User talk:SandyGeorgia

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

If you want me to look at an article, please provide the link.

I prefer to keep conversations together and usually respond on my talk page, so watch the page for my reply. If I start a thread on your talk page, I'll watchlist it and respond there (so please don't send me a talkback template :)

To leave me a message, click here.

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)

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given that this isn't a super popular, prolific area of research, a 10 year old source is old, but not necessarily outdated, because often there is not funding or motivation to replicate a meta-analysis when the original findings continue to be supported and cited relatively widely.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)

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)

I wasn't planning on asking you to do the translation, Translators Without Borders, will be taking care of that part. I am hoping you can help with the improving of all the article to at least GA or FA in English before translation is considered by others. The thing with many languages such as Swahili is that there is almost no medical content at all in them as there are not enough rich people to warrant paid translation and the rich that their are already speak English, the same applies to Hindi and Nepali. There are basically no sources in those languages either, thus we need to rely on English sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that's a different story, and not something I'd be opposed to but my goodness: improving of all the article to at least GA or FA in English? I've been overhauling Tourette syndrome recently, and am reminded that medical FAs are a whole world apart from many other content areas. We have much more to read and process, much more to keep up with, and we can't just write them and be done-- they need constant tending. I can't imagine that we could aspire to a whole lot of medical FAs unless we had about 50 more medical editors working on them, similar for GA, and that doesn't mean student editors adding copyvios we have to revert. How can I help in that effort? Maybe at reviewing stage? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The list for the first round of articles is here Book:Health_care. I assume that this effort will take three to five years. Have about 70-80 important articles here. I have managed to bring about ten to GA over the last couple of years and have made significant improvements to a bunch more. This is basically a list of our top importance articles tweaked a little bit. I have two at GAN right now Hepatitis C and Diabetes mellitus type 2. They could use a little more fleshing out I know but historical, societal and cultural aspects of diseases do not interest much. I am sure they could also us a good copy-editing even though some others have helped already.

Once they pass GA I am forwarding them to a professional company that has offered to translate to simple English for us for free. They are excited to be involved and are working on "dengue fever" right now. After this the articles will be double checked and reintegrated into simple English and than translated by TWR tens of thousands of volunteers. Wiki volunteers will finally reintegrate back into Wikipedia.

I am trying to get MastCell out of semi retirement :-), trying to push JFD into working on some of them, and then I am redirecting my effort here. Hopefully with you on board that will bring us up to four! That is only 15 articles each or 5 a year for three years... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Something

I'm mulling over a potential dispatch on FPOC writing. In the meantime perhaps you could tell me how close Hawaii hotspot looks to sticking (round four sometime in the future). Cheers, ResMar 02:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

What is FPOC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Featured Portals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.243.154 (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Si. ResMar 03:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I took a stab at a Dispatch. It's not nearly finished, as the bulk of it remains to be written (what's there right now is just some introductory material), but I feel as though we can get this published in the next week's Signpost. I'm hoping a Dispatch could help users get used to writing Featured portals, and perhaps draw some more attention to the process. ResMar 04:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

ResMar, what do you mean by "next week"? I don't know what their publishing deadlines are any more, what day of the week-- and don't like to rush things. I can have a look, work on it, but don't want to be working towards a Monday deadline, if that's their current deadline. Will glance at the HotSpot if I get a chance in the next few days ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

By next week I was referring to 1/30/2012. I want Cirt to do something with it first, he's "most experienced portalmongerer". ResMar 14:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI

I'm "tendering" this for publication next week, but probably as a special report, because I'm one of those dirty "caterers" who wants to put the silliness that is FCDW behind themselves. Although perhaps not as enthusiastically and frantically as Sven had, hehe. ResMar 02:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I had planned to help. Gee, wonder why I might have changed my mind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

FCDW is pretty much done, but rest assured! I'm sure people other than me or you might submit something, sometime. I just don't want to deal with external proprietaries with binding editorial arrangements anymore, sorry. As I said to Sko, I'm tempted to historical the 'ol heifer, I just want to avoid a verbose beating from a certain user. To much bloody drama. ResMar 03:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Res Mar, it would have been nice to help you, but two things. First, I've seen too many attacks from Cirt to go anywhere near anything s/he works on. Second, right off the bat, I would not write that thing the way you and Cirt did. I'd never write something like "The highest award for any piece of content on Wikipedia is recognition is 'Featured" status'." (furthering Reward culture, and well ... just offensive to so many editors). But that's moot. That's the kind of editorializing The Signpost seeks and has encouraged, and that is probably why the Signpost's readership is declining and most Projects have their own publications, where they can control quality, accuracy, deadlines better. I don't care what happens to FCDW: FAC needs its own publication, independent of The Signpost, FAC needs to pull all of its info together in one place, away from WMF's playground and biases (yes, all too many good Wikipedians are suddenly becoming WMF employees, and their priorities then seem to change, and I have no doubt that has an effect on Signpost editorializing). You need not continue to post to me about FCDW: it's dead. I hope FAC will get its own newsletter, and not be beholden to the WMF and the Signpost. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Now that you're not director anymore, you might even have time to realize that dream. And as it stands the whole thing is my contribution; Cirt hasn't really done anything with it. But what's wrong with Cirt? I like him. He's a solid Wikipedian as far as I know, and I generally ignore anything by ArbCom, so administrator, not administrator, whatever. Is that not true, that the highest reward is that bronze star? Reward culture, shmeward culture, whatever gets people writing, be it a shiny bronze star or their wet dreams, is a good enough motive for me. ResMar 03:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for comments on an article?

I can tell you are busy, but I’m looking for someone who has a better critical eye than I have, and you are my first choice.

I ran into User:Beebuk a year and a half ago, when he was working on some articles as a new editor, and running into some challenges from other editors. He specializes in pantomine related topics, an area I know very little about. (And I’m not presuming you do have or do not have expertise in this area, I’m looking for your expertise as an editor)

He recently asked me to take a look at Pedrolino. I’m happy to note that he is well beyond the basics, so I am struggling to be helpful. I offered some comments at Comments_on_Pedrolino, but I realize I need the big guns. If you could find the time to make a few comments, it would be appreciated.

As an aside, I plan to work on bringing some articles to GA and FA eventually, but in my area of interest, the low-hanging fruit is still ungathered, so I confess to lack of knowledge of those areas. That said, I’m surprised to see Pedrolino as start class, and Charles Deburau as C class. I wonder what I’m missing, as both articles seem well written to me.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

If now is a bad time, could you point me in the right direction? MF is at the top of my list, but I'm thinking this is bad timing. Is there a list of FAC reviewers somewhere? I could ask one of them.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been busy-- I'll try to get to it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Most assessors grade articles purely on length, and a broad impression of their look, as far as I can see, and if you see an inappropriate grade just change it. Plus of course most writers hesitate to upgrade their own efforts, & the grade (like any reader's grades at the bottom), may have been based on a much earlier version. C and C, or C and B, even B & B would seem appropriate to me here. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Turning Point

Sandy, have your concerns at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Turning_Point_(2008)/archive4 been addressed? Ucucha (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The last time I looked, no -- I will get over there today, Ucucha. I Am So Sorry :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Diff mess up

Sorry for messing up your diff on ANI. I could not permit Rlevse to violate Will's copyright to the email in that manner per WP:EMAILABUSE. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, I only deleted the revisions, I did not oversight/suppress them. Any admin can still view them. MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you ever watched the video of a deposition, or of a congressman grilling a hostile witness? Yea, that's how I'm starting to feel when it comes to getting straight answers from the arbitration committee regarding Rlevse. It's also where questions like these come from. Raul654 (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Here we all knew all along that something wasn't right, and they just sat back and watched us squirm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Raul, what questions of yours do you feel were left unanswered or were evaded, specifically? Amalthea 11:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I want to know everything the arbitration committee isn't telling us about Rlevse. They knew about Barkingmoon and JoJo and decided not to disclose either until after I/we had found out about them from other sources. They're happy to answer your questions once you've already found out the answers elsewhere. I'm getting tired of playing that game. I want full disclosure, now. And as of this writing, they still have not answered that question. Raul654 (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's not as if they have a file on him. At least I wouldn't imagine they did, he wasn't ever sanctioned. The concerns by Will Beback were sent to them two years ago (we had two arbcom elections since!). Remember that you couldn't puzzle together how he briefly came back after his initial retirement? It's no different for them, and I don't think anyone started researching the archives (not even sure how they're keeping them anymore post-leak) because I don't think they saw even a reason to look.
Like I said above, I am convinced they are giving as straight answers as they can, at least it always matches with everything I know. There is no conspiracy. They have no reason to cover anything up.
Other unanswered questions beside "I want to know everything"? :)
Amalthea 15:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Amalthea, I can't speak for Raul, but I'm afraid you, they, someone is missing my point. When technical evidence is inconclusive, they toss it back to the community for behavioral evidence, at the same time that an ex-arb shut down the SPI from advancing with vague information, at the same time that another CU is trying to shut down investigation of behavioral evidence. I don't care what happens in the Rlevse case: I want to know how we're supposed to proceed in other cases with this amount of contradictory, even threatenging, information. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a completely different question, but from Raul and your comments I often read suspicions that Arbcom is willfully and deliberately harming you. You behave aggressively when there's no need for it. You do not assume good faith. Amalthea 17:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Sandy - at this point, the community is aware of Rlevse's sockpuppetry and his blatant violations of RTV. (It dismays me greatly that so many editors think RTV is some sort of revolving door, but that's something we'll have to deal with later) I think we've reached the point of diminishing returns for the time you and I put in. Why don't we go deal with FA and related stuff? Raul654 (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep. I've only got one thing left to do-- apologize to EotR for yesterday (arbs are overworked, can't blame them for not being caught up on everything), then nothing left to be gained here. FAC needs attention, the disruption has gone on long enough, but the next time Sue Gardner lobs one our direction for others to take advantage of, I'll react the same way. Let 'em block me-- couldn't care less. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Giraffe

Spotchecks are done, but I don't think the nom'll be thankful for that...you might want to take a look. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to get over there, but I suspect you're confirming what I suspected from my first foray into the sources there. Ugh, will look as soon as I can. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I've checked one of LittleJerry's GAs and the problem exists there as well. Not really even paraphrasing, just copying and pasting from sources with 1 or 2 words changed. --Laser brain (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It continues to frustrate me, and beats the heck outta me, why or how reviewers can Support without looking at sources. How long has that FAC been on the page? And that sort of business is what wore me down. Are we in such dire need of getting more FAs on high profile, vital, or high page view topics, that we can't remember that WP:V is a core policy? But I've been singing that tune for years ... oh, well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

And I just followed your contribs to find that sample, which leads to another rant I've been on for at least five years: GOCE. The same GOCE editor who edited Ciudad Bolivar and missed the outrageous copyvio there also edited that article. [1] GOCE folks tend to smooth out prose without ever consulting a source, and since the very early days of the Project, I've been asking how-- when so many articles need copyediting-- they can engage in contests to edit articles that are poorly sourced or contain copyvio. Would ya think they could make sure an article is adequately sourced before wasting time on it, and worse-- they make a crap article "look good" to our readers by improving the prose, when the text needs to be most deleted, instead of misleading our readers!! I raised this concern YEARS ago at GOCE: just like DYK, no change. Reward culture: GOCE has a contest on, so they charge right through 'em, smoothing out prose on text that shouldn't even be there, which to me only misleads our readers into thinking they're reading something ... good. Yet GOCE is unaccountable to anyone anywhere, and they put their "stuff" in articlehistory-- like, so what? 16:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) The diff b/w GOCE and DYK is that the former's errors are innocent errors of omission. Having said that, yes, GOCE needs to be aware that an article is a whole entity, and just because you're ce'ing doesn't mean that you can't at least use that copyvio script thingie (where is it?) and a good dose of common sense while doing so. Ling.Nut3 (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Here. But you're better off just reading the source (we've got the Project overtaken now with folks who think that copying structure and altering a few words so they won't be picked up by the duplication detector is OK.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ling. :) That's what I was going to say about GOCE. They mean well, but sometimes it's putting lipstick on a pig. --Laser brain (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've been raising that issure for years, and Diannaa has it in for me, so you go over there and hit them with a clue stick, Nutty One. It's worse than putting lipstick on a pig: they're doing it now to win awards, and by editing over copyvio and non-reliable sources, they obscure copyvio, waste time (more worthy articles should be copyedited), and make our readers think they're getting lipstick instead of a pig. I'd rather see a crap article that never gets read, than a copyedited article that is based on blogs, which is exactly what I found with Ciudad Bolivar. Well, it wasn't copyedited either, which makes me wonder, why hold a contest? Who checks? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• The tool you linked is other than the one i found, User:CorenSearchBot/manual. And i went to WT:GOCE, only to find someone else had just suggested the same thing a week ago. That's where I found that link, in fact. Ling.Nut3 (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Five years old, no change. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have a happier story: I used to bitch at MILHIST about copyvio even after passing A-review. Now they look at me like, "What.. are... you.. talking about?" Seems like they've fixed it.Ling.Nut3 (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Good, get them to do same on images :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, put me in a dress and call me disappointed. I've tried to be sensitive to concerns that plagiarists are shamed and chased off the project, but here, LittleJerry doesn't respond well even to AGF and offers of coaching. I wonder what I was supposed to do. --Laser brain (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Lordy, have you forgotten the beginning of this? Just read the top part: BTDT. Anyway, approaching people on copyvio is always difficult (perhaps avoid starting a section with the title "Plagiarism"-- it can be tough :). The Queen of the Technique is Moonriddengirl-- you might post a link over to her, and ask her for ideas of how to proceed next time, 'cuz there is always a next time :) :) In "the good 'ole days" one of us smartypants might have written a Dispatch with guidance on how to proceed in these cases ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• I will ping MoonRiddenGirl. Selfishly, I love it when people do things like this. Can't hurt to ask. Ling.Nut3 (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• MRG did write something up for Milhist's Bugle – see the op-eds from September and October 2010. You could always have her tweak it for any updates since then and republish it in the Dispatches... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

MRG's approach to copied content

Hi. :) I can do. Or I could even write an OpEd on how to handle copyright problems without the fuss and drama. I loathe the fuss and drama. :/ It makes what should be a clean, simple task huge and messy.

First, my initial approach is to present the problem in neutral terms (agreed, Sandy, that careful handling of the term plagiarism is required :D) in the best way possible to avoid shaming the individual but also in a way that eliminates as much as possible the knee-jerk defensiveness of the contributor. For example:

example approach

Hi, SandyGeorgia. Thank you for your work on Foo. I'm afraid, though, that some of the content follows very closely on your sources. For example, I find the following passage in [url source] Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam aliquet laoreet lorem eu eleifend. Phasellus elit dui, elementum ut consectetur et, elementum sed mi. Vivamus et nibh vel odio ullamcorper dictum. Aliquam non augue sem, et lacinia mauris. Maecenas venenatis lorem adipiscing metus vehicula at condimentum magna bibendum. Morbi commodo. You placed this text into the article: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing odio. Ullamcorper etiam aliquet laoreet lorem eu eleifend. Phasellus elit dui, elementum ut consectetur et [...]. Vivamus et nibh vel odio ullamcorper dictum. [...] Maecenas venenatis lorem adipiscing metus vehicula at condimentum magna bibendum. Morbi commodo. To make it clearer where duplication occurs, I've bolded precisely duplicated text. ([...] indicates where text has been removed.) The non-bolded text is minimally altered from the original.

I don't usually approach people about plagiarism concerns, but copyright issues. However, this beginning works either way. I would not thank Sandy for her work on Foo, because for an experienced contributor, that would probably be condescending. :) I'd do that for Sandy's little sister, who hasn't been with us long. "Fix the problem; keep the contributor" is my goal.

The really important point there is the example. I generally look for one solid example, but if the problem is numerous fragments sometimes will point out three or four of those instead. The example is crucial, in my opinion, to prevent the inevitable "nuh-uh". It's also helpful if talk page stalkers are inclined to defend a friend, as it bypasses the "prove it!" phase and can start them off on a more productive "Oh, okay. This is a problem, so what do we do" vein.

Having made my case, that there is duplicated content, I could then explain why this is an issue, carefully avoiding any assignment of blame. The following approach presumes that I'm still dealing with Sandy's little sister.

copyrighted source?
I'm afraid that copying content in this way from a copyrighted source is a problem under our copyright policy. While we are permitted to use brief, clearly marked quotations consistent with non-free content guideline and policy, we are required by policy to rewrite all other information from these sources in our own words and structure.

plagiarized from a free source?

While our copyright policies do allow us to copy content from public domain or compatibly licensed sources, there are extra steps required on Wikipedia by Wikipedia:Plagiarism. If copying or closely following a public domain or compatibly licensed source, we have to explicitly acknowledge that we are copying. Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Attributing text copied from other sources sets out the procedures for doing so. If a source is public domain, this is a simple matter of conforming to community standards. When the source is compatibly licensed, it may be required by law.

I try to remember to use the plural pronoun to make it sound less like I'm accusing and to emphasize that the rules apply to everybody. I link to policies and guidelines for two reasons: first, it provides instruction; second, like the examples, it takes away the instinctive self-defense. The policies are right there.

My approach from there varies a whole lot based on the factors in the case. I'm assuming that the problem was not extensive enough to require me to blank the article. If I've removed the content, I'd say something like, "I've removed the problematic content for now so that it can be rewritten in compliance with our policies. Wikipedia:Copy-paste gives a brief overview of our practices." If I've rewritten it myself, I might say, "I've rewritten the problematic content" but would still link WP:C-p as a "for future reference".

If I'm dealing with Sandy, my approach depends on (a) when the issue happened, (b) how extensive the issue is, and (c) whether or not there are signs that Sandy's done this before. (My approach is always dependent on those, but it's especially important with heavily active users.) If it's old, I might say, "This was some time ago, and I'm sure you're now aware of the limitations imposed by copyright policy, but this still needs to be addressed...." If it's recent and there's no signs of history (in prior talk notes or a spot check), I would present it instead more as a slip up and remind that we have to be careful always with this issue.

Then I brace myself. Because no matter how much you try to reduce the sting, some people are seriously offended. That's human nature for you. :) I try to respond only to their substantive concerns, and not to the tone of their comments. As long as possible, I pretend we're having a friendly conversation. But if they start getting really abusive, I start getting businesslike. And I start looking deeper. I have very seldom encountered extended belligerence from people in whom the habit is not deeply ingrained. It's one of my red flags that we may be looking at a CCI. Sometimes, of course, it turns out that they're simply really defensive people. But there's a high enough correlation in my own experiences that I always check just in case. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Just a note to say that I'm sorry for the abuse you've taken at the hands of a certain pretended-to-be-new user. Your contributions are valued, and make Wikipedia a better place. Just because I may never work up the courage to brave the FAC process on anything myself doesn't mean I don't appreciate the work you have done. Likewise, while I respect the right of dissent and feedback, pretending to be new when you're not is dishonest and inappropriate, and I'm sorry that happened to you. Jclemens (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Quick question re: Spanish source

I think Augusto Mijares is too close to [2] and [3], but my Spanish is not that good. Would you agree? Do you read Spanish? It's not my strongest language...even leaving aside the one I was born. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Never mind; it doesn't matter, at least not immediately. I've reached the CCI level of confirmed copying and will open the investigation as per your suggestion. Thanks for finding this. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Please disengage

SandyGeorgia, how would you feel if I were to be popping up in discussions involving you all over the wiki? Instead, I am doing my best to disengage from interaction with you. Please do me the same courtesy, so that I don't have to start throwing another handful of diffs at your talkpage. --Elonka 00:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

If you think that diffs will help support your claim that a "FAC clique" (and specifically Ucucha) is keeping your nomination from advancing because he's asking for the same thing that is asked for in every nomination, throw 'em up; I'm sure plenty will review your posts and help you gain a better understanding of routine processes. By the way, this ArbCom finding might help guide your future allegations against Ucucha. "All over the Wiki?" Is FAC that important? And goodness, such manners: yes, if I had been able to spotcheck your sources, your FAC might have advanced weeks ago, but since you insisted I stay out, you had to wait for someone to show up. Yes, you're quite welcome for all my efforts to get someone to review it for you ... hope you can return the favor sometime! I do, though, find it curious that you are personalize all feedback to such an extent that you aren't able to see or appreciate efforts to help your FAC nomination advance. Perhaps think about that a bit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, there are currently 48 articles undergoing FA nominations at WP:FAC. The Franco-Mongol alliance article is number 44th on that list, meaning it is one of the oldest and worst delayed on the page. It has been there for well over a month, even though there has been a clear consensus to promote for weeks now. So obviously there is nothing that has been done to "help the FAC nomination advance". Indeed, evidence would appear to show that exactly the opposite is occurring, and that everything possible is being done to delay or reject the nom. --Elonka 05:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Elonka, I have been involved with 33 articles submitted to FAC. Some of them took longer than a month to make it through the process. Just a quick check of your nomination shows that there are still a couple of unresolved concerns. Would you be receptive to any advice on dealing with your current situation? Cla68 (talk) 05:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"interrupted"

Hi Sandy. Just a quick question about what this means/achieves? The comment following that template is a continuation of the original comment and the trend of responding to each point indented is throughout that FAC. I've never seen the template before so I was just curious as to what it was for in this case? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

(P.S. Welcome back to the real world... effective as of today I believe? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC))

There's a long discussion-- punctuated by multiple unsigned entries-- before one figures out who made the initial post and who is involved in the conversation. Add to that, some editors strike original comments and change them to a declaration of support or oppose without signing-- it's always fun to sort out. The interrupted is my way of figuring out whose speaking at the top, although it's still hard to know sometimes who wrote what because of all of the unsigned entries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Resignation

Sandy, I removed your name from the editnotice at WP:FA, as you had done at the other places where delegates are listed (though I'm sure there are more where we missed it). Thanks again for your service as a delegate over the past years. Ucucha (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, there are no other places-- thanks! I'm so sorry you got left with so much work; had I realized what would ensue, I would have made it effective in six weeks, but can't go back now. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The end of an era

Thank you for your service to Featured Articles. It is the end of an era. Your extreme competence will be missed. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ya think? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi there

Do you feel comfortable in explaining why you resigned as a FAC delegate? Just curious. Thanks for your services by the way. You did an amazing job. And if it means that you'll now assume a more active role as reviewer, as opposed to that of an impartial delegate, I think it's for the best—there's a shortage of quality reviewers at FAC. Orane (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Long time no speak; good to hear from you! Here's the official announcement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks from me too

I know we haven't always seen eye-to-eye, but I do respect the huge amount of work you did as a FAC delegate. Many thanks for that, and I hope it will be possible to have a wider discussion of various aspects of reviewing once that RfC has run its course. Carcharoth (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks. But if you think some of the disruptive forces are going to be happy with us getting back to working on improvements to FAC, or the admin corp is going to do anything to curb their attacks on me, you aren't reading the same Wikipedia I'm reading :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I did notice the section below. If you will accept a bit of advice, when you go from a high profile to a lower one, it is best to slow things down a bit, take time to ease back into other things. That's what I did and I found it helped. Anyway, enough of that. Talking of review, one bit of serendipity is that I have to do some work in the coming days that will involve reading up on the history of the sinking of the Titanic (what with the anniversary coming up soon), so I hope to combine that with a review of that FAC. Unfortunately the paid work has to come first. :-( Carcharoth (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Carcharoth, you are always well meaning, and your heart is often in the right place, but you can be so silly :) :) Regardless of what "pace" I take, those who have long wanted to get a punch in will do it now. And those who long benefited for years from my defense of their work, promotion of their work, review of their work, will mostly be silent. It's the Internet, and more-- it's Wikipedia. Why should my "pace" be determined by external factors? I didn't slow down when it came to defending FA writers, FA reviewers, FA content-- why should I be someone different now regardless if they'll turn their backs because of my "lower profile"? Silly :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Why would your profile be lower anyway? FA delegates have to be cautiously circumspect in the FAC arena, not something that reviewers have to worry about. And from experience, I'd say that reviewers get their fair share of flak there just as delegates do. And as for slowing down or being silent, well, words fail me ... actually there's an unconscious irony there, as if words have failed me then I'll presumably have to be silent ... sometimes you can think too much. Malleus Fatuorum 02:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what you're saying or trying to say, Malleus. What I know about life in general-- and about the Interent in particular, and more specifically about Wikipedia-- is that the folks who gathered around when they perceived you had some sort of "power" weren't necessarily gathering 'round for the right reasons. Many of them were just folks benefiting from all the work I did to defend featured content, benefiting from my good name when it came to defending them or their work, and some of them will be noted for their absence when they perceive I'm no longer useful. That's life. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No deep meaning, just "blather", as you say. What "power" did you really have as an FAC delegate anyway? You may even find that you can do more back in the trenches, that was all. And if some do abandon you because "you're no longer useful" then you're better off without them around anyway. But it won't happen. BTW, I just had to correct your spelling of "benefitting" above, it made me feel dizzy, hope you don't mind. Malleus Fatuorum 02:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

None. But people perceived I did, and came running whenever they needed help. We'll see where they are now. You shoulda been fixing my typos for years! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure people will still be calling on you for help at FAC, perhaps even more than ever did now that you're able to take a more active role in reviewing. Your situation now seems to me somewhat similar to that of Geometry guy at GAN/GAR. But I'll leave you alone now. I've got to get back to the Franco-Mongol Alliance's FAC anyway, where battle lines are being drawn up, something you no longer need to worry about. Malleus Fatuorum 02:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

And thanks from me also. It is however disheartening to return and see that AN/I has not changed (or if it has, for the worse); it is still a place where old grudges can be revisited, adjectives substitute for evidence, and histrionics take the place of reasoned discussion. It is amazing that your last day of invaluable service in your former role is occupied by those unfair attacks. Kablammo (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back! Yes, ANI is worse; the new trend is no right of response. And yes, DYK has gotten worse, too-- before, they could honestly claim ignorance of copyvio et al (they just didn't know). Now-- years later, and with all the writing done on the topic-- they nonetheless actively endorse walking too close to the line on paraphrasing, no matter the very words describing that in the Dispatch you co-authored. I guess in an environment of the WMF lamenting our declining editorship, the very words you all wrote about copyvio are no longer true. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You have always insisted on rigorous sourcing. My first encounter with you was just before the main page appearance of the first FA on which I worked. You went flew through it, demanding citations; I took it as a personal challenge to provide them. The article was much improved by your demands. Authors should welcome questions about their work, for that is the best way to improve it. Kablammo (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I was active at DYK for a few months, and there was great resistance to change. There may still be, but at least they are now talking about copyright and plagiarism. Kablammo (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Silly man ! Those days are gone-- it's less about sily Wikipedia policy and more about getting along with WMF employees and WMF goals (there are starting to be more of them than us, and their goals are quantity, not quality--when you're getting paid, you need to show results that aren't necessarily in line with the unpaid volunteers).

You helped write that Dispatch (in fact, it may have been you who suggested the makeup of the entire team I put together for that); you knew the line on copyvio and plagiarism as well as everyone else involved did, and you knew the problems at DYK better than most. But now, with declining editorship, they seek more quantity-- not more quality-- in all things Wikipedian. And, what with SOPA, I don't think the WMF would like the world to know just how much copyvio really exists in here. Speaking of that team (which was a who's who of knowledgeable copyvio people in its day): Awadewit's TFA was attacked after running at TFA today (nice reward for her new PhD);[4] Elcobbola gave up and pretty much left in the face of so much opposition here to concern about intellectual property (although he'll respond to my image queries); Jbmurray's successful educational project spawned a whole ton of educational projects that don't have the kind of supervision and involvement from the professor that made his a success, so we have students adding copyvio and unsalvageable poorly sourced content faster than estabished editors can remove it (encouraged by the WMF); you left; Moonriddengirl joined WMF, has less time to work on copyvio; and Tony1 is seen less around FAC as he mostly writes these days for the dying Signpost. Nikkimaria (new since then) is the only person still working on the issues at DYK, and she's doing it all alone. In the interim, Rlevse came back to his old haunts at DYK, and fit right in, unnoticed.

Yes, relative to when you were there and when the Dispatch was written, at DYK they are finally talking about copyright and plagiarism (um, because I make them talk about it ;), but the goalposts have moved, what was clear copyvio when the Dispatch was written no longer is, DYK has chosen to walk close to the line on those borderline cases (quantity over quality), and I'm being shot at ANI for being the messenger about the problem. And all those "friends" who will sooooooo miss me at FAC are likely to stay silent; can't blame 'em (although I was never silent when it came to defending them or their content)-- going up against WMF and their quantity over quality goals ain't easy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 184.59.31.77 (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC) (formerly User:Khazar)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Jonathan Agnew at WP:FAC Hi Sandy. As you know, Dweller and I have this article at FAC but it hasn't had its spot checks or image checks done. Would you be prepared to do that, or could you recommend someone (or some people) who might be able to help with that aspect of its candidacy? Thanks, The Rambling Man (talk) 10:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC) An award for you The Jolly Tired After Having Done a Fantastic Job Award After many years of persistence, hard work and coping with the moans of idiots like me, you deserve this jolly tired after having done a fantastic job award. Dweller (talk) 11:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, gee, lookie there !

So, it seems some folks still do have my talkpage watchlisted, show up here when there's a problem, but their fingers were all broken when I was falsely accused at AN/I and some admin intervention was needed [5] to take various abusive admins to task.[6] Oh, and now that we have another Rlevse copyvio, where is Moonriddengirl? [7] There's a heck of a lot more that Wikipedia's not telling you about just how serious the copyvio problem is in here, not limited to the fact that those raising concerns are shot. So, why didn't the CCI people pick this up? It's not like the Rlevse issue wasn't known. Oh, gee, maybe it's because folks raising copyvio issues aren't taken seriously. 'Ya think?

Seems no one knows where to find facts anymore, but whatdya expect since diffs no longer count for anything at ANI.

1. Here is where we find copyvio investigations (which include gazillions that haven't been addressed for years): WP:CCI
2. Here is where we find Rlevse copyvio investigations:

   Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Vanished 6551232 (year and a half old)

   Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/PumpkinSky

3. Here is where we find that it took the CCI a full year to clear Frederick Russell Burnham, and it was cleared by a fellow arb: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Vanished 6551232#Articles 261 through 280

So, why is this on my talk? Kindly take this problem to admin Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs) and ask what their procedures are and why copyvios that still exist are being cleared there, arb Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs) who continues to allege that I continue to allege arbcom impropriety, or admin Rklawton who thinks I need to be blocked for stating accurate diffable facts, this admin who thinks I shouldn't be addressing copyvios, this admin who overlooked Bishonen being called a Bitch, or anyone else who still enjoys participating in a Project where women can be called bitches and witches, admins can overlook or actively hide it, and even threaten those who bring up diffs about it with a block.

And I see also that no one at ANI could be bothered to notify Risker, The ed, Brad101 or anyone else as requested (at least Risker might have done something about it).

So ... why is the issue of another Rlevse copyvio on my page, after I've been threatened throughout the Wiki for trying to deal with these issues? Dweller and The Rambling Man, please go find another Pollyanna sucker to ask for help when there's a problem, since not one person could be bothered to deal with an abusive admin threatening to block me after other admins turns a blind eye when Bish is called a Bitch, turn a blind eye when it's raised on admin talk pages, turn a blind eye when I'm falsely accused of fabricating original research at ANI, and turn a blind eye when another abusive admin threatens to block me for stating the truth of what happened there.

If I were an admin, I might say "fuck off" and get away with it, but since I'm not: hasta luego, babies. Take your problems, your requests for help, and your barnstars elsewhere. My friends know where to find me, always have. Not only is this place unsafe for women: it's unsafe for anyone with integrity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Had it not been for you-know-what hanging over my head I'd probably have pitched at ANI, but rest assured, if you ever come across an editor who needs to be told to "fuck off" then I'm your man. At least for a few more days anyway. (Does hasta luego mean "see you later"?) Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, and I read about ANI late.

For what it's worth, I wrote to Nikkimaria, and asked to be contacted if anybody tried to topic ban her from DYK, the way Hawkeye suggested you being topic banned.

With her refreshing naivete, Nikkimaria could not believe that anybody would make such a suggestion and asked for diffs, which I provided. (I did not provide a courtesy notice here, because I thought that you can take care of yourself, and have more powerful admirers than me.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

And by the time I got there the thing had been closed. Anyways, the issue I raised above has been addressed, so I've taken the bold liberty of removing it entirely. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You should remember that TParis just stated that it was ridiculous and killed the idiotic proposal. Don't let Hawkeye run you off the project, when nobody supported him.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not suggest a topic ban; I only suggested leaving DYK alone for a while. I wasn't trying to run anybody off the project. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Aka, a topic ban. Which is just dandy; perhaps you and MRG can clean up all the copyvio occuring over at DKY by yourselves? Your fellow MilHist editor Rlevse's, as well. The only other person doing it is Nikkimaria. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

@ Malleus, we both know (and everyone knows) there's nothing you could have done. Just as we both know, and everyone knows, there are plenty others-- who are fast to run here when they are falsely accused or need help with an article or a favor or TPS feedback-- could have done.

@Kiefer: I see. For the record, my "friends" are almost exclusively the most humble types, to such an extent that most folks don't even know who they are; you won't find my true friends among the "powerful" here.

@Nikki: appreciated. But User talk:Rklawton looks wide open from here,, and he's still sitting there smug as a bug for having threatened me with a block if I even continued to defend my self from a false accusation (that included no diffs) with diffable facts.

@Kiefer, you don't really think this is about Hawkeye, do you? LOLOLOL !!!! I am still under threat of a block by abusive admins for calling admin abuse at ANI, and a topic ban for raising clear copyvio concerns at DYK.

Malleus, hasta luego means "until later": it's always possible that someday I may regain interest in participating here, but it's hard to imagine that happening when I consider the level of abuse that goes on in here. Let's remember very clearly: your civility case stemmed from one thing-- admin abuse. And we've got arbs focusing on civility, and ignoring the serious abuse we all deal with, until even the kindest, the most knowledgeable, helpful, civil, the best and the brightest [8] quit. I'm with MastCell; this is not a good use of my time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see that I was the reason Bish retired... </sarcasm> thought I explained what I actually meant by doing that, but I guess not. Anyway. Maybe I need to reassess my participation here too so I can avoid getting continuously beaten over the head with this self-admitted mistake. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a rather strange idea taken root here, which reminds me of the Catholic confessional; so long as administrators apologise, however belatedly and reluctantly, for their misdeeds then everything is sweet. That's not the way the world works. Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Is that now? Strange, I wasn't aware that mistakes could never be forgiven. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, for someone who sure 'nuff closed off some discussions at ANI lickety split, you sure haven't gone over to clear it up with Rklawton, who is still singing his same (false) tune. Talk is cheap, Ed; if it was a mistake and you're sorry, why are you sitting by with arms crossed while I take the heat for speaking the truth? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Call all the bullshit you want, but the mistake I made has nothing to do with whatever Rklawton is doing to you. (on ANI? I'm not sure where this is even going on... contrary to popular perception, I'm not wedded to ANI :p). I'm going to take a break. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sandy, you clarified that I was not your friend last week and I clarified my respect for you, which I've tried to express at every opportunity.

You can see that I have been busy standing up for Lihaas, this time with some resolution, despite my having been blocked for stating the same truths before. I am sorry that I did not express support to you before.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, I hadn't seen that statement from MastCell. What the Hell's going on here? Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Same ole, same ole: admin abuse. That is what fuels the frustration. There's some poor newbie on Rklawton's talk page, trying to write a medical article about fear of flying, and not only has Rklawton given him consistently bad information-- go look at the horrid, snarky responses at Lawton's talk (unless he's already deleted them). Those are the kinds of folks sporting tools in here !!!! Bish turned in her tools so she could see what it felt like on the other side-- that, interestingly, is one of the reasons I never wanted them. I wanted to know what it felt like, always, to be a regular bloke, I wanted to understand as well as I did when the FeloniousMonk cabal went after me-- just what it was to be in this place where abusive admins exercise their tools, or the threats of their tools, for no other reason than to make their little peepees get hard. Nothing has changed even with the desysopping of FeloniousMonk (over evidence it took me a month to put together), and unless our increasingly dense (or whatever words MastCell used, see diff above) arbs get that it's all about abuse of the regular editor, nothing will change. Here's what is freaky: I'm a high profile, experienced editor with a clean block log and (I thought-- now I know not to be true) a lot of friends who could shield me from abusive admins. So ... what happens to the little guys? I shudder to think what it's like in here for them. I don't want to be part of such a sick place-- and I knew that when I saw an FA writer taunting another FA writer with his number of FAs. My work here fed such divas. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you ought to blame yourself, but I did find the comment you're presumably referring to "only someone with more FAs than I have is allowed to unblock" incomprehensible. I'd be prepared to lay a pretty substantial bet that I've helped more FAs through FAC than I've ever nominated, and even turned down offers of being added as a co-nominator by overly generous editors such as Ealdgyth. The project seems to have lost sight of the purpose of its very existence; Sue was quite right about a "death spiral", but I don't think she has yet recognised what it is that's spiralling out of control. Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Sandy, fuck all these fools. Seriously. We're here to fix this shit because millions of people are googling how old Beethoven was when he died or what the hell the difference is between Democratic Republic of the Congo and Republic of the Congo. And they are ending up on Wikipedia, so we need to make sure they have the right information and that it's as professional in presentation as possible. I would personally stick up for you until the day I die, but in the end ANI and ArbCom and all these silly venues are no more meaningful to me than if I had a sunken pit of drunken hogs in my backyard that just rooted around and oinked and bit each other all day. They make a bunch of noise and sometimes smell bad but mostly they are just there for each others' entertainment. Let's get back to work, shall we? Sandy, Ed, Malleus... you've got shit to do. And it ain't suffering fools. --Laser brain (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, Laser, but it's just not like that for me anymore. Like Malleus, all I did in here was help others get their rewards, improve content, some of those people turned into divas, some of them are selfish, and for that work-- and giving an honest defense with diffs against a false, undiffed charge-- I got threatened with a block in the most unsavory terms:

  ... if you persist, I will recommend you be stopped. As for Bishonen, there were significant health issues involved with her winter hibernation, but you would deliberately deceive people here into believing she left over a single world (sic). Shame on you! Rklawton (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  I'm not interested in working to improve content for a place that is rife with copyvio, nobody cares, and where even folks with a good record can be spoken to like that by an abusive admin. Worse, I can't even defend myself now, or he could block me. The analogy is I don't want to be part of the sunken pit of drunken hogs in my backyard. Fellow admins and arbs-- no one took him to task. So what happens to the next guy? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• If you persist Rklawton I'll move Heaven and Earth to see you desysopped, as you ought to have been long ago. Malleus Fatuorum 00:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• I first came to Wikipedia when someone sent me an email in response to one of my articles. I thought: "but I haven't written any articles on Wikipedia!" But when I looked I found that I had. Several in fact, lifted from my web pages. And everywhere I looked, all I could see was crappy articles. And every time I said that an article sucked, all anyone would do was suggest that it be fixed. So I decided it needed a little work. That was six years ago. And after all this time, we still have vandals, we still have copyvio, and we even still have (God forbid) MOS violations. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

  And we still have trigger-happy admins like you as well. Malleus Fatuorum 02:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

  I'm sorry Malleus. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

  When I first came to Wikipedia, an admin cabal went after me. Viciously. [9] One of them ended up permanently desysopped, another temporarily, and all of them came into line by hook or by crook. Lo and behold, another set of abusive admins just cropped up in their place. If Rklawton has his way, I'm not allowed to defend myself against false charges exactly as those from FeloniousMonk were demonstrably false so many years ago. How dare I speak to the truth to an admin !!!! So what's your point, Hawkeye7 (other than the jab-- God forbid-- about MOS violations)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

  What I find very strange, well, one of the things I find very strange, is that this has all blown up at a time when cultural institutions are beginning to cry out for help with their Wikipedia presence. It may only be visible to those in the UK, but the British Museum, for instance, is advertising for a Wikipedian in Residence, salary a little over £30,000 a year.[10] Chasing off those who can actually write stuff was never a good idea, but it now looks like a suicide attempt. Malleus Fatuorum 02:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

  Is it possible to live in London for "a little over £30,000 a year"? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That'll be the British Library (The BM had an unpaid one in 2010) & it's a fixed 6mth contract, so £15K. Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps depends on whether you live with your parents or not, or share with friends, but that's not the point. Malleus Fatuorum 03:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a touch above the average London wage. oops, no, that's nearly £34K, apparently Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Malleus, I think you'll find that the two are in fact quite closely related. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Without commenting on the drama side of things (my head hurts just from reading through it), I can say just from the bit I've done at CCI that it's a tough job that very few are actually willing to tackle. I get why Sandy's frustrated with it, since it shows there's a huge amount of plagiarism we have to find yet. I only did the diffs Rlevse himself posted on that TFA (the only major text addition was the current second paragraph of the lead), which means we have paraphrase issues with the editor who wrote most of that article (the original sentence in question at the talk was added here. As for my point, well, I have three. Copyright is something that needs to be tackled, but if I went berserk every time I caught something I would have been carted away from here long ago. Second, those are the types of editors we need to find and add to our ranks, those who are knowledgeable about the process and can tackle it, since few do now. Third, those running the main page should make sure nothing rlevse nominated gets put there again just to be on the safe side. As for me, I'm going to start shopping Burnham, now that I'm looking through the entire article there is quite a bit of trouble, a lot of it dating back to 2006. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Which was my point too. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)