User talk:SandyGeorgia

Hallmark

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

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

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

Health related articles

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given that this isn't a super popular, prolific area of research, a 10 year old source is old, but not necessarily outdated, because often there is not funding or motivation to replicate a meta-analysis when the original findings continue to be supported and cited relatively widely.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

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

Improvement and translation of medical articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey

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

From Portugal, with love

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I guess that's the way the cookie crumbles. Thanks for the clarifications. Geometry guy 21:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, unfortunately. Now I have a bad feeling that we're going to make cookie metaphors at each other if/when we cross paths in the future... ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definite maximum article size?

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

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

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

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

Although I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor, I have used W. in my own research for nearly 10 years now, and I have to jump in here and say I like the longer articles just as they are! They are set up perfectly for me: the intro. gives me a sense of the whole subject, and the table of contents that follows tells me exactly where to go to follow up on what most interests me. And often, when scrolling between sections, I discover useful tidbits I might never have encountered. It is like letting people roam around in library stacks. For me, and I suspect for most researchers, more will be lost than gained by breaking up your long articles. - Babel41 (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that most readers will just skim the lead and images before moving on, but I'm sure that there are a dedicated minority who like the topic or are researching in the area and find the longer articles useful to ensure they have all the information and aren't missing anything. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone to take care of prose

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

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

Something

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

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

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

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

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

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

By next week I was referring to 1/30/2012. I want Cirt to do something with it first, he's "most experienced portalmongerer". ResMar 14:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review for Pope John Paul II

Hi Sandy, I was wondering whether you'd be interested in this? Kind Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 19:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tay–Sachs disease

Hi, so as you have de-promoted and re-promoted the article, you might want to have a look at the talk page for a request to promote the article to A class again. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 20:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, the problem there before was a failure to follow WP:MEDMOS (in terms of comprehensive-- all sections covered), and WP:MEDRS (primary sources vs. reviews). A medicine article can't be rated above GA without those (and shouldn't be rated GA if it overrelies on primary sources). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering

I was just wondering if there was anything that was preventing Turning Point (2008) from being promoted? Judging from the review pages, it seems to be ready to promote.--WillC 09:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Sandy's query at the bottom of the page. Also, a quick look at the page shows some prose issues—for example, the last paragraph of the lead repeats the word "event" four times. Ucucha (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First I've heard of the source issues, none of the reviews have made any mention of problems with the sources. I explained reliability at the subpage. Of course it mentions event, it was an event. It wasn't a tv show, a movie, etc. It was an event. What else would be used? Reviewers haven't seemed to had an issue with that after 3 separate reviews this time around and 3 or 4 in the past.--WillC 16:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're now discussing the source issue with Sandy. As for the prose, it was of course an event, but good writing avoids repetition. It was not only an event, but perhaps also a show, a performance, a competition, or whatever else you can come up with. Ucucha (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This series of edits is a great improvement, much less repetitive. Ucucha (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, did some digging in the article regarding the WrestleView situation, made some edits. I believe the sourcing issue is solved. The article relies on Slam, Wrestling Observer, and PW Torch now. Any WrestleView sources left handle extremely not controversial information that logically would be accurate and taken at good faith. Used in much the same way as they were in Lockdown 08.--WillC 07:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noteworthy FARC reviewing

		The India Barnstar
		Given to SandyGeorgia for your hard work reviewing Kolkata FARC, given now independent of the outcome. AshLin (talk) 05:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you! As you said, "independent of the outcome" :) The nice thing about working at FAR is that, even when the bronze star can't be saved, articles can emerge in better shape, and editors can feel the reward of honoring the work of previous FA writers who may have moved on. And often, one is working from a decent starting place. At the same time, I've pinged in MilHist editors to one FAR, music editors to another, astronomy to another, LatinAmerican music to another-- and only in one case did anyone care to engage, even though in a few of those cases, rescuing the articles doesn't appear insurmountable. In the current reward culture environment-- where so many editors are chasing stars and awards-- maybe we need to institute a "Save of the Month" award at FAR (if the FA process ever stops bickering and someone puts together a Newsletter to take on items like this). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting phenomenon. I helped save a few articles at FAR before I got pissed off with the atmosphere there, and one in particular sticks in my mind: Roy of the Rovers. It's not a subject I had any particular interest in, but it was in the run-up to the football World Cup. And I had absolutely no help at all. It's a complete fiction that Wikipedia articles are written by loads of editors; anything worth spit is actually written by a very few editors. Malleus Fatuorum 19:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't always that way. In 2006 and 2007 (even into 2008 a bit), FAR was a place where too many editors to remember (but particularly active was Ceoil) ... worked to save articles with no concern for whether we would be "rewarded". I guess, as has been charged (elsewhere), I am out of touch. Contemporary Wikipedia edtors want contests, competitions, rewards, stars and recognition. It's easier to climb up WP:WBFAN by writing on a niche topic, that you won't have to defend from deterioration, than to save a big old popular FA that was once in fine shape, even though they can often be restored with a bit of elbrow grease. I suppose there are very few of our up-and-coming crop around here who have any idea ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're obviously just dinosaurs, waiting to be put out to pasture. Malleus Fatuorum 19:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Says number 11 on the WBFAN list

.

In all seriousness though, I think that this is just a function of the shift in editors from 'believers in the idea of mass collaboration' to 'a number of pockets of specialists'. Back when most of the project was unwritten, just about anything constructive was an improvement, so mass collaboration... well... worked. Wikipedia has now reached the point that an editor, even if they're trying to be constructive, can do a great deal of damage to the quality of an article if they aren't highly competent or don't have a high level of knowledge in the area they're working in. This lead to collaboration becoming less valued, except by members within a specific expertise pocket working with other members from the same expertise pocket. Collaboration still works, it's just different. I'm about to make a major push to improve the article Liao Dynasty, which is in shit shape, and will probably do the bulk of the writing myself. At the same time, however, I have a small network of people whom I can turn to for assistance. While they aren't necessarily going to do the writing for me, I have a few users I can rely on if I need help translating a source, or getting me a source I don't have access to, or copyediting (once I've done the re-write). I have an even larger network of people I can turn to and say "Look at this article and tell me where it needs improvement". That's the collaboration of today - a primary writer and his or her team of specialist that can be called on when needed. It's not the libertarian paradise that some of the early Wikipedia believers might have wanted, but it works. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sven, I think that theory is a bunch of huey, and there is nothing fundamentally different about the work done at FAR today vs years ago. I don't know anything about Kolkata, but I can do MOS checks, point out prose issues, raise queries of things that aren't clear in the article, etc. As long as knowledgeable editors are willing to engage, others can pitch in to help no differently than they could pre-2009. The only thing that changed was environmental-- that is, in 2009, it became difficult to work on saves because of some interpersonal issues that went down there. And, on Malleus being #11 at WBFAN, you may have missed that I said "by writing on a niche topic" (contrasting it to some giants that could be saved at FAR). Do you really think Malleus "writes on niche topics" (that is, templated articles that no one else will ever look at, hence need very little maintenance)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Work at FAR might not be that different for the old days, but I think Sven's theory is a lot closer to the reality for the FAC side of things. For the wider topics, the collaboration model is still happening and viable; only a few authors can taken on a high-profile article and bring it to FA. I suspect it's similar at FAR, where articles that don't need a lot of work can be beaten back into shape by a few dedicated editors, even if they aren't specialists. However, for the middle- to low-level topics that are being written now, Sven's theory is pretty accurate. For something like South American dreadnought race, which is pretty important in the context of modern SA history (it defined a generation and was a major cog in the quest for naval power that lasted from the 1880s to the late 20th century) but low-level here on-wiki, I'm the only author who has the knowledge and sources to write it, but I can call on other Milhist and ship editors for advice, thoughts, reviews, and similar help. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, yes, I meant it was huey with respect to the change at FAR vis-a-vis pre-2009 (which was the topic I was on :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my defense, my general argument made much more sense in my head...

The comment on Malleus being number 11 on the list was in response to his comment about being put out to pasture, not on niche topics. Reading over the conversation again, I can understand where my comment could lead to confusion.

As for the other, longer part of my comment, the transition I was talking about applied more to Wikipedia in general. The shift though, effected all of the processes here, because it changed how the users here functioned. Yes, you're right, for basic MoS and prose cleanup work you don't need subject expertise, just skill in writing. However most of the FARs I've seen have required fundamental rewrites, and that does mean expert knowledge is required, which means that the collaboration that you're going to see is going to be closer to the model that I laid out than to the traditional model. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because most of the text is written by a single editor does not mean that there was no collaboration involved. I consider my reviewers, copy editors and FAC delegates to be collaborators too.

I haven't participated in a successful FAR for a while; most editors think that FAR spells doom. I pitched in to help save Harry S. Truman, but it really needed expert attention. I was able to restore Robert Oppenheimer to featured status by a process akin to rewriting it, but it required a great deal of expertise. I would not call describe these articles as "middle- to low-level topics" though. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, re-thinking the whole argument, I still think it's huey (and tossed around often as a cover for the fact that Way Too Many Editors these days are simply looking for baubles for their talk page, rather than collaborating). I don't think it's because so much content has already been addresssed: I do think it's because too many editors are engaged in the Reward culture. Look at all of the articles in these samples that are start or C-class, and could at least be raised to B-class easily:

Or take your pick from Category:Lists of popular pages by WikiProject-- I list Medicine because I work there, and MilHist because Medal of Honor is at WP:FAR, I pinged them, and no one cares. And Psychology because-- with the exception of Casliber and Fainites-- they've never written an FA (most FAs tagged as Psych were written by medicine editors, and the rest of the Project is a mess). There is still plenty of work that can be done in here; going for the easy rewards is what motivates many contemporary editors here, and that simply wasn't the case to such an extent in past years, IMO. There is less work at FAR now because there's no "bauble" to display on one's user page or contest to be won-- that wasn't the concern at FAR in 2006 thru 2009. In other words, I still dislike the Reward Culture and what it's done to Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Et tu, Sandy? I expect the tongue lashing from TCO, but I didn't think you were given to painting with a broad brush and condemning all of FAC writers. When I read the above, I thought "great, now Sandy's on everyone's case about not writing about high page view articles"... All I can say is... writing on something like William the Conqueror isn't easy - I've had to assemble huge numbers of books to read and journal articles to read, in order to get as far as I have. It's not easy to write an article about a subject that is well covered in literature. But I suppose I'm just motivated by rewards or something when I write about bishops ... not by any desire to make our coverage complete on a subject. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth, since when did you get the impression those were my views of most FA writers, or specifically, of you? I'm talking about the lack of activity at FAR. And the "Popular pages" link is inadvertent, unrelated to TCO (for gosh sakes, since when do I have to say something this obvious?)-- it came up recently on my watchlist (which prompted my rethinking post here) because it is what is driving the current issues occurring with poor student editing on Psych articles, as it's the one used by some Psych courses. If my use of it offends you, I can go dig around and find the other ways WP articles are listed, but I didn't know I needed to take such great care not to be misunderstood in a casual conversation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allrighty then, now I've dug around, and I can't find any other listing by Project that gives article names in a chart along with article assessment-- everything else I can find is grouped by assessment but doesn't list article names. I am sooooooooooo sorry for accidentally replaying the "popular pages" TCO meme: Sue Me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - it just seems like every time I turn around lately someone is telling people high up on the "evil list" that we're awful evil people who are doing everything wrong. Note that above, some folks were discussing that list - so it was easy to assume the subject had changed to all FAs, not just FAR. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was well established that "page views" were no reflection of importance: I haven't changed my mind. If any doubt remains, look at Religion. I think it's a sorry state of affairs that we can no longer discuss anything in here without it going back to <that mess created by those people>. They win. Boo-hoo. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, back to FAR: I looked at another area I work (just as an example of what "dismal" looks like, and how much more can still be done and why I think that meme is huey-- Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Popular pages (seriously, Angels Falls or Tepui can't be improved by anyone???) -- but that led me to next look here:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Brazil/Popular pages

where the two most popular FAs (which are waaaaay down the page) are 1) a Marskell FA (not Brasil at all, but Mr. FAR and FAC), and 2) a medical article written by WT:MED and restored at ... FAR! The discussion was about FAR ... that we used to work hard to restore work, even if no "baubles" were accrued. Has nothing to do with page views, except that page happens to list each article, where other assessment pages don't seem to-- at least not that I can find. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked an expert editor to have a look at Medal of Honor and see if it can be saved. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Hawkeye! I see help has arrived ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments on an article?

I can tell you are busy, but I’m looking for someone who has a better critical eye than I have, and you are my first choice.

I ran into User:Beebuk a year and a half ago, when he was working on some articles as a new editor, and running into some challenges from other editors. He specializes in pantomine related topics, an area I know very little about. (And I’m not presuming you do have or do not have expertise in this area, I’m looking for your expertise as an editor)

He recently asked me to take a look at Pedrolino. I’m happy to note that he is well beyond the basics, so I am struggling to be helpful. I offered some comments at Comments_on_Pedrolino, but I realize I need the big guns. If you could find the time to make a few comments, it would be appreciated.

As an aside, I plan to work on bringing some articles to GA and FA eventually, but in my area of interest, the low-hanging fruit is still ungathered, so I confess to lack of knowledge of those areas. That said, I’m surprised to see Pedrolino as start class, and Charles Deburau as C class. I wonder what I’m missing, as both articles seem well written to me.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If now is a bad time, could you point me in the right direction? MF is at the top of my list, but I'm thinking this is bad timing. Is there a list of FAC reviewers somewhere? I could ask one of them.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been busy-- I'll try to get to it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most assessors grade articles purely on length, and a broad impression of their look, as far as I can see, and if you see an inappropriate grade just change it. Plus of course most writers hesitate to upgrade their own efforts, & the grade (like any reader's grades at the bottom), may have been based on a much earlier version. C and C, or C and B, even B & B would seem appropriate to me here. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question on comment in Kolkata

While the city's name has always been pronounced "Kolkatā" or "Kolikatā" in Bengali, (I don't know how to fix this, but these spellings give us no idea of the pronunciation they reference)...

Do you suggest IPA pronunciation should be given? How about audio files? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure, or I would have fixed it myself. The text references pronunciation, but folks like me have no idea what the local pronunciation is. So, either reference to pronunciation can be removed (rephrased somehow), or something needs to be added. I dunno how to fix it :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Ahalya/archive2

An comment at the PR reads: "Per SandyGeorgia at Kolkata, reference titles should either all be in sentence case, or they should all be in title case". Just wanted to clarify about this. The capitalization styles of books differs and at Ahalya, it is as printed. So should I change it? Any wiki-policy about this? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The capitalisation style within a Wikipedia article should be consistent, doesn't matter about the typography used on the book cover. After all, we don't insist on using the same typeface. Malleus Fatuorum 17:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Red, negotiating the ever-changing MOS pages is a full-time job-- could you please ping Tony1 (talk · contribs) and ask him where that text resides these days? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Malleus and Sandy. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:CT perhaps? Using the title as it actually appears on the book isn't workable, since titles often don't appear in a form that works for citations. We don't want to have all-caps titles in our citations, for example. One of the books you cite using sentence case, Splitting the Difference, actually uses title case on its title page (at least according to Google Books). Ucucha (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, a bit rushed by RL work at the moment, so I haven't searched for guidelines. I would always harmonise the casing of reference items, as all other aspects of ref formatting. The original formatting is irrelevant: they'll be all over the place. Please see, by analogy, MoS's "Allowable typographical changes". Tony (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ucucha and Tony1. My book version has a similar cover to [1], the Google books cover is surprisingly different. I will convert all titles to title case. Just 1 more doubt. Newspaper article names eg. "Week-long drama festivities end" need not be in title case. right?? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

Sorry to bother you... but it's just that I missed the "two weeks window" part of WP:FAC, and restarted a nom after just 2 days - me and another user just finished the copyedit, and after all the previous one was killed partly because the only Oppose in that would not answer me. Is it okay to keep the nom or it's better for me to wait? igordebraga ≠ 23:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at User talk:Ucucha; CUP issues have to be resolved in a way that we're fair to all. Glad Ucucha gets to make those decisions, not me :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, then. (and you resigning as FA delegate means I have to find another name to put in my intro once I nominate this for Featured status...) igordebraga ≠ 17:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't decipher your meaning, so I'm engaging AGF and not taking that as some sort of indirect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Electrical engineering

An RfC has been opened atat Talk: Electrical engineering#Unsourced material on a subject on which you commented on that page. Spinning Spark 21:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responded there: I'm a bit concerned about the amount of misinfo that crops up now and then wrt WP:WIAFA-- I hope current and incoming delegates will have a look there. We have the "where appropriate" clause for a reason :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fix PumpkinSky "copy-vio"

Please turn your observant eyes to my attempts to rephrase, limited by my lack of English. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responded there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsider

I hope that you will reconsider and that you don't resign, but stay on...Modernist (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the thought, Modernist, but please don't even go there. FAC has been through enough, and just the fact that you have raised this here will reignite the disruption. See Shermanesque statement. There is plenty I can do in the background to help the new delegates, but more significantly for me personally ... this all happened to FAC because of indifference, and because some folks are in fact "star collectors", and never understood the selfless work of reviewers and delegates. It was hard work, and more and more, I found myself doing it alone (with exceptions, won't start naming them because I always leave someone out, but they know who they are and they know I know who they are). Once I realized how much I gave up my own editing to feed some "star collectors" (which is not to say that all or even most were), the fun in the "job" was gone. When you're a delegate, you have to do it all with impartiality; that means you sometimes have to promote articles that put you to sleep when trying to read them, because consensus says so. As a reviewer and helper, I get to work on only those articles that interest me, or FACs from those nominators that aren't just part of the Reward culture. I became part of feeding the very "reward culture" I so dislike. By reviewing instead, I don't have to do that. Nope, I'm done. And if other folks don't pitch in and help rebuild, help launch a Newsletter, help do all the things that are needed and were needed when I initially tried to start a discussion at the beginning of the year, I've got plenty else to do elsewhere-- the community gets what it wants on Wikipedia, and if they don't want a strong FAC, so be it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of your hard work Sandy...Modernist (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And from me. Kafka Liz (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both; you are very welcome :) In my time, I got to read some outstanding articles, work with some outstanding editors, make some great friends, and remember who my true friends always were. In the long run, I'll remember those more than the others who didn't appreciate all the work that "FAC leadership" did to give them their rewards. And if I had it to do all over again, I'd still defend the good writers and good reviewers every bit as vociferously as I did during my term. Raul's style is better overall for the process than mine was (and that's why those in the know defend him), but I am who I am, and I did it my way. [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think, Sandy, you are probably doing the right thing, for yourself if not for us. A rest from your labours is overdue; I am sorry that my articles put you to sleep, though I'm not altogether surprised since many of them sent me to sleep, too. You will of course be greatly missed at FAC; I sent my first article there not too long after you became the delegate; this diff is your kindly admonishment as I blundered around in ignorance of the one nom at a time rule. Those supportive words, and help in those early months from Yomangani, Awadewit, Mike Christie, Ealdgyth (then a relative newbie herself) and many others now departed, gave me confidence and made me want to stay, and I will always be grateful. I look forward to reviewing some of your work at FAC when it gets there, and I will always value your opinions on mine - I promise I'll keep the Zzzzzzz factor to a minimum . Brianboulton (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You silly goose, your articles never put me to sleep ! The ones that did got a prompt from me on the FAC before I eventually promoted ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other socks

Sandy, if you think anyone else is a sock, put in an SPI and I will personally see that it gets investigated. Contrariwise, if you're not prepared to put in an SPI, you have to stop saying that X is a sock, because it just becomes a personal attack. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, there's a difference between socking and abusing of CLEANSTART (have I said someone is "socking"?), and second, I'm unclear how SPI works on issues of CLEANSTART when data is stale. Third, the data and evidence is voluminous-- where does it belong, since CU data is most likely stale? Specifically, I am unclear if the evidence belongs at SPI or in an RFC/U. And if the party ceases and desists from breaching CLEANSTART, and considering the severity of past ... ugliness with the previous accounts ... what is to be gained by presenting evidence when CU data will be stale? We've seen the effects of arb intervention in cases of inconslusive CU data, and I'm uninterested in those drahmaz if the party ceases and desists. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK Sandy, I'll make it simple for you. Checkuser isn't magic pixie dust. It is primarily behaviour that will reveal if he is a previous editor, not a technical tool. If you can show editing similarity, that will be enough to investigate.If you are having problems with an editor, and you believe there is some relevance to a previous account (repeating a bad editing pattern, previous disagreement) then you are free to say that you think this is editor X, and he's trying to dodge his previous editing history. And someone will look into it - bad editors don't have the right to duck out, come back as someone else, and start up with the monkey business, no matter who they are. (Moni was quite right to block the Pumpkin Sky account on entirely these grounds). What is not fair is to keep dropping dark hints that the individual is 'abusing' cleanstart, you know who they are etc, but never actually put it up for investigation. There's nothing wrong with starting by explaining your suspicions to the editor in question, in the hope that he'll stop, but if he doesn't, you can't just keep saying it, because it just turns into a personal attack. So do you want to tell me who you think the guy is, and why, and why you think he would like to avoid being associated with a previous account. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to make it simple enough for me, but you haven't :) Does that sort of evidence go in an SPI or in an RFC/U? And what happens when a former arb comes along and craters the case (as in the Barking Moon scenario) with some vague mumbo-jumbo in an SPI (as would likely happen here) or an RFC/U is taken over by like-minded; in other words, why go to the effort if the editor refrains from revisiting old grudges henceforth? Isn't it better to let it go if the editor ceases? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, wind down the conspiracy theories. Nobody "cratered" the BarkingMoon case - BarkingMoon left off editing while there was still a debate going on. Rlevse swore on his granny's grate it wasn't him - obviously those who knew him would prefer to think a former colleague wasn't a completely mendacious git (your view may vary, but it's a common reaction of folks, and I think you have to accept that it's normal social behaviour not a conspiracy), so were trying to work out how they could somehow definitively tell one way or the other when the account creator baled. I think now, the community at least will be more incline to err on the side of it being him - I don't see the defenders of ScottyBerg arriving in force to advance arguments about having to disprove a negative.

Second, RfC/U would be useful if your primary aim is to get him to reform his behaviour, so you also want to raise issues with the editor's current editing. If the previous editor left to avoid a block or other unpleasantness, and you think that putting the two sets of behaviour together should result in a sanction, then you can use SPI, or even just post on my talkpage with your evidence. People do that as well, and I will investigate if I think there are reasonable grounds.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elen, friendly banter and a suggestion ... first, wind down the compliance officer speak. I am not a child, nor am I a delinquent, nor will I respond to being talked down to by an arb or anyone else. Have you ever seen the movie, Spanglish? It's charming. At the end of the film, Cristina's college application essay is quoted:

I've been overwhelmed by your encouragement to apply to your university and your list of scholarships available to me. Though, as I hope this essay shows, your acceptance, while it would thrill me, will not define me. My identity rests firmly and happily on one fact: I am my mother's daughter. Thank you, Cristina Moreno

From the daughter of a strong and competent mother, that's how much I need anyone's validation. We are all volunteers here, and I for one don't need this place for validation (of which I get plenty in real life), so speaking to me accordingly will get you much further. I'm well aware that I'm in good part responsible for the election of a good number of the current arbs, so my first responsibility is to those who read and followed my voter guide-- that is, the community. And I'm not much prone to unfounded conspiracy theories.

Second, I don't know a thing about Scotty Berg, who he is, what the case is (so thank you for not labeling me a "conspiracy theorist" based on some other editor's input at talk), but I do know that no one should blindly believe what a suspected sock says.

And finally, thanks for answering the question-- I was sincerely unsure how to handle such voluminous evidence, with stale CU data, and a situation likely to become very acrimonius if previous behaviors are any indication. I will watch and see if the behaviors subside for now. And do try to remember that it wasn't me who raised it in the arb discussion that brought you to my talk, so please-- again-- refrain from speaking to me like a delinquent. Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're not a delinquent, and you're certainly not like the conspiracy theorist who has been emailing me his theory that flying an aircraft over a national monument generates a psychic tornado that will cause the next world war (and it isn't fair that he isn't allowed to use Wikipedia as a site to publicise his theory to the governments of the world). But I don't think you realise that persistently accusing another editor of something that you never substantiate is, on the English wikipedia, considered a personal attack that can lead to a block. If someone does it to you, I'll block them. If you do it to someone else, I would with regret have to block you - something I hope never happens, hence my advice. If you don't think you raised it at ANI (which is where I noticed you doing it), then you are doing it without thinking about it, something you perhaps need to watch, as I am sure that you are normally completely completely deliberate about what you type in the edit box. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ya know, there's a difference between "conspiracy theorists" and recognizing incompetence-- the evidence on BarkingMoon wasn't all that difficult. But, I guess I'm just odd, after all. A block log wouldn't trouble me in the slightest ... after being hammered by The Signpost, do you think I'm concerned about some ASCII characters associated with my "good name" on Wikipedia, which is just a website (albeit one dangerous enough wrt misinfo that it can't be ignored)? Better yet, since you feel the need to threaten me as if I were a delinquent child or random troll ... why not strip me of my bits? Or relieve me of my FAC duties from which I derive so much "power and glory"? Oh ... wait ... well, whatever!!! I'm becoming more and more aware that when the arbs decide to protect someone-- or not-- no amount of evidence makes a difference anyway, which brings us back to the original question. Why spend a month writing up and putting up voluminous evidence when conclusions are foregone anyway? I believe I've already given you my answer, yet you pretend to lecture me. Now, that is odd for sure. So, carry on keeping the Wiki safe for the children in Africa. I think I've done my part, at least with respect to the mainpage, although the place is still 80% POV poorly sourced, copyvio, and misinfo. Since I see little concern here for what FAC-- and the editors who work to create top content-- has been through for more than two months-- when you all had the chance to stem part of it with BarkingMoon right in front of your eyes-- there's little reason to believe that either the WMF nor the arbs nor any part of the governance of this place is concerned about content and the people who create it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just making you aware of what has become a community norm that I've found myself enforcing, that you might not have been aware of, and offering my assistance if you have a problem with another editor. The things I say are factual - I do not routinely lie. It is not my responsibility if you choose not to believe me. If you rather interpret this as a threat, or prefer to believe I'm part of a conspiracy against you, I have no control over that either. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you for informing me; I'm such an ignorant dweeb I couldn't figure out any of that myself, and the world is so much safer now I've been made aware. Perchance the next time you see editors destroying FAC, you'll feel compelled to have a little chat with them as well. Now, if you think there's still something that's isn't getting through my thick blonde brain, how about asking Kirill to come over and chat with me? You see, we go waaaay back, and he's never underestimated my goodwill or talked down to me. Best regards, always yours, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you point me at an editor who is destroying FAC, I will. For the rest, I would recommend that personalising everything I say as an insult probably isn't helping here, but you'd probably take that as an insult. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no insults-- just two adults having a conversation. Sorry, there should be no need to point anyone to anything, considering how long it's been going on, and how many were silent every time it came up at ANI. But all's well that ends well, and you can't make this stuff up: the Rlevse ending was just the icing on the cake at what we've had to put up with for months. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Will Beback's information has come to light, perhaps you (Elen) can understand my attitude: you all let FAC pay a price. Having reviewed your earlier responses on the arbcom talk thread, ~~I wouldn't be at all displeased if you acknowledged that you've lost (at least this part of the community's) trust, and resigned from Arbcom.~~ Your responses on the arbcom talk thread stand out as having declined to see any possibility that BarkingMoon might be at least a meatpuppet for Rlevse, in spite of you all knowing the connection. ~~Convince me you weren't being deceptive-- or at least coy-- in those responses.~~ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I'm not sure how you've come to some of the conclusions you posted yesterday.

You implied Rlevse leaked the arbcom-l content -- from all I can tell that's not plausible since he was removed from the list way before the leak, and would not have had access to some of the material that was leaked.
allegation that BarkingMoon was a family member or associate, ArbCom failure to act -- As has been said before, checkuser data was apparently clear that they are not the same, so this was not a clear cut case. When BarkingMoon left there wasn't really anything left that /needed/ to be done in such murky circumstances. The SPI was closed by an SPI clerk referring everyone to start an RfC instead; that part was in my opinion a mistake (and Hersfold enforcing the close was also bad) since the suspicion on multiple account abuse should have been led to a conclusion there. But in reality it made no matter: It was clear to everyone that if Rlevse returned all those concerns would need to be addressed, and Rlevse knew that it was expected from him to address any open issues if he returned -- I even made that explicit to him back then. I'm interested to know what other action should have been taken here by Arbcom?
you all let FAC pay a price -- Closely related to the above, what action could have prevented PumpkinSky to appear, edit like he did, and continue old disputes at that FAC RfC? Arbcom could not have done anything here.
[Elen or Arbcom has] declined to see any possibility that BarkingMoon might be at least a meatpuppet for Rlevse -- In Elen's first reply she acknowledged that it was known they were "related in some way". A suspicion of meatpuppetry or editing by proxy (human or IP) follows from that automatically. How do you figure that anyone declined the possibility?

Amalthea 11:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded at WT:AN [3]-- seriously, I understand this is moving fast, but y'all need to get on the same page and stop what looks like intimidation of those trying to sort this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't imply that I'm in any way intimidating you. I'm not. My interpretation of your comments from yesterday is that you suspect a huge conspiracy behind this. To the best of my knowledge, there's no such thing. I'll reply to your question of what got me into the whole thing at WT:AC in a few minutes, and I would appreciate if you would reconsider answering my questions in return -- because I honestly think you're up a blind alley by chasing after Arbcom here. Again, to the best of my knowledge, they are giving straight answers, at least as straight as they have them themselves. Amalthea 15:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the intimidation tactics were coming from you (I'm sorry my threading left that impression, I can see why it did), nor do I suspect a huge conspiracy. I do suspect a healthy amount of incompetence combined with a fair amount of being overworked and not caught up with the community, and a failure to extend to CLEAN users the same deference that is extended to CLEANSTART and RTV users. Yes, they're giving straight answers, but they're also behind, and I'd appreciate having the same courtesty extended to me and FAC that is given elsewhere. Specifically, I don't appreciate EotR coming over here to tell me to give them the goods or shut up, when that hasn't resulted in anything but a mess of conflicting information in these cases, with the community being told by Keegan to lay off. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that only took an hour. Have you considered giving replies to my four specific questions above? Amalthea 17:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed :) OK, which of the questions above did I not address in my responses over at the arb talk page? I was hoping not to repeat it all over here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the link you gave? None I think. 1) You implied (and stated elsewhere) that Rlevse leaked the arbcom-l list, which I'm certain is impossible. Ok, that's not a question. 2) You allege that Arbcom failed to act. Despite the confusion, I think an arbcom member did one thing too many: They enforced the SPI close. As explained above I think they had to kick it back to the community to decide per behavior, but there wasn't anything else to do. What do you think they should have done back then, specifically? 3) You say they did something to allow PumpkinSky disrupt your FAC RfC. What could they have possibly done to prevent that? 4) You say that Elen or Arbcom dismissed possibility of meatpuppetry, but I see that she has acknowledged that with her first comment. How do you come to that conclusion that? Amalthea 17:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

← And the hilarious thing is that Raul and you keep saying/implying that arbcom is deliberately refusing to answer your questions, when it proves to be just as difficult for me to get answers from you. Amalthea 17:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I was behind when I replied above "I noticed" (I thought you were referring to the boomerang 3RR having taken you away, and hadn't yet seen your response on the arb page, which I now have seen). And to echo Raul, yes, thank you for your diligence and good work on the PumpkinSky/BarkingMoon issues.

On 1, I've added more followup on the arb page about the arb leaks, it's now clear to me, wasn't before (because to my knowledge they never stated what has now been said there-- if they have, I've never seen it before). On 2, I spose it's unfair to say arb, when it's a former arb who gave out the non-answer on BarkingMoon that shut things down (which is my concern-- the community being shut down and prevented from further investigation when technical data is inconclusive). I'm not concerned about what they did or didn't do with Rlevse: I am concerned that they look into any other instances, or allow the community to do so without threats. On 4), Elen's very first comment refers to a "sock", and I responsed to that. I'm not inquring about socks, I'm inquiring about CLEANSTART. And on your final point, the only arb to address that has been Kirill, who basically said they haven't looked. Kirill is talking "to" me, addressing my concern, while Elen was talking "at" me, missing my question, and Kirill I think knows me better than Elen. So, I think all that was already answered by me, either here, or on arb talk, and don't think your "hilarious" final statement is warranted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not warranted, really? I find that you keep evading or misunderstanding or skipping questions I ask. And you say that arbcom is evading or not answering your questions. When that happens to you, you get angry and suspect a deliberate act or incompetence (that's my impression at least). But you do the same thing (in my impression at least). For example, you still haven't answered my third question (what could arbcom have done to prevent PumpkinSky), and I've asked you four times already.
Not that the exact answer matters too much, the actual point I was trying to make is that you are attacking the wrong people, with what I think are incorrect assumptions. Being on guard is one thing, and questioning matters and especially authorities is always good, but the fact is that everyone at arbcom means *well*. Yes, everyone, and yes, fact, at least based on every insight I ever gained at any point. Mistakes are made, particularly in hindsight, but they are doing their best. When you say "they just sat back and watched us squirm" you imply they are sadists, and working against you -- and you have zero basis in fact, since they didn't know, and couldn't possibly have prevented PumpkinSky from editing (at least not without sacrificing privacy policy and routinely checkusering everyone).
Amalthea 17:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh goodness, I missed one of your questions because I was reading and responding in edit mode! Please don't pretend that you know everything, or that you know what I'm thinking or what my motives are (sadists, indeed, for goodness sake, try Hanlon's razor instead). Rlevse is not my primary concern, and perhaps there are issues you aren't aware of. It looks to me like you're stirring the pot as the rest of us are trying to make peace, acknowledge that mistakes were made, and move on. Ok, good-bye, it's been nice talking with you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
just briefly touching base again. It seems the above discussion went from one misunderstanding to the other, and I'm sorry for that. It's somwhat ironic since during these days I pretty much exclusively wanted to correct misunderstandings and clear up what I thought were misjudgements. I felt partly responsible for how the whole situation developed last week, and it was frustrating to see people blamed who I thought were completely blameless.
Anyhow, see you around. Amalthea 17:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

When an FAC fails, do you have to wait 2 weeks to re-nominate just that article, or can you nominate a different article before the 2 weeks is up? Aaron • ^{You Da One} 18:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That restriction applies to any article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks. What are the rules for when an article is promoted? Aaron • ^{You Da One} 19:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

then you can put up another one right away. In fact, if you have an article close to promotion, only waiting for an image review, for example, you can ask a delegate for permission to put up another. Or, if you have a FAC that was archived with no feedback, and the backlog is down, a delegate may also grant you an exemption from the two-week wait. All flexible, depends on the situation ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 19:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turning Point

Sandy, have your concerns at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Turning_Point_(2008)/archive4 been addressed? Ucucha (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I looked, no -- I will get over there today, Ucucha. I Am So Sorry :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diff mess up

Sorry for messing up your diff on ANI. I could not permit Rlevse to violate Will's copyright to the email in that manner per WP:EMAILABUSE. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I only deleted the revisions, I did not oversight/suppress them. Any admin can still view them. MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever watched the video of a deposition, or of a congressman grilling a hostile witness? Yea, that's how I'm starting to feel when it comes to getting straight answers from the arbitration committee regarding Rlevse. It's also where questions like these come from. Raul654 (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here we all knew all along that something wasn't right, and they just sat back and watched us squirm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raul, what questions of yours do you feel were left unanswered or were evaded, specifically? Amalthea 11:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know everything the arbitration committee isn't telling us about Rlevse. They knew about Barkingmoon and JoJo and decided not to disclose either until after I/we had found out about them from other sources. They're happy to answer your questions once you've already found out the answers elsewhere. I'm getting tired of playing that game. I want full disclosure, now. And as of this writing, they still have not answered that question. Raul654 (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not as if they have a file on him. At least I wouldn't imagine they did, he wasn't ever sanctioned. The concerns by Will Beback were sent to them two years ago (we had two arbcom elections since!). Remember that you couldn't puzzle together how he briefly came back after his initial retirement? It's no different for them, and I don't think anyone started researching the archives (not even sure how they're keeping them anymore post-leak) because I don't think they saw even a reason to look.
Like I said above, I am convinced they are giving as straight answers as they can, at least it always matches with everything I know. There is no conspiracy. They have no reason to cover anything up.
Other unanswered questions beside "I want to know everything"? :)
Amalthea 15:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amalthea, I can't speak for Raul, but I'm afraid you, they, someone is missing my point. When technical evidence is inconclusive, they toss it back to the community for behavioral evidence, at the same time that an ex-arb shut down the SPI from advancing with vague information, at the same time that another CU is trying to shut down investigation of behavioral evidence. I don't care what happens in the Rlevse case: I want to know how we're supposed to proceed in other cases with this amount of contradictory, even threatenging, information. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a completely different question, but from Raul and your comments I often read suspicions that Arbcom is willfully and deliberately harming you. You behave aggressively when there's no need for it. You do not assume good faith. Amalthea 17:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sandy - at this point, the community is aware of Rlevse's sockpuppetry and his blatant violations of RTV. (It dismays me greatly that so many editors think RTV is some sort of revolving door, but that's something we'll have to deal with later) I think we've reached the point of diminishing returns for the time you and I put in. Why don't we go deal with FA and related stuff? Raul654 (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I've only got one thing left to do-- apologize to EotR for yesterday (arbs are overworked, can't blame them for not being caught up on everything), then nothing left to be gained here. FAC needs attention, the disruption has gone on long enough, but the next time Sue Gardner lobs one our direction for others to take advantage of, I'll react the same way. Let 'em block me-- couldn't care less. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Giraffe

Spotchecks are done, but I don't think the nom'll be thankful for that...you might want to take a look. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get over there, but I suspect you're confirming what I suspected from my first foray into the sources there. Ugh, will look as soon as I can. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I've checked one of LittleJerry's GAs and the problem exists there as well. Not really even paraphrasing, just copying and pasting from sources with 1 or 2 words changed. --Laser brain (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It continues to frustrate me, and beats the heck outta me, why or how reviewers can Support without looking at sources. How long has that FAC been on the page? And that sort of business is what wore me down. Are we in such dire need of getting more FAs on high profile, vital, or high page view topics, that we can't remember that WP:V is a core policy? But I've been singing that tune for years ... oh, well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I just followed your contribs to find that sample, which leads to another rant I've been on for at least five years: GOCE. The same GOCE editor who edited Ciudad Bolivar and missed the outrageous copyvio there also edited that article. [4] GOCE folks tend to smooth out prose without ever consulting a source, and since the very early days of the Project, I've been asking how-- when so many articles need copyediting-- they can engage in contests to edit articles that are poorly sourced or contain copyvio. Would ya think they could make sure an article is adequately sourced before wasting time on it, and worse-- they make a crap article "look good" to our readers by improving the prose, when the text needs to be most deleted, instead of misleading our readers!! I raised this concern YEARS ago at GOCE: just like DYK, no change. Reward culture: GOCE has a contest on, so they charge right through 'em, smoothing out prose on text that shouldn't even be there, which to me only misleads our readers into thinking they're reading something ... good. Yet GOCE is unaccountable to anyone anywhere, and they put their "stuff" in articlehistory-- like, so what? 16:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) The diff b/w GOCE and DYK is that the former's errors are innocent errors of omission. Having said that, yes, GOCE needs to be aware that an article is a whole entity, and just because you're ce'ing doesn't mean that you can't at least use that copyvio script thingie (where is it?) and a good dose of common sense while doing so. Ling.Nut3 (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here. But you're better off just reading the source (we've got the Project overtaken now with folks who think that copying structure and altering a few words so they won't be picked up by the duplication detector is OK.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ling. :) That's what I was going to say about GOCE. They mean well, but sometimes it's putting lipstick on a pig. --Laser brain (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've been raising that issure for years, and Diannaa has it in for me, so you go over there and hit them with a clue stick, Nutty One. It's worse than putting lipstick on a pig: they're doing it now to win awards, and by editing over copyvio and non-reliable sources, they obscure copyvio, waste time (more worthy articles should be copyedited), and make our readers think they're getting lipstick instead of a pig. I'd rather see a crap article that never gets read, than a copyedited article that is based on blogs, which is exactly what I found with Ciudad Bolivar. Well, it wasn't copyedited either, which makes me wonder, why hold a contest? Who checks? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The tool you linked is other than the one i found, User:CorenSearchBot/manual. And i went to WT:GOCE, only to find someone else had just suggested the same thing a week ago. That's where I found that link, in fact. Ling.Nut3 (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Five years old, no change. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a happier story: I used to bitch at MILHIST about copyvio even after passing A-review. Now they look at me like, "What.. are... you.. talking about?" Seems like they've fixed it.Ling.Nut3 (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good, get them to do same on images :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, put me in a dress and call me disappointed. I've tried to be sensitive to concerns that plagiarists are shamed and chased off the project, but here, LittleJerry doesn't respond well even to AGF and offers of coaching. I wonder what I was supposed to do. --Laser brain (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lordy, have you forgotten the beginning of this? Just read the top part: BTDT. Anyway, approaching people on copyvio is always difficult (perhaps avoid starting a section with the title "Plagiarism"-- it can be tough :). The Queen of the Technique is Moonriddengirl-- you might post a link over to her, and ask her for ideas of how to proceed next time, 'cuz there is always a next time :) :) In "the good 'ole days" one of us smartypants might have written a Dispatch with guidance on how to proceed in these cases ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will ping MoonRiddenGirl. Selfishly, I love it when people do things like this. Can't hurt to ask. Ling.Nut3 (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MRG did write something up for Milhist's Bugle – see the op-eds from September and October 2010. You could always have her tweak it for any updates since then and republish it in the Dispatches... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MRG's approach to copied content

the TL:DR version

Avoid accusatory language and tone, but clearly present your evidence and the policies. Remember WP:AGFC. This is generally very embarrassing for people and some distress is normal. Start friendly and go businesslike if needed. But keep an eye on the ones who attack you as if you've threatened their lives, especially if they don't calm down after their gut response. This may indicate extensive issues.

Hi. :) I can do. Or I could even write an OpEd on how to handle copyright problems without the fuss and drama. I loathe the fuss and drama. :/ It makes what should be a clean, simple task huge and messy.

First, my initial approach is to present the problem in neutral terms (agreed, Sandy, that careful handling of the term plagiarism is required :D) in the best way possible to avoid shaming the individual but also in a way that eliminates as much as possible the knee-jerk defensiveness of the contributor. For example:

example approach

Hi, SandyGeorgia. Thank you for your work on Foo. I'm afraid, though, that some of the content follows very closely on your sources. For example, I find the following passage in [url source]

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam aliquet laoreet lorem eu eleifend. Phasellus elit dui, elementum ut consectetur et, elementum sed mi. Vivamus et nibh vel odio ullamcorper dictum. Aliquam non augue sem, et lacinia mauris. Maecenas venenatis lorem adipiscing metus vehicula at condimentum magna bibendum. Morbi commodo.

You placed this text into the article:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing odio. Ullamcorper etiam aliquet laoreet lorem eu eleifend. Phasellus elit dui, elementum ut consectetur et [...]. Vivamus et nibh vel odio ullamcorper dictum. [...] Maecenas venenatis lorem adipiscing metus vehicula at condimentum magna bibendum. Morbi commodo.

To make it clearer where duplication occurs, I've bolded precisely duplicated text. ([...] indicates where text has been removed.) The non-bolded text is minimally altered from the original.

I don't usually approach people about plagiarism concerns, but copyright issues. However, this beginning works either way. I would not thank Sandy for her work on Foo, because for an experienced contributor, that would probably be condescending. :) I'd do that for Sandy's little sister, who hasn't been with us long. "Fix the problem; keep the contributor" is my goal.

The really important point there is the example. I generally look for one solid example, but if the problem is numerous fragments sometimes will point out three or four of those instead. The example is crucial, in my opinion, to prevent the inevitable "nuh-uh". It's also helpful if talk page stalkers are inclined to defend a friend, as it bypasses the "prove it!" phase and can start them off on a more productive "Oh, okay. This is a problem, so what do we do" vein.

Having made my case, that there is duplicated content, I could then explain why this is an issue, carefully avoiding any assignment of blame. The following approach presumes that I'm still dealing with Sandy's little sister.

copyrighted source?
I'm afraid that copying content in this way from a copyrighted source is a problem under our copyright policy. While we are permitted to use brief, clearly marked quotations consistent with non-free content guideline and policy, we are required by policy to rewrite all other information from these sources in our own words and structure.

plagiarized from a free source?

While our copyright policies do allow us to copy content from public domain or compatibly licensed sources, there are extra steps required on Wikipedia by Wikipedia:Plagiarism. If copying or closely following a public domain or compatibly licensed source, we have to explicitly acknowledge that we are copying. Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Attributing text copied from other sources sets out the procedures for doing so. If a source is public domain, this is a simple matter of conforming to community standards. When the source is compatibly licensed, it may be required by law.

I try to remember to use the plural pronoun to make it sound less like I'm accusing and to emphasize that the rules apply to everybody. I link to policies and guidelines for two reasons: first, it provides instruction; second, like the examples, it takes away the instinctive self-defense. The policies are right there.

My approach from there varies a whole lot based on the factors in the case. I'm assuming that the problem was not extensive enough to require me to blank the article. If I've removed the content, I'd say something like, "I've removed the problematic content for now so that it can be rewritten in compliance with our policies. Wikipedia:Copy-paste gives a brief overview of our practices." If I've rewritten it myself, I might say, "I've rewritten the problematic content" but would still link WP:C-p as a "for future reference".

If I'm dealing with Sandy, my approach depends on (a) when the issue happened, (b) how extensive the issue is, and (c) whether or not there are signs that Sandy's done this before. (My approach is always dependent on those, but it's especially important with heavily active users.) If it's old, I might say, "This was some time ago, and I'm sure you're now aware of the limitations imposed by copyright policy, but this still needs to be addressed...." If it's recent and there's no signs of history (in prior talk notes or a spot check), I would present it instead more as a slip up and remind that we have to be careful always with this issue.

Then I brace myself. Because no matter how much you try to reduce the sting, some people are seriously offended. That's human nature for you. :) I try to respond only to their substantive concerns, and not to the tone of their comments. As long as possible, I pretend we're having a friendly conversation. But if they start getting really abusive, I start getting businesslike. And I start looking deeper. I have very seldom encountered extended belligerence from people in whom the habit is not deeply ingrained. It's one of my red flags that we may be looking at a CCI. Sometimes, of course, it turns out that they're simply really defensive people. But there's a high enough correlation in my own experiences that I always check just in case. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you!

Just a note to say that I'm sorry for the abuse you've taken at the hands of a certain pretended-to-be-new user. Your contributions are valued, and make Wikipedia a better place. Just because I may never work up the courage to brave the FAC process on anything myself doesn't mean I don't appreciate the work you have done. Likewise, while I respect the right of dissent and feedback, pretending to be new when you're not is dishonest and inappropriate, and I'm sorry that happened to you. Jclemens (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question re: Spanish source

I think Augusto Mijares is too close to [5] and [6], but my Spanish is not that good. Would you agree? Do you read Spanish? It's not my strongest language...even leaving aside the one I was born. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind; it doesn't matter, at least not immediately. I've reached the CCI level of confirmed copying and will open the investigation as per your suggestion. Thanks for finding this. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please disengage

SandyGeorgia, how would you feel if I were to be popping up in discussions involving you all over the wiki? Instead, I am doing my best to disengage from interaction with you. Please do me the same courtesy, so that I don't have to start throwing another handful of diffs at your talkpage. --El on ka 00:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that diffs will help support your claim that a "FAC clique" (and specifically Ucucha) is keeping your nomination from advancing because he's asking for the same thing that is asked for in every nomination, throw 'em up; I'm sure plenty will review your posts and help you gain a better understanding of routine processes. By the way, this ArbCom finding might help guide your future allegations against Ucucha. "All over the Wiki?" Is FAC that important? And goodness, such manners: yes, if I had been able to spotcheck your sources, your FAC might have advanced weeks ago, but since you insisted I stay out, you had to wait for someone to show up. Yes, you're quite welcome for all my efforts to get someone to review it for you ... hope you can return the favor sometime! I do, though, find it curious that you are personalize all feedback to such an extent that you aren't able to see or appreciate efforts to help your FAC nomination advance. Perhaps think about that a bit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]