User talk:SandyGeorgia

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

FACs needing feedback view •
MLS Cup 2022	Review it now
Fountain Fire	Review it now
1973 FA Charity Shield	Review it now

If you want me to look at an article or a FAC, please provide the link (and have a look at User:Steve/Oppose rationale for some helpful info).
If you are unsure if a FAC is closed, see WP:FAC/ar.
Otherwise, Leave me a message.

Why POV?

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

A bit more

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

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

The Fat Man

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you still on board with this?

[1] Shall I keep looking through, or have you lost interest? Malleus Fatuorum 01:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Busy days IRL-- I intend to catch up as soon as I can, but perhaps not until tomorrow night. Since you're on it, I wasn't worried :) I appreciate it, and don't mean to be neglectful, but I'll be more settled after next Monday. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I just had more questions than answers. As an aside, my psychiatric bible is Szaz's Myth of Mental Illness, so I probably won't be much help with the content. Malleus Fatuorum 01:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Me neither-- I don't have all of the sources, and I'm not as up on Schizophrenia as some other disorders; I may end up pinging Doc James to look at those, but I want to find time to do what I can first, since he's overworked. But so am I :) I've got about ten things I need to catch up on-- not when I'm tired after a busy day, with more to come. I do appreciate all you've done already. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't quite finished with this yet, but I'm getting there. I was diverted by Margaret Thatcher's GAR, which is done now, so I should be able to get through the rest of it over the weekend. Enjoy your break. Malleus Fatuorum 03:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Schizophrenia

Hi Sandy (and TPW) - Wikipedia:Featured article review/Schizophrenia/archive3 has had no substantive discussion on the review page for two months. Do you think that you could stop by and leave any comments you may have? Also, I'm assuming that most of the people that are interested in that discussion watch your page and will notice this post, but if there is anyone else you think should be notified, can you please ping them? I know that work has been ongoing on the article, but it would be nice to get things wrapped up with the review. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Crap. Just noticed this fell through the cracks-- I'll try to get over there tomorrow, struggling with limited reviews at FAC this week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hallmark

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

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

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

Part apology over Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome‎

I offer a part apology over Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome‎. I had edited the article thinking that it already had 7 uses of {{cite journal}}, so increased use of citation templates was reasonable, whereas it actually only had one (I must have seen the count post- initial reformatting rather than pre-). I assume you'll now remove that existing cite journal too? I'll then see about manually re-adding the extra available DOI and PMC links, since it will be worthwhile to have them. However, to say cite templates are not used in the article is not exactly right when there seem to be about half a dozen uses of {{cite book}} also. Had there been strictly no citation templates in use I would not have picked up the article in the first place. Rjwilmsi 23:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Rj, I've been meaning to get back over there and fix any stragglers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

FAR ping

Hi Sandy - Just a ping to see if you are still interested in checking on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Schizophrenia/archive3. Also, Tuberculosis is up for FAR at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Tuberculosis/archive1, if you're interested. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Philip Baird Shearer

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer. -- Parrot of Doom 10:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC) Parrot of Doom 10:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Featured Lists on the main page

Hi Sandy, I can see you're incredibly busy right now, but I wanted to let you know that the proposals for "Today's Featured List" and "... Sound" are reaching the stage where they will be ready to go live soon, thanks to Edokter taking over the coding after Adam left. I understand if you're too busy to comment, but I didn't want you to feel that you had missed out on the process this time around. The discussions that I'm aware of are at Talk:Main Page and Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list and there's a demo version at Wikipedia:Featured lists/Main Page preview. Regards --RexxS (talk) 12:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

FAC...

As the FAC I'm currently on as a co-nom has one support (and no opposes) can I be free to nominate another article or would you prefer me to wait? FAC is here Ealdgyth - Talk 13:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead ... as a co-nom, you're allowed another anyway! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Autism#Study says 47% recovers from autism

Hi SandyGeorgia, I started a discussion here. Can you reply with your thoughts? Thanx. ATC ^{. Talk} 23:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Question

Bit of a trivial question, but I was wondering, on the Watchlist, there are numbers in parens next to the time of a posting for an article. What exactly does that signify?

Homo Logica (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi HL, if you refer to the (+1271) or (-2098) - or whatever the actual numbers happen to be, they refer to how much content was added (+) or removed (-) since the last revision. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think it's the number of bytes change with the edit. Green means added size, red is reduced. Or do you mean some other numbers? Everyone sets up their preferences for watchlists differently. I recognize your name from something recently. Can't remember what though, dealing with 5000 or so articles. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was talking about. You and I were talking over at Evolutionism. I have some source material on my Talk page, and I'm going to add a bit more there, before I start forming stuff up. Homo Logica (talk) 01:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Could some kind person please tell me why Wikipedia is suddenly e-mailing me every time someone posts to my talk page, causing my Blackberry to endlessly beep at me during a time when I am swamped in real life with my head in a gazillion tedious decisions that must be made under time pressure (there's some old Russian saying about not wishing construction upon your worst enemy)? Can I make it go away, and then maybe have it come back when I'm not so busy? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah the cute message sez 'E-mail notifications for changes to your user talk page have been enabled. This feature can be disabled under "E-mail options" in your preferences.'

P.S. omg what is that huge purple thing with a flower in it --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)]

It's a message nobuddy ever reads !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Special:Preferences, and unclick the next-to-last box. Annoying, isn't it? - Dank (push to talk) 02:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both-- yes, annoying as all heck when you're busy IRL, but I can see that I might like it later on. Thanks again ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I can update the urgents while you're busy, if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 13:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

That would be most kind of you, Dank-- in fact, I was just looking at that, but need to get out the door soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Dank, I try to keep them in order, with the oldest on top so they'll get (hopefully) first review (and keeping them in order makes it easier for me to update as I'm running through). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, didn't know. - Dank (push to talk) 14:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Permission

Hi, Sandy, I realize you and the other delegates are intensely busy IRL, and I respect that. Since Jefferson nickel I believe has consensus to promote, but you have not had time to go through FAC, can I ask permission to nominate my next FAC candidate, Koninginnedag? It's all about orange beer if that helps.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

yep, go ahead ... don't let OrangeMarlin know about Orange beer! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Will avoid. Hic.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

FAC

Hi SandyGeorgia, I'm here to ask for your opinion about the article Airbus A330, which is currently at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Airbus A330. It has been two weeks and yet no-one has seem to know that the review exists; I've tried notifying everyone at WT:Aviation and WT:Aircraft, as well as some users, without much success. The article has since gone though a copy-edit by the helpful Jjron, the third since the first FAC. I think the article has met all the criteria required for the star. Could I instead by-pass (close) the A-class review, and head straight for FAC? Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 10:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Normally, I wouldn't recommend a premature closure to another review process, but 1) A-class isn't required prior to FAC, 2) not all areas of Wikipedia have A-class reviews, and 3) you've had it up long enough with no feedback. In other words, there's nothing preventing you coming to FAC-- I haven't looked at the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Does that mean a green light? Looking forward to the FAC Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 22:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that SandyG was quite clear, so have at it! Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you restore the delete page Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Airbus A330/archive3 that I disobidiently created when it was only 5 days after the FAC closure? Thanks Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 04:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed link, restored. You still need to add it to the list, though. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a heap :) Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 07:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Email

You haz it. Raul654 (talk) 07:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Got it, catching up still. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

RfC/U

I did think there should be no further cause for allegations about procedural flaws, particularly when the subject is absent, and that things should be consistent across RfC/Us so DR can be used with a little more faith, but apparently I'm not helping. It's bad enough that things are being chipped away slowly in DR, but it's bound to get worse when admins themselves are the cause for its downfall because of poor judgement and laziness to think things through beforehand. SlimVirgin was involved up to her ears and has demonstrated an utter unwillingness to permit uninvolved users who do know how RfC/Us are run to bring the comments in compliance with the instructions. The rules are pretty fair in that they apply to all disputes and involved parties, but apparently her dispute is particularly special so she doesn't need to make a proposal to change the instructions across the board like others would. It's all news to me I guess, but clearly there's little point in me continuing, so it's back to you (or someone else...or maybe nobody again). In any case, good luck with it, Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry I haven't been able to keep up there, Ncm-- not sure what's been happening there, didn't know the subject was absent, and probably won't find time to look until the weekend. I know you generally do a good job of keeping RFC/Us in order, so am concerned that something has led you to give up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Permission?

Hi Sandy - I'm co-nom here which has supports, and I'd like to nominate another article soonish. Is that okay? Hope you're well btw. Thanks. TK (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead ... I will be able to look at FAC in the next 24 to 30 hours, once I catch up around the house. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about FAC. It's not as though we have a deadline here! Anyway, just noticed your post on the FAC talkpage - I'll review another page or so first. Take care. TK (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciated ... the age-old message about lack of reviews at FAC never seemed to get through, and I do so appreciate your (and others) reviews. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

As a co-nom on the same article, I will take this as applying to Holy Thorn Reliquary too if that's ok - it has an exhibition opening to catch. Johnbod (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

yep ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Urgents

I'm sorry, I misunderstood the assignment ... I thought I was doing the formatting so that it would be easy for you to pick and choose. I admit that I don't really get the distinction between a FAC that's had enough reviews and one that hasn't, but that's something I'm trying to learn as I can. - Dank (push to talk) 00:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

FAC- Federation of Stoke on Trent

Hi Sandy, this being my first FAC nomination I'm not totally au fait with the process. I understand you closing the review due to lack or reviewers but I'm not sure where to go now. There's a small matter to follow up with User:Dank but then there isn't really anything. Does your edit note mean that subject to the conversation with Dank the article can be resubmitted in a week or so?

Also I've seen the discussion about lack of reviewers, I'd love to help but I'm still cutting my teeth on GA let alone FA. Thanks for all the hard work you put in on FAs. NtheP (talk) 09:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Reviewers can often be frightened by walls of text, especially on an article whose subject might not appear at first glance to be that interesting. Give it a while and then renominate it, but next time, include in your "reason why this is FA" a proper description, something to hook people. For instance, look at the reason I gave in this FAC nomination. And give me a shout, I'll review it for you. Parrot of Doom 09:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

As a lawyer, I found the article interesting, but did not have time to review it due to other commitments and an ill-timed attack of bronchitis which I am happy to say has gone away. When you bring it back after a few weeks or so, I will be happy to do a review, just drop me a note on my talk.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks people. Watch your talk pages in 2/3 weeks time. NtheP (talk) 10:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I closed three FACs only for lack of review after a month, and indicated that none of them needed to wait the usual two weeks to come back-- they may come back in a week if the nominators think they are ready. I'm sorry your FAC got no attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. As Arnie said "I'll be back". NtheP (talk) 13:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Arnie's days are over :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The Terminated! NtheP (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm almost always happy to look through UK articles, so give me a shout as well when it goes back up at FAC. In fact I took a look at it yesterday, a few hours before the review was archived, and I was pondering on the article title (which I don't think is right) before I offered an opinion. Malleus Fatuorum 22:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Nickel

Your comments addressed. Danke for the promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad your bronchitis is resolved-- it can sometimes turn nasty. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It was mildly scary, and forced me to drop off my current band tour, alas. However, I'm resting up today (the hospital is right across the street just in case) and I expect to be good to drive tomorrow. I am reluctantly concluding that I am actually mortal.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Red Badge FAC

Re: this, the punctuation has been checked and checked again by yours truly, first during the GAC, then again during the PR. It's A-OK and follows LQ guidelines. Many of the quotes don't appear to be full sentences, but the punctuation is correct regardless. Thanks for promoting! María (habla conmigo) 13:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know ... without accessing the sources, it can be hard to tell, best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The Autobiography of Malcolm X

Thank you for promoting the article.

Most of the books included in the Further reading section are books about Malcolm X, but they're referred to in the text of the article. If you think that's unclear or unnecessary, I'd be happy to cut them out. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know ... my concern about Futher reading is that they can tend to grow over time, as others try to add things when they see a long list ... if they are mentioned in the text, it is sometimes possible to switch them to citations, but whatever you think best. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

FA images question for SandyGeorgia or her TPS

Can anyone offer any insight as to what this is all about? --Moni3 (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Moni, the editor in question is tagging loads of files for deletion at the speed of light. This came to my attention because of the Stonewall image. There is something going on, I can't explain what, but it doe not seem in keeping with our collaborative ethos. Graham Colm (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Damiens.rf has some further discussion. Woody (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Request to have The Story of Miss Moppet de-FAd because of problem with banned User:ItsLassieTime

Hi Sandy, I scrubbed The Story of Miss Moppet from the plagiarism introduced by User:Susanne2009NYC, but I'd like to have its star stripped because of ongoing harassment by User:ItsLassieTime socks. See on my user page: [2], [3], [4], and [5]. On my FAs, see [6], [7], and [8]. Also see this ANI thread: [9]. I think trying to salvage the page, though done with good intentions, validated their work and was a mistake. Ruhrfisch helped a lot in the scrubbing and agrees, [10]. I suspect eventually we'll bring it back, but at this point I feel strongly that it doesn't deserve a star. Of course I have no idea whether a star can be stripped, but this might set a precedent. Also want very much to emphasize that all FACs need to be spot-checked to avoid stuff like this happening again. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't you have to go to WP:FAR?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I was about to say the exact same thing. In what way does the current version of the article not meet the FA criteria Truthkeeper? Malleus Fatuorum 21:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

We can take it to FAR - but it doesn't deserve the star. The star was given to a serial plagiarist who is now harassing me. I don't want this person's work to be validated in this manner. Figure out what needs to be done, but it's wrong. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The article must be judged on its own merits. The actions of editors associated with it are irrelevant. Hitler could have written the article with Pol Pot, that wouldn't make the slightest bit of different to its status. Parrot of Doom 22:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. Malleus Fatuorum 22:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

edit conflict - The article could have gone straight to FAR, the edits rev - deleted and be stubbified or even completely deleted. It was full of copyvio - sentence after sentence. That's what should have happened, but it occurred at a time when another page made its way through FAC, it's my subject area and I decided to scrub. I think it doesn't deserve a star. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

In fact we could still rev - del all of Suzanne's edits and it would interesting to see what that would do the content. Maybe that's the thing to do. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Whether it deserves a star or not depends on whether it meets the FA criteria or not, not on who wrote what. Malleus Fatuorum 22:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, I understand that you think it should keep the star. But the actions of the editor are important. I reverted content from one of their articles yesterday which caused harassment. If I hadn't helped scrub the article it wouldn't have a star and I think if we rev - deleted all of Suzanne's content it wouldn't be FA-worthy. At this point there's a pretty good argument to rev-del this editors edits on sight. Validating that kind of behavior is wrong if it results in having other editors driven away from the project. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The actions of the editor are utterly irrelevant. The article either stands or falls on its own merits. If you think it should fall, take it to FAR. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Parrot of Doom 22:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure we could all point to lots of articles that without our scrubbing wouldn't still have their stars, Roy of the Rovers springs immediately to my mind. But it's not about who wrote what, as PoD says, it's about "does the article meet the FA criteria"? Malleus Fatuorum 22:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

edit conflict - The problem is that bathwater enjoys having their baby. If Raul, Sandy, Dana, and Nikkimaria think it should go to FAR, I'll take it to FAR. I'd hate to ask Moonriddengirl or MuZemike to rev -del all the previous edits, but will if necessary. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Look, I didn't even get a star for it. The point I'm trying to make is that validating serial plagiarism is a bad idea. Giving a star a worse idea. The minute we find plagiarism, especially to that extent, in a page the star should be stripped. We can't ever run that page on the main page because the copy vio is still in the history. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Then get someone to tidy up the history; the only thing that matters is what the article looks like now. Malleus Fatuorum 22:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

PS. I've worked on loads of FAs I don't have a star for, that's not what matters. I'm afraid that what this looks like to me is that you want the article to be demoted so that you can claim the credit for its subsequent promotion. Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

edit conflict x two -Throwing the baby out with the bathwater would be if I walked away for being called a pretentious little bitch. Which I'm about to do - FAC or no FAC. Universities fail plagiarism - regardless of the author or student - and we should do the same. Post edit conflict - I know you have. I don't care about the star. I do care that the person who continues with the plagiarism project wide got a star and is obviously happy their star was saved. That was a mistake. After second edit conflict - you are so far wrong you can't imagine. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why you care what they think. I certainly don't care to know the thoughts of anyone I don't like. Why does it matter to you what some random nutter on the internet thinks? Parrot of Doom 22:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

If I'm wrong then I apologise, I'm simply saying how it looks to me. Of course calling you a "pretentious little bitch" is indefensible, but it has absolutely nothing to do with this article. If you can make a case at FAR then go ahead, otherwise I'm afraid that you'll have to live with it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The bottom line is that SandyG has no authority to remove FA status, that's the remit of FAR. Malleus Fatuorum 22:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That is true. Once the bot is sent out with the star, that is not revocable. And Raul has prescribed a process for the removal of the star, FAR. Even with Grace Sherwood, that route was taken.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Then it goes to FAR, like Grace Sherwood. That's the easy answer. Accusing me of being vindictive wasn't necessary. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Correct-- I have no remit to remove a star, FAR is where that is done, and it's on the merits of the article, nothing to do with editor behavior. It could have been FAR'd before, but it seems you fixed the article ? TK, if serial sockpuppeteer LassieTime is harassing you, admins should be helping you on that. I suggest getting MoonRiddenGirl on board, and asking several admins to help address the harassment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll take it to FAR. Beyond that though, I think we need to have clear guidelines regarding the consequences of plagiarism. If a page passes FAC, then should it always go to FAR (at this point I think so), should it be scrubbed, should the edits be removed from history via rev-del? Do we have a clear process for this? We had two plagiarized articles pass FAC in a short period - Grace Sherwood and The Story of Miss Moppet They were dealt with differently, and I think the point I'm failing to make, is that they should have been dealt with exactly the same. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It would have been more correct, in hindsight, to FAR Miss Moppet at the time ... I can't recall exactly, but I think you decided to try to fix it? MoonRiddenGirl should always be brought in ... and FAR is the correct action ... but I'm not sure it's correct now. I suggest asking MRG if the article history needs any further attention or scrubbing, and asking admins to help you with the harassment (which is probably accomplished by the number of them that read my page, but MRG and others should specifically help you out since you are being targeted). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

And yes, I am dismayed at the number of FAC noms that no one is spot checking-- we don't need to spotcheck noms from editors whose work we know well and whose work has been checked before, but we sure do need to do more serious checks on editors whose work has never been checked before, in addition to random spotchecks on everything. Again, I am concerned at these calls for more delegates, when what we need are more reviews, so that when delegates sit down to read FAC, they find complete reviews leading to consensus to promote. It's frustrating as hell to spend six hours reading FAC, only to find so many incomplete or lacking review-- more delegates won't solve that problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself I do spot check what sources I can, especially for editors I'm unfamiliar with, but one can only do what one can. Malleus Fatuorum 00:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

My specific concern is FACs from first-time nominators, where Nikkimaria specifically indicates "spotchecks not done", yet the FAC receives multiple supports. When I read through last night, I found three such examples: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/RAF Northolt/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sack of Amorium/archive1, and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fluorine/archive2. I'm not passing 'em without spotchecks-- that doesn't mean we need to spotcheck, for example, Brianboulton or editors whose work we know very well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The Northholt one is interesting, as I lived about 5 miles away from the airfield and used to drive past the place almost every week. So far as that one is concerned I'd be checking for stuff that seemed implausible to me, not randomly. In fact that's my general MO now I come to think of it. Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I did offer to scrub because it's in my content area, but I think that was a mistake. That's the point I'm trying to make - we should have a clear process, like always taking a plagiarized page to FAR. Anyway, I have been in contact with MRG and will ping her specifically about Miss Moppet. The ILT situation is such an incredible mess that I really think the only thing to do is delete or revert all of their edits. I thought it was a shame to have that done to a FA, but that's just being soft. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

IMO, we do have a clear process, and we don't need more process for a situation that should (hopefully) not recur (I'm not passing FACs from editors whose work I don't know if reviewers haven't checked sources). The process is-- initiate a FAR, and bring in the copyvio people. In hindsight, it was probably a mistake to try to scrub the Moppet, as that did reward the plagiarizer, but now we have to look at the merits of the article, not the editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we're agreeing and that's the answer I needed because truly I wasn't clear on the process. All of Suzanne/ILT's edits need to be removed, either before or at FAR, and then we take it from there. Thanks also for understanding my point that scrubbing rewarded the plagiarizer. I'll contact Ruhrfisch and MRG. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

BTW - just so you and everyone knows - I have a kidney stone. No drugs yet though; I'm being stoic. But obviously I'm not in a great mood, and I'm stuck at home. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, my, I had one of those this year, and it ranks right up there with a dry socket after wisdom teeth removal. I Laughed Out Loud when the (male) urologist asked me how the pain compared to giving birth ... let 'em think that giving birth is as awful as some make it out to be, but the kidney stone is the worst pain I've ever been through. Good luck ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you remember that scene at the end of El Cid when the dead Charlton Heston rides out at the head of his army in full armour to defeat the Moors? Malleus Fatuorum 00:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

No-- got a youtube? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm one of those people who gets them a lot, so I tend to try to ignore them. But it's not fun. But it does make me cranky to say the least. And the ILT situation really annoys me. Malleus, I don't remember, so that flew right over my head. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The urologist assured me I'd never get another one ... hmmmmm ... crystal ball? I can understand your frustration and annoyance at the ILT harassment ... when I've had similar problems, I've found that helpful admins help preserve sanity, particularly via e-mail. Find one who is also a checkuser who is willing to help you. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I had my first one when I was seventeen and have lost track of how many since. The second in two months. According to Wikipedia, I'm in illustrious company. Haven't a clue how your urologist knew you'd never get one again. Anyway, thanks for helping me get this sorted out. I'll take my drugs so I'm not in such pain, and quietly fade away, and then when I'm better take Miss Moppet to FAR. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, he said that if it took me x years to form one, it would take me x years to form another, and I'll be dead by then. Fill in the blank-- I'm not revealing my age :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

As always:[11] The Moors believed that they had killed El Cid during the previous day's battle, which they had. But the Spaniards lashed him to his horse the following day to lead his army to victory even though he was dead. Malleus Fatuorum 02:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

After lots of edit conflicts and a thunder storm knocking out my internet, let me try to explain how I see all of this and try to help explain why Truthkeeper88 (TK) and I thought the FA star should be removed. The Story of Miss Moppet passed FAC without anyone catching the plagiarism (myself included). User:Susanne2009NYC added me as a conom to the Miss Moppet FAC after GimmeBot closed the FAC. See article history. A few weeks later another of Susanne2009NYC's articles was at FAC and was found to have lots of plagiarism and too close paraphrasing - see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Tale of Mr. Jeremy Fisher/archive1. I felt very bad that I had not caught the plagiarism on an FA where I was (belatedly) listed as a co-nom and worked with Truthkeeper88 (who did most of the work) to literally check every source cited and every sentence in Miss Moppet. I wanted to make sure it was up to the FA standards, but at the same time always felt uneasy about it. While we had done our best to scrub the article (and I think improved it along the way), the article had never faced the scrutiny of the community it should have had it gone to FAR, or had the copyvio problems been discovered during its own FAC. Then too, once it became known that Susanne2009NYC was really a sock of ItsLassieTime, there was the whole uncomfortable "sockpuppet gets an FA aspect of it" - by WP:BAN shouldn't the article have lost its content as well as its star? Although I was listed as a co-nom, I never added the article to my user page list of FA conoms (and yes, there have been a few articles I have worked harder on and did not get a star, and a few I have done less on and have a star for). Truthkeeper88 and I also cleaned up Mrs. Tiggywinkle (with help from others, including Malleus IIRC) and Truthkeeper88 did much more cleanup work on many of Susanne2009NYC's contributions. So as I see it, Truthkeeper88 has been willing to do an awful lot of work for almost no recognition, has been nastily insulted multiple times by the sock whose work Truthkeeper88 has cleaned up, and now, that same sock is attacking articles TK has been a major contributor too. When we realized that Miss Moppet probably should have lost its star way back when, we were not sure how that should be done (and it seems to that Truthkeeper88 has been chided for not knowing how FAR works). I blame myself and apologize to Truthkeeper88, but I do agree that the standard should be made clearer for cases like this. Hope this helps and so sorry about the kidney stone. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch, you can revert that edit where ILT added your name if you wish-- it had no effect anywhere (that is, since it was added late, it wasn't added to WP:WBFAN; See log. It seems that ILT was messing with you-- ya'll shouldn't let it). I hope there won't be another case like this :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy - I undid the edit. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Truthkeeper88 is a vindictive little bitch who needs to involve busy people in her little concerns. As long as she can play the fainting Victorian missy who needs her smelling salts and a strong male shoulder to cry on, she's in her element. Y'all should ignore her rants. Now she's blaming her kidney stone!!! I've watched Wikipedia for years and TK is falling into line with all the other wiki-women who have quit because they piss off busy people. Will someone tell her that "serial plagiarism and massive copyvio" doesn't affect the Wikipedia reader in ANY. WAY. WHATSOEVER. Readers could not care less whether the material they're reading is copyvio or paraphrase. Why should they? Plagiarism and copyvio are in-house issues and as long as such articles are on a list where editors can pick them up for review and repair there's no reason to get hysterical or suggest they all be deleted because one little lady wants to exercise her vindictive streak. Hell hath no fury. Wikipedia has NEVER had a copyvio lawsuit and there's thousands upon thousands of intentional and unintentional plagiarisms and copyvios at Wikipedia. So cool it, Truthkeeper (God! I hate the pretentiousness in that user name), take a walk, take a shower, crochet doilies, press pansies, but please allow calmer personalities to prevail. And yes, you are trying to take complete credit for Miss Moppet in spite of your protestations. I already got my FA gold star (and I would never go through the long boring process again) so pfft! on you. And you can't get my goat so give it up and get on with your life. Yours truly, ItsLassieTime.