Is this the norm? I'm seeing it a lot, and it's an awfully bland sentence and a case of the "I like pie because I like pie" rationale. Perhaps we should encourage more robust nomination paragraphs? —Deckiller (t-c-l) 12:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The prompt when creating a new FAC nom tells you to start the nom statement "I am nominating this for featured article because". The regulars know that's a suggestion, not a rule, but one can't expect first-time nominators to know that it's not a requirement, and there are only a limited numbers of ways one can complete that sentence. – iridescent12:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I used to "do" FAs, I would often write 2-3 paragraph nominations. Nobody reads those, but it makes me feel happy inside. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 03:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I always try to add some explanation as to why it's worth the reviewer's time reading it. Anything at FAC is competing for attention with 20–40 other articles; it seems common sense both to explain why someone should read this particular one, and enough of an indication as to what the article's actually about that people who won't be interested know to avoid it. – iridescent19:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - at the very least the nom should explain what the article subject is, if this is not totally obvious to everyone. If it is a biography of the Governor of Kentucky 1834-38, it should say so. Far too many don't even do this, and just say "...because I believe it meets the FA criteria". I'd support a change in the instructions to specify this. Johnbod (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I am doing a serious mistake in nominating an article to be featured.I have read WP:FAC, but can't catch what was wrong.Can you suggest me things to become better at nominating at WP:FAC?It'll be very helpful and also tell me why you called my two nomination ill-prepared and removed it?I might learn something from my mistakes.Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 14:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bu the way, I'm wondering where the 'Featured portal', 'Featured sound' and 'Featured list' is placed, insted of Main page of wikipedia like, featured article.?
This article, The Walt Disney Company was not ready to be nominated because it does not come anywhere close to the standards required. Please see Wikipedia:Featured article criteria where the expected standards are listed. WP:FAC is not a place to suggest articles that you like, but where editors, and these are usually those who have made significant contributions to the article, finally nominate articles often after many months working on them. I notice that you have not made many, if any, edits to the article and this is just one of many, many reasons why it is "ill-prepared". Graham Colm (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For some understanding take a look at the article quality scale. On the Walt Disney talk page you can see the article has been assessed by 6 WikiProjects, 5 of them have assessed it as C-Class and 1 as Start-Class. Articles typically go through an evolution as shown in this image.
The Walt Disney Company article is most like a C-class now, there are many giveaways from this article. One is the appearance of a template, in this case {{Expand section}} which indicates C-class criteria of 'still missing important content'. Another issue is referencing, there are whole sections without any references. dablinks also poor, also that Disney Media Networks linked in the article points back to the article. WP:LEAD isn't good as it's doesn't adequately summarise the article. Colons in section headings are an issue per WP:MOSHEAD etc. Basically lots and lots of work is required before FA can be thought of and would suggest peer review or GA is done before submission as an FA candidate. Regards, SunCreator(talk)23:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably better at this point to let it close without summary. It's on record if he does something similar again. I'm afraid I haven't got Wehwalt's faith in him.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your comment at ANEW that you couldn't determine when rollback was being used, so I thought I'd enlighten you. The links in the edit summary are the giveaway: reverts by other tools usually have a link to that tool in parentheses at the end, like (HG) or (TW), but only rollback produces an edit summary that links the word "reverted" as "Reverted". Hope that helps or at least enlightens you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are clearly pushing personal opinion into an article which I don't much care about, I'm not much worried about it. If you try it on an FA or GA, we'll talk about what's wrong with your approach. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think the Related information heading is a good idea. You disagree. But if you are going to call my "personal opinion" "wrong" then, I respectfully suggest, you should explain your reasoning. Will you educate me regarding the error of my ways here or must I take you up on your invitation to "try it" on an FA or GA? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since that page is clearly your own opinion, edited only by you, enjoying no consensus anywhere, defeated at WP:LAYOUT, please userfy it so it won't have to be submitted to MFD. At best, please refrain from presenting in on my page as anything but your own opinion: I'm not as dumb as I look. If you are trying to engage me on Absinthe, forget about it; I'm not going to edit war with you over your idiosyncratic opinion on a page of little import. But you're still wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, as you say, I am the only editor of Wikipedia:Related_information/answers. However, I am not the only editor of Wikipedia:Related_information, which actually contains the proposal. In fact, the proposal was initially made by another editor. Regardless, whether a proposal has one proponent or 500 doesn't tell us much about whether it is a good idea. Comparewp:GOOGLEHITS (merit not determined by the number of Google hits generated). Second, the proposal was not "defeated" at wp:layout. Instead, the editors of that page said that the purpose of that page was to reflect current practice and, since the proposal was new, it should not appear on that page. Instead, they recommended, the idea should be introduced on a page-by-page basis. While they did not say so, I assume this was so that the proposal could go through the BRD process to achieve consensus one way or the other. Finally, BRD includes D. Saying that the proposal is an "idiosyncratic opinion" or "wrong" is not D - unless, that is, you OWN Wikipedia and the fact that you don't like the idea (why? you won't say) is enough. If that is the case please let me know. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, I have been informed that part of the posting above could be understood to be an attack on you. That was not my intent and I apologize for inadvertently using language that crossed the line from forceful to uncivil discourse. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Related information heading is a good idea
Thank you for your recent edit comment at [[1]] providing the rationale for your belief that the Related information heading is a bad idea, to wit: "no purpose established for this non-standard heading containing no content." As explained at wp:NAVHEAD the purpose of the heading is to eliminate confusion and to provide overview and access for the navbox content. So there is both a purpose and there is content. Do you have any other concerns? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the second time, if you want to promote your personal opinion and essays, please do so elsewhere-- I'm uninterested in being used as a target to promote a new and useless heading which has failed to gain consensus. Please stop using me to make a WP:POINT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POINT says "Issues with rules or practices should be addressed through plain discussion" (emphasis in original). I am trying to have a discussion with you, the person that twice removed the Related information heading from the Absinthe article. If having a discussion with you is not the proper procedure then what is? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Turning to the substance of your comments: First, new things are not good or bad because they are new. Second, the heading can be used to eliminates confusion and provide an overview and access. Finally, while there is no consensus requiring the heading, there is no consensus prohibiting either. It may be a bit late in the day but, to get us back to the real issue here, I ask you to consider whether the Related information heading idea would have been a good idea back in the early days of Wikipedia (when everything was new). If not, why not? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the proposal was discussed at Layout and the advice there was to try it on an article-by-article basis. However, as the absinthe episode demonstrates, some folks construe the absence of any statement in Layout whatsoever regarding navbox headings as a prohibition. I will bring that issue up there. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been running through the cites at John Lennon, and identifing errors, and fixing what I can. I would like you to see that the treatment I am getting is no better than what I wrongly did to SlimVirgin. My point is, it's in the Wiki culture, it's not just me, IME there is a great lack of good faith on Wiki, all around. — GabeMc (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm trying to understand the nomination rule on WP:FAC but the wording is unclear to me. I was under the impression that a nominator must wait two weeks to nominate a new FAC only if their previous FAC was unsuccessful. Is this right, or do I have to wait two weeks to nominate a new FAC even if mine is successful? I did a string of three FACs earlier in the year right in a row and no one saw a problem with it after the first two were promoted. —Ed!(talk)05:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support in your voter guide. I'll be bearing your comments in mind as I continue my service over the next two years. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sandy. I am intrigued about [2]. Please feel free to email me if you wish to say things that you don't want to say in public because I am not up to speed on your concerns. Polargeo (talk) 09:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, load it up to the user talk I am currently using and then I can add it Grey wolf when the page is unlocked. (If anyone can find a better picture of a wolf then I'd be happy to see it!)
Re this, they show the raw aggregate totals. They supposedly illustrate a sharp trend of people no longer remaining neutral; in the old days people would support and oppose a couple of candidates but ignore the rest, whereas this year most people who voted expressed opinions on all or most of the candidates. – iridescent19:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thanks Iri, but it would be nice if they would explain that in the report (since it's unintelligible), and I wonder how they got the neutral data, considering how past elections were run. They don't seem to be a very communicative bunch over at The Signpost, and have become increasingly protective of their POV, if'n you ask me (which no one has :) That is a problem considering the overlap between The Signpost, arb election coordinators, and the long-standing anti-arb POV on The Signpost. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, SandyGeorgia. A couple of months ago you mentioned in the FA nom of Razer (robot) that I should get the majority contributor's (CountdownCrispy) consent before re-noming. There is however a problem on that front as CC hasn't edited since the 7th of November and it doesn't look like he'll be around to make any comment anytime soon. I had a word with Nikkimaria and she suggested that I have a doublecheck with you if there was any way to circumvent that obsticle so we could have another crack at an FA nom? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the other significant contributors aren't around, there's nothing you can or are expected to do, other than make sure you have access to sources used so you can answer queries. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should take it a little easy. I have NOT been editwarring or reverting any edits on the Asperger syndrome article. You do not seem to understand the difference between "edit" and "revert". WP:REV quite clearly says: Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. I have never added the image of Asperger before, I have never used the word "syndrome" in the article previously. It is you who keep on revert-warring, by reverting against consensus. And in the matter of non-free picture of Asperger, WP:NFCC circumvents WP:WIAFA. As this dispute looks unsolvable, I am going to take it to mediation if you and Colin keep on reverting without consensus. MikeNicho231 (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "WP:NFCC circumvents WP:WIAFA"? We can't use that Asperger photo in any article other than the one on the person, as it is non-free.
The "revert"ing that Sandy refers to is repeatedly removing the existing photo. Yes, you've done this in different ways each time, but a common factor is removing that photo. And there's no consensus on the talk page that the photo should be removed. Colin°Talk16:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
YOu have again added an image against consensus; I'm too busy now to file an edit warring report on you, but will do it tonight unless you revert yourself or someone else does it first-- three reverts are not required for edit warring, and you have been slowly edit warring ever since your return from your last block. You also don't seem to understand Wiki policies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MikeNicho231, you keep inserting completely unsourced text. And I see you've now just found some random image of Asperger on some random website and uploaded it to Commons. And then used that to once again replace the existing picture against consensus. What makes you think a photo of Asperger as an old man is public domain? He only died 30 years ago. I don't expect that photo to last long. ColinTalk17:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not been edit-warring. You have been reverting my edits without consensus. Remove that picture, then, but if a picture of an identifiable non-consenting child is the best we can do, it is best to not have a picture. And may you please clarify what unsourced text I have added? MikeNicho231 (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I don't know what image you are discussing above. I haven't researched or looked at the history or anything else but I did make a comment about the image in the infobox. I just wanted to bring this to your attention since I know you are very active at this article. I am not active there so if you need more from me please ping me on my talk page, thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk17:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sandy, could you Karanacs or Andy please archive the FAC? Colin has raised a valid oppose, and the article requires some radical re-writing that cannot be completed in a reasonable time. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have just seen the discussion on citation templates on FAC talk and as I am planning to take Parkinson's disease to FAC soon I wanted to fix citations before hand. While I have used diberri for pmids I think I have mixed templates in the society section (citation and cite news). Which one should be used for a consistent style compatible with diberri's formatting? Would you mind answering at my talk? Your talk is a hell to watch... :-) Thanks in advance. --Garrondo (talk) 07:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should FAs be crisply written? Personally, I'm not some super writer! Never worked for a newspaper or worked as a communications specialist or the like. But, I at least know enough to see issues elsewhere. I thought FAs were supposed to be the articles that were written to a professional standard? Like Britannica or NYT or a good book or National Geographic or a good book or what have you? But, for instance, looking at Virginia, I see the climate section has duplication of content, lacks a clear logic (topic sentences with supports organized in a logical sequence), etc. Further down in flora and fauna, it seems to be a set of random animals and such. And does not use the opportunity to describe how the fauna changes from NW to SE (there is a great opportunity to follow the theme set forward under climate). Sorry...I guess this is an unformed thought, but do you get me? Has this been discussed elsewhere, for me to read about? TCO (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Articles degrade in quality over time—article protectors lose interest and/or burn out, and drive-by users come in and add unsourced content or duplicate information. As far as the "topic sentences with support" comment...that's mostly a product of high school writing. Prose can be cohesive without the "writing by the numbers" approach—especially since we have descriptive headings on Wikipedia—but there are many instances where topic sentences are good and pretty much necessary. Edit: the "climate" section is actually a clinic in solid cohesiveness and paragraph breaks; I'm not sure what you are talking about there.
With that said, the prose in the article could use work. Spot checks: "Virginia has a total an area of 42,774.2 square miles"..."In 1781, the combined action of Continental and French land and naval forces"..."every September. Also in September is"...excessive passive voice, some awkward in-prose list formatting in the transportation section, over vs. more than errors, and so on.—Deckiller (t-c-l) 04:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sentence one describes a trend in temp by geography. Then sentence two gives numbers. But they're not the numbers related to the trend. They are the overall variations for the state. Huh?
Sentence three we are back to the geographic variation.
"The moderating influence of the ocean from the east, powered by the Gulf Stream has a strong effect on the southeastern coastal areas of the state." This could be rewritten to half the words (the sentence is repeating itself and in vague terms). Also, it's WRONG. The Gulf Stream is hundreds of miles offshore (it diverges at Cape Hattaras).
Next sentence has some stuff about hurricanes at the mouth of the Cheseapeake. Forming? I doubt it and if so, extremely rare and not the key insight. Just discussing the normal hurricanes that track onshore makes sense (and maybe some qauntication or comparison to other areas? As is, it's handwavey...and don't protest length. Couple words would build the thought out. A particular sentence is often not more words. I got hurt playing sports versus, I broke my elbow slamdunking the basketball (which is more compelling?) That's crap out of my Harcourt Brace 12th grade English book that I wish I had learned.
Last sentence has some interesting detail, but is probably not key content to be putting detail on. (Illustrating the part of the state that recieves few storms, had some anyhow.)
Plus why is the hurricane second half of the paragraph mixed into the discussion of temperature variation by geography (not well illustrated btw) from the beginning of the para?
Second para:
1.5 sentences on thunderstorms, with the last half being the precip average. Sounds like the author thinks most precip comes from thunderstorms. If not, will at least convey that to readers from how he writes. I mean what is the point of mixing it into the sentence otherwise? Also, isn't overall precipitaion the more key thing to know (how dry the state is will affect what grows there and how it looks more than the summer thunderstorms (and of course even with the 1.5 sentences no mention of the time component, although I do give props for the remark on the western part of the state...I did not know that).
OK, now we are onto snow...and there is an interesting comment on extreme storms (and the insight of the wind over mountains causing them, but nothing on average snowfall? Think about someone who did not know what a VA winter is like, has it been explained to them?
Next sentence, "these elements"...WHAT? The air over the mountains? The storms? Everything in the previous paragraph and a half? What a miserable and confusing construction. Also, on point, I can buy some thing with the microclimate in the Shenandoah, but isn't the coastal plain and mountains climate, just the basic east-west and north-south gradient discussed earlier? Is microclimate (like of the different sides of the hill in Napa Valley) really correct term?
Now we are back to extreme weather with the tornados, which is fine to learn about, but what is the rationale for the intervening microclimate sentence?
Third paragraph:
The UHI is interesting, but the last part of the sentence has a useless (and confusing, distracting) factoid. Why tell us that the UHI is from solar absorption when that's generally what it is from anyhow? I was confused and clicked over to see if it comes from something else, normally. But no. Sentence is just meandering.
The next two sentences seem to fit with the rest of this para as they discuss polution, more rationale for the grouping than with the first two.
A little tighter connection of the second to the first sentences would help (reader may not realize Fairfax County is in NOVA) and it seems like there is a connection, urbanization there causing both problems.
There is a nice graphic of the month by month temp and precip. However, the text does not explain precip enough and probably should talk about precip right after the first sentence, given the importance and als, so if someone reads the initial text and then looks at the figure (or more likely visa versa) they get the explanation.
Note: I ain't no English teacher. I'm not saying I can write better. (That's not the point anyhow.) But that section just does not seem well organized.TCO (talk) 03:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh...and I have been working on an article since my critical comment of a month ago. So I have sympathy for people making content, running the GA/FA gauntlet, etc. Tearing that climate section apart is just how I think and learn and communicate. TCO (talk) 04:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Regarding Jameela Jamil, this appeared very briefly on DYK, but was withdrawn - I think you were one of the people who raised an objection, possibly.
Anyway, Shubinator (talk·contribs) has agreed to re-add it to DYK, if/when yourself or another user agree it is 'acceptable'. So - is there anything you consider unacceptable about the article now? Please could you let me know. Many thanks, Chzz ► 01:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have nominated the Bollywood film Taare Zameen Par for a second time here. The previous nomination had one support and only failed because there was not enough activity. The current nomination has been up for almost two weeks, and the only new reviewer just told me that he is too busy to continue his review. Nobody else that I've asked has been willing to review it since the topic is so uncommon. Any advice? Thanks. :) Ωphois01:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have an FAC question. How many books do you have to read to satisfy 1c? I know this depends on the article, but to meet this new 1c I am buying some books on Jordan for a slight overhaul to avoid FAR, and I had to spend $100 buying books for some articles I'm working on, including $60 alone for this one film history article. Basically, since like many people who don't live in a major city, the library system where I'm at sucks. Its not really that bothersome, as I began reading more even before I came back and like these subject but the money adds up. I'm asking this question because I want to work on Muhammad Ali, since he's such an important figure and his article is shit. But I don't want to have to break the bank. Can I just buy the one or two best bios and then use the NYT archives, and web sources? Would that pass muster at FAC? AaronY (talk) 05:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a one-size-fits-all answer. It depends on the volume and quality of material that's been published. How many biographies are there of Ali for instance? A quick search of my local library's catalogue suggests that there are dozens, so I doubt that picking any one or two would cut it at FAC. What I tend to do is to restrict myself to topics that I can easily source from my local libraries. Basically I just wander around the shelves or browse the online catalogues until something catches my eye, like this for instance. MalleusFatuorum05:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks that answers my question. I like how you responded by crowbarring one of your articles in, I do that myself all the time lol. Very nice article btw, may I respond back with an obscure one of my own? Then raise you one?
Anyways, I took a long break, so I'm catching up a little. I guess we're happy with the fact that maybe 100 million people (a number I just pulled out of my ass, but still) couldn't write a featured article on a major topic given some of this country's shit libraries? Especially since once you get 30-40 miles out of a major city in many areas the libraries are laughable. I mean its not like I live in the boonies, just a normal upper-middle class suburb.
On the other hand, we're probably lucky this is just a book fetish from what I can tell; I could make a case that the NYT archives are as valuable as 5 good books on many subjects. Provided you scour through them and read every article specifically on the subject (which can number in the hundreds, and probably even thousands in some cases). If we're going to make 1c that strict you could even say that you should have access to the major local newspapers' archives (NY Times, LA Times, Chicago Tribune) when you do a local subject, and have scoured through those. Especially since when you do that you often find out tons of points biographers missed. I would imagine the LA Times and Chicago Tribune archives would be as good as the mega-awesome NYT archives, especially for local articles. Magic Johnson, for example, could benefit from thesearticles published during his playing career. Also this film history article I'm working on (don't judge that; its like 40% done, and will be shrunk, copy-edited, etc. ;)) would definitely satisfy 1c and I still have like 6 books to go through. But from just reading the sources I have, you could make a case that I should get a subscription to Variety's archives since every researcher uses them extensively. AaronY (talk) 07:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does your library allow for inter-library loan? I've found that's quite helpful to get access to high-quality sources that your library may not have. YMMV. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another good source is local colleges and universities. They will often allow locals to access and check out books from their libraries, as well as allowing access to some of the academic databases like JSTOR and Wiley. I find myself copying the pages that are relevant to the subject so that I have a permanent record of what I accessed. As far as getting comprehensive - for a biography, I've found your best bet is to figure to read everything that the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography or Oxford Dictionary of American Biography lists as a source at the bottom of the article. Something like M. Ali, I'd expect someone to have read at least a breadth of the biographies, but not all of them. The most recent ones from academic presses would probably be the best place to start, and then read any that seem to be important enough for the most recent biographies to refute. Ealdgyth - Talk04:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well finding out what books I would need wouldn't be hard, but the library system only has two biographies, a bunch of young adult books, and two of his autobiographies. I found a single pdf (Muhammad Ali - The Making of an Icon) floating around on the internet, but its a fairly insubstantial book plus even if it was good, I would need more than that. As for colleges, the local community college said I could read their books in the library, but not take them out unless I was an alumni. That won't work since they're nine miles away, plus I wouldn't want to hang out in a JuCo library all day anyway. Maybe I'll just do what I can when I finish the other stuff I'm working on, and see if I can get someone to collaborate. It's weird; the library system has so few Ali books, but they have 7 Jordan bios. AaronY (talk) 04:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have done interlibrary loan and gotten stuff into a dinky county library. Don't be an ILL virgin. Try it! Look the clerk in the eye and make them give you the form and fill it out and start ILLing.TCO (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, I want to give you my wishes for an enjoyable end-of-year break, and to say that despite our differences I look forward to another year of your superb stewardship of the FA process. Tony(talk)15:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are online, what do you do when a sockpuppet's comment ahve been added at a FAC? I just found a confirmed sock going on with the same comments, for which he had been previously warned at FAR also. I think you must have noticed my comments when you archived the All I Want for Christmas is You FAC. So? — Legolas(talk2me)05:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still trying to research your concern, but so far, it looks like you're confusing the terms "sockpuppets" and "alternate accounts"; you also haven't made clear what you mean by "confirmed" (checkuser ?). As long as the accounts are being used appropriately, the socking isn't a concern; if they are being used inappropriately, you should let us know how and what evidence you have, and whether they are influencing outcomes (any more than other drive by supports on some of those FACs, which create extra work for serious reviewers). Please clarify at WT:FAC on the thread you started; in general, I look at the validity of the support, regardless of who lodges it, but I'm not yet clear on what issue you are raising. I'm also not remembering just now a previous issue at FAR? Do you have diffs? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The user in question is User:56tyvfg88yju. Confirmed as in, confirmed by the user contributions. The user in question is User:Piano non troppo, who was asked by the FAR community to stop nominating Halkett boat for FAR, just weeks after it passed. There is the discussion present at his talk page regarding this, where User:Moni3 tried to explain him about the FAC process, of which he was extremely critical. Next, I looked up at the GAR of "Paparazzi" where I remembered him placing similar comments that he placed at the FACs of "All I Want for Christmas" and the ongoing "Halo (Beyonce Knowles song)". My suspicions were confirmed when the user placed similar examples of "Hey Jude" and a Mozart symphony at the FACs; examples used by Piano non troppo in the GAR too. So, then I checked the contributions of 56tyvfg88yju, and found that the first comments are at two song FACs, comments which are shockingly similar. I think the user promotes the addition of pure technical content in song articles, whether they are sourced or not. So in this case, what is your stance? I am asking this, since I will be nominating a future song FAC, I need to know how to approach against such comments also. 05:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
In the context of socking, "confirmed" usually refers to "confirmed by checkuser"; you may think it's another user, but unless confirmed by CU, that's only a hunch, and unless using alternate accounts disruptively, not an issue. At any rate, the answer to your question is that I weigh all supports according to their rigor and relative to other reviewers' input; we have lots of iffy reviewrs, regardless of use of alternate accounts. I archived All I Want for Christmas because it had many issues pointed out by many solid reviewers (casting doubt upon the seriousness of the previous Supporters' reviews). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine Sandy, I do understand your reasons and had pointed out earlier that some of those reviews might appear as iffy. Can I request you one thing? The primary nominator of the article feels really de-motivated that none of his articles are promoted in FAC. Would you mind in explaining in short the reason for your closure? That might cool him also. Just a request. Also, is it a mandatory thing that the joined users of a particular project, to whcih a said nomination is attached, cannot review it? I am asking this in light of the tag you placed at the nomination of Halo. Because later when the project was initialized, even I joined the project. Does that make my review worthless? — Legolas(talk2me)07:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's certainly not a requirement that members of a project relating to an article can't review it. For many topics, those with a strong interest in a topic are likely to be the only ones with the necessary knowledge to spot errors. Where things get problematic is when a huge number of people from a particular project all pile-on to support, but that doesn't happen all that often. – iridescent16:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have been patiently waiting for an image review so that we can wind up Talk:Bobby Orr/GA1. There are two images that I consider borderline in the article. One is an iconic image that is closely associated with the subject of the article. The other is a picture of a display at a museum. The author is willing to remove either or both, but I need an image specialist.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Schizophrenia for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Basket of Puppies23:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, How are you today? I got your email. Anyway, I got in touch with our "friend" Mr. Bugs like you all asked. Anything else you want me to take care of? Hey, hope you are having a great holiday weekend, and tell Ricky I said hi, ok? Spilled Coffee (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm ... I have not sent you (or anyone else) an e-mail about Baseball Bugs, don't know any "Ricky", and don't know who you are. Merry Christmas. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all, for your support. The OP, as is typical of his type, is behind the curve, as I am in fact trying to take your advice and spend less time at ANI. It's rather sad, though, that Mr. Coffee got indefinitely spilled before I even had a chance to talk with him and have a suitably high-intellect conversation. A gold-plated opportunity missed. :'( ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One advantage to having caught more attention than I should have over time, is that quite a few editors are watching my talk page, and when some yokel comes along and tries to make trouble, it gets pounced upon quickly. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
421-238? Wow. If this were a cricket match, I'd be down to my last couple of wickets. I yield to your superior skills at drawing attention. :) Maybe I could try some canvassing. I could go to about 200 user talk pages at random and wish them a Happy Hana-Rama-Kwanz-Mas, counting on all or most of them to go to my page and ask what the hey I'm talking about, thus inadvertently adding my page to their watch count. :)
This Christmas, please give generously to a Wikipedian in need of more TPS's by going to his talk page and clicking Watch! Thanks for listening. Merry Christmas everyone!
Have you pinged Brianboulton (talk·contribs) for a new look? Other reviewers are less likely to weigh in when they think sourcing issues are still present. On your general question, I'm inclined to let this run longer than usual since it's a third nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All feedback "counts", FAC is not a vote, but well-reasoned feedback from seasoned and uninvolved reviewers "counts" more :) Does he need to explicitly enter the words "Support"? No. Is his support a strong one (as in, enough to keep the FAC open for a much extended period if no one else supports)? No :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a set answer to that question; it depends on how many FACs are on the page, what kind of other feedback is entered, etc ... but I will tend to let it run longer than others, all things considered, because it's a third nom and has been lacking feedback now for quite a while. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he is, but he may not have seen this discussion on my talk-- I will direct him to it, but as a FAC delegate, he may also choose to operate differently than I do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Sorry, I just looked more closely, and although I told you it could run longer, it appears that Laser closed it because a lengthy oppose was entered after our conversation. In that case, I don't believe I should interfere with his decision by directing him to this conversation. I suggest working on the prose, and coming back again ... good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have had no time to fix the opposes, as it was only 13 hours before the close, plus Laser said there was no support, which HuskyHuskie supported. I request you point him here, and then if he still thinks it should be closed, I'll renominate it after the fixes. I would like more then 13 hours to fix an oppose before it is closed. CTJF83chat17:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can see the sum total of his life experiences and anticipate how you might be treated here.
The video evokes speculation of several encounters, or perhaps one significant encounter with a woman, which may have resulted in Mr. Herrod learning the knowledge imparted in this video. I would like to imagine what that encounter was.
In the meantime, you should give him a call. Whilst you do that, I will re-examine my life's priorities and consider calling him myself. Then we shall fight for his attentions with each other! Game on! --Moni3 (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
oh, I will always fight you for the attentions of a suitor with such a captivating voice! Poor fellow would never keep up with how fast I talk, and I'd fall asleep while trying to appear to be listening to him. And now, for my analysis:
Bullroar: he's not accounting for "mature" women's brains. And some don't forgive, either.
Bullshit. Ditto for chocolates and cashmere: hold the perfume (they can't choose it anyway).
Maybe so, but we like letting them.
You betcha!
Doubt it-- they never figure us out. A women's perogative is to be capricious.
And if he doesn't, she's gone!
I'll leave that one for you.
D'oh; how dumb can you be?
I resemble that remark.
That should have been number one.
A: For your benefit as much as our own (they make us feel pretty, sexy and feminine, and we hope they make you feel that way about us, too, you dork), and if you don't appreciate it, we'll save the ridiculous amounts of money we spend on them, and start wearing flannel pajamas and ratty t-shirts. Furthermore, these suckers cost 50 bucks, so you'd best appreciate them when they're worn for you and you get to take them off, 'cuz we could wear something much more practical, like control-top Spanx that holds in our gut and lifts our ass, leaving us breathless, which is your job. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now, now, he looks like a fine upstanding gentlemen and you ladies can be the envy of all other ladies when you're seen with him...ya, I have a better chance of landing a lady. CTJF83chat19:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because I have a touch of Roma soothsaying in my heritage (with a touch of ethnic profiling), my tingling sixth sense tells me that Mr. Herrod spied an attractive woman who, when crouched down to pick up a glove or some other innocuous object, showed that her unmentionables came from a high priced boutique often put in catalogs and worn by runway models. Thus having his bowels, loins, heart, and thyroid spun by said garments, Mr. Herrod proceeded to follow the woman from the subway station where his life was changed and she neglected to recognize anything had happened.
Following two hours of following her around their shared urban area, he approached her, handed her a faded plastic floral funeral spray, and said the following: "I like your panties. Do you like lawnmowers?"
Unaccustomed to this courtship approach, the woman, clearly fair haired and light-skinned, was non-plussed and merely replied (after five minutes of blinking): "Go away and leave me alone, you giant fucking freak."
But Mr. Herrod recalled the lessons learned from the alpha males of his youth, none of whom had ever had a long term relationship with a woman. Don't take no for an answer, you pussy! Chase her! She wants it!
So the quest was on! Gathering all the lawnmower parts and pictures from his garage, he followed her home, endured a boxing from her doorman, but undeterred, found a way into her building. There in her apartment he planted his favorite spark plugs and oil caps. Unable to resist and enslaved by temptation, he stole a pair of these unmentionables.
When the police arrived with the restraining order, he correctly deduced that she figured out who left the small engine parts and got the law involved. Bitter and confused, yet still spun by the her wily charms, Mr. Herrod took to his video camera to inform his compatriots of his downfall. --Moni3 (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In light of that stellar example of poetry, I have stopped re-examining my life's priorities and venture to say, regardless of all the harassment, discrimination, and plain dumbfuckery, my lot in life with my significant other is pretty good. --Moni3 (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Herrod doesn't look well. Interesting that you mention how slowly he talks Sandy; that drives me to distraction as well. Got something to say? Then spit it out, don't make me hang around waiting for it. MalleusFatuorum20:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The only acceptable men's wrist accessory is one that tells time." Noooo! I was watching John Wayne's Rooster Cogburn again last night; I've always thought his silver bracelet was cool. MalleusFatuorum20:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just re-read my "Got something to say ..." comment above and I realised that it might look as if I was replying to you, but I was making a general comment about people who drive me to distraction by talking too slowly. MalleusFatuorum20:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You took too long, and drove me to distraction; since I couldn't find any chocolate in my house, amid the buckets of water, I'm going to sleep. I expect to find some great retorts when I return. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm shocked, shocked!! that that video is unscripted. Jacob does look nice if trained by his father in wooing women who will never ever respond to him. --Moni3 (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I was a kid, my parents' ability to embarrass me was limited by the number of people they could address simultaneously. Now, thanks to YouTube, that number is essentially infinite. MastCellTalk07:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for writing. In my haste to better explain the c.o.d. of Carl Kaysen I neglected to change the wording from The Boston Globe article. Sorry about that. Ed (talk) 04:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sandy. I noticed this, even though I don't have that particular page watchlisted any more. I responded to it thus; please let me know if you require any other assistance. Any other such requests will be handled faster and more surely via a direct message. Best wishes of the season to you. --John (talk) 03:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for that, John; I've been quite busy IRL, am behind on Wiki, and haven't been keeping up or following things closely, and am glad you addressed that. Happy Holidays to you! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, he isn't; he has inserted that same change over three days, in spite of consensus against him, and he is now interfering with Doc James attempts to retain the article's featured status, and displaying WP:TEND. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see why you're defining it as OR. It may be a primary source, but it's still a source. It's not OR; misuse of specialized terminology can lead to confusion. DS (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:V#Reliable_sources_and_original_research; he is trying to use outdated primary sources, unsupported by secondary sources, to advance his own POV (that schizophrenia is neurological). He also doesn't seem to understand the terminology or research to the extent that our more experienced medical FA writers do. I've got to get on with IRL now-- this BoP business took much too much of my morning, but if you have more questions, I'll get to them sooner or later. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In building an RFC/U, I've noticed that {{uw-tdel3}} states that removing maintenance templates may be vandalism and can lead to a block, yet WP:VANDALISM does not mention this. Where can I find the applicable blocking policy, or is that an oversight that needs to be added to VANDALISM? If so, I shouldn't alter a policy page when I'm in a current dispute over that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I'm not an admin, but the first sentence of WP:VAND, Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. could certainly be applied to maintenance templates: removal of maintenance templates after multiple warnings typically suggests they're removing them to prevent the appropriate maintenance taking place, and deliberately compromising the article's integrity. GiftigerWunsch[TALK]18:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Under "sneaky vandalism", it says "abuse of maintenance and deletion templates" will be considered vandalism. I think abuse would clearly include removal of templates without solving the problem (although we could make the policy more explicit). Trebor (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an editorial template, and therefore the editor who inserted it here is God. Unlike ordinary text, that anyone can delete at will, an editorial template cannot absolutely be deleted except after an express written authorization by Jim Wales, the sacrifice of three goats and a young virgin maiden, and consensus approval by the Editorial Template Designers Syndicate. After all, editors who are unwilling to contribute to Wikipedia are entitled to have fun with it, too. (August 2009)
(ec) Hi Sandy! I think you might get differing opinions on that one. (I personally don't think removing maintenance tags is vandalism in the majority of cases -- if anyone can add them, anyone can remove them, and many "maintenance" tags just represent someone's opinion, e.g. "this lead is too long" or "this plot summary is too long" or "this article doesn't have enough of widget X"). Removing a "no references" tag, or a BLP-related tag, is more easily classifiable as vandalism. There have been some noisy disputes over these tags, as I'm sure you know. (The above tag I ripped off from Jorge Stolfi's user page.) Oh, and it'll be a very cold day Down There I ever block someone for removing a maintenance tag. All the best, Antandrus (talk)18:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so we seem to have a problem here, where our warning template isn't consistent with the policy page. I'll leave it to others to resolve, since I shouldn't engage there considering current dispute over same. I suppose at least 3RR still applies. Thanks, all ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS, but it's most curious that, the way VANDALISM is currently written, the editor adding the maintenance template is more likely to be blocked than the editor removing them, even when well justified on talk! And that should be fixed! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct -- the wording of the warnings is inconsistent with VAND -- having now just read that policy and the "tdel" tags. Additionally, tdel1 and tdel2 include "...[without giving] a valid reason for removal" but tdel3 and tdel4 do not. It seems reasonable to ask that someone removing a tag at least explain why they are doing so in the edit summary. IMO the templates should also be reworded -- they imply that a tag is valid just because it is there; maybe the person had a good reason to remove unneeded tags but just didn't explain why? I sometimes remove them if they are unsupported on the talk page and seem to represent someone's drive-by opinion. -- Changing policy pages can be about as easy as changing the order of the faces on Mount Rushmore, but when policy falls behind practice it does need updating. Antandrus (talk)18:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both the templates and the policy should reflect something about how well justified the templates are on talk, and whether the dispute is ongoing. I frequently see very well justified templates removed with an edit summary giving an alleged reason that simply isn't accurate, while removing driveby templates that haven't been justified on article talk or for which there is no consensus is a whole 'nother matter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Antardus: That's not really the impression I get from the tdel templates, but perhaps the wording could be clarified. They warn users not to remove maintenance templates without giving a reason or addressing the concern, which is correct imo; it doesn't imply that the maintenance template must be automatically correct, rather it says that they should be removed if and when the concern no longer exists (or never did exist perhaps, but usually that's a matter for consensus). Just my 2p. GiftigerWunsch[TALK]18:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, John (and NW); that's probably a better fit, but that page doens't mention, either, when it is inappropriate to remove maintenance templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although we are very clearly at odds regarding the schizophrenia article, you are correct in that my using edit summaries like 'lol' were completely inappropriate (even if only for stuff like cleaning my talk page). It was frivolous, and made it look like I wasn't taking things seriously. I apologize; in this respect, you were right and I was wrong. Basket of Puppies19:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciated, but we are still at odds, you still haven't addressed the issues (mistaken or incomplete feedback from others on article talk notwithstanding), and it is your overall behavior pattern that is such a concern, as it has taken inordinate amounts of productive time away from a multitude of other editors just to get to you listen, digest and talk. Engaging with other editors on talk would have avoided much of this. Are you ready to talk now? Because I'm not willing to have more time wasted, and actually engaging editors with whom you are in dispute, sincerely and collegially, is a more productive way to resolve the issues, and is certainly preferable to an RFC/U, which will drag on at least a month and bring out many axe-grinders. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm relieved to hear that; now, since I was up all night with a leaky roof after damage from the blizzard, perhaps we can defer this until later so I can get some sleep? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BoP, my time will be fragmented because of the roof situation, so I'll take this in small pieces until I catch up.
I am sympathetic to your POV of wanting to see Schizophrenia classified as neurodevelopmental: I have similar concerns on other articles I edit, and even share your POV about the distinction between mental and neurological to some extent on other articles, but this is Wiki, and we must set our own POV aside and edit in a way that does not introduce undue weight or original research based on cherrypicking of sources or reliance on primary sources into our articles. WP:V is clear that Wiki is based on secondary sources, and WP:DUE is clear on not giving undue weight (in this case, to hypotheses over established medical consensus, Tryptofish's claims notwithstanding). Understanding this will help us move forward. I'll add more info on that to the article talk page as I catch up, but the focus on user talk page is on your behaviors that led to this dispute, which has taken far too much time from the few productive editors we have who try to keep up with many medical articles.
You seem still not to understand WP:DUE or WP:NPOV and how to write the content you want to add in a way that reflects due weight to mainstream thinking, along with a complete analysis of both sides of the evidence/controversy over the neurodevelopmental issue. As it stands, the article is using synthesis to advance a claim, while downplaying mainstream thinking or the level of controversy/criticism of the neurodevelopmental hypothesis.
Removing attempts to discuss with you on user talk with an edit summary of "LOL" is Not A Good Thing (discussing with other editors is the first step in resolving a dispute, and would have led to a lot less editor time expended on this issue), but is less of a concern than your overall IDIDNTHEARTHAT that has furthered the dispute. Reading and understanding policy pages, hearing what multiple editors are telling you about Wiki policies and the sourcing behind the text you want to add, and actually engaging in discussion specific to policy will advance the discussion faster with a lot less agida.
If you are removing talk page discussions because you don't want your friends at school to follow, fine, I'll accept that no one likes to be embarrassed on their talk page: we can discuss on my talk page instead of yours, but behavioral issues do need to be discussed somewhere, preferably not on article talk, and so that an RFC/U (which is never fun and rarely productive) can be shelved and the article can advance based on policy, not misunderstanding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, when you look carefully at what I (and others!) have been saying, I think you will discover that my "claims" are not as you have characterized them here. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still catching up: sorry! This is good :) But, BoP still seems to be misunderstanding how we use sources in a neutral way to avoid POV, OR and synthesis; encouraging him to go out and find more sources may not yield the best result ... what he needs to do is write the article neutrally in a way that reflects due weight to all sides of the issue, high quality sources, and avoid cherrypicking sources that are supportive of his POV. The article is now POV, as it completely fails to account for controversy over the neurodevelopmental hypothesis, and in fact, places cherrypicked evidence over more established mechanisms, which are now at the bottom of the article, and gives undue weight to neurodevelopmental in the lead, with no discussion whatsoever of the problems with the neurodevelopmental hypothesis. As long as POV and OR stay out of the main (featured) article, I'm less and less inclined to spend my limited time on the daughter article, but I will catch up over there as I'm able. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for saying that. WP:There is no deadline. And I strongly urge BoP to continue to take to heart your guidance about proper editing behavior, because you are, and have been, quite right about that. However, please know that there is a pretty strong consensus emerging that you are on the wrong side of the sources, where it comes to what you call a "controversy" over neurodevelopment. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been meaning to mention the "deadline" issue-- thanks for jogging my memory! That (daughter) article can develop as slowly or quickly as BoP wants to address the issues, but Schizophrenia is a featured article, it is under review, and WP:OWN#Featured articles does apply to edits there. And, as long as the highest quality, most recent, broad overviews of SZ don't call it neurodevelopmental, while less broad reviews focusing on the controversy only explore the issue, I'm not on the wrong side of Wiki's sourcing policies; the controversy needs to be explored in the article, criticism and problems with the hypothesis presented, mainstream consensus presented first, the lead balanced, and mainstream thinking based on the highest quality sources reflected in the main (featured) article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know when/if you need any help, BoP; for now, I won't be able to add too much to the discussions in that sub-article, because I'm behind due to the blizzard and the roof. And thanks for talking and listening! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Sandy, I get the feeling I haven't exactly endeared myself to you recently, but please understand that I really am trying to do what's good for the project. And I have the greatest admiration for your high standards. Nothing I've said was meant to reflect badly on you, just to get things back on a better track. Maybe this will help. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I do understand, and have appreciated your input and attempts to help. I just find it very frustrating when another editor, no matter his AGF, doesn't seem to read, digest, listen, adapt behaviors (I do see he seems to be trying, but the issues continue, and close only counts in horseshoes), and I suspect that this would be just as frustrating if I was getting enough sleep and didn't have more pressing matters to deal with-- that's why I think a mentor is the best way forward for BoP. I don't tend to give any credence to private e-mail, but I might as well add that these behaviors appear to be a long-standing trend with him, if I'm to believe what I'm hearing (which is not something I like to do). Truth is, I used to enjoy mentoring other editors through these kinds of issues, was once very successful, but having been burned more often than not in mentoring, I've tried to learn when to give up the Pollyanna in me, as I tend to AGF waaaaaaay too long, and expend time and effort beyond the point of good returns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are very welcome. (And I do remember what you said some time ago about those socks where I had commented.) Anyway, I think your idea of focusing on the main/FAR page for the moment is a good one. And if you do get the urge to work on the offshoot articles, Causes of schizophrenia (including unfortunately some of the text now relocated to the Mechanisms page) is a compost pile of primary sources, many of them lousy even as primary research reports, presented in uncritically worshipful style. I've been intending for more than a year (yikes) to give it a thorough rewrite, but I haven't been able to bring myself to get around to it, partly because of the amount of effort it would take, and partly because I feel too soft-hearted over the fact that the main author of the page is also a patient with the disease. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness, I deal with so many different serious sock issues, that I can't recall which of them you're referring to :/ Doesn't matter, per WP:BEANS :) But is partly why it is unlikely I will be able to do more on any of the schizophrenia articles, even when the roof gets fixed! Lots of work to do ... <sigh> ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was contemplating renominating the Introduction to Evolution for FA. My intent, for the process to be observed by my struggling group of students in the Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2010. If they observed the many challenges and scrutiny that often occurs they may better grasp the futility of a last minute effort. This particular article has always been tumultuous at best understatement of the year. Even the demotion was a bit convoluted in that it was nominated for deletion by an enthusiastic editor who immediately deleted it in its entirety; then lost the FA star under an entirely different version. The original has since been restored, hopefully improved and has been stable for some time. My question. Would you consider taking a quick look at the referencing format to see if it still meets FA standards? I will not waste the time if it's an automatic fail on that note. Just a quick glance at format with a thumbs up or thumbs down will suffice - not a detailed critique. If it is not too grotesque - I will nominate in hopes that the former Fa version is still a quality piece of work! Incidentally, both you and User:Malleus Fatuorum are perceived as a sort of deity among my band of high schoolers - someone to fear and respect. --JimmyButler (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody has nominated this article for GA status. I remember you telling me a couple months ago that Legends of America isn't a reliable source. I've been working on replacing the Legends source with reliable sources, but I'm not exactly finished. Can you take a look at the article and tell me if there are any other unreliable sources? I think I found them all (still have to take care of them, though), but I want to get a second opinion. Thanks, The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs17:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, could you please specify what you mean in saying that Mozart and scatology is POV? I'm fully aware that this topic is a very loaded one, and for this reason I've stuck very close to what scholarly reference sources say. Yours sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief, I really think you are going overboard in your work on Mozart and scatology. Could you please just calm down a bit, wait for a while, and then read the article and check the reference sources before editing further? I am an experienced WP editor and the article was sourced as carefully as I possibly could. In particular, if you read it before editing, you will see that Simkin published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, and that he is not the only one to set forth the Tourette's syndrome hypothesis. I personally feel it is not a good hypothesis, but it is part of the literature on Mozart (see the cited articles on Tourette's syndrome) and readers want to know how professionals have assessed it. Sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you've caught up now ... see the article talk. Simkin's views simply do not enjoy widespread or respected medical consensus, the article has multiple issues requiring cleanup, and is POV until other sources are included. And I am perfectly calm; I do work fast when I see an article that needs work, and I have long ago read everything there is to read on Mozart and TS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, it pretty much defines a specific attitude. I particularly like the parts about tagging - I cannot stand arriving at a tagged article; it always makes me wonder why the page was tagged but nothing done to fix the problem. Nice job. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tag articles, medical generally, because 1) bad medical info is as bad (dangerous) as a poorly sourced BLP; 2) there's no human way for me to fix them all (today, I was fixing some dab links that took me to scores of medical articles, and almost everyone I checked was dismal, with no chance of me being able to fix them all, I don't have journal access, and researching medical articles ain't easy or quick); 3) maybe someone will fix the issues if they're tagged; 4) our readers should know when they're getting poor medical info; but, most importantly, 5) so I can come back and delete the trash in a month or so if no one fixes it. I think a medical stub is better than misleading medical info-- I sometimes wish we could just blank uncited medical articles so our readers would move on to their next Google hit, where they might get accurate info. Google any medical condition and see where Wiki comes up, because medicine editors have done a phenomenal job of adding templates that link articles like crazy, increasing their google ranking-- people in need of medical info are reading our uncited, poorly cited trash! I also tag POV biopolitical articles when the talk page owners make progress impossible; I don't tag articles when talk page discussion is ongoing and it looks like the issues may be addressed. In short: perhaps you can distinguish between editors who generally build content and sometimes tag articles, and those who only tag articles, particularly of editors they stalk, and have never built a real article themselves. And to close, Wiki is 99.9999% trash-- let's alert our readers to that, since it's not possible to fix it all. Or change policy so that we can delete on sight anything that isn't cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hate the taggers(' sins. hate the sin, not the sinner, gotta remind myself) in general. Think the vast majority (not you Sandy of course) would do better to take a strain and go learn how to research and write. Totally sinks morale to have these people doing drive by tags. Plus it's all crap that should go on the talk pages. Yeah, a lot of wiki articles suck. Duh. Either shoot the project or live with it. But the turdbox droppings that look fancy are just awful.TCO (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think tagging medical articles is valid - readers should know if issues exist on those articles and you have a strong argument Sandy. Most of my work is in the humanities, and it's annoying to click into an article to find, for instance, an absurdly long plot outline and a tag asking for references. Yeah, someone wrote a plot outline and didn't add scholarly material or reviews, and then someone comes along and tags. The tagger should take a moment to supply a reference - they might even learn something. I think a lot of tagging is done to increase edit count. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Well, I also dislike editors who have never built as much as a GA, but spend days on end placing fact tags on articles or statements that aren't causing anyone any harm -- I just think medical articles should be treated like BLPs (and that we should elevate that to policy, but I've been saying that for years ... ) Some people should get a life and go play somewhere else if they're not here to build articles that make a difference to someone, somewhere, somehow. (post-ec to TK) Agree: but not only to increase edit count, sometimes it's merely to plague editors they don't like. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote most of that from my own experience, including an unreferenced BLP I saw blanked (most of which was common knowledge anyway) and a current events article. I have no experience in medical articles. What sense could you or any med article participant make of drive-by tagging? Can you turn it into some kind of purposeful action? With no experience in them, I don't see a point in tagging them and returning later. Maybe you do.
I peruse quite a few articles all the time, many of which are wretchedly written or just trivial compositions. Like you, I understand I can't fix them all. The ones I tag I end up rewriting, like Emmett Till. For various reasons I don't fix issues in some articles.
Perhaps I should make a distinction here, or maybe a more forceful statement of one's entire existence on Wikipedia consisting of tagging. If editors never add content and only tag, that does not improve the site. Or did I make that pretty clear anyway? --Moni3 (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you made it very clear and it's a valid point that needs to be made. Some tagged articles I come across are quite easily fixed, some not as easily fixed but I often place them on my watchlist with the intention of returning to fix. The culture and tag-and-run is one that annoys me - a lot. Thanks btw for the good essay and for getting this conversation started. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think tagging should go in the articles. Put it in the talk page. If no one fixes it there, so what, at least you did not deface the article. What makes a fancy template different than putting little self editing comments into your writing? We know wiki is not finished product. The world knows it. And I would not give any special status to medical articles either. There is bum dope all over wiki. That's life. Either fix it, delete it, or live with it. Or put a comment on the talk page.TCO (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And there's where we differ-- I think bad medical articles SHOULD suffer the disgrace of a tag, should look ugly, should have something that discourages innocent readers from engaging them when they think they're getting accurate, important info that may matter in decisions that affect their health (OK, any reader who believes Wiki is stupid, but there are lots of stupid people out there, and how many of our readers know the difference between an FA and Joe-Bloe's-favorite-fringe-theory medical or psych article?). Fixing an uncited medical article-- even a short one-- often takes weeks, usually requires journal access, and we've got, what, tens or hundreds of thousands of them? Mostly JUNK, because some editors who add info to Wiki have an agenda (surprise, surprise)-- and it's WAY worse in the psych realm, which IMO, is the single worst series of articles on Wiki because they attract more than the usual number of kooks. If I tag 'em, someone often fixes them, our readers are warned, and if no one fixes them, then I'm justified in deleting the garbage so our readers can move on to something accurate when our articles come up first on Google. Yes, I think it's effective for medical articles, because everything in them needs to be right, and little is casual info, like on a BLP, where some of the info isn't harming anyone. A medical article is different than say, Hugo Chavez-- anyone coming to that article most likely isn't looking for info because they probably already know the score, and if they're too stupid to sort the POV or if they trust Wiki for info on Chavez, they were drinking the kool-aid anyway, and they're not likely to make important decisions that could affect their well-being based on what they read about Chavez. But someone googling around for medical info is more likely looking for helpful info without preconceived notions, and likely to hit Wiki first, not know how to sort a trash article from an FA, and be misinformed on something that actually matters. They should be warned. I wish our warning was better for med articles and said something like, This article is uncited, which means there's a very good chance you're reading a load of bullroar.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, can you then make some sense of this action for medical articles? Can you suggest say a paragraph about tagging med articles? It's outside my experience. --Moni3 (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say, sort something in your essay to, is the info you're tagging harming our readers? If not, place a talk page post instead. (Someone who tags statements that don't make a hill of beans difference to anyone, and are likely accurate anyway, comes to mind.) And on your earlier question, yes, the tagging often produces results. If someone cares about the article, the tagging will force them to fix it (assuming it's well justified on talk), or give you reason to take them to DR if they remove the tags without fixing the article. If no one cares about the article, it allows someone to stubbify the garbage so our readers won't be misinformed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And another thing, we have BOATLOADS of medical articles, including almost all of our medical GAs, that are full of primary-source original research, often pushing a pet fringe theory. We should be able to delete it all-- it's every bit as important as our BLP policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of it might actually be unsourced second-source research and, as a general rule, I'd put [citation needed] after such assertions if I knew they were unsourced research. Perhaps delete those later on if they prove to be OR? — Rickyrab | Talk19:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've used wiki for medical stuff. I been lifting weights and got injured. :( I've used the net for medical stuff. Any time you do patient research on the net, it is an iterative process and you have to weed through some bull. Might as well put a tag on the monitor. And I know lifting forums where they explecitly say, don't be an idiot and ask questions about injuries here, see your doctor. That said, I actually find it helpful BOTH to ask forum questions and to talk to my doc. I know the forum does not now all and I can filter.
P.s. I would make a cute rejoinder saying that we should watch out for bad Pokimon dope here, but teh Wiki actually has pretty stellar Pokimon info. :(TCO (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki is full of POV and fringe stuff. And also just low quality at times. Maybe we should have editors here, or something instead of letting anyone reach out and change our webpage from their side.
Here are the page hit stats on our disclaimer page; TS gets as many daily hits, and Schizophrenia gets 15,000 hits a day. How many of our readers do ya think can even find that teensy disclaimer link at the bottom of the page? And there are LOTS of stupid people on the internet (and some of them are even Wiki editors :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm keeping an eye on this conversation as I'm working on another page, and came across this tagged page ( Women's Army Corps )- I mean, really, doh! Pretty much everything needs expansion. That said, I think Sandy's argument re medical articles is extremely valid. Perhaps if fewer tags were used they'd have a greater impact? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep! That ties in to my message of "tag if the article is harming someone", otherwise, take it to talk (for example, put expansion on talk). But I'm also forced to tag when talk page discussion yields nothing, due to tenditious editors, ownership, whatever. But even on that I've changed: because I'm so discouraged about the amount of pure trash on Wiki, I don't even bother if the page doesn't get high views. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think cases of active tendentious editing is different than the tagging-for-sake-of-tagging. I don't run into as much tendentious editing as you, but when I do it's incredibly draining and discouraging. In that we agree, very much. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Best solution on tenditious editors used to be "tag and unwatch"; now it's just "unwatch". I'm jealous of those editors who get to edit off in corners where no one bothers them and they rarely have to deal with trolls, stalkers, vandals, spam, POV pushers, and run-of-the-mill kooks -- that doesn't seem to have been my lot on Wiki :) But yea, sometimes tagging is a last resort, but tagging for the sake of tagging on non-med articles is probably rarely productive. Maybe someone will tell us why they do it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think because they don't know what else to do here and don't really want to write an encyclopedia - as Moni's essay suggests. Logging out now, but Happy New Year, by the way! Don't worry too much about the roof - we lost all our gutters in last year's storm - that was fun! - but only a memory now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As much as tagging annoys me, it does have its uses. For example, active WikiProjects will use the categories created by tags to create cleanup lists. There are very few such projects, though. The articles I frequent (music-related) often have months- or years-old tags, many of which don't even apply, but people are afraid to remove them. Any text that would be harmful to someone should just be removed, not tagged. We do this for copyvios, so why not BLPs and med articles? Our exposure would be no less for the latter two, it would seem. --Andy Walsh(talk)04:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP already says that problematic unsourced material should be removed, not tagged. I think the spirit of that would apply to BLP material with issues other than sourcing. Extending that approach to medical articles... well, why not? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, maybe you, Sandy, or anyone else interested can assist writing this paragraph here. I understand your point that tags should be scarce, but they're not. The essay is to persuade users to shift their attitude from "I'm a tagger and I'm proud!" to "Oh, I should fix that." Your points about med articles are well-taken, but I'm not quite sure how they would be incorporated into the rest of the essay. While medical articles should get a template of some kind, in your opinion, that does not address the problematic behavior of doing the least amount of effort in mass tagging. So I feel rather dim here, and I think I need your help. --Moni3 (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more than usually dim because of lack of sleep, but I'll contemplate this after pots of coffee and when I have time. Medicine articles perhaps need a whole new set of unreferenced or poorly referenced templates; not sure I know how to design those. Will look at that para once I'm coherent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nightw 16:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
