User talk:SandyGeorgia: Difference between revisions

FACs needing feedback ; view • edit
Mission: Impossible – Fallout	Review it now
Galileo project	Review it now
Worlds (Porter Robinson album)	Review it now
I'm God	Review it now

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:01, 7 March 2010

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

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

To leave me a message, click here.

Tools and other
useful things

Some of
my work

Nice
things

Yukky
things

Hugo Chavez

Could you please remember to observe WP rules on edit-warring in this article. You should not make more than 3 reversals in a 24 hour period. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Four Deuces, could you please try to be better informed than the statements you made last week at ANI? [1] Exactly what have I reverted? Even once. I have added tags that have been removed, twice I believe. [2] [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sent the same message to the other editor as well. Re-adding tags is a revert and I mentioned this because it is better to discuss these issues on the talk page or to invite outside opinion rather than continuous reversion. If you want to discuss reliable sources it is better to discuss it on the article's talk page or the RS noticeboard. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are misinformed (see example). I don't much care who else you sent the message to, but thanks for the info :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You asked me for useful and reliable links to improve Hugo Chávez's article. Here they are: [4], [5] and [6]. Good luck! --Lecen (talk) 02:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! (I already had one of those.) You can park sources at User talk:SandyGeorgia/Chavez sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I might be wrong, but I've noticed that in Hugo Chávez article there are many staunch supporters of him who try to maintain the text with a clearly biased tone and prevent any change to it with endless discussions in the talk page that won't take to nowhere, right? --Lecen (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sums it up :) Although things are improving recently. Some of them don't understand Wiki policies at all and misrepresent (check these examples[7] [8]), and use the fact that they outnumber *me* (the only editor attempting NPOV) to prevent any article improvement. Any argument is used to stall talk page discussion, while no article improvement via editing occurs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chavez rejects report citing rights violations: [9] [10] --Lecen (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already added that, see Hugo Chavez. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is one is a very good article: [11] --Lecen (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks-- I saw that. No, he's not running scared (that's not part of the way his brain works), and "vete para el carajo" is a lot stronger than "go to hell"-- it's more like go to f'ing hell"-- and not the way polite people address each other, much less fellow presidents in important international meetings. It's quite embarrassing, how he makes Venezuelans look so uncivilized. Thanks, again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that a better translation, although not a precise one, would be "Fuck yourself". Since you speak Spanish, you should take a look at this: [12] Chávez' support to Farc and ETA, two terrorist organizations. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that too, but haven't had time to search other sources; since it's one person's allegations, I'd rather not add it anywhere unless a high-quality mainstream source (like the BBC or NYT) picks it up. Not sure if they have yet ... but the Foreign policy article on Venezuela needs to reflect all of the issues between Chavez and Colombia, which I don't think it currently does. I can't do it all :) Thanks again ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuela FA's and the 1.0 bot

Hi Sandy. The problem with the featured articles listing is that the articles are not tagged with {{WikiProject South America}}, which is feeding the bot via the |Venezuela=yes argument. The missing articles are tagged with {{WikiProject Venezuela}} instead, which is not set up to propagate assessment information. That said, I'm not sure that having two templates to do the same thing is a good idea... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tito, that's probably fallout from when someone (long ago) tried to delete the Ven Project-- I can't recall who or where. Can't the South America project be adjusted? Or do I need to find a bot (I don't speak bot) to get all of the Ven articles tagged correctly? Someone made a mess there, and we have no way to track Ven articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is also possible to make the WP Venezuela template to feed into the same category as the South America/Venezuela template, which would probably be easier. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak any of those languages, Tito; I just want to figure out how to get all the Venezuelan articles tagged and identified, and don't know where to even start. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can do it, as long as I know I won't get my head chopped off for some bizarre reason... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even speak the language well enough to know what you would get your head chopped for :) I do know I was pretty bugged when the editor whose name I can't remember went about obliterating WP Venezuela! If you can make everything work, I'd be much obliged, since our templates now show only 48 Ven articles. Saludos, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, {{WikiProject Venezuela}} has been updated, so that articles tagged with it will now go into subcategories of Category:Venezuela articles by quality. These are the same categories used by {{WikiProject South America|Venezuela=yes}}; the only catch is that the class= parameter in {{WikiProject Venezuela}} needs to have the rating (FA, A, etc) added for each article. Thus there are currently ~500 articles in Category:Unassessed Venezuela articles. Dr pda (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, you are the most amazing deadly silent talk page stalker!! When you have some free time, can you figure out how many joke threads there have been on my talk page :) :) Thank you so much for fixing that; there are only a couple of FAs, and no GAs, so I'll be able to add the class parameters quickly. The next time someone sends me chocolate or champagne, the champagne is all yours ... I'm done for this year! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The silence is because I am mostly checking WP at work. I'm afraid counting the joke threads is beyond my skill to do automatically (unless I just count the ones Moni3 contributes to :) ) But on that note, your comment below amused me, as the first thing I thought when reading was "I could write a script to count that", but again I was at work, and felt an obligation to ... work :) Dr pda (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr, the assessments on FAs and GAs aren't feeding the categories: see Talk:El Hatillo Municipality, Miranda, still showing as unassessed. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tested a few: importance is working, but class isn't ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only ones populating the quality cats are those using the South American template (ex: Talk:Spanish language). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should be working now. At least, it worked on Talk:Mimolaia diversicornis. Ucucha 03:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is! Thanks so much to both of you! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

Once again, can you please provide a rationale for the closure of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Killswitch Engage/archive2 before there was consensus? Only 6 members made comments on the entire FAC, and one was an oppose where the issues have been resolved, but the opposer wasn't able to reply before closure. I even posted on the metal wikiproject for others to review it, yet nobody did so. If you personally oppose it, I invite you to comment on how it could be brought to FA quality; all issues that were brought to me have been resolved in <24 hours, and the majority have been resolved in <2 hours. Thanks, TheWeakWilled (T * G) 17:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the delay: I got busy and lost track of this. It had been up three weeks, and had no support. That is often indicative that reviewers are reluctant to engage, often for valid reasons. The best course of action is to bring back a very clean FAC after a few weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tomlinson

Hi Sandy, don't worry about the delay. I'll ping Carabinieri again in case he doesn't realize we're waiting for his comments. He should be okay now that the embedded links are gone from the text, as that was the only concern of his that was outstanding. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 17:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have pinged him. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 17:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, thank you. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 20:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think your template idea worked out well: see here. Thanks for suggesting it! SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice! (I'm not crazy about the blue at TS, but don't know how to change it.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way to change the colour at TS is to change every example of #cedff2; which is the blue. If you look at the template in edit mode, you can see that colour repeated four times, so you would change those, either to the same colour, or you can have stripes. Choose from list of colors and go wild. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you keep stats?

Iridescent suggested earlier that I may have one of the lowest support to oppose ratios of any FAC reviewer,[13] and I suspect (s)he may be right. Do you keep records of that kind of thing? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I could have you beat ... I rarely Supported, and the number of opposes at FAC seems to have decreased since my absence as a reviewer :) I'd have to go back through each FAC to tally them. On the other hand, if Dr pda sees this, who knows what may happen! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it a difficult balancing act. It's easy to oppose on one criterion or another, but rather harder to support on all of them. I could easily have opposed one recently promoted FA instead of doing what amounted to a peer review on the talk page, but the result was worth the effort, hopefully for the nominator as well. There are some subjects though that I really couldn't be arsed to spend that much time on, so I suppose to that extent the system is a little unfair. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus, if I may be so frank, I was surprised to see you doing reviews! I thought you'd dedicated your time to article writing. Nevertheless, it's a good thing you're on board - we have a lot of iffy prose reviewers, myself included, who could use your insight. And as for the largest number of opposes, I bet Tony1 has you beat. Not that he's aggresive when opposing, but he makes sure that FAs are at a very high standard and nothing subpar is let in. ceranthor 01:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised to see you say that. I've got no idea how many FA reviews I've done, perhaps SandyG knows, but I've done well over 400 GA reviews, and from early on I felt that GA was important. Many of the early spats that SandyG and I had were over GA. Obviously though I feel that FA is important as well, else I wouldn't be wasting my time there. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I don't have comprehensive stats ... only those three months that I ran once, when I was giving awards, before FAC came under fire. Malleus ! The only "spat" I remember with you was when you called Marskell an old man <harrrrumphhhh > ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was that Marskell? Can't remember. Didn't I once call you a slag, or was that someone else? I've called so many people so many different things, I really ought to maintain a database so as to avoid this kind of confusion. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying I was unfamiliar with seeing you do reviews, I just haven't seen one from you in a while. Of course I still see you around GAN sometimes. In fact, the first GAN I reviewed you helped mediate a somewhat out of hand review process. Remember Sembawang Hot Spring? ceranthor 01:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the Sembawang article very well, and Santikhiri, another one that had the potential to turn nasty. I've been away from FAC for the same reason I've been away from GAN, which is GA Sweeps. Now that's just about finished normal service can hopefully be resumed. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Well, it's good to have you back. Awickert looked over the article btw, Sandy. In fact, he did so well he now has more edits than me. Pending alt text and some more searching, it'll be at FAC in around two weeks at best. ceranthor 02:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Make Awickert co-nom with you: it's about time he got some FA credit :) Malleus, yes, it was Marskell (I would never forget that, I was righteously indignant for far too long :), and when you called me a slag, I had to look it up! (Then you spoiled my contest.) Still better than that Brit, though ... I was cracking up, remembering that you hate musical theatre :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meckiff FAC

Hi Sandy, could you not shut this down for a while as Anon Diss and Laser brain have agreed to take a look at it. I am a bit surprised as I prepared normally like the other FACs and am trying tow ork through the issue YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Incivility blocks

Wikipedia talk:Incivility blocks. • Ling.Nut 09:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy..

I know you're very frustrated about the whole Matisse thing, may I make a suggestion? You can't let it get to you.. that's what they created that account for (in my opinion).. to go after you and to try to drag you down. You get frustrated, you snap at the next newbie who questions your judgment because you think it's possibly Mattisse? They win. Hope you understand where I'm coming from. SirFozzie (talk) 09:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do. Tomorrow will be a new day. Thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Madame MOS goddess?

Does the buttering up help? :) A quick question for you: Do FA-level articles using APA style referencing (although not parenthetical) need to include page numbers for anything other than quotes? I have run into an editor on a FAR that is claiming that they do not need to be included, and I am wondering if I may have missed this in my readings of Ealdgyth's and others' sourcing reviews. The FAR in question is of Soren Kierkegaard, with the FAR located at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Søren Kierkegaard/archive1. Thanks in advance for any help (by TPWs as well!). Dana boomer (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Dana, sorry for the delay. The answer, I think is: depends on the sources, the text being cited, etc (there are cases where we don't use page numbers, for example when citing journals in medical articles, but we generally do need them, and on a BLP, we almost always should have them). I'll look tomorrow or the next day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And my apologies in turn for the belated reply :) Your look over the article would be much appreciated, as the editor is now stating that they won't add page numbers for books unless that is added explicitly to the FA criteria. YellowMonkey and Eublides have already commented directly, and Ealdgyth indirectly, but it doesn't seem to be doing any good... Not sure if it's a battle you want to get into, but if you want to join the fray you'll be welcome! Dana boomer (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My view has always been that books need page numbers but journal articles don't. I don't think I've ever seen page numbers given in scientific journals when referencing other articles anyway. I don't think this this is anything to do with the FA criteria, more to do with common sense. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or, perhaps to put it more bluntly, if you can't tell me what page or pages in that book support what you've written then I don't believe that you've actually ever read that book. Checking a journal article is usually pretty straightforward; they have an abstract and they're usually pretty short. Books are a fish of an entirely different colour. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is always the concern, especially when an article is being upgraded at FAR. Do the new editors, working to save the FAR, actually have the books? If so, how easy is it to add page nos? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. I've tried to retrofit proper citations to several articles, one of which may even end up in your lap at FAC one day, but it's bloody hard work; much easier to put them in as you write. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

Sorry Sandy... MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your eyes will be old someday :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They already are; my prescription is pretty strong for a 20-year old! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It gets worse: I got a new prescription a few weeks ago, but I can't remember where I put it, so I haven't been able to get new glasses :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It fell behind the drawer, the one you put stuff in. --Moni3 (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got more than one drawer under lock and key. That doesn't help :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third one down on the right. --Moni3 (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: I checked all five of those. I found 1) lots of hair clips, 2) newspaper clippings of the end of the Red Sox 86-year drought, 3) Wii instructions, 4) newspaper clippings and files re Chavez, and 5) paper and cartridges for my printer. I think some Brit got hold of my handbag on my last trip. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

File:Alpha Capricorni.jpg		Thank You
		For your excellent and wonderful contributions at Wikipedia:Featured Article Candidates during the month of February 2010, you're truly a star! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV issues

I wouldn't know how to find discussions on this particular issue. Jayjg is someone you might want to ask—he's had lot of experience in trying to decide when a description of a commentator is justified and when not. He'd very likely have some good insights. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 20:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TFA

Sweet cuppin' cakes, I wasn't prepared for such a last minute decision! Did the bot just not have time to update the AH template? Эlcobbola _talk 00:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Raul squeaked in under the wire on that one, and GimmeBot hasn't been there yet. Have fun! I'll watchlist ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And it's 1:50. I'll put the kettle on... ;) Эlcobbola _talk 00:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go to sleep, and sort it tomorrow; that always works. Others will watch for anything atrocious. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, SandyGeorgia. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 02:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Jayjg ^(talk) 02:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias

Thanks for the defense - I was very tempted to go get some popcorn as I read through the back-and-forth. I am frustrated that the arbs don't seem to "get" this, although I'm sure part of it is probably my fault for not making the statement more clear. I'm not going to let Nancy get under my skin - don't let her get under yours either! Karanacs (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's disconcerting that the arbs don't see how draining the "drip, drip, drip" of toxicity can be on productive editors. I'm sorry you've had to endure so much for so long; I couldn't stay silent any longer, as the arbs did the same thing to me :) Hang in there :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a number of arbitrations on this theme and some arbs don't "get it" until way past the time when everybody else is in a state of screaming exasperation or black despair. Dismissing sources with WP:IDIDN'TSEETHAT, spinning out the same discussion over and over (and over and over (and over and over))again, claiming the previous disussion had a different result, packed "votes" for consensus - and all done without sufficient obvious incivility to trigger consequences. This went on for over a year on the attachment/child abuse/welfare/therapy articles. About twenty main ones and about 50 in total affected. However - arbcom did get it eventually so ~~nil~~ desperandum.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the time they eventually see what we deal with "in the trenches", productive editors pay too high of a cost, become discouraged, and waste time that could be spent developing articles. I, for one, am tired of seeing the bad faith and wildly inaccurate accusations hurled at Karanacs, by one who presents herself as "kind". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Going through it once is enough. It is when you realise productive editors are supposed to go through it time and again that it becomes not worth the cost. The inability of Wikipedia to deal in a timely fashion with long term, subtly disruptive editors who sap everyone elses energy is a real problem. (Struck the nil).Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. The (mis)behaviour hasn't changed after years of discussion. Thus, while it's on one level unfortunate that the arbs have proven to be injudicious, it may perhaps be a blessing. Surely there are other, non-futile endeavours more worthy of our time? Эlcobbola _talk 15:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why blame it on the Arbs? Maybe it's God's way of telling people to convert. --Moni3 (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it was God's way of telling me I reallllly need to work on learning patience and how to control my temper. Karanacs (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, that. Completely. Maybe Jimbo Wales is an instrument of God, and put Wikipedia here to teach us all that lesson. I've never edited the Catholic Church article or ventured into any of its FACs but I'm confronted with lessons of patience and temper control in many other articles and venues. I have learned it would be wrong tell people they are too stupid to pour piss out of a boot. It is wrong to tell others to stfu and work in their remedial English workbooks. It is wrong, you know, to call them cocksuckers who have too many chromosomes and other unfortunate genetic abnormalities. Wrong, I say. --Moni3 (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may perhaps be sub-optimal, depending on what it is you hope you achieve by such comments, but wrong? I'm not so sure. But then I don't believe in God, and I don't expect that he believes in me either. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I love my TPS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The case is gone now, officially declined and archived. I was in an ArbCom once; it was horrible. The only reason I got through it is because lots of other editors pitched in with advice, diffs, checking things, doing work that was too much for me to do alone, etc. The long and short of this is-- if Karanacs is left to deal with an arb alone, it's unlikely she can prevail against the number of others who rally around a cause (BTDT). The arbs are easily swayed by editors who have a supportive following, and don't see what we all deal with and how draining it is on productive editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah well look on the bright side. The Catholic Church may run it's own wikipedia article but it ain't running Europe anymore.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another arbcom request is perhaps another year or two or away, but if/when this is brought up again, it might be better to emphasise an example arbcom finding of fact--the chilling effect. For me, it is really sad to see decent neutral experts being driven away. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were the advocacy issues not presented, or did the arbs miss that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if someone brought up the advocacy issue, but despite the strong personalities involved, the arbs took it as a simple content dispute. How blind! It cannot be simply content problems; if editors are driven away by the poisoned atmosphere, then there must be behaviour problems somewhere. So either the arbs have failed Wikipedia in not taking the case or the point about neutral editors being driven away was not made clear to them. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was a list of all of the editors who were chased off supplied, or only samples (I didn't read the whole mess carefully)? I'm pretty sure just about every experienced FA writer has tried and given up over the years (although Moni recently said she had never engaged, and I don't recall seeing YM, Fuchs, or Cla in there-- but just about everyone else engaged the article or a FAC) ? More importantly, since an RFC/U was already ignored, what *is* the next step in dispute resolution, anyway ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby alert

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/County Route S18 (California)/archive1 Dabomb87 (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question for you about notes in the body

Hi SG,

A question - there used to be a note in the body of Tourette syndrome, much like an asterisk to a footnote in a book (i.e. an explanatory note rather than a reference) and it's not there anymore. I was hoping to use it as an example at talk:autism but since it's gone I was wondering if the idea had become deprecated at some point in the past. Any guidance?

As ever, your worshipful fan, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was also wondering where that note went: it was to the issue of trade names on drugs. Maybe check back to the version that was FAd, linked in the articlehistory? But I think there are new ways of doing it now; explain exactly what you're after, and probably one of my TPS will respond? SandyGeorgia (Talk)

Aw...that sounds like work...I'm lowering your infallability rating from an 11 to a 10.5. Out of 10.

See my edit here - it seems a way of usefully clarifying minor issues regarding person-first language without needing to add a lot of background. Somewhere between an explicit discussion and an . Eub. will see my comment no doubt and do his/her wonderful job of addressing it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, figured it out - Eub replaced it with a footnote in this edit. My personal preference would be to keep that notes section rather than using a footnote - it's not a reference and I think there's value in having a small number of those notes for clarification - again akin to a star* that refers to the bottom of a page. But I can't point to any poilcy/guideline-based reason for this. Also some ugly whitespace in the society and culture section, on my browser. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^*Like this one

So what rating do I get? −3 out of 10? I've never been a fan of multiple footnote sections, or the idea that one footnote is more "special" than another. It's unnecessarily complicated, both for the editor and the reader. For example, if you have one section for footnoted citations and another section for footnoted comments, what do you do with a footnote that contains both a citation and a comment? Also, articles so often get it wrong. For example, a few hours ago I reported in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Commerce Square/archive1 that its "special" footnotes (that used ^[a]) were busted: not only did the internal wikilinks not work, but the page had invalid HTML because of them. Urrk; this stuff is way too brittle. Just keep things simple and stick with one footnote section, and call it Notes and references if you don't like calling it References. Eubulides (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notes and references works for me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're both 12/10 for quality, quantity and general awesomeness. This is just the first time Sandy hasn't had an answer for me within minutes

I like the citation/note option because it does differentiate between the two - when I see a footnote I look for a citation, when I see an asterisk or hyperlinked superscript letter, I think comment. I don't see one as special and one as normal, I see them as different tools for different purposes. One makes me look for justification, one makes me look for nuance, and I've seen sources use both to good effect - though I perhaps flatter myself in being a more adept reader than the average high school graduate that's our target audience. I can't speak to the brittleness of the various tags and markup, but there are probably options that may work. Has there been any official discussion on any P or G pages? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno ... MOS and other guideline pages have gotten so out of control that I stopped trying to keep up with them ... and all associated little stuff :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, who knows what the MoS says from day to day? On a lighter note I'd like to share this with you. I doubt you've ever seen The Dubliners, but they were a terrific live act (haven't seen them play live for years), permanently pissed (in the Br English sense) and enjoying every minute of it. That's something worth aspiring to I think, at least as an alternative to being permanently pissed (in the American English sense) and forcing everyone around you to share in your misery. Mind you, I've just had a good part of a bottle of Merlot, so I may be a little biashed. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why, Malleus, you surprise! That's a real keeper!! It goes in my Very Important Music bookmark. Is that "biashed" supposed to be biased or bashed ? :) I ordered new eyeglasses today: turns out the frames I chose are called Pinot Noir -- that's been my week ! Thanks ... I shall cheerily promote tomorrow ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should cut down on my MoS visits too. The current RfC there is over whether one should write "London–New York flight" or "London – New York flight". What an utter waste of time, huh? I got involved there mostly because I got sucked in by MOS:ENDASH's bogus spacing rules (I didn't know they were bogus), and altered a bunch of medical articles to conform to them. After I discovered the problem (the current rules disagree with common practice, and were put in by stealth: off-wiki discussion, changes installed without discussion of consequences, no enforcement for a while, then after enforcement began and provoked sharp opposition, endless wikilawyering about "consensus"), I did penance by changing the medical articles to the style that high-quality academic publishers use so that (for example) cerebral dysgenesis–neuropathy–ichthyosis–keratoderma syndrome now ignores the MoS and spells it with unspaced endashes, the way decent medical journals do it. I suppose I should have let things ride in the MoS, but I dunno, I hate being taken for rides: it's one of my pet peeves. Eubulides (talk) 06:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

I wish to congratulate you on your recent edits, and may you live to be prosperous. Western Pines (talk) 05:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Giro d'Italia

Sandy, if you're promoting/archiving this morning, just a note that I'm looking at 2009 Giro d'Italia this morning and may be able to support in other half hour or so -- please don't archive it if you can hold off for a bit. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mike ... I'll start through in a few hours ... coffee beckons :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm done. I switched to weak support; I hope that it'll be enough to promote. Tony's right that the prose needs a tweak but I've done a little of that and I think it's nearly there.

This is the first review I've done (I think) since the "older" marker came in; it was interesting to see how it changed my behaviour. What I did was to jump straight to that marker, and then scan below it for articles that interested me. I picked American Beauty, and saw it had plenty of supports, so I scanned down till I found another article that was short on supports and opposes, and reviewed that. If others are doing this too then we should be seeing more intense activity below the "older" line. Are you noticing that? And conversely, are articles above the line getting less review activity until later on? Mike Christie (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeing better focus below the line, but I'm not sure yet if that's affecting FACs above the line. Have you looked outside? We're not supposed to be editing Wiki today :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAC...

I still have a monster headache, so I'm not going to get to source reviews until tomorrow, probably. If there is one you absolutely gotta have, let me know. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will, but the list size is manageable now, so I shouldn't need to bother you ... take care of your head :) And let me know on your travel followup when you can ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

change was accurate, not deceptive

The Daily Journal no longer exists in Venezuela. Therefore, the Correo del Orinoco International is the only English-language newspaper in Venezuela, and the first created during the Chavez administration. I was not lying! ˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evagolinger1 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAC page clean up

Hi! I saw your comments in the edit summaries of the 21st Mass FAC page. I'm new to this, sorry. Should I have been making the sort of clean-up edits you've been doing? Or is that the reviewers' job? I just don't want to step on toes. Thanks. Historical Perspective (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's completely uncontroversial (adding the unsigned tag, or moving a bolded support to the front of the setence where I'll easily see it on my first pass), it's fine for nominators to do that. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liberalism FAC

I also left a note on the talk page of Karanacs about this. I've decided to take down the FAC and, per your suggestions, nominate it for GA first. I'm not sure who's supposed to remove it so that's why I'm notifying you. Thank you.UberCryxic ^(talk) 22:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also please notify me immediately once you take it down because I want to start the GA process right away. Thank you.UberCryxic ^(talk) 22:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, Uber; I will close it now if someone else hasn't already gotten to it. Please see WP:FAC/ar and be sure to leave the templates in place until the bot goes through. Good luck at GAN, and I hope to see you back at FAC soon ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The peer review and the GA nomination are both live. I look forward to your comments.UberCryxic ^(talk) 00:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't be at PR and GAN at the same time; you should do the PR first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Can I just put it on hold for now?UberCryxic ^(talk) 00:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know; I don't follow GAN, so I don't know how you undo it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"On hold" is an option that I think they use precisely for these cases (when let's say there's also a PR open).UberCryxic ^(talk) 00:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, but I really don't know. A PR takes at least two weeks; the GAN should be closed, however that is done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On hold is used for when a reviewer puts the article on hold pending fixes. To close the GAN, just remove the article from the GAN page, with an edit summary of something like "removing (article name), PR first". Then remove the GAN tag from the talk page. Then sit back and wait for PR comments :) Dana boomer (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've just removed the GAN.UberCryxic ^(talk) 00:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Could you tone down the rhetoric a couple of notches? That thread is generating far more heat than light. Amid all the tl;dr from all sides in that thread I see you've raised a concern about this user editing under her real name, and whether we can prove it is her. I've asked her to email OTRS at info-en@wikimedia.org. WP:REALNAME does say that we may block accounts that use someone's real name, but it does not say that we must do so; getting email confirmation or asking them to change their username is a gentler way of dealing with it. Fences&Windows 01:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as you show any evidence that I've posted any rhetoric (particularly equivalent to yours), sure ! In the meantime, go find someone else to play with. I'm sure someone else will finally deal with this issue, after yet another AN/I circus fails to. And you can stop your attacks on me anytime you wish-- of course, at your pleasure, the risk is yours. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAC review ?

I'd love to Sandy, both review it and help bring it up to FAC status, but I don't think I'm allowed to. :-( Jayjg ^(talk) 03:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 258: / Line 258: @@
 Could you tone down the rhetoric a couple of notches? That thread is generating far more heat than light. Amid all the tl;dr from all sides in that thread I see you've raised a concern about this user editing under her real name, and whether we can prove it is her. I've asked her to email OTRS at info-en@wikimedia.org. WP:REALNAME does say that we may block accounts that use someone's real name, but it does not say that we must do so; getting email confirmation or asking them to change their username is a gentler way of dealing with it. [[User:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:red;">Fences</span>]]<span style="background-color:white; color:grey;">&amp;</span>[[User talk:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:black;">Windows</span>]] 01:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 : As soon as you show any evidence that I've posted any rhetoric (particularly equivalent to yours), sure !  In the meantime, go find someone else to play with. I'm sure someone else will finally deal with this issue, after yet another AN/I circus fails to.  And you can stop your attacks on me anytime you wish-- of course, at your pleasure, the risk is yours.  [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 01:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
+== FAC review ? ==
+I'd love to Sandy, both review it and help bring it up to FAC status, but I don't think I'm allowed to. :-( [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 03:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)