User talk:SandyGeorgia

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

Hi, I was contemplating renominating the Introduction to Evolution for FA. My intent, for the process to be observed by my struggling group of students in the Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2010. If they observed the many challenges and scrutiny that often occurs they may better grasp the futility of a last minute effort. This particular article has always been tumultuous at best ^{understatement of the year}. Even the demotion was a bit convoluted in that it was nominated for deletion by an enthusiastic editor who immediately deleted it in its entirety; then lost the FA star under an entirely different version. The original has since been restored, hopefully improved and has been stable for some time. My question. Would you consider taking a quick look at the referencing format to see if it still meets FA standards? I will not waste the time if it's an automatic fail on that note. Just a quick glance at format with a thumbs up or thumbs down will suffice - not a detailed critique. If it is not too grotesque - I will nominate in hopes that the former Fa version is still a quality piece of work! Incidentally, both you and User:Malleus Fatuorum are perceived as a sort of deity among my band of high schoolers - someone to fear and respect. --JimmyButler (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion request about external links

Hello, your name was suggested as a knowledgeable editor whose opinion would be valuable. Would you mind taking a look at this query at WP:EL/N? Thanks muchly. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I need your help

Somebody has nominated this article for GA status. I remember you telling me a couple months ago that Legends of America isn't a reliable source. I've been working on replacing the Legends source with reliable sources, but I'm not exactly finished. Can you take a look at the article and tell me if there are any other unreliable sources? I think I found them all (still have to take care of them, though), but I want to get a second opinion. Thanks, The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 17:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why POV?

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

A bit more

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Req opinion of SG and willing TPS

Opinions, please. Potential essay in WP space. --Moni3 (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it pretty much defines a specific attitude. I particularly like the parts about tagging - I cannot stand arriving at a tagged article; it always makes me wonder why the page was tagged but nothing done to fix the problem. Nice job. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tag articles, medical generally, because 1) bad medical info is as bad (dangerous) as a poorly sourced BLP; 2) there's no human way for me to fix them all (today, I was fixing some dab links that took me to scores of medical articles, and almost everyone I checked was dismal, with no chance of me being able to fix them all, I don't have journal access, and researching medical articles ain't easy or quick); 3) maybe someone will fix the issues if they're tagged; 4) our readers should know when they're getting poor medical info; but, most importantly, 5) so I can come back and delete the trash in a month or so if no one fixes it. I think a medical stub is better than misleading medical info-- I sometimes wish we could just blank uncited medical articles so our readers would move on to their next Google hit, where they might get accurate info. Google any medical condition and see where Wiki comes up, because medicine editors have done a phenomenal job of adding templates that link articles like crazy, increasing their google ranking-- people in need of medical info are reading our uncited, poorly cited trash! I also tag POV biopolitical articles when the talk page owners make progress impossible; I don't tag articles when talk page discussion is ongoing and it looks like the issues may be addressed. In short: perhaps you can distinguish between editors who generally build content and sometimes tag articles, and those who only tag articles, particularly of editors they stalk, and have never built a real article themselves. And to close, Wiki is 99.9999% trash-- let's alert our readers to that, since it's not possible to fix it all. Or change policy so that we can delete on sight anything that isn't cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hate the taggers(' sins. hate the sin, not the sinner, gotta remind myself) in general. Think the vast majority (not you Sandy of course) would do better to take a strain and go learn how to research and write. Totally sinks morale to have these people doing drive by tags. Plus it's all crap that should go on the talk pages. Yeah, a lot of wiki articles suck. Duh. Either shoot the project or live with it. But the turdbox droppings that look fancy are just awful.TCO (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think tagging medical articles is valid - readers should know if issues exist on those articles and you have a strong argument Sandy. Most of my work is in the humanities, and it's annoying to click into an article to find, for instance, an absurdly long plot outline and a tag asking for references. Yeah, someone wrote a plot outline and didn't add scholarly material or reviews, and then someone comes along and tags. The tagger should take a moment to supply a reference - they might even learn something. I think a lot of tagging is done to increase edit count. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Well, I also dislike editors who have never built as much as a GA, but spend days on end placing fact tags on articles or statements that aren't causing anyone any harm -- I just think medical articles should be treated like BLPs (and that we should elevate that to policy, but I've been saying that for years ... ) Some people should get a life and go play somewhere else if they're not here to build articles that make a difference to someone, somewhere, somehow. (post-ec to TK) Agree: but not only to increase edit count, sometimes it's merely to plague editors they don't like. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote most of that from my own experience, including an unreferenced BLP I saw blanked (most of which was common knowledge anyway) and a current events article. I have no experience in medical articles. What sense could you or any med article participant make of drive-by tagging? Can you turn it into some kind of purposeful action? With no experience in them, I don't see a point in tagging them and returning later. Maybe you do.

I peruse quite a few articles all the time, many of which are wretchedly written or just trivial compositions. Like you, I understand I can't fix them all. The ones I tag I end up rewriting, like Emmett Till. For various reasons I don't fix issues in some articles.

Perhaps I should make a distinction here, or maybe a more forceful statement of one's entire existence on Wikipedia consisting of tagging. If editors never add content and only tag, that does not improve the site. Or did I make that pretty clear anyway? --Moni3 (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you made it very clear and it's a valid point that needs to be made. Some tagged articles I come across are quite easily fixed, some not as easily fixed but I often place them on my watchlist with the intention of returning to fix. The culture and tag-and-run is one that annoys me - a lot. Thanks btw for the good essay and for getting this conversation started. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think tagging should go in the articles. Put it in the talk page. If no one fixes it there, so what, at least you did not deface the article. What makes a fancy template different than putting little self editing comments into your writing? We know wiki is not finished product. The world knows it. And I would not give any special status to medical articles either. There is bum dope all over wiki. That's life. Either fix it, delete it, or live with it. Or put a comment on the talk page.TCO (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And there's where we differ-- I think bad medical articles SHOULD suffer the disgrace of a tag, should look ugly, should have something that discourages innocent readers from engaging them when they think they're getting accurate, important info that may matter in decisions that affect their health (OK, any reader who believes Wiki is stupid, but there are lots of stupid people out there, and how many of our readers know the difference between an FA and Joe-Bloe's-favorite-fringe-theory medical or psych article?). Fixing an uncited medical article-- even a short one-- often takes weeks, usually requires journal access, and we've got, what, tens or hundreds of thousands of them? Mostly JUNK, because some editors who add info to Wiki have an agenda (surprise, surprise)-- and it's WAY worse in the psych realm, which IMO, is the single worst series of articles on Wiki because they attract more than the usual number of kooks. If I tag 'em, someone often fixes them, our readers are warned, and if no one fixes them, then I'm justified in deleting the garbage so our readers can move on to something accurate when our articles come up first on Google. Yes, I think it's effective for medical articles, because everything in them needs to be right, and little is casual info, like on a BLP, where some of the info isn't harming anyone. A medical article is different than say, Hugo Chavez-- anyone coming to that article most likely isn't looking for info because they probably already know the score, and if they're too stupid to sort the POV or if they trust Wiki for info on Chavez, they were drinking the kool-aid anyway, and they're not likely to make important decisions that could affect their well-being based on what they read about Chavez. But someone googling around for medical info is more likely looking for helpful info without preconceived notions, and likely to hit Wiki first, not know how to sort a trash article from an FA, and be misinformed on something that actually matters. They should be warned. I wish our warning was better for med articles and said something like, This article is uncited, which means there's a very good chance you're reading a load of bullroar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, can you then make some sense of this action for medical articles? Can you suggest say a paragraph about tagging med articles? It's outside my experience. --Moni3 (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say, sort something in your essay to, is the info you're tagging harming our readers? If not, place a talk page post instead. (Someone who tags statements that don't make a hill of beans difference to anyone, and are likely accurate anyway, comes to mind.) And on your earlier question, yes, the tagging often produces results. If someone cares about the article, the tagging will force them to fix it (assuming it's well justified on talk), or give you reason to take them to DR if they remove the tags without fixing the article. If no one cares about the article, it allows someone to stubbify the garbage so our readers won't be misinformed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And another thing, we have BOATLOADS of medical articles, including almost all of our medical GAs, that are full of primary-source original research, often pushing a pet fringe theory. We should be able to delete it all-- it's every bit as important as our BLP policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of it might actually be unsourced second-source research and, as a general rule, I'd put ^{[citation needed]} after such assertions if I knew they were unsourced research. Perhaps delete those later on if they prove to be OR? — Rickyrab | Talk 19:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've used wiki for medical stuff. I been lifting weights and got injured. :( I've used the net for medical stuff. Any time you do patient research on the net, it is an iterative process and you have to weed through some bull. Might as well put a tag on the monitor. And I know lifting forums where they explecitly say, don't be an idiot and ask questions about injuries here, see your doctor. That said, I actually find it helpful BOTH to ask forum questions and to talk to my doc. I know the forum does not now all and I can filter.

P.s. I would make a cute rejoinder saying that we should watch out for bad Pokimon dope here, but teh Wiki actually has pretty stellar Pokimon info. :(TCO (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki is full of POV and fringe stuff. And also just low quality at times. Maybe we should have editors here, or something instead of letting anyone reach out and change our webpage from their side.

Here are the page hit stats on our disclaimer page; TS gets as many daily hits, and Schizophrenia gets 15,000 hits a day. How many of our readers do ya think can even find that teensy disclaimer link at the bottom of the page? And there are LOTS of stupid people on the internet (and some of them are even Wiki editors :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm keeping an eye on this conversation as I'm working on another page, and came across this tagged page ( Women's Army Corps )- I mean, really, doh! Pretty much everything needs expansion. That said, I think Sandy's argument re medical articles is extremely valid. Perhaps if fewer tags were used they'd have a greater impact? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! That ties in to my message of "tag if the article is harming someone", otherwise, take it to talk (for example, put expansion on talk). But I'm also forced to tag when talk page discussion yields nothing, due to tenditious editors, ownership, whatever. But even on that I've changed: because I'm so discouraged about the amount of pure trash on Wiki, I don't even bother if the page doesn't get high views. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think cases of active tendentious editing is different than the tagging-for-sake-of-tagging. I don't run into as much tendentious editing as you, but when I do it's incredibly draining and discouraging. In that we agree, very much. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best solution on tenditious editors used to be "tag and unwatch"; now it's just "unwatch". I'm jealous of those editors who get to edit off in corners where no one bothers them and they rarely have to deal with trolls, stalkers, vandals, spam, POV pushers, and run-of-the-mill kooks -- that doesn't seem to have been my lot on Wiki :) But yea, sometimes tagging is a last resort, but tagging for the sake of tagging on non-med articles is probably rarely productive. Maybe someone will tell us why they do it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think because they don't know what else to do here and don't really want to write an encyclopedia - as Moni's essay suggests. Logging out now, but Happy New Year, by the way! Don't worry too much about the roof - we lost all our gutters in last year's storm - that was fun! - but only a memory now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As much as tagging annoys me, it does have its uses. For example, active WikiProjects will use the categories created by tags to create cleanup lists. There are very few such projects, though. The articles I frequent (music-related) often have months- or years-old tags, many of which don't even apply, but people are afraid to remove them. Any text that would be harmful to someone should just be removed, not tagged. We do this for copyvios, so why not BLPs and med articles? Our exposure would be no less for the latter two, it would seem. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP already says that problematic unsourced material should be removed, not tagged. I think the spirit of that would apply to BLP material with issues other than sourcing. Extending that approach to medical articles... well, why not? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, maybe you, Sandy, or anyone else interested can assist writing this paragraph here. I understand your point that tags should be scarce, but they're not. The essay is to persuade users to shift their attitude from "I'm a tagger and I'm proud!" to "Oh, I should fix that." Your points about med articles are well-taken, but I'm not quite sure how they would be incorporated into the rest of the essay. While medical articles should get a template of some kind, in your opinion, that does not address the problematic behavior of doing the least amount of effort in mass tagging. So I feel rather dim here, and I think I need your help. --Moni3 (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more than usually dim because of lack of sleep, but I'll contemplate this after pots of coffee and when I have time. Medicine articles perhaps need a whole new set of unreferenced or poorly referenced templates; not sure I know how to design those. Will look at that para once I'm coherent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Presented to SandyGeorgia on January 7, 2011 for your tireless persistence in editing with precision and style and defending the difficult articles while encouraging others to do the same. I note especially your thorough work across numerous related articles in dealing with the subject of Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent research. A true wikipedian! -- Brangifer (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Chainsaw Massacre

User is requesting a Guild ce of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. It has been up for FA several times and you were reviewer of last splat against the wall. I think that to make the article an enjoyable read, it needs a re-org/rewrite more than nitpicking on sentences. See here: [1] Comments? TCO (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		Saints Star Award
		For the thought, clarity of argument and patience you recently showed at Jimbo's talk page, which deftly moved a discussion about gender from ignorant to sensible discussion... thank you. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still on board with this?

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

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

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

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

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

Susanne2009NYC & Potter articles

Hi Sandy - I've been using your sandbox User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox/Susanne2009NYC to update this situation that I'm still, slowly, working on. I hope you don't mind & wondered if I should just copy it over to my own subpage, or keep it all in one place? Found two more articles last night that I need to add to the list. Hope your January is going well and not too snowy - very cold where I am. Btw - love the saints barnstar above. It's well deserved. Take care. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE, not too snowy, LOL !!! Do whatever is easiest for you with my sandbox ... move, copy, whatever works, I no longer have time to keep up with that. And I owe you an e-mail from months ago-- it's still flagged in my inbox! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We had a heavy snowfall last night and school cancelation today. If you don't mind I'll leave the info in your subpage and continue to update and will get around to copying at some point. I've been traveling and have a cold that's knocked me flat, so am using this indoor day to try to catch up a bit. I've changed my email since months ago so will send you a new one with the new address. Probably fine to unflag and delete the old email ... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Travel, cold, heavy snowfall-- are you living in my life? :) In spite of my neglect, I hope your health is looking up! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking - yes, I think finally getting better. I'll put the health details in an email when I get to it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elimination Chamber

Made a comment about your comment at its FAC. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TPS question on MOS for images

I know there's a statement somewhere in the bowels of the MoS that images can't be left-aligned at the top of certain article section levels, but I can't find the damn thing. Could some kind TPS please point me at it? I promise to put a link on my user page pointing at it so I don't lose it again. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be, but I think it may have gone now. Malleus Fatuorum 01:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, it was removed-- it was based on WP:ACCESS, and it turned out not to be an issue after all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Hi, I recently reviewed a GA for the first time and posted some comments on the review page here. I felt that since I have written a GA and nommed a second that I should probably start helping review too. Did I do a decent review on Hurricane Able (1952), or is it a poor-quality review? I will return and revisit the article and make more comments after these issues are fixed, but, in the meantime, is that a good start? Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good review. Sandy generally handles FA stuff rather than GA, so any of the latter you can refer to me; she has enough on her plate. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Wizardman! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys & gals! Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Empire of Brazil

Sandy, could you be kind and tell me which one of the FA delegates are in charge of the Empire of Brazil FAC nomination? Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lecen, you can assume I will be handling your nominations for the time being. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, I was going to ask Sandy to have her request someone to review the article. With only one real review, I believe it should be reviewed by other editors. Unfortunately, other 2 editors who took out time there at the end simply disappeared. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's something Sandy is in the business of doing. As you are learning, reviewers are a scarce resource and the delegates may feel that it is the nominator's responsibility to seek them out.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now that's confuse. I tried to do exactly that and Sandy complained about it. She argued that by inviting editors I could be accused of trying to canvass as per Wikipedia:Canvassing. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's true too. It was too broad. Certainly there was nothing wrong with notifying editors who have shown an interest in Brazilian history, or who you have built a relationship with, or advertising at the relevant Wikiprojects. Even so it can be rough. However, bread cast upon the water gets returned around here, if perhaps not sevenfold. Go review some articles. It is quite possible that the grateful nominators will reciprocate, though quid pro quos are frowned upon.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do plan to review your article, btw, but it is a long article and I need to spend some uninterrupted time, which I have not had, and probably will not have until next week.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do review articles which have been nominated at FAC. I'll wait for your review, then. It is not that I'm in a hurry, I just want to be sure that the article is fine. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FAC is about patience and playing defense.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lecen, I'll agree with what Wehwalt said above about your request being far too broad. A better approach would be to post a note at a couple of relevant WikiProjects asking for reviews. You might also target 2 or 3 individual editors who are interested in the subject matter (check WP:PRV for a start) or who might have experience writing FAs in that subject matter. You have to strike a balance between sitting on your laurels waiting for reviews and sending mass notices. Delegates definitely won't seek reviewers for you aside from placing your nomination in the FAC urgents box, where you can see it already is. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also keep in mind that you take a certain risk of an unsympathetic review, Lecen.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that both Brazil wikiproject and Former countries wikiproject are dead and buried. Asking help there is useless. I might be wrong, but the impresion I have is that we have fewer and fewer editors around. --Lecen (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a problem! You came up with an inventive solution, but it was not one which was best repeated. I think we're just throwing ideas to you, hopeful that some will be useful.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Latter Days FAR

I have nominated Latter Days for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (I am notifying you because you are the article's second highest contributor.) - Kollision (talk) 03:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CSI effect (again)

Hi! A while back, you left some comments on the FAC for CSI effect and asked that I drop a note when I had addressed them. I attempted to do this twice earlier, though it seems the messages quickly drowned in the deluge of activity that often occurs on your talk page. In any case, the FAC is near its end (I hope), so would you mind having another look? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Differences between novel and film

There is a request for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Differences between novel and film. We would like an experienced FAC review to clarify the discussion that is questioning how FAC would treat sections such as this? Would experienced FAC reviewers accept a mention from a change of a plot point from novel to film if the only reference was primary? I would expect that reviewers would demand a secondary source to determine the importance of a difference? I would be shocked if you would advocate an entire section of unreferenced trivia. It would be helpful if one or more experienced FAC reviewers could provide their perspective here, please, as you, and other experienced FAC reviewers, have the greatest knowledge WP:RS and WP:NOR. Your input will inform a significant number of articles. Thanks, The JPS^{talk to me} 23:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of the Five Creeks

Hello SandyGeorgia. You probably don't remember me, but your were extremely helpful to me during my FAC for the John Mayer article, and I've really come to respect your opinion. That said, I nominated a local organization for deletion (wih a suggestion to merge) not too long after it's creation, not our of some personal vandetta, but because it is really not notable. It only gets 18 google hits and 71 news hits (75% of both the ghits and news hits come a local periodical in Berkely) and the article says that the organization's main contibution has been saving part of creek alongside a mall parking lot. The article is well formatted, and I have nothing against the authors, but I am baffled as to how this has gotten so far out of control. I would just like you to take a look at it and let me know if organizations of this size acutally are notable and if perhaps I'm mistaken.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nirvana FAR

Hi Sandy, you told me to hit you up when I completed work on Nirvana (band) as part of its FAR so you could do a MOS check. Thanks. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Afiuni

A couple of points. First, user JRSP removed an external link you inserted back in April of 2010: "* Bolivarian Rule of Lawlessness, a report by the law firm that defends Eligio Cedeno" I'm not sure of the purpose of having it in the article so I won't put it back in myself, but I thought I'd make you aware of it. Second, see the talk page Talk:Arrest_of_Maria_Lourdes_Afiuni and the arguments for making it a bio article instead of an article about an arrest. Lindorm (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning on my favorite MoS expert

On removing bold-face formatting from lists: Good, bad, indifferent? I thought that once we used italics, and then it seemed bold was the answer, and now I confess ignorance. I strongly doubt that this article is headed to FAC, but I thought I'd ask. If the answer isn't quick and simple, then please ignore. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry!

Didn't mean to make unnecessary work for you, or induce a sigh. Regards, MartinPoulter (talk) 10:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johnstown Inclined Plane

You left a comment on the Johnstown Inclined Plane about WP:NBSP. I tried running AWB 5 on this page, but it did not find any changes to be made. Is there an automated way to fix what you see, or can you point to a specific place in the article that needs changing? --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OMG

You're back! Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 17:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Were you alarmed :) ? I wasn't really gone, just playing in the winter and taking a break from the abundance of utter and total idiocy that prevails here. Ever since The Fat Man was shown the door, and then some POV editors were allowed to dominate a discussion about a new noticeboard, I have really begun to question the viability of Wikipedia. So, I shall keep my nose clean and focus now only on that which interests me, and ignore the drahmaz. Well, sounds good-- at least I'll try! Saludos, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you get bored, there are always a lot of hurricane articles that need work… :P Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 17:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of hurricane articles that need work… who would you recommend as a copyeditor for Numerical weather prediction's FAC? Or would you like to give it a look? ;) Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Dispenser posted a link on WT:CITE to this wikitech thread. Perhaps something will be done. The thread mentions a way to generate a profile of how much different parts of the page take to process. The example is Rod Blagojevich. The profile appears at the end of the html source (use "view source" after the page loads). When I tried, that page took 20.7s to parse, with 18.3s spent on Parser::recursiveTagParse, including 17.0s from Cite::referencesFormat-parse. For comparison, Harvey Milk took 7.8s to parse, with 2.0 spent on Parser::recursiveTagParse including 0.5s from Cite::referencesFormat-parse. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PP for FAs

Hi Sandy. Can you tell me whether anyone has discussed permanently protecting all articles once they reach FA? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't recall where or when such discussions have occurred, but yes, they have, and it's a non-starter (for reasons I agree with-- FAs are not "perfect" as passed at FAC). What does apply, however, is WP:OWN#Featured articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anthonyhcole, you can always get the promoted version by going to the article history on the talk page and clicking on the date.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to discuss this but are you okay with continuing this discussion here, Sandy, or should I take it elsewhere? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page has been pretty quiet of late-- you might get a wider audience at WT:FAC, although it's also fine with me if you post here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I think a good number of FAs go weird, with dubious content, poor expression, poor structure and poor citation over time (e.g., Schizophrenia, despite that article having nominally 786 watchers and a number of active editors concerned about the topic). If such pages were permanently protected, it would not prevent the article from being edited, but would oblige potential edits to be scrutinised, and maybe improved by or justified to other editors before being inserted. I reckon that might minimise the quality decline after FA, and might encourage more people to write masterpieces, knowing that at least their work won't be butchered without scrutiny. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure schizophrenia "went weird" -- it was never in good shape, and folks kept hoping Cas would fix it, but he was dealing with a lot of POVers. Most of the watchers there are of little help. Also, "Pending changes" was supposed to accomplish what you suggest, and I suspect it was quite a failed experiment. I'm not sure permanent protection would help our problematic articles, but it would prevent some poor FAs from being improved. I think quality declines post-FA mostly when the main editors go AWOL, and I suspect Schizophrenia isn't a typical example. Consider the differences between SZ and, for example, autism, Asperger syndrome, and Tourette syndrome, which are kept in shape by relatively few editors no matter how many others introduce dubious content. When an article doesn't have involved watchers, I don't think any policy change will prevent it from deteriorating. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point about articles that have active stewards. But we don't know if page protection would protect unstewarded FAs from deterioration. I wouldn't recommend protecting poor FAs, just those that would pass today. And pending changes was too complicated. Mooting changes on the talk page is much more straightforward. My memory of Autism is that virtually nothing goes straight onto the article without being milled a bit on the talk page. Don't know about Tourette's and Asperger's. But I get the impression those three examples are de facto protected by their stewards. Anyway, thanks for the explanation. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But many could still warrant improvement even when recently passed (note rhodocene), and often IPs improve articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes ~~was~~ is a crock of shit, and not just because of its software implementation. Malleus Fatuorum 00:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a brief summary of previous discussions about protecting FAs at Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Protect_featured_articles. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 02:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh. Thanks Adrian. Point 3 (covered by Sandy above too) "While some featured articles deteriorate in quality, this is not a widespread problem" addressees my concern. I thought deterioration was a problem with FAs. Sorry for the trouble. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problems with FAs tend to be with the older ones anyway, before the citation requirements were toughened up. GAs had the same problem, and for the same reason. Malleus Fatuorum 03:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is all quite comforting. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FAC comments on talk page

Hi! My comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Herbie Hewett/archive1‎ have become a little more involved than planned, so I've moved some of the resolved comments to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Herbie Hewett/archive1. I know this has come up at WT:FAC before, but I'd just like to check I haven't done anything wrong. If I have, I'll put it back. Thanks, --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally fine to remove your own commentary to talk as long as you leave a link so the delegates don't miss it (when reading the whole FAC page, we don't see the talk page): as far as I can see, you've done it correctly. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PANDAS Awareness Ribbon

Hello,

I noticed that you removed the PANDAS Awareness Ribbon that I posted on the PANDAS page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.A.N.D.A.S. I was wondering why. Please advise.

Thank you, Denisegrubbs (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Denise Grubbs[reply]

This is the edit you made; if you can see a ribbon in there, your eyesight is better than mine. Since I can't locate the ribbon, I can't determine if it complies with our image use policy. See also WP:NOT; PANDAS is not a recognized medical condition, so it's hard to see how an "awareness" ribbon helps our readers. Also we don't add image galleries to article leads. Also, since you designed and have promoted the ribbon on the internet, please read WP:COI and WP:ACTIVIST: [3], [4], [5], [6]. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia-- not Facebook and not latitudes, where non-reliable medical sources are acceptable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll take a look at the references. Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not have the clearest instructions for uploading material... it's a rather involved and confusing process. I'm well aware of your position on this condition, which I hope you won't allow to interfere with reporting of accurate medical research. Unfortunately, the studies in which it is disputed had problems in their methodology. Please keep a watch on the NIMH study underway on the use of IVIG for this auto-immune condition and review Dr. Madeline Cunningham's work in this area as well. Denisegrubbs (talk) 14:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC) DeniseGrubbs Denisegrubbs[reply]

I'm afraid I can't help you with images: I'm equally befuddled in that area, and have never uploaded one. The studies supporting the PANDAS concept are the ones with the serious methodological flaws, btw, and as long as we stick to journal review articles, we should have no problem. You might want to read up on WP:MEDRS if you plan to work in that area-- the NIMH study would be a primary source, and not used until secondary sources analyze and report on it-- particularly important in this case, since the NIMH has a pony in the race (Swedo). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

12 Gauge FAC

Hi SandyGeorgia, as I'm pretty new at the whole FAC thing, I had some questions. "12 Gauge" was recently closed by you, so I'm presuming this means the article will not be promoted.

Only two users looked at it and left critical comments. Tony only read the lead, but I made his suggested edits, not just for the lead, but for the entire article. Was I supposed to notify him that I'd responded and would have liked more comments from him?
I'm also wondering if a single oppose by Tony means other FAC reviewers simply skip over my article?
And—forgive me, but I have to know—are FAC articles somewhat biased toward certain topics? I can understand how an independent heavy metal album might not be "suitable" or "interesting" for reviewers to look at. I have read at least once on a Help board that album-related articles are considered by some to be somewhat "lesser" than other topics on Wikipedia, something that hasn't left me since reading those comments. Should I therefore consider nominating articles that are a little more broad in their interests?
Also, I didn't realize we could request people to look at articles, but just now, in writing to you, I see that I could have asked for you to look at the article. Is it too late to make this request? Who else should I contact about looking at my article, Laser brain, et al.?
And finally: On WP:FAC/ar, I read, "Articles that are not promoted can be resubmitted after Opposers agree that the issues raised during the FAC process have been addressed." On your Page Notice, I read, "If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating—typically at least a few weeks." In both cases, I resolved the issues made by the (two) readers quickly, with detailed comments of what I'd done to better the article. I only received responses from Chzz, and we seemed to have settled most issues.

So, again, being new to this process, how can I be more proactive in getting my article read by reviewers? I think the biggest reason for my confusion is that no one really said that this is still an oppose after the changes I'd made. I apologize for the long message and myriad questions! But I'm definitely curious about all this. Thank you so much, – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/12 Gauge (album)/archive1

The FAC had been up for almost two weeks, with no Support; generally, when that occurs, the nomination will have a better chance at success if it comes back clean in a few weeks (partly because of a lack of reviewers at FAC). On your specific questions:

Pinging reviewers for a new look after you've made changes, if they haven't returned, is always good advice. But in Tony1's case, he tends to provide only samples of changes needed throughout, and his opposes carry a lot of weight with other reviewers because he has a good command of prose.
That could be the case (see above), which is another reason that coming back fresh in a few weeks may be the fastest route to promotion.
I disagree that album-related articles can't or won't receive review at FAC, but it can be helpful to know which well-regarded reviewers are active at those articles, and ping them for review (while avoiding WP:CANVASS. Watching FAC for some time will help you learn who those reviewers are, and how FAC works. The shortage of reviewers is affecting many nominations, so I wouldn't take it personally or as an indication that there is a specific problem with albums.
It is OK to request review as long as you don't canvass. Laser may look at albums, David Fuchs may, and many other editors might as well. Yes, you can ping them next time, if you're not getting review, but it may be best to wait at first-- again, Tony1's prose issues may have put off some other reviewers.
You might ping Tony1 to ask how he sees the article now, but he is a very busy editor, and he might not be able to get back to you. If he does, and is satisfied that the prose is corrected, you could come back sooner than the two weeks.

No need to apologize! (But if you provide the link to the FAC, I'm more likely to respond quickly :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SandyGeorgia, thank you so very much for your detailed reply! I meant to put the link to the FAC in my message (it's the first thing you request on your page notice!) and obviously in editing my own message I ended up completely forgetting, so thanks for hunting that down. Your answers were honest and extremely helpful, and they cleared up any follow-up questions I may have had. I look forward to re-submitting the article sometime in the future, but I'll definitely take your advice and watch the FAC for a while. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable

What a great start to my day. Hope yours is better. Colin°^Talk 08:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope we're not headed for yet another of Wikipedia's LAMEST arbcom cases involving edit warriors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that I've been watching the MOS mainstayers "circling the wagons" so to speak on those pages; this seems like a continuation of that. Nothing that can be actionable by any means now, but if this keeps up, we'll need the equivalent of an intervention. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I try to remain blissfully unaware of such ... the history at ArbCom is not encouraging. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy (or TPS), I seem to recal someone did some analysis of the reading level of some of our FAs. Do you remember this. It would be an interesting exercise to do. Colin°^Talk 08:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Joe Baugher pages from External Links sections

I know you've been concerned in the past about aircraft articles which use Joe Baugher's pages as citation sources, and I understand that doing this violates policy and is frowned upon, since his is clearly a self-published site. However, I noticed you recently removed links to his pages from the External Links section of several aircraft articles. I don't understand why. To my knowledge, Wikipedia's policy restriction against self-published sites only applies to sources, not External Links. And for many types of aircraft, Baugher is the best or one of the best sources of information available on the web; the only better sources are in print. Removing him from the External Links section cuts readers off from easy access to a potentially useful source of further information. Certainly his pages are more useful and more reliable as information sources on their subjects than many other External Links are.

--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are two problems here (and a discussion at the Aviation WikiProject); first, many Aviation editors are seeing that link in many places and believing it to be a reliable source. We now have at least two GAs sourced to it, and several regular aviation editors attempting to defend a self-published hobby site as a reliable source. Second, I don't know of any reason to include it as an External link; external links are to provide information beyond what can be included in an article from reliable sources, and I know of no reason to include Baugher. It's confusing editors, who think he's reliable and are sourcing articles to him, which adds nothing to the articles. Why should we be promoting one hobby website via external links? I'm unconvinved by the frequent assertions that he's such a high quality source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just copied the above to WT:AV; I had hoped to get the whole thing, but it appears I was too slow. :( --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, the discussion is just going in circles now, as some editors are determined to avoid a library and real sources. And that is the bottom line to why I despise the trend of WikiCup, DYK points fueling RFAs. Article sourcing deteriorates, and is now extended to the GA level, when long ago, the Aviation Project had addressed this issue, which has now re-emerged. I don't think there's much more I can add, since the participants there are just repeating points without addressing WP:SPS. Bah. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, it might be more productive to just tag the links with {{unreliable source?}} tags while it is under discussion, rather than removing them wholesale from so many articles. - BilCat (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable, but that was also just reverted. This place gets more out of control by the day, when GAs are cited to self-published personal hobby sites. I suspect that mere laziness is driving this, as editors seeking Wikicup awards can't be bothered to go to a real library. I 'spose I've done all I can, and should be thankful I don't spend my time at DYK, where this kind of stuff is fed. I've unwatched the entire lot of articles I tried to fix, and should stop caring until/unless someone tries to get Baugher through FAC, where he most certainly will not be accepted as a reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shift the comments to the appropriate forum (annnnnnd knock off the laziness innuendos, I know most if not all the respondents and they are anything but...). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

You seem disturbed: shift what comments to what forum? I'm participating at that forum, I believe I'm allowed to respond to a post that was started earlier on my talk, and I believe it fair to say that relying on inferior websites over real sources available in a library that meet core policies isn't a reflection of editorial sourcing expected at the GA level. Perhaps I'm not parsing your post correctly, but it certainly comes across as vaguely threatening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calling nonsense right here, you are the only editor making strange comments about laziness, and painting individuals with a broad brush, and I am not the only editor who has already noted the disparaging asides. Bzuk (talk) 01:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

There's plenty of nonsense to go around, and I'm not easily intimidated. Preferring inferior websources over superior published sources is laziness. What about the Baugher matter is it that seems to be making you upset? It's a policy discussion, nothing more. You might find the discussion will advance more productively if you answer direct queries I've made there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wickywakiness also does not impress me and recognize we are both experienced editors with the same modus operandi. I simply do not adhere to the premise that MOS is solid stone, it and all other wiki tenets are challenged on a daily basis. Is Baugher an expert? I believe he is. Is he the most reliable source, maybe not, but good enough for many editors, perhaps not as a source for FA/GA articles. Does he fit into the SPS framework, not all that well, but more discussion is needed. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Where did MOS (which is a massive mess) come into this discussion: I'm discussing a long-standing, core policy, WP:V and WP:SPS. The problem is, Baugher is being used to source GAs! And I do hope you'll agree the discussion is only beginning; first editors had to calm down before they would look at the issue, and jumping to defend one website won't help the rest of the Project if we open those floodgates without careful thought. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To allay your fears of a flood, many websites being proposed as credible have come and gone, and editors have been especially vigilant to monitor the obvious fanboy sites. Aviation articles are often difficult to cite, and any and all references are often used, with a proliferation of electronic sites, rather than the traditional print resources. Some of the news articles are as poor as the run-of-the-mill museum and fan sites. Baugher and Goebel stand out compared to this lot. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Perhaps, but I still see weak arguments for poor sources presented all the time at FAC, and worry about fueling them if we weaken policy. Anyway, long discussion, and I'm wiki tired now ... tomorrow's a new day. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we don't have the MicMac mind trick here, this is not resolved yet. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Yep, don't know what a "MicMac mind trick" is, but I've just run out of steam for the day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You probably do, just check it out; he never let's anyone get the last word, that's his MO. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Having read all the discussion overnight, I raised the issue at WP:RSN#Joe Baugher in the hope of getting editors independent of WP:AVIATION and WP:MILHIST to look at the issue. I've asked that members of those two project disclose the fact should they comment. Your views are also welcome too. Mjroots (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, Bzuk, now I'm calling nonsense. Although the rest of the discussion now seems to be moving into a more productive realm (as usually happens once editors set in for the long haul work), through the various links posted at RSN and elsewhere, I've now discoverd that BilCat is disparaging my character on talk pages, and you were accusing me of being part of a "tag team" way back in 2008. And yet you all come here to make accusations about me because I think changing a policy to promote the preference for online hobby sites over more reliable published sources reflects laziness? Please, let's stick to the policy issues. If I were The Bushranger, I'd not be proud to host such commentary on my talk page, and I'm pleased to see that Ed17 addressed that there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh pshaw, nothing of the case, the issue of Baugher vs other sources is a minor one. Many others consider him useful and that the characterized "hobby site" is anything but, as it constitutes a serious effort to document aviation history. Most experienced editors long ago (2008, if you are correct) have not relied on this source for FA or GA articles, but there are numerous instances where the cites are still in place. What was a "red flag" to me and others was the summary removal of material that necessitated a BRD so that a discussion could ensue. The Northrop F-5 Freedom Fighter article in question was not an FA or GA article, has had many problems in referencing sources in the past and if someone finds a better source, as one that was recently substituted, then, c'est la vie. I still have to take umbrage at your continual snipes, as you have alluded that anyone not having your iron-clad beliefs must be lazy, unproductive (that's a new one) and uncaring. Nothing like that is occurring, the combined edit counts/contributions of the editors that were involved in the discourse would be astounding. These are often experts in their own right, counting museum directors, research scientists, authors and researchers among the group. A continual, monthly effort is now taking place to elevate selected aviation-themed articles to GA status and if you check the progress of this small group, you will note that their work rarely relies on questionable sources. All of us who can be considered serious editors are willing to abide by consensus and if the consensus is against using Baugher in any way, mais, c'est dommage. FWiW, as to MickMac's mind trick, take the comments as is, they are AGF and need no response. Bzuk (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of MicMac, and per WP:BEANS, don't intend to comment, lest my talk be involved in something unsavory, that I wouldn't want to host. By the way, I identified on the RFA at least three Aviation GAs with problematic sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS, per the Essjay factor, I don't pay much attention to who editors claim to be IRL on Wiki unless that can be verified; we can only be judged here by our work, and I hope the decline in Aviation articles is not a result of that unfortunate Resources list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PPS, slow down. Tagging non-reliable sources is NOT "summary removal of material". Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you do seem to want to continue the discourse, so be it. You note a decline in "quality", however, I consider the efforts of a small group of dedicated and experienced editors in the WikiAviation group as making a distinct improvement in propelling a number of articles to GA status and doing it on a regular basis. I do note that there are no aspersions in your last commentary which is the minimum in what I construe as civil discourse. The crux of our back-and-forth is what constitutes a reliable source or an authority. In the case of your reversion of edits on the Northrop F-5 article, it unfortunately coincided with some clean-up and your reversion took the article back a step or two. Contrary to what you may think, I have no great cause here, Baugher is fine as far as he goes, maybe not the best but certainly not the worst source. I don't consider him a mere hobbyist, as others have used him as a reliable authority. If he had been hosting a fansite, that would be different, but there is a multitude of articles, all sourced, well written, and frequently updated and that goes far beyond the norm for a fansite. Bye the bye, what articles do you see as having poorly sourced or inadequately referenced material? FWiW, when the comments here are exploring personal issues I have tried to keep them on this page, when they revolve around technical issues, I have used another forum. Bzuk (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I, on the other hand, have just come across yet another disparaging comment from you on an article talk page, but am not going to replay it here. Time to let it go. I will recopy for you here portions from the RFA of discussion of one Aviation GA, not to mention the two cited to Baugher (Douglas XCG-17 and Grumman XSBF) :

For example, he has a GA, FMA IAe 33 Pulqui II, which is replete with marginal, non-reliable sources. (I'm unware if those were used at the time it passed GA or added later). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was the article at promotion. I see no source concerns with it. SG, there is a proper procedure to follow if you think a GA doesn't now meet GA criteria. Looking at the article history, it is still substantially as it was when passed, so IMHO, such a request for review would not be in order. Mjroots (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you (or the nominee) could explain how these are reliable sources for this article:

I speak Spanish and I see dead links, press releases, movie reviews, and personal websites, including several commercial, for an aircraft article. But I appreciate the education about GA processes-- how have I ever gotten by on Wikipedia for so long!?!? Perhaps MilHist has changed its sourcing requirements or I'm just too busy these days. The use of non-reliable sources has long been a problem at DYK, so if the nominee works there, I'd like to know his views on these sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's enough to show me that some Aviation editors might not understand sourcing, particularly for the GA level. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'm done; no mater what I say to moderate things, it's obviously not going to work. Have a good day. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, the Sandy strategy of maintaining good faith and repeating sound policies seems rather effective. I will have to remember this for my future interactions.AerobicFox (talk) 07:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SPS

Hi Sandy, could you take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#Proposal to put forth at WT:V and comment? I'd love to get your opinion on its suitability and possible changes we can make to it. I ask that you don't dismiss it out-of-hand, though – I'd like to propose it as a change at WT:V, so constructive suggestions would be much more helpful. :-) Thanks as always, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see some potential pitfalls, but I'm pooped ... mañana! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, one more thing... I am really trying to avoid badgering you. I don't want to ruin Bushranger's RfA over that or responding too much, so if you feel like I am, please tell me. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing fine :) PS, if you want to ask me anything, shoot it here if you want! I've been known to change my mind mid-stream, and actually wondering now how much of the debacle has been fueled by the interficious intermeddling of others, and whether that swayed my Oppose. Certainly, I wasn't happy when I found the post to the Aviation Project (I just Never Do That) at the same time I realized the error in the blurb at the same time they were hitting me all over the place with dubious claims about sourcing, and the vehement defence there of inferior sourcing and off-topic disparaging of editors who disagree with them haven't helped. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also just checked MilHist for the coordinator list, and saw this: "They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers." I was thinking of inquiring what is going on over at that Project, but some seems to be out of the remit of the coordinators, and I'm wondering where all the experienced Aviation editors (besides Nimbus) went? How was that Resources page created with no oversight, and so little feedback? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That makes me feel much better. :-) My thought is that while a large amount of your oppose is built around unreliable sources, but the source list you gave was (if I read it right) added by someone else to the article, and there is considerable debate as to whether Baugher is a reliable source. Bushranger and I may disagree with you on the site, but he was using what he believed was a reliable source under the SPS guidelines, and under your interpretation (correct me if I'm wrong in my assessment!), the source is borderline, albeit leaning unreliable. So, I think you can agree that him using it isn't as much of a clear-cut issue as you first thought, and perhaps you could reconsider your oppose in that context? Obviously he cares about reliable sourcing as much as you do and tries to uphold that at DYK – you two just see the policy through slightly different glasses.

What do you think is wrong with Milhist? The only aviation editors I know of are Nick-D, Mjroots, and Bushranger, and all of those are because they don't write exclusively in aviation. I may be sheltered though. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Things tend to go much more smoothly when bad faith allegations and disparaging of fellow editors aren't being thrown all over the Wikipedia :)

Baugher is not the kind of source we should be using for anything other than stubs started by inexperienced editors; I'm willing to accept that he thought it was when he used it, that it was an honest mistake (even though I expect editors working at DYK to know better), and to revisit if/when I see acknowledgement that he understands the importance of good sourcing. Others can google all the fan books they want who laud him, but for good reason, we use better sources by highly regarded Military Historians over hobby sites, and why on Earth should we be setting up a situation where articles have to be re-cited to go to GA or FA?

I'm not buying the sourcing issues on the other GA; I suspect Bzuk, who has made some strange commentary thoughout this, may have held sway over Bushranger on that, so he let those sources slide. GAs should be passed and maintained to the level expected, and there has been a rather absurd amount of resistance on this, indicating that Baugher is some sort of Sacred Cow on the Aviation project (maybe he's a nice guy or something, but we are not lacking in real sources in Aviation).

I have been encouraged that The Bushranger hasn't disparaged me or made strange allegations about other editors as other Aviation members have, so that speaks well of him.

I'm not sure anything is wrong with MilHist specifically, since we've seen a decline in editorship across so many areas of the Wikipedia; it could just be another reflection of our general loss of good editors everywhere. I didn't remember that Nick-D focuses on aviation? I should have known that; I thought he was more of a generalist. But several of the more reasonable members who were around whenever I interacted with Aviation in the past seem to be gone, or at least, less present in this matter. And I'm still curious what kind of oversight and participation decline may have led to the creation of that Resources page; I typically expect anything in the MilHist realm to have better processes in place to make sure pages aren't put up without better oversight.

Did I answer everything? After Franamax posted, I realized that the Archtransit issue was figuring prominently at the top of the Oppose section, so it could be predisposing other voters, who sometimes don't read the entire page, and may have thought I was implying he was a sock: Mlm could benefit by speaking more clearly without insinuations of bad faith. And Mjroots did The Bushranger no favors there. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Baugher is a great source for writing multiple articles on obscure aircraft, and I don't believe Bushranger is looking to bring them to GA – he just wants the 'pedia to have an article on them. Technically speaking, the information should be easily reference-able with the 'real' sources should someone want to do that! DYK isn't GA/FA, and most of the articles going through there are not destined for either.

You have a point on maintaining GAs, although I don't actively maintain my oldest articles and need to rewrite/fix up at least a FA and GA of my own.

Nick-D doesn't focus there, but he has done articles in the area – sorry, should have specified! We don't normally keep an eye on other projects, so please don't associate anything outside of Milhist with Milhist. :P

If you want my personal opinion, I think the whole conversation between you two was bungled by not understanding the other. Mlm wanted an explanation as to why that factored in your argument, but may have not stated it well, and then it got sidetracked, and then both of you got a tad heated, and then you stopped trying to give answers, and then ..., and then ... . Just a chain reaction. Still, it worked out in the end, so that's what counts! :-) Still though, even if you think the Aviation project is screwed up, I'd counter that Bushranger has his head on screwed on straight (heh, unintentional pun) and would be a helluva lot better civility-wise than some of our other admins. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hint: since I'm an avowed Pollyanna, who AGFs sometimes to the point of absurdity (to wit, Pollyanna got me involved in two ArbCom cases!), nothing will get my back up as fast as allegations of bad faith :) That's when he lost me (not to mention Pedro's questioning my motives because he thought I had tangled with Archtransit-- Archtransit was, if anything, unfailingly polite). I do believe a little bit of AGF goes a long way, but in my case, I usually take it too far! I really won't go out of my way to object to non-audited content using Baugher, but he does have errors, and my bigger concern is the amount of resistance in the matter, and that the Resources page was listig him as reliable, which would encourage new editors to use him, rather than teach them to seek out better sources. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; I'm sorry things got a little heated there. I tend to be very terse when I speak (I'd like to think of it as speaking "concisely, and efficiently", but actually in internetland, it can be misinterpreted). I really don't want any hard feelings here. It seems my terse speaking style left room for my words to be interpreted as "insinuations of bad faith", which I find unfortunate. I honestly think you do great work here, and I am deeply thankful for anyone who upholds the integrity of Wikipedia - especially those who insist on high-quality references! After all, we're nothing without our sources. And I understand that the Aviation WikiProject has a history, and there may be reasons to keep an eye on them (I've also encountered problems with Aviation members applying their own "guidelines" as if they were law - this prompted me push for the creation of {{WikiProject style advice}} and {{WikiProject content advice}}, via this Village pump discussion). Nevertheless, I found your (apparent?) oppose rationale involving WikiProject membership concerning (as did several other people, based on the comments). So I questioned you about it, and frankly I was surprised when you stood by your statement. More than anything, I was trying to get you to realize that this oppose rationale appeared unfair. But granted, I probably could have done this in a less confrontational way; so for that I'm sorry. Mlm42 (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no hard feelings whatsoeer, Mlm; once I finally saw what you were getting at, it made perfect sense-- just took a while to get there, helped along because Franamax knows me a bit and probably could see that I wasn't getting it. :) And I was certainly predisposed negatively because of Pedro's opening post, so I apologize for not trying hard enough to understand what you were getting at. I appreciate your kind words and reaching out, and now that I understand your communication style better, things should go smoothly. That is, if you can put up with all my typos, sloppy prose, and adding to posts after I make them :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy's custom order internet meme

Pickup line Panda. --Moni3 (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How am I supposed to come up with retorts for those? Look how easy these are (askmen.com)
Line

You won't have to wait for my call tomorrow if you sleep over.

Retort

I won't miss other calls for the din of your snoring if I don't.

Line

You know how some men buy really expensive cars to make up for certain shortages? Well, I don't even own a car.

Retort

Thanks for sharing; I guess I won't be riding home with you.

Line

I sacrificed my dignity to come talk to you. The least you could do is say yes.

Retort

No.

Enough? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baugher - a specific case

1947 BOAC Douglas C-47 crash is a recent DYK of mine. It uses Baugher to reference the history of the aircraft involved in the accident. This is what I've been using Baugher for, and hence the scope of the discussion I've raised at RSN. Other info given by Baugher is corroborated by The Times, the Accidents Investigation Board ad Flight magazine, all of which are reliable sources. Mjroots (talk) 07:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at RSN (confused). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed, spam filter list

In case any TPS can help, I'm trying to post this to Talk:Tourette syndrome, and getting a spam filter notice? WTH? Is associatedcontent spam blocked?

American Idol

I noticed a spike in the page views on February 10, 2011, and found http: // www.associatedcontent.com/article/7743390/american_idol_programs_of_february.html?cat=39 this report that an American Idol contestant, James Durbin, has TS-- heads up in case he gets an article eventually. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WTH, http:/ /www.examiner.com/tv-in-national/american-idol-2011-james-durbin-battles-tourettes-and-aspergers-to-win-dream references Wikipedia, which may also explain the spike in views. But it's also spam blocked! What gives? Did someone spam block the word "Tourette's"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, I can't find the spamblock page to ask-- must be because I slept in my "Dork" t-shirt last night. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Examiner dotcom is listed as spam on wiki.[7] Personally, I think it's BS. The rationale is that Examiner pays its writers by page hits, and links to the article might generate some revenue for the writer. I've been writing for Examiner for about a year, I cover the local Boxing and MMA events in Northern Nevada as a sportswriter and have columns on traditional martial arts and firearms. I could see if it was an "opinion" piece or something of that nature, but I cover events (Pro-boxing, for example) and because I have an "in" with promoters based on my past as a fighter; I get better access than some other local news outlets. I'll go toe-to-toe with things I have written against some of the "approved sources" on fighters like Kassim Ouma [8], Archi Solis [9]and Brandon Gonzales [10]. OK rant off. :)--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oh, for gosh sakes, how silly. Well, at least I know where to find the spamlist now, and can take off my "Dork" t-shirt -- thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have to change "dot" to "." to see what I mean.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will look at them next; irritated now right along with you that examinerdotcom was the best account, and I'm not going to fight a spamlist to try to simply leave an informative heads up on a talk page. <grrrrr ... > SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What if you formatted it as a news citation and left off the link? You would have the sourcing correct, but not an evil link that might give the writer $0.006 whenever someone clicks the link.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, I'm not going to worry about it unless he wins and becomes notable, in which case other sources will report it any way. Besides, I'm offended that a California kid I know didn't win, so there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice stuff, Mike, but your bio doesn't mention all the critters! I went to http ://www.examiner.com/mma-in-reno/mike-searson for a quicker link to all of them. Someday, I'm going to get to a ski trip and come see you! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be cool! We'll roll out the red carpet for you!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to a Tahoe timeshare that expires next December, but it's very hard to get (on exchange) during ski season, so I may have to use it for a non-skiing visit, or lose it. And I still think the Reno airport is the scariest in the world-- I'm not a dive-bomber, and those crosswinds are awful. Hope I can work it out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those winds are terrible, I've had my truck literally blown into the next lane driving through the Washoe Valley.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I spent 10 days skiing in Tahoe a few years ago, but we flew into LA and drove up from there. The skiing was pretty good I thought, and the casinos just across the border in Nevada were handy for a late meal, but it didn't have the style of a French resort like Val-d'Isère, which is perhaps my favourite. Malleus Fatuorum 20:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mal, that can be a cool drive up, did you take 395 or I-5 to 50?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, both probably. We took the coastal route on the way up, but we decided to detour to take in Yosemite and Death Valley on the way back. Sadly Yosemite was closed because of the snow, but Death Valley was certainly worth the visit. Malleus Fatuorum 20:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus, I was just waiting for you to show up with California comments-- careful, I'll find some bad Western music or MT for you!! Tahoe skiing is certainly not luxury, not even on par with most of Colorado or Utah, particularly with respect to lodging, but Squaw has improved. And then there was my ski trip in Italy where the snow was so bad the resort should have been closed, and we got to ski across rocks and streams ... The last time I drove from Northern to Southern California, my butt hurt for days, and I vowed never to do it again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It still has to be better than the ski resort in this movieFrozen (2010 American film), we don't have wolves here, just bears and mountain lions!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take wolves over mountain lions-- the mountain lions pick people off and eat them quickly and efficiently. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like California, I just think that Californians are crazy. I learned to ski in Italy, and as you say, sometimes it was skiing across rocks. That's partly why I never bought a pair of skis. Malleus Fatuorum 20:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... and speaking of sore butts, one of the reasons we now have a Jeep Cherokee is that's the car we hired to drive from LA to Tahoe. It was a really comfortable drive, and we did it easily in a day. Malleus Fatuorum 20:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yea? That's only because you weren't in the back seat to experience the vibration, and nausea-inducing limited vision, with seats so short that they don't accomodate the length of my thighs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to drive to LA this weekend to see some friends, but the snow killed that idea! Last time I drove from LA to Reno was the day I completed a Close-Combat-Course. I got hit in the yarbles twice that day (once with an escrima stick the other by the country's top pro-MMA trainer) it was the most painful drive I ever made. Had to stop in the Bay Area that night! I'm glad I didn't fly down there that weekend, because flying back would have been worse!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I once asked Malleus, "What's a Willy", and have never lived it down. I Will Not Ask What Yarbles Are. Do y'all always have to publicly humiliate me ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I need to know in life, I learned on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TFA

Hi SandyGeorgia,

I noticed that you removed "Voyage: Inspired by Jules Verne" from the Main page request page. In removing it, your edit summary read "scheduled". I had nominated the article for February 25. However, I cannot see the article in the Feature article queue. Does this mean that my article was rejected? Because it had 9 supports to 8 opposes, and I admit this is close, but still the majority supported. Thanks if you can clarify what has happened to "Voyage: Inspired by Jules Verne".--Paaerduag (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]