User talk:SandyGeorgia

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

FACs needing feedback view •
2023 World Snooker Championship	Review it now
Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945	Review it now
Susanna Hoffs	Review it now
2023 Union Square riot	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.

The Fat Man

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hallmark

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

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

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

Request for a comment?

Hey there! I hope you are having a great day, I was wondering if you check an article I am hoping to bring at WP:FAC in the near future. It recently received a peer review but I was told that the outstanding issues is the fancrut in it. I have a hard time with identifying fancrut in articles (esp Selena-related ones) so I decided to ask someone who is familiar with the process at WP:FAC to help me identify the issues so I can fix them. I hope you can help, please forgive me if you are very busy with active FACs and if you are busy in RL. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 00:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Sandy....

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Persoonia lanceolata/archive1 has three supports and although an image review has not been done it'll be pretty straightforward, are you ok if I fling up another short FAC one now? Promise to review a few ;) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, do! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Kthx :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Klazomania References

Hello, SandyGeorgia. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Wafflephile (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Malleus v Kaldari

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wife selling (2nd nomination) is what you're looking for. Black Kite (t) 19:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Providing examples of fixed paraphrasing

I've just been reading the latest round of examples you gave at WT:DYK, and while I still don't particularly agree with the approach you are taking there, there is a point that I would really like to see cleared up, which is the matter of actually providing examples of how to fix such close paraphrasing. It is not always easy to do such rewriting (you really need to have the entire article and its sources in front of you to do that), but it would be helpful to do a rewrite for at least one example to give people an idea of where you personally draw the line. To take the three examples you raised recently (link to fixed page version):

• Article: Church of St Michael, Alnham
• Article text: The font, dated 1664, is a small bowl, octagonal in shape with a moulded profile in the Gothic tradition,
• Source text: Dated 1664, octagonal, small bowl with a moulded profile, still meant to be in the Gothic tradition
• Rewrite: The 17th-century font dates from 1664 and takes the shape of a small octagonal bowl with a profile moulded in the Gothic tradition.

The information communicated here is '1664', 'small', bowl', 'octagonal', 'moulded profile' and 'Gothic tradition'. Not sure what "still meant" refers to (can't see original source). In any case, it is very difficult to communicate that information without using those words in some form or fashion similar to the original text, so any rewriting will be minimal here by the nature of the density of information contained in the source text (though one option is to spread the information out over a longer paragraph). If there are other ways to write this, it would be really helpful to have that demonstrated. If you can't rewrite this yourself, then that might indicate that this is not really the problem you think it is (and if you can, then it would really help show others what is needed).

This is a tricky one. Paraphrasing Pevsner, who is very well-informed & obliged to write in a very compacted style, at roughly the same length, is especially difficult. The font - or is it just the moulding? - is "meant to be in the Gothic tradition" - but does it succeed? At 1664 it is of course extremely late. I'd be inclined to quote, but once you start that... A link to Gothic survival might be worked in. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Article: Church of St Michael, Alnham
• Article text: Building features include a Bell-Cot, a lower chancel with a porch on the south side, and a 3-bay arcade on the north side.
• Source text: Nave with Bell-cot, lower chancel, transepts, and S porch. A N aisle was pulled down, but the three-bay arcade can still be seen on the north side
• Rewrite: The Northumberland Pevsner guide lists the church's features, which include a bell-Cot, a lower chancel with a porch on the south side, and a 3-bay arcade on the north side.

This is a descriptive list of building features. By its very nature you are not going to be able to extensively rewrite a list like this, and the same words will be repeated regardless of how much you try to paraphrase the source, though my approach above seeks to surmount this by making clear within the text where the information is from. Regardless of that, this was, IMO, a poor example of duplicated text to raise at WT:DYK. In case it helps, Nikolaus Pevsner was the original author of the guides, and though new generations of authors doing the updates are also listed as authors, the guides are generally referred to with that name - see Pevsner Architectural Guides.

The "arcade" won't make much sense without explaining there was an aisle that was pulled down. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Article: Ratih Hardjono
• Article text: Furthermore, she was also unpopular with clerics within the Nahdlatul Ulama, a Muslim organisation which is the President's political power base, because the clerics disputed her claims that an eminent 19th century Muslim guru was her ancestor.
• Source text: She also stirred opposition inside the Muslim organisation Nahdlatul Ulama, which is the President's political powerbase, where clerics disputed her claims that she was descended from an eminent 19th-century Muslim' holy man ...
• Rewrite: The Australian Financial Review reported that Hardjono's claims of descent from a 19th-century kyai were disputed by clerics from Nahdlatul Ulama, a Muslim organisation described as "the President's political powerbase".

This, IMO, is a valid catch. The sentence structure here is copied (with minimal ordering changes) and can (and should) be rephrased with in-text attribution and quotes for the glossing of Nahdlatul Ulama. Some rewording has already taken place here, but above is what I would have done (presuming that Crisco's use of 'kyai' is correct). Talking of Crisco's rephrasing, IMO, when rewording takes place after criticism like that you made, it is critical that you either approve or reject the new wording, otherwise any point of the initial criticism is lost and no closure is achieved.

I realise it is not reasonable to expect such close discussion for every example raised, but sometimes such discussion is needed, otherwise no-one really moves forward in any way. Do you think it is reasonable for those raising such concerns to provide at least one example of a rewrite at the same time, similar to how I've tried to do it above? I'm posting this here, rather than over at WT:DYK, but will post a link there stating that I've posted this here. Carcharoth (talk) 05:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

If you have time to teach people to rewrite, by all means do so ... such examples at DYK might be helpful. I'm concerned with teaching people to review nominations, and avoiding repeat offenses at the cut-and-paste playground that is DYK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, but do read what I said back at WT:DYK. I'm serious when I say there that it would be better to reduce the volume of DYK to allow more time and space for discussions such as this. Obviously the discussions would take place at the review or article talk page, but I stand by what I've said that such discussions are needed. You've said yourself in the past something along the lines of how DYK should function to help educate new editors ("DYK is the perfect place to catch these problems early and educate editors" and "educating DYKers"), so I'm surprised to see you rejecting such an idea. You seem to have changed from educating editors to educating DYK reviewers - there is a big difference. Carcharoth (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't put words at the end of my fingertips that I didn't type-- they certainly need to be educated. You are welcome to give much-needed guidance in how to paraphrase sources in our own words-- my time is limited and my focus is on getting reviewers to review. Reviewers don't review at article talk pages-- they review in the content processes, and admins shouldn't knowingly be putting copyvios on the main page (which they are). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Two things here.

One, whether or not these kinds of examples are "copyright violations" IS a judgement call. And let me make that statement precise. It is a judgement call in the sense that if you bring these kinds of examples to the attention of people who are familiar with copyright law (on or off Wikipedia) they won't give you a precise answer. They'll give you a "you PROBABLY shouldn't do this but I dunno, maybe, kind of...etc" kind of answer. In Wikipedia speak these fall under the rubric of "close paraphrase". Somewhere in between. More or less, and especially in cases where you have a sentence "listing" stuff, you're not gonna convince anyone who knows that ONE or even TWO sentences constitute a copy vio. It's got to be a chunk, paragraph or so. Of course, from a stylistic and moral point of view, even the literal (more or less) copying of one or two sentences should be deprecated.

Two, if this is your standard for "copyvios" I can find you a buttload of these in GA articles. Which doesn't make it ok for DYK but does put the whole problem into perspective - it's Wikipedia wide, not particular to a specific project.

 Volunteer Marek  05:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Marek, I have limited online time today, so quick answer is that I don't disagree with you, it is clunky to write out "copyvio/close paraphrasing/plagiarism/cut-and-paste" to cover all aspects of the discussion (which is always at DYK a general discussion about the general problem), but none of this means we should just stop caring about this significant problem and let it keep occurring at DYK, which is a training ground for all of the above regardless of what we label any individual case. Fact is, at DYK we should be educating editors to paraphrase and summarize sources correctly-- instead we see direct cut-and-paste or artefacts in the articles of what is surely cut-and-paste editing, limited knowledge of and review for same, and direct opposition to addressing the problem from several DYK regulars whenever the issues are raised. Re your second point, if the examples given rose to the level of my standard for significant concern, I would not have argued that the CCI should not have been opened-- those examples rose to the standard of 1) "this editor needs to be educated, not investigated" and 2) DYK is still not addressing the problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Klazomania

Hi SandyGeorgia,

I am one of the editors for the klazomania page you have been helping with. Thank you again for all your help, I left a few questions on our discussion page and was wondering if you could help me out with them?

Best, User:Adondaki —Preceding undated comment added 19:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC).

Comments on Educational Assignments

First let me say that I am aware that you are kinda awesome. You make lots of great edits and everywhere I've seen your work on articles (usually because you pick up the pieces after a student tramples it) is made better by your attention. However, some of your comments have led me to believe that you think that professors aren't talking to students about what to do. To be fair I don't know what other profs are doing, but I've spent a great deal of time in class talking about what to do, demonstrating what to do, working with students in a computer lab, and trying my best to link them to the appropriate WP policies and style guides within our assignment page. But some students don't learn everything we teach them. I still have some students who don't know how to WP:SIGN, they wait to the last minute and throw together some crap, and all the other behaviors we see with any assignment. For traditional assignments I can write feedback and throw it back at them to fix, but that doesn't work here. If students mess up in main space, you or another experienced editor swoops in and cleans up. Which is great for WP but not so much for me and my students (to be fair though I don't expect you to care about my class).

So, let me say this: We (professors) are also new to Wikipedia and are trying to find the way to make this work for everyone. All my students (now and in the future) are going to work in sandboxes until their contributions get vetted. I think they might be a problem if others change the articles they want to work on, but I can still grade their work and some of what they generate might still be able to be incorporated into the mainspace. I appreciate your earlier comments about WP:MEDRS, and welcome any other suggestions you might have about the assignment for my students. Cheers, MTHarden (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you're finally responding ... what I'm finding is professors who don't engage talk, hence students who don't engage talk, hence frustrations in editing for students and established editors alike. I can't say this is all related to your students, since my watchlist is being hit by numerous class projects, and few of them notify in advance (a big chunk of wrong text just appears and I have to go buy sources and deal with it).

The first thing students need to learn about Wikipedia is to engage on article and user talk, and if they don't do that, they're wasting their time (and more of mine on quite a few articles I watch and edit). Another problem is that several articles I watch/edit are being hit by more than one college class, which sets up a whole 'nother set of issues-- student groups working at odds with each other, and not following a MEDMOS structure, and neither group reading the talk pages. I can see one problem is that students have varying levels of ability, but I see a bigger problem is that they're taking on topics they aren't much familiar with on Wikipedia that they aren't much committed to, and the biggest problem is that we can't help 'em learn better writing, correct paraphrasing, correct use of sources, and Wikipedia policy if they don't engage on talk. I guess that's the very most frustrating part ... they put in a lot of text that basically has to be deleted (and I spent $34 yesterday to get a source only to find out most of that article needs to be deleted), and they don't even read or engage the article talk page to understand why.

It would be most helpful if they were graded more on how much they engage, adapt, adjust text, learn, and less on the text they add, since in almost every case I've seen most text needs to be deleted because it is either poorly sourced or in the wrong article or from sources that don't even mention the article topic edited or plagiarized. And I'm finding lots of WP:NOTAFORUM rah-rah-I-like-what-you-wrote talk page entries going off on my watchlist (that sort of thing really belongs on user talk, not article talk, which is for improving articles and discussing sources). One group (not even sure if it's yours) worked in sandbox from almost wholly faulty sources, didn't notify on talk they were working in sandbox, and if they had notified, I could have guided them towards correct sourcing before they plopped in a lot of text from sandbox that had to be deleted. It's frustrating all 'round from where I'm sitting, since I've yet to see an article upgraded in ways that help our readers. I hope some of my suggestions will be of some use to you and your students, regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Klazomania 2

Sandy, I saw your note on Talk:Exercise addiction and will follow up on that tomorrow (I'm about to pack it in for tonight). Thanks for the heads up there. I also saw the exchange above and I'm glad to see you're talking to Mitch; from the interactions I've seen he's doing a good job explaining to his students what will and won't work. I think the classes are generally very valuable to Wikipedia but as Mitch says above it's still a work in progress to figure out the best way to have the students benefit from the class while Wikipedia benefits from the students' work. I can give you more background if you're interested (I was at the Higher Education Summit and have been reading many of the relevant pages), but I think Jon Murray's class, which we all remember fondly, is the stellar example of what can happen when things go well. There are also, sadly, some current examples of what can happen when things go badly; WT:IEP is a train wreck, for example, and I suspect (and hope) the WMF is going to rein that in strongly next semester. Anyway, enough for tonight; we can talk tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Jbmurray had a whole team of copyeditors, researchers, and very experienced FA writers helping him on vital and important topics via a WikiProject that got everyone's attention ("this doesn't scale" comes to mind :). I'm all alone on obscure neuropsych topics that don't always even warrant an article with little research available, generally behind a paywall, and students who are not grad students and may have never heard of the terms themselves. I just created sham rage for klazomania-- who's ever heard of either of these? Yet I've spent days on researching and cleaning up articles that I basically encounter via Tourette's. I don't have all the help Jbmurray had :) :) Anyway, I have a wake tomorrow and funeral Monday then travel Tuesday, so don't know when we'll be able to talk ... best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

My contribs are gettin' scary ... what kind of nutcase editor is this anyway?

• 02:28, November 6, 2011 (diff | hist) Klazomania ‎ (wrote that article) (top) [rollback]
• 02:26, November 6, 2011 (diff | hist) Sham rage ‎ (→Further reading: add) (top) [rollback]
• 02:03, November 6, 2011 (diff | hist) Go the Fuck to Sleep ‎ (→See also: seriously, d'oh) (top) [rollback]
• 01:08, November 6, 2011 (diff | hist) 20 Años de Éxitos En Vivo con Moderatto ‎ (→Background: cite doesn't say that)
• 21:57, November 4, 2011 (diff | hist) Exercise addiction ‎ (→Classification: comment out plagiarism, will check the rest)

I'm going to go the ... oopsie. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Back online this morning -- sorry to hear about the wake and funeral. Here are a couple of thoughts before I go back to those other articles. Re Jon, yes, the FA team was certainly a big part of the success of that project, and without them I doubt there would have been FAs, but I think GA could well have happened for several articles. Having been involved with several of these efforts now I am confident that the single biggest factor was the students themselves -- the successful ones were motivated and capable. Jon gave them very good direction, but as Mitch says above, some students simply don't benefit from instruction, so it's not just down to the instructor.

It's tempting to think of the students as simply newbies who should not be bitten, but I don't think that's quite accurate -- the typical new editor here is trying to contribute out of an interest in the topic, not because of external pressures such as the desire for a good grade. On the other hand, these students tend to be directed towards topics than the average new editor is less likely to work on, and there is an external infrastructure that attempts to guide them -- on campus training and support, in-class instruction and demonstration, and online ambassadors to help. I think they're a different class of editor than Wikipedia is used to -- on the plus side they've got a decent chance of adding useful material, but on the negative side they don't understand our rules and have little reflex to engage in talk page interaction. There are some real success stories, such as Kayz911, who is largely responsible for Nuclear energy policy of the United States, created as a class assignment. On the other hand I've seen students who seem to have little ability to write a coherent sentence, let alone assemble useful information into a form suitable for inclusion in an article. The challenge for the USEP is to find the best way to maximize the benefits of the program while limiting the negative effects, such as the addition of weak material that then has to be cleaned up. I've suggested that limiting the number of classes while we work out the mechanics would be a good step. If you do run into problematic student edits, please also let either the campus ambassador, the online ambassador, or the instructor know; the ambassadors are there partly to help in situations like this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

A couple of quick thoughts, Mike, because I have limited time today. First, I don't believe any knowledgeable professor should have guided those poor students towards an article like klazomania. I'm sure it sounded interesting, but even an experienced editor like moi has a hard time with an article on such an obscure topic; if the students fell down there, I think it's partly the professor's fault, and two colleges are in that one. Second, initially on all of these articles there were problems with professors not making their students aware of some on-Wiki writing that would help with copyvio issues, and certainly not making their students aware of MEDRS. Third, the additional complication of more than one college class working on the same article, sometimes in sandbox, usually without notifying article talk so I cold have helped guide them. Fourth, the emphasis should be on grading the students for learning how to engage on Wiki, because what is making me batty is that they rarely read what I'm writing on talk-- they charge on to add non-compliant content even though I've given feedback. And one final point (not their problem), somewhere in that mess of links you gave me, I saw one online ambassador who has prose and policy issues and has continually come to my talk page to tell me to stay away from "her" articles even though I encounter them in vetted processes. So, should I tell her to stay away from "my" articles? I hope most of our ambassadors would be knowlegdeable good FA writers with diplomacy skills-- similar to you. Certainly, that is what made the Jbmurray class articles work, and I remain concerned that the success we saw with his students doesn't scale. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've seen some significant contributions from User:JimmyButler's high school students as well, so there are some collaborations that work. Malleus Fatuorum 16:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, just to say that although my energy the past couple of semesters has been over on the Spanish wikipedia (mixed results, still figuring things out there), I do keep half an eye over what's going on over here, and am certainly interested in the general project of bringing Wikipedia and university classes together, and trying to keep up with that conversation. My ears prick up when Mike says that WT:IEP is a trainwreck, for instance. Will follow up some links now...  :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Just checked in on WT:IEP, and then [1]. OMG. To call that a "trainwreck" is a horrible understatement. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It's sooooo good to see you again ! I was aware of the India trainwreck, but I'm also unconvinced about other areas. I'm seeing across my watchlist of neuropsychiatric articles (sorry this is under Klazomania, because that's by NO means the worst or where all of this is occurring-- it has actually been better than most):

1. Blatant cut-and-paste plagiarism
2. Edit warring (gosh darn it, I'm getting credit for that sentence, I'll reinsert it six times if I must)
3. Zero engagement on either article talk or user talk
4. High-school level command of English grammar
5. No knowledge of WP:MEDRS or WP:MEDMOS in classes directing edits to medical articles
6. Original research and synthesis (pull in some text the student thinks is related even though it's not)
7. Text being placed in the wrong article or with no sections or regard for the lead
8. Unengaged mentors
9. Unengaged professors[2]
10. Professors with up to 200 students each (impossible to supervise that many) !!!!!
11. Professors with classes working on up to 25 different topics (how can they follow that many)
12. Edits to articles about topics so obscure that even accomplished editors would have a hard time turning them into developed articles
13. Multiple college classes working on the same article, no awareness of each other
14. No notification on talk pages that classes are working on articles, or in sandbox, so others can help guide them
15. Classes that aren't enrolled in any mentorship program
16. Inappropriate use of article talk pages for class "peer reviews" that amount to ILIKEIT but nothing useful
17. Incorrect medical sourcing

Ah, heck, I could go on, but it seems to me that the Jbmurray projects had enough mentors to help the students, a professor who paid attention to his students, a professor who helped the students choose worthy articles, etcetera etcetera ... none of what I'm seeing on my watchlist, where generally what I am seeing is a lot of bad info that is worse than no info. I've got hours into cleaning up obscure articles that I've long watchlisted and keep clean only because they're linked from other articles I edit, that should be nothing more than stubs because there's little to say about them, and they are articles that will never get more than a few hits a day, and I had to spend $34 the other day to discover faulty sourcing, original research and plagiarism behind a pay wall, so are we adding to the "sum of all human knowledge" or just taking my time and money? Generally, I don't get a sense these students care about their topics or Wikipedia-- they're just in it for the grade.

Other than that, one of the "ambassadors" is someone whose prose had to be addressed by you and Tony1 at FAC and who didn't respond well to your critique, so ... que tal ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I do think it's worth separating out what's due to a) bad or unprepared students (though we will always have a proportion of bad students, however much preparation we try to give them), b) bad or unprepared teachers and c) bad course design. For instance, last semester, with grad students (grad students!), whom I though needed rather less supervision and explanation, I found there were two rather serious cases of plagiarism. They got fixed, but even so. I think students may approach the Wiki somewhat differently from the way in which they approach an essay (as in some ways they should): though one of the students also plagiarized in other elements of the course (more obviously on the Wiki, but still), the other *only* plagiarized on Wiki.

Anyhow, because I'm focussing on the Spanish Wikipedia, I haven't been particularly involved with the Ambassador/Mentor program, though I would have hoped that that might have helped. I'm sad to hear that too many problems continue.

All well here, though busy. Was recently hanging out with the people who made this little film, which you might like. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Que lindo video !! La Yolando ha cambiado un pelito, no :) Seguro que esta gente son panas, aunque no viajo mas p'alla. Anyway, it occurred to me after that post it would be darn near impossible for one professor with more than 200 students to oversee editing on more than 50 articles, so I think some of this is getting ahead of what you used to do. Hopefully the (grand total of) two students who have at least engaged on talk will get the grade. Saludos, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I went to a Wikimedia-sponsored event in Boston, at which there were a couple of profs from the U of Toronto who had Psychology classes with 1000 students, whom they hoped to introduce to Wikipedia. I was like "What?!" (Mind you, I find the notion of having a thousand students in a class to be pretty inconceivable, too.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

That would not be my first indication of the issues with the psych program at U of Toronto (and I'm not referring to Wiki, I mean IRL). Jon, I don't see evidence that these massive programs are helping Wikipedia-- I see mostly evidence that they are taxing committed editors and not bringing in new knowledgeable editors, or editors who stick around to improve articles. They're not doing what you did-- they just can't be overseeing the amount of work that their students are undertaking, many (not all, I'm sure there are some good ones, and I've encountered one who at least is reading talk, engaging, trying to get it right) of those students seem to have no commitment to Wiki and are only doing it for a grade, and I really wonder what kind of monster has been unleashed. For me, these ill-guided psych and neuropsych projects are going off all across my watchlist, 'cuz that's where I edit. In the medical realm, no information is better than bad information-- if we can't get it right, we shouldn't be misleading readers, and we should let them find their information from reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Correction, wrong school, Google is My Friend-- it was a different Canadian psych program. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, a quick note, since you may not have realized this -- at least one or two of the problems you've run into with student editing are not, in fact, part of the USEP -- they are independent efforts sparked by outside organizations such as the American Psychology Society. That may not affect your view of students editing on Wikipedia, but it might be relevant to any discussion of the USEP itself, which has a goal of providing a framework for this sort of effort. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Ugh-- another one. That's discouraging. Well, thanks for that info, and I'll try to catch up on that as soon as I can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Joe Danger

I respectfully request this be withdrawn. I'm not entirely sure this is something a non-delegate should do, so I will raise it here. Thank you for your analysis. — Joseph Fox 16:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Most kind of Brian! I'll do that now-- hope to see you back soon and ready to roll. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

So do I. ;) Sorry for wasting your time, and Graham's time. — Joseph Fox 16:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Chavez

On the one hand, I could get a ton of books and become an expert, but that might be futile as far as actually implementing improvements to the article. On the other hand, I could just keep the article watchlisted and offer support to neutrality efforts. Any recommendation? So far, I was just concentrating on balancing the pro-democracy stuff in the first paragraph of the lead, but I see that even those who support an NPOV tag might nevertheless oppose any objective statement that the subject has avoided accountability to democratic institutions like the legislature.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Depends on how much time you have to lose ... my experience is that no matter how well sourced, anything that is not Chavez hagiography will be removed, and the excuses for removing text are so varied and novel that you can't even anticipate what they might be (particularly since they are never logical or grounded in policy). Until some editors show up there who care about neutralizing the article, anything you try to do amounts to a timesink, since the article owners won't allow it. Until/unless they are brought to ArbCom, I believe that will be the status quo, but I don't think there's even a good arbcase there, because the guardians of the article are adept at making sure newbies, IPs and anons do the actual pro-Chavez-biased editing, while they mostly revert attempts at neutrality. In other words, by encouraging newbies on the talk page to violate policy, they keep their noses clean, making an Arb Case difficult to pursue-- the editor actually POVing the article varies over time, while the article owners cheer them on on talk. Fact is, nobody on Wiki cares that we've had a POV article on a world leader for at least six years (and that is disgusting). But here's an interesting piece of history: the FA version that was POV was written by Saravask-- the POV in that version was somewhat understandable, since back in 2005 and 2006 the world wasn't paying much attention to Chavez, and if you didn't speak Spanish, chances are, you didn't know the story. After the article was defeatured, Saravask disappeared from editing there, so I never knew where he stood on the POV. He showed up on talk the other day and blasted the article's obvious pro-Chavez hagiography, so now we know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the info. I'll think it over and keep an eye on it. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

There are quite a few Wikipedians capable of doing the work there, but I think they're all scared off because 1) the owners are so persistent (some of them are SPAs), and 2) they smell an arb case in their future if they dare try to NPOV the thing. Writing that article correctly just shouldn't be that hard-- the first step would be to chop out at least 60% of what's there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've already got arb in my past, present, and future so that's no impediment. However, I would want to very thoroughly study this guy before doing article edits. Last time I studied Venezuela was in sixth grade (1974!), and I imagine things have changed a bit since then. I've watchlisted the Chavez article, and will stay with it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Georgia on my mind

[3] Hi, do we call you Georgia now? Brianboulton (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, when we're not calling me "Sandra", we're calling me Georgia :) Falls under "Don't sweat the little stuff" ... kind of you to offer to review and ce there! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

"Other arms reach out to me
Other eyes smile tenderly
Still in peaceful dreams I see
The road leads back to you"

Graham Colm (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It's too bad I've never been there, huh?  :) :) You are so kind, Graham! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have time for a quick look?

Hi. I know you're busy, but I was wondering if you have time to glance at Birth control movement in the United States. It went thru the GA process, and it passed, and I've continued to work on it since then. I think its ready for FAC (I've been reading the FAC discussions, so I'm aware of the kind of issues that come up). But I dont want to waste people's time at FAC if it is not ready yet. So, if you could just look at it for a minute or two and let me know if you spot any glaring issues, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 16:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

That's much too hefty of an article for a quick look (one would have to spend a good half-hour in there to offer a worthy analysis, specifically of the sources), but I did see that it needs a MOS review (I saw wrong use of ellipses, hyphens in place of endashes, and problematic headings including "the"), and I popped down to one section that started off with no context for the time frame ("Opposition"), suggesting organization might need work (sentences there also seemed choppy). I know it may seem time consuming, but the fastest route to the star is often via peer review, particularly if Ruhrfisch, Brianboulton, or another PR regular will pick it up. GAs are variable depending on the reviewer you get-- it may mean something, it may mean nothing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the feedback. I'll get it in the queue for a peer review. --Noleander (talk) 05:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Random question

I was reading at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Featured_articles/FA-Team/Analysis and I saw your name. That team is thought to be inactive, but it had a worthy goal. What ways would help WP get more featured articles? I'm guessing what prevents more articles from getting through are, in relation to the demand, a lack of copy-editors, people familiar with the MoS, experienced peer-reviewers, good article reviewers, and featured article reviewers. Do you find there to be a particular bottleneck? Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like three-and-a-half years ago I said what we're seeing now: there's only one Jbmurray, similar educational projects are not run as well as his, and the educational project idea doesn't scale. But ... that doesn't mean that teams of experienced writers collaborating to produce FA worthy content can't work-- it did in the past with WP:1FAPQ. As far as I can tell, the only thing preventing higher production of FAs is that editorship across Wikipedia is declining, while those who enjoy writing top content continue churning out as many as they can, while also doing the lion's share of the real work at all content review processes, like peer review, GAN, and DYK-- they're just aren't enough of them, and at the same, we have processes like DYK which are actually training editors to cut-and-paste, and rewarding them for doing so. The only thing I can see that may change this trend is to reward editors for "improving" content to the top level rather than giving them the instant gratification of mainpage exposure for a quick cut-and-paste job. Those few editors who hold down all of the real work at peer review, FAC, FAR, pass the good GAs, and also catch all the copyvios at DYK don't have enough time left over to write more FAs. It's much easier and more rewarding to churn out stubs at DYK that won't be checked and you never have to visit again to keep in shape, and those editors don't learn good editing or reviewing at the resource-heavy DYK page-- the top DYKers don't move on to the FA-level. If all of the resources wasted at DYK were poured into peer review, GA, FAC and FAR, we'd have more top content and less useless start class articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that reply. By saying it doesn't scale do you mean there just aren't enough academics out there with the skill set and motivation behind what was an already "Wikipedian"-minded Jbmurray? Jesanj (talk) 04:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I mean that what

• one excellent, committed and involved professor was able to do with a couple dozen (?) students in one class working on about (?) a dozen articles on topics he knew very well, on subjects where he knew the research, with a whole team of experienced FA writers backing them

is not what

• relatively uninvolved professors-- sometimes at the community college level where writing skills may be lacking in some students-- who don't know Wikipedia as well as Jbmurray did and who have hundreds of students working on scores of obscure topics in several different classes without active mentorship and guidance on Wikipedia

can achieve. I may have the exact numbers on the Jbmurray projects wrong above, hence the question marks, but we can't take the success that Jbmurray had and expect it to work on a larger scale. There aren't enough Wikipedia editors to oversee the work, and some of these projects have taken on much more than the professors can oversee. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks again. Jesanj (talk) 05:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

See User talk:SandyGeorgia#Klazomania 2. On the other hand, if all of the resources expended in teaching editors to cut-and-paste and rewarding them with mainpage exposure at DYK were directed instead to collaborating to produce top content, maybe then ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

A good read. Thanks. Also, FWIW, I think I've produced useful DYK articles: Fee-for-service (more useful) was a 5X and now BCBSMA (slightly useful -- AQCs brought me to the subject) is up for the honor, and I thought Daniel Case did a good job of pointing out a glaring omission of mine. But I understand. One time I reviewed a DYK and it was very underdeveloped. Maybe things are improving though. Jesanj (talk) 06:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Lots of people have lots of worthy DYKs-- it would be nice if we reviewed well so we could feature the best on the mainpage, instead of this notion that anyone who can cut-and-paste gets their time on the mainpage. Those editors are rewarded for cutting and pasting and may have hundreds of copyvios before someone does a correct review and educates them-- and by that time, it's too late to go back and address all of their articles. My criticism of the review process there-- and the small group that defends the status quo-- is not meant to negate that some very good FA and other writers also take new articles through DYK. I used to criticize GA, too-- they listened, changed and improved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Preece

Hi, Sandy. A "named mourner", in UK usage, means a person named in the funeral notice of the deceased person. I don't think that using the five words from a long article is a copyright vio. I suppose we could say "Her father was named as a mourner in the funeral notice", but that only removes the "a" from the phrase and is just longer and duller. Feel free to change it if you feel strongly. is there anything else in the article that you think might be paraphrased too closely? I haven't seen the copyvio discussion that you refer to. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't look any further there (it just happened to be the last DYK I saw mentioned on his talk, where I went to check when I came across old issues) but considering past issues, it might help if you would check (and reword if necessary, since you know the sources and topic better than I). I did go have a look at Flower Drum Song just to be sure we don't have issues at FA-- as far as I can tell (from a cursory look), you and Wehwalt do a fine job of paraphrasing sources correctly in your own words, but I did find a dead link there and noted it on talk. Those folks over at DYK don't want to understand that I don't want another VanishedUser bringing copyvio from the training ground at DYK to FAC :) Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Wikipedia's biggest problems:

1. POV
2. Verifiability and uncited articles
3. Non-reliable sources
4. BLPs
5. Undue weight and synthesis
6. Dispute resolution failures
7. Abusive admin actions
8. Pile-on supports for ill-prepared admins
9. Immature editors
10. WP:IEP and ill-prepared college programs
11. Copyright violations
12. Disruptive and tenditious editing

Problems, yes, but ones that do not affect Wikipedia on the same scale but get disproportionate attention:

1. Lack of civility
2. Alleged gender problem

I should write an essay, but why bother-- plenty of others already have, and it would not be read. And by the time I finished writing it, I'd be discouraged about the prognosis here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You should add disruption in there somewhere. I'm sure you understand how tiring long term disruptive activity can be. Parrot of Doom 18:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hard (song)/archive2

Are you actually having a laugh? It was only transcluded 2 days ago. I thought it was unfair that the first one was closed in less than 6 days, but less than 2 days is really taking the piss. I am not impressed at all. You are not giving my FACs any time to get any form of notice, yet for some reason, other FACs get to to stay for weeks and weeks, even if no one has commented for over a week. I'm so angry and annoyed right now. Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 20:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

First, refer to the FAC instructions-- there is no set time limit on FAC nominations, and there has been plenty of discussion at WT:FAC about the need to archive nominations quickly if they aren't likely to succeed this time around, so that nominators can take time to better prepare the article, and reviewers can focus on articles that are prepared. Second, FACs are expected to be well prepared, and issues raised in previous FACs should be addressed before the nomination returns to FAC. Third, you were given good advice about how to seek collaborators, and you responded that you preferred to work alone-- that doesn't usually work out so well on Wikipedia or at FAC. Fourth, multiple reviewers agreed the FAC was not prepapred-- that is not the case for any other longer-running FAC that I'm aware of. And finally, you'll be more likely to get others to work with you towards preparing the article for its next FAC if you don't curse about the process, and have a look at reviewers' commentary when you aren't "What the actual fuck. So pissed off". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well how would you feel? How is closing a nomination after just 2 days of transclusion fair? Even if there is no time limit, 2 days is not fair and not giving the nomination a chance. If "Hard" is "so underprepared", then shouldn't there have been more points to address? It can't be that bad if people can't even produce more than 6/7 points in the entire article. The sources are 99% perfect as well. Two people opposed and one person gave a comment. And there are multiple nominations on the nominations page which have had so much reviewing, which is effectively saying how bad the article is, yet just because they write "Comment" instead of "Oppose", they get to stay. How is being told that I have to search through Wikipedia to find people who also like Rihanna to help me "good advice"? Even if I did find someone, who is to say that they have the capability to edit effectively and comply with MoS? I know lots of people on here who don't like working with other people, so you can't just single me out for that. And saying "multiple reviewers agreed the FAC was not prepared", I would hardly call two Opposes (with only one giving 6/7 points to address, others just commenting) "multiple", again showing that my nomination didn't get a chance to be properly reviewed. With regard to my edit summary, yeah, I was annoyed, and my edit summary reflected that. Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 20:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Calvin I understand your frustration, but there are so many problems with the article – too many to solve at FAC. One of your edits in response to a comment at FAC introduced a further error that had been mentioned several times previously, "with Hard being one of them". This is another ugly fused participle, which you use a lot in your writing. I don't want to put words into Brian's mouth, but his comment about paraphrasing quotations applies to most of them, and there are many. Your comments here "I don't like working on things with other people, it distracts me and I like to know what is happening" and "when it comes to working on something, I prefer to do it alone. Working with someone can take 10x longer" is not attractive to reviewers (well at least me). I copy edited the Lead, which you acknowledged was an improvement, and was prepared to help more but your put down, "I am surprised that changing a few words around in the Lead took over an hour" about how long I spent on the edits made me decide against helping further. You could have a fine FA if you worked with reviewers. You should listen to what other editors are saying. Graham Colm (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Calvin I understand your frustration, but believe me, if you take the comments made about the article in good faith, and work to resolve any issues raised, you'll learn something. Message me on the weekend, I'll run through the article and see if I can't help you improve the prose (which is ok, but not FA standard). Parrot of Doom 20:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I do work well with other people, if you look at all three FAC archives for S&M (song) and Hard (song), you will see that I always reply to or amend every point raised by the reviewer, saying that I have either "Done" it and made the correction, or ask to clarify or explain something if I don't understand what the reviewer wants me to do. I even say that even if I can't make the corrections straight away, I will do them within a few hours or at the very latest, the next day, so I would disagree with you that you think I don't listen, because I obviously want to make the article better, so I will listen. What I mean by working with other editors, like so many editors on here, that I don't like working as a pair when preparing an article for GAN or FAC, due to a past experience, and I vowed never to do it again, as I did not find it a pleasant experience. And what I mean't by you, Graham, looking at how you phrase things: "This is another ugly fused participle". It's not nice to see that what people think of what you have written is basically crap. Like I said to you before, I quoted a lot of things because last time I paraphrased things, on Wait Your Turn, I was told that I was plagiarizing. And yes, I was surprised that you spent over an hour changing one sentence, I think a lot of people would be, it's not a bad thing or criticism, all I said was that I was surprised. I didn't knock you for it; I did, after all, say that it was an improvement on what I had written. Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 20:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

This is more than "one sentence". I have had my grammar corrected many times – it's taught me a lot. There is a universe of difference between "ugly" and "crap". Graham Colm (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, either way then, it wasn't very much. I wasn't criticizing you, like I've said before, it's better than what I wrote. And yeah, I agree, I've learned a lot form others correcting me. Let's just forget about it now, I've vented my frustration and calmed down. Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 21:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

USEP discussion

I thought you might be interested in the WMF post and my response at WT:USEP. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike! I dipped in to read a bit last night, but I started with the DYK stuff, which was depressing. The combination of off-Wiki conversations (which make me crazy), the problems with these educational programs, and the problems with reward seeking behavior via DYK made my brain hurt-- it's a marriage made in heaven-- one that makes serious editing so much harder. I'll look back in if I get caught up later today-- at least the discussion came on Wiki where it will may get more eyes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Money, money money

Sandy, in a forthcoming article I need to convert GBP from historic (1998–2000) values to their current equivalent. Is there an accepted way of doing this? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

There's {{inflation}}, but Fiflefoo will eat me alive if I don't point out the warning labels on the template's documentation about inappropriate use. It depends partly on what you're seeking to update - incomes or capital expenditure, for example, since inflating by the CPI (which is what that template does automatically) won't necessarily be best. For an example of the wording he and I devised to cover capital inflation from the 16th/17th centuries, see Buildings of Jesus College, Oxford; Malleus came up with a neat (and short) turn of phrase at notes 5 and 6, with their accompanying citations, at Gunpowder Plot. Hope this helps. Bencherlite^Talk 10:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It isn't a big issue over a 10-12 year period - 300 years is rather different. Johnbod (talk) 11:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both, I wouldn't dare dip my toes into the murky water of ancient prices, the template should be adequate for my purposes Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that even over 10-12 years it makes a difference, as it's really inappropriate to use CPI for capital project inflation. I never use the template now, I always go directly to the Measuring Worth web site and use whichever measure seems most appropriate. Malleus Fatuorum 15:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/International Academy of Business/archive1

Obviously not near the standard required, so I've opposed and requested speedy fail. I've repeated my short points of advice on the nominator's talk page, so I would have thought that there's no reason not to simply G6 the nomination and reverse the other steps, but I'll leave it to you or one of your colleagues to decide if there's a need for the nomination to remain in the history and archives. Bencherlite^Talk 10:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Once a nomination has received feedback via a significant oppose, we don't G6 it-- we do archive it and add it to articlehistory. We db-G6 nominations that are withdrawn for being out of process-- for example, not a significant contributor. I'll have a look (and thanks for the helpful feedback above on the inflation issue). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

"Boys' own online world"

Hi Sandy,
I'm a WP:GNOME from some place where the seasons are all back-to-front, like in Gabriel García Márquez's Love in the Time of Cholera. Just thought I'd mention this. --Shirt58 (talk) 14:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to my page, where everything is all sideways :) Looks to be more of same faulty generalizations about women (like we're too stupid to understand computers), and lack of logical thinking (like why would some women want to do this anyway), not to mention the most glaring omission frequently seen in those analyses and discussions-- why is it that so many women conduct such a sizeable share of the process that puts Wikipedia's top content on the mainpage? I do wish the people who put forward this meme to begin with would show more clue about the real problems of Wikipedia[4] -- which aren't the interface or the way we interact here. Nobody's asked me, but I think women think differently than men on some things, and don't have time to spend on mindless futile arguing over worthless articles and they'd rather spend their time in productive ventures like the Featured article process. Maybe some women just have better things to do, or are too smart to waste time futily trying to clean up POV and poorly sourced articles, or mentor students with a high school command of prose or poorly behaved disrespectful children when they've already raised theirs (apprently I'm not :)

I can summarize all of the problems with at least a dozen reasons that meme is stupid and by asking why they don't ditch the unscientific surveys and consult:

1. SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs)
2. Karanacs (talk · contribs)
3. Dana boomer (talk · contribs)
4. Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)
5. Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
6. Maralia (talk · contribs)
7. Slp1 (talk · contribs)
8. Fainites (talk · contribs)
9. Moni3 (talk · contribs)
10. Bishonen (talk · contribs)
11. SlimVirgin (talk · contribs)
12. Truthkeeper88 (talk · contribs)
13. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs)
14. Awadewit (talk · contribs)
15. Yllosubmarine (talk · contribs)

Sure, there are many more men involved in Featured articles, but it is a process where female presence is felt. Maybe if the rest of Wikipedia worked like FAC, we'd attract more women. But since the WMF knows darn well that will never happen, why did they put up this silly propoganda about women?

At the arb level Risker (talk · contribs) and Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs) do a fine job of compensating for other lack of competent females.

There's another simple factor: most neuropsychiatric conditions are more present among males than females and the number of editors who are on Wikipedia because of some serious psychopathology is disproportionate and noticeable-- you set up a dysfunctional environment, you're going to get dysfunctional participants. I may not run into many women on Wikipedia, but with a couple of notable exceptions, I run into a higher proportion of dysfunctional males. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've been saying exactly this for ages. It's also relevant that our various forms of statistics can't distinguish between edits that basicly add prose and those that correct, improve, and hang fairy lights around that prose, with male editors surely the great majority of the latter bunch, who are likely to look more productive from the stats. The recent survey by Sarah Stierch, though in general rather confirming the meme, had a few heartening quotes from female editors who were unaware that there was supposed to be a problem. Johnbod (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Where can I find that? That survey was typically unscientific-- approached the topic with a pre-conceived agenda. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Women_and_Wikimedia_Survey_2011 Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone ever pointed her towards WP:TLDR or WP:KISS? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, read it-- do they have copyeditors on meta? It could be significantly tightened. Other than realizing that a) either they didn't tap in to typical Wikipedia women, or b) I'm not a typical Wikipedia woman, I did notice:

1. "Out of those 333, 4 responses were tossed due to questionable sincerity in their responses, so the data below represents 329 responses." I must have been one of those four, since I don't see myself in there. Kinda strange to pick and choose who to leave out of a survey (particularly those who are critical of the entire premise of the survey), but then it wasn't intended to be scientific.
2. A 12-year-old respondent? Oh my, where are the parents.
3. Educational background left out how many of us have advanced degrees (only gives Bachelor's or higher). It seems they would include that considering the claim of a typical Wikipedian having a PhD.
4. Best answer to why continue contributing: "Honestly, I'm not sure anymore." Will the guilty party please step forward.
5. Why women stop participating-- "The reasons vary, but a large portion of participants are busy going to school, working, or dedicating time to friends or family. On the flipside, respondents also find the community confrontational and argumentative, which makes for a not so welcome landscape." We didn't need a survey to know that a) women have lives, b) Wikipedia is dysfunctional, and c) this response is as true for men as for women.
6. If so many participants stop contributing because they're in school, why are we trying to recruit college students?
7. Most responses there say exactly what we already know-- women have lives and get tired of dealing with tendentious disruptive idiots (yes, they used that word)
8. Women do not feel assaulted or attacked on Wikipedia (well, any more than the norm I 'spose). So we can put that meme to rest.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know where Jimmy Wales got the idea that "the typical contributor [is] a 26-year-old male with a PhD". That's just about as far from my experience of other editors as it's possible to be. Malleus Fatuorum 16:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

No kidding: "the typical contributor (outside of FAC) is a 14-year-old male who should be on the soccer field" instead of playing Myspace with automated tools on the internet. I'll read that TLDR survey result later. I still have to get through the long educational project debacle discussion linked by Mike Christie above; apparently those responsible for the brilliant "gender gap" solution to all that ails Wikipedia (WMF) decided to address the lack of female editors and the predominance of 14-yos by recruiting college community students to add content without having enough of those imaginary 26-yo PhDs to supervise, mentor and clean up. In the meantime, FAC keeps churning, apparently in another world from the dysfunction that is Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I thought "I still have to get through the long educatinal projct debacle discussion" was deliberate, and rather funny! Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I had a slow start this morning-- it finally dawned on me that I was not properly caffeinated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Best answer to why continue contributing: "Honestly, I'm not sure anymore." Will the guilty party please step forward.

Must you ask? Natch. Also, I'm putting away the alcohol and going right to hard drugs. Also, add Yllosubmarine (talk · contribs) to your list of chicky FAC editors. --Moni3 (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Sheesh, talk about not properly caffeinated-- I thought I had intentionally limited the list to a dozen (and mentioned that) so I'd have a CYA for anyone I forgot. Now I see my dozen is 14, so that's shot. I didn't see any distinctly Moni responses in there, what, were you on your best behavior? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This is mine: "Christ, too many times to list. It's the way things operate on the Internet. Disagreement means the other person's an asshole. I'm guilty of it too....Makes me think I should go online with alcohol more often. It's more amusing that way."

I can't remember what else I wrote except for the "I'm not sure anymore" comment. I'm starting to get really uncomfortable with the "this is why women don't participate more often" arguments. And I don't know how much validity I would give to having Wikipedia be a more nurturing place for women and trans people. I have to remember how much I was nurtured here and if that was an element in how much I wanted to stay when I first started. Those memories are leaving me--I don't have a remarkable memory anyway. I may have to check my talk page archives. I don't remember being nurtured very much, but I did tell folks all the time for the first year I edited that I had no idea what I was doing. That wasn't a lie at all. I fumbled about incessantly.

I don't think Wikipedia is a boys' room. It's a room and it's on the internet where everyone argues. --Moni3 (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Bingo. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Not only does everyone argue on the internet, but there are no women there, allegedly. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

That can't be true. After all, the internet is for porn! Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

One of the things that grates with me is the corollary to the WMF's concerns, which is that as a male my presence and contributions are somehow of lesser value than yours, compounded by the fact that I'm not an Indian. But this supposed lack of females just doesn't gell with my own experience. I'm pretty sure that of the editors I have regular contact with a good 50% are female. In fact I'm currently helping the first two students from one US high school's AP Biology programme to get their articles ready for submission to GAN, and I'm pretty sure they're both girls. Females are everywhere on the project, and lots of them, particularly as SandyG says at the higher ends like FA/GA. And I'm sure that many more have decided that it's prudent for whatever reason not to reveal their gender. Malleus Fatuorum 00:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat tangentially, one of the reasons I like to cite authors in refs I add with their full names is seeing how many people doing great research are women :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

In my family it's my wife who has the PhD, not me. Malleus Fatuorum 01:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You are not crazy

I read this article a few months ago and liked it. A Message To Women From A Man: You Are Not “Crazy”. I think a lot of it speaks to the way nuanced language is expected on the Internet (read civility, nurturing, supportive, etc.) when it would be easier to understand to say what you need to say in as few words as possible. I also love that it recognized the way emoticons confuse language. I hate using emoticons ;) No, really. I think they stir confusion where applied and communication on the Internet is already confusing :P

Stupid emoticons. --Moni3 (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting article, but speaking as a man I'd say that we find it next to impossible to unburden ourselves to anyone; that would be a sign of weakness. But maybe I'm only speaking for Anglo-Saxon males. Certainly I'm sometimes horrified when I hear my wife discussing things with her friends that I wouldn't even discuss with a priest. Oh, and here's the obligatory :-) Malleus Fatuorum 00:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Malleus using a smiley? His account has clearly been compromised and ought to be blocked immediately. Bencherlite^Talk 00:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I spent the 1990s online, and I am not going back into that quagmire of white bourgeois elites using identity politics to run courtesy policing. Good encyclopaedic process seems far more conducive to solving social power problems, than plumbing adjectives and personal conduct. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

...spends several minutes contemplating leaky, dripping, stuck, clogged, and similar terms.... Decides it's probably time to get some sleep. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Chrono Trigger: Crimson Echoes

Hi. I just noticed that the article's FAC isn't closed. Was there a problem with the bot at the time or something? GamerPro64 01:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the bot choked on the last three archivals at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/October 2011-- I wonder if it was the colons in the article names. Need to ask Gimmetrow (talk · contribs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Everything's better now. Thanks. GamerPro64 18:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Civility....

...would require informing an editor when discussing him in a public forum. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That'd be courtesy, wouldn't it? --MZMcBride (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a novel interpretation of civility, but while you're here, if you would archive your talk page so it doesn't take five minutes to load, you would increase the chances that I would post a notification to you. Since I'm not always on a fast connection (and perchance some of the editors affected by your admin actions aren't either), that would be courteous. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Since when has it been civil to talk about people behind their backs? That does seem to be the novel interpretation to me. I do archive my talk page, but point taken (and acted upon). Do you know about section editing and the "New section" link? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think your best defense is to come here and try to deflect your inappropriate behavior on to me, particularly when your talk page was a mile long and I'm on a slow connection. I hope this kind of behavior isn't a pattern for you-- next time I'm on a fast connection, perhaps I should peruse your talk page archives. And no, I don't use the "New section" link; I don't find it helpful to post to someone's talk page when I can't scroll to the bottom of the page to see if the issue has already been raised. Besides, I'm a ditz. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I rest my case. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Having just been directed to Jimmy Wales's talk page I'm rather astonished by your bullshit Stephan, as nobody had the courtesy to tell me I was a topic of conversation there. And almost equally dismayed by Jimmy's naive comments about me: "Responding to people like Malleus when he's misbehaving by misbehaving further does not resolve the problem". What does "people like Malleus" mean? Just who the Hell do Jimbo and his acolytes think he is? Malleus Fatuorum 20:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

God and his angels. Parrot of Doom 20:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

What gets on my tits is Stephan complaining that he's not been notified of the discussion, when I wasn't either. But of course as an administrator he's much more important than me even though he does fuck all. Wanker. Malleus Fatuorum 20:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Read what I wrote. Is any reason why this does not cover you? If yes, sorry. Explain and I'll try to be more inclusive the next time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

For some reason I'm reminded of an Alan Clarke quote, it went something like "My dear, you will remember me, but I won't remember you". Parrot of Doom 20:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Could I humbly suggest that maybe the "wanker" bit is not likely to smooth things over here, and might be a smidge too far? Pedro :  Chat  21:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You may suggest whatever you like, but it's unlikely to alter my opinion. Malleus Fatuorum 21:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall asking you to alter your opinion. Pedro :  Chat  21:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You didn't no, but I have no interest in "smoothing things over". There are serious problems here that need to be addressed, not smoothed over. Malleus Fatuorum 21:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm mystified how stating someone is a wanker will address serious problems. I'm hardly in the civility police, and I fully understand the number of times you've been wrongly blocked under the pretence of WP:NPA, when you've made comments that are not personal. However calling someone a wanker is, I feel, over the top. c.f. the whole "arse" stupidity. If I call you an arse (in Br. E.) it's got a connotation that is really just a modest rebuke. Calling you a wanker is not really the same level. Still, whatever. Luckily they don't desysop through inaction, so I get to keep my precious buttons. I just think removing one word would not really dilute your concerns but might make it a tad easier to duck under the WP:CIV-POL radar. Pedro :  Chat  21:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

What leads you to believe that I care about the reaction of the civility police? They are what they are and will do what they will. Let others judge their honesty, and see how many agree with me. Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Nothing leads me to believe you care about the civility police, and frankly you've enjoyed one to many Stellas if you think I've said that. If you're only concerned about "how many agree with me" then frankly I'd like to know when the real MF retired and someone else took over his account. That's a very suprising comment. I'm going to disengage and apologies to Sandy for the orange bars.Pedro :  Chat  21:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually I've had no Stellas at all, yet. So perhaps you'll have to wait until you hear what I really think. Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Stella is minging, you should try this. Bloody lovely. Parrot of Doom 23:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The very thought of cider, pear or otherwise, brings back teenage memories of Bulmers that are best forgotten. Even the smell makes me want to puke. Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I will not allow personal attacks against Cider. Reported at Run to mommy sorry ANI. Parrot of Doom 23:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This is to notify you that this discussion has resulted in a report being lodged at WP:REALALE/N Fifelfoo (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I've been dragged kicking and screaming to a few cider-only pubs in the the southwest, and even a Bulmers one somewhere near Guildford IIRC, but I always fall at the first hurdle; I just can't drink the bloody stuff. Malleus Fatuorum 00:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Would you cruel people stop discussing beers and ales that I cannot get easily here in the States?? Meanie heads. And dang, Malleus, cider is good! And Brit cider is better than the crap stuff I can get here in the states... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Aren't you a Strongbow fan? One of my nieces loves the white ciders like White Diamond, but I've always believed that alcohol shouldn't taste nice; it should be hard to drink, a bit like medicine. Malleus Fatuorum 00:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, Strongbow has been made illegal. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Strongbow's better than Woodchuck that is made here in the states .. yikes. Now, I need to get back to helping the stepdaughter make a log cabin from twigs. I'm pretty sure that is NOT a UK school project, aren't ya'll lucky. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Aged about 19 I got drunk on about 7 halves of Woodpecker and black, but unknown to me each one had been spiked with vodka. I ended up running around in my underpants on a pub bowling green at 5 o'clock in the morning, but that's a complicated story. Needless to say I didn't touch cider again for a good ten years. Parrot of Doom 00:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I hope they were clean underpants. Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

To get back on topic (much as the cider side-discussion is nice and chummy and all that), there is a serious point here about what Stephan said. it can be very disconcerting to discover that you or something you said is being discussed on other user talk pages. Sometimes it is unavoidable (I'm sure I've done it myself more than a few times), but sometimes it is just plain rude. It's like walking into a room and everyone falls silent just as you walk in and you feel your ears burning because you are sure everyone was just talking about you. It's not quite like that on Wikipedia, but there is a tendency for some editors to post on their user talk pages as if the only people able to read the conversation are those participating, when in fact these are public pages and anyone can read them.

The example in question (where Sandy mentioned something I'd said) I raised here. You will note that in her reply, Sandy failed completely to address the point about how her quoting me somewhere else annoyed me. I didn't push further on that point at the time, but now I see someone else making a similar complaint, I'm bringing it up again. From my point of view, a FAC delegate responded to something I said during a FAC review, and then failed to respond to my follow-up question, and instead (two days later) effectively gossiped about it on another editor's talk page. 'Unprofessional' is the word I'm looking for. As I said, I let it slide at the time, but seeing Stephan make his comment here, and the resulting 'chummy' conversation (effectively editors using Wikipedia user talk pages to socialise) really gets my back up at times. The ironic thing being that such threads often consist of those who produce (or help produce) excellent content blowing off steam on their user talk pages (fair enough to an extent), but to then see someone who often takes part in such 'chatty' talk page threads then complaining about immature editors socialising off-wiki on IRC? You really couldn't make it up.

My view on socializing on-wiki is that people should minimise any chit-chat on their user talk pages (which simply leads to the formation of in-groups), and at some point redirect the conversations towards content editing. In other words, interact with people while discussing content (i.e. "I remember this editor from a discussion related to this article", rather than "I remember this editor because they made a hilarious joke on someone's user talk page"). I don't expect many of those here to welcome what I've said, but please, the next time you are joshing with someone, or having a laugh in public, or engaging in idle chit-chat, consider that though it may reinforce social bonds between the editors involved, that is nearly always at the expense of objectivity and engaging with editors where it really matters (building content). It can be more professional to maintain a distance. Wikipedia isn't a place to socialise (not even user talk pages). The content should come first. And if you must have venues for on-wiki socialising, make them public cafe/pub areas, not user talk pages which just encourage division into social groupings. Carcharoth (talk) 02:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Your view isn't worth chicken shit. I was also mentioned in the thread that Stephan objected to, by Jimmy himself, and not in a nice way. Go fuck yourself for your dishonesty. Malleus Fatuorum 02:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)