User talk:SandyGeorgia

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

I prefer to keep conversations together and usually respond on my talk page, so watch the page for my reply.

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)

Guianan savanna

Hello,

I think that La Gran Sabana and Guyanan savanna are not the same thing. Second [1], "the savanna - they should say Guianan savanna, I think - encompasses the treeless and tree patch mosaic of the Gran Sabana". And, although the term Guianan savanna is never mentioned on that page, if you go to the page of WildWorld, and search for NT0707 (the code of "South America: Northern Brazil, Guyana, and Venezuela - Neotropic"), it will be indicated Guianan savanna. Clicking it, it will appear a box. Click in Story & Photos, and More Details, and it again refers to Guianan savanna.

Sorry for my bad English.

Thanks, Tiberti (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)Tiberti

This was quite a mess-- it was originally at Guyanan savanna, and there was no such thing as Guyanan savanna in the cited source. In fact, they don't name it at all. I did find Guianan savanna by searching their website (globally), but nowhere do we find a Guyanan savanna as far as I can tell. The site is so poorly organized that I can't decipher what they're up to ... do you have any other source that uses this terminology so we can compare, or is something they invented? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

This is really a mess. Well, I find:

• Savanas da Guiana, or Savannas of Guyana, with 43,358 square km [2];
• Savana da Guiana [3];
• South America: Northern Brazil, Guyana, and Venezuela - Neotropic (NT0707) [4] and Guaianan savanna (on the maps), both with 40,300 square miles (=100,000 square km);
• Guianan Freshwater, with 510,000 sq. km [5] and and [6].

Now, I'm very confused... Tiberti (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Tiberti, I'm pretty busy today, can't get to it yet, but we'll get these sorted. Do you speak Spanish? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm Brazilian, I can understand a bit : ) Tiberti (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Moving the discussion

Look, SG, I'm not a big time contributor around here, but I've been around enough that I know you're an important editor who knew more about Wikipedia back when I joined than I will ever know. So it's with some trepidation that I post this, but I just have to say that I really resent your tone in your post. Now, in the big scheme of things, my hurt feelings are chickenfeed compared to the apparent mess that you're looking at, so perhaps I shouldn't bother. But you should recognize that I was writing not only in good faith, but was not guilty of (most) of what you were accusing me of. Yes, I used vulgarity in an edit summary; [7] I was reacting to what I thought was another case of wikilawyering, where something good was being shot down because someone just thought they could--and that does happen. But I immediately recognized that perhaps I had overreacted, and, moments later, I approached the editor in question with complete civility.[8] And in point of fact, he acknowledged that he did act precipitously, without really having a good understanding of the issue (which is what we apparently shared in common).

Now as to your comment that these do not constitute an aesthetic improvement, clearly, by definition, this is a matter of opinion. Mine was based upon just one article, Illinois, where it simply replaced an already extant table. But I will say, not knowing the first thing about FAs, that I am pleased to learn that the Supreme Authority on FAs (I swear that is not meant sarcastically) is pro-prose. I have a pet peeve about the use of bulleted lists in articles (my current target is Quad Cities) and other such stuff; if it can be written out as text, I tend to think it's more encyclopedic. But this rule cannot be absolute, and I would be hard pressed to believe even you would not agree; what encyclopedia lacks tables? And I just thought this one was better than what had been there.

Finally, and most reluctantly, I want to address the condescending manner which you took with me regarding policy. There was, in my opinion, absolutely no justification for you to quote WP:V, WP:RS, WP:3RR, or WP:OWN. I know 'em all, and I certainly did not violate any of them, neither in my actions nor even the spirit thereof. I edited Illinois exactly once, and my comments right before your post criticizing me made clear (albeit without citing policies) that I understand the need to have accurate information. But even without the post, nothing I said would indicate that I felt otherwise.

Frankly, I am terrified that posting this will get me placed on some blacklist. But I really felt that you were out of line. I understand that you have huge responsibilities, and don't have time for this, but I've never before been so insulted by anyone with a username, and I just couldn't hold these thoughts in. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you think posting "bullshit" to another good faith editor (who was correct, by the way) was the right way to approach this? You may find that a bit of humility will hold you in good stead on a website where everyone can see everything you've written. Whatever you're reacting to, even if you think it's "wikilawyering" try to take a higher road. The previous editor indicated it wasn't a reliable source, and it clearly isn't. If you take the time to read and contemplate, you might learn something, and editing will be more fun. Now, if you'll pardon me, there's a massive cleanup that needs attending to; this isn't really the place to discuss those templates-- that place is ANI or TFD. I don't keep blacklists, by the way. It takes a sustained amount of Really Negative Stuff to earn a spot in my long-term memory. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't come here to discuss the templates; I thought that since my beef was with your interaction with me, that this was a more appropriate venue (if I was wrong, I gladly yield to your view). And as I indicated, I recognized my error in my edit summary, and acted upon that recognition, well before you took me to task. And while you were right to still point out that error; I was questioning why you were accusing me of edit warring and owning an article. No, you didn't use profanity, but there are lots of people more insulted by the bad faith of false accusations than by the exclamation of a schoolyard profanity.

And, incidentally, the reason I questioned the sourcing concern was because the information inserted by the table was the same as the information that had existed before the template was added. Did I jump to conclusions? Sure, we all do on occasion. But I owned up to it moments later, which is (in my book) still more civil than falsely accusing someone of edit warring and other such. HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you learned from this that you can avoid future problems by studying the situation before calling "bullshit" on another editor (particularly in an edit summary, where the comment will endure and can't be struck). The editor removed a non-reliable source. You reverted (to re-add a non-reliable source) without first discussing on article or user talk. It's encouraging that you later (quickly?) recognized the error, all good faith editors make mistakes, and acknowledged that your reaction was because you thought you had encountered a wikilawyer, but the reason I pointed you to 3RR is that 3RR is not a license to revert, even if he had been a "wikilawyer" you still gotta AGF and respond collegially, and I reminded you to take care in edit summary accusations. If someone says a source is not reliable, a reasonable thing to do is ask before reinstating the text. It's coincidental in this case that you say the data matched (it doesn't in most cases I've checked). Perhaps you could go help remove some of those templates? I've been working on them all night, and there are still about a hundred to go. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The situations regarding Andorra and Afghanistan are not probably complicated, but I am falling asleep at the keyboard and cannot hope to figure out the proper way to deal with them, since those templates were inserted some time ago. I leave those to you. HuskyHuskie (talk) 06:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Husky ... I see no direction forward has yet gained consensus at ANI ... perhaps since it was a good faith messup, folks are just hoping that Max will db-author delete them all so that a huge TFD discussion doesn't have to happen. If we don't hear something soon from Max, I guess an AFD may have to go forward. (I just noticed you helped out in the effort to remove them from articles-- thank you!!!) I think that's all we can do for now, Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

FAC foreign language source checks

Hi Sandy, I've taken the liberty of adding your name to User:Simon Burchell/FAC foreign language reviewers, a rough-and-ready page I've set up in response to the ongoing discussion at FAC. Feel free to do whatever you want with the page, including moving it to somewhere more appropriate. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Medical sources handout/paragraph

Sandy, if/when you create the sentences or handout or whatever it's going to be on sourcing, could you ping me? The students on the course I am working with (Wikipedia:United States Education Program/Courses/Psychology of Language (Kyle Chambers)) are having some trouble with correctly identifying secondary sources, according to a more experienced editor I'm talking to. I think your notes would be helpful. On the plus side, they seem to have been instructed to post notes to the article talk page offering to fix problems -- I've seen this note on several talk pages, almost identically phrased: "If anyone has any comments on the material that I have added or any more material that they believe should be added please comment on the talk page and I will be more than glad to take into account any comments". Let's hope they are as good as their word. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Statistical Language Acquisition

This puzzles me, rather. Is it a content fork? Is it a something else? Can you help? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Busy day, just home, tired ... Slp1 (talk · contribs) will know what to do on that one ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Doug Lynch

SandyGeorgia,

I deleted Doug Lynch from the heading "Notable Faculty" under entry of the University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education because he was a member of the staff, not of the faculty. Everyone else on the list is a member of the faculty, although a few also hold administrative appointments for set terms after which time they will return full-time to their faculty duties. (A clue here: At Penn, if the title of Dean is preceded by "Vice" or by "Assistant", you can be sure they are staff.)

Perhaps I should have kept his name but changed the heading to "Notable Faculty and Staff", which would have subsumed the two classes of employees. Are you OK with this solution? If so, would you be willing to make the change or would you like for me to? Thank you for considering this proposal.

Ephadams (talk) 01:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you're looking for an argument to exclude a discredited Douglas E. Lynch from the list of "notables" at the article about the institution that didn't check his credentials to begin with. It doesn't matter to me what you call the folks who work there (staff, faculty, administration, whatever), you don't get to remove someone from the page just because he's embarrassed the institution. That would violate WP:NPOV. By the way, I see a whole lotta supposed notables on that page whose articles are sourced to UPenn itself, which is what got us into this spot to begin with, no? It would be nice if articles were sourced to independent, third-party sources-- they might check credentials. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• Account activation codes have been emailed.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

After spending a few hours exploring my new HighBeam account for the Wikipedia topics I most edits, I found ... NOTHING of use. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Little issue to look at if you have time

If you have time and are willing to get involved with a dispute among the FA/GA people, please look at User_talk:John#Date_formats. Ealdgyth tried to do something, but it didn't help. People might listen to you. I know this is a relatively minor issue, but it should be pretty black-and-white. Also, from my perspective, MF is again scarlet lettering an article. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Please drop in at Talk:Sean Combs. And could you please get MF to stop snarking and baiting. I believe this is approaching WP:Harassment. Gimmetoo (talk) 05:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You may believe whatever you like, doesn't make it true though. Malleus Fatuorum 05:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

And if you believe that SandyG, or anyone else, has some magical power to shut me up then you really need to think again. I listen to reason, and I've heard none of that from you. Malleus Fatuorum 05:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Please do not make this personal, MF. I have endeavored not to engage your snarks. Please, address issues on the policy and guideline level, and please, please, stop trying to provoke me. Gimmetoo (talk) 05:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You're the one whose obsession with date formatting is making this personal Gimmetoo. I'd strongly advise you to stop right now. Malleus Fatuorum 06:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that unsolicited advice. Now please do not make this personal. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me tell you what I really think, and bugger the consequences. You have failed to address what you call my "snarks" because you are intellectually incapable of doing so, and thus instead resort to this kind of ad hominem appeal. Malleus Fatuorum 06:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

If addressing all pertinent points is viewed as "intellectual incapable" in your eyes, then so be it. I have, however, endeavored to ignore those comments from you that I view as snarks or insults. If you don't think comments like "drop his stick" are snarky or provocative, then you are welcome to present them another way, and I will endeavor to address them. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you've rather ably proved my point. If I don't think that such comments are "snarks or insults", which I've very clearly said that I don't, then why would I take the trouble to reword them for your benefit? Malleus Fatuorum 14:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Goodness, why has the entire Merry Merridew Anti-FAC pro-Sock Supporting Cabal suddenly appeared on the same article and for gosh sakes, Malleus ... is it worth it ????? OK, so they couldn't shut down FAC, so they're gonna shut down GimmeBot, which does the same thing. Oh, such a nice group of editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, gee, lookie there, Gimmetrow (who was plagued by Jack Merridew aka Alarbus aka everybody and the kitchen sink) has been maintaining that article for years, but Wehwalt, Diannaa, RexxS, and Rlevse (who just happened to be on the same wrong side of the FAC issue as Alarbus) just all happen to show up on the same day !! And now who said Rlevse could be trusted to be unblocked again ?? Have you all no shame? Pena ajena. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Reverts to edits on Autism article

Hi SandyGeorgia, I am confused as to why you reverted my edits. PubMed is a scientific journal, which according to Wiki's sourcing policies, is reliable and most of the article uses a scientific journal. CDC is not a scientific journal and I do not understand why the source needs to be used in the article. ATC ^{. Talk} 21:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, the sentence that says "The number of people diagnosed with autism has increased dramatically since the 1980s" is inaccurate. All the sources in the article say autism was rare in the 1980s but increased in the late 1990s and early 2000s. ATC ^{. Talk} 21:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Finally, the sources for the vaccines in the lead should not be tagged after the sentence about prevalence but after where it discusses the vaccines and the PubMed source is no longer linked and is all messy now when you click the citation tag. ATC ^{. Talk} 21:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Solicited reviews from outside subject matter experts

Can you give this a look and tell me what you think. I think this is something that is seriously handicapping Wikipedia in general and FAC in particular.

I know you said you wanted a less active role here, but this is very important to me, and I can think of no one I trust more than you to do the job of coordinating with outside experts. Raul654 (talk) 03:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Oooh, please may I solicit a review outside of your normal areas of expertise? ;P Pesky (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Chavez

Hugo Chavez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've just posted on the talk page encouraging users there to Be Bold in helping to get the article into shape. I'm ready to really put my foot down and take this to dispute resolution if we can't make progress. The ongoing issues there with blatant removals of well-sourced negative content is just ridiculous. I'm going to be really busy for the next few days, and I know you take an interest in this issue. I hope you can help.

One thing I am concerned about is that the users discussing the problem there now may not be fully experienced and may make NPOV errors in the other direction. I hope we can coach them in proper editing!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a big problem has been disruptive posts on talk in both directions-- that, even more than the pro-Chavez hagiography and wholesale removal of reliably sourced information, is what made me throw in the towel. Even the folks attempting neutrality ended up shooting themselves in the feet, making work impossible. There was no one to work with, although one editor who gave a solid effort was JoelWhy (talk · contribs), and perhaps Saravask (talk · contribs) (who wrote the now defeatured version) would come back if the talk page became constructive. We need to force folks to keep talk page discussion focused on sources and content, avoiding the outlandish claims ala Chavez is a dictator, etc. Maybe an uninvolved party can remove WP:SOAP and WP:NOTAFORUM posts? I once proposed that we needed to instate a 1RR rule there, but that was shouted down. I also suggested once reverting the article to bare bones, back before Midnightblueowl's edits made the article even more POV and verbose, and starting over, building via consensus. That flopped, too. I am going to be traveling soon, for almost two weeks, to an area where I will have limited access, so while I can weigh in sporadically for now, I won't be full force until June. If we can't make any progress by simply forcing some talk page etiquette, then I suggest we first ask for some sort of admin enforcement at ANI, and if that still fails, then it would be time for the arbs. But a solid attempt is needed: we'll see-- but I'm quite busy until June. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

FAC outside reviews

Hey Sandy,

I had a few thoughts on the Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Subject matter experts and reviews discussion that I thought too specific to put over there, for fear of taking things onto tangents.

• You mention WP:PSTS, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, etc. with outside experts. Something that I have thought about often is that I think WP's definition of PSTS is not balanced across fields. Under WP definition, a scientific primary source is a research article; this is fundamentally different from a historical primary source (e.g., a letter from 1531). Indeed, it seems like under these criteria, a historian's data are the primary sources and their papers are therefore secondary... so for symmetry, a scientific data set should be primary and a scientific research paper should be secondary (under our definitions). This makes sense to me because the experts should interpret their data. Of course, review articles written by those not directly involved in all of the research that they are summarizing are better for WP, but depending on field, these are written more or less frequently. Basically, I think that the scientific peer-reviewed literature is downgraded compared to the humanistic peer-reviewed literature under our policies, which seems strange to me as a scientist, and I think should at least be discussed before getting outside expert opinions (because I expect others to be as befuddled as I).
• Opinions: I don't think that academics in general work to advance positions in arguments for personal reasons, but sometimes they do, and when they do, they often do so loudly and obnoxiously... maybe they were ignored as children or something. (Oops! Was that just some WP:SYNTH?) It seems that WP attracts the end-members: the altruistic who want to help advance human knowledge, and the self-centered who want a megaphone. How will we sort these in the expert reviews? And how will we have an ability to argue against biased "expert" reviews? In this, I agree completely with what you say in your point #3: their [the expert's] review should be weighed exactly as we would weigh any other review.
• Implementation: I put some suggestions on the WP page, but if you want to chat / brainstorm here, I'd love to and we'd avoid cluttering that main talk page until we came up with a pretty good idea. As I said over there, I think that if we make the process easy and attractive - including inside editors and perhaps even inspire the outside reviewers to feel good about volunteering their time the fantastic WP cause - we'll have succeeded. But I haven't thought enough about how to deal with non-altruistic outside reviewers. I like to think that people are out to do good things and do less to plan for the alternative...

Awickert (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Butting in uninvited, I like your analogy of the raw data being the primary source and the published paper the secondary source. Makes sense to me. Malleus Fatuorum 20:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Me, too. Pesky (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Glad that seems sensible to both of you: I've been in very circular debates on this: peer review is the gold standard → but your peer-reviewed articles are primary sources → [loop back around]. In fact, this issue appeared recently: Wikipedia talk:No original research#Clarifying definitions. It seems like the solution in this case was common sense, but didn't involve any rewording of the (confusing) policy, and therefore is not a permanent solution.

So I think the way I would see it is (using the two above examples):

• Historian: [Gather primary historical documents] → [Assemble into research paper, with the author's impressions] → [New author writes a more dispassionate review article]
• Scientist: [Gather data] → [Assemble into research paper, with the author's impressions] → [New author writes a more dispassionate review article]

And say that the scientist writing the research paper is as susceptible to bias as the historian writing their research paper: I disagree with statements that doing the experiments makes the author personally involved in a way to define the scientific paper as a "primary source" any more than the historian's research would make them personally involved in the topic.

Maybe I should bring this up at Wikipedia: No original research... <sigh>, when I have a block of time... Awickert (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I should also note for those unfamiliar: scientific research papers always reference prior work and integrate the new findings into the body of preexisting knowledge, which also argues for their liberation from the "primary source" bucket. [Also, Sandy, kick me off your talk page if this is too tangential.] Awickert (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with u Awickert. On a wider scope, I think that en.wikipedia has a problem with science & technology. On the other side, I think that en. wikipedia is ok on humanistic, sports & entertainment. Science & technology needs higher level education, vandalism doesn't need it; maybe that's why de.wikipedia has flagged revisions. Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hm

Got slack in my absence have you? Contrary to your edit, "no police report of the incident has been produced" is not backed up by the source you give ([9]). On the contrary, the source says the police report, which has circulated via e-mail in Venezuela... Rd232 ^talk 21:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Got nicer in your absence have you? You have a most interesting take on that source-- the Baruta Police have produced no report, and declined to comment-- I guess you consider something "circulated via email" to be official. I recommend snopes.com for folks who believe anything that circulates in e-mail. Doesn't it stink to not be able to just copy-paste plagiarize and try to put something in your own words, thereby giving folks reason to shoot blanks! So while you're here picking on my paraphrasing of a source (any reason you can't use article talk ??), on a matter that is appropriate for user talk (since it's an old pattern repeating), PLEASE stop changing citation style, cutting-and-pasting exact text from sources, and switching to British English in articles that use American English and have an established style. We've been round all three of these before, and what is accomplished by this instansigent editing style is that othera have to always cleanup after you, and you should know better, if not because you're an admin but because of the length of time you've been editing. You know how to follow established citation style and we've discussed before paraphrasing ... now, I'm no better than the next guy at paraphrasing, but you don't have any excuse at this late stage for cutting corners, copy-pasting exact text, using your own citation style when there is an already established style in an article, using British English when articles (and Venezuela) are in American English, and generally making for a lot of cleanup. Try to be nice, now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I missed you too... :) (i) I'm not an admin. (ii) I've forgotten to care about Brit/US English, I'll try and remember (iii) I don't care about consistency of citation styles, especially not in an article about a future event. In a stable article going through some sort of peer review, sure, as part of crossing t's and dotting i's. The substance (info) matters, not the form. (iv) I've not copy-pasted anything that I didn't put in quotes. Phrasing can end up similar even with your own words, when you're trying to make sure you're not going beyond what the source says.

Back to the substance (which I didn't expect to need further discussion, I thought it was just an oversight or poor phrasing - hence not on article talk but here). "no police report of the incident has been produced" is directly contradicted by the source's claim "the police report, which has circulated via e-mail" (referring to the document relied on by the TV host). That's just inescapable, it's your own scepticism about the validity of the document which has made you interpolate a claim the source doesn't support. And while we're on the subject: the document is available online, and was produced by a (former?) member of the Baruta Police who authenticates it now. That the current Baruta municipality refuses to comment on a matter with legal implications (the documents are presumably considered "leaked" besides, if they're real) proves nothing at all, even if you ignore that the Baruta mayor is A New Era and presumably doesn't want to aid in harming Capriles. Rd232 ^talk 11:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Your edit
• Source: [10] (a source with a known bias, but never mind that you didn't attribute this strong biased opinion to a biased source, Venezuelanalysis.com, just looking here at the text).
  • Source: At the time Capriles was mayor of Baruta, a position which he then used to cover up the event, avoid any charges and have the policeman in question subjected to a disciplinary process.
  • Yours.: Capriles was Mayor of Baruta at the time, and according to the policeman used his position to cover up the event, avoid indecency charges, and subject the policeman to a disciplinary process.

So, yes, paraphrasing correctly is not always easy, but it seems that I spend more of my time cleaning up citation issues than actually editing, and when I'm next back in there to again clean up, I will look at my paraphrasing of the lack of a police report. "Not an admin" is a red herring. I'm glad you'll take more care with American English, as that is what is used in Venezuela and was established in the article, and when a future event is likely to be edited heavily when that event occurs, it would be considerate of you to not introduce your own idiosyncratic citation style in the interim, so that editors new to the article will see the established style. Alternately stated, does it not embarrass you to use me as a secretary? <rhetorical, never mind>. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Be careful about asserting a Munroe doctrine over ENGVAR, Sandy, or we Brits are liable to do the same for European subjects! But the established style should be followed, yes. Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind terribly not imposing the horrific cite template style on articles you haven't created? Because that's what you did here, as part of tidying the sort of stylistic issues you choose to care about, on the flimsy excuse that there were conflicting styles and one was cite template. (And why were they conflicting in the first place? Because people like me who don't care about citation style except to avoid the unreadable template style have to de facto respect it when it's imposed on articles, so when copying from other WP articles it spreads like a virus, garbling wikitext everywhere it spreads. ... Urgh. I hate them, I really do!) Re paraphrasing: see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Running every word of a small bit of text through a thesaurus is not necessary. We can also take into account originality and that often there is a limited number of ways of stating a fact which is from one source and doesn't have enough detail to rework extensively without running the risk of changing the meaning. Rd232 ^talk 14:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

No, that s not what I did but since you now acknowledge that you don't know and don't care what a citation style is, perhaps we can now sort why you keep doing this and leaving it to someone else to clean up.

And why were they conflicting in the first place?

You wrote a new article that used at least three different citation styles and one citation template-- the article you created had no established style and one citation template, so I standardized them to templates for consistency in the absence of a better plan (your unique individual citation style isn't very useful). I don't care if you use citation templates or don't, but if you don't use one style when creating an article, someone has to clean it up to something.

Citation style: do you put journals in italics or don't you? See WP:ITALICS; you put some in them in italics others not. Do you put publisher before the title or after? You did both. DO you use citation templates or not? You did both. I don't like citation templates either, but you used one and you established no style and when you've mixed three different styles (at least), there was no reason for me to clean it up to a unique style that is nothing nowhere to anyone except you.

Yes, I checked the accessdate I added.

As we've discussed before, I hope you realize that by introducing a citation style unique to yourself only, you make it harder for others who edit the same suite of articles. But that's your choice, just as it's my choice to grumble about being your personal secretary. Since I'm so busy being your secretary, I haven't yet had time to revisit the Baruta police issue or to clean up the citation mess you created in that article. Nice way to keep me occupied !!! NOt ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I've already said why there were conflicting styles, but just to spell it out: the citations were taken from different WP article sources, and making them match is something I wouldn't bother to do unless I had too much time or the article was going through a review process. Nobody asked you to go around standardising these things, and please stop pretending that you need to. Rd232 ^talk 16:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

And that provides the opportunity for me to point out why it would be helpful if you adopted a more universal style: when you copy citations from other articles in the suite, you end up with mixed citation styles, with a citation style no one but you understands, which makes an entry barrier for new editors to overcome. We expect to educate new editors about citations and to clean up after them: we don't expect that from an experienced editor. We also can't read minds about what your citation style is or what you intend when you use one citation template and then mix it with a non-style. If you don't want to make things match, that's fine-- then accept that those who do the cleanup are entitled to use an understandable, consistent style. Take your pick: either establish a consistent style yourself, do the work yourself, or don't grumble when someone else has to spend their time cleaning up after you, an experienced editor who should know better.

A consistent citation style involves things like 1) how do you handle authors (last name first, first name last, author before title, full name, initials, etc); 2) how do you handle dates (placing, formatting, parens, etc); 3) how do you handle publishers (WP:ITALICS, before or after title, etc); 4) how do you handle titles (quotes, etc) and so on. You have no style. I clean up after you. It wastes my time and is an issue down the road regardless if I clean up or not, because someone has to and you should know better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The style I use when I create new citations is APA. When I copy existing ones, I leave them as they are. It's not complicated. "someone else has to spend their time cleaning up after you" - once again, who appointed you Stylist In Chief? Rd232 ^talk 17:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Whether it's just the usual sarcarm or deliberate obtuseness, this discussion is going in circles and boring me now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Circularity implies motion. We haven't moved one iota from the fact that you care about consistency of citation styles, and I don't, except as polishing an article that's going through a review process, which 99% of articles never will. Rd232 ^talk 17:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Christ man, this is painful to read. Do you have any idea how much easier it is to apply consistency and standards during the content creation process than after it? If you don't care about editorial standards, why are you contributing to a community project that has a style guide and has standards in place? --Laser brain (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's a good strategy ... if I'm otherwise entertained doing his secretarial work, he gets to add content that I have to fix, and I never have time to add content. Win-win for him; lose-lose for me! And so damn irresponsible and arrogant to assume someone else somewhere down the road has to clean up after you, particularly with articles that will appear on the mainpage on election day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

On the dick-sucking BLP Baruta police issue

And now that my secretarial chores are done, and I can actually look at content added, we can discuss the content issue you raised above. The next time you try to claim that a living politician running for president against Chavez sucked some guy's dick in a car and that there's a police report circulating in email even though it's never been produced, you'd best find some sources that are high quality per our WP:BLP policy. Need I remind you that you've done this sort of BLP vio before, [11] (not uncoincidentally to another politician who opposed Chavez) and that we don't use Chavez-controlled or radical sites to place a living politician in a car sucking a guy's dick? Not that I'm opposed to said activity or anything, but I believe you, a former admin or whatever you are, should know how to apply BLP and what kinds of sources we require for that kind of text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Pff, you're funny. You claim to be removing a BLP violation, but the alleged incident is still mentioned (as it was before I came to the article), and all you've done is remove some details of the allegations because you don't like the source of those details. You're trying to claim my edit stated the allegation was true; it didn't. On the other hand, your "correction" implies a denial ("no proof") the police themselves refused to make. (And let's not bring up the Rosales thing again - suffice to say that the incident you objected to so much is still in the article right now, and you were involved in editing it. So let's not pretend it was inherently an egregious BLP vio.) Rd232 ^talk 22:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

PS It seems to have escaped your attention that the sex of Capriles' partner in the alleged incident is a detail which may play well to homophobes in Venezuela, but the real issue is the (alleged) cover-up of the (alleged) act, not who the (alleged) act was with. Put another way, do you really think that if the alleged partner had been an alleged OK, over-egging pudding... woman, the alleged abuse of office and public indecency would not have been an issue? Rd232 ^talk 22:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I always strive to be funny when discussing dick-sucking politicians. See WP:BLPN. And try to aim for WP:DUE when you discuss allegations furthered via e-mail campaigns during election cycles. When will I ever find time to remove your undue text from Rosales, when I'm so busy cleaning up citations for you ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Pine/drafts/ENWP Board of Education

You may want to read and comment on User:Pine/drafts/ENWP Board of Education. It proposes amongst other things creating a body that is parallel but does not compete with ArbCom. --LauraHale (talk) 05:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Seriously?

I challenge an editor who is blind-reverting my copyedits because he likes a particular idiosyncratic style of date formatting, you comment at my talk (though not the other editor's) while admitting you have not actually looked at the edits in question, we discuss the matter at the relevant article talk and MoS talk, you come along and accuse me (implicitly) of being a sockpuppet and part of a "cabal", I express concern for your well-being, and you think I am unfit for adminship? What am I missing here? --John (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, you're missing a lot, and I'd be glad to take the time to explain all of it in detail, but we seem to have a bigger intervening issue. I'll help you out here in the tone and manner of dialogue you and I have enjoyed since you changed after you saw the error of the way you treated Ceoil, [12] just as soon as you address the inappropriate comment you made about my mental wellbeing. First things first: if you're reverting to your old ways, and my typing will fall on deaf ears, I don't need to take the time to educate you on the citation matter. Abusive admins are a bigger problem than citation style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Stepping in where I most likely shouldn't with an unsolicited comment. Sandy, I've been friends with Ceoil for two years and have never seen those diffs. In my view, dragging them out now is counterproductive because it's an issue that done and gone. I will however say in your defense, that the issue of wiki-hounding is problematic, and in my case the hounding by Alarbus/Jack (and for which Jack has a clearly established pattern) has made it impossible for me to collaborate with editors for fear of pulling them into unnecessary disputes - as was done with Ceoil who took two blocks on my behalf because of Alarbus and, as you well know, whose wiki-friendship I've lost because of that situation. I'd very much like to see all this dredging up of past actions stop - but in the case Gimmetoo, it is worrisome to see a specific group of editors, with whom I've had similar problems, show up on the page. I have no opinion in regards to that page or the citation styles, fwiw. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope, when an old behavior pattern repeats, it's not done and gone-- it's relevant. John is ill-informed in his post above, and when his position on that article was questioned, he reverted to his old ways, sadly. That needs to be sorted before I'm going to take my time to explain the rest to him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Bad time to get all precious Sandy but OK I have struck it. So what was the story then? --John (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Precious? Please, John, have you been reading too much from that Gerda person? I was beginning to really enjoy you. Anyway, my time this evening was consumed by dick-sucking politicians, and ... "Reluctantly" striking and my "story had better be good". Tsk, tsk; that doesn't look like a repeal of your old ways to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Precious, somewhat rude and highly paranoid. You implied here that I (and Malleus and anyone else commenting in the Sean Coombs discussion who was not a vested contributor on that article) was "personalizing" the dispute, when that is something you have done. You stated here that I was an "abusive admin", without any evidence except an archived talk page post from several years ago concerning a dispute which I and that user have long put behind us. I should have known something was wrong when you commented here that you were intervening in a dispute without having read the edits the dispute was about! I'll leave you to your other interests now. Take care and I hope to speak to you again in better days. --John (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Precious, somewhat rude and highly paranoid - and looking to me like pretty much right in all major aspects. Sandy can be pretty passionate and goes over the top every so often, but IMO she's called it well here. Also, just to be clear, admin or not, stop worrying about people's well-being on this wiki. Worry about the outcome of their actions in terms of the encyclopedia, but do not speculate on their mental states. An admin should definitely understand that is unacceptable behaviour, with the correction being a block from editing privileges. Franamax (talk) 07:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Franamax, if you are going to comment here, it might be worth reading what was actually said. After Sandy went off at such a bizarre tangent (diffs are just above) I said it leaves me worried for your well-being to be honest. It was a sincere expression of concern when seeing someone behaving in such an out-of-character way. The contention that this constitutes speculation on someone's mental state is yours and not mine. The suggestion that I could be blocked for such a comment is interesting. Nevertheless, I will refrain from expressing concern for Sandy for a good while if not forever since it causes you both such stress. --John (talk) 08:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

John, you are seriously messing up here. I'm concerned about your mental state (how do you like that comment ?). On a more serious note, I'm actually concerned about your editing privileges and your admin status, if you can go around the Wiki commenting on people's well being, which is about as unveiled of a personal attack as it gets. Especially since this is a return to an old pattern which I thought you had left behind. This eclipses your faulty interpretation of the whole citation matter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

John, get the history right. First, I challenged your edit. You retaliated with a template warning (still not justified), and eventually threatened me with "you'll regret it", which from an admin can be understood to mean a block.. You provoked me, and yes, I took some of the bait. Have you admitted any misconduct on your part yet? Do you even recognize any? Gimmetoo (talk) 08:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

AIV report

Regarding this report: I've blocked the /21 range for 1 week. Should help. Rjd0060 (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you ... I spose I could have requested semi-protection, but the article will be deleted soon, and the IP may continue recreating. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Frederick Russell Burnham FAR

Hi Sandy - The Frederick Russell Burnham FAR is still ongoing and hasn't had any comments in the FARC section. Would you have a chance to drop by and give your thoughts? If so, it would be much appreciated. If not, no biggie; I know you have a lot going on in other areas. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)