User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch67

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Wikipedia talk:Incivility blocks

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Oops

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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.

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

The article has been protected again by Tom harrison. I am writing here because I just started my involvement with this article about a week or so ago and I noticed that Nancy Heise linked to this specific subsection in your talk page in a recent comment she made on Raul's talk page. The prospects for dispute resolution, from what I can tell in my time there, do not look good. However, I have noticed that the behavior has improved somewhat recently. It's not acceptable by any stretch of the imagination, but judged against the past, it's a big step up.UberCryxic ^(talk) 03:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Driveby alert

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

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

And another: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Walt Disney/archive1. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

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 <!-- invisible comment -->. 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)

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)

---

^*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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Please feel free to e-mail me for more details. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Simple courtesy

I noticed your attempts to divert the debate there and to drag my name into the mud. Perhaps you could either "put up or shut up"; in case you don't know what that means, it means that allegations of "admin abuse" should always be accompanied with diffs, or you may end up looking silly. You don't really have any esteem left to lose as far as I am concerned, but I am sure there are others who you wouldn't want to look a fool in front of. So, either "put up" some diffs if you think I have done anything actionable, or else "shut up" and get on with something useful. Thank you. --John (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm doing just fine without your sanctimonious advice; you might worry about bigger issues than "looking silly" :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice. How's your list coming on? Do you think that might look a little bit silly? Just a tiny bit pompous? --John (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

John, besides being uncivil, you're boring -- and that's way worse than uncivil :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes well. You're sounding like a surly teenager there, which makes me think I've made my point. Was it the Young Ones Rick to whom everything in the adult world was "bowwing"? I forget. I know you're a good person who has made good contributions here, and if you are determined to make an utter fool out of yourself I can't stop you. Good luck, see you around. --John (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

For your sake, I hope not :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, I am sorry you have to put up with his, well, rubbish on my behalf. I have been compiling my own list, bty,[14] and well well well, who is top of the heap but our old friend and my former rival in amour, JayHenry. I presume you have him marked as a bad 'un aswell ;) Did you know he has 3 kittens, but shoos them out each night instead of civily sitting down with them and explaining in nice words why they have to leave his house. In other news, User:JNW is in IRL less than gentel with squirrels.[15] I have not yet decided what action or santion to take against him, but I feel I should do something - for the children (and my own amsument of course!) Ceoil ^sláinte 21:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ceoil, dear, I am not "putting up with anything"-- fly on the windshield :) You tell that JayHenry to be nice to his cats, or I'll send a tigress after him. If John (and Fences and windows) think they can upset me, perhaps they don't have institutional memory of "we admins" ... what doesn't kill 'ya makes 'ya stronger :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Loath as I am to mention Pink Floyd in polite company, I think "another brick in the wall" about sums it up. I was very dissapointed to see what happened to MF happen today, but at the end of the day - whatever. Its worth mentioning that many of the parties in the "we admins" incident have reconcilled (Some notable exceptions of course). Ceoil ^sláinte 21:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Why, Ceoil, you've got to lose the Irish in ye and look on the bright side :) Every time Malleus gets into hot water, we get to have a party, and another sock is identified ! Do you think Malleus is losing sleep over it? (I hope not.) As for me, Wiki has prepared me well for dealing with abusive people in real life: I sat patiently and quietly on "we admins" for a year, until my time came. The one who didn't back off was desysopped, and the ones who are still around have all reconciled with me. All I need to know in life, I learned on Wiki. But some things are beyond reconcilable :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm more impulsive than that, but can admire such restraint. I have a lot of faith in wiki and have made good friends here, something that will not be ruined by wannabe cops/saints. I also met TFMWNCB on wiki, so I suppose the internet taket and givit. Ceoil ^sláinte 21:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Losing sleep over what? ;-) Actually some good may have come from the stupidity of the past couple of days, in that Ceoil and I will probably have a better relationship in the future than we've had in the past. What happened over at 1996 Manchester bombing was pretty much down to one administrator sticking his nose in where it was unnecessary and unwanted. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Correct. And he has dragged it to another few venues in the meantime. But if thats what he likes to do on weekends....fine. Ceoil ^sláinte 21:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ceoil's a true keeper :) Glad you discovered each other! You two could become great troll bait for abusive meddling admins: you should feign big fat brawls and see which admins come running to block you both! I suspect that admins who don't understand that men will be boys might not be real men :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait - you're calling Ceoil the true keeper??. So I'm an impostor then? Heavens. Someone better start an investigimation. Keeper | 76 23:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Keeper, my friend, you have been resting on you laurels a bit two long. I propose an account name swap, if any bureaucrats are watching. The internet is only big enough for one true keeper. And thats me! I hear the user name Randy from Boise is free if you are stuck 0) Ceoil ^sláinte 23:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Keeper76, you shoulda chosen your username better (and sent me songs like Ceoil does :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Since I've been mentioned by Ceoil above, I feel the need to defend my actions here. No squirrels have actually been harmed yet, either in life or on my talk page. However, I am no longer making undue effort to avoid them on the road [16]. Cheers, JNW (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No action will be yaken at this point JNW, but be aware that concerned members of WP:the squirrel related civility defence force have your card marked. We have over 1 members are not to be laughed at. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for carrying on here, SandyGeorgia, but this is taking a decidedly nasty turn. I will not be cowed by the SRCDF, and will handle the intrusion by mangy furred varmints as I see fit. In fact, I am not above making a transatlantic shipment of poorly cleaned squirrel pelt to a particular acquaintance on the Emerald Isle. Sorry to get rough here, but my honor, or some such silly thing, is at stake. Must go; we're having dinner [17]. JNW (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to knock myself off of any pedastals by telling Ceoil what I think of squirrels ... so I've been zipping my tongue. But if you hunt, come to my house :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Music of Minnesota

Hi, Sandy. Kablammo has kindly copyedited Music of Minnesota. I wonder if you have time to revisit your delist vote? Thank you for your contributions to this epic project (world's longest running FAR perhaps). -SusanLesch (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Already struck (Kablammo is a most able editor); it is the longest running FAR, to my knowledge. Kudos to you for hanging in there! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Socks

I see you've opened an SPI on Mattisse's sock drawer. Had to be done I suppose. I just don't get it though; what on Earth is the point in all of this nonsense? What possible pleasure can she be getting out of it and the deception it involves? It's beyond my understanding. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe some people crave attention, however they can get it, even when it's negative attention, and Wiki gave it to her ... her own case, her own plan, her own monitoring page, her own alerts page, and now her own SPI. At least, I hope, FAC can begin to recover now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the whole sad episode is tragic, on a bunch of levels. Corrosive too, and not just at FAC, corrosive of trust. I'm sure we've all got suspicions about certain editors being alternate accounts of blocked or banned users, but so what? I was rather critical of Jennaveccia and others for keeping quiet during Law's RfA, but after the incidents yesterday that prompted my "waste of space" remark I'm beginning to think that things aren't quite as black and white as I'd imagined. The alternate accounts aren't important in and of themselves, the only thing that matters is what's done with them. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this a case of "whoever smelt it dealt it"? I imagine Malleus socks to work on Irving Berlin and his 1,000 ear shattering ditties. --Moni3 (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That would certainly be a good cover for a self-confessed hater of musicals, but even my socks hate musicals. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sandy. I've been looking at the sandbox in Laser brain's userspace, and I see that a few socks are missing, most notably from Mattisse's August 2009 block for socking. These include User:CallMeNow, User:Big Toxic Personality and User:VividMe. I wasn't sure if these were not included on purpose, and didn't want to butt into another user's personal sandbox without asking. I hope this information helps. The link to the block is here. Dana boomer (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

He's still working ... with such a prolific sockmaster, allowed to run for so long, it will take a while, and the goal is to do it right :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Bot run

Hi Sandy, could you find a minute to swing by User_talk:Xenobot_Mk_V/requests and say if it looks good to you. The main thing to check is the category list (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Venezuela/Categories) to make sure we don't tag anything we want to exclude. (We may well be leaving stuff out as well, particularly things that only exist 4+ subcategories down from Category:Venezuela, but that'll be easier to see and fix later.) Rd232 ^talk 17:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: Mattisse and ZZ

No need, the page that you linked to; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zengar Zombolt will remain there. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It's fine for you to change the link in the archive when the page is moved. Although thank you for asking first, it shows a sensible level of prudence. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hurva

How can the article be improved? Regards, Chesdovi (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read it, but I have looked enough to know that it is riddled with MOS errors; you need to get a MOS person on board, at minimum. I pinged Jayjg days ago to ask if he could help, but he can't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look later tonight. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't need my advice ...

... but I'll offer it nevertheless. The Mattisse incident is turning into an even more depressing mess than I'd imagined possible. You've got better things to do. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Mattisse

Just thought I'd drop a note stating that I was wrong about Mattisse (a sort of mea culpa!). In retrospect, this was dragged out far too long. Your patience in dealing with her over the last couple of years is amazing. --RegentsPark (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No apologies, needed: when it was time to wake up, you did. And I was a Mattisse defender once ... so I understand. She has a good ability to play the victim card. I can't blame anyone :) But it is most kind of you to drop this note: it's not all she did to me that is troubling, but how she sought to undermine FAC in order to get at me. She undermined FA writers and FAC reviewers just to harm me, and that has been the hard part. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

So I no sooner get rid of the headache...

Than houseguests arrive. It's going to be the weekend before I can get to sources. If you must have one, drop me a note and I can probably squeeze it in around the guesting stuff. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

TPS admin clearing house

Do the honours. Yomangani^talk 18:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Quack. Ucucha 19:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm so glad my page is useful ! Thanks, Ucucha (Yo-mani, you've got an image on talk that you haven't responded to!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Be careful. Have you seen the claws on those things? I could have your eye out if you stand still for a week. Yomangani^talk 11:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Seriously?

[18]. Yes. Why do you ask? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see a personal attack. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Really? That effectively accusses me of systemic bias William M. Connolley (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You are an advocate for climate change, the whole world knows that. How you can interpret a straightforward statement of fact as a "personal attack" is incomprehensible. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It's akin to someone accusing me of being an advocate for representative democracy because of my Chavez edits :) I am pro-democracy! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, that's a tough one. Are we suffering from a systemic bias in favour of free speech too? Does CSB run up against Not#Censored? My brain suddenly aches! User:LeadSongDog come howl 17:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

On the Scanner

The scanner was offered because I've spent thousands of pounds on material to scan over the years, but was - and am - unable to work with it due to having now lost my main source of income, and thus was unable to get a replacement scanner. I'm not sure of the details, frankly, with the number of things Durova has said she was going to do - the scanner, the Tropenmuseum exhibition, various other projects she claimed were in the air, and then used to get people to do what she wanted, which never materialized, I doubt there was ever any practical chance of me getting one. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 12:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a valid question about how you might be given funds for a scanner. I've spent hundreds of dollars on books, late fees, and various costs associated with writing articles. I'm too afraid to add it all up because I fear it might total in the thousands and I would rather not think about that. Plus, I totally lost a pair of my favorite flip flops when I went wading into the mud to take pictures of tropical plants. It was a miracle I left with my feet. Somehow, I'm still more upset about those flip flops than I am uneasy about all I've spent on books. --Moni3 (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember the exact details. I think I asked what I should do about not being able to afford a scanner, and Durova said she could sort everything out. I remember she said it had something to do with Gerard M, I don't know what.

As I said, I think it may well have been an empty promise on her part. I never got any funds whatsoever, and only ever heard about it again when she was threatening me. There were about 6 months between when I asked about it and the final situation with her, and I never got any concrete details about it in that entire time. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 15:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think someone at higher levels of Wiki needs to answer why Durova is *allegedly* making these kinds of promises, but more importantly, Shoe, when are you going to learn the bigger lesson? Find another area of Wiki to work in. Talk to Franamax. Or !!. Or Jehochman. Stay away from Durova. And Durova really needs to get off of Skype and get outside more often; this is just plain ugly, and I frankly don't understand why any of you waste a minute entertaining it/her. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

My main issue is Durova's tendency to weasel herself into discussions. There have been at least a dozen incidents where I've posted something which had no connection with her; a few days later, she showed up, complained about not being told, acted in utter ignorance of the situation, stated a few platitudes, and told people to close the conversation. Then I had to go back to dealing with an article/series of personal attacks/sockpuppetry issue, which she had effectively stopped discussion of. I do not trust her. I expect that, even if I worked in completely unrelated fields, she'd still find a way to make my life on Wikipedia hell, unless I have recognition that she has acted to bully me. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 15:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't feel safe editing Wikipedia without some basic protection from her. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 15:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Shoe, no sympathy here: I've never been "safe" on Wiki from multiple attacks on many fronts, including socks. Get over it, find another area to work in, or find a new hobby. If you've made an enemy in Durova, you've got to question your own judgment about why you got involved with her to begin with (same applies to Jechochman). If you work elsewhere, and she follows (her Skype kids and fans have likely followed me places, too, and suddenly showed up in conversations with an agenda that was clearly hatched off Wiki), start documenting it, but if you can't live with it, you do need a new hobby. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

As to why I let myself get into this situation, I think there's five main reasons:

1. I believed that Durova only had the best interests of the site at heart, and that by working with her, I'd be pushing forwards goals I strongly agreed with. I no longer believe that Durova is not willing to put petty issues above the good of the site.
2. Access: Durova has managed to set herself up with some museums, etc, so that she can select who gets access to their collections.
3. Access to friends: Many of the people I got to know on Wikipedia while in her group are only really contactable over Skype, as part of the group discussions. Durova controls access to these group discussions.
4. She was one of the very few people to contact me after the Arbcom ruling (which was overturned last year). I thought she genuinely wanted to help.
5. Special projects: I think all these turned out to be lies (Tropenmuseum exhibition, attempts to get the scanner, assistance with getting access to the UCSB audio collections...) but I did not know that at the time.

These things made up for a lot of abuse I took, bu, in the end, were not enough. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 16:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No one yet has helped me understand why those people can't communicate on Wiki or in e-mail. If they've got Skype, they've got internet. And why anyone participates in anything in which one person controls access is beyond me. Cabalism at its finest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Obama

I know that you can, with the strike of a pen, promote or deny any article. However, the Obama article is just a hodgepodge of stuff and could be vastly improved. Furthermore, the edit warring disqualifies it from being an FA. A truly neutral group of people who have never edited it before could do it. I will step out of that process because I am the one who suggested it. A UT professor (talk) 01:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how you can know that, since it's incorrect :) And I am not the delegate at WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Your name is mentioned. Please keep an open mind and encourage article improvement! A UT professor (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Always do (and happen to agree that article is a mess), but a messy FAR, off on the wrong foot, is not the way to go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Question regarding your "admin" status

Hi Sandy. I just noticed this edit of yours. You are thereby claiming to be an admin. I was under the impression that you were an admin, but I can't find your name in the list of admins, and the tool I use that quickly provides a quick summation of an editor's status, rights, edit count, and when their acount was created, only lists you as the same as myself: "autoreviewer, rollbacker, 108703 edits since: 2006-02-03" What's up? What is your status, and where can I find confirmation for it? -- Brangifer (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Where am I "thereby claiming to be an admin"? I don't know where you missed that one ... clarify please? Everyone knows I am not an admin, and have never wanted to be one, but Nancy persists in IDIDNTHEARTHAT, as I clearly indicated in my edit summary and subsequent post. Did you read? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You're clearly an adminsitrator. Still figuring out what that means. And if you have some time for a driveby FAC (by a very new editor...): Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/September 11 attacks/archive1. Ucucha 03:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Already handled by Dabomb87. Ucucha 03:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL (smartass :) Thanks, Ucucha and DaBomb ... imagine poor Karanacs when she comes to in the morning :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

ad-min-si-trator ... is that related to PMS? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully my last edit to ani will help to reduce the frequency of the orange bar... at least for this question... —DoRD (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's start all over again. It appears there has been some discussion of this, and I'm not interested in getting involved. I was just asking a question out of curiousity. The edit I link to above is where you restore a heading that states "Abuse of adminsitrator's power by SandyGeorgia". I interpreted that restoration by you to be an assertion that you were indeed an admin, something which I have believed for a long time. What is the correct interpretation of that edit? This isn't a trick question, as I have no prior knowledge of whatever dispute you have going with the other commentators. Maybe something else was going on there. I didn't read the page, I only noticed that edit in the edit history and the edit summaries in its vicinity, and it raised my curiousity. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason is given in the edit summary. It can be clarified here. Sandy was restoring the original header of the article, probably for consistency and out of exasperation. Awickert (talk) 06:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) And here is my very next post, which explained in detail. This is classic of what NancyHeise constantly does to Karanacs and me. First, not only is there no abuse at all, there's certainly not any admin or FAC delegate abuse. But we've said that a bazillion times, and she Just Won't Hear It. When it goes on this long, it's just plain abuse. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clear explanation, and I'm really sorry if I irritated you. That was not my intention. Keep up the good work. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You didn't irritate me ... it's just that my orange bar was going off in the middle of that, and I had already posted an explanation there. No problem; hope it's clear now! Not an admin, for all the tea in China :) Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but sorry if I came off a little short. It happens accidentally sometimes when I'm trying to type something quickly :-(. Awickert (talk) 08:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be president, an Olympic gymnast, or living in 1832 for all the tea in China, either.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Have a Admin's tiara' (it's about time) it'll suit you far more than certain other Admins.  Giano  15:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, caro Giacamo (how much do you think I can get for that on e-bay?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure this is blasphemy against the fine arts, but that thing is hideous - it looks like a cross between Imelda Marcos's wedding ring and Elvis Presley's belt-buckle. – iridescent 15:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Shush up, Iri ! I'm going to get a lot for it on e-Bay ! (But Giano should know by now that I wear red ... send rubies :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Check your email, btw – iridescent 15:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Iri! I'm shocked! Are you part of the Grand Anti-Catholic Cabal Conspiracy? Membership is open, knowledge of IRC and Skype required. Oopsie ! I'm out ... don't even know where to find them :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

How many people missed the best diff in the whole mess? "Who the hell is Fred the Oyster anyway?" SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigh...

What a mess the Mattisse controversy has made... I see even Giano's commenting over at Malleus' talk, now, too! Do go easy on Coldplay Expert, he can be quite overzealous, but he's got a good heart. While I'm here, I got Awickert to look over the article, and I pinged Eubulides a bit earlier to check over the alt text. Thought you might like to know. Thanks. ceranthor 04:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Coldplay came back the next day with sense of humor intact (but he's going to have to get off the line to Mattisse and wake up and smell the coffee ... he will eventually, as all do, but I hope he doesn't get mauled in the process :) If Awickert's been on board, you're in good hands ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I know, his help with a more problematic article was invaluable. Don't worry, I made sure he took credit for at least part of it (note the star on his userpage). Off to bed now, I need some sleep. G'night! ceranthor 04:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I have him under my wing, or at least as close as I allow those of his age group to get to my wings.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the places I could go with youngsters trying to get under my wings ... but, I won't :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Bravo

May I just take a moment to praise your herculean tenacity and determination in the face of constant foot-dragging and intransigence, despite everything else you have on your plate in Wikipedia. I wish I could give you a barnstar, but you deserve like ten. See...I wish I had known this before submitting Liberalism for FAC :) Now I know who not to mess with.UberCryxic ^(talk) 04:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

<smile> ... here's the inside track ... I never fight hard for article content (it's just a website), but when I see someone repeatedly attacking a good faith conscientous productive ethical editor, that's a real person, so Katie bar the doors, 'cuz I'm coming on board. I have watched, and watched, and watched, sitting on my fingers, as Karanacs endured that abuse. Wrong move on their part :) Now I'll have to recuse as FAC delegate, but unless they fix that article, they'll have my oppose as well. Thank you for the kind words ... I don't feel good about how it ended, but I'm afraid those two won't listen to anything but the block button. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't much like how it ended, either. I know they both mean well, but their methods are selective and it just falls into the edit war-revert-drive away everyone else mentality... insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. That article needed an intervention, although in hindsight, maybe reverting to the version that actually was listed as a GA might have been more acceptable as a baseline. Oh yeah, and don't mess with Sandy, I got her back!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

And we go back in the trenches of warfare -- even with weapons :) Hey, Mike, Moni3 (talk · contribs) wants to FA Donner Party. Interested? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I might, looks like it's going to need some work...I'm going to Truckee this weekend for a Jiu-jitsu tournament, maybe I'll check out the historical center while I'm there!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't look at the article, Malleus and Moni are working it in sandbox ... you'd have to go to her talk and ask if there's anything you can get in Truckee! Ha, I remember learning to ski over there, by Donner (whatchacallit, Sugar something?) at night, and going all the way down on my butt :) Have fun in Truckee! (Stay away from the hospital ... they managed to misdiagnose my concussion, which was quite obvious ... :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sugarbowl? Sugar Pine? I'm not a ski-bum, if I need a beating I just go in the ring, the cage, or the mat and do it the old fashioned way!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's Sugarbowl, but I'm not going to admit how many years ago that was in public :) Go talk to Moni3 (talk · contribs); the CC trials should have you in the mood for eating fellow human beings :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is the declined RFAr, if you're interested. Ucucha 05:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Good Lord almighty, did Wikipedia explode while I was sleeping last night? I'm kind of glad I missed it, but I suspect it will take me all morning just to catch up. Karanacs (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me give you the short version: there's some kind of party line (seen in both Nancy's and Xander's responses to their blocks) that you and I have the entire Wiki in our backpocket. Surely, these blocks must be coordinated by ... *us* !!!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You share a backpocket? Cheap knockoff clothing, you get what you pay for. Yomangani^talk 14:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm still working out how my "skinny white American derriere" works with all these admins in my back pocket. Where are they when I need help on Chavez?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hahah, DUDE! I spent half the day yesterday waxing about the real-life vortex of shit and misery pioneers went through in the example of that Footprints poem where Jesus seriously skipped town, and after skimming what just happened with the canvassing, ANI, and blocks, I'm just way happier to continue to write about the apparent 10th level of hell that occurred at Truckee Lake. --Moni3 (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Now you see why I jumped in to help! I'm seriously enjoying myself thinking about what Donner Party would look like if we followed the editing "standards" currently exemplified by Catholic Church. Karanacs (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm also trying to figure out how you and I as a "cabal against catholicism" works out, considering your kiddos and my ... ummmm ... yes, that. Where do we find the time? Someone should tell Nancy about my four Catholic godchildren :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I may be the only one active on that talk page who has ever attended mass at St. Peter's (one of the most beautiful buildings in the world), but that was apparently part of my anti-Catholic research. ;) Maybe someone cloned me and forgot to let me know - which is really unfair, because I could use some help with the laundry! Karanacs (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd tell my stories about a certain Cardinal Ratzinger and mass at St. Peters, but, ummmm ... this is a public forum, and you and I Don't Do Cabalism, so you'll have to miss a great story !!! Heck, I've attended mass there more times than I can remember ... invited to the altar by said Cardinal :) I have a great Cardinal Egan story, too ... but it's related to ... yes, that ... Of more interest is that, when I put the CC article in front of my connections in the priesthood, on multiple continents including Italy, they said, "This article was clearly written by a convert who doesn't have a solid understanding of church history." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"alter"? They call that "transubstantiate" in the RC. Yomangani^talk 15:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I was speaking Italian at the time: I don't what it's called ... just that it involved lots of barriers that had to be passed by invitation only :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"altar" Karanacs (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I've sat in silence for an hour in a small Quaker House, communing with strangers. My tip: don't do that right after you listen to "Cattle Call" by LeAnn Rimes. Somehow you feel the spirit of yodeling instead of God. --Moni3 (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Another community that has found that consensus only works in small doses.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

no, No, NO, Wehwalt ... you miss the point! Consensus works via cabalism and off-Wiki coordination! Silly goose ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, out of bulletin board material for this epoch.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I will only join a cabal if someone provides cookies or cake at every meeting. And not the cardboardy stuff you get at the grocery store, but the great big chewy kind (preferably with macademia nuts) that have just come out of the oven. Karanacs (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The Cabal only serves lettuce leaves and vitamins water, and only after the five mile run. So I've heard.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Any editor who posts that kind of comment, must have inside info on my damn diet. You must be part of the cabal !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope, prefer Karanac's version. Though I'll settle for chocolate chip cookies, still warm, with chunks of chocolate, not those puny chips. Enjoy your rabbit food.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback (2)

Hello, SandyGeorgia. You have new messages at MuZemike's talk page.
Message added 16:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–MuZemike 16:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

Sandy (and Moni), it might be possible to obtain donated goods and services for featured article writers. Has anyone tried contacting suppliers to inquire? Since Wikipedia is such a widely used reference source they might decide it's in their enlightened self interest to provide material free of charge. After all, when readers use Wikipedia properly their next step is to obtain the sources. Rough example: a gift certificate to an online bookseller after five FAs? It's mostly a matter of outreach. Durova⁴¹² 21:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like a good suggestion. I spend anywhere from thirty to three hundred dollars on books for a FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Others may be interested, but I'm not onboard about anything that increases the award culture. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps there's a way of structuring the idea for text that doesn't smack of "award culture". On the media side of the site donations have been obtained for at least two years. The first one may have been a photograph from the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. When it was on the verge of delisting over technical reasons the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum donated a higher quality replacement. The core of the idea is to overcome financial obstacles and provide quality information to the public. Durova⁴¹² 03:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Warning on attacking other editors

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Catholic Church. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.--^StormRider 22:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This a serious accusation, could you kindly provide the diff? Graham Colm (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, daddy. Smoke some green. Pass the bongos. --Moni3 (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Vaguely interesting; please read WP:DTTR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Warning from attacking editor

Please do not ever think I am here to entertain little minds. Instead of accusing everyone of bad behavior it is time to look in the bloody mirror. You are rude to other editors, you ignore all rules yet demand others follow them scrupulously, and you haven't a clue about consensus or how it is built.

As far as the other two editors; a warning need not provide the diffs. Clue: look them up yourself. The article was cited and it is not to find Sandy's edits. A boatload of other diffs could be provided should I cite other articles, but we should focus on one thing at a time. The immediate ones that come to the fore with a quick look are as follows:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5

The type of behavior that you gotten away with up to now will stop immediately. If you unable to focus on the content of articles instead of editors, you will continue to receive warnings until you are blocked. Stop wasting your time and creating contention. It is unbecoming and unhelpful to what most editors are seeking. --^StormRider 03:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Have some tea. Bye now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a misunderstanding here about what constitutes a personal attack. Saying that someone doesn't understand a guideline or policy, wants to make changes that might make an article worse, won't listen to reason, edits in a tendentious manner—those aren't personal attacks; in the case of the cited diffs, they're opinions about other editors' approaches as they relate to content. It might not always be politic or constructive to air them, but sometimes it can be. For example, if I were to say, "Storm Rider appears to not understand what constitutes an attack against another editor; his strongly-worded warnings may only serve to exacerbate the tension at these articles", that's not an attack, even though it's clearly unfavourable. If I were to say, "Storm Rider needs to grow a fucking brain and stop sticking his oar into situations he doesn't understand", that could well be. In summary then: if you want to take the moral high ground and calm a situation down, it's not a good idea to call someone else's edits "sick" or template a veteran editor. If you wanted to lessen the tension, a more personal message asking Sandy to tone things down might have been better-received. I hope this has been instructional. All the best, Steve ^T • C 09:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict with StormRider and SandyGeorgia below) I agree with the last bit of Steve C's comment, specifically "If you wanted to lessen the tension, a more personal message asking Sandy to tone things down might have been better-received."

Sandy, I understand the frustration with NancyHeise and Xandar. I've been an active editor of Catholic Church (or at least Talk:Catholic Church) for two years and have been quite frustrated myself during that time. However, my feeling is that you and Karanacs have made the interaction a little too personal, maybe not quite to the threshold that Steve C sets for what he considers personal attacks but let's just say that collegiality and collaboration are nowhere in sight in your interactions with her. This is to be regretted even if you and Karanacs are justified to some extent in your anger and frustration. It's true that NancyHeise has some significant blind spots around certain Wikipedia policies. Nonetheless, she is a valued contributor and deserves a bit more respect and consideration than she's been getting.

I also respect StormRider quite a lot and am surprised and the strident tone that he has taken with respect to what he sees as your transgressions. The level of heat seems to just keep going up and up. You suggested that StormRider take a cup of tea. I think we could all use one. Our goal should be to bring NancyHeise (and yes, even Xandar) back on board not to ban them from the article.

With much respect.... --Richard S (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, Richard. I noted elsewhere that Karanacs said you were highly respected by all, so I'm glad to hear from you. I have two goals here, wrt to Nancy's repeated claims about and against Karanacs and me: 1) they need to stop, or she should get increasing blocks if she continues them; 2) she needs to understand Wiki policies and guidelines. No one has been able to get through to her on those issues. As long as the attacks and unfounded accusations on Karanacs and me continue, I'm most likely to stay engaged. Once they stop, I stop. Storm Rider seems to have tunnel vision, unable to see Nancy's failure to AGF, while referring to my "cohorts". Also, Richard, on the "nowhere in sight", I beg to differ. I patiently and kindly tried to help Nancy for *years* ... look back in her talk archives. So did Karanacs. So did many others. She has responded with nothing but attacks and bad faith allegations. You might also find explanation for some of the heat in Storm's posts in the fact that he is an WP:SPA, and I have participated in several FARs in his area of interest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

What an instructive diatribe; it is demonstrative of the mentality of Sandy and her little group of cohorts. I will not stoop so low as to provide examples of what I think of your comments.

The warning was appropriate and we have yet to see if it causes Sandy to be civil. I don't think any form of personal message would have aided the situation. When working with those who have moved into common, flagrant abuse of others a warning is the best step. What they do with the warning is strictly a personal choice. Just as it is the right of all other editors to correct bad behavior.

As far as being a veteran editor, I have never given undue respect to others simply because of their time participating on Wikipedia. However, if being a veteran is a sign to provide greater respect, I have been here since 2004. Does that mean you shorter term editors should listen better when a veteran speaks? Let's just drop the silliness. The point is that Sandy has grown far too comfortable insulting others and her behavior needs to change. --^StormRider 17:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You have now lodged several attacks on my talk page, not only on me, but also on others who post here. Go away. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Look these incidents are behind us now. It's hard enough dealing with the current version of the article without delving into past struggles. Let's move on from this please.UBER ^(talk) 18:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the laugh Storm Trooper. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Saint or the Devil?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Addition to Trichotillomania

Hi,

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

I want to add this text

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

which was previously removed due to 'unsourced medical advice'

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

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

I do hope so,

thanks in advance.

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

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

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

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

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

SCIRS

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

A friendly recommendation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drive-by FAC?

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

Anschluss

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

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

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

TPS alert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RE: Split

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

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

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

Storm, nonsense, etc

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

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

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

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

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

Autism FAQ

Hi Sandy,

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

"Crazy stuff"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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