User talk:SandyGeorgia

FACs needing feedback ; view • edit
Weise's law	Review it now
Battle of Saipan	Review it now

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

If you are unsure if a FAC is closed, please see WP:FAC/ar.

To leave me a message, click here.

Template:FixBunching

About me

Talk to me

To do list

Tools and other
useful things

Some of
my work

Nice
things

Yukky
things

Saint or the Devil?

How do you manage to keep yourself motivated in the face of all the self-inflicted wounds that wikipedia keeps inflicting on itself? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus, I keep telling you and the Irishman to look on the bright side :) In spite of the huge flaws, and enormous number of jerks here (who can say anything-- it's the internet!), there are still a gazillion exemplary people writing beautiful articles. And I know all of 'em, and have the pleasure of reviewing the work of many of them at FAC :) Come on, don't you have a blast with our joke threads on your talk? Or reading some of the things Moni posts? Or seeing a gorgeous article promoted? I could go on and on, lauding the good editors, but once I start, I always leave someone out ... The light-hearted days will come back ... Pollyanna has learned to ignore the troublemakers and uninformed, too :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to a conference next week to tell professors about the glories of Wikipedia (not the dark side). Perhaps we should list them?

1) We are creating a vast repository of free knowledge. I'm glad of that. :) Awadewit (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1a) We are creating a small repository of free knowledge and a vast repository of dubious three-line unsourced stubs. – iridescent 11:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2) If we're going to list the glories of Wikipedia, how about the "List of places of worship in XXX" articles written by Hassocks5489 (talk · contribs). Lists to be featured so far include Adur; Crawley; Brighton and Hove; and Worthing. Not only are the lists themselves fine examples of our best, but this user has taken most of the photographs himself, ensured every listed building has a pretty decent article (e.g., St Julian's Church), researched every single place to write a "notes" paragraph, used some real books rather than just what he found on the Internet, and (in the recent Adur and Worthing lists) written some jolly good alt-text for the dozens of pictures. Is that not inspiring? Colin°^Talk 12:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3) I've been able to interact with editors who have challenged me to write better, and where I failed at that, made my articles excellent. In real life I'd buy them lots of beer (or whatever they like to drink). Here I hope I've thanked them, but it will never be enough. Each one of them often makes my time here worth the 20 other editors I just don't get. --Moni3 (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3a) As well as improving my writing, contributing here has forced me to research topics I knew absolutely nothing about (e.g. Bed management in hospitals, Jane Austen's final illness and death, growing Salicornia for biodiesel, sixth-century monasteries in Palestine). It's good exercise for the brain. - Pointillist (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4) What about the fact that we have articles on some subjects that are the best you could find anywhere - such as Iri's Noel Park or the Malleus/PoD collaborations? Also, despite all of the drama that happens in some areas of WP, there are actually successful, peaceful collaborations that happen on some major articles, such as the current one at coffee. Dana boomer (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5) Working on Wiki builds patience and unflappable character (and a sense of humor!). But I'm still trying to rub that big red scarlet letter off my forehead ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6) And let's not forget the thousands of images of great encyclopaedic value that have been created, improved or released into the public domain thanks to Wikipedia. Waltham, The Duke of 01:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to Trichotillomania

Hi,

For this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichotillomania

I want to add this text

" For hair pulling from the eyebrows applying grease or hair dressers pomade to this area will cause the fingernails to not apply the correct amount of force to pull out hair and also provide a different sensation to the fingertips that should interrupt the pattern of hair pulling. "

which was previously removed due to 'unsourced medical advice'

This addition above relates to personal experience that seems to be working. Sometimes the obvious is missed by experts.

Is there any way to get it on the page. It could help a lot of people.

I do hope so,

thanks in advance.

Jay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.12.240.194 (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a source, it can be added. I will try to find one when I have time, but if you have one, it would help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked in the two journal reviews that have full-text accessible, and found no mention of that:

Chamberlain SR, Menzies L, Sahakian BJ, Fineberg NA (2007). "Lifting the veil on trichotillomania". Am J Psychiatry. 164 (4): 568–74. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.164.4.568. PMID 17403968. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Sah DE, Koo J, Price VH (2008). "Trichotillomania" (PDF). Dermatol Ther. 21 (1): 13–21. doi:10.1111/j.1529-8019.2008.00165.x. PMID 18318881.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SCIRS

Partly inspired by your comment here, I have made a stab at adapting WP:MEDRS for more general scientific topics at User:2over0/SCIRS. The page is strictly preliminary for now, but this invitation to take a look and offer suggestions, comments, and improvements is open to everyone. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A friendly recommendation

Sandy it seems to me that your patience has lately worn thinner than I am used to seeing it. I imagine some so the criticism you are receiving is more in reaction to the tone of what you say than the substance. It funny how often it seems people are turned off by the tone of a message and never make much further effort to understand the meaning. There is a great quote from Ben Franklin that has never lead me wrong when I needed a model to discuss the abilities and understanding of other people without an off-putting tone. It reads as follows:

I made it a rule to forbear all direct contradiction to the sentiments of others, and all positive assertion of my own. I even forbid myself, agreeably to the old laws of our Junto, the use of every word or expression in the language that imported a fixed opinion, such as certainly, undoubtedly, &c., and I adopted, instead of them, I conceive, I apprehend, or I imagine a thing to be so or so; or it so appears to me at present. When another asserted something that I thought an error, I denied myself the pleasure of contradicting him abruptly, and of showing immediately some absurdity in his proposition; and in answering I began by observing that in certain cases or circumstances his opinion would be right, but in the present case there appeared or seemed to me some difference, &c. I soon found the advantage of this change in my manners; the conversations I engaged in went on more pleasantly. The modest way in which I proposed my opinions procured them a readier reception and less contradiction; I had less mortification when I was found to be in the wrong, and I more easily prevailed with others to give up their mistakes and join with me when I happened to be in the right. – Benjamin Franklin

Perhaps you might try this method of commentary to reduce the stridency of your tone, and see if people will then better respond to the sense in the substance of your messages. --BirgitteSB 02:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Birgitte, good to hear from you! It would be fair to say that my buttons have been pushed on multiple fronts lately, and the attacks on Karanacs were the last straw. I also decided, after being subjected to too much sustained abuse from certain parties, on the heels of similar sustained abuse from other parties, that such editors were never going to hear any other tone. I'd like to go back to being me ... and I'm glad others have finally woken up and come on board ... I'd also like to think, as Moni has said before, that responsible, productive editors shouldn't have to pitch a hissy fit to be heard by the community and the arbs, and the rest of us shouldn't stand by when we see it happening. But, yes, I'd like to go back to editing as I did and could before all of this sustained abuse. I'm glad to hear from you, and appreciate the post. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I intentionally stayed out of and stood down on two RFC/Us, and then watched as the arbs didn't take action and in some cases, even shot the messengers, and FAC and FA writers and reviewers endured far too much for far too long. But, that's "not my job", so it's not an excuse. But I'm glad others are stepping in, and hope that dispute resolution processes won't be ignored and downplayed in the future, so that conflicts have to escalate to the level of what Moni calls royal hissy-fits. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I hope you're enjoying yourself, or at least not terribly stressed or upset. With some folks, lashing out an saying what you think is a sweet relief. With me, it just makes me even more foul-tempered and depressed. I see references to my past words of wisdom. I don't think anyone should edit when unhappy. I hope you're not. --Moni3 (talk) 02:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moi? About what? :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've always felt that I should choose the tone that does the best job of promoting my message, rather than let the actions of other parties dictate my tone. That said I understand the need to take a stand and stridency has a place. But as far as effectiveness goes, a strident tone suffers drastically from the law of diminishing returns. I hope you have managed to attract the needed attention at this point. It looks promising right now.

I also feel that the prize isn't worth having, if I am no longer me (or sane) when I win it. I understand that this idea begins to break down when you feel you are defending others. I know I about went crazy over the non-Latin username issue partly because I could not imagine all those non-native English speakers successfully changing some en.WP policy on their own behalf. Still I don't really write the way I do, because it is nicer or more intrinsic to me (it does happen to be nicer than many alternatives, but it is not intrinsic to me). I write the way I do because it works. I am horribly unsentimental about these things. I am quite committed to refining whatever works and abandoning whatever fails. My motivation behind my above recommendation is solely my desire to see you succeed.--BirgitteSB 03:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Birgitte, you've always been a dear :) I'm going to contemplate all of this more tomorrow, but motivation is the key word ... I can't save FAC from those who sought to undermine it, or protect all nominators and reviewers ... sanity check ! Thanks, best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by FAC?

It appears as though there is a new drive-by: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/J.E.B. Stuart/archive1. The nominator is not the primary contributor and has only edited the article today judging by the edit counter. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anschluss

Hey Sandy. I have an article for you to put up for FAR. Someone asked for it to be FAR on the talk page and I wondered if you can do it. GamerPro64 (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dabomb; per loss of power and cable connection, I'm just catching up here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TPS alert

Could an admin tell me what page GNIF used to redirect to before it was deleted? Brain Blogger is an uncited recreation of a deleted article, under a different name, but I can't locate the old name or AFD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find the old deleted articles or editors, but new editor appears to be same, citing self all over Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Ah, a quick and easy problem to solve. At last. It was Global Neuroscience Initiative Foundation. Happy Saturday.--Slp1 (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Slp-- shoulda known you'd be on that one! Should it be db-g4'd, or wait to see if he has citations this time? The content is the same as last time, and last time I could only find him citing self. Last time we went through this, the editor was citing his blog all over Wiki ... this time, is adding PMIDs, not always correctly, but sometimes good edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a mostly repost of the previous 2 versions of the article, but now with updated and expanded awards and rankings at the bottom, which seem to claim notability to me. I would decline a speedy for such an article based on notability and in fact SatyrTN did the same for a previous version. As far as reposting is considered there are new claims that are worthy trying to find support for. If they aren't findable, then another Prod may be necessary after a bit. I'll look myself for some references. --Slp1 (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Slp ... I left the creator a note, asking for sources, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some sort of COI notice might be needed for the editor, unsure if it's same as last time, but is citing Latham of Brain Blogger all over Wiki. Appears to be good citing to reviews, so unsure if anything is needed here. That's why admins get the big bucks :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If he's doing a levelheaded job, and there are no complaints about POV, then a note about COI on his talk page should be the most that would be needed. COI is not a prohibition, to my mind, it is a caution flag.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Wehwalt; I'll watch a bit more before deciding. So far, the minor editing problems are nothing out of the norm for a new editor ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same I found last time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the Brain Blogger article is an updated recreation of an older Brain Blogger article (which has been twice deleted in the past), not the Global Neuroscience Initiative Foundation article. Sorry that I was not clear about this. It might be worth altering the post on the creator's talkpage just to avoid confusion.--Slp1 (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks: I remember the same issues before (multiple articles, unclear notability, the previous editor was clearly affiliated, and then began citing self everywhere ... I lost track of all of the names long ago). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Split

Alright, I've left Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zengar Zombolt/Archive as it is, but also made a duplicate of it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mattisse/Archive. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 23:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm not sure whether or not Always blue, Talking image, Chapter & verse and Apartadmit are socks of Mattisse or Zengar Zombolt. I'll ask Risker about it, should have it all fixed within 48 hours. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 23:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, all dealt with now, thanks for pointing it out. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 23:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Storm, nonsense, etc

Saw your note to Dabomb. Good luck with the storm. Here in the UK the worst we have to deal with is a bit of breeze, some leaves falling on our railway lines and then the entire country stops. Anyway, I've also noted you've been subjected to a fair deal of nonsense here in the past few days. I wanted to throw my hat into your ring and just let you know that your contributions are exceptional and irreplaceable. There are few folk that work in this project that I feel we couldn't survive without, and you're one of them. I think, as befits my nation's lengthy tenure with the overuse of Latin phrases, Illegitimi non carborundum is the first, most important, perhaps only, phrase to consider. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, TRM, thanks for the note, and I apologize for the delay. I'm still on dialup, the cleanup around town will be lengthy, worst storm since 1985, and I have extensive damage to my garden from three neighbors' trees that fell on me-- hope their insurance pays for the cleanup!

There are many editors who could do what I do at FAC; my buttons are pushed when they are attacked and FAC is undermined.

FAC works as well as it does precisely because of Raul's leadership and the tone he set there. When I first became delegate, I was most frustrated that he would never tell me what to do on difficult cases; he has never corresponded with me about any individual FAC, questioned any of my decisions, or told me how to handle any situation beyond what anyone can see I have posted to his talk. In the beginning, when I didn't always know what to do, his silence had me tearing my hair out; over time, I came to appreciate and respect his approach. I understood that he trusted me and the Wiki Way, and that when you don't know what to do, doing nothing works; consensus eventually becomes clear.

When Karanacs became delegate, I gave her the same advice. There is no collusion at FAC: it's a clean process, and that's part of why it works. On the heels of watching Mattisse destroy morale at FAC, while the arbs did nothing, I was not going to watch others do the same again, with smear based on rumor and innuendo. If the arbs don't understand the serious consequences of undermining the process that works to put Wiki's best work on the mainpage, I do. My tone was far too strident over the past few days, but I felt that nothing less than that was going to bring attention to the issues, after several ineffective RFC/Us and ArbCom cases showed that a "chorus of supporters" will drown out the voices of experienced, productive and conscientous editors. I am greatly relieved to see that uninvolved voices are now seeing the problems, and the issues are being addressed. I hope FAC morale can be restored, and I can back out. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Autism FAQ

Hi Sandy,

Akin to Talk:Evolution/FAQ that attempts to head creationists off at the pass, I've started Talk:Autism/FAQ. Your attention and experience would be most appreciated - particularly since you know the talk page issues much better than I would. I'll pop a note over at Eub's page as well. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Crazy stuff"

Hi Sandy, very interesting, but don't you think a db-attack template is likely to show up there if it's not deleted?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An alternate would be for you to answer the questions. Attack? Whom? It's a straight history of events. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I posted when I noticed the thread. There is no connection between me and the actions of any other editor. As for "history", it seems to be "post hoc ergo prompter hoc". Per WP:ATTACK "On the other hand, keeping a 'list of enemies' or 'list of everything bad user:XXX did" on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate." Up to you, now, Sandy. Think well.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping a history of events (some deleted by a talk page deletion, and all very confusing considering all the socking) for two different issues mired in dispute resolution and up to their eyeballs in ArbCom is not. Particularly when charges and vague accusations have been hurled my direction, having to do with collusion and influencing of admins. You've flung a lot of insinuation and question at me in the last few days, and have answered nothing about where that's coming from. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, indeed. I've answered your questions at considerable length. Then you go in and start "gathering evidence". I would note that you have, in the past, requested deletion of similar pages and sections. If I were part of some conspiracy against you, I'd be howling with glee right now. As it is, I'm asking you to voluntarily take it down. This is really uncalled for, Sandy. Even if I had, are you saying two wrongs make a right?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be confusing Mattisse's "plague list", which clearly referred to her perceived "enemies", with my chronology of recent events, that will be needed to defend myself against continuing and frequently reappearing claims of abuse of power and admin collusion. That is the issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catching up: "There is no connection between me and the actions of any other editor." OK, that answers that, but the insinuations at ANI remain a mystery, then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained I do not believe you are meatpuppeting or coordinating off wiki. I haven't even insinuated that you've been very testy lately, I've said it. I and now a sixth other editor has commented on it. I think we are seeing signs of the community's patience wearing thin.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're selectively reading my talk page and seeing what you want to see, and inventing distractions :) If there are no insinuations, why were there insinuations? If you're not going to answer the questions, and if the history of events is merely coincidental, I think we'd be best to close this chapter, put it completely behind us, and hope it doesn't happen again. Undermining the integrity of FAC is not in anyone's-- or your-- best interests. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Noble Sandy, defending FAC (not your job) and your fellow delegate (she's quite capable) with the bare sword and the smiley face! Your characterization is ridiculous and unworthy. The only undermining of FAC right now is because one of the delegates is engaging in much conflict. Why should I agree to "put it behind us" when you haven't deleted that attack page?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, these circles are tiring. First, it isn't an attack page: it's a chronology of diffs. Second, you say the chronology is only coincidental, yet you don't answer direct questions. I will accept your word that the appearance given by the chronology is purely coincidental, you are not acting on Mattisse's behalf, she did not repost as Charles Rodriguez because your efforts at the SPI were unsuccessful, and you did not intend to allege collusion on the Catholic Church issues as part of an effort to discredit FAC delegates. You see "engaging in much conflict", I see defending the integrity of FAC and the delegates. I'll delete the chronology of events if we agree and on the assumption this won't happen again. Deal? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've got at least seven editors angry with you because of your conflict with them. If you can't see that, I don't know what I can say. It amazes me. You are not in the RCC article in any official capacity, and apparently disagreeing with you there is "part of an effort to discredit FAC delegates". I am sure that anyone will find the idea of me "undermining FAC" a giggle, given the obvious. Perhaps you can't hear that, if we are going in circles, Sandy, it is because of you, spinning.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You again refuse to directly engage issues. Allrighty then. Wehwalt, you write FAs, you do good work at FAC, and you do good work at TFAR, but your sarcasm, insinuation, and failure to directly engage conflict and answer questions is precisly why I don't think you a good candidate for ArbCom. As I can see this is going nowhere but in circles, I am going to unilaterally, based on good faith and taking you at your word, remove the chronology of events from my sandbox, which is not an attack page. I do hope your tone will improve, though, and we won't see future sarcasm and insinuation and can continue to work together well. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks in the article User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox#Crazy stuff

Warning

Please do not make personal attacks as you did at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images, especially those in violation of our biographies of living persons policy, will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'll let an uninvolved admin deal with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I'm curious about what you consider "attacks" on that page. It looks like a timeline of events to me. If you've ever had to identify patterns in any academic field, you must recognize the importance of timelines when you're trying to figure out a problem. I'm saddened to see an interaction between two experienced contributors turn into tagging and templating. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see the whole business; it's a mystery why Wehwalt has headed this direction. BTW, once the library closes, I'm back on miserable slow dialup until at least Wednesday. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to know whether to laugh or cry. I'll have a pint of whatever Wehwalt's on, looks like powerful stuff. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do y'all sit around and figger up ways to make me nuts when I'm in the midst of a historic storm and huddled on the floor of the library? :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather unattractive picture; I certainly wouldn't like to have to get closer than necessary to the floor of my local library without a good biohazard suit. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the news reporters come through, I'll be the one hiding behind my coat :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, you start putting stuff about me without good cause in your sandbox, a total destruction of WP:AGF, which you use as a pointed weapon in my view, what did you expect? Do you think any page on wiki is private? Come on, get real here. You've reacted, even months after the fact, to comments you felt I made about you which were in some way disparaging to you. Remember the thread at the Catholic Church AN/I subpage? You blew your stack! Why is everything involving you an attack on you (or on FAC, or whatever) but no one else is entitled to take umbrage? You insinuate that I am in cahoots with not only Mattisse (who has no voice on this site, as you advocated) and the Catholic Church editors I have no connection with! How dare you! I think it may well be time for you to step back a bit. No fewer than six editors have questioned your current, well, tone in the past week. Think well. Think well.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I usually do think well :) I left you a question on the hang on, which btw, was declined as not an attack page. Is it the questions you want removed? No idea what you mean about months after the fact: all of this is this week, and I don't see anywhere that I've alleged "cahoots". I do think, considering all the insinuations and questions you've flung at me this week, relating to off-Wiki collusion, you might answer mine. Have to go back home to dialup soon, since the food service here is closed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the number of editors who have wondered at your recent confrontational tone, I wonder if "usually" is having a hard time intersecting with the present. Very well, I'll leave it at that for the sake of the project. But remember the only common point between the five people who have expressed concern about you is: you. There's no conspiracy, no cabal against you.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Care to list those? I'm curious to see which you take seriously. Have I said there's a cabal against me, or have I asked why you seem to be flinging about insinuations about collusion among admins and at FAC? FAC is my concern ... I'm just a cog. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's all here for the reader to see. I don't have to evaluate them or take them seriously; the fact that a number of editors are finding your conduct to be of concern speaks volumes. As for insinuations, nonsense! We've been through that at least twice, and you seemed to accept that I do not feel that you have admins or other users in your pocked. That did not stop you from spreading sarcastic comments about that on various users talk page, though, but I was inclined to let that pass and conclude that you were seeking emotional reassurance after a mild conflict, which is perfectly understandable.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bwaaaaaaa ... hope Moni doesn't get hold of that good attempt ... it was a good one :) Wehwalt, have you noticed that you never, ever answer a direct question in a dispute? Or that in spite of going through this, as you say twice, you nonetheless flung the sarcasm and insinuation all over AN/I? What happened to my good faith attempts to engage and reassure you? OK, we're done here; you might not like the chronology of events, but it's not an attack page. Now, please stop making snide insinuations about FAC, and you and Malleus behave with each other at FAC, or I'll whack you both with a wet noodle. Going home now ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the thread to talk about your claim about me, which I did answer at considerble length at the AN/I Catholic Church page and on my talk page. It is odd that you refer to "you and Malleus" behaving at FAC. The only person that I see even hinting at such a conflict is you. Is this "Will no one rid me of this turbulent admin?"--Wehwalt (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of a quandry

I don't think it's right or proper not to give the same level of scrutiny to alt text as to any other aspect of an FAC, but it's clear that if I were to do that then I'd end up opposing every single FAC, at least until the alt text project sorts itself out. I can't therefore in all conscience support any FAC, but I don't want to have to keep opposing because of the failings of one wikiproject's over zealousness. I think the only thing I can do therefore is not to comment on any FAC. I'm only saying this so you know my absence at FAC until this is sorted out is not a reflection on FAC itself, for which I have the highest regard. Almost as high as my regard for GAN in fact. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that discussion heading towards any consensus one direction or the other (where is Mike Christie when we need a well-worded RFC?), and the VPT post seems to have gone nowhere. I have noticed that Raul doesn't worry about alt text. Is this hill worth dying on for you? Images one week, dashes the next, alt-text the next ... it usually sorts itself out. The real problem continues to be overlooked by everyone, and I've been saying it for years: there is no central coordination of MOS pages, conflicting and overlapping and everchanging MOS pages, and anyone can make anything a MOS guideline. Chin up! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worth it? Probably not, but it's a hill I've planted my flag on. Sometimes you just have to make a stand. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus, you should have a tree fall on your house or something to cheer you up :) Just look back over the years: try to remember some of the disruptive editors who have come and gone, think of the worst jerks who have graced your talk page or defaced an article, try to remember some of the heaviest disputes about the silliest issues, try to remember Samuel Johnson (!?!?!), and then ... stop and think about the fine editors, fun moments, and beautiful articles, and don't tell me they don't outweigh the momentary things that may get you down. Otherwise, no good reason to be doing this, and you know there are lots of good reasons to be doing this-- go write some Donner text, have a pint, and cheer up! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which: thanks, Malleus, for adding some alt text to Samuel Johnson yesterday. What you added looks good. Eubulides (talk) 04:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My birthday came and went, and nobody yet has added alt text to Tourette syndrome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy birthday. No doubt the alt text could be improved. Just like your other birthday presents, eh? Eubulides (talk) 08:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Actually, that's the best birthday present I got-- watch out, I'll come looking for a repeat next year! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly reminder

It's UberCryxic!!!! Come on, at least get my alias right! You butchered it twice in the CC talk page haha...all in good fun, don't worry.UBER ^(talk) 03:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, it gave me big headaches trying to keep up with that from a dialup (and I wouldn't have been able to on the older, gynormous article) and get your name right (which I knew I had butchered). I could have gotten the whole thing wrong, but you all should know better, and be glad I'm not an admin, or I'd bust all three of you :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we will get punished somehow, and I don't expect anything less. What we did was inexcusable. Anyway, for the name, I notice that a lot of people were getting it flagrantly wrong over the past few days (I saw some of the weirdest combinations), so I just decided to make "Uber" the visible part.UBER ^(talk) 03:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Men will be boys :) Maybe when an admin comes to, you'll all get off scot free, but honestly-- discuss the darn text! What's the deal, Karanacs goes away for the evening, and you boys can't behave? :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said categorically in the talk page that I'm not reverting the article in the next 24 hours. That's my way of punishing myself. No one's perfect, not even you girls :)UBER ^(talk) 03:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a long time since I've revered the article; I defer to Laser brain's opinion on the behavior :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAC St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao

Hello, SandyGeorgia. You have new messages at Noraft's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

April 9 question

Hey. After double checking things, I think Adenhart might be three points, as the last baseball TFA was in December. Could you double check this and note the right point total? Granted that probably makes the competition between the two articles tougher. Been a nice introduction to TFA; how common is that to have two articles on the same day in a war on that page? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a unique mess, with multiple factors involved. I'll look as soon as I have time, but dialup makes it slow. Did you raise the query there so others will look also? It will get sorted before Raul has to schedule, so not to worry ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wizard, I'm unsure, because I can't remember if Similarity in sports is based on sports in general, or one sport in particular. There have been past discussions on that, and it's too hard for me to locate them from dialup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I left a note on that page so someone else can look at it. Last general sports article was Ice hockey tournaments in February, last bio was Sid Barnes in late Jan, fwiw. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you add that info at TFAR? It's hard for me to keep up from dialup ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article review/John Calvin/archive1

Since this was such a WP:POINTy FAR, I've sent it to MFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked yet, but that seems a waste of everyone's time. FAC and FAR have director/delegates specifically for issues like this, and there's no need to involve the entire community in decisions that the FAR delegate can and will make. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I didn't know that the FAR community had a method of handling this. I'll withdraw and G6 the MFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a very sensible decision: thanks! If you look at the bigger picture, the last thing we need is for the entire community to be drug into deciding whether every Barack Obama FAR should be left to run, when not all editors are familiar with the processes or WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fark/archive1

Sorry, but I had to go out of town for a week and didn't have access to Wikipedia. So I didn't get a chance to do anything with the article. Can the nomination be reopened, or should I make the suggested changes and renominated it? WTF? (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editors who opposed are regular contributors: once you've addressed the issues, and checked back in with them to make sure they're satisfied, you're good to re-nominate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I took the effort to make some good suggestions to the Obama FAR. Someone removed them then you closed it.

Removing good faith suggestions is bad faith.

As a result, I have started a new FAR.

This is not an anti-Obama rant. It is for improvement. Please do not fight. This is an effort to improve the article. Judith Merrick (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]