 different editors to review my article. What I do not like is the always-present feeling of mistrust towards me. And about Chávez: see my remarks there from the beginning to nowadays. At the start I thought I was dealing simply with unexperienced editors or people who had different views on how to improve the article. For months I tried to be reasonable. Now it's more than clear that there is, in fact, a small group of editors who have turned not only Chavez' article into a piece of propaganda, but also others related to it (Castro, Che Guevara, etc...). Not only that, they have a very powerful strategy of fooling well-intentioned editors by "discussing" over and over in the talk page with the clear goal of going nowhere. That's not the point of going over here to talk with you. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, wrt FAC, you canvassed. As you may (or may not) know, I'm recused from closing your FACs because we interact on Chavez. If you want to talk further about the serious problems at Chavez, could that wait until I finish reading FAC? I check my talk page when I'm reading FAC in case the orange bar is FAC-related, and when it's not, it delays my FAC reading. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in the mood to discuss Chavez at all! That's a huge headache. And I don't mind if my article stays for a month or more open. I like when people review it. More they do, better the article becomes. You don't need to worry about this discussion anymore. Thank you for listening. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lecen, I'm finally done with FAC, and recovered (two hard weeks of closing FAC, first server errors one week, and today, two different sock situations that had to be dealt with); when I'm trying to focus on reading FAC, I can't give proper attention to other issues.

First, and most importantly, you are doing excellent work with Brazilian history articles—an underrepresented area of Wiki, and an example of what other countries (like Venezuela) should be aspiring to. I don't mistrust your work at FAC.

Next, Hugo Chavez, so I can get that out of the way and answer your FAC-related questions. Changing the situation at Chavez is not within my power any more than it's within yours: I am just another editor there, just like you. I'm not an admin, and even if I were, I couldn't use admin tools there as I'm involved. I can do no more and no less to fix that situation than you can. Yes, we have all manner of policy violations and disruptive and tendentious editing there, removal of text sourced to highly reliable sources to replace it with text sourced to partisan sources, whitewashing of issues according to due weight of reliable sources, tag-teaming, ownership, edit-warring, you name it-- that article has it all. The situation will not be resolved until/unless it goes to ArbCom, and if that happens, here's how it will end. They will all be topic-banned. But so will you, because of the tone you adopt on the talk page; your rants there are not helping the situation, and I try to address all editors equally, even if (like you) they are right about the policy issues and frustrated at the ownership and policy violations. ArbCom doesn't look at content-- they look at editor behavior-- and as long as you are contributing to the talk page toxicity, you won't escape sanction if it ever comes to that, and you don't advance the article. What that article needs is editors who know and respect policy, and that includes behavioral policy. If you want to try to do something productive there, you need to lower the rants and focus on policy and sourcing-- exactly as you do when writing a Brazilian featured article. Being combative with editors who won't even listen to reason will get the article nowhere, and you topic-banned along with the rest of them.

Now, to FAC. Similarly, being combative with reviewers can only end one place: reviewers will stop engaging your articles, and they'll end up archived for lack of review. We're all volunteers here, and no one has to review any article. I asked other reviewers to look at the FAC because you canvassed; that's plain and simple, and it's to your advantage that the FAC wasn't just shut down. You don't seem to have digested this. Reviewers don't like being canvassed, and that will also keep them away. If you canvass on subsequent FACs, they likely will be shut down-- just for you to know. The four editors who weighed in on your current FAC gave nothing to indicate they know FAC standards, and considering the canvassing, a lookover from experienced reviewers was needed.

I'm not sure why you raise the google books issue, so not sure how to answer? I don't know what the issue is there.

On the image issues, being an admin on Commons does not guarantee the level of knowledge we are accustomed to working with at FAC, just as being an admin on en.wiki doesn't assure us of anything about that editor's competence. RFA is a Vote, not a test of competence or knowledge. When there is disagreement about image policy among reviewers, I always ask for a second opinion, and I typically ask editors who have a track record of being moderate, thorough and accurate. I find that such editors usually give enough information that the nominator can understand the problem, and the issues are resolved.

I think that's everything; hope I didn't miss anything, because I'm tired. The take-home message is that being combative at either the Chavez talk page or FAC isn't the best approach for getting what you're after-- well-written, neutral articles that conform to policy. I don't mistrust you at all, but you might give your approach another thought. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of Sesame Street

Sandy, just checking if you did what you meant to here; your closing note seems to imply archiving, but you put "promoted". Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crap. That's what comes of dealing with socks when I'm trying to read FAC. Now Christine will be upset. The trolls win. I 'spose I won't check my talk page anymore when reading FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fixed, thanks Mike. On the bigger picture. Those templates were added as a courtesy, and create extra work for delegates, but I try to do them because the "community" keeps demanding it. But the real indicator of status is whether a FAC is moved to the archives or the featured log. Hope this helps reduce general confusion-- I don't believe I've made that mistake before. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I always understood that the real marker is the edit to add the articles to WP:FA, actually, but it comes to the same thing. I was sure it was a typo, but best to catch it before Christine misinterprets it, since then you have a disappointed nominator. Glad I saw it. Thanks for promoting Fantastic (magazine), by the way; I thought that one probably had a little longer to wait! Off to put together the next nom ... Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Faith

I appreciate your faith. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]