User talk:SandyGeorgia

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

FACs needing feedback view •
Weise's law	Review it now

If you want me to look at an article or a FAC, please provide the link (and have a look at User:Steve/Oppose rationale for some helpful info).
If you have a question about a specific FAC, you will most likely get a wider audience by posting to WT:FAC.
If you are unsure if a FAC is closed, see WP:FAC/ar.
Otherwise, Leave me a message.

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Saw your comment on YF-23 review and I recalled your "association" with TFM: write it! We miss his wit! Farawayman (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that if I ever start writing it, I will become so disgusted at seeing it in print that it will turn in to my "good-bye to Wikipedia" screed: better editors than myself left Wikipedia over what was done to TFM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hallmark

Thanks for helping out with Hallmark of Hall of Fame movie Front of the Classs. I couldn't get the image to work for me, but it's there now and that's what counts. Also thanks for finding more sources and filling the blanks, such as summaries and plots. That's not my kind of thing. I was surprised no other user took the time to make a movie link, when Front of the Class was first announced. Especially since there's so much information out there now for Hallmark movies.

Your help is really appriciated. GiantTiger001 (talk) 07:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Ack! Thanks for the reminder that I was interrupted by Wikidrahmaz just as I was intending to expand that article from the sources. And thanks for getting the ball rolling. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Page move?

Dear SandyGeorgia,

I want to teach my students to be able to modify errors in page title text, and I'm not finding an easily comprehensible explanation surfing in Wikipedia. For example (maybe this is called by another term?), your page title above is: User talk:SandyGeorgia

Please post on my talk page or here, I'll check back. Thank you kindly, KSRolph (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you asking how to alter a page's title? That's called a page move in Wikispeak. In simple cases you can just do it yourself, but sometimes you have to ask an administrator to do it at WP:Requested moves. Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

A quick guide for this can be found at Wikipedia:Moving a page. NW (Talk) 22:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure we want students doing this, though ... I'm imagining a lot of WP:MSH issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

hello

You know you said you would explain something to me if I didn't understand, can you explain why this is still open, when basic elementary mistakes are still being found, people who were heavily involved in improving it are supporting it and that no reviewers commented between Nov 24th and Dec 4th? Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 12:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, could you comment back please? Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 16:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

<grrr ... > In case you're not following my contribs, I am working through a two-week backlog on y talk as quickly as I can, after being absent for more than two weeks due to a funeral, and pinging me twice isn't going to help me work faster. Now, to your question: this is what the FAC looked like the last time I went through FAC before real life called me away. There were two supports, and one struck oppose. Unless a FAC has been open for quite a while without garnering consensus to promote, or unless the page is significantly backlogged, we don't typically close a FAC that has no Opposes. Neither do we necessarily promote a FAC that has only gotten support from involved reviewers. Hope that helps clarify, if not, please feel free to ask further. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay sorry I didn't know. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 16:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Feedback on election coordinators

Since you're involved in User_talk:Tony1#My_ArbCom_election_endorsements:_AGK.2C_Courcelles.2C_Hersfold.2C_Kirill_Lokshin.2C_Roger_Davies, perhaps you would like to share your opinion concerning coordinators' endorsements at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2011/Feedback#Coordinators.2FVolunteers. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Replied there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Tiruchirappalli

I intend to submit this article at the WP:FAC. The article is presently undergoing a peer review. Can you copy-edit this article for prose?-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 15:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, I'm not a very good copyeditor to begin with, and I'm considerably behind because of real life events and the holidays. I wish you luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Health related articles

Hi SandyGeorgia, I appreciate your concerns about the health related citations in the remarriage article, but I'm having trouble addressing them. Interestingly, much of the research on mental and physical health consequences of remarriage has been done by sociologists, so many of the secondary sources/reviews on health and remarriage are published in journals like The Journal of Marriage and Family, which are peer reviewed but not always included in PubMed, so they do not fit that criteria for wikipedia medical sources. Conversely, the primary sources that you tagged as potentially unreliable medical sources are in PubMed and have been cited 52, 94, and 143 times respectively. Also, given that this isn't a super popular, prolific area of research, a 10 year old source is old, but not necessarily outdated, because often there is not funding or motivation to replicate a meta-analysis when the original findings continue to be supported and cited relatively widely. In sum, I understand that the sources that I used are not ideal (I would of course prefer more recent articles, more reviews, etc) but I think they are among the best of what's out there on the topic and the citation counts indicate that the articles are accepted by the scientific community. I have been looking through the articles that cite these sources hoping to find secondary and more recent sources that fit the wiki medical source criteria but keep coming up dry, so I'm not sure what else I can do to show that the findings reported in the remarriage article are representative and accepted (I have additional primary sources I could cite that have similar, supporting findings, but that's about it...). To reiterate, I completely understand where you are coming from and think it's great that wikipedia holds itself to such high standards, but I'm finding it difficult to impossible to meet the standards that were written for biomedical research when I'm reporting research related to overall health and emotional wellbeing conducted though population surveys. Thoughts, suggestions? Thanks! Jmenkin (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Note to self: catch up on this one after Christmas, help Jmenkin understand how to use sources for health-related articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Two part question on footnotes in infoboxes, and how to find GAN and FAN discussions

I have a two-part question. I'm not sure the best place to ask this, but I thought I'd start with my favorite content expert :) I'm having a discussion with an editor about a number of issues, two of which are whether there should be footnotes in infoboxes, and whether material can be in infoboxes, that is not in the article. I asked at the obvious place: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes#References_in_infoboxes.3F, and got largely the answer I expected, but was informed of some exceptions. It was noted that Albert Einstein does have two entries in the infobox with footnotes. I don't agree with that convention, but thought I would look at the GAN or FAN to see if the issue was discussed. So my two part-question:

1. Do you have an opinion on the inclusion of the footnote in Albert Einstein? I was going to give my argument my the footnote on citizenship belonged in the main text, but I see someone has already moved it. However, I do see "Raziuddin Siddiqui" in the infobox with a footnote, but not mentioned in the main text, so this neatly covers both issues.
2. Can you help me find the FA or GA discussion? I think it is usually in an article talk subpage, but I'm not sure how to find it.

(Is there a better person to ask? I have User:Malleus Fatuorum in mind, but you may well know someone else who can help me find the discussion, and/or provide guidance on the conventions.) --SPhilbrickT 13:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)•

Question 2 has now been answered; I'd still be interested in your thoughts or the thoughts of talk page stalkers on whether references in infoboxes are: A fine, B discouraged, but OK in certain classes of cases, C discouraged, but OK if there's no better alternative or D something else. It also occurs to me that there may be a orthogonal answer- they are OK for B and C class articles , less so for GA and not allowed for FA.--SPhilbrickT 21:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The real issue is whether the information in the userbox is contained and referenced in the article. If it is neither, then the article will not receive a B rating. If it only appears in the infobox, then it will need to be cited there in order to get a B; but now there is something that is not covered in the article. It is therefore like the lead; the infobox should be purely a summary of the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I think Hawkeye covers it, but your concerns and questions pretty much sums up why I Hate Infoboxes-- they clunk up the tops of articles with too much information, sometimes summarized incorrectly from the article, sometimes not conducive to short summary, sometimes uncited. I hate them, and don't find it helpful for the FA process to take a stand on how they should be done, since they are just generally awful anyway, and have to be approached on a case-by-case basis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, and welcome back. I confess I like infoboxes, but strongly share you concerns about incorrect summarization, and particularly "sometimes not conducive to short summary". That helps crystallize some specific concerns I've had in a recent incident.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Black mamba

Hi Sandy--

I noticed you commented at Talk:Black mamba/GA1 early on in the GAN process, and marked on the language. I came by the article because I saw some talk page comments go by: see Talk:Black_mamba#first_paragraph_is_poorly_written.3F. To my surprise, the IP who commented is spot on (and reiterates some of your criticism): the first paragraph is indeed poorly written, with needless intensifiers, non-formal language (the contractions are the least of it), and a generally inappropriate tone--yet the article was passed. Can you have a look, please? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry Sandy--I didn't see the note on top of the page until just now. All the best, Drmies (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Drmies. I just glanced at the talk page, and agree that the prose is not optimal, but unless an unworthy GA appears at FAC, I try not to get involved in second-guessing GA reviewers. Other than filing them away in my memory banks of GA reviewers :) :) I happened across that article because I saw it mentioned on someone's talk page (can't recall whose), and it seems the author is some sort of expert, so yea ... it's unfortunate the prose is so rough. Not an issue I want to take on though ... I guess just add your voice to the talk page concerns, unless you're prepared to open a GAR (or ask Malleus to have a look) ... if the author is planning to write more on Wikipedia, it would be nice to bring him or her up to snuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks Sandy. At least it's nice to know that it's not just my old-fashioned way of judging prose--perhaps we have the same, equally old-fashioned ways... I'm not going to bother MF; he said "lol" on this very talk page, below, and I think that's the first time I saw him say that: I wonder if he's alright. I'll bring it up on the talk page, some day. BTW, I think there was a condom called the Black Mamba, years ago, overseas, or perhaps I just invented that cause it sounded like a cool name for a rubber. Also, great work on G-Spot amplification--I decided against the surgery, though. All the best to you and yours, and thanks again for all the good work you do here and for the time you take to advise the rest of us. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

A question

Hi Sandy. How are you feeling now? I present you my sincere condolences. May your relative rest in peace. I just dropped by as I had to ask you... How will I know if the FAC will fail or pass? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

FACs are, from my observation, generally promoted in batches once or twice a week. I've never seen a fixed timeline, and I doubt you'd get a specific date out of the delegates, that's not how this process works. When one of the delegates decides that this is ready for a decision, they will close it as unsuccessful or promote it; I've never seen any attempt to fast-track the process end successfully. Also, don't you think it would have been better to ask a separate delegate, or wait a few days? This seems kinda insensitive to me. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if my post sounded insensitive to you. With all the respect I owe to you, I am 18 years old and like everyone else, I learn through my experiences. For instance, I have now known that leaving such a message to someone who is currently going through a bad phase in her life, is not a good deed. We do not learn everything in our mother's womb itself. Anyway, I am sincerely regretful for my above message. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

My condolences, Sandy.

Jivesh, your article still needs both an image review and a spotcheck of the sources; I also mentioned that on WT:FAC, but apparently not on the FAC itself. I'm unfortunately the only active FAC delegate at the moment, and I've also been fairly busy over the last few weeks, so I don't know when I'll get around to looking at it again. Ucucha (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it has already been done by user THR. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 19:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the condolences: my better half appreciates the kind thoughts. Jivesh, the short answer is that you know if a FAC is promoted or archived when it is ... promoted or archived. As explained at WP:FAC:

The FA director, Raul654—or one of his delegates, SandyGeorgia, Karanacs, and Ucucha—determines the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the director or his delegate determines whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director or his delegate:

• actionable objections have not been resolved;
• consensus for promotion has not been reached;
• insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
• a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

The real question is timing; during the holidays, if the page is not too backlogged, I try to let them run longer as editors tend to be busy. On the other hand, when the page is backlogged or when we are not in a holiday season, a FAC without consensus to promote may be more quickly archived. I see this FAC has several opposes and several supports, and the opposes are older. Have you pinged all of the previous opposers asking them to revisit the FAC? Because I was busy with the funeral for over two weeks, and because Ucucha was holding down the fort alone, it will help if you do all you can to make sure the FAC is clean and legible, all items addressed, before one of us sits down to read through it carefully to see if all actionable opposes have been addressed and all necessary items have been reviewed. Best of luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for replying Sandy. Yes, everything has been addressed and I did not contact the editors who opposed only one time; I did that several times. And they are active... I wonder why they do not want to come back so that we can reach a consensus. Actually there are two opposes and around 11 or 12 supports. The media review was done today while the spotchecks were done around a week (or more) ago. Thanks for wishing me luck Sandy. I really appreciate your courage (I know you just went through a difficult phase) and especially your devotion to Wikipedia. Sandy, I hope the FAC will not suffer if they do not comment back? I cannot force them to come if (it seems that) they do not want to. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Working on a note to the WMF regarding the Global Education Program

And wondering if you could comment / add further ideas here. Thanks --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Added one there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiWomenCamp

Hi. You do a lot of fantastic work with Wikipedia and the Featured Article process. Given that, I wanted to personally invite you to attend WikiWomenCamp being held in Buenos Aires, Argentina in May 2012. This is a women's only conference, followed by a two day gender gap conference open to every one. Your experiences and knowledge base would be a great thing to add to the event. :) --LauraHale (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

What do I do here? Let this go so folks trying to improve Wikipedia can get on with it or point out the confusing incongruity of trying to achieve gender equality by having a 2-day women's-only conference? --Moni3 (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Fostering gender equality in one domain - editing wikipedia - by an unequal gender initiative in another, does not seem that strange. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, there are plenty of opportunities for men to be distracted by (apparently) self-contradictory activities that (allegedly) have nothing to do with improving the encyclopedia: similar opportunities should be available for women, should they not? Geometry guy 00:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It's quite strange. But I can't figure out which part. The women's only part or the conference to discuss gender equality for editors? I work in an environment dominated by women. I mean--seeing a man is a rare occasion. It's a very strange place I tell you, and not like any other experience I've known. I'm a woman, too...who really likes other women. But it's quite unrealistic in comparison with other places (and I confuse myself by writing that sentence). And I've also been to workshops and conferences where the agendas are accompanied by horrible clip art and people write lists and draw pictures on large easels and tape their lists to the walls. I've particularly been to conferences where the central discussion is What It Means to Be a Part of This Minority. In the end, all it does is reinforce the attendees' perception that they're a minority, and shore up a useless identity while offering nothing in the way of solving any real problems. I'll put it right out there: I'm a horrible student in every way so no doubt this is coloring my assumptions of what's going to take place. --Moni3 (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I found the Argentina part far stranger. I would've thought the US is where the money's at. I saw the meta page for the conference and was interested for a few seconds until I saw the Argentina part. I'm pretty certain I'm not the only one either. ^OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 00:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, that too. I'm nearly eating cardboard. I don't understand the concept of folks flying to Argentina to discuss gender equality. --Moni3 (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I am all for doing something about the gender gap, but so far the attempts have been laughable. I recently saw a geonotice saying something along the lines of "Teach women how to edit Wikipedia and help narrow the gender gap" or something, implying that the reason we don't have many women is that they don't know how to edit, rather than they can't find reason to edit...and now they're holding a conference about it in a part of the world where the editor demographic is so low it's part of the strategic outreach plans. Baffling. ^OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 01:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I see the spoor of a conference aimed at Wiki-interested academics, with research budgets for travel, rather than at editors. Iridia (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

"We wanted an opportunity for women (by gender or sex) to get together, learn from each other's experience, network with other women who can assist us in meeting our goals, feel like we are part of the Wiki Ohana, discuss issues related to being women involved in the wider wiki community, and share our passions with similar, like minded women. Unlike a conventional conference, where everything's pre-planned and structured, WikiWomenCamp is a gathering where we decide for ourselves what we're going to get out of it by offering sessions each morning on whatever we want (and of course ad hoc sessions can form at any time). There's no agenda until we make it up!" [1] That does not seem like you say it does. --Moni3 (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Eh; having an unconference/barcamp format just makes it friendly. If it was in Oz, I might even have thought about going. Iridia (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless its happening in your own backyard, academics tend not to touch unconferences. Publish and perish. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

As quoted by a true expert, this sounds like the kind of woolly-headed liberal thinking that leads to being eaten. --Moni3 (talk) 03:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Can we give each other manicures and drink peach bellinis? Kafka Liz (talk) 03:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll come and provide pedicures for everyone if someone picks up my airfare. Woohoo! I'll be all y'all's soul mate, but don't tell Mrs. Drmies--trips to Argentina have been the undoing of less powerful men. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't be interested in attending such a "conference", but unlike others, am intrigued that it's being held in Argentina, where women (Jews, and basically anyone who is not a Roman Catholic male) have to struggle more for equality than in other Latin American countries. I've always wanted to return there to see if I'll dislike Buenos Aires as much as I did when I lived there, if the food etc has improved, and to visit friends. And to visit my beloved jacaranda in my backyard. Really weird premise for a conference, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm a Roman Catholic male (well a lapsed Catholic anyway, I could soon look out my rosary and pick up the traces again), but sadly I'm not a Nazi war criminal, so I doubt I'd fit in. Malleus Fatuorum 16:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I hope at least one of you goes, so the en:wp quality content view is represented, not to say presented. Johnbod (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

@ Malleus -- one found among my neighbors, but here's what went on in Argentina when I lived there. If a company had to let people go, first went the Jewish women, next went the Jewish men, next went the Catholic women, last went the Catholic men. Some exceedingly competent Jewish women had a hard time holding their jobs-- which I have to say is decidely different from the situation when I lived in Venezuela, where if you were competent, your demographics weren't a factor. Of course, that has changed-- now it's all about whether you're a chavista. Yes, gender et al are issues in Argentina, but what ails Wikipedia ain't gonna be solved there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Re Johnbod et al, I agree with this. Within my quite limited experience, the women involved in writing quality articles generally don't seem to think gender disparity is a prominent issue to be tackled. I'm not quite sure why that is. Different venue? Women writing articles don't care? People generally editing in high quality articles are more respectful? HA! Har! Roflcopter. --Moni3 (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That's often struck me as well, as has the number of females writing quality content. From my perspective it seems that there's hardly any gender inequality at all among the editors I come across, and certainly nothing even approaching the 12 or 13% claimed by the WMF. Malleus Fatuorum 17:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Argentina is a hell of a lot closer than the US. Cheaper too. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It is useful to compare this initiative with the women friendly and racial-minority friendly orientations that have been held at many colleges in the U.S. Writing poetry to the clitoris or discussing Afrocentrism for a week have failed to improve academic performance; the impact on that useless U.S.-obsession, "self-esteem", is irrelevant, given self-esteem being non-predictive of anything interesting.

What has been effective in improving academic performance are activities to improve human capital, e.g. by providing challenging college-level enrichment before college. Georgia Tech's program to improve African American performance was particularly hot, some years ago.

These examples suggest that a womens' only camp organized by leading writers---e.g., organized by the ten or so women named by SG on this page a month or so ago---that focuses on improving research and writing skills would be valuable, while a "sisterhood is powerful" discussion of experiences would not. (However, regardless of its efficacy, a weekend of airing grievances would provide a public display of moralism, by Sue Gardner and the WMF, as similar public displays of moralism and elite needs for conformity have kept DARE to keep kids off drugs running for years.)

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't cry for me Argentina. K.W. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 16:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm yet to be convinced that females face different problems here than the rest of us do. If the argument, for instance, is that females are less able to deal with conflict, that goes against all logic and reason and is certainly contrary to my own experience. They may tend to deal with it differently, but mothers have been fearlessly defending their children for tens of thousands of years. I'm really inclined towards the view that many women are just more interested in other stuff than grafting away here to create, say, a corpus of work on medieval English bishops. Malleus Fatuorum 19:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you implying that I might be a bit "bent"?? (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 20:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. I think you're probably a real fox. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 20:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how that translates to American, so I just wanted to explain that "fox" is a term we use here in dear old blighty for a sexy lady ... I kind of think I'm probably making things worse so I'll say no more. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 20:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You are quite right Malleus. There is no reason to believe that the reasons for a lack of feminine participation are different from those for males. The idea behind improving female participation is, as you say, that instead of creating articles on obscure medieval bishops, they would craft articles on topics of more interest to women, like obscure diseases. :) Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

What's obscure about me improving the sum of all human knowledge from this to this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That article hit the spot! With belated thanks and deep (but not too deep) sincerity,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yea, well, put that in TCO's pipe and smoke it; for a few hours' work after the request appeared at WT:MED, who's generating true value for readers here, huh? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that the observation that there are roughly equal numbers of males and females, yet very different proportions editing Wikipedia (a larger difference than can arise by chance), suggests that it is worth exploring the reasons for not editing by gender. I further suggest that inviting female editors to a conference may not be the best way to uncover these differences. Are you familiar with the famous WWII Operations Research study involving armour locations on aircraft (mentioned in the article)? If you want to know why females do not edit, it would be better to ask females who do not edit, rather than those that do.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Why, I do declare, this must be the first mention of Operations Research on my talk page, but one doesn't have to be an OR analyst to acknowledge that revelation :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh I totally agree, I just mentioned OR because I first came across it in an OR class, and whenever I think about OR, it is the first thing I think of. (OK, second, but simplex algorithm is not something to bring up in cocktail party conversations.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The first thing I think of is Curtis Eaves suspenders are too tight (showoff), and Veinott chasing me around the faculty sofa. YMMV. You must be attending the wrong cocktail parties! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

My Sincere Wishes For This Festive Season

		★*★*★*★*★*★*★*★* Merry Christmas And Happy New Year 2012 *★*★*★*★*★*★*★*★
		I Wish You And Your Family A Merry Christmas And A Happy New Year 2012. May The New Year Bring Much Happiness, Prosperity, Peace, And Success In Your Life. I Am Very Happy To be Part of Wikipedia And To Have Great Friends Like You. Cheers. - From A Big Fan of ----> Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Malaysia FAC3

Sorry if these FAC questions are a bother, but I question (no doubt with bias) as to whether a FAC should be closed as no consensus if for two weeks of the three (basically the past 14 days) the FAC was open the article in question was under full protection due to one errant editor. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Considering the circumstances, and the holidays, I think it will have a much better chance coming back when everyone is fresh in the New Year. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright, cheers. Happy holidays! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Holiday wishes...

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

giraffe

Why are you closing it so early? Some members may not be done with the reviews. LittleJerry (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

One to ten days might be considered early: more than three weeks is not at all early by any definition. Also, with the way reviews are lagging and some ill-prepared FACs are sapping resoures, you'll have a better shot after the holidays. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

There are others that have the same problem. LittleJerry (talk) 07:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Christmas cheese

	Seasonal greetings and much happiness for 2012!
	Your work is much appreciated even if the word is not always spoken. Brianboulton (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC) (This historic image shows Brian, on the right, requesting a peer review from Malleus Fatuorum, on the left). The spirit of SandyGeorgia hovers between them.

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Jonathan_Agnew/archive1

Hi Sandy. Two different comments about this. I'm aware that the FAC attracted no supports, but it's been open a good bit less than your usual month. The one opposer is actively engaged in dialogue at the FAC and the article talk. And there's tons of work just been completed that reviewers had requested at the article talk. Feels a bit premature to me, but that's your decision and I'll live with it. More seriously, your closing edit would be rather bemusing to non FAC regulars. Including the edit summary, which should be in the message itself really. Would you like help composing something more explanatory and encouraging? --Dweller (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

There are many notions circulating around FAC whose origin is always a mystery to me-- the idea that three supports is a promote, for example, and where is the idea of "(my) usual month" coming from? Once upon a time, FACs were promoted in four days, and archived in ten-- now we routinely see FACs running up to three weeks. I'm inclined to let them run when the page isn't backlogged, but not during the holidays when nothing is moving. That particular article, according to the commentary, came to FAC ill-prepared, and I let it run longer than usual in the hopes we'd see it turn around in a few weeks-- it didn't, and a fresh start after the holidays will probably be the fastest route to the star. Why does an edit summary of more than three weeks, no support concern you? In the future I could just say "closed", since the FAC instructions and the closed template already say everything that needs to be said ... confused here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikibreak

{{wikibreak}}

Here's hoping this is not serious, and short.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Me too.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back. "Disgusted", I can live with. Absent, not so much.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is really just a small core of people that actually keeps this place running. I think we need to make sure the foundation knows this... I am not convinced of the long tail and wish to see evidence of its importance. Happy holidays BTW.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I am convinced of the long tail phenomenon, but like many things, the pendulum can swing too far. Has the long tail been under-appreciated? Yes, I think it has. Is the long tail what solely matters? No, not even close. We needs IP edits, and we need editors like SG.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The WMF spends much of its time and effort promoting the long tail yet it is the long time editors that generate most of the high quality content and make the content consistent across articles. I am not suggesting that they should be ignored just that they are currently being paid too much attention relative to long time editors. We need to develop methods to attract serious editors. Will let people know if I discover any of these methods :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I have just a few things to say

Thanks to all who wished me well over the holiday, and for the encouraging words above. Happy holidays and best wishes for a joyous New Year to all!!

After spending seven months moving and under construction, living for a long while without a kitchen even and with most of my life in boxes, things finally settled down for me in November, and by mid-November, I had gotten my hands on four new medical journal reviews to begin a long-needed update of sources on Tourette syndrome.

Then, instead of turning my attention finally to article work, TCO launched his "manic manifesto", The Signpost fed it (when it would have died an early death if ignored), time was wasted in addressing those issues, and just as was ready to begin the update to TS I had long planned, I had a funeral to deal with. In the interim, TCO adherents decided to make Tourette syndrome (an FA written by me) the object of their affections, so I've had to deal with a number of unnecessarily uninformed comments on the TS talk page, not curiously also including IP edits (the IRC factor). Some folks-- who know nothing of the topic or FA writing-- have decided that only articles that get high page views (as TS does) should be eligible to be Featured articles, and they want them run on the mainpage when they want them, and that they are going to make prose changes to their liking even when wrong, even if the only editor who knows the sources well says, not now. Now, that we have these officious intermeddlers making content contributors chase their tails is bad enough, but that was not the final straw for me ...

The final straw, leading me take some time off, was the "friendly fire"-- another FA writer touting his own FAs[2] and taunting a fellow FA writer while blocking him.[3] One of the great joys of being involved at FAC has been working with some of Wikipedia's best editors, and it is working with such people that encourages me to stay here. When FA writers are already under fire from the uninformed, it's most discouraging to see someone with numerous FAs to their credit touting them like this-- it disgusted me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome Sandy. :) I am quite sad for Malleus. He helped me a lot and I appreciate his way of stating things directly as they are, without beating around the bush. It's better to be honest than to be a hypocrite. Well, we will see what happens next. And I wish you more beautiful opportunities in your career. We all love you here. Take care. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Sandy, I'll be thinking of you this holiday season. You've been a great inspiration to many many editors on Wikipedia; you should feel proud of your accomplishments here and that so often you are right (though sometimes it takes a while for people to get the message!). I'm sorry to find this message on your page but fully understand the reasons. The frustrations are huge and all to often overwhelming. Be well and best. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree this isn't worth fuzzing about, we need to protect our most valuable article writers, and all this drama right or wrong is causing too much damage. Take a short break and come back refreshed. Secret ^account 04:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas, Sandy! - Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

	Season's greetings and best wishes for 2012!
	Thanks for all you do here, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Merry Christmas. I hope that the holiday season is going well, and that the coming year is a good one for you. Cheers. :) MastCell ^Talk 23:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

	Season's greetings!
	I hope the holiday season is relaxing and fulfilling, and that 2012 will be fruitful for you. --John (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

	Merry Christmas
	And from me, a happy NSW Xmas bush Xmas from us all down here in Oz (damn, should have 5x expanded that for this Xmas...is there still time I wonder....) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

	Love
	from Graham Colm (talk) 00:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

	Happy Holidays!
	Hope you and your family have an enjoyable holiday season. Keep in mind that no matter what frustrates you here, there will always be a dedicated core of congenial editors and writers that you can fall back on, eg. everyone above. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Happy holidays

		Happy holidays.
		Best wishes for joy and happiness. Hope you have a great one! Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 00:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

O How can I forget you?? Sorry for that may you have a wonderful holiday. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 06:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

hi

Can you cast your eyes over S&M (song) and tell me if it is FA worthy? Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 03:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you see this? Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 16:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but haven't gotten to it, because I've been determined to finally overhaul an FA I wrote six years ago after recently getting my hands on four new review, that task requires my full concentration, and I need to look at FAC. I was hoping a Talk Page Stalker would do the task :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, well I saw you had replied to everyone else apart from me below so I just wanted to check. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 16:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization in citations

I take issue with a comment you made at User talk:Fconaway. You wrote "We don't use capital case in article titles on Wikipedia-- we use sentence case (which means we don't capitalize the words in the article titles)." That would be true for the title of articles published in Wikipedia, but in that context, it seems to refer to the capitalization of the title of works cited in Wikipedia. As it says in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles "There is no standard for formatting citations on Wikipedia, but the format should be consistent within any one article." So the only standard for capitalization of source titles is the style manual adopted for a particular Wikipedia article, or the established practice in a particular Wikipedia article. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with you, but it's moot, since the bot is altering citation style on articles I wrote and I use sentence case in medical articles and all articles, as does the Diberri script which is widely used across medical articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Compatibility mode

See Compatibility mode. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks-- that was all Greek to me, but I just clicked around, found I'm on IE9, clicked on Tools, and see I have a checkmark next to Compatibility ... so I suppose I just uncheck it? Is doing that going to mess up anything beyond all repair. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't; but it'll be reversible in any case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Unchecked compatability mode, haven't noticed what effect that has, WP:FA still slow to load with flatlist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

24 FAC

Sorry about the mess-up with the templates. FAC is an area I am completely new to. I'll fix up my errors on the FAC page tomorrow concurrently with addressing issues to the article (as I am editing from an iPhone at present). Sorry again :) Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 11:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem, but templates are avoided at FAC because they cause template limits to be exceeded in the archives, and if you respond to every point as you work on it, the FAC will grow enormously long-- possibly discouraging other reviews. It can sometimes to be more effective to address as many changes as you can, and just add a diff to the bottom, to avoid a lengthy FAC. ALso, don't add your commentary to the same line as the reviewer, or we can't tell who said what. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Understood on the templates. With regards to responding to each point as I go, that somewhat makes sense, but say some things I can fix on the spot while others need clarification (Nick posted a lot of points to be addressed). How would you do it? Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 12:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry-- no wrong or right way-- just be aware if you chunk up the page with a lot of updating, the FAC grows too long, subsequent reviewers think there may be problems and may not engage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, so fix lots then note they've been fixed all in one edit (though noting what was fixed?) Gotcha. (P.S. - I knew there was bound to be issues with the article I just couldnt see them. I guess that's partly what FAC is for. Bear with the noob here). Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 12:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Mentor

Sure, I would be up for it, I will see if he is interested in being mentored. Sorry for your loss, hope you have a better new year.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Good luck there! Heck, what's up with the weather out there? We deferred the ski trip til January, to combine it with a Very Important Birthday, but now I see that there is still no snow, so a big dilemma about whether to cancel again and miss the big birthday. Bad bad bad news for the economy, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Dunno, it is weird..we've had no snow yet, but it's still cold. Although we hit the 60s the past 2 days, and had a little rain there is no sign of snow in the near future.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Grrr ... just watch, it will start snowing the minute I cave and cancel my flights :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Tiger FAC nomination

So the nomination is not going to stand? I didn't do much work on the article, but I'm well versed in the subject. However, I understand what you mean and the policies surrounding it. The Tiger article is an incredibly substantial article about one of the most well-known, easily recognized, and universally loved animals on this planet. All subspecies are highly endangered. It is the largest feline on earth - two tiger subspecies, the Bengal tiger (current research puts average male at 235 kilograms (518 lb) (Sunquist et al.) and the Siberian tiger (which can grow to sizes over 340 kilograms (750 lb), but current research shows an average male between 500-550 lb (Mazak et al), outweigh the second largest cat (the African lion, which is a FA) by over 45.5 kilograms (100 lb), as the male African lion averages 181 kilograms (399 lb) (Packer, West, and Sunquist et al). A third subspecies, the Indochinese tiger is the same size as the African lion. The tiger is the largest land carnivore in the world, if you consider the polar bear to be a marine mammal (which some scientists do) and the brown bear's (Kodiak's and Grizzly's) diets consist mostly of vegetation and fruits (over 90%, with the majority of the rest being fish and only about 2% consists of real meat). It is a travesty that the article of the Tiger isn't a FA article yet, it's isn't even a GA article. I think those that have helped develop the article should be nudged and perhaps even told to begin trying to take this article to a status it deserves. Bastian (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

All of that information is interesting, but as Casliber can tell you, a highly experienced group of editors worked for months, if not years, to bring lion to FA, it was quite a task even for highly experienced FA writers, and it subsequently deteriorated and was brought to WP:FAR since it's so hard to keep these popular articles up to snuff (everyone thinks they know something). Since you have little experience with either FAs or GAs (or the kind of sourcing and writing required) I would think you'd want to bring in some collaborators for such a difficult article and broad topic, to better prepare the article, but if you want to nominate it, I can't prevent it (although I can warn you it's likely to be slapped down fast)-- I removed the template from article talk because it was never trancluded at FAC and because you didn't respond on the FAC for two days, even though you were editing, which is never a good sign. You might want to consult some of the folks who worked on lion to understand just how much more work is needed, particularly since it's not even a GA yet. But I can't tell you not to nominate it-- if you want to, it's your choice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

No I'm not stubborn or stupid so I'm going to take your advice and not nominate it. The problem with these kinds of articles (tiger, lion, elephants, or any other very popular animal, etc) is that you got a lot of people that think they know something or think they have something to add, but it really isn't something they can cite a source for, or it's original research or just plain mythical claims (mostly IP editors do this kind of stuff). I had a terrible time with the black mamba article with this kind of stuff, however I eventually prevailed and got it to GA status and I can honestly claim that I did it on my own. I really don't know who the main tiger editors are. To begin working on the tiger article to bring it up to FA status, we are going to need a team. Not just any editors, but editors who know what they are doing and know the subject well. I know this particular cat and its subspecies relatively well and I can bring something to the table, but like you said this requires a team of editors. So no, I am not going to nominate it but I am going to try to assemble a team and get that article to FA status. Key word is try. Bastian (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's debatable whether black mamba should be a GA, there are significant prose issues and it doesn't appear that the reviewer was up to snuff; that prose and sourcing wouldn't make it at FAC. I hope you can work with editors like Casliber and Mike Searson to improve those articles-- you can learn a lot from them. There is a good core of biology editors, and it will take all of them to get tiger to FA standards. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Bastian I worked up lion years ago and intended to follow up one day with tiger but found the extinction issue with them too depressing. Big articles require alot of work. Have a look at the GAN and FAC pages for American White Ibis and White Stork - both of these ended up being a major work, some of which was due to me not being as thorough as I would before nominating. Tiger needs alot of work. Also see LittleJerry's experience with giraffe. I agree these should all be improved. Have a think about which one you'd like to prioritise and then go from there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Bastion I know nothing about Tigers but I'm fairly experienced at copyediting. I'm also a dab hand at tidying articles up so that visually they're free of clutter and are easy to understand. If you'd like my help (I've done the FAC thing many times now) drop me a line on my talk page. Parrot of Doom 00:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all for the advice. I'm a relatively new editor, so I still have a lot of catching up to do. In regards to the black mamba article, I just asked a GA mentor to help me with the prose. I agree it's not great, but the article is neutral, no original research, sources are good, etc. Bastian (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Cool beans, looks like you're on the right path, and plenty of people are willing to dig in! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

TFA alert

Yes, we have no bananas.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm on it. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess that means it must be New Year's Eve ... doesn't feel like with a cold in the nose in the house. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Re edit break, that's fine. Sorry about the choppiness, I was looking at it and deciding whether to move it but you got there first.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It got weird, IMO, because of My76's off-topic misstatement of anything I said or believe, which led to me presenting an example, which led to unnecessary warning ... <groan> ... I think the breaks now separate out the off-topic stuff from the discussion I intended when I started the section. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

2012

This seems somewhat inappropriate under the current circumstances, but wanted to stop by to wish you a Happy New Year! I hope that 2012 is less stressful than last year. Take care, Truthkeeper (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Last year was very good to me. December was the problem :) Happy New Year to you, too! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about the toaster oven and all. That hasn't sounded like it was much fun. But anyway, yeah, December has not been a great month. I'm looking forward to January! Truthkeeper (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year Sandy

Best Wishes for 2012, love from Graham Colm (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

...and a happy new year from me too! May 2012 bring more sanity to this place :) Geometry guy 00:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

...and a happy new year from me too! Glad to see you editing TS again. Wishing you and your TPS more content and less drama in 2012. Colin°^Talk 12:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Your Arbitration evidence is too long

Hello, SandyGeorgia. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Civility enforcement Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, of User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Words words and User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Diffs diffs maximum, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 569 words and 6 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT^(talk) 00:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It's crazy ... to stay under 500 words, I'm diluting my statement and changing its meaning ... pls re-check? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You've made one of the most convincing cases I've ever seen for what I've always said about the unevenness of civility enforcement. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello SandyGeorgia, if you believe the word limit is preventing you from adding useful information, you can ask the Arbitrators to look into a length exception for you. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but it's not about me-- this is a sprawling, huge case with a long backstory, and everyone is restricted to 500 words. I don't see how we can get there from here. I managed to rework and cut down my evidence (after some hypersensitive folks came in here with pitchforks over things I was never saying but that wasn't clear because of the word restriction), and I also wonder what good it would do anyone to go over the 500 words in a such a sprawling case. Why did the arbs accept this case, and what kind of evidence do they want to see? Hersfold very specifically asked for example, I gave one only because he asked, and I got pitchforks in return. It would be far more helpful for some arbs to say, in a case with this scope, what evidence is lacking, and then hope someone who hasn't already opined can cover it in their 500 words. But thanks :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Drama Llamas and IRC

Previously you've mentioned IRC. The relevant IRC channel (freenode#wikipedia-en-admins) appears to only keep private logs available to the Arbitrators: Per their off-wiki spiel. Would you like to go halves in requesting by motion that arbitrators seek and examine such logs (as the off-wiki organisation accords them this power?) The same availability of "secret" logs may be true for other "official" IRC channels that nominally discuss en wikipedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope, I'm done here. Experienced editors who should know better are either whining or grinding axes, and the whole place makes me sick All I do is work so others can get their top content on the mainpage, and all they do is shoot at each other, with a bunch of petty complaints. Of course, if I said Wikipedia is leaking cum out of its butthole, I'd be blocked or some admin newbie would come by to have a friendly chat with me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You just did say it. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 23:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Watched talk pages

Thanks for your note. If I understand correctly, the fact that I have the page watchlisted means I probably saw the comment in question. Unfortunately, I have too many pages on my watchlist to follow every edit. I've got over 3500 user pages on my watchlist out of a total of 14,646 pages. I barely notice what people post to my own user talk page, much less what's posted elsewhere (though I occasionally see and respond to postings I do notice). Anyway, best of luck with your case and happy new year.   Will Beback  talk  00:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I know ... crazy that I had to notify everyone mentioned there, but there you have it ... understood ! Happy New Year, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. I have 5,300+ pages on my watch list. To suggest that there's an inherent unfairness in the way certain named admins treat people because they may not have looked at every diff on their watch list seems comprehensively unfair to me. If you find it crazy to notify everyone, why would you consider it evidence in the first place? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I could answer that question here, but what good would that do when the 500-word limit prevents me from answering it on the Evidence page, where it belongs? I'm going to try to wrap my brain around how to fix this problem within 500 words, and come back to it in the pm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't care about the 500 word limit. I want to know (here or anywhere else) why I'm being personally cited for some level of negligence in missing out on another user's bad behaviour. I've had rare fallings out with Malleus, usually content rather than behaviour related. The concept that some talk on some page at some point that I missed makes me complicit in some kind of anti-MF behaviour is unacceptable to me. This is a really bad start to the year, what a shame. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope it won't reflect on your year, because if it does, you're starting off the New Year taking things much too seriously-- there is nothing there that reflects on you. As I said, I'll wrap my head around a way to address it within the 500-word limit, but I'm finding that limit to be ... absurd ... for reasons like this one. TRM, sometimes chilling out and keeping a sense of perspective really isn't a bad thing :) Happy New Year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully you understand that citing an uninvolved admin's inability or inactivity in a case of serious abuse going unobserved is a bad thing. Perhaps you have your own perspective on the whole Malleus thing, and perhaps it's not worth dragging unconcerned and uninvolved editors into it. Yes, perhaps I have lost my sense of humour, but being cited in front of Arbcom because I happen to have admitted to watching a talk page and then being passively accused of double standards means I've have well and truly lost faith in, well, at least you Sandy. Maybe I've missed a bigger point, having spent Christmas with family and friends. Maybe you could enlighten me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, just in simple words, why am I cited on an Arbcom case that has nothing to do with me? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You are cited for nothing more than being a talk-page watcher: why you presume more than that is a mystery, and why you won't wait for me to address the issue considering the 500-word limit is an irritation and a reflection that you are being extremely thin-skinned. Not to mention, seriously demotivating me to figure out a way to fix it on a page where I'm restricted to 500 words and I'm at that limit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

So your presumption is a talk page watcher sees everything and should act upon every edit? Many of us watch 1,000s of pages, we can't see the odd indiscretion. What's your problem here, you are aware that you can use more than 500 words on your talk page, or my talk page or any other page other than the Arbcom circus you've added your evidence to, surely? And as for "seriously demotivating", take the first message of 2012 to be "you're incidental" and a link to yet another waste of Wiki-space. Seriously, where did the content go? Your message has been the most demotivating thing I've encountered for years. Thin-skin or not. Seriously. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

TRM, Sandy has asked for time to figure out how to cram a whole bunch of stuff into 500 words. Why not give her some space, say for 24 hours? She's obviously aware of your concern. Give her some time to work on it without seeing orange bars everywhere (sorry Sandy for the orange bar :). We've got one whole new year to go, and every one of us works one screen at a time. Franamax (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

TRM, I would like to heartily invite you to absent yourself from this discussion until you can gather your senses. There is nothing so discouraging as contemplating all the work I do for FAC and FA writers, than to realize that some folks really only care about themselves, first and foremost, and can't see the big picture or wait a few hours for something to be addressed. This reminds me of what I said when I took a break after Hawkeye's comments during the Malleus block: I have no interest in working for people who act like this. As you misstated eslewhere, no, I am not nearly as upset about what is being done in Malleus's name as I am in realizing how many people here are entirely self-serving. You may go away now-- I've removed your name from the evidence page, so we have nothing further to discuss. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for removing my name as I had nothing to do with this unpleasantness. I have my senses fully gathered, in "technicolor" (tm) in a tall jar, just by the front door, next to the stuffed dog (of course, that's standard in the UK, I added a Santa hat for the festivities but that will have to go by the 6th). Hopefully the MF and TCO situation will work out, I will spend the time reviewing potentially featured material and doing the odd peer review. That's all I've done lately. You may note that from my contributions. I'm not a hostile editor, but when I get suddenly drawn into something as terrible and terrifying as a case against/for Malleus, I feel the right to defend myself. I'm not self-serving, holy crap, I've worked here for six years deliberately not to be self-serving. What good would that do me? Do I frequent AN? Do I hover around AN/I or or the other crap? No. I just get on with it and do content stuff. That's why I got the hump when I was seemingly accused of neglecting my duty as an admin. Anyway. It's 2012 now, and despite my first Wikipedia message being an Arbcom notification from you, I wish you, and the rest of the Wiki-verse a happy new year. Christ know's we need one. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

An alternate response to a routine notification of a non-issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm busy prepping stuff for the main page so perhaps you could just let this go now? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol alliance

Hi SandyGeorgia, FYI, I have nominated Franco-Mongol alliance for FA status. Because of our past interactions, it is probably best though if you are not involved with the nom, thanks. Best wishes and Happy New Year, --Elonka 19:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

W. E. B. Du Bois: quick question for someone with good eyes

Sorry but my eyes suck - I can't see the difference between an emdash and an endash. Can you or a TPS scan this page to see whether the dashes are emdashes or endashes (they look like emdashes to me), and let me know so I can strike this very minor MoS issue. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

From someone else with awful eyesight, here's a cheat:

- hyphen

– endash

— emdash

You can find them on the "Insert" line below your edit window. So, go to the article, in edit mode, edit copy one of those, then edit paste it to do a ctrl-f find on endashes, then another on emdashes, then another on hyphens. That way, even if your "eyes" can't see them, your computer will tell you which they are :) In this case, my preliminary look says we're good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I use the insert line, but hadn't thought of find function. That's a good trick. Thanks. I always have trouble with them unless it's a page I've been working on myself. I'll get back to the review later. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You can also go to your gadgets tab and enable wikEd, which puts a little blue "n" above every endash in the edit window, and a similar "m" above every emdash. I fixed a couple of minor problems in W. E. B. Du Bois and I think it's MOSDASH compliant now. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 09:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

FAS

Could you please check my update of Wikipedia:Featured article statistics from the 1st - I just worry if no one double checks it for any stupid mistakes I might have made. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Will do ... and thank you so much, once again, for getting to that before I did! Happy New Years, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks good-- not sure what we can do to get the FAR folk to archive at month-end, though, since that link is typically red. I've raised it before, so maybe they're not concerned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Geometry guy and I take care of the monthly PR maintenance, so I usually remember to do or at least look at the FAS update each month as well.

I asked on Dana Boomer's talk page about creating the FAR archive. I wonder if a bot could do it - if each FAR had a category added when it closed (kept or demoted) and the bot ran once a month. I might ask on Talk:FAR, and then see if CBM could add this to one of his bot's tasks... Thanks again, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for following up on that-- I historically kept my hands off, even when updating the FAS page, because Marskell was fond of creating the FAR archive himself. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I will wait and see what the response is to my request to make the Dec archive. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Greetings

To you as well, Sandy! [4] If there's ever a FAC genuinely in the lurch, drop me a message and I'll try to stop by. Эlcobbola _talk 18:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

No can do-- then you'll be accused of being one of my groupies by the very same people who claim I should do more to reach out-- nice Catch-22, huh? :) Wonderful to see your face now and then, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Not being in your seat, I have the luxury of disregarding the opinions of those so woefully devoid of intelligence. :) Эlcobbola _talk 18:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

There are many kinds of intelligence-- foxes are sly and clever, for example! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The many varieties of intelligence are dwarfed by the infinite diversity of stupidity. MastCell ^Talk 18:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that Yoman can trump that for top billing! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, he has, the darn adorable one! [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

You Americans will forever remain a mystery to me, but I just popped in to say that "fox" where I live has two meanings, the most common of which is a sexy lady. There's a kind of dog-like animal called a fox as well I believe, but they're far rarer. Malleus Fatuorum 05:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Sadly where I live the animals are far more common, shitting in the garden every night. But I believe the ladies are an American usage originally. Johnbod (talk) 05:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

You want a mystery? LeadSongDog come howl! 05:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

FAC's and stuff

About what I said on the FAC talk page, I hope I didn't offend you at all. You really are doing a wonderful job, and don't often get enough credit. I was wondering, is there anything else I should do for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Typhoon Gay (1992)/archive1? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Me too hopes I didn't offend; it would be unfair to add to your stress level with so much poop flying in every direction. From what I saw of other processes that had such a poor track record of resolution, whenever people are yelling about something, it's best to get that off the table first before discussing more productive things. I will, of course, be supporting Raul, Ucucha and you in your roles. - Dank (push to talk) 17:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

From someone who does a lion's share of the work at FAC (along with a few others), that's appreciated! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks H and D. Hurricanehink, I don't think there's anything else you need to do on that FAC now—it looks like it's nearing the finish line. Ucucha (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ucucha, I've finished reviewing the "older nominations", am breaking for lunch, and can continue 'above the line' after lunch, unless you want to take those on? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Not today, but I can look through those tomorrow. Ucucha (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I should be able to get through some of them today-- I'm prioritizing working from the oldest, since the rash of new reviews has meant there's a lot to read. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:Featured article candidates/Boeing 767/archive1

Spotchecks completed, ready for takeoff! Sasata (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Sasata, and thanks for all you do-- I need lunch and will resume after I've had nourishment! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Admiration

FAC loses a lot in losing you as a delegate, but I am full of admiration for the work you have done there, and for your dedication to Wikipedia in general. Your heartfelt desire to make the best positive impact you can in whatever way you can, in the face of the many challenges Wikipedia faces, is inspiring. Geometry guy 05:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

While we often disagree, I admire all of the work you do for the FA process and and Wikipedia in general. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Guerillero-- I don't remember often disagreeing with you (one of the benefits of age)! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

We're going to miss you, right now this could've come at a worst time. I'd rather resign with peace, but thus is not to be. Hopefully the quote on my talk page is a fluent transition. We'll miss you. :( Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)} 05:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Have faith-- FAC is practically polluted with some of Wikipedia's best editors, and there will not be any problem. Thanks for the kind words! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I was going to come offer some chocolate, but perhaps it's best to suggest the entire category, now that you've got more time to enjoy it. Thank you for your service. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Best. Idea. Ever! Thanks, Nikkimaria-- your work is an inspiration! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Whatever you do here is simply excellent. Losing you as an FAC delegate is undoubtedly a big and regretful loss. I don't know who will replace you but I can only hope that he/she will be as good as you. It's difficult to get someone better than you. As far as my opinion is concerned, you are Irreplaceable. Take care Sandy. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Jivesh! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I will miss you dearly, Sandy. In the few direct interactions I have had with you, I found you provided me with excellent advice on how to proceed with nominations that had either stalled or failed. Your experience and dedication is second to none, and all of the time that you have put forth into FAC was time well spent, I believe. Wikipedia is far greater as a result of your dedication and effort. I wish you luck with the maintenance of all of of the medical articles. Take care. Melicans (talk, contributions) 06:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Melicans, most kind of you! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Sandy, you can never be replaced. I hope you will continue work on other aspects of the project. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Hawkeye7-- your kind words are most appreciated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Call me weird, but I think this is good news for you. I personally would much rather be editing medical articles than arguing with folks who disrupt Wikipedia processes. So Congratulations! –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Whatdyamean, you don't think I'm going to be arguing with folks who disrupt Wikipedia processes on Venezuelan articles? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• You are wierd, Leaf, but in this case you have it spot on. I've said it before, but Sandy, if you ever want a justification for your years as FAC delegate (for much of that time solo), just consider how far the standards for what makes a featured article have risen during your stewardship. If your career as a content creator matches your achievements as a delegate, Wikipedia has much to look forward to. FAC will survive, no doubt, hopefully building on your legacy. So, if in future you need a review, a copyedit or any such cooperation, please don't hesitate to contact me. Brianboulton (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

  Thank you Brian; you probably know I am awestruck by your prolific and excellent work. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Goddamn motherfucking cocksucking son of a bitch fuckface shit shit shit twatdiddling fuckdamn. --Moni3 (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm gonna tell my better half you're making eyes at me! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been biting my tongue for about a week, and unfortunately am very aware how this started and where it came from. I thought you've shown great fortitude in the face of intolerable hostility. You've dealt with it better than I could have any day - but I'm only a thinskinned wiki writer, you're the one who makes the hard decisions. Personally I'd like you to reconsider. I think being forced into something like this is a bad way to go, but if it's what you feel is right then grudgingly I'll tell you good luck. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the well wishes, I won't be reconsidering, but TK, I'd personally be pleased if we could keep the f'ing c comments off of FAC-- I don't think we need to get this mess tangled up with the Malleus case, as I've already seen allegations elsewhere that I resigned over the Malleus situation. Would you mind redacting that post at WT:FAC? Thank you for your support over the years. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for striking, TK-- appreciated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

FWIW - I wasn't referring to Malleus at all. I'm very much to blame for this and have been feeling guilty about it for a long time. Time for me to go. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

No you're not to blame; there's a campaign under way, dirty politics and all, and no one of good faith could have been expected to have seen that back in November considering that FAC was previously free of such politics. Now, stop putting up wikibreak notices. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I was used by a lot of people and I foolishly let myself. The result was "proof" of how bad and cliquish the FAC writers and by extension FAC is, leading up to this which was well-orchestrated. I don't suffer fools and can't forgive myself for having let that happen. The only excuse is that I had a lot going on IRL and wasn't totally hooked in. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Your excuse, TK, is the same as mine; when you have a clean conscience and pure mind, you just don't think that way, or imagine that others are capable of such advance orchestration. Now, I'd like for this tangential discussion to end ... I resigned because it was time.  :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I was very pleased to see you and Graham on my watchlist in the new year editing your FAs keep them tip top. I'm so glad your edit on my talk page was "I'm back!" rather than "I'm gone!" even though you were announcing your resignation. My mind boggles to think how many (thousands of?) hours you must have spent on this over the four years. To commit that much time as an unpaid volunteer is amazing. Over 1400 promotions? That's a heck of a lot of judging consensus. Bravo! Colin°^Talk 15:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Colin, it's the privilege of working with excellent individuals (like you) that keeps me here-- hence, "I'm back"! It's 1,423 precisely-- well beyond the point I discussed with you years ago :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, adding my two cents of appreciation for your presence here. You're valuable to this site in whatever form you choose to contribute. Very best wishes for the new year, JNW (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, JNW; Happy New Year to you, too! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Sandy you are an amazingly good editor here - amazingly good, thanks for all of your hard work...Modernist (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to you for same, and Happy New Year there. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

SG, after our nice chat yesterday, I was really surprised to see this when I woke up. Given the timing, I suspect there is much more to this than medicine, but that's your business. Best wishes. PumpkinSky talk 16:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me know if you need help on the sapphire-- my time should settle down in a few weeks, but you're in good hands with Casliber. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm really sorry to see this. Your work at FAC has been perceptive, tactful and insistent - a set of qualities rarely combined. Gimmetoo (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Working with you was always a pleasure, Gimme. How about this? [6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent comments

Bleh my mistake, I didn't see the full history that went back months ago. I thought the recent attack on FAC by TCO and friends had slightly to do with the Malleus ArbCom case because of his involvement with FAC and the bullshit claims (which I heard from quite a number of users, including administrators who should know better) of "favoritism" in the FAC reviewing. Also I been a bit out of touch with the FAC community, as I never seen such drama in the FAC talk page, and this being discussed the same time as the Malleus case, it seemed like it was radical editors adding fuel to everything Malleus is involved with. We are here to build an serious encyclopedia first and foremost, and not drive away our best editors and article writers or attacking our policies and guidelines. Some users obviously don't seem to get the point and need to stop.

It's very sad to see you leave FAC, as you are the no nonsense editor this very important process needed, and you are among the best in reading consensus and understanding policies. Enjoy being a regular editor and I hope you still leave your feedback on certain FACs.

As for me I'm going to participate in FAC more often, including image reviewing and online source/fact checking (though not much in prose as that's a weakness). I couldn't in the past few years because of my poor health and my online spottiness but I have more time this year. Thanks Secret ^account 07:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem at all, Secret: I just happen to be a TPS and didn't want the notion that I resigned over the Malleus situation to take hold. Malleus is a huge net positive at FAC. As to "favoritism" in FAC reviewing, cowards can say anything anywhere on the internet, but they rarely say those things out in public and open forums, where the truth gets dissected. I'm glad you'll be reviewing more often! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Asperger Syndrome problem

The discussion I started [7] is out of control. I feel IP 96.49.3.223 has crossed the line. I'm making a call to action to stop this IP from personal attacks against people with AS. That is what IP is doing and it is insulting as hell. Please address this at the talk page or feel free to visit my talk.--Djathinkimacowboy ^BUCKSHOT 12:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I see that Colin has addressed your concern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

For you

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Awarded for your considerable service to Wikipedia, especially for your work at WP:FAC. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, it's most kind of you to think of me now. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Question

is the use of the "alt" tag still a considered a good practice on images? — Ched :  ?  16:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I stopped following the discussions after it was removed from the FA criteria, so I'll give my opinion only, FWIW. Yes-- it helps those who use screen readers, but requiring it at FAC was placing a large burden on editors, because writing good alt text is an art and a science. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy ... I did a couple cause I remembered it from times past. I never got into the political FA, GA stuff much - just read those things so I could do better on the articles that I worked on here. I guess I won't go revert myself if it doesn't hurt anything then. Thanks for taking the time to reply - it is appreciated (like so much that you do here). Cheers. :) — Ched :  ?  17:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It all fell off when some pro came on & said we were doing it entirely the wrong way, & Eubulides dropped out. That's my recollection anyway. I don't think it was ever settled what sort of info should be given subsequently. Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't say for certain, since the loss of Eubulides (on medical articles) was a huge loss for Wikipedia, so I lost track of exactly what caused it, never heard a peep from Eubulides again, but suspect that the alt-text issue may have been part of him leaving. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		given with respect and admiration to SandyGeorgia for all your work on Wikipedia, especially that upholding standards and especially at WP:FAC. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The respect and admiration is mutual, my dear fisch! There's a FAC delegate opening coming up I'm told :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Alas PR would be at a loss without Ruhrfisch. You are both irreplaceable editors in everything you do. Geometry guy 00:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.

It's been a while Sandy, but I'm sorry to see the recent FA circumstances. Anyway, I just want to thank you for all you've done in helping with The Texas Chain Saw Massacre FACs, even if it wasn't ultimately promoted for, like the 6th time? :) You were great in helping out the article.--Tærkast (Discuss) 17:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you-- perseverance, you'll get there, I'm sure! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I feel quite gutted by your decision; understand your reasoning; regret your decision; thank you for your hard and continuous work in that position; and, wish you well in your chosen areas of editing. If I am still editing in future, please feel free to request assistance over RS/N, citation, weight, or any other issues where you feel my help may improve the encyclopaedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a note

Sandy...we haven't always agreed of course, less so lately than I'd like. However, I have always appreciated your efforts in the past to do some copyediting on my FAC's and to provide a generally neutral assessment of my research and especially my admittedly mediocre quality prose. If indeed, as you have stated, we have a core topic area that is suffering with an influx of inaccurate data and your time would be better spent helping to correct that issue, then, as one who is primarily a researcher, I applaud your desires to refocus your energies towards helping ensure we maintain reliability and accuracy in our articles...I have always believed that such is far more important than prose, even in at the FA level, though I recognize that it is prose that is a determining factor (and should be) for any bronze star.--MONGO 18:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Mongo, do not pick on anyone's prose in my house, since mine is worse !! Thanks for the note, and best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Improvement and translation of medical articles

Would love to see you come and join us here Wikipedia:MED/Translation_project :-) --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Doc, it seems like a natural fit for my abilities (Spanish), but there is so much work to be done here on the en Wiki, and I don't actually support the notion of translating Wikipedia articles into other languages, since Wikipedia is not a reliable source. You have to read every source to write an accurate article in another language, and why should we do that when en Wiki itself has boatloads of articles that are dismal? There is work to be done in English before we start translating, and I hardly know where to start on the amount of work needed! That said, I also believe that anyone writing such important articles as medical articles from other-language sources should have translator level proficiency in a language. I'm fluent, but not at a level of being confident of medical translations on such a large scale. Since I'm a layperson, there are times I have a hard time parsing the English in highly technical sections of medical journal articles-- pretending I could do that without being a native Spanish speaker would be wrong. I do hope to just get my watchlist back and work more on our core English-language articles, which are deficient, finish my overhaul of TS, and move on to helping Colin with Epilepsy and writing some other articles we had long planned, as well as doing more to help with issues that come up on WT:MED, and keeping up with the student editing problem. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yogo reshoot

Your attention is requested here: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Reshoot_of_Yogo_sapphires. PumpkinSky talk 23:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion

Hello, SandyGeorgia. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumastan (talk • contribs) 03:41, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

You're going to need to supply some diffs there, Christiano, to back up your (wrong) assetions, and yes, you're very welcome for trying to help guide you. I'm afraid if you don't speak English well enough to understand what is being written to you, you're going to have a rough ride here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I speak perfect English, thank you very much, and I can see what is being written to me, and I can see it is insulting! Cristiano Tomás (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I prefer not to think of it as a comprehension issue, or selectively picking out certain words and taking them out of context, because that would not assume good faith. By the way, you should supply diffs to back your assertions at WQA, and this is the diff you're looking for. I'm sure you're familiar with the use of "if" at the beginning of clauses, and that taking one small portion of a quote out of context can lead to misunderstanding, in fact, it might even be considered deceptive? But you're welcome for pointing you to a forum that might help resolve the issues occurring on the Portuguese articles. While we're on the subject of rudeness, which is a cultural concept, on the Internet, hollering at others in bold letters is rude, and on Wikipedia, having a sig that differs substantially from your user name is rude and irritating too. Hope this helps, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I was following you until my username, How is my signature and its pertinence to my user name rude? I would love to hear your explanation for that :) thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 04:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, look at my sig for example. When you want to communicate with me, or when you see a post from me, you know that I am User:SandyGeorgia, that's what my sig shows, you don't have to figure out if I'm editor Whatchamacallit, Fulanodetal, or Hijodeputa. I'm SandyGeorgia, as in my sig, and that's how you can find my talk page, and recognize me in edit summaries. You are User:Lumastan but your signature is Cristiano Tomás. I know you as Christiano, but your edit summaries show as Lumastan, and some of us old farts have limited brain cells for stroring extraneous random and useless data. What that means in practice is that when people see your signature in a discussion, they have to dig around to figure out who the editor behind the sig is, they might not remember your editor name and have to go look it up when they want to talk to you ... and so on. On Wikipedia, it's an irritating factor. Of course, we're all free to irritate others here if we wish ... it seems to be the most popular pasttime of some editors, in fact. I hope you've added that diff to WP:WQA, because you won't get much feedback if you don't give an example via a diff of how terribly rude I've been to you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a Kobayashi Maru type scenario to me SG. I don't really think there is anything to say. But I'll try. Prodego ^talk 05:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Prodego but, but ... that won't help. Look, I know dealing with these issues-- especially when there are cultural differences and language barriers-- is exhausting, there's a good chance nothing can be done (having seen one or two of these before), but Christiano seems legitimately confused, trying to figure out where to get what he perceives as a problem looked at, was sent to WQA and from ANI, and just dumping the whole thing is bound to be demotivating. Now, I know he asked for it to be removed, but sheesh-- will this help turn any of that crowd into better and more productive editors? They've been editing around Lecen, so have I, I know what he's like, and when editors are new, they're influenced by what they see. I don't think he'll listen to me-- could others try to explain to Christiano what the problems there are and how to proceed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought that removing that section (especially since it was requested) and engaging more personally on the user's talk page might increase the chances of an outcome he finds favorable. Prodego ^talk 05:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see, caught in multiple edit conflicts-- yes, dealing with it on editor talk may help, if you can keep out the peanut gallery and the one who did the misrepresenting to begin with long enough to have a real conversation. I thought you were just removing it, as in "done"! There's a lot going on there, going way back including two threads at ANI. Good luck. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Congratz! You won. You have insulted me and my lack of knowledg on effectively opening some sort of come back has left me wasted. It is a true shame that no one will see the true you. You have not come out right, but do not think I did not sense the tone of your messages towards me, and quite frankly, I dont care anymore. If I may speak freely, you are ill-mannered and rude, and if I may not speak freely, go a head and report me, you have effectively made me lose interest in trying to help wikipedia. I hope you feel some sort of satisfaction, else everything would have been in vain. I hope you do see the error of your ways and start behaving a bit more civilly, but I guess you dont care how you come off to others. Well, have a nice day and I am sorry for having had bothered you with my "complaints". Cristiano Tomás (talk) 05:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

After two edit conflicts, trying to post my response to Prodego when I saw the WQA removed at your request after I asked for help for you there. The tone of my message is from someone who was accused of rudeness by you because you followed Lecen's (mis)interpretation of my posts, and who is now upset at me even after I entered a plea for you at WQA. I guess Prodego was right-- no way to deal with this except remove it, as you requested. If you see it differently in the light of a new day, please do feel welcome to come here and calmly discuss with me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Signpost

Hey Sandy, I took the liberty of expanding the SP's coverage of the recent kerfuffle over at FAC, as I didn't think TCO's failed RfC deserved half the coverage, with your resignation getting the other half. Would you take a look and ensure I haven't misrepresented your views in any way, shape, or form? I think I have them all correct, but I'd rather address any issues before publication. I don't normally write for the SP but I assume it's a bit easier beforehand. ;-) The link is here. Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, now that is one of the most clever indirect attacks I have ever seen on Wikipedia, and as you can imagine, I've seen some pretty good ones in my time. I see that was written well before you came along-- you tried, but you might want to remove your name from that byline, since the piece is one fine indirect slam. Lookie there: incivility on Wikipedia can be carried out with narry a single fucking cunt mentioned, even though they're all around !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)