User talk:SandyGeorgia

About meTalk to meTo do listTools and other
useful thingsSome of
my workNice
thingsYukky
thingsArchives

Fast question on citation templates

I have just seen the discussion on citation templates on FAC talk and as I am planning to take parkinson's disease to FAC soon I wanted to fix citations before hand. While I have used diberri for pmids I think I have mixed templates in the society section (citation and cite news). Which one should be used for a consistent style compatible with diberri's formatting? Would you mind answering at my talk? Your talk is a hell to watch... :-) Thanks in advance. --Garrondo (talk) 07:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Trying to keep up

Hi, Sandy. I just wanted to let you know that I'm thoroughly motivated to stick with this (in fact, I've dreamed about it two nights running!), but I am very challenged at the moment by a work deadline with which I have no wriggle room. Most of the time, my job is gloriously undemanding, but when deadline rolls around I can be slammed. I'm off to read the various conversations. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm glad the issues are in such calm, competent, capable hands ... I actually have too much going on to be able to keep up with it all, so am limiting where I weigh in. I'm very confused about why Sherwood is being edited without reverting to the pre-copyvio version, but I don't understand all of this as well as you do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Not entirely calm, or I wouldn't be dreaming about it. :) The problem of copyright violations on Wikipedia is one that's had me wracking my brains for solution for well over a year. I haven't even looked at that article today and probably won't get to until later. I have no idea what's being done. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    • It's being actively edited without a reversion to the pre-copyvio version; I suggest consolidating work and commentary at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Grace Sherwood/archive1 to try to get everyone on the same page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
      • … where you'll find User:Uncle G/Grace Sherwood noted and available. If Secret wants something to work on, there it is. ☺ If you're all happy with that as a basis, I'll history merge it in. Uncle G (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
        • I can't keep up with that, Uncle G, but you copyvio people have impressed the hell out of me, and I'm sure you all will handle it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
          • That draft is more my article rescue hat than my copyright hat. See Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron#Rescuing a Featured Article. It's a quick stub to push the article up out of the dank and dismal depths. Uncle G (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Roger Waters

Some aspects of the FAC are now becoming nitpicky feedback loops, i.e., add detail, remove detail, add cites, remove cites, link, don't link, etc...etc...etc...I have been put on too many goose chases and random assingments from drive-by posters who don't support after their concerns are addressed. There are 6 supports as of now, how many does the article need to close the FAC? — GabeMc (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to run through FAC again tonight or tomorrow. Karanacs (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Please, this is getting so tedious I am wondering if I will ever run another article through FAC ever again. — GabeMc (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This is where you should have come in, as a supreme delegate, to sothe, but you ignored me untill I lost my cool. You could have smoothed things out SG but instead you let SV nit-pick away at things that don't stop her articles from being FA. You are biased, IMHO. — GabeMc (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Look at Tomlinson and see if I am wrong? The article says he was an alcoholic, but it's not sourced, among other things. — GabeMc (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I am just having a bad day, but your closeness with SV makes your objectivity questionable. — GabeMc (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

One negative exchange with Sv and the month long FAC is closed. Defend you friends much? — GabeMc (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I have done almost 2,000 edits to Roger Waters over the past 11 months, how can you close the FAC based on ONE negative comment to SV? — GabeMc (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This will be my final response and then I'm off for the day; if you disagree with my action, discuss it with the community at WT:FAC, and Karanacs or Raul can overturn me if necessary. To answer your question: first "one negative comment" that was perhaps intended to be antisemitic; second, without strenuous review, we end up with potentially crap FACs and debacles on the main page (a current concern, and we are attempting to address that at FAC), and third, it wasn't just one comment-- you targeted her FACs, after two warnings, in what looks like retaliation for the review, which if allowed to stand, compromises the integrity of FAC. But most importantly, reviewers invest valuable time and hard work in to helping improve articles, and it doesn't appear you are in the best frame of mind to incorporate constructive criticism. With all that you've accomplished on the article, I hope to see you back in a few weeks when you're ready to tackle it again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't being anti-semitic, I am 1/4 Polish Jew, I suggested that SV was being unfair to Waters based on Foxman's accusations that he was being anti-semitic. How funny, you just accused a 1/4 Jew of being an anti-semite. — GabeMc (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Closeness to SV???? I think you are a bit off there. While they can be civil to each other (as we all should be) SV and SG are hardly "close". Ealdgyth - Talk 23:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a seething sexual tension. Like Alexis and Krsytle Carrington in a hot tub. Rage and hot suds. --Moni3 (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Is that what a short break is supposed to look like? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Doesn't matter really, if the FAC process discourages editiors Wiki will suffer in the end. Tedious is one thing, but over a month long? It's just way too much to be worth it, when you are a volunteer. I may not be a great editor, but I was donating my time, but don't worry, SG, Iyou won't ever see me at FAC again. — GabeMc (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It was over a month long because you took a 10 day break in the middle. Johnbod (talk)

No, it was more like 7 days, I was bust attending Roger Waters concerts, let's see, I sat 9th row center, 25th row center and 2nd row stage left. Yeah, I sure missed out. — GabeMc (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

"but don't worry, SG, Iyou won't ever see me at FAC again" - that's unfortunate. The article may not have been FA-ready (well, IMO anyway), but that doesn't mean your contributions aren't valued. Its certainly a much better article now than it was when I looked it over a year or so ago. Parrot of Doom 23:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, when Wiki is reduced to a popularity contest, I won't miss it. — GabeMc (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You're looking at a pretty unpopular person (in certain circles) right here GabeMc, and I hang around with similarly unpopular people. Don't take it personally, even if you think others do - the article wasn't ready. My first FAC failed rather miserably. The FAC for DSotM also failed first time. Keep at it, and if you'd like my help don't be worried about asking, that's why I'm here.

Oh and I've lurked on Sandy's page for quite a while, I can assure you that she's one of the most level-headed people here. Parrot of Doom 23:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

If SG was level-headed, then why close the FAC in retaliation for edits I did at Tomlinson. And I know I was right about some things at tomlinson because SV has now changed them as I suggested. Should the FAC be closed like this, is this even appropriate? — GabeMc (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You got that right PoD. I hate you almost as much as I hate myself. :lol: Maybe we should start an !RfA process, where the most unpopular editors get an even shake of the stick. Malleus Fatuorum 23:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

(to GabeMC) I don't think the archiving was in retaliation for anything. Rather the process was starting to become disruptive, due to your understandable frustration with the difficulties you encountered during the FAC. I believe those difficulties were primarily because the article isn't yet at FA-quality. Its that simple, really. People are reviewing the article you present for FAC, they're not criticising you - if they are, they're idiots, and you should ignore them. Parrot of Doom 23:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• SG, please reconsider closing the FAC. I know I slipped up today, I'm human, I apologized immediately afterward. I have worked on this for almost a year, surely one bad day shouldn't be enough to end it. — GabeMc (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • It's not "ended". Just work on the article over the next couple of weeks to iron out the wrinkles that some reviewers complained about and take it back to FAC, when it should have a much easier passage. Most if not all of us have suffered similarly. Heck, I even had an article fail at GAN once, never mind FAC. Mind you, I was steaming mad about it, but that's another story. Take the time to prepare the article properly now that you know what kinds of criticism are going to be levelled at it next time, and next time will be a relative breeze. Malleus Fatuorum 01:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Note

Heads up: I took your name in vain here. While I chose you as someone who would in fact be the diametric opposite of the term I used to describe you, there's a chance that people won't catch the ironic intent. So feel free to delete the whole thread if you want. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Extent of plagiarism

Hi Sandy, and sorry to hear real life has been treating you rough.

Just a little heads-up that I thought you might be interested in a note I left for Moonriddengirl.

Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 17:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

What to think?

I am not overreacting, but I am not sure what to think about this edit. I was surprised to see the article called out like that on the talk page after passing what I thought was an unusually rigorous FAC, with scrutiny from both delegates and presumably Raul. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Nasty Housecat, I think what Sandy is saying is that it is never a good situation when the delegates are the ones that catch potential issues even though other reviewers have supported the article. You did a lot of work on the article and were responsive to concerns, but it would have been nice for other reviewers (me included) to recognize what the "red flags" are when reading an article. Karanacs (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey

I've been a good boy—I've been copy-editing various articles flagged with the c/e template. :) So far so good: it wasn't a tease! — Deckiller 22:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Exteding a hand and a ? ...

Hey Sandy, I respect your comment and oppose at RFA. As I said in my opening remarks, I did not handle myself in 2008 with the proper decorum as an editor in the FA nomination you cite. However, I hope that you will not universally hold my editing styles of 2 years ago against me forever. Either way, I just wanted to extend my hand - as I know we "clashed" years ago - but would love the opportunity to work together with a clean slate in the present (regardless of what occurs at RFA). As an aside, because I am unsure, am I expected to respond to "oppose" votes or are we expected to discuss the issues you raised on the actual RFA? I believe I can provide ample replies to your concerns, and I am willing to, but not sure if that is usually done. Would discussion of your concerns be more appropriate for the RFA talk page for instance? Thanks.    Redthoreau -- (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Notice

Hello, Ms. "notorious troublemaker". Thought you should know. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^♯♭ 23:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:SandyGeorgia#Note. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

See also A Modest Proposal, the (perhaps-not-as-well-known-as-once-it-was) satirical essay to which SBHB must have been referring in the edit summary. It's a bit of a clue that it wasn't a serious reference... Bencherlite^Talk 23:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought so! Sandy's not well known enough to be notorious :).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Right-o. I best be shutting my mouth as usual. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^♯♭ 23:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Taxonomic authorities

Sandy, it is commonplace to put taxonomic entities with their authorities thus: Regulus ignicapilla balearicus (Von Jordans, 1923). Until now, that seems to have been accepted as an adequate citation. I have been asked at a GAN that will be going to FAC eventually to provide a full citation. That is always possible either from a book or Zoonomen. However, it is convention in all books and journals to list citations like this Regulus ignicapilla balearicus Von Jordans 1923 Falco 19 Sonderheft p.3, that is, without the article title (if the original description is in a journal, rather than a book). Two questions

• I think the (Von Jordans, 1923) format is adequate citation, especially as it has never been queried in my articles or, as far as I know, in any others. Am I wrong?
• If a full citation is needed, in my view it should respect the convention of not giving article titles when citing journal sources. The original journals are often impossible to find anyway, so the title space would have to be left blank.. Do you agree?

Thanks, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jim, no need to alert the cavalry! I honestly thought that this was just a citation that hadn't yet been converted from Harvard style to inline citation (Vancouver, I guess) style, didn't occur to me as I was reading it that you were showing a species authority. Sasata (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Since we're here anyways, isn't it convention to not give the authority in parentheses, as that implies the name has been changed? I remember Ucucha pointing that out in one of my GANs. Sasata (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

In zoology, the authority is placed between parentheses when the species is no longer placed in its original genus. Ucucha 18:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Which is the case here, I've added "as Sylvia ignicapilla" to make that clear. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I thought you might find this post, and its subsequent comments, entertaining :) Parrot of Doom 18:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I did. Reddit is fun to watch. Not so fun to cross. --Moni3 (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The Washington Post and The Guardian have the story too. Still, makes FAC easier now the whole of the Internet's PD Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Links? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Unsure which linky is desired, but the original has inspired a Grauniad newsblog which isn't all that informative, and a rather better LAT piece (newsblog?) which gives further links, + the WaPO piece. Another recipe for fun is summarised in a guide by The Rabett, with a shorter followup. Interesting times. One useful link from that leads to the Office of Research Integrity..... dave souza, talk 18:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

PapaJohns.com Bowl

I just reviewed the article. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl/archive1. I'll go ahead and remove it from the template :) —Deckiller (t-c-l) 01:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Query

I have responded to you multiple times; I fail to see the point of another reply, especially since everyone disagreed with me. Nyttend (talk) 03:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Nyttend. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Really?

I've only been keeping a tangential eye on the RfA brouhaha on Jimmy's talk page, but there's a point I wanted to get a clearer view of your opinion on. You really believe that the criteria at RfA are too low? I mean, I agree with you that the process is pretty much broken, and quite a bit for some of the same reasons you do. But you think that the current process lets through unqualified people rather than prevent qualified editors from getting the bit? — Coren ^(talk) 14:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think the false positives are worse than the false negatives. But, I suspect those days are over, and it is no longer a concern-- more people are now looking more closely at the automatic, pile-on, MySpace "popularity" votes. Particularly when the candidate tries to evidence writing ability via DYK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Any time I see a bunch of support votes from people with razzle-dazzle sigs, I know extra scrutiny is needed. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

What's your standard for "razzle dazzle"? :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Does it disrupt the page, is it hard to read around (for folks with old eyes), and is it impossible for newbies or experienced editors to figure out the username and the talk page link. We do not all have young eyes: one has his username in a teensy tiny superscript, others have absurd terminology that doesn't indicate how to find talk, and others are just disruptive on every count imaginable (TonyTheTiger). Others are so colorful that they can't be helpful to vision-impaired editors. Others are so large or so small that they make reading FAC a chore ... it goes on and on. As long as they can't respect my age, I don't have to respect theirs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, Sandy, I don't think readability concerns in regards to eyesight really factor into many people's thinking processes unless they're prompted. I don't think they're all kids, just people who like messing with markup a little too much... you can always leave a polite note at their talk page before you consider them callow whippersnappers (and they view you as Sandy the mean old witch.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen that work, no matter how often I raise it-- and, did it work with TonyTheTiger? Remember how long that went on? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Not really... one of the benefits of not stalking your page that often is I stay out of the loop about most of this stuff (heck, I just found out about the whole Rlevese thing yesterday night.) You've probably tried the usual tactics and you put up with way more bull than I have to, so take my words with as little regard as necessary. :) Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

As someone who had an absurd signature for a time, I can corroborate Herr Fuchs' comment regarding mere playing about with markup (when one considers typewriters to be high technology, the novelty of computers can at times lead to distracting experimentation). Additionally, I found a large red signature to of great use (also by reason of old eyes - and brain to which they're attached) when tracking which FACs I'd reviewed. Bombastic signatures can indeed be a red flag, but the content preceding them should always be judged on its own merit (or lack thereof). Эlcobbola _talk 19:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Correct. I believe I said on Malleus's talk that I had to accord them equal weight, for example, at FAC, but I didn't have to read them on someone else's talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(ecx2)Too many people have hard-to-read signatures. It's annoying if you're an old hand, but for newcomers it's really not good. We should try harder to encourage people not to be excessively fancy. In the relevant part of Preferences it points to the guideline, pointing at Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing_your_signature, but ideally the entirety of the paragraph "When customizing your signature, please keep the following in mind" should be quoted in the Preferences, perhaps in a boxout to the right to separate it from the technical instructions. Anyone know how this might be done? Rd232 ^talk 17:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, I said some days ago that page needed work, and my eyesight ain't gettin' any better, but I don't have time to work on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Well no doubt the policy page can be improved, but it would really help if the Preferences text was clearer and more prominent (though obviously it can't tackle all the issues in the limited space there). Rd232 ^talk 17:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

David: Razzle-dazzle: "a confusing or colorful often gaudy action or display" (M-W). Tri-tones or more, boxes, non-standard characters, easter-egg links. :) --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

And let's not even get in to choice of usernames, which is another problem! Heck, I've got more than one editor mad at me because I have a habit of trying to address editors by name, and often get them wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)