User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch83

RE: Featured content

It's alright, [everything is sorted out http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/requests&oldid=431912633]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowik (talk • contribs) 04:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot question

Hey Sandy. Thanks for your recent guidance in my Homicide FAC! I'm sorry to bother you with a quick question because I know you're a busy editor, but I thought you could help. I'm hoping to soon renominate Into Temptation (film) for FAC. However, one possibly major problem I have is that the official Into Temptation film has been taken down, so the PDF link for "Production Notes", which was used to cite several pieces of information in that article, is now dead. As it stands, there are several sources on that site with dead links. I checked the Internet Archive but they didn't have an old version of the Production Notes archived. I have even so sent an e-mail message to the film director to see if that PDF is available anywhere else, but haven't heard back yet. If that course of action doesn't work out, what can I do? WP:LINKROT states factual information shouldn't be removed solely because the URL no longer works, but does that mean I can simply remove the links and keep the sources there, or would that not be acceptable for an FAC? Any guidance you could offer would be most appreciated! — Hunter Kahn 14:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a printout, hard copy? I will be on a plane today, others may help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• So, it turns out, the website is actually still active. It's just been changed from http://intotemptationthemovie.com to http://intotemptation-themovie.com. So, yeah, I feel like an idiot for not figuring this out sooner, but at least it means I can fix the LINKROT problems. :D I will fix the article up next chance I get. Sorry for having bothered you! — Hunter Kahn 17:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Tourette syndrome

Were you aware of a suggestion at WP:TFAR that this article should be put on the main page? Bencherlite^Talk 15:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

No, and considering my time is compromised until I'm settled the third week of June, I don't really appreciate that ! (Kind of you to tell me, but I don't have time to get over to TFA/R today ... at any rate, Raul knows my situation and that I wouldn't be able to attend to it on the mainpage and that I'm the only one who can ... ). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)s

Sandy, I've been wanting to see the Tourette syndrome article as TFA for a while now. I just want to ask that you please allow the article to be on the main page at some point when you have more time to devote to it. As I commented at WP:TFA/R, I don't see why you would take the time to write a high-quality article on an important subject and then prevent that article from getting wider exposure. Even if it will take some effort to maintain the article while it is on the main page, I think that informing more people about Tourette syndrome is worth the effort (again, once you have time for it).

Also, another user has expressed concern at WP:TFA/R about your above statement that you are the only one who can attend to the article while it is on the main page. I want to say that I agree with that user and feel that such a statement is inappropriate. While I understand that the primary authors of an article should be given some say in when that article appears on the main page, yout statement really seems to cross the line into article ownership. While I am not suggesting that the article should run on the main page when you are too busy to pay attention to it at all, I do think that other editors can detect and correct vandalism to the article. Please consider that if the article were to appear on the main page in the future, you could ask other people to help you keep an eye on it (e.g. at WP:AN), and that other editors would be fully capable of assisting in maintaining the article's quality while it is on the main page. Calathan (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you've never had an article on the main page Calathan, but I can tell you that it's no fun at all, and rather pointless in a way, as most readers are seeing a vandalised version for much of the time. There are some articles, and this is probably one of them, that ought never to be featured on the main page unless they are at least semi-protected. But that goes against the philosphy of TFA, which is only to protect once the vandalism becomes excessive. Malleus Fatuorum 20:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to say as well that your quite charming belief that administrators will be able to help is, well ... charming. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 20:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I have had an article on the main page (not one I wrote, but one I nominated, where the primary contributor had left Wikipedia). However, that article (Tokyo Mew Mew) wasn't on a particularly popular or controversial subject, and it got hardly any edits while on the main page (checking back now, it looks like less than 25 edits, all of which were either vandalism or reverts of vandalism). I was actually quite disappointed about how few edits it got, since that suggested to me that no one was reading it. Anyway, I do understand that articles that are more popular, interesting, or controversial get far, far more edits than that while on the main page. However, I have read a very large number of featured articles while they were on the main page, and I assure you that almost all of the time the articles were in good shape when I read them, and that I learned quite a lot from reading those articles. Also, the policy on protecting the featured article on the main page has been changed, and TFAs can be protected just like any other article. My understanding was that since Tourette syndrome is already semi-protected, it would still be semi-protected if it were to appear on the main page. I also think your suggestion that administrators couldn't maintain the page is just wrong. I honestly think that the page can be kept in good shape with semi-protection and a bunch of eyes watching it, but even if it can't be, I think the current protection policy allows for full protection of the featured article on the main page if warrented (i.e. it can be protected in the same situations that any other article would be protected). I also want to stress that I still think having the article on the main page would do far more good than harm. Calathan (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

if you didn't take part in writing it then you didn't have an article on the main page. Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

What he said. TFA for a high-traffic article is probably the single most soul-destroying event that can happen on Wikipedia; volunteering someone else for it (without even the basic courtesy of notifying them) is coming close to disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. – iridescent 22:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't nominate the article for TFA, and would never nominate an article for TFA without asking the primary author (or the relevant Wikiproject for articles where the primary author is gone, as I did for the one article I did nominate). I also never suggested the article should run without Sandy's support, and was only asking that she consider giving her support at some point when she has time for it (and to consider that others could help maintain the article along with her when it is on the main page, but again only when she has time for it). Also, I find your comment rude, not to me, but to the person who nominated the article for TFA. While people like you or I, who follow TFA/R, would know that it is considered proper to ask an article's main contributors first before nominating it for TFA, a user who is new to the process is unlikely to know that. Saying such a user is nearly as bad as people who intentionally disrupt Wikipedia is the kind of statement that scares away new user and makes people not want to participate in processes like TFA. Quite frankly, I feel that sort of attitude that everyone should know all the intricacies of every policy before doing anything and anyone who doesn't is causing problems is actually the biggest problem with Wikipedia right now (though at least in this case you didn't direct that comment at the user in question himself, so hopefully no harm was done). Calathan (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I will never forget the fallout from wife selling, and I would be quite content never to see anything I've written on the main page ever again after that. Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to take credit for having an article on the main page that I didn't write. It didn't sound like you were asking about my writing credits, but whether I had tried to maintain an article in good shape while on the main page. I was just saying that for the one article I had nominated for the main page and was expecting to need to defend, I had surprisingly not needed to do anything as it got very few edits and other people promptly reverted all of them. Also, from the anecdotal comments I've heard about it, Wife Selling suffered much worse because of being TFA than a typical article. Please don't let what sounds like a worst-case scenario jade you to the whole process of having articles featured on the main page. As I said above, I've learned a lot from reading TFAs, and I'm sure many other people have as well. Calathan (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me assure you that wife selling is by no means the only article I've written that's appeared on the main page, and it's never been a happy or productive experience. Malleus Fatuorum 03:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Since the user in question has been on Wikipedia for six years, I'm not sure what point exactly you're trying to make here with your talk about "new users". This is not a one-off; the user in question has a very long history of drive-by nominations. As Sandy (almost) says below, unless you have sufficient knowledge of a topic and sufficient access to the sources used in the article to maintain it against the TFA onslaught—and the willingness to devote a full day to keeping it clean—then yes, it is inappropriate to expect other people to do the same just because you (or whoever) thinks it would somehow be cool to nominate a high-maintenance article at TFA. – iridescent 15:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that the user was familiar with TFA/R and had a history of such nominations. If the user keeps making such nominations despite being told not to, then I can understand why you would say that is disruptive. I was just annoyed because you seemed to be directing criticism at me for something I didn't do. Calathan (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

You've been here for five years, so surely you're used to that by now. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 17:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Bwaaaahaha, good start to my weekend, MF ! On Wiki, as in real life, what people don't know, they make up :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a wall of text above that I don't have time to read, but long and short is that I am in one state under construction and all of the sources are in another state in boxes in storage pending my move ... Calathan, would you like someone else to find all the sources to attend to any questions on mainpage day, as well as the inevitable coprolalia-related vandalism, because if you've ever moved and built at the same time, you might understand that having a TFA right now would be really horrible. If there is one main author, who has most of the sources, and who can defend the article on mainpage day, Raul generally respects when the main author can't attend to a TFA, and I fersure can't right now ... any spare time I have is for FAC, and I announced quite some time ago that I wouldn't be settled until mid-June, now late-June due to construction delays. That's all I have time for now, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for all the text. All I'm asking is you consider allowing the article to run when you do have time. Calathan (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem-- someday I may :) But for now, and in fact for the last two years, I've had my hands quite full IRL, and don't appreciate having to even think about this, even worse considering some ungrateful persons screaming about FAC, when I've stayed on top of that just fine IMO considering everything else on my plate. When I get through the month of June, and am re-settled for the first time in two years, I plan to go back and see what <expletive deleted> person nominated TS for TFA/R during one of the busiest possible times of my life, so I can go whack that person. I do think it would have been courteous of that person to ping me first. Anyone trying to make an ownership point at TFA/R should consider who has the sources and in what box they reside right now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Passerby suggestion: Having read Wikipedia:TFAR, I find nothing about asking the FA's nominator before suggesting it appears on the main page. Since it seems to be an unpleasant experience for some, perhaps it ought to be a requirement to have the nominator's endorsement before proposing it? Then people's time would not be wasted. AD 17:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

No need-- it's common sense. The only problem was when people objected to the removal, although Raul has long stated he respects requests from the main authors. Glad it's gone-- someday it may go up, but hopefully that will be when I'm near the sources, not half a country away from sources in a box. Had James Durbin (singer) won American Idol, that might have been a good time to feature it-- the right time will come. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

12 Gauge (album)

Hi SandyGeorgia! I have nominated the article on the 12 Gauge album for FAC again, and Nikkimaria and several others gave some good pointers. The article is so vastly different to what it was between its first nomination and now (even after the second nomination was made), that I was hoping to get another pair of eyes to look at it. The current nomination archive is located at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/12_Gauge_(album)/archive2. You may recall telling me that I can ping users, so long as I don't canvass, but that I should also consider the "wait" option. My article just entered the "Older nominations" section of the FAC page, so I feel it's okay to start asking for any last minute reviews before the article returns to its 14-day purgatory! I would love it if you could swing by and read it; if you are too busy, let me know here, and perhaps I can ping Laser or David Fuchs instead. Thank you so much : ) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

FAC candidate - Bryan Gunn

Hi Sandy... I'm a bit rusty with FACs, sadly. What's the status of the article - do I need to get any of the reviewers to return? And do I need more supports? Do you think it would help nominators and reviewers if the delegate(s) placed some kind of status thingy on each FAC page and amended it each time they reviewed? Thanks --Dweller (talk) 08:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Today's featured list looks just about ready

Hi Sandy. I remember a few months back you asked to be kept informed on any developments on the Today's featured list front. I've explained the latest situation, and provided all the relevant links, at Raul's talk page in this section. Regards, —WFC— 18:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Heart Peaks

Hey. I was wondering if topographical map sources are problematic for bringing articles to FA. There is one in the Heart Peaks article that sources half of the Structure section. Volcanoguy 21:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I should hope not... most highway articles use maps to source the "route description" sections. Imzadi 1979 → 21:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Just want to know because I have never used topographical maps in FA articles before. Statements like "Heart Peaks is at least 33 km (21 mi) long and no more than 19 km (12 mi) wide at its base" is from measuring the length and width of the volcano's largest contour line. Surely not everyone is great at using maps. Volcanoguy 22:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

FAC cliffs notes

Hey. Given your busy schedule right now on top of Karanacs/Laser brain being inactive, I went through some of the older FACs, noting where it seems everything is at now in hopes that it would make your next run-through easier. List if from bottom up:

• Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895): Comments left a week+ ago not addressed due to nominator inactivity. Left a message at MILHIST, so could be ready for promotion if both recent commenters support; if no work is done in the next week this would unfortunately have to be archived.
• Flourine: Grahamcolm just opposed yesterday, and his comments are currently being addressed. If he moves to support once concerns are addressed this can be promoted.
• Guy Fawkes Night: This is not an easy one. Those who seem against FAC seem to hate it due to the lack of recent trends and activities, which I'm against adding, and it seems Parrot and others are as well. No recent comments, so you'll have to make a judgment call on this next run-through.
• Covent Garden: Your concerns, as well as new ones from Cryptic, remain unaddressed, and not quite sure why. If they're still there at week's end then archiving may be needed.
• Luke Schenn: Sarastro's comments still being addressed. Promotion/archival could come down to him.
• Star Trek V: The Final Frontier: More reviews still needed.
• Kenneth Walker: One more solid review would be nice. Once that happens and image concerns are fully addressed then this could be ready.
• James E. Boyd (scientist): One or two more reviews would be ideal. RJHall and Mike Christie's reviews were very detailed, which tells me there was quite a bit to tweak.
• Rhabdomyolysis: A lot was modified today, though it'll be up to Axl if he thinks the oppose still stands; once other reviews are addressed nom will have to ping.
• Hurricane Gordon (2006): Looks ready for read-through by you and, perhaps, promotion as all concerns are addressed.
• 12 Gauge (album): Archiving would normally be right but this already failed for lack of comments once. I'll try and get to this tonight though I'm not the biggest fan of reviewing music articles.
• Voalavo gymnocaudus: Only 10 days old but already looks ready for final checks/promotion.

Hope this helps; if it doesn't then nevermind, since you may already have a listing a lot like this you go through for all I know. Actually by doing this I see where any backlog issues come from. So many end up getting 80% of the way there then stalling, and when it gets that far archiving's never fun. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

re your edit to User talk:Jimbo Wales

I regret to advise you that you have mispelled the word wimmin. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Dag nab it ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Gobrecht dollar

Hi Sandy. Regretfully, I'd like to ask a favor of you. Could you please withdraw the FAC for Gobrecht dollar? The reason is that a couple of editors have expressed their opinion that the article is not yet ready for featured article status, and I trust their judgement and I agree that more "polishing" would really improve the article considerably. I know that I could close the FAC myself, but I'm not familiar with the protocol and I think I remember reading somewhere that only delegates should close FACs. Thanks in advance!-RHM22 (talk) 00:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, asking the favor isn't regrettably, but the subject is! That didn't read as well as I meant it to.-RHM22 (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Imzadi 1979 → 00:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks!-RHM22 (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Mattisse

You, I note, were one of the last people to interact with user Mattisse on enWP prior to xyr final indefinite block.

Your considered opinion on seemingly similar disruptive behaviour on Wikinews would be welcome (see n:WN:WC.) --Brian McNeil /^talk 07:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian McNeil (talk • contribs)

Odd you and Malleus get one of these but I don't.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, SandyGeorgia, for your recent help keeping FAC on track with regard to consolidation of comments and keeping the focus on point. Much appreciated. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Update: After seeing your structural formatting I made some additional organizational edits ([1]) – but please feel free to change it if there is a better way to do that. :) -- Cirt (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Sample. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I had seen that and found it odd. I thought it best for me to not get directly involved in that issue as the FAC nominator, and let others deal with it. Rather, it seemed appropriate behavior for me to simply do my best to attempt to address comments as they come up, at the FAC. -- Cirt (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, with regard to issues with the account above, would you be willing to disregard its "oppose" at the FAC? -- Cirt (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I take into account editor history at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, thank you! :) -- Cirt (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Jeez! That's me sunk then. :-( Malleus Fatuorum 22:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Cheer up. You always have the option of a productive future creating templates with smiley faces, talkback messages and Facebook "like" symbols. In your spare time you can sneak "In Popular Culture" sections onto the pages of various classics of literature, seminal figures in history, etc. Those are huge contributions to Wikipedia.  – Ling.Nut 00:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I could go so many ways with that, but until SandyG is moved and sorted I'll just stew. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 00:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

What are you stewing about ? A MF review is a good review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

All I meant was that I'll keep my banter off your talk page until you're settled again; I've got quite enough banter on my own to be getting on with for now. Malleus Fatuorum 01:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Fluorine (TCO take)

Please give it more time, Sandy. Such a crucial article. I know you disagree with article improvement during FA, but it is working, plus this is the submitter's first one.

Several images have been improved (I just struck another, as we got a donation). The lead photo is still a concern and possibly the F2 image. We are really "on it" to pound out every one. Takes time with donations and the like.

I have (just now) requested a copyright examiner to check it out with automated tools and all that. My overall impression is positive (unlikely a plagiarism article), but would feel better if had the scrub.

I personally think organization and prose need a tighter scrub. It hits the right content emphasis (I have read enough to see that). It is still noticeable as suffering from the Wiki multiple editor melange though and doesn't read as smooth as something by Greenwood or Cotton.

We probably have the clear majority of the assertions referenced, but I have found a few places where I checked a reference and the article wasn't the right one to back up a fact. (Fact was right, but the referenced article did not discuss what we want.) And some minor technical errors. (I think this is a result of relying on old content or other wiki articles or "properties databases", but I think at FA, this is the time to have checked all that stuff...)

TCO (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anna of East Anglia/archive1

I gather you were just waiting on the image review- I'm now satisfied with the licensing and sources provided for all the images in use in the article. J Milburn (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know-- will look next time I run through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll run through FAC today/tomorrow. Do you need me to take this weekend too? Karanacs (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Karen, that would be fabulous ... I'm up to my eyeballs with movers, and won't get a break until 6/27. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll pick up this weekend and do Tue next week. We may have a week-long gap then. I'll have a houseful of people helping me pack the weekend of the 25th and I'm moving on the 28th/29th. Time permitting, I might be able to pr/ar on Friday the 24th, but that depends. Good luck with your move!! Karanacs (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Featured Sounds Rules Changes

Re your post here,
If you have suggestions as to how to shape up FS, by all means suggest them at WT:FSC. The criteria went though a rewrite recently, and the community there seems to be receptive to change at the moment. FS has popular support for getting on the main page, but its leadership, both past and current, is aware of the fact that FS has... shortcomings. A purge of current FSes is needed, but before that most of the rules need rewriting. You're experienced in the FA process, if you can lend FS a hand by showing it how best to get its house in order that would be most welcome. You don't need to stay and help out if sounds aren't your cup of tea, but FS has had chronic instability, especially in its leadership, for a long time. It needs someone that knows what they're doing to show it the ropes.
Sven Manguard Wha? 04:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

They sure do, but I don't have time ... basically, the buck has to stop somewhere as it does at FAC, and we don't see that kind of accountability over there. And until they do, they don't belong on the main page ... I'm sorry I missed that discussion and didn't see it until after it was over. On the other hand, they're no worse than some other stuff on the main page, like DYK ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

On that topic, I just glanced at the main page, and saw a featured picture for something allegedly called a "roadside hawk", curiously a Latin American bird, whose article gives no indication what the damn thing is actually called in Spanish or Portuguese, or who made up the name "roadside hawk". Unless the bird exists in English-speaking countries, I'd sure like to know what it really is and how it came to be called a "roadside hawk" on Wikipedia. Sheesh. Why do we put things on the main page that raise more questions than answers? The Spanish wiki calls it a gavilán pollero, aguilucho de ala rojiza, or taguato común, none of which have anything to do with "roadside". Apparently, these folks call it a "roadside hawk", but it would be nice if our article told our readers what it's called in the countries it's actually found in, like Gavião-carijó in Brazil. Apparently, en.wiki doesn't consider its name in the countries in which it lives important. Can't we put quality articles on the main page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hah, you think that's bad, how's about...this - called "Great Northern Diver" by the british, "Common Loon" by the Americans...and the official name is now a hybrid..used by...??? But folks will adapt - the Magpie-lark is a friendly little bird here in urban parks and gardens - people in NSW and Qld call(ed) it a Peewee, and in Victoria it is a Mudlark...so we have a new official name...which now most folks use.Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Whenever I look at Featured Pictures, usually art ones, the captions are normally appalling, either with basic mistakes or missing basic information. They don't seem to get any thought in the selection process. Johnbod (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

FAC Nominations

My article on Kenneth Walker has now been at FAC for over a month. I notice that another editor has been granted a fiat to nominate a second article for FAC. I was wondering if I could do the same. I have several articles waiting. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead, Hawkeye. Karanacs (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Mary quite contrary

I've tried a few times but I seem can't do anything with Talk:Mary Anning. Can someone take care of the AH stuff there. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. Thanks, Gimme. Karanacs (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks both. Karen, things are progressing well here, and there is a (remote) chance that I will find time to pr/ar on Sunday-- if you're swamped, you might hold off in case I can get there? On the other hand, if you have time, I've still got my hands full ... check with me before you pr/ar? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I should be fine this weekend, Sandy. It's the following weekend that I'll be unavailable. You go ahead and plan to take the weekend off and work on your personal stuff. It's certainly your turn! Karanacs (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

you're a gem ... I wish I could do more the following weekend, but it will be impossible ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Question about the International Men's Day entry

Hello Sandy. I wonder if you could cast your eye on the inclusion of a PNG.logo to the International Men's Day entry which is named after the man who created it- he has named it "Adam Badge". His full name is Adam Alexandru, he runs an insignificant website from Moldova devoted to IMD. The material on his website is copied directly from the official Global IMD Website and elsewhere. To my knowledge no celebrations of IMD have yet taken place in Moldova. The name Adam Alexandru is not mentioned in one single news article or reliable source anywhere in relation to International Men's Day. My question is this:

Is it ok with WP policies to name a badge after oneself and upload it to a Wikipedia entry, when that person has no notability whatsoever in the context of IMD history or events?

If you are unable to intervene could you please recommend an Admin who may be able to assist in clarifying this issue. Many thanks. 121.223.37.124 (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Addenda- The creator of the Adam Badge now claims that he has named his badge after the Biblical Adam from the Christian book of Genesis. Unfortunately this interpretation also leads to problems as IMD is not based in any one religion; the reference to the Biblical Adam is simply misleading about the officially pluralistic basis of the International Men's Day. Its basically a branding issue. I would add that the IMD Global Website previously rejected the Adam badge due to the appearance of the name Adam. It has no official endorsement. Perhaps one remedy might be to remove the reference to Adam from the logo? 121.223.37.124 (talk) 10:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Problem solved. 121.223.37.124 (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad, since there is no chance of me finding time to have a look this week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

International units.

I am doing a GA review for Chevrolet Volt, which may likely come your way at WP:FAC in the near future. The author has claimed an exception to conversion standards for internationally prevailing units of measure. E.g., "Normally you convert Kwh to MJ, but not kW is international convention if I am not mistaken", "engine volume is expressed in liters by international convention", etc. Is this acceptable?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• We certainly use the second in the UK, as "litres" of course, & I think did so even before we supposedly went metric 30-odd years ago. Sounds ok to me. Don't know about the 1st. Johnbod (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Does this mean these are instances where conversion is not necessary?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

For "litres", certainly. What would it be converted to anyway, quarts? Johnbod (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Engine displacement in the US is traditionally measured in either liters/cc (cubic centimeters, or a milliliter) or cubic inches. Imzadi 1979 → 01:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are instances where conversion is not necessary (eg some science articles) and that is covered at Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Which units to use; I have not looked at this particular article or situation. Please read all of the above link, MOS:CONVERSIONS and Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Units of measurement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Gonna go read that. Want to get rid of the deg-F in Fluorine. Even though I'm 'murican, I HATE how we get the cruft of the numbers (four of them, if conversions and a range) inside sentences.TCO (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration

At WT:FOUR the topic of collaboration has come up. How many WP:FACs are there with three editors that have more than 500 edits. I am familiar with Inauguration of Barack Obama because it is one I was involved in. I am wondering how common such an extensive collaboration is.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that depends on how well people use the preview button. Ucucha 21:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I am bad at that sometimes but of my 579 edits, probably 500 of them are good, but if you want to take the number down to 400 feel free.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I think that FACs where even one author had at least 500 edits are fairly rare. I made only 13 edits on my last FA. Ucucha 21:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It's an interesting point though. I think it's more likely that a "core" topic will have more edits and by more people. An obscure topic is more amenable to off-line single-person development.TCO (talk) 02:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

User account issue

Hi SandyGeorgia,
I have been attempting to sign on my user account for the last 10 minutes.
I've been using the right password and for some reason it's saying it's not valid; however, it is.
It might be possible that someone hacked my account recently and changed my password.
Can you please help me?
Thanks.
User:ATC 108.41.105.93 (talk) 00:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

(Not SandyGeorgia.) If you are really sure you're not mistyping the password, there's nothing I know of that can be done short of persuading a software developer to manually change your password. If you had an e-mail address set in Special:Preferences, you could send a new (automatically generated) password to your e-mail address, but it appears that you don't have an e-mail address set. Ucucha 00:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi ATC - I do that all the time - type too fast, make a mistake, get an error message, and have to try again. Also once I couldn't get in at all, but it was for some reason the fault of the network at the time and not my password at all. You might just wait for a little while and try again. No one has edited using your account, so I doubt it's been hacked. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Truthkeeper88, I appreciate the help! User:ATC 108.41.105.93 (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again! I think you were right. ATC ^{. Talk} 02:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments by the sock account at FAC

Sandy, I am not seeing much here that is actionable, and it has been made clear to me that this sock account is carrying out vindictive behavior from its prior sockmaster account. Can further disruption from this sock be discounted? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 01:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm just curious - how do we know this is a sock acct? Given that the most recent comments were made in response to my review; and my only interaction with that acct was not exactly stellar, I'm wondering if it's the same account that's been vandalizing my articles and bothering me on my page. If so, I'd report it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Truthkeeper88, see diff and diff. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day; we don't discount anything that is actionable, but we do take into account reviewer history (I've believe I've already stated this previously).
2. Other editors make unhelpful reviews-- we don't just ignore them, we deal with anything actionable, take their history at FAC into account, and carry on the best we can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

They guy is pretty toxic to the process though, to submitters. Do what makes sense, truth. If he gives you something that is an insight, use it. If not, don't. Don't worry about othe people not having your back or the like. We all know he is 56skidoo. I could go troll his ass, but you know how candy-ass this site is. just consider it having happened.

Sand, I would intervene though, if he is bullying an FAC "first-timer" though. truth should be able to handle the bizarre Wiki experience. But if 56 starts driving away valuable additions...that would be a loss for your program.TCO (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I think unworthy supports are more damaging than unactionable opposes. I do intervene when a first-time nominator is being hounded by an inexperienced or unqualified reviewer, but Cirt has been around long enough to know that unactionable opposes can be politely ignored. I find other reviewers much harder to deal with than this fellow; unworthy supports backlog the page and tax qualified reviewers. And then there's those uber-long nitpicky reviews which should be opposes ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm appreciative of the responses, Sandy, and I'm in agreement with your input. However the socking is a problem in and of itself, as well. -- Cirt (talk) 02:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

That should be dealt with in the appropriate dispute resolution forum; at FAC, I can overlook disruptive commentary, but I am not the policewoman of all of Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Sandy, you're quite right about that. I shouldn't have troubled you with it. I'll deal with it in the proper forum. -- Cirt (talk) 03:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologize ... I wish we could easily deal with all of the unhelpful commentary at FAC, which is by no means limited to any individual editor. Anyone referring to "toxic" editors at FAC might want to take a glance through my inbox before throwing stones from glass houses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

In a message on my talk page Cirt has indicated he does not want me to comment on his article. Fine, but I reaffirm my Oppose (not as a retaliatory gesture) but because I think the article falls short of the comprehensiveness expected at FA. It could also stand some improvement, particulalry with the prose. I simply believe this article is not FA material. I've tried to provide helpful suggestions. Some FAC nominators should understand that FAC is more than just a copyedit for grammar and typos. 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 03:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

They do. And in fact I have opposed for rather similar reasons to your own. Malleus Fatuorum 14:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

That is what Cirt, and other reviewers, should be focusing on, rather than the reviewer. If other reviewers believe the commentary is valid, they should say so, likewise for invalid. It's called consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with this. It's nice to have the ability to have the reviewer blocked but frankly leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Regardless of who the reviewer might be. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocking reviewers would set a nasty precedent that would not bode well for FAC. If we blocked every reviewer someone has complained to me about-- whether here on my talk or in e-mail-- we'd have few left. You can please some of the people some of the time, and all that. If there are behavioral issues beyond FAC, they should be dealt with via other dispute resolution, but I have never been in favor of stifling reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much

Thank you, Sandy, for this edit diff. I'm quite appreciative, especially as it was a banned user. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Please let me know if I missed anything. [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, will do! Your edit above helps a great deal. Note that I had tried to respond to the user, several times, in good faith—before it became apparent what was going on. It took a while to see the forest for the trees. -- Cirt (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Folks should remember not to let the prolific socks know how you could tell. Best left alone now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Moni3 nailed it. Then somehow began posting in third person... --Moni3 (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, she did indeed! -- Cirt (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Updates: Another sock of the banned ItsLassieTime tried to nom the page for deletion [3], see also SPI case page recently archived by Checkuser [4]. — Cirt (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK

Sandy, not wanting to be accused of applying FAC standards to DYKs, I still think the reviewing process needs to be bumped up there. Can you advise if I hit on the most important and practical basics in this post, in which I propose extra requirements? Tony (talk) 04:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI on RfA

Hi SG!

I removed some personal attacks against you on the (officially "closed") most recent RfA.

• KW removes personal attacks (with alleged sexist innuendo) by Pedro.

My talk page has (unproductive) discussion of whether statements be sexist has occured. (I responded myself especially because I had understood you to be traveling; I have previously objected to personal attacks on male editors, btw.)

A previous episode of energetic incivility prompted a public statement of concern from a much wiser and gentler editor. Perhaps the community is wise just to ignore such attacks ....

I understand that you should be informed of these (brief) discussions (although I would guess that you shouldn't condescend to reply yourself). I am sorry for the distraction.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

That my commens may have been seen as strong and strident is undeniable. That they were overly agressive I also admit maybe so, and for that my apologies. That they were sexist is surreal - for example KF appears to be under the delusion that using the word "courting" is sexist. Something he is particularly wrong about. Pedro :  Chat  20:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Pedro's phrasing included not just "courts" but rather "courts the Wikipedia fraternity".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

What's sexist about "courts the Wikipedia fraternity"? Does someone need me to illustrate sexism? I can do that. --Moni3 (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

RfA has surely got to the point that it's a damn sight more trouble than it's worth, and causes more rucktions and bad feeling than just about anything else on here. Why don't we just let the 700 or so active administrators do whatever it is that they do? Eventually the number will become so low that something will have to change, but until then we're stuck with it. As for Pedro, clearly he was mistaken in supporting a child, but then he was far from alone. That said, there is absolutely nothing sexist in the comment you quote KF, except in your mind. Malleus Fatuorum 20:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Clearly I was mistaken in that RFA; it was closed before I could fully review the opposition. However, we've moved on from that. Apparently I'm sexist because I use the phrase "court the ... fraternity" and also homophobic by indulging in "gay-baiting" [5] by use of the phrase "getting sucked". At least I never used the term sycophantic however - that really would have been dreadful. Pedro :  Chat  20:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Dammit, Pedro. Does Malleus need encouragement with that sycophantic thing? No, he does not. --Moni3 (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

But he so rarely mentions it ;-) Pedro :  Chat  21:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

"All in my mind", eh? I had thought that British nominalism had followed wife selling into the history books....  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to take a chill pill KF. Malleus Fatuorum 21:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Advice to "Chill out" has been said before, indeed by friends.

About the sexism of "sucking off": Perhaps you can understand my having PTSD after having listened to a long & heated discussion of implicit misogyny/homophobia after a militant de base described his union as "sucking off" management. It happened, and it was unpleasant for me, years ago. However, ever since I have understood that a derogatory use of "sucking off" is not associated with gay men or feminists and should be stopped: This is probably more of an issue for Americans, for better and for worse.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You are leaping to one interpretation of the word. Cast your memory back to before you can remember, you were sucking off someone. Gay. straight, male, female, you were probably doing it. And if you've ever been on the water in a boat, one of the basal contributors to language, you may have found youself getting sucked (in). Why have you made that particular conclusion? Franamax (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

"Sucked in" was the primary meaning I attributed to Pedro's intention, as my (kindly accepted) redaction documents.

Even in my lapse of AGF, I should have remembered what Jesus said

Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Matthew 15:11 KJV King James Version

and "chilled out". Stop me if you think you've heard this one before,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I am unloading 400 boxes ... I did see the personal attack, think Pedro lost his marbles (but hope he's regained his senses now), but think it would be good for the child in question if everyone let this die and considered it fortunate that real harm did not come to another child who should be playing soccer rather than playing on the internet, apparently with no parental supervision, and outed on WR. The real shame is the negligence that continues to occur at DYK, all the folks who support children for RFA, and allow these debacles to continue, and allow children to think they should be playing on the internet. And that's that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

(I especially hate edit conflicts when it's the absent editor who conlicts with me :) This is all getting rather silly. Welcome home Sandy, or welcome to your hotel internet connection. Have fun catching up. :) I support KW's removal of the original, pretty serious personal attacks. I don't go with the sexist part (except "screaming into the tea-towel", which I've never seen applied to a man, since they would have to be familiar with screaming, tea and towels). I'm not seeing any gay-baiting either. But the original comments were over the line IMO, and good thing they've been redacted. Franamax (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I am glad that this candidate has not withdrawn completely, like a previous RfA candidate who (because of age and other concerns) did not pass. Adolescents feel rejection like Morrissey.

Thanks for the first words of some support for the redaction, Franamax!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Adolescents feel rejection poignantly, or like the emo god Morrissey, because they're adolescents. What kind of reaction would an adolescent wounded by an RfA feel upon being told to suck a bag of cocks by a vandal? Why would anyone put an adolescent in the position to receive that kind of commentary? --Moni3 (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Why indeed, but that's a question for Newyorkbrad, who seems to make a point of supporting every child admin candidate. Malleus Fatuorum

Maybe a short notice to young editors should be added to the RfA guide. I wrote a quick draft (despite being tired):

"Wikipedia does not require RfA candidates be adults, because the community lacks consensus. Many youthful editors perform admirably as administrators, but some have had difficulties, and these problems are often viewed as related to their youth.

Because of their moral and legal beliefs, many RfA participants consistently oppose most (or all) RfA candidacies by minors. Particular concerns include the access of administrators to deleted content, some of which may be illegal for minors, and the greater exposure of minors to outing and harassment. Consequently, RfA candidates who have been viewed as young have often faced considerable scrutiny and public discussion as to their age and maturity. This scrutiny and discussion occur against the objections of many other RfA participants, who view this scrutiny as improper and lacking any basis in WP policy.

Young editors wishing to become administrators should seriously consider both the concerns expressed in recent RfAs and the stress of the RfA process itself, before accepting a nomination for RfA. A number of RfA applicants have been so discouraged by RfA process that they have retired from Wikipedia editing; for young applicants, the risk of public criticism and possible rejection is especially great."

I would assume that a consensus document would welcome all the children of the world to come together and sing in perfect harmony, much more. Perhaps Pedro and MF could devise an appropriate warning label?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

"Wikipedia does not require RfA candidates be adults, because the community lacks consensus" - more likely because we have no way of identifying people. Any person can claim to be an adult, and there are some adults on Wikipedia I wouldn't trust as admins.

"Many youthful editors perform admirably as administrators, but some have had difficulties, and these problems are often viewed as related to their youth" - as someone who is generally lenient when it comes to age at RFA (I look for signs of maturity, rather than a number), this is an "argument" I see regularly yet I've never seen any actual evidence that younger admins have difficulties. How many child admins do you know of who cause regular problems? I know several younger admins who contribute featured articles and are generally quiet and unnoticeable. Not so of many adults - some people never grow up.

"Particular concerns include the access of administrators to deleted content, some of which may be illegal for minors, and the greater exposure of minors to outing and harassment." These concerns are fair ones, but are rarely produced at RFA - usually, an opposer will simply say "too young" or "too immature" without giving specifics.

I think adding a warning is a good idea, but your suggestion needs some work and is probably best proposed on RFA talk rather than here. AD 00:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

There are many admins on wikipedia I don't trust as admins, never mind kids. Nevertheless it's ridiculous to have 12-year-old children poncing about as pseudo-policemen when what they really ought to be doing is playing football and attending to their schoolwork. Malleus Fatuorum 00:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

()e/c's, but I think this is still relevant) That's a good statement, though it's three times too long (like many of my own posts). I object to the objections being solely ascribed to "moral and legal beliefs", morality is a belief, legality is an opinion, and my own concerns have naught to do with either. And I'd prefer to see it worded a little more strongly but nicely along the lines of how bad you might end up feeling. But I largely agree with that statement. Also, as I recall, there weren't any actual minors teaching the world to sing, weren't they all pretty much young adults? And none of them were ugly or fat or had bad accents, either - and most tellingly, all their candles were white. :) Franamax (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for correcting others' misspellings, which I had intended only as a silent kindness, without thinking that fixing typos was improper.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

FTC problem

Since you've been promoting articles to FA status, I would like your thoughts on a nomination at FTC. Its probably different the FAC process, but I just need a delegate's opinion. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Major League Baseball Draft first-round picks/archive1 has been up for over a month and it has 4 supports and 2 opposes. The problem is, 3 of the supports are from editors who made some of the lists into Featured Lists. Are co-nom supports still accepted in nominations? GamerPro64 02:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be a strange world if co-nominators didn't support, therefore their votes should clearly be discounted. Malleus Fatuorum 02:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Mmm, but then at most featured processes I visit, the nominator is automatically considered a "Support" !vote, FA included if I'm not mistaken. Anyway, even though those 3 supports are from people who didn't nominated the topic, they could have a biased and vested interest in seeing it promoted. If I was closing I would count the topic's nominator and the others as just one vote. So yeah, I guess after I've typed all that, I agree with Malleus. Discount them. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's even simpler than that. Nominators and co-nominators ought not to vote at all. Whatever happened to the idea of "integrity"? Malleus Fatuorum 03:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, but most if not all the processes do accept the nominator(s) as a support. We know that no one is going to nominate an article they would oppose, and if the processes had ten or fifteen reviewers I would have no objections to disallowing the nominators, but most (FPC excepting) are hard pressed to get 7 reviews and (without starting a major political debate) since presidents and prime ministers can vote for themselves in an election, then for me, for now, it it isn't the end of the world. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

What are these "most processes"? If I nominate an article then of course I support its nomination, but I'm not a vote, any more than the co-nominators are a vote. Perhaps you're confusing FAC with the nonsensical RfA? Malleus Fatuorum

OPictures and sounds, definitely, lists from what I remember when I last nominated one, although it might not be true now, and I though FAC did, too. Matthewedwards :  Chat  18:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for both of your advices. I closed the nomination as failed now. GamerPro64 20:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Cirrus cloud FAC

Sorry about all the unsigned comments. They were all mine, and, if you wish, I can concatenate them after the relevant reviewer's comments. I'm rather unfamiliar with the process (this is my first FA nom, and I'm predominantly a vandal fighter) so I'll probably make mistakes with the formatting in the FAC. I don't mind cleaning them up though, so just let me know if you want me to concatenate my comments. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for your reply to TGilmour. I was uncertain of how to proceed when a reviewer's comments went against WP:LEADCITE. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Revert

Sandy, aside from the fact that I think it's a bad idea for you to be reverting me in the first place,[6] considering your dislike of me, I think if you look at the actual page, you'll see that voting is exactly what is taking place. --Elonka 13:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Your first statement is so pretentious that it provides humourous context for the second. That someone framed something as a "vote" on Wikipedia does not negate the fact that we don't "vote" except at Arbcom elections and RFA-- we do discuss. Sorry, them's the breaks. The whole thing is so well positioned that we have an RFC under the page Wikipedia:Naming conventions-- yep, that's how we do things on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Spare me the denials. As we both know, I could provide a number of diffs showing you complaining about me, at great length, on multiple pages around the wiki. Or to put it more simply: I would prefer if you were to disengage on any and all actions concerning me. Don't revert me, don't review my articles, and please stop the backstabbing and complaining. If I do something horribly out of line, I am sure other editors will be able to point it out. --Elonka 15:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Are we reading the same page? I don't see any denials. Lots of us would prefer lots of things, but we don't get them by bullying other editors. Good bye, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, the person doing the bullying here is you, not me. Look, I know you do a lot of good work for the project. I see how hard you work! But just because you work hard, does not give you the right to treat other editors with disrespect. You repeatedly engage in sniping and uncivil comments. This behavior is inappropriate. Now, I do understand the frustrations of working on Wikipedia. We see a lot of garbage articles flowing in every day, and it can feel overwhelming. But that doesn't mean that being rude and demeaning to other editors is an acceptable response. If you feel that you're too exhausted to be able to keep your temper, then please, just take a break. The project won't dissolve in your absence, and it'll give you a chance to regain some equilibrium. Then you can return recharged and in a better mood, and the project will be better for it. I do feel that you do a lot of great things for Wikipedia. But because of the influence that you have, you can also do a lot of damage. We both want to see Wikipedia have lots of good and well-written articles. But when you're sniping at other good editors, this makes them less likely to want to write good articles, not more likely. Please think about what we're trying to achieve here. We should be doing everything possible to encourage the good editors, and encourage people to keep writing high quality articles. Can we agree on that at least? --Elonka 14:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Elonka, please take your self-important bullying elsewhere. I made a completely sensible reversion reflecting the Way Things are Done on Wiki to a page I have watchlisted, and that for some reason prompted you to come here and start wagging your tongue and attacking me. I frankly don't care what you think of my work here-- it, and your postings here-- are entirely irrelevant to anything, particularly to the minor correction I made to a template. Unless you can explain why "discussing" instead of "voting" is not what we do on Wiki, please go bully someone else over a trival matter-- someone who may be more easily intimidated by you than I am. PS, what is it about a minor and sensible revert that caused you to come here to attack my work on Wikipedia? I do not see any swiping whatsover here, but I do see plenty of pretentious and self-important sniping and attacking here: I daresay it looks like you came here looking to provoke something and intimidate me over a very trivial and correct revert to a template I watchlist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Training

Elonka, perhaps a clearcut example will help you understand how to treat fellow editors collegially and respectfully. Your disrespectful, snide, snipping post of:

• Sandy, aside from the fact that I think it's a bad idea for you to be reverting me in the first place,[7] considering your dislike of me, I think if you look at the actual page, you'll see that voting is exactly what is taking place. --Elonka 13:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

might have been:

• Sandy, I noticed that you reverted here; considering that "voting" is exactly what is taking place there, I'm wondering why you reverted? --Elonka 13:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to alter your tone and try again? HTH, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd be willing to consider that, if you'd be willing to reconsider your own tone in your replies? Maybe even refactor a bit? I would be very pleased if we could get to a point of being able to speak to each other with mutual respect. Ultimately, though I think there are some things about Wikipedia on which we will never agree, I think we have many other things in common. --Elonka 22:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Elonka, are you paying any attention? You came here (quite unnecessarily, since the revert was not even controversial) and posted a rude, provocative, unnecessary and disrespectful post, and that is certainly not the path to "getting to a point of being able to speak to each other with mutual respect". And I'm not about to start the refactoring game that leads places you have in the past (meaning you want to erase all evidence of your misbehavior from talk archives). The "frustrations of working on Wikipedia" that I see are not "a lot of garbage articles flowing in every day" as much as it is rude, self-serving, arrogant editors. Perhaps we'd get off on a better foot if you considered an apology-- they go far in the real world, and even on Wikipedia. If you can't apologize, or speak to other editors like fellow human beings, then you really shouldn't ever visit my talk page again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

From my point of view, I came here with a polite concern, and received verbal abuse in return. If you would have responded politely, that probably would have been the end of it, but since you chose to respond with abuse, I chose to challenge your demeanor. However, you have just continued to reply with more abuse. You have used terms towards me such as "rude, provocative, snide, snipping, disrespectful, arrogant, self-important, self-serving, pretentious, bullying," etc. Is this your idea of how to "speak to other editors like human beings"? How would you feel if I used the same language towards you, and referred to your behavior as rude, arrogant, self-important bullying? --Elonka 13:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

That you consider your first post "polite" is a problem. It was "rude, provocative, snide, snipping, disrespectful, arrogant, self-important, self-serving, pretentious, and bullying". I have seen you do exactly what you are doing now and here too many times to other editors, and you are unwelcome to post again on my talk page unless you want to acknowledge the rudeness, retract and adapt your behavior to community norms. I showed you (above) how you might have politely and respectfully sought answers to your concern: I don't need to show you how I would have answered your question until you ask it correctly, but I don't believe you will ever find an instance of me not responding in kind to a polite request or query. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I am in agreement with you that rude editors are a problem on Wikipedia. But I'm not the one doing the name-calling here. Sandy, it is my opinion that your language has been uncivil, and I hope that you will try to do better in the future. You have alot of influence on the project, and as such, are an important rolemodel. If you would like to see other editors behaving in a calm and civil manner, it would be very helpful towards that goal for you to demonstrate that behavior yourself. --Elonka 15:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Elonka, look at your initial post here. You start out by personalizing the issue, casting it in terms of Sandy's "dislike" for you, before getting around to the actual reasons why you think "vote" is the appropriate term. If you start out a discussion by personalizing an issue, then you can't really be surprised when it goes down this sort of road. MastCell ^Talk 16:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, regarding this:[8] (a) You are wrong. (b) It's yet another example of you complaining about me in an inappropriate way on various pages around the project. If you've got a problem with what I do, you can bring it up at my talkpage, or here at your own, or in some other appropriate venue. But jumping in to someone else's talkpage where I am acting as an administrator, is not an appropriate location. --Elonka 16:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

(a) you are wrong, again. (b) Don't post on my talk page again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Airbus

In your most recent comment at the FAC for Airbus A330, by "Nikkimaria's points" do you mean the rechecks in the source review? If so, those are pretty much irrelevant now, as the citation format has since been changed to Vancouver. I'll probably be doing another source review once Sp33dyphil confirms that it's going to stay Vancouver. For spotchecks, Fnlayson checked one source earlier, but if more are needed I can do that too once the formatting issue is dealt with. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

thanks for the explanation-- there's so much going on with the citation format change, it's hard to keep track-- I was referring to the format change, which left a mess, and an RS check is needed as well. Yes, on new nominators we need to check more than one source for close paraphrasing and accurate representation of sources. Thanks for all you do, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

PS, any editor for whom previous close paraphrasing issues have been raised needs ongoing checks-- there are several of those up now, and I won't promote those until closer scrutiny has been applied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Brief thanks

Passing/failing an FAC is one thing, but your minute attention on top of that to date ranges etc is above and beyond the call of duty (in the English National Opera article in this case), and I am truly grateful. I bet countless other Wikipedians are too. Thank you so much. Tim riley (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Email

Hey Sandy, I've sent you an email. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Got your email, Ed, thanks for writing, and I'm glad there are still some solid heads over there ... in fact, were it not for you and J Milburn, I'd have submitted the CUP to XFD long ago-- you seem to have more solid heads on your shoulders than some of the participants.  :) The conclusions drawn by other participants in that thread, who grandly missed the point, were astoundingly pig-headed and short-sighted. Working together in this case has meant quite a bit of extra effort for reviewers, but we do have to do our homework when a competing editor instates a CITEHOW breach not once, but twice, with no consensus, not reflected on the FAC, and going over the nominator to a secondary contributor with no discussion on talk, resulting in boatloads of extra effort for Nikkimaria and a very lengthy and convoluted FAC. Perhaps some of the non-AGFers would prefer in the future that I just close any/all CUP nominations without doing any homework, since it results in misinterpretations and unsavory allegations against me? It was only inept editing rather than a CUP issue, but it highlights the issues that need to be investigated when there is a competition ... and I'm not sure if the result that it was merely inept editing rather than a CUP issue is good news or not :) :) Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I hope we would – we wouldn't be great judges without having experience in some kind of featured content process! That's compared to some of the competitors who may be newer and have never submitted a GAN, much less a FAC. The Cup is an attempt to motivate these kinds of editors to give it a shot. Maybe their first FAC fails, perhaps even with a bit of drama, but chances are they will learn from their mistake(s). Just as I've come a long way from the failures of The Sword of Shannara and the initial success of USS Nevada (BB-36), maybe the next time they submit a FAC it'll pass, and the net benefit to Wikipedia is positive. Maybe I'm a bit idealistic, but I certainly hope it is true. ;-)

It wasn't too inept (he did contact one of the page's contributors beforehand, after all), but it was [unintentional] disruption. On the positive side, he's learned and hopefully he'll review a few other FACs from time to time.

Anyway, I hope Cup-related disruptions don't occur often, but again, feel free to contact me or J Milburn via email or our talk pages if they do. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Analysis

Hi Sandy. Thank you very much for your comment. I'm not the strongest copyeditor, and I do know that I make mistakes. I did check my nomination statement 3 times, but I just don't have that eye for copyediting. Anyway, I would certainly appreciate you reviewing my work, I've seen the quality of the articles you put together and feel the risk of your oppose is well worth the information I could learn from your critique. I understand if you don't have time, and hope that your comment will actually ensure that someone else does so if you do not. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I share the copyediting weakness, often don't see typos until days after I make them, and often take three posts to make one. Anyway, our posts crossed, and I mentioned the typo on your RFA. Should I find time, I'll have a look at some of your content, but I'm not sure I will-- which DYKs should I look at? I'm more interested in hearing who some of your best mentees are, since there are practically no editors on Wiki who are good at/enjoy mentoring others, and I'm most interested in knowing more about your work in that area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say my most improved mentee would be User:Jenova20, who was quite hotheaded when I met him, getting upset on Talk:Daily Mail over homophobia. He was diligent and attentive at my adoption school User:Worm That Turned/Adopt/Jenova20, and even handled a situation at the adoption school talk page without my help. I can't tell you how proud I was when he let the other user have the last word. Other than that, I've helped 3 editors who were looking at the business end of a block for disruption, all young editors, User:Porchcorpter who kept requesting adminship, User:Adam mugliston who was getting annoyed over bus articles being deleted and User:Rcsprinter123 - another editor who reviewed GA without due diligence. All three are plodding along in the community now, but I do keep looking over their shoulder just in case. I've also had a few exceptional mentees who really didn't need my help, User:Adwiii, User:Bennydigital and User:Ryan Vesey, all of whom were just using me as a safety net, they would have coped very well on their own.

Many of my DYKs are also my GAs, as I would take them step by step. I would suggest BLT as a GA that was also DYK or Jacques-Barthélemy Micheli du Crest as a DYK which I did not expand to GA. I keep all my DYKs at User:Worm That Turned/DYK, which I linked from my nomination, so you would rather look at a different one, please do. I do intend to take a week off some time later in the year and get Doom Bar ready for Featured status (look out for me!). Having said that, I haven't worked on the article for a while, so it's not in it's best state at the moment. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm swamped over the weekend, but hope to look into your mentoring soon, and find time to look at your article work and catch up on your RFA-- may not be til next week though-- excited to find someone who is good at and enjoys mentoring young hotheads !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sandy. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but my RfA is over, and I seem to have a few more tools ;) Thought I'd check in to say that if you do get time (and I understand if you don't, having watched your talk page for a few days!) I'd still appreciate any analysis you can provide on the information above. Always looking to improve and all that! Worm^TT · (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Congrats!!! I do wish I could find time-- see all those posts that are months old at the top of my talk page? They're all waiting for me to find time ... and I will someday! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought that might be the case! Well, if you want to leave it on your to do list, then I would appreciate it but please don't prioritise it! If not, I'm sure I'll be seeing you at FAC soon enough :) Worm^TT · (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Lede, citations, bacon, high-end and Worms

Prompted by your comments at Worm's RfA, I checked into something I thought I knew. (I intended to simply ask, but decided I should do some homework first.)

Here's what I thought I knew:

Factual statements in the lead do not need a separate citation if the lead is simply summarizing a point in the main article which itself is adequately cited.

I vaguely recall how I came to "know" this. During one of the times that DYK issues were being actively discussed, I glanced at a TFA, and was surprised to see no citations, I checked, not sure where, and was informed that it doesn't look nice to have the TFA entry cluttered up with footnotes, and as it is ok to omit them if properly referenced in the main article... Huh, I hadn't known that, and thought I leaned something new. However, I checked the guideline and find wonderfully waffling words of wisdom. I'll summarize "Yes, material MUST be cited, except maybe it doesn't have to be, it depends, and maybe not. Use consensus" Consensus? Fine, but based upon what?

I believe your concern about OR in the bacon article was the "well received" description, which is now gone. However, the lede refers to "It now appears on dessert menus in other high-end restaurants.", which, if my "rule" applied, would be OK, ans it is a summary of the notable uses section, which is cited. Now that I've reread the actual guideline, I'm not so sure. I'd be interested in your thoughts.

On a related but different issue, the use of "high-end high-end restaurants" strikes me as OR. I bet that is an accurate description of Espai Sucre, but I'm not sure we can use it without a little more foundation.

It looks to me like Worm is doing wonderful work with adoption, so on the chance that s/he sees this, I am supportive of the editor in general, but, I also want to maintain our standards, if I can figure out what they are :)--SPhilbrickT 15:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Your summary of the LEAD situation is correct :) I would cite that particular statement in the lead, since it's surprising to the reader, but when I saw it uncited in the lead, I looked for a citation in the body of the article, where I found what appears to be original research. In general, writing food articles is hard, and knowing what to cite in the lead is iffy, so I'm not coming down hard on this, particularly with his good work with mentoring .. but you are correct that it requires some judgment to know what to cite in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"since it's surprising to the reader," this sounds like a useful rule of thumb. I realize it s a recapitulation of "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged,", but it is clearer.--SPhilbrickT 16:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Cheers for that, I'll certainly be keeping it in mind in future. I'd been trying to keep the lead free of sources, but that's a sensible rule of thumb to follow. Worm^TT · (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That "rule of thumb" used to be part of MOS-- it sounds like it got edited away? MOS used to be somewhat intelligible and logical-- no longer is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

A330 FAC

Hallo Sandy, I was wondering what the tense problem with the sentence "It was offered to a number of airlines, including Singapore Airlines, who were looking to replace its Airbus A310-300s." is. I had a chat to a few IRC guys/gals on the apparent mistake – they themselves were aguing what the problem was. They recommended me to go straight to you and ask for the tense mistake. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 06:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Moved from user page to user talk page. Matthewedwards :  Chat  07:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

"looking to replace its" should be "looking to replace their", or "Singapore Airlines, who were" should be "Singapore Airlines, which was". Parrot of Doom 07:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Were ... its --> were their or was its ... do you refer to companies in the article in the singular or plural? Need to be consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI re close paraphrasing

Hi Sandy, CaroleHenson is proposing a rewrite of Close paraphrasing. See her discussions with MRG [9]. Her sandbox draft is here. I link to the page often and want to be certain people are aware of proposed changes. I have some thoughts but am in a dispute (somewhat) with the editor, so will wait for others to weigh in. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Crap, that's a lot to wade through, and I'm at my quota for the day, need to get on to some unpacking and spent a lot of time on that other issue. I hope someone will give me the nutshell of what CaroleHenson is up to, and will have a look over the weekend. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Ceoil asked me to help to work on Vincent van Gogh and in the process of some edits I made I linked into a Vincent van Gogh subpage she wrote (she's written a lot them) and found copyvio, having just been reading the source and then finding myself reading the same thing again. I pointed it out to her, she asked for examples, I found many, she became upset with me, and with Ceoil, I punted to MRG, and Carole volunteered to rewrite the close paraphrasing page because it's hard to understand for new editors in her view. That may be the case, but needs eyes, I think before it goes live. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Is her rewrite weakening the page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In addition to a number of formatting and organizational changes, CH has added a "How to write acceptable content?" section, which outlines how to avoid unintentional close paraphrasing (take notes, rephrase, double-check for yourself, etc). She has also turned the See also section into a table, with a sentence explaining the content of each of the linked pages, and added a few extra links. In general, her approach seems to be making the page more accessible to newer and less experienced editors. Most of the important sections have been retained, but the phrasing may need to be looked at. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at it, but am going over it now. Only noticed the post to the close paraphrasing talk page this morning. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Robin Friday

Hey Sandy, just noticed that the FAC for Robin Friday was opened only one week after the previous FAC was closed. Unfortunately I didn't check before reviewing the article, and someone else has also reviewed in the meantime, so I don't know what you'll want to do with it. Also, you've probably been following Tony1's recent comments, but in case you haven't he's requested your recusal on the FAC for Indian Head eagle and the FAC for Missouri River, and that I've moved an exchange between him and Wehwalt to talk on the former. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look in a few hours, once I'm done with my Daily Dailies ... thanks for the update, Nikkimaria! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikkimaria, I had a chance to look at Robin Friday, and I think I'll let it stand. It was closed the first time for lack of review, with no substantive opposes and some commentary indicating it was in good shape, so if the nominator had asked, I would have allowed it to be re-nommed in one week. Should have asked, but didn't, already has two reviews, nothing productive comes from closing it now, since the last closure was for lack of review. Thanks for watching that! I haven't followed the Tony saga, will check in periodically to see if the disruption has ceased, hope there will be no need for me to further engage to stop disruption, otherwise it sounds like you're handling the situation, which is most appreciated! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Toxic (song)/archive1

Hello Sandy. I was wondering if you could do something about the above nomination? Its nominator has not contributed much to the article and they have not transcluded the nomination to WP:FAC too. Thanks, Novice7 (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy. Novice7 (talk) 04:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

FAC for Dengue fever

Hi Sandy,

Please forgive me for poking my nose in but I think consensus has been reached on Dengue fever. Is there any chance of a decision on this FAC soon, or is 17 days there too short? Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping Karanacs would make an appearance soon, since there are multiple FACs at the bottom of the page that I've weighed in on, but I will try to get through today in spite of the holiday. Thanks for letting me know! (Do you 'spose I must recuse from Dengue Fever since I actually had the blasted illness, and I wanted to die?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry, I caught it too, in India in 2006. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

A330 update

Grrr. Don't you dare generalize this finding, but I re-read that article and found a BUNCH of what was ailing you. So...eh...you were right (once). Anyhow, I had already tried getting four (4!) different superstars to engage but the combination of the article dullness and their own wikidramas (could be me too) led to no-go. Since, it was obvious the issues you were seeing, I went ahead and did what I could. [10]

In no way do I want some fluffy lowered standards affirmative action FAC pass. That said, it would be win-win (the hackneyed phrase, but srsly) if we got Aviation doing FA work and FA (and Wiki) covering planes better.

TCO (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Advice on working an article to FA.

I have created a sandbox version of the article "Bleeding Kansas" that I hope to work up to FA at some point. I've seen your name mentioned in and around FA discussions, and thought you might be able to either give me some advice as I embark on this task, or point me in the direction of someone who could do so. Best, LHM 06:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not Sandy, but WP:GAN and WP:PR are both good steps along the way to FAC. You can also go through the FA criteria one by one and check to make sure that the article meets all of them. I've taken a look at your article - good start, but needs many many more citations. Hope that helps! Nikkimaria (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at it! As of now, I haven't modified it at all. What you see in my sandbox is simply a cut and paste from Bleeding Kansas. I will take a look at those criteria you link, and start there, as I move forward on rewriting the article. Best, LHM 16:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments at WT:FAC

Sandy, I've brought this part of what you said here (at WT:FAC) to your user talk page:

"You seem to be operating on the principle that if you proclaim something vociferously enough and often enough it will become true (and in the case of Carcharoth-- who incidentally has a history on this very page of weighing in on issues of which he knows little-- does seem to have become true, because he is mimicing and supporting the factually inaccurate portions of your posts here)."

Could I ask you to clarify two points? (1) Which bits am I mimicking and supporting? Are you referring to what I said here? ("I do think Tony has a point about the Signpost work he does and Sandy's reaction to that.") If you were, then providing a diff (as you've asked others to do) would have helped. Incidentally, I should have looked for and provided diffs myself (apologies for not doing that). Possibly my memory was at fault there. It seems I was remembering the interactions between you and Tony during the last ArbCom elections (though that did involve some of Tony's writing for the Signpost), see here and here. (2) You say I have a history of weighing in at WT:FAC on issues of which I know little. Again, it is hard to respond to something like that unless there are specific diffs (or at least enough of a description that I can remember what you are referring to by that comment). So what history are you talking about here? I hope you commented at the time if anything I said misled anyone, as that is the last thing I would have wanted. And please, if in future I say anything that appears or is misinformed, please tell me. Carcharoth (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the delay, Carcharoth-- I do wish Tony's latest would not have occurred over a US holiday weekend, when some of us have better things to do than follow the latest saga, and I need to carve out time to pr/ar in spite of the holiday. 1) I was referring to "I do think Tony has a point about the Signpost work he does and Sandy's reaction to that." By the time of the ArbCom elections and the incidents you may have tuned in to, Tony was already all on one of his tantrums and had long been attacking and misinterpreting anything I said anywhere, and it all started over repeat instances of "One Must Never Disagree With Tony Anywhere On Anything No Matter How Minor Or One Will Be Villified and Berated for Eternity". He berated and belittled me one time too many over a minor disagreement, and by the time you may have tuned it, you most certainly did not get a complete picture of what happened, and I'm disinclined to spend a single minute replaying it or worrying about it as long as and until Tony does same to someone else in a way that affects FAC, which is precisely what he did to Wehwalt. Tony mischaracterizes his writing for The Signpost as being an issue between us, probably because that's more expedient that acknowledging the way he treats any fellow editor who happens to have any collegial, professional difference of opinion with him over any trivial Wikipedia matter, as happened with Wehwalt. When Tony decides Something Must Be Done A Certain Way on Wikipedia, stand aside or stand down or be prepared. He did that to me one time too many, to where I grew tired of being his punching bag, but I would have let that stand as the status quo if he didn't also let it affect his work at FAC, as it did in the Wehwalt and ResMar cases. 2) We already discussed at length and resolved, via e-mail, the previous matter at WT:FAC where you weighed in with an incompletely formed opinion based on partial facts, and I consider that resolved (thought we both did), so I was surprised to see you do it again. Your impressions about what occurred between Tony and me are partially formed at best, and any attempts to discuss those issues with Tony only result in additional vituperative and vociferous personal attacks from him: in summary, one is not allowed to ever take a different stance on any issue from Tony on the Wiki and escape without a beratement, but turning FAC into a battleground over his personal whims is beyond the pale. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It is difficult sometimes to be aware of all the differences of opinion, but these ones had been noticeable for a while. Hope it all works out. About the previous comment at WT:FAC that prompted an e-mail, I think I've located that one, but I'm not sure we did actually discuss it. You are right that your e-mail did resolve the concerns, but there was no way at the time that I could have known what you later mentioned there. I suppose I will just have to remember that sometimes there is more going on than meets the eye. I'm still not 100% sure I have tracked down the right WT:FAC incident that you are referring to above, though, so if you want to remind me again by e-mail about that one, please feel free. Carcharoth (talk) 05:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Portal 2/archive2

It looks like this FAC needs to go—it is a near drive-by nomination, and the primary contributor is opposing. I'm not sure whether it would be allowable for me to remove it myself, so I'm just alerting you.

I think there's a broader problem here, since TGilmour (talk · contribs) appears to have a pattern of starting poorly prepared FACs on articles other people have primarily worked on: see also Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/OK Computer/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pink Floyd/archive1, the deleted Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Wall/archive1 and at FLC (not directly relevant to you, but the pattern is the same), Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of best-selling music artists/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Radiohead discography/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tennis stadiums by capacity/archive1 (where he did do a little more work himself). I also just warned him about making unwarranted changes in citation style—something you and Truthkeeper88 mentioned to him a few days ago.

Not sure what's to be done here; I'll inform him of this thread and make it clear that his behavior is not acceptable. Ucucha 23:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

See my sandbox-- that smells like either an ItsLassieTime sock or a Hardrianos sock-- classic behavior so far as an exact match for Hadrianos, Tara Gabunia sock, but curiously also going after TK articles, as in ItsLassieTime. Will look at that FAC, and catch up on FAC as soon as I can, but was hoping Karanacs would put in an appearance this weekend. PS, we really need for a FAC regular admin type to regularly watch for and block the Hadrianos, TGabunia socks ... they are blatant, and waste boatloads of FAC time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You are almost certainly right—I've blocked the account as a sock of Taro-Gabunia.

By the way, are you saying that Hadrianos1990 (talk · contribs) is also the same as Taro-Gabunia? That account is not currently blocked. Ucucha 00:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh my, I didn't realize that had never happened ... yes, it was always my impression that the TGabunia socks took up where Hadrianos left off, with Real Madrid, Federer, Messi and repeat ill-prepared FAC noms, and that TGabunia plagues FAC because of the Real Madrid record number of archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:BEANS: [11] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Easy way out. I'm unconvinced that Hadrianos is another sock of the Taros. Ucucha 17:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the next Taro sock may have arrived: Claptonn (talk · contribs). I'll monitor a little longer. Ucucha 11:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

On review, this one was pretty clear, so I've blocked again. Ucucha 12:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Goings on

Hey Sandy, I guess we (lists) missed your requests about keeping Goings On updated properly. Apologies for that, I'll do better in the future if I see it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, TRM-- It has been a source of frustration since 2006, that only FA maintains the page, when everyone uses it, and it's irritating as heck to come along in the middle of promoting to find you have to archive and correct the page-- it would certainly be nice if other processes would participate, and if someone besides me would add dates to the archive template-- it's boring and tedious work, and I'll wager no other process except you will even pay attention! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'll do my best. The problem (I think) has come from the fact that we (FLC) promote as and when we see fit rather than on a specific day, so now when Goings On is updated, we've all assumed it's the right one. That's my mistake, definitely tonight, so sorry for boiling you over. Will remember to improve. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

[12] Other people do take care of the page moves at GO. Also, there appears to be a failed FAC page that's choking the script again. I hope someone can take care of that one. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Neuro immune dysfunction syndrome

So I was editing it, got to the point where I said...this is a load of horse manure. Wrote a summary to delete almost everything that was a lot less nice than yours, and I had an edit conflict with you. LOL. BTW, BoSox need to get their butts kicked.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Found a previous AFD while we were mutually messing around in there-- what a load of crock. Anyway, who do you propose is going to do this butt-kicking, ha ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Do have to provide a reliable source for the butt-kicking proposal? Ha! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Arthur K. Shapiro

Regarding Dr. Arthur K. Shapiro, I wanted to know if you could answer a question for me, please. I found online the results of a study regarding Tourette’s in which Dr. Shapiro was the lead author. It was published in Psychosomatic Medicine, Vol. 35, No. 5 (Sept.-Oct. 1973). My question is: Is this a reprint of the study that Dr. Shapiro originally published in the British Journal of Psychiatry in 1968 or is it a later study conducted by him? (I have been unable to find the 1968 study online thus far.) Here is the link (PDF) to the study I found:

http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/content/35/5/419.full.pdf

One other question I have is that the Wikipedia article states that his 1968 paper had been first rejected by American publications before it was accepted by the British one. Would you happen to know why?HistoryBuff14 (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I could probably answer those questions eventually, but all of my TS books are packed away in boxes for a move, and probably won't be unpacked for at least another month. It's possible that Colin (talk · contribs) has the resources to answer sooner. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

—-Thanks much. I have taken your suggestion regarding Colin. Have a great move!199.191.108.18 (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harold Pinter/archive1

Hi, User:Tim riley is asking: "If, having peer reviewed and commented extensively, I am eligible, I shall be happy to undertake a spot check. The sources are extensive but I have access to the British Library, and so can check the refs in this article against all published sources. (Grateful for a quick reply on this, as I may need to order some Pinter-related books from the BL's stores, which can take a few days for the more recherché stuff stored offsite.)" Would appreciate a reply, please. Tim's thread is at the bottom of the review page. Jezhotwells (talk) 06:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

For years I've hated these d*mned wikicookies. But I have come around (somewhat). You look like you could use one with extra chocolate.  – Ling.Nut 13:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I second this. You do an amazing job at keeping WP:FAC working! Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your diligence...

...in the recent failed !vote in E2eamon's Rfa. I was too ready to act with my assumption that so many !votes ahead of me meant the content had been checked. I'm surprised I'm the first to come to you hat in hand, but I'm not afraid to admit that my !vote was not up to the standards I'd expect from a regular !voter at an Rfa. Crow is not my dish of choice, and I will strive to be more cautious henceforth. I'd offer you a barnstar, but it seems unseemly. Best wishes always, Jusdafax 18:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The above comment is nice, but makes a depressing contrast to the commiserations being piled on at the other user talk page (and the strange comment that RfA is its own world and no-one notices what is said there and there are no repercussions). Anyway, just wanted to leave a note here to say that I looked a bit more closely at one of the concerns raised there, and it appears that whether or not the 'science heroes' website is a reliable source, they manage to correctly spell Albert Salomon's name, unlike Wikipedia, which has used the spelling Albert Saloman. I raised this here, but since we also have an article on Albert Salomon, which I think is a different one, was wondering what your thoughts were on that and whether you noticed the name mis-spelling (which is surprisingly hard to spot at first glance). Carcharoth (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The editor who created the article has retired, so I made the corrections and moved the article to Albert Salomon (surgeon) and added the birth and death years, and hatnotes to distinguish from Albert Salomon (the sociologist). Turns out the surgeon was also the father of Charlotte Salomon (the artist), which is a rather moving story. I then made the mistake of updating Salomon (surname) and now have Salomons on the brain. I know you don't really have time for this, but leaving this note here to tie up this loose end, and in case anyone else watching this page wants to take a look. Carcharoth (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

FAC

Saw you are archiving...I was just getting ready to run through. Am I not needed? :( Karanacs (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Admin criteria

Since the relative merits of various ways to evaluate admin candidates are sometimes discussed here, I thought you might appreciate this. It's actually superior to 90% of the schemes dreamt up at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. The edit summary here is (probably unintentionally) priceless as well. Anyhow, cheers. MastCell ^Talk 03:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh goodness, I can just see the wanna-bes now. We'd have to set up a whole other noticeboard to investigate those who lied at RFA. Karanacs (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

IP didn't say they were virgins. Where does that leave the ones that chase after young men at WikiMeetups? Can they deny their recalls? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

We know which voting system would be used too. Yomangani^talk 12:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Is that edit summary "who represents" or "whore presents"? ;-) ?  – Ling.Nut 13:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• It was supposedly part of a genuine website for an agency which was mean to mean "who represents" - another one was "pen island" used by a pen company -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Your tone is disrespectful and disruptive

Don't post an edit summary like that again on my talk page. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

What is this, idiot night? Malleus Fatuorum 23:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Just another "day at the office". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I've looked in vain for a truly "disrespectful and disruptive" edit summary on his talk page. I've seen a lot more "disrespectful" edit summaries even from me, so I don't know what he's on about (except he's on a block at present). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I second the aboveAerobicFox (talk) 04:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Question

It looks as if you know OrangeMarlin well. Have you heard anything? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

No, but it's too soon to e-mail someone after surgery. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

True. He might be undergoing an extensive recuperation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking for a "readability" tool

Hi SandyGeorgia - Some time ago, I remember some FAC editors using a tool that helped to assess the reading level for a given text (e.g., Grade 3, Grade 10, university, etc). I seem to have lost my bookmark for this tool, although in fairness I've not used it for quite a while so I'm not sure it even exists anymore. Would you or one of your talk page watchers know where I might find it? Thanks in advance! Risker (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

One of my favorite topics. Many of these are available online. Try:

Gunning Fog Index: here.

Flesch-Kincaid: here. Flesch-Kincaid scores are often expressed in terms of a "grade level" so this may be the one you recalled.

Multiple measures: here and here

You can search on the keywords to find more. My experience is that for the most part these tools simply confirm what one would expect, in particular that Wikipedia articles generally score poorly for readability owing to the inclusion of needless words and the use of long sentences that could better be broken into more digestible chunks, rather like the sentence you are presently reading. Ironically, the lead to our article on Flesch–Kincaid readability test scores at grade level 16 and reading ease 18. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much, SBHB! The text I was looking at scores...holy cow, it's a miracle I can even read it. :) These are going in the bookmarks for sure. Risker (talk) 05:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

At one point, some of our editors from WP:MED were working on a project to compare Wikipedia's readability scores for medical articles with those of other major online medical websites. I wasn't directly involved and I don't know the current status of the project, but I'd be curious to see the result (and I'm sure it would be publishable in the literature). MastCell ^Talk 17:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think these were written by Wikipedians, but: PMID 21464884 and PMID 21332302 (don't have access to the latter unfortunately). NW (Talk) 17:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

zOMG scooped! And by a bunch of dermatologists! :P MastCell ^Talk 17:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

FAC revisited

Sandy, I'm going to run through this afternoon unless you were planning to do so. Karanacs (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Fabulous-- there are several that look ready to go-- I've got a full day, so once you've been through, I'll log on tonight to have a look at the GumboFest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Gracias :) Karanacs (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Karen, I'm still about six weeks away from being through my boxes-- waiting for construction to finish with the usual interminable delays, but at least I sorta kinda know where my things are now, even if I can't get to them! I should be able to mostly cover for the next month or so-- let me know your plans and whether you want to cover any, or if you will be mostly tied up in the coming months. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I can do whatever you need from now until July 28. Will be out of town with no/minimal computer access July 29 - Aug 7, but then things should be back to normal. I'm painting today, but can run through FAC tomorrow if needed. Let me know what's easier for you. Karanacs (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

If you're able, it would be grand if you could go through this weekend ... I have so much work to do over the next month, that I can use any free time I can get. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Karanacs (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

So sorry!!! I thought I'd go ahead and run through today and maybe Thursday. Karanacs (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

"green light on crappy prose"

I'm one FAC reviewer that won't tolerate it. I no longer have the time I once had to trawl FAC routinely, but very happy for you to tip me off on any that look like passing that you have concerns over. --Dweller (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Basically, any that I don't pass in spite of pile-on supports are the ones I'm concerned over :) I'm not happy when I have to hold them up until someone gives them a serious review, and those typically end up restarted after a complete rewrite at FAC because no one opposes early on. The one that is currently under the spotlight fit that profile, but is by no means the only one, and when no reviewer points out the issues and opposes, and multiple support, I eventually have to pass 'em. I'll be glad to have you back !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Since you are volunteering for duty, dweller - this one has been hanging around for a while and needs another set of non-vg eyes: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Super Meat Boy/archive1 Karanacs (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• One (valid) reason that I hate articles entirely sourced from the Internet is that checking for copyvio is truly a Herculean task. The text of this Meat Boy article has been reproduced endlessly in downstream Wikifluvia, so... did the authors sneak in anything copied from other websites? It is oh... so... time-consuming to check each link for things like "copied from Wikipedia" disclaimers (and not all Wikifluvia contain them!), dates (also not always given on the page! Necessitates use of Wayback machine! Time-consuming!), etc. As for prose, are we cool with daisy-chained quotes that have between them at best eight words of transition written by the editors? It's lazy (value judgment), but it's also just... poor prose. – Ling.Nut 08:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll get to it when I can. --Dweller (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

On this subject ... although I generally don't speak up, I do read other people's prose reviews after I support on prose at FAC ... and prose reviews are getting better IMO, for instance at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Valston Hancock/archive1. Then I think about whether I should have supported in the first place ... so far, I stand behind my supports as far as they go ... but please, Sandy (or anyone ... I'll point Karen here too), tell me if you ever think my support was premature. - Dank (push to talk) 18:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Mail call

Hello, SandyGeorgia. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Fish^Barking? 00:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Gimmetoo

You are the editor I know most likely to defend Gimmetoo, so I'm coming to you. The article history and User talk:Gimmetoo#Jennifer Lopez discography lays out the dispute reasonably well: he's pointing to a page, saying it contains a chart position for a Jennifer Lopez song, and neither Harout72 nor I can see that data on the page. It's not the typical editing dispute of "I think it's a reliable source and you don't", it's that he's making a claim about source contents that seems to fly in the face of reality. If it was any other editor, he'd be blocked for disruptive editing either now or sometime tomorrow.

Can you go take a look at discussionm, the sources in question (http://www.billboard.com/#/artist/jennifer-lopez/chart-history/339297 and http://www.billboard.com/#/artist/jennifer-lopez/chart-history/339297?f=793&g=Singles) and see if you can find any support for Gimmetoo's position? I'm doing my best to extend benefit of the doubt here, but I'm finding it difficult.—Kww(talk) 12:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to me, Kww-- I haven't looked, and probably won't, because I don't need to-- I know Gimme. When Gimme makes a claim or statement he is AFAIK always correct. If he's not answering the questions/queries in a way that you understand, well ... that is sometimes how he responds when he is treated rudely or disrespectfully or facing people who won't hear something. When asked politely and respectfully, you will find he responds in kind. AGF, kindness, and assumption of basic intelligence goes a very long way with Gimmetrow-- the opposite goes nowhere fast. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, please do look. I came to you precisely because I know that you are his friend, and may see something that I cannot. I always had a good relationship with Gimmetrouw, somewhat less with the Gimmetoo persona. I've been respectful. I've taken care to look over his sources. As a reward, I've been accused of being a "tag-team edit warrior". The disputes I've had with Gimmetoo have always been fairly trivial, and this is the only time that the only explanation that comes to my mind is that he is making intentionally false statements. I don't want to believe that about him, and that's why I'm trying to find an alternative explanation. He's always been a good editor, and I actually want to be wrong.—Kww(talk) 13:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

If you've taken into account my initial impression, I will have a look as soon as I can (later today most likely, need to get on with my day now, still up to my eyeballs in boxes)-- but I know that respectfully asking Gimme to explain works-- I hope to find that has been the case. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Our faith in his basic honesty was justified: it turned out to be a site problem with Billboard, and the presentation of the data was erratic. Sometimes it included that data Gimmetoo was seeing, sometimes it did not. Apparently, he was always got it, and I never did until I just sat and reloaded the page over and over.—Kww(talk) 17:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know ... I'm relieved not to have to peek since my time is crunched! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Gee. With such an endorsement for "basic honesty" perhaps I should run for arb this year. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:SCROLL

Hey Sandy, you made a comment about the collapsable table in A330. I think it actually is in compliance with that policy. See: [13]. The table was intended as an organizational device to summarize and tabulate the alphabet soup of plane model names, design names, and major features within the background section. Very tough sledding at the beginning of the body text. Pure prose is difficult when we refer to things that have these type designators, for people unfamiliar with the subject. A graphic helps the reader...would do the same in a corporate report. If you look at the text of the WP:SCROLL, it allows collapsing such tables. That said, I'm happy where we came out with it smaller, right-aligned, and uncollapsed, as that serves the reader best. Not a huge point or anything, but in case you weren't aware of the sentence further on in the policy, wanted you to at least have seen it.TCO (reviews needed) 22:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Seriously. Appalling.

I've just noticed the new tab at the top of talk pages. Honestly. Whose brainchild was that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately, it can be disabled in gadgets, but that won't stop nimwits. The irony!!! Check out the first person who used it. Perhaps he can send some to The Fat Man :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• I used the heart tab to give you a cookie (above). I'm trying to evolve/adapt/accommodate. The new me.  – Ling.Nut 12:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harold Pinter/archive1 which helped in the process of getting this article to FA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for advice/assistance

Hi Sandy, could you point me toward what methods you use at FA to detect copyvios and plagiarism, including too-close paraphrasing? I am interested in improving the quality of articles vetted via DYK. I do not expect new articles to reach FA perfection quickly, but we should detect violations of WP:PLAGIARISM. Sharktopus ^talk 14:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Shark, there are several tools available that reviewers run, but I'm unclear where to find them or how to run them-- surely some of my TPS will fill you in on that. However, running the tools isn't enough, since they mostly pick up mirrors. What we do is make sure that every new nominator gets at least one manual review of sources. If issues are found on any nominator, I request subsequent reviews on all of their nominations. It's tedious work at FAC, but shouldn't be so hard at DYK, where articles are much shorter. It really takes a hands-on, get in there manually and take a look approach. And, the other advantage that FAC has is that the buck stops with Karanacs and me-- it's up to us to remember which frequent nominators are cleared and which aren't, and there's no clearing house like that at DYK to keep track of which new and old editors have been known to paraphrase too closely. When I look at DYK, my personal approach is just to find the most often-cited online source, read it, and compare it to the article. It rarely takes me more than 10 minutes, using that approach, to locate the issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. My usual method is just to pick out a phrase or two and Google looking for a too-similar source. I just imagined you had some useful page with tools or guidelines, but as you say having everything vetted by someone experienced helps. Sharktopus ^talk 14:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Butting in - I go to the first source, read it, compare to the page, and if I find problems I note them. If I find problems with the first source, I stop there, with the assumption the editor will take the initiative to clean the rest. That's a very wrong assumption. Each source has to be looked at. It takes time. 15:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Heh, Truthkeeper, I just went to your talk page and asked for your advice on detecting plagiarism too. I do carefully check sources referenced in the hook fact, but perhaps I should be checking more widely. Sharktopus ^talk 15:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Shark, if we had to thoroughly check Every Single FAC, it would be a monumental task. We have many repeat nominators whose work has been checked several times, and we know they don't plagiarize or commit copyvio. In other words, we have some institutional memory re who has been checked, and we try to check all new nominators or those known to have a less than stellar understanding of sourcing and paraphrasing. I'm not sure how you could do same at DYK, unless you have a directorate. Also, picking out one phrase and hoping it pops up on Google or on a search of the source is, for my tastes, too prone to miss. I read one source thoroughly, then the article. On a brand new or child editor (I find it highly unlikely that anyone without a high school education will know how to paraphrase and accurately represent sources correctly), I check more than one source. I always do it manually, because that allows me not only to watch for copyvio, but also to check for accurate representation of sources, which is another DYK problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

And just to add, I believe that the spotcheck requirement is now being applied to all FACs which is appropriate. My most recent FAC wasn't promoted until spotchecked, although I've put through five recently and scrubbed numerous pages. The checking is time-consuming and should be done to all main page content. Quite honestly I think it needs to be done across the board, but that's a monumental task. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge, TK, although reviewers are welcome to do more. But, I would never ask for a spotcheck for close paraphrasing on, for example, Brain boulton (just to pick one-- there are many others). We should focus limited resources on new editors, first-time nominators, or editors for whom past issues have been identified. Once a nominator has been checked many times, and their work is well known, it shouldn't be routinely necessary. In the instance of copyvio that got by FAC last year, I for one knew that work was not typical writing for that nominator, and I should have checked. My mistake was that I assumed the prose was better than typical for that editor because Malleus had copyedited. We all make mistakes of assumption ... hopefully not more than once :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There was some considerable misunderstanding around my role in that hoo-hah last year, with several editors suggesting that it was at least partly my fault (and even done maliciously) that the plagiarism went undetected for so long, because part of my job as copyeditor was to check the sources. I want to make it very clear that I never check sources when I'm copyediting, I don't consider that part of the job. So nobody should assume that because I've moved a few commas around I'm in some way vouching for anything other than the standard of written English. Malleus Fatuorum 15:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I never assume a copyeditor has checked the sources. Very few do that, and usually only when the article was in really bad shape when they started. I almost never go back to the sources when I copyedit unless I'm confused. Those who suggested maliciousness on your part are, well, nuts. Karanacs (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Ha, well, I got blamed for it as well :) Talk is cheap :) Anyway, neither did I assume you had checked sources, Malleus-- I assumed you had made the prose better than typical for that editor, so I was faulty in not looking for copyvio myself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Since the spotcheck requirement was added while I was on a wikibreak, out of fairness, I've been asking for an initial spotcheck on just about everyone. Now that I'm back in the swing of things and am seeing repeat noms I won't be asking for them on people who've cleared the vetting a lot. So you weren't being singled out, Truthkeeper, I just hadn't passed one of your FACs in a while :) Karanacs (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The thing is Karen, I thought it was appropriate, particularly to avoid allegations of cliqueism (if that's a word), etc. Obviously I can screw up as well as anyone else. All FACs have image reviews, source reviews, and prose reviews, so I think the spotchecking should be applied to everyone. Welcome back, btw. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

If we had the peoplepower, yes to all-- but we don't, so we have to assure we at least do our best. Image reviews are a highly specialized area-- I request them because I don't intend to become an expert in that area, but anyone can detect copyvio issues in prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, ha-- I hadn't checked. Speaking of your break, that reminds me of something ... when a nominator is up for whom previous issues were found, I don't want to say that on the FAC page, as it seems rude to rub their noses in it, but then you might not know of such cases, so I just reiterate in those cases that I'm waiting for a spotcheck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) These are the tools I use to do a quickie check: here and User:CorenSearchBot/manual. These are both blunt force approaches, it won't catch subtle stuff, but it's a starting spot. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

IB INTERVIEW User:Poysndi

Hello my name is Andres and in my ITGS (Infromation and technology in a global society)course, of the IB I need to interview someone who is related tot he issue of my choice. Since my issue is Wikipedia I was wondering if I could possibly interview you. I would greatly appreciate if so. Please provide me a way to contact you such as an e-mail address so I can send the interview. Thank You Poysndi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC).

Thank you for the request, but I have never been comfortable participating in such ventures (offWiki surveys, studies, interviews, etc), so I must politely decline. Good luck with your Project! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

possible heads up on User:Taro-Gabunia sockpuppet

The new editor User:Claptonish is exhibiting a couple of similar behaviors as TG; though he hasn't made any edits, he's pestering me directly about getting Portal 2 to FAC (another sock, User:TGilmour did this before and brought that article to FAC before I felt it was ready), and seems intent in the same manner to get Eric Clapton to FAC. I believe you have had experience before so you might be able to judge better. --MASEM (t) 01:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That does look like our friend Taro to me. TGilmour also kept pestering people with "Will you take this to FAC?", and edited some of the same articles. 1, 2 Ucucha 11:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it to me, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. Ucucha 14:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Quack? JefffBeck (talk · contribs) just appeared again on P2, along with contributions to a number of music artist articles. --MASEM (t) 22:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Based on this edit, I'm inclined to agree. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Also see the name change-- I don't know who's going to do the blocking honors, but I've barely got enough time the rest of this week to get through FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked him; I think it's pretty clear that he's a sock. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK reform

Any suggestions? at how it can be improved?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Many of the regulars at DYK are tone deaf; they don't seem to understand that DYK displays Wikipedia's worst shortcomings on the mainpage, those that do move along, and there's a new crop there every three months who refuse to address the problems. I'm in the midst of a move, but when I'm done, someday, I don't intend to sit by quietly if I don't find reform. Getting increasingly shrill at WT:DYK doesn't seem to do anything about the tonedeafness over there, and the seriousness of the problems. On the other hand, I have no idea what you're thinking to be complaining when they finally pulled an article based on non-reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

PS, speaking of tonedeaf, I hope you can see how disgusting the drive for sensationalist hooks at DYK is from this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

A little macabre I agree. But more catchy than many of the boring hooks you regularly see. I'm not sure what you mean by a drive though, you rarely see such sensationalist hooks from me. The problem is that DYK is redundant in itself as practically nobody will know about most of them or frankly even care less about them, so of course they wouldn't know. I think it needs to be replaced with something, reform is definitely needed. The main page is the most visited page on wikipedia after all. I personally think far too many articles are going through now anyway and although sharing reviews cuts the log down it is revealing that many of the reviewers are incompetent to do so and not picking up on obvious issues. But the tendency of some is to be overpicky with certain articles and not bother with others. We need a balance and some sort of formal review I think and a different format.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything about your hooks: DYK has no accountabiity so one can't tell who proposed the hook, who passed it, who prepped it, or who put it on the mainpage. No accountability, no archives, no transparency, leading to the same issues occurring over years and years in spite of complaints. I only know you worked on that article. Anyway. Please don't come to my talk page with this childish drive for "catchy" hooks, which are quite often immature, unprofessional, misleading, and disgusting. An alleged "encyclopedia" may just be boring sometimes. We need to scrap DYK entirely since many working over there are tonedeaf, and they are honestly, seriously-- really-- having a discussion about whether articles need to employ reliable sources. Regular DYKers think it's OK to use non-reliable sources to cite text.

I challenge anyone to remember one of their historically disgusting misleading medical hooks, where they impugned an entire hospital in New Jersey because some nutty physician recommended something stupid like smoking or drinking in pregnant women-- oh, yes, that was cute and catchy, and the hospital didn't deserve it. IIRC, that may have been an Alansohn DYK, but I could be wrong. The folks working at DYK have no sense whatsoever of basic human decency, much less understanding of Wikipedia policy. Fortunately, one poster in that entire mess (Dominic) got it. Gatoclass is outdoing himself to miss the point-- he has said several times that the recent discussion is not about reliable sources, although I've said many times it is, and given several examples of hooks that aren't even based on reliable sources. And then someone comes along and suggests negative political bio hooks should be based on two reliable sources-- have these folks never read WP:UNDUE, or do they just lack any intelligence or sense of decency wrt what goes on the mainpage of one of the net's most viewed websites? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hang on, I'm not sure what you mean by "Please don't come to my talk page with this childish drive for "catchy" hooks". Who mentioned anything about catchy hooks? I came to your talk page because I've seen your thoughts about DYK and think there is an element of truth in them even if your criticisms initially seemed a little harsh. And I believe that with your support and that of other influential people on this website we could see the reform that is obviously needed. I most certainly do not have a childish agenda or anything in regards to it and would likely not bother with DYK myself but for the fact I enjoy working with other editors and having a bank of half-decent articles. I appreciate that you only want the highest standards on wikipedia and that DYK on the front page is a major problem unless there is some sort of formal review and minimum expectation of quality. If you actually compare the amount of people who daily visit the main page and the amount of people who actually visit the DYK hooks there is a massive discrepancy which in itself illustrates that most editors couldn't care less about it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Who mentioned anything about catchy hooks? Please read what you wrote: But more catchy than many of the boring hooks you regularly see. That is one small part of the very problems that prevail at DYK, including non-reliable sources, misrepresentation of sources, shoddy sensationlist hooks, UNDUE, plagiarism and copyvio, and negative political bios, now furthered by Quid Pro Quo reviews from editors sharing POV. All documented over many years, all getting worse. I've been harping on DYK for years, and have encountered nothing but tone deaf regulars there; as long as boatloads of marginal editors are getting mainpage time, there will never be consensus to get DYK off the mainpage-- too many editors have enough pull to keep the disgust coming. I intend to do something about it once I'm finished moving, unless I see major reform there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned that because one of the biggest complaints about DYK has been that the hooks are simply just boring. The thing is Sandy, the quality does vary considerably. Some editors like Mjroots, Thelmadatter or Simon Burchell only present near GA quality articles at DYK and their articles are mostly a pleasure to read. If that sort of quality was mandatory then they'd be far from disgusting. I think you are letting the bare minimum factory drilled barely past stub class articles on politicians, footballers etc which we usually see overshadow that of some of the decent content which does actually go through. An idea would be to place DYK proposals in front of a "committee" or something and only the cream of the crop so to speak reach the front page and for a longer duration like 12 hours or even 24 hours. The problem is a lot of people consider anything to do with DYK a waste of time. If it can be done in a way to encourage major improvement in quality of existing articles and actually gives an incentive to editors to radically improve existing content using reliable sources then it could be a positive thing. But the current situation of drilling any "reviewed" DYK for only a couple of hours has to change I think, there needs to be a minimum standard which is seen as such even by yourself and others who have high standards.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware that the quality is variable: I know many very good FA writers who start out at DYK. But the lowest common denominator prevails, and we should never be putting that kind of crap on the mainpage. I've proposed many times that they need a directorate or someone where the buck stops-- someone responsible for the horrid things they put on the mainpage. Why are you here? I periodically glance at DYK, see it's getting worse, post on their talk, get no one to pay attention, give up and leave. I have no desire to revisit DYK on my talk page-- I have real work to do, and that place is tone deaf, disgusting, embarrassing and hopeless. I've already told you I will look in after my move, and if I see the same STILL, I intend to take it on. Why are you proposing change here? I'm just one of many-- not enough-- who thinks DYK is an unmitigated disaster. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Sandy you are undoubtedly one of the most respected individuals on wikipedia who has the potential with enough support to make major changes to the website. That's why I'm here. I agree we need to rid of the sloppy entries and pick the cream of the crop of those which are headed towards GA or higher. There is no such rush that every entry ever proposed for DYK hits the main page. We could cut it to only the best and try to get editors to raise the bar. If you think I'm tone deaf or ignorant of the obvious concern shared by yourself and many others on here which appear to be increasingly apparent then you are mistaken. But I agree with you that others are trying to shut out the concerns and still think of DYK as having some dignity . In reality DYK has lost almost any level of esteem or respect it ever had, if it did ever have it. I think this is wrong as it should at least be at a level where it is at least acknowledge by most as a positive thing. But I need your help and that of similar minded individuals if we are to give it the major reform that is needed. Everywhere I look I see disparaging comments towards DYK. And when it is directly involved with the most visited page in the whole encyclopedia and one of the most visited on the whole Internet its not good enough. Also I am aware of the achievement it is for an FA to be promoted and then eventually reach the main page and DYK requires a tiny percentage of the work and hits the main page. DYK should show case the best new content not every example of new content. I hope you will consider what I've said and when you finished moving that we form a formal proposal and try to get something changed. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

As I've said, when I have time, if I don't see reform, I do intend to do something. But there are too many editors stalling necessary reform-- in fact, editors who don't understand the basic policies of Wikipedia or who have no sense of decency whatsoever-- and I doubt that I have enough influence to combat their numbers. DYK is symptomatic of the 95% of Wikipedia articles that are total garbage, and I don't see that changing-- that's why I prefer to stay away from those areas. It's disgusting and depressing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm sure most editors who contribute to DYK are doing so in good faith. The problem is that many treat it as a game and are willing to warble on and use non RS just to get it through DYK. That's usually where the "disgusting" DYK percentage is derived from, rather than hose by the likes of Mjroots and Burchell who have itnent to nominate for GA soon after. The front page coverage should be seen as a major achievement, but the rapid fire of DYKs going through every few hours has taken this away. I for one have never cared about my DYKs hitting the main page, but I do like collaborating with other editors and building on each others' work which is what wikipedia is about. What we need above all is to enhance our number of GAs on the path to become FA. In order to achieve this we could set a bar that only GA candidates are eligible to hit the front page in a DYK and try to give it back some esteem from anything and everything hitting the page every few hours. How does that sound? Dr. Blofeld 15:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The timing of your proposal wouldn't work-- it takes more time to work an article up to GA than it does to put up a crappy plagiarized non-reliably sourced DYK. Put up a proposal to scrap DYK and run GAs in their place. And start tracking the daily DYK outrage-- I have never, ever, not even once, glanced at the mainpage and not found a serious problem in DYK. Embarass them into some awareness by tracking their daily debacle-- I can't even remember some of the more horrid hooks and articles I've found over recent months, and wouldn't know where to go about relocating them. The first step is to create a Hall of Shame, because that's what DYK is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Mmm. The way I see it we need a mechanism which dramatically increases our number of GA candidates (and which increases our number of competent GA reviewers to review them) as they are a precedent for the ultimate goal FA. Editors are willing to create poor quality start articles but are not motivated to produce GA quality work. That needs to change. What we need is to raise the esteem of DYK to the point where editors will be willing to spent more time on their article and pay attention to sourcing and quality of prose for being rewarded with it reaching the main page for a longer duration like 12 hours. As you say to oust DYK and replace with GA would be a good idea, although GA candidate did you knows would seem sensible. This way they would likely be of the standard you expect and showcase the cream of the most recent article expansions. A few of the DYKs I've created which had more time and effort put into them have ended up with a little more work passing GA and I've personally got much more satisfaction from writing them and being rewarded with a GA. That's exactly what we need to raise the standard and get every contributor to DYK to put that much more time and effort into individual articles rather than treating it as a game. What better way to do that than make the DYK proposals GA candidates. Getting support for this is going to be tough I agree but it is possible. We need to see the importance of GA in the whole process I think and encourage more editors to write to this level. If editors are motivated by having their articles appear on the main page (I'm not but most appear to be) then this could produce results.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't follow what you're talking about. Making new articles GA candidates will overwhelm GAN with ill-prepared articles. I don't have more time to spend on this now-- I just want DYK to stop stalling, denying, promoting sensationalist poorly sourced garbage and start meaningful attempts at reforming, or get their debacles off the mainpage. They have NO business being displayed on the mainpage, because the lowest common denominators there outweigh the good work done by some. It attracts marginal editors, who don't even know Wikipedia policies. Please take this discussion to an appropriate forum. I've already told you that I think the best way to address the DYK scandal is to begin to document the offenses in a daily DYK Hall of Shame. Otherwise, there are too many editors at work there who just don't care and have no sense of decency or understanding of policy. I'm repeating myself now-- there is nothing left to say here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes that could encourage many inappropriate candidates you are right. But we need something to only select the best articles for front page appearance not every article proposed. Anyway, I'll keep this in mind. Regards.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Here; you spot the problems. From a now-known DYK serial offender, yet they're still running 'em. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Sandy and page watchers. I have proposed to oust did you know for new articles appearing on the front page with good article DYK and to demote the new expanded articles to a sub page. I have made a proposal here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Mmm, now I understand what you mean about tone deaf. Maybe you should create a DYK Hall of Shame, it might make some of them stop ignoring problematic articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Doubt it. We've got numerous regulars at DYK who don't understand sourcing, don't even know their own policies (how can you accept that a DYK is a certain size or expansion if most of the aricle is built on blog or unreliable sources, and most of the reviewers don't know what a reliable source is?), and who don't know plagiarism from copyvio from outright verbatim copying? They are truly ignorant, so can't help themselves-- DYK should be removed from the mainpage as it promotes the worst of Wikipedia's faults. Those editors who use DYK legitimately and understand Wikipedia policies will get their GAs and FAs anyway-- the problem is the editors who are using DYK to collect "rewards" but never go any farther and don't understand Wikipedia's policies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The astounding thing to me is that some of the "oppose" votes seem to deny that there is any flaw whatsoever with the "DYK is working perfectly fine" type comments. With people around like that we'll never get any reform. People just don't like change I guess. Or just like their 15 minutes of "fame" by having their articles appear on the page for 2 minutes. If that is all people are motivated by it seriously makes me question their purpose on here. If anything that's part of the problem, quite a few editors bloat their articles out with crap content and sources just to make it long enough to pass DYK requirements just so they can get their credit. It has to change as the front page is the most visited on the website. I don't know how we push this through, i think it would have to take a major scandal with a BLP or something to actually get any reform. The stalemate has also been the problem with new page redesign of course... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It's like a drug-- they get addicted to their time on the mainpage, which they can get with a few moments of plagiarism, and don't want it taken away from them. It's an endorphin thingie I think. DYK attracts mediocrity-- those who move on to FA and GA are legit, but the serial offenders never do, because they can't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes I believe you are right, why else would these people continue to ignore the obvious concerns of many on here and not even acknowledge or respect their concerns and justify keeping it without any effort to at least improve. Sigh. It is impossible to get any form of consensus in this way. Somehow though the wikipedia skin was changed to vector, I believe to be based on general feedback from wikipedia users. Perhaps it would be better if they just decided we are replacing DYK with good articles snippets and forced people to accept it. Sometimes intervention is needed. They are completely kidding themselves if they think a DYK appearing on the main page is suddenly going to ignite a passion and suddenly everybody starts contributing. The vast majority ignore visiting DYKs, the statistics show for themselves. We have an average of about 4.8 million visiting the main page of english wikipedia everyday. The vast majority of DYK articles don't get more than 2000 hits. If you do the math it works out as something like 1 out of every 2500 people actually visit a page which is rather pathetic. And I can count the number who have actually added meaningful content beyond basic edits to any of my DYKs (once it has hit the main page) on one thumb. Maybe its time we added a pop up on the main page and ask visitors on whether they could care less about our DYK feature. I suspect that way a consensus would be very clear.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Blofeld, what have you to say about this main page error DYK report? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that however intelligent the DYK writer (me having an IQ of 149 possibly a lot higher than the average contributor) that if you are a prolific article writer then it is inevitable that from time to time you will stray into some dubious sources. As far as I'm concerned Sandy, wikipedia is improved having an article on a historical palace in the Yemen. But that is my point about DYL. If even the most seasoned editors occasionally use some undesirable sources (generally they are pretty good as I rely mostly on google books, although useage of Lonely Planet, Frommer's and Bradt Guides have been questioned) then heaven help the newbies and those who don't know what they are doing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing at DYK

Hi, at the RfC there's been a rather loud, colourful complaint by Philcha that WP:PARAPHRASE is just a proposal. I don't know what to do about this in relation to the RfC. Tony (talk) 06:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I see Sandstein's also mentioned it. The issue is that it is not so much a stand-alone essay, as a practical interpretation of a very firm and pretty universal policy on copyvios and plagiarism. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

There's always an excuse, a reason to continue enabling poor editing, isn't there? That's why I see the only solution is to shut it down-- we'll be having this same conversation with a new crop of DYKers, who don't know the history or policy, a year from now. There has been no improvement whatsoever since last October-- in fact, it's worse now. Proposal or not, we are seeing blatant verbatim copying-- and DYK regulars endorsing it. I'm done for today: gotta life ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh noes!

Space debris early closed again? Did you see that the person who added the cite needed tags did so with the note that they were for illustration purposes only, and could be removed after discussion Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Space debris/archive2 here? I posted about this as well. What am I to do? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Space debris/archive2??? With all respect, it's pretty presumptuous to consider this ready for FAC again. Nageh (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

A question for you and your TPS's

A comment that Ling.Nut made some time ago has been haunting me ever since. To paraphrase him brutally, his basic premise was that anyone who can write ought not to, but should instead teach others how to write. And to extend that by putting words in Tony1's mouth, I've often seen him suggest that his copyediting footprint can be be bigger if he doesn't get too involved in specific articles.

My question therefore is this. For those of us who are more concerned about the quality of Wikipedia's content than our own bauble counts, or at least equally concerned about both, where should we focus our efforts? What's the best way to encourage better contributions, as opposed to more contributions? Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's one way of looking at it. I try to copyedit as a reviewer at GAN and FAC - I think that is a good place to try and inoculate articles and article writers. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

But rather few venture as far as GAN or FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 01:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• I think we should learn from the valued contributors who love to put smiley faces and cookies on each other's talk pages. No really. I'm not being sarcastic. I mean it. You see, the prob is, there are two hugely different worldviews at play, but we shouldn't leave it to the cookie patrol to always try to understand our POV. Our POV is that folks who tend to look strikingly like cookie patrollers come in, bollocks various articles up (all in good faith), make a big stir on various talk pages, nominate six woefully underprepared FACs at once, annoy everyone, and usually end up being chased off. But we need new blood, and there has to be a way to get from point A, where the cookie patrollers actually are huge PITAs, to point B, where they are genuinely valued contributors. Maybe we need to hand out more baubles bottom up, as an individual effort, rather than top down as some sort of official award. And more kind words too. If people like Malleus and I are too curmudgeonly to do so, then perhaps we should learn the wisdom that all frat boys know: every keg party needs a designated driver. So maybe FAC needs a designated nice person. ;-) But.... you know... backtracking on my own words just a tad, even while being nice, we have to urge people to respect the process. Many do not do so. I am not looking at anyone in particular as I write. Who should we nominate to be our Designated Nice Person?  – Ling.Nut 02:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

First, I don't think Tony's footprint exists as he thinks it does-- the minute he leaves FAC, the prose on some goes back to being as sloppy as ever. The only way to combat that is to stay in there, and Tony doesn't. Second, I don't think copyediting FACs for the nominators serves to teach nominators to write better, even if it does results in a few better articles, leading to ... Third, I think the biggest way to make a difference is to keep FAs clean (thereby giving an example) and by ample use of the Oppose button at FAC, instead of doing it for them, so that writers learn what won't get through and what they need to improve. I see 56 revisions to my page since I last logged on, so it's unlikely I'll wade through whatever is below this until I'm back home later tonight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I learned to write from Tony1 and Malleus - from the lists of examples of poor prose listed on my nominations. I could take those examples and apply that to other articles. I also relied heavily in the beginning on some of Tony1's userpage essays on good prose. We need to be pointing more new editors to these types of essays, and giving concrete examples to help them. Karanacs (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Me too, I think alot of the sticklers for prose have been successful at imparting their knowledge onto others. It is one of the hardest things to learn - one only has to look at how indifferent many people are that are actually employed to write prose to see this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You give me too much credit Karanacs, and it's only fair to point out that Tony and I haven't always seen eye to eye, but then I guess nobody's likely to be surprised by that. To answer SandyG's point, my idea has been that by establishing good quality articles (FAs, GAs) then other editors have a template to follow. Despite what I often pretend, I have no particular interest in 17th-century English witch trials for instance, beyond what any other curious reader might have; my idea was simply to establish a way of writing them, as a model for others to follow. Malleus Fatuorum 02:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Misallocation of effort

While DYK certainly has problems, if your purpose is to get badly sourced, POV, policy-violating content of the main page I do think that a much better target of your awesome wrath would be "In the news" and "On this day". At least DYK has SOME standards, even if it doesn't always live up to them. Both of the other two don't even have that. Hell, In the News basically states outright it doesn't give a flip about quality of content:

Candidates for ITN are evaluated on two main grounds: the quality of the updated content and the significance of the developments described in the updated content. In many cases, qualities in one area can make up for deficiencies in another. For example, a highly significant event, such as the discovery of a cure for cancer, may have a sub-par update associated with it, but be posted anyway with the assumption that other editors will soon join in and improve the article.

In other words, "sup-par" is perfectly alright. And I have yet to seen anyone really give a shit about "quality of the updated content" on those articles. The practice seems to be, if it's news it gets up there no matter how crappy the underlying article. "On This Day" is not much better. I've seen articles with a plethora of tags - NPOV, OR, Wikifiy, just to name a few - go up there. There's absolutely no credibility or oversight to these two projects.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, there's a thought. The very first link in the first item of On This Day, right now (it'll change in 18 minutes or so)... nearly one thousand words, number of inline citations, exactly one. And that's in the lead. Is there close paraphrasing in some of the rest of the article? Well, I don't think anyone's even going to find out. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

So your defence of DYK is that it isn't as bad as OTD or ITN? Malleus Fatuorum 23:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Suppose it is. What then?Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Isn't "what then" obvious? What many have been arguing for some time now, that the main page needs modernising and a complete rethink. Malleus Fatuorum 00:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

So why not start with OTD and ITN? Where's the (much more deserved) criticism of these features of the main page? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The main page does? Or Wikipedia does? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The main page does. Malleus Fatuorum 01:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Is he defending DYK? I thought it was pretty indefensible. How about On This Day?

From Wikipedia's article on Anatolia, linked from the main page in the On This Day section just now;

"Located on the west coast of Anatolia, the Aegean region has a fertile soil and a typically Mediterranean climate; with mild, wet winters and hot, dry summers. The broad, cultivated lowland valleys contain about half of the country's richest farmlands.

The largest city..." (Incidentally, half of which country? Anatolia isn't a country.)

From Turkey: A Country Study, prepared in 1995 by the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress, and not cited in the Wikipedia article at all;

"On its Asian side, the Aegean region has a fertile soil and a typically Mediterranean climate; with mild, wet winters and hot, dry summers. The broad, cultivated lowland valleys contain about half of the country's richest farmlands. Major crops are olives, ..."

Well, it's certainly not paraphrasing, that's for sure. Maybe the book's public domain as a federal work and therefore this isn't a copyvio. Google Books doesn't seem to think so, though. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think what you're getting there is the probably subconsciously known but rarely discussed fact that as soon as you scratch something like ... I don't know, 85%? of wikipedia you're gonna get exactly that. Plagiarism and copy vios. In a strange way the POV battleground articles are better in that respect since there you at least get people making stuff up. Crazy stuff oftentimes, to be sure, but at least their own crazy stuff.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

As I said, the main page needs to be completely rethought, and all the petty barons who claim control over some small part of it need to be eliminated. Malleus Fatuorum 00:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The main page shows off what the "encyclopedia"'s about. And it does exactly that. In a way it's not its fault. Anyway, like I'm saying, if you're gonna start agitatin' for removing crappy content of the main page, ITN and OTD are much better places to start.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with both of you. Appointing more "directorates" (or petty barons, if that's what you want to call them) is unlikely to be the way forward. And the Featured Article part of the main page isn't immune either. From People's Republic of China, currently linked from the main page in the "Today's featured article" section;

"In November 2010 Japan's government said, output in China, the largest maker of mobile phones, computers and vehicles, surpassed Japan for the second straight quarter in the three months through September 2010. The Chinese economy overtook the UK as the fourth largest in 2005 and tipped Germany from third place in 2007."

From the cited source;

"Output in China, the largest maker of mobile phones, computers and vehicles, surpassed Japan for the second straight quarter in the three months through September, Japan’s government said today. The Chinese economy overtook the U.K. as the fourth largest in 2005 and tipped Germany from third place in 2007." --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to take a little bit of time to investigate who's copied from who Demiurge. Malleus Fatuorum 01:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Re Anatolia, you got the same copy vio in Geography_of_Turkey.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Mmm, Malleus, what exactly are you referring to? The China article? Or the Anatolia one?Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Check for yourself. It's an increasing problem that many high-profile sites copy from Wikipedia without attribution, and the assumption then is that we're at fault. Check the dates. Malleus Fatuorum 02:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Of Anatolia or China? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Jeez Louise, look for yourself! Malleus Fatuorum 02:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is it so hard for you to answer a simple question? Anyway. The Anatolia source dates back to 1995, clearly predating Wikipedia. The China source dates to Nov 14, 2010 (at least that's what it says). At that time the relevant text was NOT in the Wikipedia article [14]. But maybe I'm something, which is why it'd be helpful if you bothered to articulate.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Please try engaging your brain. And when you've done so please try arranging these letters into a well-known phrase or saying: "kufc fof". Malleus Fatuorum 02:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You really can't help being a useless asshole can you?Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm useless? I've done more to improve Wikipedia than you could ever dream of. Malleus Fatuorum 02:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• If you two don't stop arguing, I'm going to give both of you a User:Ling.Nut/Barnstar of Awesomeness. Malleus is right; downstream Wikifluvia is a huge problem in determining what is or isn't copyvio and plagiarism. It makes the wayback machine necessary.  – Ling.Nut 02:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• I will never stop arguing. Do you know who it was said that truth springs from argument amongst friends? Malleus Fatuorum 02:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• So can you clarify this? Or else I'm going to start always referring to him as Malleus "I've done more for Wikipedia than you can ever dream of" Fatuorum. At best, the text was sourced to old text from Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• You may refer to me as you please. But I will of course refer to you as "dick head". Malleus Fatuorum 03:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• I haven't actually looked at the dates in question, but I can tell you, this is a huge problem. I used to spend literally twent or thirty minutes per passage going back and forth between the article history (trying to find the genesis of the passage on Wikipedia) and the wayback machine (trying to find the earliest off-wiki version). What a HUGE PITA! There's a wikiblame gadget that looks useful in this respect. I haven't used it yet.  – Ling.Nut 03:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• I tried to find that earlier, at least it would give us a starting point. Malleus Fatuorum 03:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(←) Mayhaps this will help: article blamer.  – Ling.Nut 03:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Turkey book appears to contain no material later than 1996. It was being published in 2004 by Kessinger Publishing, but was more likely published earlier than that in other editions. Anyway, in 2004 neither the Anatolia article nor the Geography of Turkey article contained anything even remotely resembling the text in question. (Turkey, as at 1st January 2005, has only a fragment of it.)

As for the Bloomberg piece, it lists Shamim Adam as the reporter writing the piece, and Chris Anstey as the editor responsible for it. It provides email addresses for both of them. So we could email them asking if they copied a Wikipedia article that said "in November 2010" and turned it into a Bloomberg piece saying "today", but I don't think we'd get a very positive response. And anyway, the Wikipedia article cites the Bloomberg piece as its source, as I already said. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps in this case the malfeasance is on the Wikipedia side, but the Wikifluvia problem still remains real... As for your original complaints, however, I agree that all of the sections of main page should be up to WIAFA standards!!!!! That "others will fix it" stuff is horsesh*t that should be reserved for stubs only. We should take pride in the quality of our main page in its entirety; not in having our names associated with a piece of rubbish that mars it.  – Ling.Nut 03:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually they would have added "Japan’s government said today" - which I doubt was ever "freshly" in a Wikipedia article. So either it's a pretty major piece of journalistic dishonesty or it was in fact a Wikipedia copy vio.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• It is fairly clear that User:Gsarwa copied the Bloomberg piece in this edit. The Bloomberg article appears in a number of news sources, all attributing Bloomberg. It's their business to supply financial reports to newspapers and to be 100% certain of their facts. People make financial decisions based on what they write. Their clients would be extremely upset if the reports they paid for were not original, fresh and accurate content, but in fact rehashed text from Wikipedia [Though I don't disagree it happens regularly elsewhere]. A quick scan of Gsarwa's contribution history and talk page shows that while he's pretty good at citing his sources, he's not perhaps up-to-speed on the need to be original. Take this edit and this source for example. He even copied the headline. Colin°^Talk 07:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Executive summary: The original point of this thread was "stop singling out DYK; other sections suck worse". We have established that other sections do in fact suck. Along the way, we have established that determining who sucks is not always straightforward, though at times it may be. That's about it.  – Ling.Nut 07:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

So... what was Malleus "I've done more... ok I'll leave that out just this once - going on about with the "you need to spend more time to investigate who's copied from who"?Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

And btw, someone might wanna look into copyvios in GAs [15]. There's probably more but I got bored. They don't seem hard to find though.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No, you're boring and I'm bored. Wikipedia is a mental sump, and I'm unsuited to it. Go about your business spreading your crap all over the internet, I can't stop you. Malleus Fatuorum 08:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• (ec) This thread has already accomplished every positive thing that it conceivably could (and it has established one or two facts; see executive summary above)... as for all else... This is sandy's talk page. If you have some perverse desire to mire yourself in a pointless and probably prolonged (alliteration: it's catching) personal argument with Malleus, his talk page is thataway -->. As for GA, Sandy doesn't work there. it's pointless to walk in to McDonalds and complain about BurgerKing.  – Ling.Nut 08:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

it's pointless to walk in to McDonalds and complain about BurgerKing - I thought we were complaining about fast food in general. I was just complaining about the over priced fast food.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That's disappointing, Malleus, since your expertise and experience could be very relevant in one of the GA issues Marek has highlighted. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Meh. Stop arguing and start fixing, lest ye become a part of the problem rather than the solution.... It's what we're here for, isn't it?  – Ling.Nut 08:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed, let's hope to see more of that - regardless of whose particular corner of territory problems are found in (or sought in). Now, we'd better move all the furniture back to how it was before, before Sandy returns and sees what a mess we've been making. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Fuck off Demiurge, I really have had it with you and your like. It's quite clear that what Wikipedia needs an infinite number of children typing away at an infinite number of articles, in the hope that one day they'll make something useful. Until then you can go screw yourself. Malleus Fatuorum 09:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course it is the responsibility of FAR to examine every linked article in an FAC isn't it? I really think Demiurge would appreciate that if one clicks on a link in an article anywhere on Wiki the probability is that you will find errors of those sorts after a while; and more importantly the article in question has been de-listed as an FA since mid 2009 and is at B-class presently. Being an FA does not guarantee that the linked articles are going to even be at C class.

P.S. - where is the copyvio notice that you placed on the page? Chaosdruid (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting question - I haven't reviewed the listing of the responsibilities of FAR, so you'll have to tell me what they are. The point here is that there has been some considerable outrage about plagiarised articles being linked from the main page by the DYK project, and Marek was pointing out that DYK is far from the only project where that occurs. In fact, possibly it occurs less at DYK than in the other sections. Just because something isn't an FA doesn't make it acceptable for copyvio to be linked from the main page, does it? As regards copyvio notices, I was following SandyGeorgia's approach in making it a priority to alert people of the issue first. Having re-examined the relevant guidelines, I must admit that's probably not best practice. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Note, not ignoring this discussion intentionally, but just ran out of time today and haven't even read it yet ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, my apologies for the delay in responding here ... I have a few moments this evening. I agree that ITN and OTD are every bit as bad as DYK, and I agree that 85% of Wikipedia suffers from this crap. Here's what makes DYK "special". Have you *ever* seen an RFA launched with a claim of good content based on the number of ITNs or OTDs? Have you *ever* seen a serial sockpuppeteer or disruptive editor claim in an arbcase that their contributions are worthy because they have hundreds of ITNs or OTDs? Have you *ever* seen an editor at ITN or OTD create hundreds of useless, policy-violating stubs and do nothing else because they're capable of nothing more? I haven't. ITN and OTD and yes most of Wikipedia below the GA level is complete garbage, but the difference is that DYK rewards, enables, and feeds these kinds of editors systemically and in HUGE quantities based on the ease with which they can put up complete crap, get rewarded for it, and then use those "rewards" to claim they are good enough editors to earn the tools or to avoid sanction at ArbCom. I know one serial sockpuppeteer who has written nothing above the DYK level, unwatched faulty DYKs the minute she got her "reward", and never corrected issues raised on the talk there, but is considered to be a good content creator because of the number of DYKs. Anyone who watches RFA can attest to how often DYK is used to grease the climb up the RFA pole, by editors who have no notion of Wikipedia policy. And I know of no other process on Wikipedia that rewards editors for churning out hundreds and hundreds of articles that violate policy, without anyone ever correcting them. DYK is either indifferent, incapable, or both, because every serial offender who turns up there has done so much damage to the Project by the time outsiders start screaming about it that there is no chance their garbage will ever be cleaned up. ITN and OTD do not offer the possibility of such widespread damage (although I admit that they both offer a haven for POV pushers, based on my experience). I hope that answers the question, and apologize for the fast, sloppy typing and delay. DYK breeds bad editing at levels which cannot ever be cleaned up, and they have done NOTHING about if for years, and their addition of QPQ reviews after the last highly publicized debacle only made it worse. Of course I'd rather see all of them off the mainpage, replaced by vetted content, but DYK is by far the worst offender. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

One more thing: by shining a light on these glaring abuses, change can be effected. Years (MANY years) ago, GA was atrocious, with anybody passing anything, akin to DYK. Many editors kicked and screamed until, lo and behold, editors like Malleus and Geometry guy got in there and fixed it, and a GA by and large today means something, and offenders are rooted out. Shine a light on the worst mainpage offender (DYK), get it cleaned up, and see how much easier it will be to next clean up ITN and OTD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Quite a few of us put a lot of effort into cleaning up GA's act, not least with the massive sweeps project, and it's nice to see you say today that by-and-large that little green blob means something today. Malleus Fatuorum 00:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for resolving the copyvio issue on that GA, Malleus, I knew you wouldn't let us down. Let's keep GA a wholesome example, and keep atrocious behind us. I am all in favour of green blobs, and I even do a little to oppose gray grey goo. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Most of the clean-up work was done by Nev1, not me, but we've still got some work to do. To be perfectly honest, if I was reviewing that article today I wouldn't pass it, but we'll get there hopefully. At least the plagiarism is gone now anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 00:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, I think you're right - but note that the problem is also with RFA, which allows this process to take place. Also I'm not quite sure that GA is immune from some of these problems. It took me a little more than half an hour to find three articles (probably about 1/4 of articles I checked) with copyright violations in them - and that's just the blatant ones, where an English language source being violated is linked within the article. One of them, as mentioned above, was fixed by Nev1 and Malleus, the other two are still up there despite the fact that I brought it up in a bunch of different places [16] (I'm going to take care of it myself though my intent was also to alert the GA people to the fact that they may have a potential problem on their hands). I'm also not going to name names here, but it seems that some GA reviewers don't actually understand what "copyright" means.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Butting in, I think it's a systemic issue and most likely exists to some extent or another one a large percentage of pages, whether or not they've been reviewed. Sorry, Sandy, I was keeping up with this situation, but too many posts, and I was pulled off in a different direction - finally trying to catch up. If anyone has a question regarding copyvio, to verify it, or how to explain, whether eyes are needed on a page, please don't hesitate to ping me. VM, I've looked at your example above and see that there's a fundamental problem in explaining to an editor that copy/paste and then dropping in a cite, is not the way to go. Let me know if you need help. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

VM, yes on both. What brought my interest to the DYK issue is how RFA feeds the faulty editing there. On GAs, I always and specifically look to see who passed the GA-- that usually tells me all I need to know. The problem at DYK is that an outsider can't easily look to see who did what-- hopefully that is being solved by an archiving system, which was also done at GA, and which gave GA more accountability. When a GA appears at FAC, the first thing I look for is who passed the GA. I have no doubt that 85% of Wikipedia contains copyvio-- my issue with DYK is that they have instances of multiple editors who create hundreds and hundreds of them, and DYK never detects them or addresses even the known instances (they knew about the Hathorn issues for years, and they never detected any of their repeat offenders until they came to my attention at RFA, and there are by now about a dozen or so of those). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It might be of interest that all three of the GAs with the copyright vios in them (the third one being Lajjun), went through DYK in more or less the same state and the problems were not caught there at the time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Just for the sake of accuracy, in the article that Nev1 and I fixed up (Rochdale Town Hall) the problem was plagiarism rather than a copyright violation, as the material is in the public domain. Arguably it was even in strict accord with Wikipedia's rather lax policy on plagiarism, but that's no excuse of course. It ought to have been caught sooner, but it's fixed now. Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Well since I awarded GA to Lajjun and also Ein Avdat which is under review by Volunteer Marek (see Talk:Ein Avdat/GA2), I assume that Volunteer Marek is specifically having a go at my GAN reviews: even if he/she/it is not going to name names. Well, Volunteer Marek, there are another 399 reviews for you to look at (see User:Pyrotec/GA reviews) and there is more to follow. I'm not too impressed, by your Talk:Ein Avdat/GA2, I know bullshit when I see it. Apparently if we get enough monkeys typeing they will create the works of Shakespear. Well in this case it seems to be a case of a biased editor, pre-deciding that reviewer(s) don't know about copyright, running a tool, finding apparent copyright violations, doing minimal date checks, and making sarky comments about reviewers; and ignoring the copyvio procedures. If you were that concerned about GA copyvios you would be providing proper training and instructions to GAN reviewers, rather than bad mouthing them here. I'm tempted to cherry picksome of Malleus' comments - but I might get banned. Perhaps that is good: no more Copyvios', at leased in the eyes of a biased editor. Supprisingly the reviews don't write the articles, that's no allowed, so we did not make the copyvios we just failed to find them. Pyrotec (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Whoa there. I don't think I even realized that you reviewed both of these articles for GA until just now. I probably WOULD have brought it up had I noticed it, since it does seem to be pertinent. And no I'm not "having a go at" your GAN reviews - I have no idea who you are, never (AFAIK) interacted with you before etc. I was just clicking more or less randomly on various Geography GAs (since then I've started a more systematic approach [17]) and checking them for copyvios and these were two of the three I found (and yes MF is right that the Rochdale one technically was not a copyvio since the source was in PD).

And what do you mean you are not "impressed" with my comments at Ein Avdat/GA2? Is it a copy vio or not? What do you mean it's "bullshit"? It certainly looks like a copyvio to me. And what do monkeys and Shakespear have to do with any of it? And fuck you too buddy (I've been civil - in fact hardly said anything to you - up until now but this is too much), I've spent quite a bit of my valuable time making sure that the sources used in the article did in fact predate Wikipedia ("doing minimal date checks" - nope). I did not "pre-decide that (you) don't know about copyright" - I've never said anything about that (or much else to you). However, your comments at Ein Avdat/GA2 do suggest you're not very familiar with Wikipedia copyright policy and you yourself admit there that "I'm no expert on copyvio". And how the hell am I biased? Let me spell it out for you again: I don't even know you.

You're over-reacting here. What's worse you're actually mis-reacting here. Rather than saying, "oh shit, stuff slipped through, should've been more careful, will fix it", which would've been the proper response - and hey, it happens, people do make mistakes - you're freaking out, accusing me of all sorts of things and denying that a problem exists with those two articles. Not very good.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Not just you Pyrotec, me as well, as I did the review on Rochdale Town Hall. What can I say except that we're all fallible humans? Unlike DYK though there's proper archiving of all GA reviews, so it's easy to see who's done what, and when. Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Btw, Pyrotec, I think I just found another (major) GA copyvio and it looks like you'll have some respectable company from the reviewers soon, so don't worry. And I'll probably end up as the most hated person on Wikipedia (after Malleus of course).Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Only in your dreams. I'm a tough act to follow. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 23:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

In response: I would never say "oh shit, stuff slipped through, should've been more careful, will fix it", so that is not the "proper response" for me. I've already placed on record that, if and when you prove copyvio in Ein Avdat, I'm happy (I stated: I have no objections) to you removing GA-status. I was not aware until now of Lajjun, but similar comments apply: if there are copyvios, remove GA-status. Doing a GAN takes considerable time and effort; and, to quote your own comment above "I've spent quite a bit of my valuable time making sure that the sources used in the article did in fact predate Wikipedia", you appear to have spent considerable time over and above my review in verifing the presence of copyvios in Ein Avdat. Your own comments "I haven't done GAR before" suggests that you are not familar with GAN/R reviews: and, let's face it, you are not doing a full review, just proving sufficient evidence of copyvio, with a predetermined (rightly so) agenda of removing GA-status if and when the copyvio is not fixed. Its your approach, that causes me the most irriatation. You appear to be a copyvio expert who knows little about GA reviews. I do understand what "copyright" means", but what I don't understand is "proving" copyright violation. Anyone can run a tool that shows two lines of text are very similar: but I was not aware that they existed on wikipedia. Proving that, for example, wikipedia copied text that originated on another web site, rather than another web site hosting text that it copied from another site that was copied from a mirror of wikipedia, is not a process that I have ever practiced. You do not appear to be interested in providing practical help and assisting to GA reviewers in checking for copyvio and for "proving it"; and you appear to have no appreciation of the workload of a full GA review plus a full copyvio check when suspect lines of text are found. I have encountered copyvio before, there was a very strong suspission of copyvio on at least two educational-project GAN articles I reviewed; I called on the expert services of User:Moonriddengirl to "prove" copyvio. I have no objections to my reviews being overturned for copyvios that I've not found, but I do object to comments such as "denying that a problem exists with those two articles" and not "understanding copyright". Pyrotec (talk) 00:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, at this point you've lost me and I don't really know what to respond to. Since it does look like that article violates copyright, I'm going to delist it. The "don't understand copyright" thing was in reference to your assertion (as I understood it) that because a website didn't assert copyright it could be copy/pasted into wikipedia. And just to be clear, while I'm using DD tool as a... tool, after I see that it indicates lots of copying (not just "two lines of text" but most of the article) I go through and use another tool, my eyes, to verify that the article does indeed copy extensively (in many cases there are short to medium strings of text which are not copyvios but official names or names of other sources and the like). So yes, it's actually a lot more time consuming then it might seem - I'm not listing every single thing I did when reviewing for copyright violations just like up until recently I have not been listing every single article I've checked.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and the "not name names" was not in reference to you either.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, Ein Avdat went through DYK on 24 January 2009 and was submitted to WP:GAN three days later. Most if not all of the copyvios appear to have been present at DYK: the Mosaic website was being used 11 times as a citation. Pyrotec (talk) 12:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break

(←) (after ec) I believe I can follow this thread in this manner:

1. Several people, largely comprised of FAC reviewers and perhaps with Malleus as their most vocal member, jumped on DYK for consistently low-quality production. [Mind you, this has been brewing for a very, very long time. I personally lost at least one or two !votes on my RfA for complaining about it, and that was a fairly long time ago.. and that was also far from the beginning of this saga.] The focus of the complaints seems to have narrowed at some point to copyvio, although I am aware that the complaints have been far broader than that over the history of this issue.
2. DYK people, feelings hurt by the sharpness of the thrust of the negative comments, say "I know we have problems, but we are not alone!!" They then begin producing examples of other Wikipedia processes that have shoddy output.
3. Once this flushing of skeletons out of the closet commenced, people began looking for problems that the group of complainers overlooked, with special emphasis on Malleus.
4. Tit for tat ensues; individuals from both "sides" guilty of it (but not everyone from either side, of course). More feelings hurt. More tit for tat. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Is that a fair summary? ...Now, we've all been around Wikipedia long enough to know that mutual apologies are completely out of the question, and the very idea would provoke indignant noises from both sides of the tit for tat. So let's brush that option aside and think about other ways to be productive. Hmmmm. How about this:

1. Every single process on Wikipedia sucks to one degree or another. Every... single... one.
   1. Wikipedia is a unified construct with individual components that seem vastly different, but really aren't.
   2. No one is paid to do this; we do it in our free time.
   3. There are no (well, few) bureaucratic processes that create the kind of redundancies that we love to hate (by and large, for good reason), but that do in fact shore up the labors of the group.
2. FAC perhaps sucks noticeably less because it is a very prolonged process involving a team effort, often employing a fruitful division of labor... It also attracts the most experienced content reviewers (some of whom have published academic articles). But even FAC can slip up.
3. All processes – even FAC – suffer from an inadequate supply of experienced reviewers and editors. that's one more reason why all processes suck to one degree or another.
4. Copyvio/plagiarism is occasionally easy to spot (e.g., a sudden gem of brilliant prose parachuted into general mass of crap). However, more often than not, copyvio is quite difficult to catch. As we have discussed ad nauseum, downstream Wikifluvia makes determining "who said what, when" a very, very time-consuming and labor-intensive process. Given that, missing instances of copyvio is simply to be expected from any one reviewer, and even (to a lesser degree) from a group of reviewers. Simply put, it is a cost of doing information business on the Internet.
5. Given all of the above, can we now deal with the situation realistically, as a nearly unavoidable feature of the Wikipedia construct, rather than as a forum for airing interpersonal griefs?  – Ling.Nut (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That certainly isn't a fair summary. DYK's most consistent and outspoken critic without a shadow of doubt is SandyGeorgia, not me; I just think it's a waste of space. But I've held my hand up and helped to fix the plagiarism (not copyright violation) that Volunteer Marek found with one GA article I'd reviewed, and I'm genuinely grateful that he brought it to my attention. But what else am I expected to do? Ceremonially eviscerate myself? Malleus Fatuorum 01:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually this most recent dustup started at the RfA talkpage. Someone said there isn't copyvio, plagiarism, whatever at DYK and challenged me to review a single submission. Being stupid, I took the challenge. And inadvertently found Billy Hathorne. 3000 posts later people are now starting to look at GA - which honestly I don't think is a bad idea. I think every review should have a spotcheck. Spotchecks are fairly easy and usually pretty useful. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You missed three important steps in the summary, Ling. 1) I had heard for years that DYK was Plagiarism Central, but never looked. 2) I was *long* concerned about pile-on Supports at RFA, kiddie admins using the "reward culture" to gain admin status with little checks, and noticed the claims of content contributions at RFA based on DYK, where plagiarism, poor sourcing, etc. was easily found a year ago, which led to the Halloween debacle and allegations that DYK would clean up its act. 3) The discussion resurfaced almost a year (now) later at talk:RFA, and it is abundantly clear that not only has DYK not improved-- it has gotten worse. So, naturally, the DYKers are deflecting the discussion to other processes, when in fact, DYK is the only process that has done nothing to fix its well-documented issues. And that is because they can't, for two reasons: 1) there is no one in charge, with a new crop of nominators, reviewers and denialists every few months, and 2) many of those participating don't even know Wikipedia policies. DYK is a most unique waste of mainpage realestate and long since stopped serving any useful purpose on Wikipedia, but of course, they would like to deflect the problems to other processes, admittedly none of which are perfect, but at least the others attempt to do their job and don't deny issues when proven. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this has moved past DYK vs. the World by now. My intent was also not to attack Malleus in any way. I started looking for cv in GAs because there's a handy list of them, because I thought it would be *somewhat* of a challenge and because I did check some FAs and realized quickly that looking for cv there would be 1) difficult since most have sources which are offline and 2) probably fruitless.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• All excellent responses, and I apologize to Malleus for misperceiving/mischaracterizing the agents and their roles. Is it possible that we can now roll up our sleeves and work on the problem(s), rather than focusing on personalities? Thanks!  – Ling.Nut (talk) 02:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Obviously none of us have either the time or the resources to check everything TK, so we do what we can. And when problems are found we do what we can to fix them. To pretend that any process can ever be perfect is naive in the extreme; what they need to be is self-correcting. But the point is that DYK occupies a quarter of the (visible) main page, whereas GA is invisible. DYK is unaccountable and out of control, Malleus Fatuorum 02:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with that. But as processes go, it's not hard to add spotchecks, and by that I truly mean spotchecking, across the board to all reviews. Currently spotchecks are done at FAC, PR, and now DYK presumably, so that leaves GAN. All it does it stop the most egregious cases like the Billy Hathorne's and ILTs, or maybe highlights them, or not, but I think it help a little. But that's just a back-in-my-mind type of feeling; obviously I've entirely lost the energy to do much about it. Too much crap to wade through around here anyway. At the moment, I'm sort of in a mode where I want to built content and hide from the "community". Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I commonly ask CorenBot to run against an article I'm reviewing, although it rarely comes up with anything, and even when it does you've got to wade through the history. Nevertheless, one easy thing to do would be to have every GAN automatically run through it or something like it as at least a basic check. But there's a limit to what you can reasonably expect unpaid and unfunded volunteers to check. Malleus Fatuorum 03:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

PS. By unfunded I mean without access to academic databases. Malleus Fatuorum 03:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but I don't bother to check databases - it's much too much trouble. I think copy/paste writing is a habit and easy to detect. I usually look at the first online source and if it's clean quickly check one or more and then am done. If it's not clean it takes more time, because then I keep pulling until I run into a clean one. On the pages that aren't copy/paste it's a quick job; on the ones that are copy/paste from top to bottom it's a quick job; on the others it's not a quick job. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

But copying from online sources is just the tip of the iceberg; much harder to detect is copying from books and papers, although as they're more effort to get hold of I suppose the problem is naturally constrained. I have a cherished copy of a book published by Academic Press back in the 1990s, in which an entire chapter was copied from a book written by another expert in the field, completely without attribution. I only noticed it because I'd read both books, which the publisher obviously hadn't. Malleus Fatuorum 03:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I think fewer editors actually use books than those who use online sources. But you're right - it's more difficult and time consuming finding it in offline sources. That's been much of the frustration with the pages ItsLassieTime wrote, who almost exclusively used offline sources. But if it's blatant plagiarism, a search in the book - if it's previewable - is usually useful. Even fewer editors have access to academic databases, and frankly it's fairly hard to be in university without the no plagiarism message pounded in. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) My procedure that has sort of developed with the checking of these GAs is roughly something like this:

1. Click a GA and find the source which appears to be most extensively used.

2. If it's online check it, either with Duplication detector or (in cases of gbooks or old pdfs) visually.

3. If it's not online move on to the next most widely used source

4. If DD detector finds many copies of word strings confirm those individually by examining each one - some common false positives include technical and official names and other sources which are used in both Wikipedia article and source

5. If it does appear to be copied try to figure out the vintage of the website and copyright status of the page (I was skipping this last one originally)

6. If the first two or three widely used sources available online support the text of the article AND properly paraphrase the information, assume that the remainder of the sources have been used correctly as well.

The whole process is actually a lot like grading student exams - the really crappy and the really good exams are easy to grade, it's the ones in the middle which take the most time. Likewise, the articles with extensive copyvios from online sources usually jump out very quickly, and if an article is well written and paraphrased this also becomes easily evident. It's the ones in the middle, that have a several sentences that are close that require the most scrutiny, hence time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, I have Degree and two Masters Degrees, the dates and the topics are of no concern here other than to note a thirty-year gap between the first Degree and the first Masters: and a reminisce that half way throught the last one the university introduced a package with a name like "Turnitin", "Checkitin", etc, and students ("customers" since we paid to do the course) were required to submit a pdf copy of every submission through that package: A kindly tutor showed me a sample six inches (150 mm for those who don't know what an inch is) of red-line print out showing possibly "hits" against e.g. Amazon book reviews, Google books, British Medical Journal, etc, and the topic was not in any way medical (there was a link, but I'm not saying what): he'd (he was a "he") had also (compulsorily) done a one or two day course (I forget which) on copyvio detection. I do know about copyright and I do check within limits, but I have no knowledge of DD detector and no interest in doing forensic copyvio checks during GAN reviews; and there are 13 year olds (and probably 14 year olds) doing GAN reviews out there with no knowledge of copyright (and none of doing GAN reviews judging by some of them), possibly no access to the electronic sources and none to the printed books & journals. Many of us don't mark student exams and it is not a requirement of being a GAN reviewer (the requirement is any editor with a username). It is disconcerting that those that do (mark exams) need to underline their superiority with bland/vague statements such as: (GAN) "reviewers don't understand copyright" (some reviewers don't know what they are doing, some are reviewing against personal preferences not the GA criteria) and "blamming" reviewers for not finding copyvios. Most of us (GAN reviewers) have little or no interest in forensic copyvio checks, but as you say for the crappy article nominations it is often obvious; and, I'm not too sure, but copyvio checks does not seem to be a requirement of GAN reviews (see Wikipedia:Good article criteria). Having made those points: a simple "idiots quide" to doing quick and easy copyvio checks during GAN reviews would be useful. Pyrotec (talk) 08:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why anyone needs an idiot's guide-- all you need are eyes. You can go to DYK on any given day and spot a copyvio within about 10 minutes by just reading the most often cited online source. If you want to refine your skills, just add this to your userspace somewhere; you can always find an issue there with mere minutes of effort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I have no real interest in copyvios in DYK, other than some of them still remain undiscovered at GAN. Now that some of the DYK protagonist's have started looking at GAs, its finding copyvios in GANs/GAs that interests me. But thanks for the advice: DYK are generally shorter, so I could start refining my skills on them first. Pyrotec (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

A week in, better a year in, and DYK is still Plagiarism Central

Ling, I added a section heading here since it continues today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

(←) The "close paraphrasing" thread currently running at WT:FAC seems to be converging with this one; suggest reading it. At the end a guide is mentioned: User:Nikkimaria/How to spotcheck. I dunno if there are better ones available. That one is a good start.  – Ling.Nut (talk) 08:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I DO think people should do a spot check for copyvios when doing GA reviews - average article takes about 10 minutes, less if it's obvious it's dirty/clean (as I said above it's the ones in the middle that take up lots of time). In fact the GAN template which lists things like "well written", "factually accurate", "broad in coverage", "neutral", etc. (I don't know how standardized this format is for GANs) should probably also have a "copyvio/plagiarism spot-check" category. As I also said somewhere else, most of this stuff isn't done maliciously, it's just that A LOT of people don't actually know that they can't copy-paste some website and slap a inline citation at the end.

Man, I was planning on submitting one of my articles up for GAN and now all this shit's gonna come back and bite me on the ass.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where this meme that GA reviewers don't do some checking for copyright violations/plagiarism has come from. Sure, not all do, and not all problems are caught, but many are, far more so than at DYK, which seems to catch roughly none. Malleus Fatuorum 18:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

PS. I'll be on the lookout for your GA nomination. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 18:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Roughly none? Does that mean that Sandy, TK and myself are the only people catching them? Or is it just that there's such a such a flood of nominations that a dozen or so people occasionally catching a few each, is as near to none as makes no odds? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

In response to first comments. Well there have been 10 minute GAN reviews (and shorter: six in under an hour, even) but those listings often get overturned at GAR very quickly. I'm not even convinced that 10 minutes to do a copyvio check is realistic where printed citations such a books, newpapers and journals are used. I've suspected copyvios in two accademic exercises (see Wikipedia:School and university projects/User:Piotrus/Fall 2009 and subsequent ones) that I reviewed concurrently at GAN (I beleive, two further nominations also had copyvios). Even with User:Moonriddengirl's help my two reviews took days before copyvio could be shown beyond doubt and the articles reverted to pre-copyvio state. It will be a race between me, "MF" (and possibly others) to review that nomination, unless we compromise and do a joint review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

SandyG isn't a DYK reviewer, and I doubt that TK will be looking at many more DYKs after her recent experience there. Clearly one of DYK's problem is the rapid turnover, which leaves little time for proper checking. Not just of copyright violation but even of basic grammar and spelling. Malleus Fatuorum 19:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Yeah, that's why I'm just calling it a "spot-check", roughly per the outline I made above, rather than a thorough check. With offline sources - and especially offline non-English sources (and translating a non-E source verbatim is also a copyvio - that's why I can't get a decent translation of some of my favorite books in English (so if an old really crappy translation exists, a new one can't be made unless the rights are bought out)), it pretty much has to be AGF unless someone has very good access to libraries etc. Sometimes you get suspicious when the writing style all of sudden changes mid paragraph or seems just "too good for Wikipedia" but there's little you can do in those cases.

And I usually take longer than 10 mins to review a DYK (I'm coming around to the view that that place simply has way too much volume to be handled in any kind of decent manner) so I'd figure a GAN should take 30 min to an hour. Maybe I'm not being realistic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No you are not being very realistic: This one took me half an hour Pulvermacher's chain. Some reviews have taken me two or three weeks (evenings only) of my time - for example this in its original form Ethanol fuel in Brazil; and this one Brassiere took one month to complete. I did 58 GAN reviews once in one month (mostly full time), but I burnt out for several months afterwards. I can find a 10-review (not mine) if you want. Pyrotec (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Pulvermacher's chain would be an example of an article that would be quite difficult and time consuming to check for copyvios, particularly because the sources are more or less offline (Here, however, the fact that a particular fact is cited to multiple sources suggests that this was done legit (though of course one can't be 100% sure without actually checking the sources)). So yes, doing a spot-check is not going to help much. But there are a lot of cases where a spot-check can be done.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

@ Demiurge100, it's not only that no one checks for them, or that checking for them is time-consuming, it's more that there is no institional memory or accountability at DYK. What is alarming there is the number of serial plagiarizers, and how they never learn because no one ever catches it so no one ever teaches them, so by the time someone points them out, they've got literally thousands of plagiarized poorly sourced stubs up. If DYK would do the minimum (spotcheck at least every new nominator or nominator known not to understand sourcing and paraphrasing), then DYK might be worth something, but that would require some sort of centralized directorate with institutional memory. I found another instance just today before I went skiing, and it took less than 10 minutes to find-- after lunch I'll go check to see if anyone did anything about it. I'm not holding my breath, and I'm sure the denialists will continue to say there's no problem, or I've provided no examples :) :). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I was quite envious for a moment then, before I realised you were talking about water skiing. I hate water skiing. Malleus Fatuorum 20:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I water and snow ski. Waterskiing has its advantages-- it's warm and you can do it half dressed. And I'm now the proud owner of several wakeboarding faceplants. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure that would work, unless the directorate somehow managed to remember details of exactly who's who and who's done what, amidst the endless stream of nominations. Or - the rate of nominations would need slowing down somehow. Or - some sort of record keeping of who is no longer a new/unapproved nominator. But then someone would have to teach new reviewers that they shouldn't be reviewing a nom from someone that's not already on the approved list - so yet another layer of rulecreep that would likely (perhaps reasonably) get resisted. So long as there remains a belief that cutting the rate of DYK appearances by even one sixth would be an irrational cruelty, then whoever is running the system won't have time to do any of this properly. (I personally don't believe that cutting the rate by 50%+ is the right answer either, but that's a separate issue.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, they fersure need to slow down the rate of nominations, but identifying the serial plagiarizers early on will have that curious side effect :) When they realize they can't cut-and-paste their way to the mainpage, they'll move somewhere else where they can, lather rinse and repeat this discussion. But what stands out about DYK is that every serial plagiarizer I know of was well known to anyone who follows DYK as a serial plagiarizer for a very long time before DYK never did a single thing about them. I spose I should acknowledge my e-mailers more often-- or they should start screaming about it instead of expecting me to do it, but it seems people have the mistaken idea that the denialists will pay attention if I'm the one to bring it up ... ha !!!!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

FAC today

Hi Sandy. My internet has not been turned on at the new house (grrr) and I have limited time not at home today. It may be turned on today, but no guarantees. I could probably run through FAC tomorrow, but no time today. Karanacs (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I sympathise Karen, I was off the air for 2 days following our recent move, twice as long as I was led to believe by our supposedly premium provider... :-P If you are lucky enough to be up and running tomorrow, I think Valston Hancock has had all the required checks and supports, though of course I'm biased... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to whine about my moving problems, 'cuz ... well, never mind. I'll do what I can as soon as I'm able (I haven't even read the thread above yet ... I spose DYK will have to continue to abuse of the Wikipedia and I need to return my attention to FAC until their next egregious offense). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

My internet is back up and running! Only took 4 hours on the phone with AT&T followed by a four-day delay before they sent someone out. Reminder, I am leaving town Friday and won't be back until the 8th. Heaven knows I need a vacation - and so do you, Sandy! Karanacs (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm taking mine :) Would you be able to get through today, and then I can handle next week? I won't be home til Sunday ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Oopsie, Karanacs, still catching up, I see you already went through. Thanks !!! I'll get next week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

For your information (re: Billy H and DYK)

A CCI request on Billy has been filed here. At this time, it has not been formally accepted, but you may wish to comment anyways, as I have, or follow the situation as it unfolds. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Sven, I appreciate it, although I doubt I'll have time to followup from here on in-- he is but one symptom of the systemic problems at DYK, and we should stop these problems where they start so we don't breed more editors like this. I don't see how CCI can keep up, and the sourcing issues with this editors are as problematic as the copyvio issues, but the real problem is that DYK enables and breeds this type of editing. I'm not going to be able to follow for the near future ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

S&M FAC

So what's happening with the FAC for S&M? It hasn't failed has it? Because I've done near on everything which was asked, I was about to complete it. Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 14:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Linky. Calvin999, the review was archived, which means it was not promoted to FA status this time around. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Why? I had done 99% of what was asked of me? What else was there possibly to do? And why hasn't the article history been updated saying not promoted then? Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 13:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

There's a bot that does that, it probably hasn't been through yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Calvin, it's not just marking off the examples the reviewers put down. If there aren't any support declarations, then the article can't be promoted. Karanacs (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Four opposes are a hefty burden to overcome, and reviewers are unlikely to continue to engage, as the level of Oppose could indidcate the article wasn't FAC ready. You'll have a much better shot if you make sure you've satisfied all previous opposers and then come back in two weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

What is the meaning of this?

What does "db-g6'd" mean here and here? --Boycool (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleted as routine cleanup. Karanacs (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, since I'm here, may I re-nominate Chuck Versus the Cliffhanger or would you like me to wait until tomorrow? --Boycool (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Boycool: the first FAC for that article was closed on July 16th, so you need to wait 14 days, or until July 30th to renominate it. Additionally, I would suggest that you contact the opposers from the first FAC to get their opinions on the current state of the article before renomination. A premature renomination may just be an invitation for opposition again this time around. Imzadi 1979 → 22:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine. SandyGeorgia, do you think Chuck Versus the Cliffhanger is now ready to be re-nominated for featured article? --Boycool (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You should ask the opposers (Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Brianboulton (talk · contribs)). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

He asked Malleus and me, we both said no. I think we might've annoyed him a bit in the process. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I seem to have unleashed the wrath of Malleus in the process. I'm waiting for an answer from Brianboulton. --Boycool (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to wait, you need to consider what you've already been told. Malleus Fatuorum 19:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for an addition to WIAGA

• Proposal for an addition to WIAGA explicitly addressing copyvio.
• This is a TPS announcement. Donn't discuss here; discuss there.  – Ling.Nut (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SandyGeorgia. You have new messages at Panyd's talk page.
Message added 20:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Have it your way, then

per your request. But, if we'd dealt with Billy Hathorn that way, we wouldn't be here, right? You'd be so happy on your woodsy lake right now.

.To be fair, I think a lot of the close paraphrasing problem comes from people who weren't taught to write imaginatively enough to really turn the relevant sentences or grafs upside down and reconfigure them, on top of having a limited vocabulary, and produce a result that remains in conformity with both intelligibility and the Wikipedia MOS (it's not always easy for me, and I have a master's in English, a book, and several years in journalism. I can only imagine what it must be like for some young person for whom English wasn't their favorite subject, and just wants to write about their favorite CVG or something). A lot of those problems could be solved (as, I admit, they used to be in the old days at DYK) by simple rewriting for clarity and style, without even checking the sources. ... maybe instead of or in addition do a directorate (which I don't object to having, actually), we need a rewrite desk. Daniel Case (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, I apologize for everything that has gone on so far, but I'm not the only one on the receiving end of your posts noticing the loss of good faith on your part. As I've said, while you may feel the situation is near hopeless, you can't let that feeling type for you (as much as I ought not to be letting the resentment your tone is arousing type for me). AGF means you have to come in with the attitude that the DYK editors can be part of the solution, not the problem. I've gotten that from Tony ... I believe from past experience that I can see it from you, and in some cases I have. Daniel Case (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

AGF means nothing of the sort, although an astonishing number of editors seem to believe that it means "ignore what's staring you blatantly in the face". Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That's what I get out of lines like:

Most people try to help the project, not hurt it ... [E]ditors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice ... When disagreement occurs, try to the best of your ability to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict, and so give others the opportunity to reply in kind. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives, and look for ways to reach consensus ... Although bad conduct may seem to be due to bad faith, it is usually best to address the conduct without mentioning motives, which might exacerbate resentments all around.

I can't remember who said it, but someone in some forgotten outburst of drama once said that AGF is the grease that makes editors work together. I have never read anywhere else any pithier distillation of what it means, or its importance to the project. Daniel Case (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to discuss, Daniel Case. Perhaps you'd begun to feel that I "wouldn't take yes for an answer" :) Really, I just want something to be done-- I want there to be one day when it stops showing up on the mainpage, and we stop seeing denials of the seriousness of the issues (I have little regard for the denials, and will continue to point out problems as long as they persist). No, it wasn't necessary to deal with Billy Hathorn that way-- it was necessary to detect the problem in the beginning, and then shut him down if it continued after warnings. It's not easy for me, at all, I'm a math undergrad, engineering grad, and I didn't even understand plagiarism until the Dispatch was written, so I don't blame the individuals-- I blame the forum that enables them without educating them and without doing anything even after they've created hundreds of copyvio poorly sourced stubs. My anger is not at the nominators-- it's at DYK, which enables them and doesn't educate them in correct Wikipedia editing. It is not serving its purpose; those who believe so much in DYK should strive to see it be what it was intended to be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I have supported pretty much all the specific reforms that have been so far proposed and implemented, some of which as I've said I always thought we should have done a while ago anyway. I would never claim DYK as it is currently implemented is perfect ... that's lazy thinking IMO. I agree with you generally that at this point it is time to think of it as serving a quality control function ... it certainly isn't 2005 anymore.

Speaking of which, part of the emotional basis I was coming from was remembering what DYK was like way back when, when new noms were only grouped by date and everything had to be done by hand (which as I've also noted created a stronger sense of responsibility among those who took it). Believe me, compared to what it looked like back then, at least it looks orderly today ... sort of like the before-and-after difference between some of those houses on those TV shows where they clean them up. So, I see a section that while it still has problems has come a long way from what it once was.

So why the inertia in fixing things? Probably because everyone involved is/was so busy keeping the trains running on time (so to speak) as to not really be able to do things about the larger issues, even when they notice them.

Maybe we would benefit, at least temporarily, from slowing down the pace of DYKs to at most twice a day. As I seem to recall, that was prompted by that long stretch when ITN had the infamous Lugo picture for almost two weeks, prompting a discussion as to how long we should let things stay on the main page, and as that was resolved an informal DYK policy of changing DYK hooks once to three times during the day became a formal one of changing them four times every 24 hours (and also because we had a huge backlog of noms back then, too, I think). Daniel Case (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:GLAM/ARKive

There are some interesting discussions going on at Wikipedia talk:GLAM/ARKive. I wish this had been done five years ago rather than now.....just for a change from DYK - see discussions on attribution of text. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK mentality

Whilst I agree with you Sandy that many shoddy DYKs go through and that standards on the main page need to be improved I think you are being a little harsh with some of your comments. Its downright unfair of you to treat anybody who contributes to DYK like some retarded monkey who is incapable of writing articles. It would be like me (wrongly) assuming you had an incapacity to write your own articles because you are primarily a FA reviewer. Its wrong to paint everybody with the same brush and you are really hurting a lot of people's feelings, mainly those who are legit editors and DYK is merely the first step towards writing a GA. These people work very hard and regularly come up with the goods and for them to be told they are pathetic and worthless and a waste of time is the last thing they want to hear. Many of us share your desire to develop the best encyclopedia we possibly can. Yes, there are a number of editors who treat DYK like a game and all they seem to care about is another notch on the DYK board, but there are a number of editors who regularly produce decent and much needed content which has great potential. I personally am not in the slightest bit offended by what you have said as I know I regularly produce GAs and am not the typical DYK contributor. But it really does come down to WP:AGF. We need contributors expanding our stubs and to give them reason to do so as it is the important initial step towards something better. We can get them to raise the bar without putting them off entirely (which is happening at present). I have mentioned to Tony a monthly prize scheme which could motivate DYK contributors to produce better work and compete for best article of the month.

In regards to the main page, of course I fully agree that it should be representative of our best content and it is important to have a good look for the project and regular embarrassing articles do the opposite of this. However, the stats show that on average about 4.8 million people visit the main page daily, most DYKs get fewer than 2000 visitors and indeed even the daily FA rarely gets more than 50,000 views. That tells me that the vast majority of visitors to English wikipedia couldn't care less what is on the main page and merely use it as a search engine to find their desired article. Given that ratio I would consider the quality of the average article to be as important as any and that our readers would be more concerned with the quality (or lack of it) of the average article than what is on the main page. I agree with you we should stamp out plagiarism and shoddy/lack of sources sources/POV as none of them are acceptable, but I think you have been treating DYK and the main page in the last few weeks as the be all and end all of wikipedia and of extreme important, whereas page views would tell quite another story. Given that the majority ignore both DYK and DFA, they only have to look beneath the surface to see these issues in most articles so at best the main page is a cover. Making DYK completely exemplary will not change what is there for all to see beneath the surface. That said, I think only the very best DYKs or GA articles should replace the current system as I agree the main page should be representative of our best content, but I don't think the main page is quite as important as you seem to think in regards to our viewers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Its (sic) downright unfair of you to treat anybody who contributes to DYK like some retarded monkey who is incapable of writing articles.

   I haven't done that, although many DYKers have. Please, don't make hyperbolic statements here without some evidence in the form of diffs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

2. These people work very hard and regularly come up with the goods and for them to be told they are pathetic and worthless and a waste of time is the last thing they want to hear.

   Ditto: I haven't told anyone they are pathetic and worthless, but the DYK process certainly is. I don't much care if the denialists don't want to hear criticism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

3. I have mentioned to Tony a monthly prize scheme which could motivate DYK contributors to produce better work and compete for best article of the month.

   Groan, oh great-- another useless bauble for the reward culture. So, who is going to referee this latest contest? Considering a shortage of reviewers, why don't those folks simply watch for the daily DYK copyvio so I can move on ?

4. That tells me that the vast majority of visitors to English wikipedia couldn't care less what is on the main page and merely use it as a search engine to find their desired article.

   Interesting, but has nothing to do with my point, which is that DYK teaches new and old editors alike BAD editing, and never catches it, and never does anything to educate deficient editors in Wikipedia policy, and thousands of deficient stubs are created that are never cleaned up. It's a bit alarming that so few editors care about that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"Never"? Really? "Thousands"? Really? DYKs are by definition not stubs. For once Blofeld has a point. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Never: AFAIK, yes. I have never gone to the mainpage to check DYK where I couldn't locate an offensive article within minutes. Thousands: undeniably. I know of two editors who between them created more than that, and that doesn't count all the undetected. Stubs, yes, frequently; I've found several that once the faulty content is removed consist of no more than two or three sentences. And I have never said that many very good editors don't go through DYK on their way to GA or FA; the concern is generally among those who never move beyond DYK and never learn that their editing is deficient, and no one cleans up after them.

What we have right now are a whole new crop of denialists at DYK who have forgotten (or never knew about) the entire ANI subthread from last October (courtesy of Rlevse), or who have engaged in same themselves so don't want anything to change. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

So you don't know very far then; as you have said you usually only look at the product not the process. So not "thousands of deficient stubs", but "frequently ...several". Your over-strident tone in this is reducing the force of your arguments. Johnbod (talk)

as you have said you usually only look at the product not the process. Johnbod, it's contagious!! Knowledgeable, precise FA folk are getting sloppy !! Where have I said that? It's fashionable to put words in my mouthy lately :) I looked at the process last October, engaged at WT:DYK, got shot as the messenger, decided it was not the best use of my time, looked again this time and found nothing has changed, don't intend to waste my time digging through diffs on multiple complex pages that have no archives, am glad to see that Rjanag has started an archive process to solve that part. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not digging through your diffs either, but your comments normally start with defective stuff that has made it through to the main page, and often ask basic questions about how it got there, which sometimes display considerable unfamiliarity with the basic review process (as with the one that Truthkeeper reviewed for example). That's not a good basis to start making claims about what the process "never" does. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If this boils down to TK making a mistake (?), Sandy becoming strident as a result, and now multiple retirements because of the ensuing firestorm, then it's time for me to close up shop here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh? That you happened to be a reviewer, and that someone pushed a really bad alternate hook up the line that you had not reviewed, had nothing to do with my routine forays into DYK to look for the daily debacle. Why should any of this lead to you closing up shop? I would think you'd be glad that your foray over there highlighted how complex and unwieldy their processes are. Furthermore, given that it was subsequently revealed that many of them long knew of the deficiencies in that editor's writing, don't you feel somewhat taken advantage of? Several of them mentioned they wouldn' review his hooks, so it fell to the newbie/lamb. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I feel very much taken advantage of. But my foray was the result of someone challenging me to find a DYK with copyvio, and what I've learned, painfully, is that people don't want to hear about plagiarism, want to shove it under the carpet, become defensive and even uncivil when it's mentioned. That it's an enormous problem has been clear to me since I saw the extent of the damage ILT caused, of which I've scrubbed only a fraction of one percent. That we need to deal with the problem is clear, but I don't want to have caused so much acrimony and finger pointing simply because of a single stupid review. Better for me to stick with content production and stay away from metadiscussions and all. That's all. A little upset about this. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a faulty interpretation, Johnbod. Since last October, DYK had done nothing (prior to Rjanag's recent improvements) to improve archiving and complex, messy process. Since they hadn't done the minimum, there is no reason for any editor to have to trawl through multiple old diffs on multiple pages to figure out who reviewed a hook. At minimum, they should have had that accountability since the issues surfaced last October. Instead, they punted responsibility with QPQ reviewing. That I *won't* trawl through diffs in a faulty process doesn't mean I don't understand the process or *can't*-- it's their problem, and I shouldn't have to. Perhaps some of them want obscurity, so repeat offenders aren't easily identified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

As with most processes, the way to become familiar with how it works is to actually do it, not look at the end product and try to work backwards. Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Analogy. If I want to criticize any activity I don't condone, I must first engage it? Prostitution, child abuse, socialism, eating contests, booger eating, here I come. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• • And we all know where that leads... multiple retirements... scrambling your password.. re-upping as SandyGeorgia2...  – Ling.Nut (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
    • You lost me there, Ling? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
      • sorry, I was referring to myself. Hidden in my sig is User:Ling.Nut2.  – Ling.Nut (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• People at DYK are objecting to your incivility and abuse, not to the idea that plagiarism and copyvio are in general bad things. Yes, they are bad things, but detecting them is something one must learn to do. Tony1 has been (as usual) incredibly helpful in looking for ways to help people learn to do a better job on reviewing, including starting a centralized resource for people to find information on how to detect or remedy close paraphrasing. I imagine that you perceive your many ugly remarks about DYK editors to be a beneficial way to motivate people to do things you think they should already be doing. This is not a sensible method of teaching or motivating volunteers, and it violates Wikipedia core principles such as WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Tony1 has done a much better job here than you have, by far, by far, by far, on serving the goals that you claim to want to be serving. Sharktopus ^talk 15:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • And your pointed remarks at Sandy help.... how? if you don't like her, ignore her. Worked for me and my stepmother for a decade.  – Ling.Nut (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • (ec) Sharktopus, maybe you should review the "core principles" that you are referring to, because unless you were trying to be pointy, some can see (parts of) your comment as quite ugly. Maybe, one might also question "the goals that you claim to want to be serving" after seeing you commenting here in the way in which you have. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Shark, if you come to my talk page alleging "incivility and abuse", you darn well better present diffs to back your own little view of the world. AFAIK, Tony created a template which won't address the problems. Rjanag on the other hand has done something that may improve accountability. That you don't seem concerned that to this day DYK continues to put copyvio on the mainpage really doesn't impress me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with you that standards have been way too low and crap should not get through onto the main page you know this , but there is a way to go about it without implying that every contributor at DYK is a complete imbecile and unworthy of having an account. Serial offenders with plagiarism and poor sources should of course be warned until they change. What you appear to miss Sandy is that we are all volunteers here and none of us have to bother with anything. We are a charity institution which relies heavily on the goodwill of people to freely donate their time and effort to developing something worthwhile. You treat wikipedia like some central government institution with a strict code and bureacratic structure and the utmost highest of standards. Would wikipedia be improved if it was a professional institution? Highly likely, yes. But we aren't and nobody is in a position (however respected or competent) to give orders to individuals and treat them as janitors at the lower end of the ladder in some fat cat company. We rely on editors developing content and this is very important as an initial step.

If you take away any "reward" system for editors then motivating them becomes much more difficult unless they are really infatuated with a subject that they will develop it at all costs. I don't see why rewarding editors who produce better content would be such a bad thing, in fact it might get those who previously produced bare minimum crappy DYKs into working on something more worthwhile. Who would decide article of the month? There are several editors at DYK who could do that. Some of them such as Yomagani are actually competent article reviewers although can't be expected to review and check every article. Given that we are all volunteers content development has to be fun for the individual. If it becomes a chore and extremely strict at DYK level then there is little incentive for an editor to bother developing a stub and spending time reviewing other articles thoroughly. You might think rewards are lousy but very few people actually produce goods for free. Nobody is obligated to edit here and it is remains a purely negative environment we'll lose people who matter. People may be rejoicing that people are leaving DYK, what they are failing to see is that editors like User:Khazar and User:Nvvchar have been invaluable at addressing systematic bias on here by covering parts of the world in the non-anglo countries even if they were not perfect writers. We need such editors to help improve wikipedia as a resource, even if they are not FA contributors.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

BLOFELD, THIS IS FOR YOU.

1. ... without implying that every contributor at DYK is a complete imbecile and unworthy of having an account. I warned you above (did you read?) about putting words into my mouth that I didn't say. If you do it again, I'll remove your post. If you come to my page to allege I'm doing X, provide a diff. Else, go away. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
2. What you appear to miss Sandy is that we are all volunteers here and none of us have to bother with anything. No, I don't miss that at all. What you appear to miss is that, if DYK can't clean up its act, it doesn't HAVE to be on the mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sandy I read somewhere you mentioned a bot for picking up DYK copyvios. That's a great idea, is anybody looking into it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This is getting old. No, I didn't. I requested that DYKers come up with a template for notifying of copyvios, plagiarism, close paraphrasing etc since it is such a frequent issue at DYK. They may as well have a bot do it, since it happens in every queue, but I don't know how bots work and if that is doable. They DO need a template to notify the copyvio creator, the DYK reviewer, the DYK prep reviewer, the DYK admin who put the copyvio on the main page, DYK, Main page errors, and article talk of the offense, so that they don't continue and editors can learn from their mistakes. The template should link to the relevant policies and educational pages like the plagiarism dispatch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, that would be ideal. And when many were complaining about you on the DYK talk page with the "incivility" remarks I actually defended you given how frustrating it is that considerable effort is being put into DYK reform and at that stage little was happening. As for the main page, wasn't I the one who proposed to take DYK off the main page because I knew that such a needed raise in standards would likely kill the enthusiasm? Maybe we are best off scrapping DYK entirely and replacing with GAs but somebody somewhere is going to suffer over this, it can't be helped.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that EarwigBot (or the the Copyright Violation Detector toolserver page) and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup, should be involved as a formal part of the DYK process - why are those tools not already used? It would make things a little easier for all involved if their involvement could help reduce the amount of copyvios. Chaosdruid (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, they're helpful, but it only takes minutes to find issues, so I still don't get why people don't do it manually. See GA Dotty Cotton (by the same editor I found yesterday at DYK). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Apart from the too close paraphrasing issue you discovered in Dotty Cotton (which I've now rewritten), a closer look at that article shows that it's pretty dreadful in other places too. Take this from the lead for instance: "She assisted Nick in trying to kill her grandmother, Dot, by making her believe she was suffering form dementia and later trying to poision her". Can't even get the bloody spelling right. Interestingly the reviewer is the same editor who dragged me to AN/I a few days ago when I was very critical of an article on another soap character during its recent GA review. Malleus Fatuorum 17:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

oopsie, see what comes from waterskiing and wakeboarding while you're packing and unpacking boxes and moving !! You miss a few goodies at the Wikipedia-- sorry to flag one for you that involved an unpleasant prior experience that I missed. Anyway, the problem is that DYK is not educating these editors, and they are going on to create issues up the line. Now I shall go pack a dozen or so boxes so I can get on to FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

PS, on that GAN ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't all bad then. I don't understand what the schools are teaching these days; I wouldn't have got away with spelling errors and copying even when I was in junior school. In fact we had regular lessons on what was called English comprehension, in which we were explicitly taught how to summarise large chunks of text in our own words. Malleus Fatuorum 17:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

In the US the schools are teaching very little, and the bare minimum of writing instruction, if any. International baccalaureate students do received writing instruction, but IB isn't widely available. I first learned to read and write in a language other than English (spoke English at home), and when we returned to the US I'd missed the lessons on English grammar; apparently it's only taught once and never revisited. Writing was never taught. This is the reason for my bad prose. But that was a number a years ago, and I know that the situation has deteriorated seriously. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it varies a lot. I challenged a U.S. middle school student to quote me the material from his offline source for a Wikipedia article, because I had serious doubts that the wording was really his own. He duly typed out the four paragraphs from the original source, which he'd correctly summarised into two sentences for the Wikipedia article. He also realised that I was checking for plagiarism, and was a little put out; "Yes of course I know what plagiarism is. Everything I write for school, my teacher breaks every single sentence into phrases and Googles them. I wouldn't get away with plagiarism round here." --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I spotted Mavis Wilton in the DYK queue and intentionally ignored it. Would you have done the same here? Worse POV and prose quality than any of the DYKs you'll find in Indian and Pakistani town and village articles ..♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your question? Yes I would have deleted the material just as you did, but no, I wouldn't have spent any time working on the article beyond that, as I did with Mavis. Malleus Fatuorum 18:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Just felt guilty that's all removing somebody's hard work!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

FACs

Hi Sandy, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Richard Dannatt, Baron Dannatt/archive1 seems to be maturing nicely and I'd quite like to nominate my next project, Iranian Embassy siege. Would you mind if I nominated the latter while the FAC for the former is still open? There's no risk that I won't be able to respond to feedback on two simultaneous reviews. Much obliged, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead (I need to re-review my discussions with Karanacs to see who is pr/aring today). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Karanacs is out 'til the 8th, so I guess that ends my bi-monthly foray into DYK abuse. Back to FAC !! I will try to get through tonight, if not, tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, and far be it from me to tell you how to suck eggs, I think you speak much sense on DYK, but the regulars there might respond more positively if you try to work with them, rather than giving them the impression that it's you vs them. Anyway, thanks, I'll nominate the embassy siege a little later on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a thought worthy of contemplation, but I suspect some of them aren't going to pay attention no matter how the concerns are stated (not to mention that several of them are attributing things to me that they've come up with in their imagination, and several of them have behaved quite awfully). How 'bout this-- next time (as there will inevitably be a next time), I'll be saccharin-sweet and we'll see if it goes any differently? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It's worth a try, isn't it? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Only if it were likely to make a difference. Which it won't. The reason that so many are getting upset at SandyG's remarks is because they know they're true but don't want to admit it. Sandy's attitude to GA was at one time perhaps rather similar; certainly she was very critical of certain aspects of the process. But rather than block our ears a number of us tried to address her concerns, not least by introducing a proper system of archiving and cleaning up or delisting all evidently non-compliant GAs. I see very little real effort from DYK to do anything similar, or even to drop the QPQ reviewing requiement, which was always going to be a disaster waiting in the wings. Malleus Fatuorum 16:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

BINGO :) GA corrected deficiencies, DYK has made negligible attempt, over many years or recurring issues, always with a new crop of offenders and deniers. PS, MF, I just found a non-compliant GA by the same editor identified at DYK yesterday (see above). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Sandy has repeatedly demanded actual instance of violating WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF in her interactions with editors who work on DYK ... here are just 4 samples from one day's comments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Daily_DYK_scandal Sharktopus ^talk 16:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • There's always one, whether faulty sources, plagiarism, or sensationalism, but y'all have exceeded even your own low standards …Have you all no shame, or simply no processes for assuring you don't trash the main page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • DYK can be as obtuse as you all want for as long as you want … No accountability, no transparency, no archives, no institutional memory, no decency wrt human beings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
  • the Shark character is the latest DYK apologist in a long stream of same SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • No one is asking for perfect, but we don't need apologists for plagiarism, sensationalism, and BLP issues...I hold you and other experienced DYKers responsible for fixing them, not denying it or apologizing for it. Your process stinks; fix it. DYK deserves this negative attention SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• Improving Wikipedia is a fine goal, and it's one that I also believe in. Sharktopus ^talk 16:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Try harder. First hint: there is always one. But I'll not need to refer to you as "the Shark character" anymore, since your username is now firmly entrenched in my memory, and I won't need to dig it up! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I like to improve Wikipedia by doing what I think I'm good at, which is editing articles and helping other people to do the same. I assume that you are good at ferreting out mistakes in the work done by others, although according to your contribution history you haven't done a lick of work since July 28 on anything except trying to prove how entitled you are to enjoy abusing people at DYK. Sharktopus ^talk 17:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey Sharktopus, IIRC, someone above suggested you might lay off the attacks. Now would be a good time to start. Any further will be removed for your own protection. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Now I know you're all going to think I'm daft, and you might be right, but if you guys (Sandy and Sharktopus in particular) take a step back and a deep breath, then try to work together rather than making things adversarial and personal, you might make more progress. Maybe there are those at DYK who will resist any efforts to change the way they do things, but Sandy, I think you might find more support (or at least less disagreement!) if you show the DYK folks that you want to help them rather than browbeat them. I'm sure you encountered resistance when it was GA in your crosshairs, but these days the process is hugely improved (it has its flaws, but so does any process), to the benefit of Wikipedia, and those who submitted crappy articles for review or conducted seriously sub-par reviews eventually became largely extinct. So will it be with DYK, but only (in my opinion, and I realise you and Malleus have been doing this for far longer than I, and that you're going to think I sound like a hippie or something ;)!) with the consent of mainstream DYK thought. If you succeed in forcing change but don't bring the mainstream of the DYK project with you, the change won't last, so better to aim for evolution, with the consent of DYK folks, rather than revolution without it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

  Indeed. One of the problems with concensus is this. If there's ten people that reach a concensus that the sky is blue, there will still be one of them who decides to keep quiet and not commit themselves either way, and one who will keep screaming "no, no! it's green!" The screamer will attract most attention, and it then becomes too easy to start thinking that in fact all ten people are resistant to the idea, even though in fact there is a quiet concensus in favour of the idea. Of course, that 10% of loud resistance and 10% of quiet neutrality can still be quite effective in stopping or slowing change, but that's still not a reason to react by rushing around saying "hey you know these ten people, they just won't accept the sky is blue - they're in denial!" when, as far as concensus is concerned, quite the opposite is true. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

  Sandy, I was not impressed with your comments and edit summaries at the DYK article I've been working on, Al Lerner (composer). Sure, the article needs work. It is, after all, a new article! It's not like it's been nominated for GA or anything. But your edit summaries and the comments that you embedded in the article were not necessary.[18] In any case, as I have requested before, I would rather that you disengaged on matters involving me. So please, back off? Thanks, Elonka 21:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

  Be fair, it does need quite a bit of work in the prose department. Oh, and "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here". Malleus Fatuorum 22:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Seeking your input in discussion on use of quotations

Knowing of your consistent concern about copyvio, plagiarism, close paraphrasing, etc., I wonder if you would consider weighing in at Talk:Charles L. Thompson, specifically at "Long verbatim quotation removed from article", on the topic of the direct quotations that have been repeatedly inserted in the article by another user.

For what it's worth, I have a list of other pages with similar (related) issues at User:Orlady/List#Excessive use of quotations. --Orlady (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)