User talk:SandyGeorgia

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

FACs needing feedback view •
Five Nights at Freddy's: Help Wanted	Review it now
Roswell incident	Review it now
La Isla Bonita	Review it now

If you want me to look at an article, please provide the link.
I usually respond on my talk page, so watch the page for my reply.
To leave me a message, click here.

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)

Health related articles

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given that this isn't a super popular, prolific area of research, a 10 year old source is old, but not necessarily outdated, because often there is not funding or motivation to replicate a meta-analysis when the original findings continue to be supported and cited relatively widely.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

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

My Sincere Wishes For This Festive Season

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

Holiday wishes...

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

Christmas cheese

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

Happy holidays

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

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

Merry Christmas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Season's tidings!

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

Happy holidays

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

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

Happy New Year Sandy

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

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

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

Admiration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just wanted to add that the wikibreak had nothing to do with you or Malleus. I've just come through a truly terrible year that was capped off by a lot of unnecessary wiki drama at a time when I was stretched as thin as could be in real life. I should have taken a break a long time ago (had a page at FAC that kept me here) but I'm better now. My feeling about all of this is that we should be proud of our accomplishments, (let's face it, this is a hobby and should be a pleasant escape) and sometimes that perspective gets lost in all the noise, fwiw. Best, Truthkeeper (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Working with you was always a pleasure, Gimme. How about this? [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Is that new stuff related to the 2006 mediation? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, just a re-appearance of an editor after a three-year absence right after I announced my intent to re-engage POV on Venezuela articles. It's been a nice break over there :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sandy,

I have been shown in the files on the Military history Project a statement from a member of our current coordinator tranche that you are to be retiring from your position within the next 30 days. I understand how powerless we are in the face of these changing times on Wikipedia, and I know that all good things must eventually end, yet I can not refrain from posting here my admiration of your skills and conduct while you were working as an FAC delegate, nor the sorrow I feel as our community loses yet another skilled volunteer due to project apathy. In my eyes, you represent that which is greatest in us all, and I consider myself honored to have received your input on the articles I ran through FAC. Wherever you will go, and whatever you do, I wish you the best of luck and fortune, and pray that you always remain faithful to yourself and and your beliefs.

Your sincerely and respectfully,
TomStar81 (Talk) 10:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how exactly to respond, but I do know this much: FAC has lost an extraordinary editor. Among all the turmoil that plagues Wikipedia from time to time, you have always been a rock, Sandy. Thanks for all that you've done, and give 'em hell. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Sandy, I always really respected and admired your work at FAC a lot. The rigour that you brought to the process has kept the level of new FAs very high. And thank you for your guidance during the FACs I was involved in. I'm sorry to see you leave your post as an FAC delegate. But I'm also happy for you that now you're going to have time to work on medical articles. I'm sure that's going to be great for you to just be free to do lots of fun editing without having to worry about the responsibilities of FAC. Good luck with all your future projects! Moisejp (talk) 05:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent comments

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

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

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

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

For you

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

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

Barnstar

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

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

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

Thanks.

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

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

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

Just a note

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

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

Improvement and translation of medical articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resignation

I just saw. Sorry to see you leave, you were great in that role. At the same time I can see how it is a lot like herding cats and can be a bit much. Good luck, it will probably be more enjoyable to edit without the stress and headaches from FAC.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 11:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It pisses me off, this, and I haven't even been active at FAC for months. I'm still not entirely sure what happened either. Personally, I'm just waiting for everything to cool down and hoping that when that happens, you'll pick back up the mantle there. I most certainly never ragequitted from anything myself, only to join back soon after... Sven Manguard Wha? 13:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm absolutely certain it's not a "ragequit", that wouldn't be Sandy's style. Malleus Fatuorum 17:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Bwaaaahaha ... nice concept, though! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Good for you :) You are/were a far better delegate than I ever was, but you deserve the break. Karanacs (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

And we at WP:MED are really looking forwards to you rejoining us. So much important work to be done.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey

Just wanted to let you know that I've pinged you and I wish you all the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

From Portugal, with love

I think you gonna like this. And don't resignate of nothing, that is what they want. The trouble is that these guys came, I think, more or less all from vulgar genealogy sites, and they have all the respectiv defects.

Abraço, Saint George, also known by Jorge alo (talk) 09:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the kindness, but whatever it is that I walked into, I am (thankfully) unaware of what is going on in the Portuguese and Brazilian suite of articles, what the agenda is, and what Elonka (talk · contribs), Durova (talk · contribs), Wehwalt (talk · contribs), The ed17 (talk · contribs) and a returning editor who has a history with most of them are all doing in there. I have no idea what it's about, I do not engage in off-Wiki dealings, I have no intention of getting involved, so there is no need to fill me in. Thank you for letting me know (someone) was after my resignation, but I resigned for my own reasons, and that would have made no difference. I appreciate the notice, but I'm sorry I'm unable to help in whatever is happening; this looks like Wikipedia's next battle zone-- to rival the Eastern Europe wars. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about, this was just to let you know, and not to get you involved. The thing is not of particularly concern, and all will be quietly settled. My best wishes to the continuation of your excellent work, Jorge alo (talk) 13:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Found.
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alarbus/Archive SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused, why is my name alongside those three? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know-- you closed that requested move on a Portugal article, Alarbus's first sock was Portuguese Man o' War (interesting name, then he created other socks, each targeting articles from different groups of FA writers), then the group supporting "Wehwalt for FA director" and wanting to politicize FAC suggested you should be FA director-- do you feel that this list puts you not in good company? I didn't put you there-- they did. Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs)/Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs) has a historical basis for a grudge against Raul654 and me (disagreement over coding and layout of Featured sounds and list on mainpage, Talk:Main Page/Archive 157 which continued elsewhere), and there are some very interesting connections emerging here. Alarbus coded the blackout template-- cool (if you happen to support Wikipedia making a point in spite of being a massive host of copyright infringement). Sumbuddy needs to ask the right WP:CLEANSTART questions, and then ... find out who knew what, when.

Adam/Shoe cited Learned Hand; Alarbus et al cleaned up citations and sources when new account. Adam/Shoe and Wehwalt have a long-standing nexus on theatre/opera articles. Adam from UK; Alarbus mentions folks from US being puritanical. Adam/Shoe had a dispute with Durova, who shows up at MilHist about a Portuguese conflict (wha?) in the midst of all of this. And there's more ... but I digress ... the real question is, why did Alarbus create multiple socks, why is he behind "Wehwalt for FA director", and is he abiding by CLEANSTART or evading scrutiny to take on FAC after a dispute over Featured Lists and Sounds on the mainpage? I'd sure like to hear from The Rambling Man. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Me for FA director? That's a hoot! Any link?

I have no beef with any of the named editors, but being somewhat randomly named here made me curious (I'm not named in the link he gave, that I saw). I realized that Alarbus is some sort of returning editor awhile back, but really haven't had the inclination to enter into another drama-laden discussion. ;-) Why Durova's few edits are about a Portuguese conflict are intriguing. I'm familiar with the Durova/SH dispute, but not much more than that. I don't think they are the same person though? Unless I've missed something, which wouldn't be surprising. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Out of time, you can look for your name in here. Surprising? It's clear that Alarbus is a returning editor. It's clear that he used alternate accounts in a way that shows he knows CU, CLEANSTART and alternate account use well. It's clear that he knows coding. He has some most strange overlap with Shoe/Adam (including but not limited to Learned Hand, and the nexus with Wehwalt in theatre/opera articles). It's clear that his first sock was a Portuguese name, that something is going on in the Portuguese realm that led to this strange post to my talk and Durova's post to MilHist, and Alarbus's various socks edited different areas of different established FA writers. It's clear that he aligned himself with the TCO/Wehwalt FAC campaign. There's more, but I'm out of time for today. Question is, if an abuse of CLEANSTART is being used to disrupt FAC and further an agenda, why are we having an RFC when no one but Wehwalt, TCO, Alarbus and Lecen seem to think there's a problem (still waiting to hear from TRM, since he was involved in the initial mainpage dustup). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting reading here. After the first SPI I've always wondered about this conversation. But if Alarbus coded the SOPA blackout template, then it explains a lot. In my view FAC is being disrupted and has been for about a month, fwiw. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

If Alarbus coded the blackout template then he's no coder worthy of the name. That was just about the most amateurish and incompetent thing I've seen on the Internet for some time now. Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't review enough articles to even dream about something like that. There are more people who have issues with the current system, though. I voted for an RfC because it will bring discussions on this to a halt, no matter the outcome – now that the cookie jar was opened, people would have continued taking the cookies until a definitive end point. As for Alarbus being a coder, I don't think so. It was my understanding that the WMF did it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It is soooo irritating when misinfo is spread on my talk :) Diffs, The ed, diffs ... check 'em. One of the wonders of Wikipedia is that, when people don't conduct campaigns off-Wiki, the evidence is there for you to see. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Why was the cookie jar opened? That's the issue. Other than Alarbus, and his alt accounts, I don't know anything about the other users but have to say the reading is interesting. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Just as a point of information, the SOPA blackout was implemented via javascript, not a template, and Alarbus evidently wrote {{Blackout}} in order to blackout his own user and user talk pages, not for anything else. Geometry guy 01:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes ... good enough :) And why "was" the cookie jar opened, anyway ... and how long ago? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. For what is the "cookie jar" a metaphor here? Geometry guy 01:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The ed17's post above, at 00:19, 20 January 2012. I don't know what he meant, but I believe that a campaign has been underway for several months (the "cookie" being the perception some have that Raul's job is powerful-- which is frightful, since he's never used the job that way). Featured Lists and Sounds and Pictures wanted mainpage space; Raul and I opposed it based on design/layout issues (it was awkward)-- not the concept (we supported the concept, but the layout was poorly designed, and it seems that kerfuffle continued long after we stopped paying attention). Now it appears that feathers were ruffled. And "Papers" looking at "data" were written, The Signpost got on board-- and voila-- a campaign to toss out Raul and politicize FAC was born. I've got a pretty good idea what the Portuguese connection is/was, but unless one of them decides to tell me, I can only guess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Heh, using a metaphor was a bad choice. My apologies. All I meant was that once the subject was broached and received attention, it will need a definitive conclusion before fading away. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

With The Signpost feeding it, that's true. How often do you see less than a handful of people get this much attention? And bring FAC and WP:TFA/R to a standstill, to boot! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Uh, quite often. This is Wikipedia, m'dear. People who like to type loudly and often (e.g. people who write awesome literature articles but disrupt every other place) get all the attention. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	For all your hard work on FAC, you definitely deserve more than this, but presenting you with this barnstar is the least I can do. Remember (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

for all your work on FAC, good luck on the medical articles Tom B (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Definite maximum article size?

In the discussion about Elvis Presley as TFA you wrote that it is too long. I agree that articles should not be too long. Would you be for a definite ceiling as FA criterion? My main interest here is (of course) that I think it would take less effort to write and maintain a shorter text. But as you say, there is also the aspect that more text and images waste the time of the person waiting for them to load. There is also the server and data transport costs for Wikimedia. My intuition is that on average people read a very small percentage of the longest articles (per download). --Ettrig (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to get out the door-- I suggest you search the FAC talk archives (there's a button for that somewhere in there) for the lengthy discussions of same. It's not up to delegates or director to decide that-- it's a consensus matter, and it's different case-by-case ... depends on the article. In many cases (like Presley), my personal opinion is that it's clear that summary style can be better used, but precisely the reason that writers don't use summary style more is your page view argument-- they're afraid editors won't click on daughter artices, so they try to cram everything into the main article. It's another reason I'm against this page view meme ... your arguments above are good and right IMO, but the page view thing is why editors don't use a more appropriate summary style. Sorry for the fast answer, I really need to get out the door here :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting and quick answer, yet you apologize. I really wish I (we?, Wikipedia) knew more about what the readers normally do. My intuition is that in most cases they look at the first few sentences and the top image, then move on to something else. If this is true, there is no point in cramming more into an already long article. To a cost, Wikipedia could study this by studying where, and after how long readers click in articles. --Ettrig (talk) 05:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right, Ettrig. Speaking for myself, I'll review articles of any length if they are in an area that I'm interested in, otherwise length is a definite factor in selecting what else I review. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone to take care of prose

Hey Sandy I am hopeless when it comes to prose. Wondering if you knew of someone who could help me here at the GAN for Hepatitis C http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hepatitis_C/GA1#GA_Review

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Well played.

[2] Lara 04:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Access dates on book citations

Are access dates mandatory for book citations with a URL? The article in question is Tony Award for Best Featured Actor in a Play. Thanks. Albacore (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

No. In fact, when the URL is Google Books, I tend to advise against them. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Any particular reason why? Albacore (talk) 03:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Many. Retrieval dates are preferred by some style guides for sources which lack publication/update date (mostly websites), which would not apply to books. In fact, even where such guides allow for convenience links, they tend to avoid suggesting access dates for books. Google Books URLs cannot be properly archived, so retrieval dates are not helpful for that purpose, and GBooks pages tend not to change over time anyways. Theoretically, GBooks pages, like printed book pages, are static (though in practice that isn't true, but retrieval dates would not help with this anyways). They are not recommended by WP:CITE, though for whatever reason the citation templates allow for them. Finally, and more subjectively, they just look weird in book cites. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Oct-Dec 2011

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured article reviews for the period October–December 2011, I am delighted to award you the Content Review Medal. Buggie111 (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

Sorry to hear about all the frustrations at FAC, with the state of medical articles and all. :( I can't thank you enough for your contributions in keeping the FAC process going and raising the quality. I hope to get back to doing more FA writing and reviewing at some point. I am also curious and hopeful efforts like WP Medicine Translation Task force (80 articles to GA or FA) can be helpful, though not sure what I can personally do to help with that. All the best. --Aude (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Civility (again)

SandyGeorgia, you know that with edit summaries like this you are just giving me more diffs, right?[3] --Elonka 01:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Elonka, you seriously need to stop trolling my talk page and harassing me ... that edit summary MOST clearly refers to myself, as anyone can tell you who follows my edits, and I OFTEN say it about myself. [4] STOP the harassment-- it's boring as heck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, could you please just try to disengage? There's no reason that you needed to jump into the discussion I'm having with Nev1. Best would be to just stay out of it, please? --Elonka 02:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop The Harassment, Elonka. It's not that hard-- I'm sure you can do it. I most certainly will respond on an arb case when you've done the same thing to me two lines above doing it to Nev1. Have you not noticed that every time you come to my talk page, others correct your egregious behaviors, yet you continue to harass me, and every time you come here, it's with false accusations? And every time I tell you the same thing-- do not come back here unless you can come back with good faith. And I notice you didn't strike your false allegation above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, to be clear, the only times I come to your talkpage are to diff the fact that you are complaining about me on yet another page around the project. If you want me to stay away, it's pretty simple, please stop commenting about me, please stop jumping into conversations that have nothing to do with you. Please just disengage, thanks. --Elonka 02:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The only time you come to my talk page is with false accusations that you never remove (including that your assertions wrt Nev1 had nothing to do with me, since you did the same to me), no matter how many people correct you while you're here. I will ask you for the final time to remove or strike the false assertion about me above-- which is the gazillionth time you've done this on my talk page since your disagreement with Jbmurray (talk · contribs) and Tony1 (talk · contribs) after they opposed your prose on the Dirty Dancing FAC. One sample, it went on all over the place, then Elonka deleted it all, but never let go. If you post here again, without striking the latest in your long string of false assertions about me, your posts will be removed. Come here in good faith, exactly as I explained to you last time you did this, or stay away. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Elonka, you are painting yourself in a very poor light here. Instead of having the grace to say "oh, sorry I misunderstood" when Sandy explained the self reference, you ignored her response and moved on to to the next accusation. I encourage you to think seriously about modeling the behavior you hope to encourage. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

When you frequenlty find yourself in positions such as 1 out of 164, and people are tying to ask you to Just Stop, that might tell you (Elonka) that letting go and trying to remember that not everything is always about you all the time might be in order. I am not your perpetual punching bag because two of Wikipedia's finest copy editors opposed your FAC. For gosh sakes, let go, and try to AGF when you read an edit summary that I use frequently as self-deprecation, as I have most clearly indicated to you above. An apology might work every now and then, too. You do this regularly, e.g.; User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch83#Revert. Please review Wikipedia policies that you should be familiar with by now, and if you are unable to AGF, then stay off of my talk. AGF posts are welcome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Elonka, take a suggestion from a TPS: just stop it. You should have assumed good faith and accepted Sandy's explanation of her edit summary. You should have done that, and dropped this. Imzadi 1979 → 04:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Mischaracterizations abound: the "discussion Elonka is having with Nev1" is a discussion Nev1 initiated about Elonka's representations on an Arb Case, and she did the same to me on the same page. For Elonka to think I shouldn't engage on that shows ... a mindset I'm not accustomed to. At any rate, until such time as Elonka reviews and understands WP:AGF and refrains from false accusations on my talk, I will remove her posts. I've showed her in the past how to approach other editors with good faith and asking for clarification, but it doesn't seem to sink in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol alliance (2)

Hi Sandy, you may not have noticed, but I asked you a couple weeks ago, very nicely I thought, to please avoid my FMA FAC, so I was a bit surprised to see you suddenly start participating there today. It's really probably best if we both try to disengage from interacting with each other, thanks. --Elonka 22:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

You have been uninvited to continue assumptions of bad faith on my talk page, but because this is a FAC-related query, I will entertain it even though the assumptions of bad faith continue. First, you're welcome for the helpful feedback [5] (and edits [6]) on the FAC. Second, please justify "suddenly" considering my daily five-hour run-through of FAC.[7] Third, if you make any further failures to assume good faith in any of your responses, they will be removed. Think carefully now-- AGF is policy here, and most of us really don't find it that hard. And by the way, since you haven't engaged a single response from me, it doesn't appear that you are making any attempt to resolve anything regarding your behaviors on this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

When I heard that you were stepping down as delegate, I debated whether or not to post a positive comment on your talkpage, thanking you for your service. I chose not to, but I would like to remedy that now. SandyGeorgia, thank you for all the work that you do on FA articles. I have long been impressed with your dedication to this part of the project, and the amount of time that you volunteer to this endeavor. In no way am I trying to say that you should stop reviewing FAs. My only request is that, in order to minimize disruption to the project, that perhaps it would be best if we disengaged from interacting, and allowed some other delegate to deal with the FMA FAC. Thanks for your time, --Elonka 22:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Why thank you, your social graces are improving! Now, to FAC business: my query is something in your (and the article's) best interest, to avoid future disruption or misunderstanding based on the article name. This would, then, be the best time for you to ask if I plan to promote or archive the FAC, and I can respond with either "I wouldn't dream of it" or "It's what I live for". The answer is, I raised the one question I had wrt that FAC, I'm done there, "I wouldn't dream of it", I don't need to be told the obvious, but it is neither in your interest nor in the article's best interest to stifle helpful commentary. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

We seem to be witnessing the development of a new tactic: you're not allowed to review Elonka's articles and I'm not allowed to review Lecen's articles. Interesting. Malleus Fatuorum 00:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't say if we're "witnessing the development of [that] tactic", but I will not quietly let FAC be compromised thusly. All commentary is worthy of consideration, and delgates can weigh whether commentary is valid or actionable, and whether personal "grudges" are being brought to bear on the FAC. I don't think Elonka can claim in any way, shape or form that I repaid the kindness of her attentions in my commentary on that FAC, but I will not quietly acquiesce to censorship of FAC reviews. I am not saying this was Elonka's intent, but it most certainly could be the outcome if such things occur. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Similarly, Lecen can dream on. Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Turning Point (2008)/archive4

I have responded to your issues at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Turning Point (2008)/archive4.--WillC 23:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Autism Not a forum reply

The reply I gave on the talk page I am a little uneasy with. While I wanted to alert the user concerning the Talk page not being a forum, I also felt it inadequate to only reply with 'not a forum' and that there should be at least a brief answer to his question to end the thread with. I gave a brief answer, but I feel it is overly simplified (I'm not too comfortable with giving incomplete answers that might lead to a false impression). The other thing I was uneasy with was giving an answer rather than just 'not a forum' (so I'm generally conflicted on my reply in whole). My question is did I — in your opinion — reply in a proper WP way, or should I have answered that differently. Your thoughts/criticism/recommendations greatly appreciated. — al-Shimoni (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That is a constant dilemma on talk pages such as that one, and that you asked shows that you are striving to be the best editor you can be. In this particular case, it appears to be that editor's first post to that talk page, so I might not have referenced NOTAFORUM just yet-- that's not intended as criticism of you, since editors with an agenda on those talk pages (autism, asperger's etc) crank up so quickly into SOAPBOXING that it can be very hard to know when to give up. But that editor is fairly new, and it was his/her first post there, so that part of your response may have been premature. All of those talk pages desperately need FAQs so we can just refer those with that never ending line of questioning to the FAQ, but in an environment of declining editorship, who can find the time to write an FAQ ... Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Image Gallery in Giraffe

Is there really a problem with the image gallery? A user has revered it back feeling that it fits WP:IG. LittleJerry (talk) 11:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The user was me ;-) I just saw the gallery, which I sometimes have used as fast reference material when I'm in a forgetful mood, had been removed without any edit summary. Quoting WP:IG:

• may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images – gallery with all giraffe subspecies side by side, showing their differences in patterns
• the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject –
• the gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance – each subspecies named in gallery
• the gallery should be appropriately titled – the theme of the gallery should be clear from the context. It's in a subsection called 'Subspecies', just below a text description of the subspecies. If someones believe it isn't clear enough, a gallery title can easily be added.

I'd be interested in knowing if anyone disagree with the above assessment and if so, why? (the G. c. camelopardalis photo perhaps isn't optimal for subspecies comparison but the others are fine.) –RN1970 (talk) 12:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Image galleries are typically discouraged, but that's a matter for reviewer consensus, and discussion belongs on the FAC, not on my talk page. IMO, image galleries are sometimes appropriate-- for instance, in an article about a painting or a series of paintings or where the images are what the article is about. That is precisely what "may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images" speaks to, and is not the case for giraffe. In this case, IMO, it's just adornment, adds nothing to the article (don't we all know what giraffes look like), and accomplishes nothing that can't be seen in the Commons category. They also set up issues as occurred at the Lion FA, where everyone and their brother wants to add their favorite picture. We aren't a picture book, we're an encyclopedia, and images should be carefully selected to display our best work, not a picture book. The text is cluttered with pictures, and text is squeezed where it is sandwiched between images (and that's against MOS). But that's just my opinion, as one editor, and consensus is formed where the discussion of that belongs-- on the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Forgot something?

FYI, I saw this and this, but Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr./archive1 has no {{FACClosed|promoted}} tag, so it's still technically open? :) María (yllosubmarine) 15:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Maria ... I'm not sure where the notion that the template had to be used crept in, but this is the diff that defines whether an article is featured (if a delegate omits any other step, that's still the determining one). I add the FACClosed template often, but not always-- mostly when there may be some confusion, which there wasn't in this case. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Sorry for the presumption -- I thought the template was needed in order for an article to be recognized by the bot. If nothing else, it's useful for the nominators/commenters who don't watch WP:FAC or WP:FA. María (yllosubmarine) 16:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No, actually this is what triggers Gimmetrow to activate the bot. There was a time when I promoted daily, but for more efficient bot processing and coordination of schedules between Karanacs and me, for a while we switched to bi-weekly promotions. The bot then was run on Tuesdays and Saturdays, which meant that if we withdrew or closed a nom on Wednesday, the bot wouldn't go through for four more days-- so that template came about when delays in bot processing were expected. That's no longer the case-- with the extreme lack of reviews at FAC, and the growing backlog due to lack of reviews, we're now promoting pretty much whenever we can, and the bot goes through fairly quickly. I could still add the template, and I do whenever I'm concerned in a contentious FAC that it might not be clear, but that's the history. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy! Very interesting to get a sneak peek into the delegate process. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to try and drum up some attention on my lonely FAC before Wikipedia goes black. Sigh. María (yllosubmarine) 00:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I always add the template—it makes it clear to people watching the FAC and not WP:FA or the monthly log that the FAC is closed and what its result is. Ucucha (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

FAC ping

Hi Sandy, I've finished reviewing here and am pinging as requested. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm just catching up, and will see how far I can get today before that dumb-ass SOPA thing happens. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

"Technical" reviews

Hi Sandy. Just wanted to let you know that I've done a few "technical" reviews of the longer-running FACs, found a surprising number of issues. Anyway, if you wanted me to focus on any FAC in particular when reviewing against MOS etc (in particular articles which incorporate lists, such as highway or wrestling articles) then don't hesitate to ping me. Naturally, I'm a bit of an impostor at FAC so if my intrusions are unwelcome (I'm sure some of the comments will be unpalatable, but hey) then let me know, but hopefully I'm net-gaining the project. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed (and appreciated); typically, lately, it's fallen to me to pick up all of that sort of thing, and I can't get it all. There is so much needed every where I look, that I can't ask you to focus on any particular one-- maybe just start at the bottom whenever you have a moment, since some of them have been up for months. Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries, that's kind-of where I started. As I said, I'm sure some of the ideas we take very seriously at FLC seem to be completely overlooked at FAC (and no doubt, vice versa), so if I ruffle a few feathers, my apologies in advance. I'll report the facts and move on, with my recently received thicker skin ;) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to Stanford's WikiProject!

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Stanford University, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Stanford University. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

ralphamale (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Who spilled the beans? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Must be my fault, Sandy, for when you helped me with MemChu. I got the same notice! ;) Christine (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Mattisse must be climbing the walls

[8]. Anyone got a shilling for the meter? Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I was musing the same thing, maybe the thread shorted out the website when there were too many posts from the one user. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason to pay attention to Wikipedia Review of late? --Moni3 (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's where you can find out if my dog died, my basement flooded, or I ran out of synthroid. It's the SandyGeorgia OC support group. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and apparently you've been having some problems with your kitchen. Malleus Fatuorum 23:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It's all done, and gorgeous ... I shall send you pics sometime. The dog, however, is still very dead. And the steam shower door seal isn't working. There, all the news that's fit to print! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that might depend on whether or not you were up for one of their "Dick of Distinction" awards. I thought I might be in in with a chance for the "Miss Incongeniality" award, but ... Malleus Fatuorum 23:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I just wish some of the Dicks were Distinct. Or Distinguished. Or something worthy of all the fine attention a good dick deserves. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Remember, Somey and co never owned WR - the domain was always owned by "Selina Kyle", who hasn't shown the slightest interest for months. I'm surprised nobody's yet hijacked the name.

I just stood in a line behind Sue Gardiner today. She looks much smaller IRL than on TV. 173.164.243.154 (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• their own way of protesting SOPA? — Ched :  ?  23:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Well, aren't we fresh? Did I invite you here? Don't we have some things to talk about? [9] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• I see your partner in that venture has good sense. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

OK

I'd be more than happy to talk Sandy. I'll even offer an apology if you're willing to accept it. I never meant to hurt anyone's feelings. I never meant to "taunt" .. I was only trying to stop the fighting. Now if you want to chew me out for that - then feel free. If you want me to never again post to your page, then I'll honor that request as well. go ahead. — Ched :  ?  00:28, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not really about feelings, is it, Ched? If you think it is, I'm worried about why you have the tools. It is-- and always has been (ref Malleus case)-- about admin abuse of regular editors, and the failure of ANI to let discussions run until conclusions can be reached-- hence escalation of problems to ArbCom that should have been addressed at ANI. Anyway, sure, let's talk after the SOPA blackout-- that is, if any of us still dare show our faces in here after That Stupid and Embarassing Stunt. I don't want to start a discussion now, when we're about to get cut off, and I want to make one more review of FAC in the remaining hours. Stupid, stupid, stupid SOPA blackout-- embarassed to be part of this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd be glad to Sandy, and thank you for being so gracious. Talk to you soon. — Ched :  ?  00:36, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back Sandy - while I agree that the whole blackout thing was stupid, I hope you had a good day anyway. Also, I didn't notice at first, but that "Kill 'em all" graphic was good ... I tip my hat to ya on that one. Anyway, I'm not sure about the "feelings" part. While I agree that it's bad to act only on feelings, I think we are always better if we try to consider that there are real people on the other end of each post. Yes, we want folks to write and act in a dispassionate way, but I think it's important to remember they are people. Now, to what I think the whole crux of the issue is. Did I abuse anyone? I would like to think not. I tried to take all sides and treat them equally. I didn't pick a side. I also didn't block anyone. I tried to calm things down and reduce disruption; at least that was my intent. If I failed at that, then I do apologize. I won't pretend that I'm completely oblivious to the issues at FA stuff, but I also won't pretend that I know exactly what's going on either. I know there are issues in regards to the whole director thing, but not being a FA writer, I'm probably lacking some particulars there. Yes, I agree that TCO has said some pretty crude and uncouth things; and I also noticed in the ANI thread that he admitted that it was wrong. I simply didn't see the thread as getting anywhere other than going in circles. I wasn't trying to stifle anything, I just didn't see any consensus or resolution coming out of it, rather it just seemed (to me) to be an escalating back and forth. I know that all parties involved are great writers, and it's not a good thing to have our best people at each other's throats. (IMHO). I didn't mean to rattle on like this, so I'll just say that you are an incredibly talented and gifted writer that I admire tremendously; and if anything, I feel intimidated by you. I'll shut up now and let you talk. (I'll be in and out for the rest of today and tonight, but will try to respond to anything when possible). Oh, and yes, I'm aware of the AC case, and I actually agree with Malleus on the entire issue. ... but I'm getting started again .. sorry .. your turn. — Ched :  ?  17:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I always have good days; it's just the stupid internet, remember, where anyone can say anything and you get what you pay for :) It's unfortunate that unpaid volunteers were used to violate neutrality and make a point, more disturbing still were the numerous statements parroted by the press from Jimbo and Sue to the effect that we don't host copyright infringement, when we in fact host amounts that we will never be able to deal with, even if we wanted to, and most don't want to. Perhaps someone with some money will commission a study of the contributions from those at the top of Wikipedia's list of most prolific DYK contributors and have a look at how many articles listed for copyright investigation have gone unaddressed for how long. Three years since I rounded up a team to write "Let's get serious about plagiarism"-- no change except the loss of some fine FA writers who gave up in disgust. One place on Wikipedia took a serious stance on copyvio following the Halloween 2010 debacle-- Featured article candidates-- and those who want "quantity over quality" (easier FAs) will have its neck for that, with cries that standards increased and FAs aren't growing fast enough. But, again, it's the internet, anyone can say anything and be anything, and we all knew we could be used as unpaid volunteers when we signed on.

So, back on topic. There's a lot to talk about here, so rather than dig in to the beginning and answer each of your questions (yes, I do think you abused of someone, but that's water under the bridge, so let's try to work backwards to some sort of understanding) and all that is wrong with ANI and how it doesn't typically do anything helpful, often escalates disputes, I'll instead start at the end, where you said you "just wanted the fighting to stop". You admit you know little of FAC, and yet several times during the discussion, you made statements critical of FAC like "No wonder people stay away". Do you think it fair to make statements like that about a place you know little of, and without knowing who is agitating, creating the impression of a leadership crisis, creating and fomenting the discord, alienating FA writers and reviewers alike, and for what purpose? Or let me put it this way ... have you given any thought to just who might be benefiting from making it look like there are problems at FAC? Hint: consider who is looking for someone else's "job" compared to who resigned so they could get back to editing. Who doesn't want the fighting to stop? If you can answer that, you might understand why ANI never resolves disputes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You make an excellent point, and one I was going to get around to mentioning. On one hand, when I see our top editors bickering, then yes, I don't want to jump into that particular area (meaning FA). I'll also add that the best writers should be the best communicators, and so should be able to work through disagreements with the least amount of drama. NOW - the thought did occur to me, when I first saw a "pole" for choosing/voting/electing (whatever) someone as director - (currently Raul if I'm correct); then yes, I thought it was a good idea to let one of the others share the position as well. NOW comes the part that really threw me ... resoundingly, the people who would most benefit from rotating the workload (the FA reviews and delegates etc.) seemed to support the status quo. I was really shocked. I would have though that you, or Malleus, etc. would have wanted to have that position - but when so many folks that do the leg-work jump up and say they want to keep Raul where he is ... well, I admit - it said a LOT. OK .. now let me ask. What do you think would have been different if I had never posted to that ANI thread? What could I have done to make things better? Granted; I was working outside the box, and tried something a bit unheard of (but I thought it was worth a try). How do you think this can all be resolved to everyone's satisfaction, or as close to that as possible? — Ched :  ?  01:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite. Ched, you still don't seem to grasp that what you're seeing isn't an internal dispute, but an attempted putsch; look at who is agitating for change, and consider why (with reference to their histories). Until you understand the internal dynamic in which you're interfering, any intervention is just going to irritate those who've made the effort to understand. 173.164.243.154 (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

And that's fine .. IF I had come to FAC and tried force my point of view on anyone, but I didn't. I responded to an AN/I thread. I read what was there, walked away for a couple hours to spend some time with my grandkids. I came back and the same arguments were being presented over and over. I tried to come up with something that wouldn't hurt anyone, would resolve the immediate problem, and move on. I've also been doing some back reading on things - but history as you say is far harder to comprehend from a distant standpoint. Tell me what it is that you think my best course of action would be. I won't promise that I will just do it - but I will read links, and I will listen, and I will do my best to offer the best input I can muster. — Ched :  ?  02:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

And one serious question: What is there to be gained by said putsch? Honestly, what is the motive? Does someone want to promote poor articles? Does someone want to put some political candidate on the front page to influence an election? What am I missing - and if you would rather email me an honest answer .. that's fine too ... just tell me why? — Ched :  ?  02:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, well, those are questions you shoulda asked yourself before you threatened to block. Yes, some do want to promote poor articles, and I've been gettin' in their way for a very long time. No, I don't do e-mail or backchannel-- but they do. Yes, some who can't aspire to ArbCom think that Raul's job is the next most powerful on the Pedia, and those who care about FAC will tell you that Raul has never abused of that perceived power, which is why we don't want to lose him in favor of someone who will "politic" favors. If you had studied the entire conflict, you'd see we have someone aspiring to Raul's job who 1) doesn't review other FACs, because 2) he can't "judge other people's work" and 3) doesn't want to risk alienation (those are HIS words)-- in other words, politics-- don't oppose unworthy FACs so you can be "electable"-- something that has never been seen at FAC. Ever. Who gains in this fighting? Not articles, not FA writers, not FA reviewers, not Wikipedia. Only those who perceive that Raul's position is powerful, and aspire to that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

First, Ched, do not make the mistake of thinking something that the wise old Yomangani has always (I mean, for eons) cautioned against of thinkging that WP:WBFAN has some correlation with who are Wikipedia's finest editors. And even if they were, being a great communicator or writer doesn't necessarily make one good at dealing with brazen dirty politicing.Second, yes, that most people who know the FA process well know that Raul is as good as it gets, and you'd have to be NUTSO to replace him, should tell you a lot. So, if we can start from this basis, why do you think a "shoot them all" approach does anything except escalate the conflict-- eventually to ArbCom? That is precisely what happened the last time one of the same players supported one editor who disrupted FAC to the point of desperation. How is it helpful when ANI denizens do nothing to understand what is going on, and shoot 'em all? If we can agree on that, then we can talk more about the specifics of how very wrong your particular "shoot 'em all" was, but the point for now is why the heck do admins feel the only way to solve issues is by blocking people, and why don't they keep their bloomin' mouths shut when they know nothing of conflicts, and allow time for all evidence to come forward so meaningful conclusions can be reached? You were part of shutting down a thread ... along with Scott Mac and The Ed 17 ... even though many were telling you there was an issue to be dealt with-- one that remains unresolved. What happened to consensus? Yes, you "read what was there"-- did it cross your mind that some folks don't always present, ummmm ... the full story? And that by waiting things will become clearer? Not everyone is around all the time-- I for one, was busy-- why the rush to close off threads before anything can be resolved? HOw about careful deliberation. Sheesh, thank goodness I can't/don't close FACs at the speed that ANI closes things. I'm saying-- why don't admins stop bludgeoning people with blocks or threats to block, and do their homework first. And how on Earth do you come to the conclusion that a threat to "block 'em all" doesn't hurt anyone? What about the ill will (OK, I happen to be big enough to take it, but it gets to some others), and the conflict that went unresolved. And how about, while you were off with your grandkids, I was also out, so of course the thing was still going on hours later-- people don't LIVE on this thing all the time-- why not wait until everyone has time to weigh in? Never mind that I had just returned from an evening out or that Diannaa (because she's an admin) is allowed to say whatever she wants about me and I'm apparently allowed no defense ... the real kicker was the threat to block Wehwalt, when he had long gone to bed ... how is that preventative? That's the sort of thing that got us to where we are with Malleus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

First, please don't start yelling at me. I will talk. I will listen. As I said from the get go, if I messed up then I'm sorry. AN and ANI are places where it's a "quick - put out the fire" area, and that's the way it's been for ages. And perhaps I was wrong to try to stop the arguing (I don't know), but let's be a bit more accurate please ... I might have said "bang - bang" .. but I never pulled the gun out of the holster, let alone pulled the trigger - can ya please give me some credit for that? huh? Geesh .. I didn't even close the thread. I didn't even make a smart remark at the couple responses to my efforts. Just because there are a lot of admins. that think "admin" is something special, doesn't mean I do. I'm supposed to be helping you, I'm here by your authority - and it's something I'm keenly aware of. Yes, I played the game for the popularity contest, I admit that. I didn't realize as much then as I do now. It wasn't a deliberate attempt to get some faux power on some website. It was an honest desire to want to do good things here. I didn't realize all the stigma that went with it, and I doubt I'd ever do it again. But don't shut me out .. please. Ask Malleus, well .. maybe some other time when he's not being so beat upon and kicked and stabbed in the back would be better ... but he may tell you that I'm an idiot, he may tell you he doesn't particularly care for me - but I think he'd tell you that I am an honest, and a fair person. — Ched :  ?  02:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not hollering-- I just type fast and sloppy :) :)

No, ANI wasn't always that way-- in 2006 and 2007 it was a very deliberative place, but we had more adults around then. Now it's got the attention span of an average 16-yo (and that has extended even to the adults) ... maybe because of declining editorship we are ALL overworked, and that includes admins, who want quick fixes. Well, maybe you think that you threatened to block but didn't is a good thing to do-- did you do that on purpose, or did someone talk you down before you pulled the trigger? I'm not shutting you out-- I'm trying to get folks to understand how badly broken ANI is, and how that destroys editors like Malleus and has made Wikipedia a horrid place. Maybe if I can get through to one person, it will get better. Bottom line: not everyone wanted the fighting to stop. Some are agitating for it because destabilizing FAC makes it look like there's a problem and hence will lead others to think they need to throw out Raul. Understanding complex conflicts before weighing in on them is a good thing. Things aren't always what those involved present at ANI, and it takes more than a few hours to get to the bottom of things. Again-- what happened to the concept of consensus? Read that ANI thread now, and tell me there weren't plenty of people saying FAC is being disrupted. So, it still is ... no thanks to ANI. Best, going to bed now, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I think your heart's in the right place Ched, but now is not the right time to be asking for a character reference. Malleus Fatuorum 02:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• OK .. a lot here for me to digest. Thank you for taking the time to talk. I'm off to bed as well. Best to all. — Ched :  ?  03:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• OK .. the more I read, the more I see that I need to read. I've also become aware of another editor(s) that I knew I'd one day need to read up on as well. Thank you all for your time, and I hope I'm welcome to stop back in a few days. And FWIW - if I were to come upon the same situation again, I would handle it differently than I did a few days ago. Thank you all for your valuable time and input - it is appreciated. Cheers. (and if you really did lose a pet Sandy, I'm truly sorry - I do know how much that hurts - I've been there, and I love my dog.) Oh .. and best of luck with all the plumbing issues too folks. — Ched :  ?  15:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Poke (NY 319)

Waiting on you, both of us responded. :) Gotta take the Jeopardy! online test in a few minutes though, so we'll see. Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)} 00:50, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm apoplectic, plus comment on "Halo"'s FAC

I'm apoplectic about this proposed remedy; ArbCom cases certainly seem to ferret out the arseholes.

I've just seen your FAC comment at Beyoncé's "Halo". I came up against the same problem with chart numbers in text in her previous FAC, "Put a Ring on it", and I came to the conclusion that chart positions should always be given in digits, not words. IIRC I went through and made that change but got reverted. It's a difficult article to keep on track copyedit-wise, as the text has been insufficiently stable. Malleus Fatuorum 18:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Please remember that he has withdrawn most of his comments and proposals, with self-criticisms, and in any event none of them have gained support or seem likely to gain support. I am certain that he means well, and is trying to be helpful, and I would consider your continued forbearance and good-humoured tolerance a personal kindness to me.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm all out of "good-humoured tolerance", but I'll say no more for now, as a personal kindness to you. Malleus Fatuorum 20:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Something

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for the suggestions. Clearly, I share an interest with the user you mentioned, though counter to what you seem to be suggesting, this is my only account. I am quite capable of backing up my qualifications.

It seems that you have misunderstood/misused the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), as it states not that primary sources should be deleted, but that they should be improved with the addition of reviews or textbook sources. In addition to the fact that it explicitly states that primary research is acceptable when no reviews exist. I have published papers in these areas, and I can assure you, no reviews or secondary sources exist to address many of the changes you deleted.

Censoring of primary peer-reviewed university peformed and published objective research is counterproductive for the furthering of scientific knowledge. If you think an objective peer-reviewed citation is insufficient, then improve it. NutritionalNeuroscientist (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)