User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch90

Statistical Language Acquisition

This puzzles me, rather. Is it a content fork? Is it a something else? Can you help? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Busy day, just home, tired ... Slp1 (talk · contribs) will know what to do on that one ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Doug Lynch

SandyGeorgia,

I deleted Doug Lynch from the heading "Notable Faculty" under entry of the University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education because he was a member of the staff, not of the faculty. Everyone else on the list is a member of the faculty, although a few also hold administrative appointments for set terms after which time they will return full-time to their faculty duties. (A clue here: At Penn, if the title of Dean is preceded by "Vice" or by "Assistant", you can be sure they are staff.)

Perhaps I should have kept his name but changed the heading to "Notable Faculty and Staff", which would have subsumed the two classes of employees. Are you OK with this solution? If so, would you be willing to make the change or would you like for me to? Thank you for considering this proposal.

Ephadams (talk) 01:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you're looking for an argument to exclude a discredited Douglas E. Lynch from the list of "notables" at the article about the institution that didn't check his credentials to begin with. It doesn't matter to me what you call the folks who work there (staff, faculty, administration, whatever), you don't get to remove someone from the page just because he's embarrassed the institution. That would violate WP:NPOV. By the way, I see a whole lotta supposed notables on that page whose articles are sourced to UPenn itself, which is what got us into this spot to begin with, no? It would be nice if articles were sourced to independent, third-party sources-- they might check credentials. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• Account activation codes have been emailed.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

After spending a few hours exploring my new HighBeam account for the Wikipedia topics I most edits, I found ... NOTHING of use. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Little issue to look at if you have time

If you have time and are willing to get involved with a dispute among the FA/GA people, please look at User_talk:John#Date_formats. Ealdgyth tried to do something, but it didn't help. People might listen to you. I know this is a relatively minor issue, but it should be pretty black-and-white. Also, from my perspective, MF is again scarlet lettering an article. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Please drop in at Talk:Sean Combs. And could you please get MF to stop snarking and baiting. I believe this is approaching WP:Harassment. Gimmetoo (talk) 05:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You may believe whatever you like, doesn't make it true though. Malleus Fatuorum 05:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

And if you believe that SandyG, or anyone else, has some magical power to shut me up then you really need to think again. I listen to reason, and I've heard none of that from you. Malleus Fatuorum 05:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Please do not make this personal, MF. I have endeavored not to engage your snarks. Please, address issues on the policy and guideline level, and please, please, stop trying to provoke me. Gimmetoo (talk) 05:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You're the one whose obsession with date formatting is making this personal Gimmetoo. I'd strongly advise you to stop right now. Malleus Fatuorum 06:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that unsolicited advice. Now please do not make this personal. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me tell you what I really think, and bugger the consequences. You have failed to address what you call my "snarks" because you are intellectually incapable of doing so, and thus instead resort to this kind of ad hominem appeal. Malleus Fatuorum 06:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

If addressing all pertinent points is viewed as "intellectual incapable" in your eyes, then so be it. I have, however, endeavored to ignore those comments from you that I view as snarks or insults. If you don't think comments like "drop his stick" are snarky or provocative, then you are welcome to present them another way, and I will endeavor to address them. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you've rather ably proved my point. If I don't think that such comments are "snarks or insults", which I've very clearly said that I don't, then why would I take the trouble to reword them for your benefit? Malleus Fatuorum 14:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Goodness, why has the entire Merry Merridew Anti-FAC pro-Sock Supporting Cabal suddenly appeared on the same article and for gosh sakes, Malleus ... is it worth it ????? OK, so they couldn't shut down FAC, so they're gonna shut down GimmeBot, which does the same thing. Oh, such a nice group of editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, gee, lookie there, Gimmetrow (who was plagued by Jack Merridew aka Alarbus aka everybody and the kitchen sink) has been maintaining that article for years, but Wehwalt, Diannaa, RexxS, and Rlevse (who just happened to be on the same wrong side of the FAC issue as Alarbus) just all happen to show up on the same day !! And now who said Rlevse could be trusted to be unblocked again ?? Have you all no shame? Pena ajena. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Reverts to edits on Autism article

Hi SandyGeorgia, I am confused as to why you reverted my edits. PubMed is a scientific journal, which according to Wiki's sourcing policies, is reliable and most of the article uses a scientific journal. CDC is not a scientific journal and I do not understand why the source needs to be used in the article. ATC ^{. Talk} 21:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, the sentence that says "The number of people diagnosed with autism has increased dramatically since the 1980s" is inaccurate. All the sources in the article say autism was rare in the 1980s but increased in the late 1990s and early 2000s. ATC ^{. Talk} 21:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Finally, the sources for the vaccines in the lead should not be tagged after the sentence about prevalence but after where it discusses the vaccines and the PubMed source is no longer linked and is all messy now when you click the citation tag. ATC ^{. Talk} 21:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

FAC outside reviews

Hey Sandy,

I had a few thoughts on the Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Subject matter experts and reviews discussion that I thought too specific to put over there, for fear of taking things onto tangents.

• You mention WP:PSTS, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, etc. with outside experts. Something that I have thought about often is that I think WP's definition of PSTS is not balanced across fields. Under WP definition, a scientific primary source is a research article; this is fundamentally different from a historical primary source (e.g., a letter from 1531). Indeed, it seems like under these criteria, a historian's data are the primary sources and their papers are therefore secondary... so for symmetry, a scientific data set should be primary and a scientific research paper should be secondary (under our definitions). This makes sense to me because the experts should interpret their data. Of course, review articles written by those not directly involved in all of the research that they are summarizing are better for WP, but depending on field, these are written more or less frequently. Basically, I think that the scientific peer-reviewed literature is downgraded compared to the humanistic peer-reviewed literature under our policies, which seems strange to me as a scientist, and I think should at least be discussed before getting outside expert opinions (because I expect others to be as befuddled as I).
• Opinions: I don't think that academics in general work to advance positions in arguments for personal reasons, but sometimes they do, and when they do, they often do so loudly and obnoxiously... maybe they were ignored as children or something. (Oops! Was that just some WP:SYNTH?) It seems that WP attracts the end-members: the altruistic who want to help advance human knowledge, and the self-centered who want a megaphone. How will we sort these in the expert reviews? And how will we have an ability to argue against biased "expert" reviews? In this, I agree completely with what you say in your point #3: their [the expert's] review should be weighed exactly as we would weigh any other review.
• Implementation: I put some suggestions on the WP page, but if you want to chat / brainstorm here, I'd love to and we'd avoid cluttering that main talk page until we came up with a pretty good idea. As I said over there, I think that if we make the process easy and attractive - including inside editors and perhaps even inspire the outside reviewers to feel good about volunteering their time the fantastic WP cause - we'll have succeeded. But I haven't thought enough about how to deal with non-altruistic outside reviewers. I like to think that people are out to do good things and do less to plan for the alternative...

Awickert (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Butting in uninvited, I like your analogy of the raw data being the primary source and the published paper the secondary source. Makes sense to me. Malleus Fatuorum 20:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Me, too. Pesky (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Glad that seems sensible to both of you: I've been in very circular debates on this: peer review is the gold standard → but your peer-reviewed articles are primary sources → [loop back around]. In fact, this issue appeared recently: Wikipedia talk:No original research#Clarifying definitions. It seems like the solution in this case was common sense, but didn't involve any rewording of the (confusing) policy, and therefore is not a permanent solution.

So I think the way I would see it is (using the two above examples):

• Historian: [Gather primary historical documents] → [Assemble into research paper, with the author's impressions] → [New author writes a more dispassionate review article]
• Scientist: [Gather data] → [Assemble into research paper, with the author's impressions] → [New author writes a more dispassionate review article]

And say that the scientist writing the research paper is as susceptible to bias as the historian writing their research paper: I disagree with statements that doing the experiments makes the author personally involved in a way to define the scientific paper as a "primary source" any more than the historian's research would make them personally involved in the topic.

Maybe I should bring this up at Wikipedia: No original research... <sigh>, when I have a block of time... Awickert (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I should also note for those unfamiliar: scientific research papers always reference prior work and integrate the new findings into the body of preexisting knowledge, which also argues for their liberation from the "primary source" bucket. [Also, Sandy, kick me off your talk page if this is too tangential.] Awickert (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with u Awickert. On a wider scope, I think that en.wikipedia has a problem with science & technology. On the other side, I think that en. wikipedia is ok on humanistic, sports & entertainment. Science & technology needs higher level education, vandalism doesn't need it; maybe that's why de.wikipedia has flagged revisions. Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Solicited reviews from outside subject matter experts

Can you give this a look and tell me what you think. I think this is something that is seriously handicapping Wikipedia in general and FAC in particular.

I know you said you wanted a less active role here, but this is very important to me, and I can think of no one I trust more than you to do the job of coordinating with outside experts. Raul654 (talk) 03:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Oooh, please may I solicit a review outside of your normal areas of expertise? ;P Pesky (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Chavez

Hugo Chavez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've just posted on the talk page encouraging users there to Be Bold in helping to get the article into shape. I'm ready to really put my foot down and take this to dispute resolution if we can't make progress. The ongoing issues there with blatant removals of well-sourced negative content is just ridiculous. I'm going to be really busy for the next few days, and I know you take an interest in this issue. I hope you can help.

One thing I am concerned about is that the users discussing the problem there now may not be fully experienced and may make NPOV errors in the other direction. I hope we can coach them in proper editing!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a big problem has been disruptive posts on talk in both directions-- that, even more than the pro-Chavez hagiography and wholesale removal of reliably sourced information, is what made me throw in the towel. Even the folks attempting neutrality ended up shooting themselves in the feet, making work impossible. There was no one to work with, although one editor who gave a solid effort was JoelWhy (talk · contribs), and perhaps Saravask (talk · contribs) (who wrote the now defeatured version) would come back if the talk page became constructive. We need to force folks to keep talk page discussion focused on sources and content, avoiding the outlandish claims ala Chavez is a dictator, etc. Maybe an uninvolved party can remove WP:SOAP and WP:NOTAFORUM posts? I once proposed that we needed to instate a 1RR rule there, but that was shouted down. I also suggested once reverting the article to bare bones, back before Midnightblueowl's edits made the article even more POV and verbose, and starting over, building via consensus. That flopped, too. I am going to be traveling soon, for almost two weeks, to an area where I will have limited access, so while I can weigh in sporadically for now, I won't be full force until June. If we can't make any progress by simply forcing some talk page etiquette, then I suggest we first ask for some sort of admin enforcement at ANI, and if that still fails, then it would be time for the arbs. But a solid attempt is needed: we'll see-- but I'm quite busy until June. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, please ping me in June. I'll be making a go of it a little bit before then but perhaps between the two of us we can get it sorted in June!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hm

Got slack in my absence have you? Contrary to your edit, "no police report of the incident has been produced" is not backed up by the source you give ([1]). On the contrary, the source says the police report, which has circulated via e-mail in Venezuela... Rd232 ^talk 21:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Got nicer in your absence have you? You have a most interesting take on that source-- the Baruta Police have produced no report, and declined to comment-- I guess you consider something "circulated via email" to be official. I recommend snopes.com for folks who believe anything that circulates in e-mail. Doesn't it stink to not be able to just copy-paste plagiarize and try to put something in your own words, thereby giving folks reason to shoot blanks! So while you're here picking on my paraphrasing of a source (any reason you can't use article talk ??), on a matter that is appropriate for user talk (since it's an old pattern repeating), PLEASE stop changing citation style, cutting-and-pasting exact text from sources, and switching to British English in articles that use American English and have an established style. We've been round all three of these before, and what is accomplished by this instansigent editing style is that othera have to always cleanup after you, and you should know better, if not because you're an admin but because of the length of time you've been editing. You know how to follow established citation style and we've discussed before paraphrasing ... now, I'm no better than the next guy at paraphrasing, but you don't have any excuse at this late stage for cutting corners, copy-pasting exact text, using your own citation style when there is an already established style in an article, using British English when articles (and Venezuela) are in American English, and generally making for a lot of cleanup. Try to be nice, now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I missed you too... :) (i) I'm not an admin. (ii) I've forgotten to care about Brit/US English, I'll try and remember (iii) I don't care about consistency of citation styles, especially not in an article about a future event. In a stable article going through some sort of peer review, sure, as part of crossing t's and dotting i's. The substance (info) matters, not the form. (iv) I've not copy-pasted anything that I didn't put in quotes. Phrasing can end up similar even with your own words, when you're trying to make sure you're not going beyond what the source says.

Back to the substance (which I didn't expect to need further discussion, I thought it was just an oversight or poor phrasing - hence not on article talk but here). "no police report of the incident has been produced" is directly contradicted by the source's claim "the police report, which has circulated via e-mail" (referring to the document relied on by the TV host). That's just inescapable, it's your own scepticism about the validity of the document which has made you interpolate a claim the source doesn't support. And while we're on the subject: the document is available online, and was produced by a (former?) member of the Baruta Police who authenticates it now. That the current Baruta municipality refuses to comment on a matter with legal implications (the documents are presumably considered "leaked" besides, if they're real) proves nothing at all, even if you ignore that the Baruta mayor is A New Era and presumably doesn't want to aid in harming Capriles. Rd232 ^talk 11:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Your edit
• Source: [2] (a source with a known bias, but never mind that you didn't attribute this strong biased opinion to a biased source, Venezuelanalysis.com, just looking here at the text).
  • Source: At the time Capriles was mayor of Baruta, a position which he then used to cover up the event, avoid any charges and have the policeman in question subjected to a disciplinary process.
  • Yours.: Capriles was Mayor of Baruta at the time, and according to the policeman used his position to cover up the event, avoid indecency charges, and subject the policeman to a disciplinary process.

So, yes, paraphrasing correctly is not always easy, but it seems that I spend more of my time cleaning up citation issues than actually editing, and when I'm next back in there to again clean up, I will look at my paraphrasing of the lack of a police report. "Not an admin" is a red herring. I'm glad you'll take more care with American English, as that is what is used in Venezuela and was established in the article, and when a future event is likely to be edited heavily when that event occurs, it would be considerate of you to not introduce your own idiosyncratic citation style in the interim, so that editors new to the article will see the established style. Alternately stated, does it not embarrass you to use me as a secretary? <rhetorical, never mind>. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Be careful about asserting a Munroe doctrine over ENGVAR, Sandy, or we Brits are liable to do the same for European subjects! But the established style should be followed, yes. Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind terribly not imposing the horrific cite template style on articles you haven't created? Because that's what you did here, as part of tidying the sort of stylistic issues you choose to care about, on the flimsy excuse that there were conflicting styles and one was cite template. (And why were they conflicting in the first place? Because people like me who don't care about citation style except to avoid the unreadable template style have to de facto respect it when it's imposed on articles, so when copying from other WP articles it spreads like a virus, garbling wikitext everywhere it spreads. ... Urgh. I hate them, I really do!) Re paraphrasing: see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Running every word of a small bit of text through a thesaurus is not necessary. We can also take into account originality and that often there is a limited number of ways of stating a fact which is from one source and doesn't have enough detail to rework extensively without running the risk of changing the meaning. Rd232 ^talk 14:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

No, that s not what I did but since you now acknowledge that you don't know and don't care what a citation style is, perhaps we can now sort why you keep doing this and leaving it to someone else to clean up.

And why were they conflicting in the first place?

You wrote a new article that used at least three different citation styles and one citation template-- the article you created had no established style and one citation template, so I standardized them to templates for consistency in the absence of a better plan (your unique individual citation style isn't very useful). I don't care if you use citation templates or don't, but if you don't use one style when creating an article, someone has to clean it up to something.

Citation style: do you put journals in italics or don't you? See WP:ITALICS; you put some in them in italics others not. Do you put publisher before the title or after? You did both. DO you use citation templates or not? You did both. I don't like citation templates either, but you used one and you established no style and when you've mixed three different styles (at least), there was no reason for me to clean it up to a unique style that is nothing nowhere to anyone except you.

Yes, I checked the accessdate I added.

As we've discussed before, I hope you realize that by introducing a citation style unique to yourself only, you make it harder for others who edit the same suite of articles. But that's your choice, just as it's my choice to grumble about being your personal secretary. Since I'm so busy being your secretary, I haven't yet had time to revisit the Baruta police issue or to clean up the citation mess you created in that article. Nice way to keep me occupied !!! NOt ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I've already said why there were conflicting styles, but just to spell it out: the citations were taken from different WP article sources, and making them match is something I wouldn't bother to do unless I had too much time or the article was going through a review process. Nobody asked you to go around standardising these things, and please stop pretending that you need to. Rd232 ^talk 16:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

And that provides the opportunity for me to point out why it would be helpful if you adopted a more universal style: when you copy citations from other articles in the suite, you end up with mixed citation styles, with a citation style no one but you understands, which makes an entry barrier for new editors to overcome. We expect to educate new editors about citations and to clean up after them: we don't expect that from an experienced editor. We also can't read minds about what your citation style is or what you intend when you use one citation template and then mix it with a non-style. If you don't want to make things match, that's fine-- then accept that those who do the cleanup are entitled to use an understandable, consistent style. Take your pick: either establish a consistent style yourself, do the work yourself, or don't grumble when someone else has to spend their time cleaning up after you, an experienced editor who should know better.

A consistent citation style involves things like 1) how do you handle authors (last name first, first name last, author before title, full name, initials, etc); 2) how do you handle dates (placing, formatting, parens, etc); 3) how do you handle publishers (WP:ITALICS, before or after title, etc); 4) how do you handle titles (quotes, etc) and so on. You have no style. I clean up after you. It wastes my time and is an issue down the road regardless if I clean up or not, because someone has to and you should know better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The style I use when I create new citations is APA. When I copy existing ones, I leave them as they are. It's not complicated. "someone else has to spend their time cleaning up after you" - once again, who appointed you Stylist In Chief? Rd232 ^talk 17:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Whether it's just the usual sarcarm or deliberate obtuseness, this discussion is going in circles and boring me now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Circularity implies motion. We haven't moved one iota from the fact that you care about consistency of citation styles, and I don't, except as polishing an article that's going through a review process, which 99% of articles never will. Rd232 ^talk 17:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Christ man, this is painful to read. Do you have any idea how much easier it is to apply consistency and standards during the content creation process than after it? If you don't care about editorial standards, why are you contributing to a community project that has a style guide and has standards in place? --Laser brain (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's a good strategy ... if I'm otherwise entertained doing his secretarial work, he gets to add content that I have to fix, and I never have time to add content. Win-win for him; lose-lose for me! And so damn irresponsible and arrogant to assume someone else somewhere down the road has to clean up after you, particularly with articles that will appear on the mainpage on election day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Remove per BLP.[3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

AIV report

Regarding this report: I've blocked the /21 range for 1 week. Should help. Rjd0060 (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you ... I spose I could have requested semi-protection, but the article will be deleted soon, and the IP may continue recreating. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Seriously?

I challenge an editor who is blind-reverting my copyedits because he likes a particular idiosyncratic style of date formatting, you comment at my talk (though not the other editor's) while admitting you have not actually looked at the edits in question, we discuss the matter at the relevant article talk and MoS talk, you come along and accuse me (implicitly) of being a sockpuppet and part of a "cabal", I express concern for your well-being, and you think I am unfit for adminship? What am I missing here? --John (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, you're missing a lot, and I'd be glad to take the time to explain all of it in detail, but we seem to have a bigger intervening issue. I'll help you out here in the tone and manner of dialogue you and I have enjoyed since you changed after you saw the error of the way you treated Ceoil, [4] just as soon as you address the inappropriate comment you made about my mental wellbeing. First things first: if you're reverting to your old ways, and my typing will fall on deaf ears, I don't need to take the time to educate you on the citation matter. Abusive admins are a bigger problem than citation style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Stepping in where I most likely shouldn't with an unsolicited comment. Sandy, I've been friends with Ceoil for two years and have never seen those diffs. In my view, dragging them out now is counterproductive because it's an issue that done and gone. I will however say in your defense, that the issue of wiki-hounding is problematic, and in my case the hounding by Alarbus/Jack (and for which Jack has a clearly established pattern) has made it impossible for me to collaborate with editors for fear of pulling them into unnecessary disputes - as was done with Ceoil who took two blocks on my behalf because of Alarbus and, as you well know, whose wiki-friendship I've lost because of that situation. I'd very much like to see all this dredging up of past actions stop - but in the case Gimmetoo, it is worrisome to see a specific group of editors, with whom I've had similar problems, show up on the page. I have no opinion in regards to that page or the citation styles, fwiw. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope, when an old behavior pattern repeats, it's not done and gone-- it's relevant. John is ill-informed in his post above, and when his position on that article was questioned, he reverted to his old ways, sadly. That needs to be sorted before I'm going to take my time to explain the rest to him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Just saw this: ... and, as you well know, whose wiki-friendship I've lost because of that situation. No, I don't well know that, nor do I know why I should know that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Bad time to get all precious Sandy but OK I have struck it. So what was the story then? --John (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Precious? Please, John, have you been reading too much from that Gerda person? I was beginning to really enjoy you. Anyway, my time this evening was consumed by dick-sucking politicians, and ... "Reluctantly" striking and my "story had better be good". Tsk, tsk; that doesn't look like a repeal of your old ways to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Precious, somewhat rude and highly paranoid. You implied here that I (and Malleus and anyone else commenting in the Sean Coombs discussion who was not a vested contributor on that article) was "personalizing" the dispute, when that is something you have done. You stated here that I was an "abusive admin", without any evidence except an archived talk page post from several years ago concerning a dispute which I and that user have long put behind us. I should have known something was wrong when you commented here that you were intervening in a dispute without having read the edits the dispute was about! I'll leave you to your other interests now. Take care and I hope to speak to you again in better days. --John (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Precious, somewhat rude and highly paranoid - and looking to me like pretty much right in all major aspects. Sandy can be pretty passionate and goes over the top every so often, but IMO she's called it well here. Also, just to be clear, admin or not, stop worrying about people's well-being on this wiki. Worry about the outcome of their actions in terms of the encyclopedia, but do not speculate on their mental states. An admin should definitely understand that is unacceptable behaviour, with the correction being a block from editing privileges. Franamax (talk) 07:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Franamax, if you are going to comment here, it might be worth reading what was actually said. After Sandy went off at such a bizarre tangent (diffs are just above) I said it leaves me worried for your well-being to be honest. It was a sincere expression of concern when seeing someone behaving in such an out-of-character way. The contention that this constitutes speculation on someone's mental state is yours and not mine. The suggestion that I could be blocked for such a comment is interesting. Nevertheless, I will refrain from expressing concern for Sandy for a good while if not forever since it causes you both such stress. --John (talk) 08:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

John, you are seriously messing up here. I'm concerned about your mental state (how do you like that comment ?). On a more serious note, I'm actually concerned about your editing privileges and your admin status, if you can go around the Wiki commenting on people's well being, which is about as unveiled of a personal attack as it gets. Especially since this is a return to an old pattern which I thought you had left behind. This eclipses your faulty interpretation of the whole citation matter. I'm also worried about what state you might be in when you allege above that this diff has something to say about you or Malleus, when it most clearly says Wehwalt, Diannaa, RexxS and Rlevse-- editors who have stuck together before and mysteriously appeared on this article with no prior history. You can put whatever shoe you want on yourself, but let Malleus speak for himself, thank you. (Just now catching up on your talk page from several days back, I see that Malleus has already done that and is clear, which makes your statements above about Malleus even more concerning.) And drop the straw man about not reading the edits before I gave you a general, correct, and unbiased opinion of what our guidelines say on the matter, regardless of your slanted view of the actual edit. You're really messing up here, and I wonder what it is that has caused you to return to your old personal attacking ways. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

John, get the history right. First, I challenged your edit. You retaliated with a template warning (still not justified), and eventually threatened me with "you'll regret it", which from an admin can be understood to mean a block.. You provoked me, and yes, I took some of the bait. Have you admitted any misconduct on your part yet? Do you even recognize any? Gimmetoo (talk) 08:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, so what started as me being asked to give some feedback on a citation matter (which really is and should have remained quite simple, were it not for the meddling by folks who seem to want to accomplish on one article what hasn't been accomplished in guidelines, and is a pattern that has been employed with other stylistic issues), has now turned into an abusive admin situation. Gimme's post above prompted me to review John's edits to him:

1. John templates a regular (one who knows darn well and employs the relevant guidelines). [5]
2. John attacks the good faith of a fellow admin, accusing him of sneaking, deception, snark and misuse of revert.[6]
3. John continues, attacking Gimme's motives and calling him stupid and gives him a warning that amounts to a threat to block. [7]
4. John tells Gimme to "be off and sin no more" [8] and then removes subsequent posts requesting clarification and resolution of disputes.[9]
5. AGK attempts to reason with John, politely. [10]
6. And, per diffs above, John next questions my well being, and when given the opportunity to retract, "reluctantly" strikes with a threat that my explanation "had better be good" (or what, I get blocked ??? )

Now, add to the diffs above your use of "precious" here (Gerda/Rlevse/Wehwalt/Alarbus et al suddenly showing up on an Alarbus/Gimmetrow matter); (Belated strike of Gerda's name, a gross mistake for which I take full responsibility, as she was never involved at that page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC) ) Wehwalt's ongoing involvement with Merridew/Alarbus, [11], [12] [13] [14] who had a beef with Gimmetrow over citation guidelines; and throw Merridew's friend RexxS into the mix along with Diannaa-- both suddenly appearing there-- perhaps you can see the concern about furthering a vendetta.

So, summarizing-- John, now would be a very good time to think about what's happening here, contemplate on your actions and reactions, and consider a fresh start on what should have been settled easily and has now escalated to some unnecessary admin threats. I'm always open to second chances and apologies, as I believe you know from past experience with me. I'll admit, though, that this whole situation (that is, the involvement of a specific group of editors who had no prior involvement or reason to come to this article where an earlier Alarbus/Merridew matter is being revisited) is not adding to your credibility here.

Nowthat I've also caught up on the posts from your talk page from the last four or five days, I suggest it might be time for you to step back. I'll AGF and hope you didn't realize you were adding fuel to a pre-existing Merridew vendetta against Gimmetrow, but now your own actions in this matter are extending beyond what this started as. My memory may be faulty, and if it is please correct me, but I recall that when these sorts of behaviors cropped up in 2010, you acknowledged that you were working too hard and needed to step back. You reflected, you did step back, and you came back a better admin and editor; I hope the same will happen here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Guianan savanna

Hello,

I think that La Gran Sabana and Guyanan savanna are not the same thing. Second [15], "the savanna - they should say Guianan savanna, I think - encompasses the treeless and tree patch mosaic of the Gran Sabana". And, although the term Guianan savanna is never mentioned on that page, if you go to the page of WildWorld, and search for NT0707 (the code of "South America: Northern Brazil, Guyana, and Venezuela - Neotropic"), it will be indicated Guianan savanna. Clicking it, it will appear a box. Click in Story & Photos, and More Details, and it again refers to Guianan savanna.

Sorry for my bad English.

Thanks, Tiberti (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)Tiberti

This was quite a mess-- it was originally at Guyanan savanna, and there was no such thing as Guyanan savanna in the cited source. In fact, they don't name it at all. I did find Guianan savanna by searching their website (globally), but nowhere do we find a Guyanan savanna as far as I can tell. The site is so poorly organized that I can't decipher what they're up to ... do you have any other source that uses this terminology so we can compare, or is something they invented? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

This is really a mess. Well, I find:

• Savanas da Guiana, or Savannas of Guyana, with 43,358 square km [16];
• Savana da Guiana [17];
• South America: Northern Brazil, Guyana, and Venezuela - Neotropic (NT0707) [18] and Guaianan savanna (on the maps), both with 40,300 square miles (=100,000 square km);
• Guianan Freshwater, with 510,000 sq. km [19] and and [20].

Now, I'm very confused... Tiberti (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Tiberti, I'm pretty busy today, can't get to it yet, but we'll get these sorted. Do you speak Spanish? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm Brazilian, I can understand a bit : ) Tiberti (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Pine/drafts/ENWP Board of Education

You may want to read and comment on User:Pine/drafts/ENWP Board of Education. It proposes amongst other things creating a body that is parallel but does not compete with ArbCom. --LauraHale (talk) 05:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Frederick Russell Burnham FAR

Hi Sandy - The Frederick Russell Burnham FAR is still ongoing and hasn't had any comments in the FARC section. Would you have a chance to drop by and give your thoughts? If so, it would be much appreciated. If not, no biggie; I know you have a lot going on in other areas. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to let you down, Dana, but I have limited time, will be traveling soon, and I have no interest in helping improve a Rlevse article. He was granted an unblock without me objecting, yet he's quickly gone back to some unproductive ways and associations, and I don't see the benefit in helping improve his old work when there is so much other work to be done in here. When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Psychology articles

Everywhere I look it's a desert! Do we have any decent psychology articles? I mentioned to you a few days ago when you asked about the usefulness of a Highbeam account that I was considering a new misattribution hypothesis article, but it seemed to make sense before that to look at the attribution article; when I did, I wished I hadn't. If that's typical then we're in serious shit, I'd be embarrassed to see that in a pop psychology mag.

Anyway, I made a few changes and started to put a bit of background and a more systematic approach into the article. If those changes stick I'll do more, but my experience of Wikipedia is that more likely the world will come crashing down on my head. Malleus Fatuorum 00:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The only decent psych articles are actually articles brought to GA or FA status by med editors. It's all nuts out there, and the WMF via the Education Programs is making it even nuttier. IF we bring in these alleged "SMEs" (as psych profs), it becomes hopeless. Well ... it pretty much already is thanks to the WMF and the Education programs. The problem with most of the psych articles is they attract nutcases. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you point me to one or two psychology articles you think are pretty much OK? I'm yet to find one. Malleus Fatuorum 01:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know of a single psych article that is OK ... the only decent articles I'm aware of are medical or neuropsych tagged by the Psych project because they are also treated by psychologists ... articles like autism and Asperger syndrome (which have both been hit pretty hard lately, so I'm starting to wonder about their integrity, too). I started a major update to Tourette syndrome back when the FAC wrecking crew was targeting page views and the like and was never able to finish the planned update due to one thing or another-- mostly the Education Projects and other random silliness like this Capriles business and the GimmeStuff. If you veer off into topics like psychopathy, or personality disorders, be forewarned. I'm unsure if any of the basic treatment articles are any good ... doubt it, though. There is no WP Psych to speak of, and when there was one, it was nuttier than a fruitcake. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I've got absolutely no intention of veering off into topics like psychopathy or personality disorders, I intend to stick to the more "scientific" topics. And so far as treatment is concerned, the only treatment I've ever advocated is "For Christ's sake, pull yourself together!" I might step into the parapsychology pit though. Carefully. Malleus Fatuorum 01:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh my ... have fun with that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I echo the concerns about psych articles! The only times I've read one, I've tended to come away from them feeling slightly besmirched. Those "Oh, my God!" moments, where you just don't know where to start, and don't even want to try. [Sigh.] Malleus, though, "For Christ's sake, pull yourself together!" seriously doesn't work half as well as the meds I'm on ;P They don't "cure", but they control. Or make manageable. Take off just enough of the edge that I have choices rather than compulsions. Pesky (talk) 07:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Any treatment that involves drugs is of course psychiatric rather than psychological, as only psychiatrists can prescribe drugs. I've never really thought that psychology should be about treatment anyway; just look at the CBT nonsense for instance. Malleus Fatuorum 12:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Chavez update and apology

I have mentioned you here; with all due respect, if I had a nickel for every person who said they were ready to deal with neutralzing these articles, and then disappeared expecting me to do all the work, I'd be a much richer woman. These aticles highlight everything that is broken on Wikipedia (BLP, RS, V, NPOV, DR, OR, UNDUE, you name it); there are SPAs who do nothing but maintain the status quo across the entire suite of Venezuela articles; important issues are routinely excised from the articles with double standards applied depending on POV; editors ranging from "Chavez is a hero" to "Chavez is a dictator" use the talk page for soapboxing but don't get to work on sourcing and writing; editors entertain Grundle socks there so that innocent bystanders are shot in the crossfire (which serves to maintain the status quo)-- but NO ONE rolls up their sleeves and does any work. Because they know the mess is ripe for arbitration, and they know which way the arbs have been swinging lately. When you come to my talk page to say you're prepared to do the work, the likely consequence is that other editors fear being banned ala Will Beback and disengage. Result: BLP issues go entirely unanswered at the BLPN noticeboard. BLP demands that we get it right, but no one will touch it. These articles will not be fixed with a casual commitment: there are editors who work full time on them, and if you aren't prepared to do same, please don't expect me to. I end up being the one to get shot at every time someone comes to my talk to ask me to re-engage where I've long unwatched, and then leaves me holding the ball. [21] Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, wow, I think you've badly misunderstood me. I was ready to drop other things and plunge in full force with you this week. When you told me that you won't be available until June, I said I'll wait until then to really go all out. I'm very sorry if I was unclear in any way and it seemed that I was asking you to do something and then not backing you up. Really, it's the opposite - I'm asking you to help back me up, as I totally agree with most of what you say (except about ArbCom banning people if I'm involved, I think you've got the cause and effect backwards there!) and understand that dealing with a big mess like this alone is really not fun or possible.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

No my response was not because I misunderstood (on the timing issue, which was my fault); it was an expression of frustration that folks are so afraid to even touch those articles now, as they fear we're headed to arbcom. And most editors I'm in contact with are none too happy with the direction the arbs have been taking lately, where the take-home message is you can get banned even for following policy (COI), and especially if you talk to Jimbo. So folks are afraid to get involved where things are messy. These articles are very messy, the issues are enormous and widespread, and cleaning them up will take full-time attention (which few of us have, but those protecting the POV in the articles do). We have a BLP issue that has been like the plague at WP:BLPN, looking like no one wants to go anywhere near it. We have a persistent sock disrupting talk:Chavez. In both situations, with stagnation, the status quo of POV is preserved. I don't have the time now, as I mentioned, but simply trying to keep two articles clean, well sourced, and free of BLP vios (Henrique Capriles Radonski and Venezuelan presidential election, 2012) has taken time this week that I didn't have. Just frustrated. And I wanted to make sure you realized that cleaning up those articles will be a full-time job, and there's a long history of folks asking me to help and then leaving me doing all the work and with arrows flying my direction. Taking on Chavez first, when non-reliable sources and BLP issues abound in the sub- and daughter articles everywhere, might not be the best starting place. Especially since, if we believe sources and first-hand accounts, he might not survive through elections anyway-- the entire suite has to be cleaned up, and the Chavez bio is but one small part of the POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll agree with you on one thing at least: the Chavez article is the absolute worst place to start if you're getting a serious drive to improve Venezuela articles. Specific topics are much easier (the more specific, the better). Basic problem is too few people involved - and too often those that are don't speak Spanish (or even if they do they largely avoid Venezuelan sources, which means missing 95%+ of available info). Rd232 ^talk 00:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning that, since I forgot-- another huge problem is that many people who want to help do not have good command of English. And others can't read Spanish sources, so the language barrier is an issue. Throw in the soapboxing rants on talk from all sides (hero to dictator), the socking, and the daunting task of trying to take on such a huge mess that leads to sheer exhaustion ... status quo prevails. But what makes me angriest is that I unwatch over and over, give up, and then people come here and ask me to engage, and then they aren't up to the task and I'm left holding the ball and getting shot at. Starting somewhere manageable makes sense. By bringing in an outside editor with no knowledge of Venezuela, but who was one of the two most respected film editors at FAC (Steve (talk · contribs), known for his prose, neutrality and sourcing, we got something accomplished (a Featured Article!!) at The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (film). One small piece. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Two thoughts. First, can you email me so we can have a more in-depth conversation about your perceptions of ArbCom trends? I'd like to understand that better, and I think a private conversation will be easier (you can be fully candid in that context). Second, I appreciate what you're saying. You're a good editor, and I remembered that you've done good work on the Chavez mess in the past, but if you're exhausted with it, maybe the right thing to do is try to bring in more outside editors with no knowledge (or more to the point, no strong feelings) of Venezuela. Do you have any recommendations of who I could ask?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I can be fully candid here ... I don't want to become the next WillBeback, banned because of correspondence via private email, and even before that banning I wasn't much of a fan of private email :) I was fully candid online before the arb decision made everyone afraid to even address COI issues, either online or offline. I have this strange notion that other editors will trust you more if they know exactly what you have to say on a topic, and I still have the scars of the backchannel shenanigans that went on when an admin cabal went after me, so I risk my sanctions for speaking my mind publicly.

Similar to what we're seeing now in BLP enforcement-- people are afraid to go near anything lest it ends up at ArbCom where they can be banned for enforcing what they believed to be policy. I tried to get clarification from the arbs about what led them to the TimidGuy findings, but the whole thing is so shrouded in secrecy that the answers are unsatisfactory. The general feeling editors have is that 1) WillBeback was banned not on the merits of the case but "because he had it coming" for other behaviors, and 2) paid editing is now accepted. Editors I hear from are still gobsmacked about what went on with respect to the COI findings, acceptance of editing with a paid COI, an editor banned for apparently having communicated with you about a COI, confusion about what one can say privately or publicly about COI, medical editors who understand MEDRS sourcing being challenged as having a COI because they understand science and respect sourcing, and the arbs leading us to a position where paid editing is endorsed-- all of this had led to a climate of fear and uncertainty, which I believe we saw played out in this BLP incident, where folks were afraid to weigh in. Curiously, many who did weigh in did not seem to acknowledge the wording or spirit of BLP and there was contradictory input, so do we have a strong BLP policy or not-- very similar to did we have a position on COI or not, where enforcing what one believed to be serious COI led to banning and the logical consequence of the acceptance of paid editing. If someone can edit as part of their job to advocate a position and promote text that does not respect quality sourcing, why should any of us do this for free ??? Medical editors are demotivated and discouraged, and editors across the board are afraid to address COI, BLP, whatever -- apparently these days even a good faith interpretation of policy or guideline can get one into real trouble. In this particular BLP situation, the text became so garbled in the Rd/SG back-and-forth editing to try to preserve what Rd saw as NPOV and I saw as a BLP issue that throwing out the whole thing is probably the best conclusion, but one wonders about the wisdom of even engaging on controversial topics considering the varied and strange reactions. With the additional problem of peanut gallery unhelpful input, such as the first editor who responded to the BPLN post-- we just don't have experienced helpful knowledgeable editors weighing in on dispute resolution forums anymore, because we don't have as many experienced knowledgeable editors weighing in anywhere anymore.

No, I really can't think of anyone who could or would take on the Venezuela editing, which is part of why I become so frustrated when I'm asked to go back and help (there's few who can or will, so each time a new editor appears and aske me to help, I give it a try), and then nothing happens. To edit there effectively, one has to have seemingly unlimited free time to deal with SPAs who only edit Chavez topics, proficiency in Spanish, knowledge of the history (so you know what's missing or what sources to search for), and knowledge of Wikipedia policies, since reliable text is challenged for any number of non-policy-compliant reasons. Besides that, now one has to know how to recognize Grundle socks and avoid letting him derail talk.

Having said all of that, the only editor I know who would meet all of the specs is Yomangani (talk · contribs) (speaks Spanish, knowledgeable of Wiki, strong writer and good sourcing, FAs under his belt, no perceived POV or prior involvement), and I'm sure he wouldn't go near that article if you paid him (pun intended !) Steve (talk · contribs) was very effective on crafting the neutral film article which became FA, but I don't believe he has the Spanish to keep up with all the work needed, and I'm certain he doesn't have the time (he's no longer as active). In short, I do not know who or how we can entice editors to engage on those topics, and part of the problem now is that editors are concerned about what looks more and more like willy-nilly findings when controversial topics end up before ArbCom. Appeals to WikiProjects as Rd suggests will not be helpful-- the editors just aren't out there anymore in general, and even less for controversial or difficult topics. JoelWhy has struggled to help, but as he says, everything one writes or attempts is removed or deleted, so all one can do is tag the article. What we have overall now is a situation pointing one direction: the environment is conducive now to editing by paid advocates, and we know who has the money to maintain the Chavez suite of articles as a hagiography.

I had two important medical articles I wanted to update this month: Venezuela/Chavez always becomes a time sink, and all one has to show for the work at the end of a long frustraing day is an entire suite of POV articles. I suggested long ago we needed to instate a 1RR rule to force editors to discuss on talk and collaborate to improve text: that, as every suggestion and thread at ANI, was ignored. Also, the Chavez article is now approaching 13,000 words of prose, a good deal of it poorly written, not using summary style and sourced to partisan sources to the exclusion of mainstream sources, while neglecting entirely important areas in spite of the length. I don't see how to build a neutral article without cutting it back to bare bones and starting over. And that would take a team. And one wonders if Chavez will outlive the work needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Partly it needs a critical mass of editors to avoid blockage by individuals and get research and editing done. Appealing to wikiprojects individually wouldn't make much difference, probably; but appealing to all of them at once (each to come and work on articles within Venezuela topic that overlap with their project, like Films to work on Venezuelan cinema), plus chucking in a site notice, for a temporary go at making a lot of difference to a whole topic, might get some movement. A Wikipedia-wide Topic of the Month might actually gain some traction - maybe (can't hurt to try). If it works, there's plenty of countries that would benefit from the same thing, before we even think about other topics that it could work for. Rd232 ^talk 15:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Since Steve was effective on The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (film), I'll ping him in here to see if he has any thoughts, but there's a big intangible now, Rd-- Chavez's health. In an environment of seriously declining editorship, why would editors want to work on that article when it is increasingly looking like his cancer is serious. There was a time when I wondered if it was a PR stunt, but with the recent reversal of his religious stance and an apparent "Come to Jesus" moment, I'm more inclined to believe he is dying. If that happens, who knows what happens to our mess across the suite of articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I have a recommendation: don't canvas individuals. Try different wikiprojects (lots of other projects partially overlap with a geographical topic like this; see also {{CotM}}) or else invent some new mechanism to try and get a lot of people involved in something (like a sitenotice for a Topic of the Month: can we fix it? yes we can!, say. We used to have Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week but it's dead, possibly due to a lack of advertising.). Rd232 ^talk 10:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I remain willing to help w/ the Chavez article, but I got tired of spending my time drafting, looking up sources, etc to only have the work flushed down the drain by a few highly partisan editors. I have been adamant about maintaining the NPOV tag, as it at least clues in readers that the article is not to be relied upon. But, that's obviously not a long-term solution. (For the record, I can read Spanish, but trying to conduct research in Spanish would be tough for me.)JoelWhy (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, doing the research in another language is part of what makes it so exhausting when even reliably sourced text is summarily flushed away. Like Joel, I can read Spanish proficiently, but sometimes I don't know what keywords to search on in sources so it's very time consuming. I do try to replace Spanish language sources with an equivalent English language source when one is available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

"I don't want to become the next WillBeback"

I'm struggling with how we can be more candid on this one without violating anyone's privacy. It's not that easy to get banned by Arbcom for administrator misconduct, actually. Will's banning was a confluence of factors that I really did not expect to see come to pass. But, here's my list of advice on how not to become the next Will Beback:

• 1) Don't investigate Wikipedians' real life identities and if you happen to run across something that makes you suspect an identity not heretofore disclosed on-wiki, just let it drop. The committee deals regularly with attempts to identify ourselves, other functionaries, and editors in controversial areas for purposes of off-wiki harassment. My dim view of such is informed by the things that are almost never discussed publicly by the committee.
• 2) If you do ignore #1 Only communicate such real life identity information to functionaries identified to the foundation who are chartered with handling private information. Do not instead communicate with other administrators involved as editors in the topic area: even if it may not meet the letter of OUTING, it's still CANVASSing.
• 3) If you do ignore the previous 2, and decide that since all other dispute resolution processes have failed to get you the outcome you were looking for, you should email Jimbo to Right a Great Wrong, don't mislead Jimbo by, for example, recounting the complete history of someone else's misdeeds... except downplaying the previous year's ArbCom case such that it is barely mentioned, even though most of the evidence you are using as justification was already presented to ArbCom in that case. Or, likewise, by failing to note a previous AE topic ban and its subsequent lifting until well into the fine print of your voluminous message. Or by conflating things (a la WP:SYN) to come to conclusions that someone is a paid PR professional and putting that prominently in the message lead. To be clear: It is my belief that Will's email to Jimbo was intentionally tailored to achieve the result it did, by selective portrayal of TimidGuy as a paid advocate, while omitting or downplaying any exculpatory information.
• 4) If you're going to do all of the above, don't have a previous admonishment by ArbCom, regardless of its age. As much as it didn't make a difference to me, the fact that Will had been previously admonished by ArbCom in an ancient case that none of us remembered did appear to sway a committee member or two--and that is what appeared to nudge the case from a desysop to a ban, based on my observation of how the voting went.

These last two are a lot more fuzzy than the above four, and I considered omitting them, since they don't factor in formal findings anywhere, nor in any arbitrator's on-Wiki statements, but I believe their inclusion will help reassure you that you're not likely to face an outcome remotely like Will's.

• 5) Do not rely on someone else's misconduct to justify your own. If you're going to be a crusader against off-wiki collusion... don't collude yourself. Unclean hands is not a formal policy anywhere, but do not imagine that it does not play into outcomes. ArbCom is not a court system that is intentionally blind to questions of conduct outside those posed to it, which is part of the reason we don't have binding precedents. This normally would have worked in Will's favor, given his history of contributions... but those were outweighed by what appeared to me to be attempts to exert improper influence over other contributors.
• 6) Finally, don't email other editors and threaten to expose their identities when you're currently involved in a case based on your... wait for it... exposing other editors' identities. Even if they're disgraced former functionaries editing without benefit of a legitimate clean start, they can still email your message to us. This one you can't really deduce from the findings, because it happened so late in the case and didn't factor publicly into anyone's decision-making, but if I were a betting man, I would bet that the message did nothing positive to garner sympathy to Will's side from the last few committee members who sealed the ban.

This is not a complete list of what Will did that I would encourage others to avoid, but if he had altered even one or two of these items, it is my opinion that he would not now be banned. I am, of course, speaking only for myself and not for anyone else on the committee. Does that provide a more comprehensive answer of how to not end up like Will? Jclemens (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Recognizing the confidentialy constraints you are under, this is indeed most helpful and most appreciated. It helps me understand that (I think) I'm OK with the identifying info I've sent privately to arbs to assist in CUs. I still don't understand, though, why Doc James was questioned about whether being a physician means he has a COI wrt medical editing, and where that leaves us medical editors wrt sourcing, COI, etc. Being trained in science and knowing how to use sources correctly does not make one a paid advocate with a COI.

I could extend my rant (above to Jimbo) about concerns currently affecting editors. The Venezuela/Chavez issues to me are no more/no less than a glaring indication of Wikipedia's greatest failures (dispute resolution, NPOV, OR, RS, UNDUE, COI, you name it) and folks are afraid to touch it-- which is what gives me concern. What I care(d) most about on Wikipedia was the integrity of FAC, and when a group of editors who had never added one decent piece of text to any article I'm aware of included me on a mass email attempting to solicit me to be part of off-Wiki coordinated editing on Chavez articles, and I also knew for other reasons of their connection to an unrelated and very controversial FAC that had also gained pile-on supports through five contentious FACs, that they had attempted to sway my editing on Venezuela was far less significant to me than the fact that they had put me in a compromised position at FAC, where integrity of the process and the delegates is everything. Things I could not say to anyone then for concern that it would affect the FAC, but I'd like to know I can say such things to the arbs. Knowing how to deal with COI issues and knowing what the constraints are as we investigate same is helpful.

Now, to medical articles, many of us feel that accurate info in medical articles should be raised to the level of BLP enforcement, since bad medical text has the potential to affect real people's lives. If the Chavez article is POV, that isn't going to have such a dramatic effect as bad medical info-- most people who come to that article are already True Believers (one way or the other) and what they read there isn't going to impact their lives. But for medical editors to feel so demoralized by the TimidGuy arbcase is a problem; the integrity of our medical content matters to real people. Add to that the damage and disruption to content and processes caused by the WMF-supported Education Programs, which are bringing in more ill-prepared, ill-supervised and ill-equipped students to add faulty text to medical topics than we limited medical editors can deal with, one can begin to appreciate how demoralized we are right now. Far more significant to me than cleaning up POV Venezuela articles is dealing with this medical issue, so understanding where we stand wrt MEDRS and the TimidGuy case is helpful, and seeing that people are afraid to weigh in because of arb concerns is something we should confront.

Thank you for this, Jc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

LDR

Very well, I await your explanation in the talk section I'd already started on why impenetrable is better. Rd232 ^talk 14:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I hate them-- when you're in edit mode, you have to bounce around elsewhere to find the sourcing information, which makes it harder to verify text. And new editors don't understand LDR, so it creates a barrier to entry. Of course we've got multitudes of style warriors who follow my talk and will be glad to make an issue over there about citation style-- just ask them! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It's slightly harder to edit the refs, but verifying is no harder - there are a number of tools that make the ref popup when you hover over the footnote. Actually, isn't there a tool for putting refs in a separate edit box? I'm sure I remember something like that. Rd232 ^talk 15:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is a ref tool, and I use it (see Dr pda's ref tool in my monobook), but it puts the refs in an entirely separate window, where you can't even see the text associated with the ref (I use that tool for citation cleanup when I don't need to know what text is being verified). I believe there is also another tool that allows one to see text separately, don't know where to find that. But, when I'm verifying text and editing/rewriting, I go in to edit mode to see which source is attached to which text, and then right there in edit, I can edit paste the source URL into another window for verification. If I have to also pop down elsewhere to find the URL, that is three different places at once. A bigger concern to me in this particular suite of articles is that we very often have new and inexperienced users editing and LDRs are counterintuitive and hard to figure out. On articles that tend to attract only established editors, I too avoid citation templates because they clutter the text, but on articles where we have so much diverse input, it is my opinion that we're better off to stick with something standard and transportable across all of the Venezuela articles. (For example with medical articles, there is one standard citation style that almost all medical editors use, and we can easily transport citations to other articles.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hm, I see what you mean about the Dr pda script. It's like half of what I had in mind for a tool I thought I remembered (I asked at the Help Desk), and the half is WikEd's collapsing of references and templates in the script. I'm sure I remember a tool that did all that whilst leaving the main wikitext editable (like WikEd)... I vaguely recall now those issues with LDRs, and this tool being the perfect answer, but I can't remember what/where... Rd232 ^talk 12:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Daily example: someone added text to Leopoldo Lopez that he is Thor Halvorssen Mendoza's cousin. Something everyone knows but we didn't have a source. Pops on my watchlist, and I go looking for a source, find something recently published, add it to Lopez, and then when I want to transport it to Halvorssen, find we have two different citation styles. Consistency across a suite of articles is helpful (as we have in medicine articles) for transporting citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Helpful how? Really, I don't understand how the hell it makes any difference in content terms whether citations use the same style or not; it's up there with worrying about what font the article is in (if we allowed different fonts). Incidentally, I've just noticed a quote from iridescent on your user page, which includes the remark an obsession with strict compliance over common sense... hear, hear. Rd232 ^talk 15:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

See my discussion below on JoelWhy's sandbox. For starters, when evaluating sources for reliability, it is really helpful if italics are used correctly and citations are full and complete including publisher and author so one knows if one is looking at a website, a journal, a book, whatever and if sources are used appropriately. That's how I approach reviewing an article. I don't start looking at prose until I know sourcing is good and the article is clean. Second, as I've learned from experience, you never know when On This Day or In the News is going to pop one of "your" articles on the mainpage, and I want them to be clean in the event that happens. Third, new editors who encounter mixed style don't know what to do, so the mess gets worse. That's my approach. I also believe that clean articles lead to better editing. People who see messy articles tend to add to the mess, while people who see clean articles are more likely to respect that and follow suit.

As to Iri's point, when I'm drug into a nasty drahmafest with some editors who want to change yyyy-mm-dd dates in citations throughout an article that is consistent to Month day, year, I fully agree. Lame. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with that (except for the yyyy-mm-dd observation of course), and in fact that approach has almost become a bedrock of software maintenance; if nobody seems to care about the state of a program then why should I care? It's called refactoring in software engineering. I've also seen the same idea described as "social hygiene" in sociological terms; if nobody else cares about the state of the neighbourhood then why should I? Malleus Fatuorum 15:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Precisely! And the same concept applies to strong sourcing. Once we get medical articles down to reviews, it's less likely people will plop in the latest laypress version of a medical article that they read on the BBC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Citations being acceptably complete is a given. Formatting, not so much. Content, not style. As to confusing newbies: I don't think anything is more offputting to newbies than cite templates. It's like making people browse the web using a Command-line interface, as opposed to a browser when you need to type in a URL. Sure, it works; it may even be more efficient for an expert. But most people will take one look and walk away, rather than decide to learn how to use it. Wikitext is bad enough. Infoboxes and navboxes and tables are bad enough. But heavy use of cite templates within the body of an article makes editing an article like editing a badly designed template (I say that having plenty of experience with template coding). Rd232 ^talk 15:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It's nothing like editing a template, whether badly designed or not. And SandyG's point, with which I agree, is that it's less confusing to have a single format throughout an article rather a random hotch-potch of them. Malleus Fatuorum 16:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

'tis a bit like that to me - if the density of cite template footnotes is high enough... And sorry, but I just don't see how different formats are confusing. Rd232 ^talk 16:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You can very easily use WikiED to suppress the citations if you want, so that argument doesn't apply. As to why it's confusing, well, to an intelligent newbie it may seem that there's some logic behind the choice of what is in reality a random hotch-potch of citation styles. Admittedly though there does seem to be a dearth of intelligent editors here, so that concern may be moot as well. Malleus Fatuorum 16:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

WikEd is too clunky. A request at the Help Desk has turned up the script I remembered: User:PleaseStand/segregate-refs.js. That's the stuff! (Try it and see. It's basically per-user on-request LDR.) Rd232 ^talk 17:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I only use the Dr pda edit references script, don't know what any of these others are. I just read the doc page on PleaseStand, and it's Greek to me. Could you tell me in Dummy 101 language what it does? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Easiest to understand it is to install it and click the "segregate refs" button (in Edit mode)... but what will happen is all the refs will be collapsed into named refs (named automatically if they're not named) and the content of the refs displayed in a separate edit box. You can then edit body text and refs separately, and when you Save, everything's reintegrated as it was (including any changes to refs in the ref edit box). It is basically LDR-on-the-fly. It's exactly what I want and I think everyone should use it!! (Well, some improvements are imaginable, notably making it easy to jump from ref mention in the body to ref definition in the ref edit box, rather than having to scroll or use the browser's Find function.) Rd232 ^talk 17:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Easiest to understand to install, bwaaahahaha, not when your computer is randomly restarting itself four times an hour, losing everything, because there is apparently some connection problem with the battery ... time for a new machine, I think. OK, this is what I wasn't clear on: "when you Save, everything's reintegrated as it was". I won't be permanently changing any refs. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I made some documentation at User talk:PleaseStand/segregate-refs.js. Yes, the script converts the article to list-defined references automatically just while you're editing it (and converts it back the way it was when you press save, whilst retaining any changes to the content of the references). Rd232 ^talk 17:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, hurray, that is officially the Best Thing Since Sliced Bread. But, I use IE, and it doesn't work in IE, so I had to switch over to Firefox. And I don't routinely use Firefox only because I've never been able to figure out how to set up bookmarks/favorites on there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Sucks to use IE... :) You can easily import your IE favorites into Firefox - just needs a little bit of setting up and getting used to. But really just a little. Rd232 ^talk 17:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I'll attempt the Firefox switchover after I figure out if this machine is dead or dying :/ :/ In the meantime, I can go over to Firefox only if I have to do a whole lotta citation work, which I don't foresee having time for in the next few days ... someone has to finish expanding Platforms on the election article, and my computer is misbehaving too much to make work enjoyable. Enjoyable work on Wiki-- did I really say that ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Sandy. I noticed your request for a ping here. I don't know if it's what you're looking for, but perhaps this is what you had in mind. Cheers and best — Ched :  ?  17:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Ched, and I appreciate that. But I had come across that RFC, and unless I'm misunderstanding, it is dealing with a slightly different variation of the issue raised on the Combs article. I read that as dealing with a different inconsistency, that is, within a given citation, as opposed to between dates in the text and dates in citations. Am I reading it wrong? This is so typical of how indecipherable those MOS discussions become ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

To be honest - much of it is over my head. I tend to find "April" easier - or at least quicker, to understand than a 2012-04-15 thing, but apparently there are technical things with respect to citations. I do try to follow a lot of the MOS stuff, but if someone fixes anything I do - then I just tend to say "thank you". So much of the discussions(?) with regard to dates, hyphens, dashes, CAPS, etc. are lost on me. I read much more than I actually type - so I appreciate anything that makes the reading more fluent. Anyway - if I see anything else that might be what you were asking for I'll drop you a note. cheers. — Ched :  ?  17:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've noticed a predominance of editors in those discussions who may not edit non-English topics as much as I do, and quite a few other language editors decidedly prefer ISO since it's more universal. Other than that, yes, some of it is over my head as well, but I'm pretty sure the RFC you linked is aimed at making dates consistent "within" a citation, rather than eliminating ISO. I could be wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Volunteers to help with COI issue?

I am almost done drafting an article where I have a conflict of interest (article is about my boss). I have not been paid to draft this article (in fact, it was my idea, I volunteered to do the article, and my job duties have ZERO to do with promoting her or her business.) I have done my best to keep it NPOV, however it definitely paints my boss in a positive light (i.e. she's a real American success story and she's a philanthropist, so I think that's inevitable.) So, I was hoping to have another editor (or editors) take a look and give their input. Sandy, care to volunteer? Or, since I know there are a ton of editors who frequent this page, any other volunteers? I really am trying to be objective in the article, but I definitely need a second set of eyes who has no feelings for the subject one way or the other. Thanks! JoelWhy (talk) 12:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Joel, I would be happy to review that article for you, but I am going to be traveling soon so my time is limited. How much I could do depends on how long the article is and how difficult the sources and subject matter. Are you able to publicly say what article, or does that put you into a spot wrt your identity? If you can post it here, someone in that topic area might engage, and if I have the time, I will. I'm way behind on lots of things I promised after the foray this week into the election article ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I checked your sandbox ... do you want me to edit there, add inline comments, or add comments on talk? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, thanks! I'm still filling in citations, but that shouldn't impact what you would be doing. (I may delete some minor points, if I am unable to find decent cites, but nothing too substantive.)JoelWhy (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I added comments there on talk, which reminded me of my differences with Rd over substance vs. style. Before I dig in to text, I first make sure sources are reliable then citations are consistent, then I look at prose. Rd thinks that is bassackwards, but I like to work on clean articles. So, my first pass on citations is on talk. I do see some prose and content issues, but we'll get to that next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll go through and fix the cites and let you know when that's done. Some of the sources I have are from magazine clippings that are kept by the firm. Many of the articles are copied and reprinted on the firm's website, but I can't find the original articles online anywhere outside of that. (I'm assuming that such a link would NOT be considered a reliable source!) Anyhow, I'll keep looking and fix up what I have...JoelWhy (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It's OK to use clippings, and they don't have to be available online, but just give enough info (publisher, location, author etc) that if someone went to a library that had archives of that magazine, they could find it. Another thing you can do in cases of text that might be challenged is to add a quote from the source to the citation (use the quote parameter if you're using citation templates). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've fixed most of the cites. On the Talk page, I struck through the text of items I believe I resolved. I responded in bold to comments you placed. One thing I can't figure out how to fix is to un-italicize the stuff that shouldn't be in italics. I'm using the auto citation generator w/in Wiki, and it appears to want to italicize everything. Any tips for that?JoelWhy (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I made a few sample edits to show you -- in cite templates, using the parameters "Work" and "Newspaper" produces italics; in cite journal, the parameter "Journal" produces italics (since journals, periodicals and hard-print newspapers are italicized on Wikipedia). Whenever you're sourcing a website that is not a hard-print source, use the parameter "Publisher" instead. Also, in some cases, you might want to search for press releases from the actualy entity rather than relying on citybizlist-- I've added a sample for The Children's Guild. After you've made one more pass at citations, I'll start on prose... I see lots of adjustments I'd make. Also, WP:MOS#Ellipses-- spaces. Best SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Sheela Murthy page

Wow Sandy, you're awesome, thanks for the help! I see how you fixed the italics info, good to know. I also slightly changed the info sourced from Femina (just to say "According to Murthy...") I added a link to the Super Lawyers article that we have saved as a pdf on our website (and, I checked, and yes we do get permission from the publishers before we post copies of them.) Also, I fixed the headings. So, now I guess we get to the fun stuff of the actual content:) Please let me know your thoughts at your leisure.

As a side note, if you ever need any immigration law advice, I would be glad to help;) Ok, so since we're still not deporting US Citizens, I suspect that's not a big issue for you, so if you have any other legal questions, I still remember a thing or two from law school...Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelWhy (talk • contribs) 12:45, May 14, 2012‎

Thanks for the offer, Joel ... I've worked with Michael Bander for many years; perhaps you know him?

No, I didn't convert all the italics; I only did a few samples. I just now did a few more, but you still need to check them all. I also added the actual page from MSN Money, which I found in archive.org .

On the prose, there is still a bit of work to do, but I've cracked my elbow, am in quite a bit of pain, and am in no shape to work on prose today. I do see a significant amount of uncited prose-- not only sentences here and there, but also entire paragraphs. If you can focus on making sure everything is cited, then I can catch up on the content issues once I'm feeling better. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I've never met Bander, but I do know who he is. (I lived in Miami for a long time, but that was right before I went to law school...) Sorry to hear about your elbow, definitely takes priority over this article. As for the missing cites, I have been working on filling in the gaps. Some of the info has been tough to find reliable sources for, so I'll probably end up deleting it. I'll also fix the italics in the other cites. Hopefully will be done with most of that sometime today. Feel better soon!JoelWhy (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Germans

Hi. I found an error in the article (see photo). Copernicus was not a German, he was from Poland. --Top811 my talk —Preceding undated comment added 16:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC).

This is weird. I've gotten two messages from this user over the weekend addressing the same types of issues. I have no idea who she is or if I've ever interacted with her in the past. To go to all this trouble posting on random editor's pages...wouldn't it just be easier for her to find the cite and fix it herself?JoelWhy (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Notability now?

I have to say that I am very frustrated by the discussion I am being drawn into here about one of the FAs that I worked on. It makes me not want to have articles on the main page - I have no time to defend an obviously notable article. Are there ways to work notability into the FA criteria so this doesn't happen to others? Do you think this would be a good idea? Wadewitz (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Citation templates

Please help me understand (I may have a language problem): you say citation "templates ... clutter the text". I don't get it. For example, look at one of my recent articles, Vier ernste Gesänge: refs named, templates in the refs list, text uncluttered. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Templates add unnecessary coding to the wikitext for the same information. Templated citations almost always mean longer and more complex wikitext. Compare

• AP (May 4, 2008). "Sean Combs receives Walk of Fame star". today.msnbc.msn.com. Retrieved 2011-06-30.
• AP (May 4, 2008). "Sean Combs receives Walk of Fame star". today.msnbc.msn.com. Retrieved 2011-06-30.

There is a difference, but visually, these look pretty much the same. If you've already got

• AP (May 4, 2008). [http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/24456438/ns/today-entertainment/t/sean-combs-receives-walk-fame-star/ "Sean Combs receives Walk of Fame star"]. today.msnbc.msn.com. Retrieved 2011-06-30.

then

• {{cite web |author=AP |url=http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/24456438/ns/today-entertainment/t/sean-combs-receives-walk-fame-star/ |title=Sean Combs receives Walk of Fame star |publisher=today.msnbc.msn.com |date=May 4, 2008 |accessdate=2011-06-30}}

adds the clutter of field identifiers (author=, url=, title=, date=). (Templated text also typically takes longer to load/render in a browser.) Gimmetoo (talk) 13:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we have to look at different meanings of "cluttered". For referencing, I take what I like best, following examples. #1: I started with the ref style mentioned first. #2 Yoninah (talk · contribs) told me to better use cite templates for DYK. #3 I came across template {{r}}, looking at articles by BarkingMoon (talk · contribs), which takes the clutter of the reference itself from the body of the article, but that template is not available in German WP. #4 Alarbus (talk · contribs) showed me how to move the references to a separate list the same, without a template. This translates to German without a change other than the date. So I adopted it for my most recent articles and will stay with it. I think that the readability for someone editing the article is worth a bit of extra loading time. As for the so-called "clutter" within the template, the field identifiers: again I think they help any later editor to easily see what means what in a reference and are worth the extra characters. My POV, for clarity. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Gerda , you appear to be using list-defined refs, which has the advantage of moving any citation clutter out of the body text. I like list-defined refs largely for this reason -- citations are clutter even when written as compactly as possible. Some don't like them, though. Using the "vcite" template greatly reduces the browser-bloat problem, but I agree that hand-writing citations really isn't hard. Colin°^Talk 13:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been seriously considering switching over to handwritten citations myself. Editors who don't understand how to use citation templates don't remove the unused perimeters, which contributes to the clutter. I like list-defined refs as well, but hand-written citations give a better model. I may try it on the next article I work on and see how it goes. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: The Well of Loneliness

This is a note to let the main editors of The Well of Loneliness know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on May 17, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 17, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Well of Loneliness is a 1928 lesbian novel by the British author Radclyffe Hall. It follows the life of Stephen Gordon, an Englishwoman from an upper-class family whose "sexual inversion" (homosexuality) is apparent from an early age. She finds love with Mary Llewellyn, whom she meets while serving as an ambulance driver in World War I, but their happiness together is marred by social isolation and rejection, which Hall depicts as having a debilitating effect on inverts. The novel portrays inversion as a natural, God-given state and makes an explicit plea: "Give us also the right to our existence". The novel became the target of a campaign by James Douglas, editor of the Sunday Express newspaper, who wrote "I would rather give a healthy boy or a healthy girl a phial of prussic acid than this novel." Although its only sexual reference consists of the words "and that night, they were not divided", a British court judged it obscene because it defended "unnatural practices between women". In the United States the book survived legal challenges in New York state and in Customs Court. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Ping

Sandy, I've emailed you. Tony (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: indigenous people of the Everglades region

This is a note to let the main editors of indigenous people of the Everglades region know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on May 19, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 19, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The indigenous people of the Everglades region arrived in the Florida peninsula approximately 15,000 years ago, probably following large game. The Paleo-Indians found an arid landscape that supported plants and animals adapted to desert conditions. Climate changes 6,500 years ago brought a wetter landscape, and the Paleo-Indians slowly adapted to the new conditions. Archaeologists call the cultures that resulted from the adaptations Archaic peoples, from whom two major tribes emerged in the area: the Calusa and the Tequesta. The earliest written descriptions of these people come from Spanish explorers who sought to convert and conquer them. After more than 200 years of relations with the Spanish, both indigenous societies lost cohesiveness. Official records indicate that survivors of war and disease were transported to Havana in the late 18th century. Isolated groups may have been assimilated into the Seminole nation, which formed in northern Florida when a band of Creeks consolidated surviving members of pre-Columbian societies in Florida into their own to become a distinct tribe. Seminoles were forced into the Everglades by the U.S. military during the Seminole Wars from 1835 to 1842. The U.S. military pursued the Seminoles into the region, which resulted in some of the first recorded explorations of much of the area. Seminoles continue to live in the Everglades region, and support themselves with casino gaming on six reservations located throughout the state. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Almost like

Thanks for that source, but re the edit summary - it's almost like Wikipedia is a collaborative project where content is expected to develop over time... Rd232 ^talk 15:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS

This is one of our most read articles. I have been working on a major update and wondering if you are interested in helping as I see you edited it a fair bit before? --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Publishing the Dengue article

Per here we are working on publishing the Dengue fever article in the journal Open Medicine. Are you okay with your real name being used? The authors will be listed by number of edits which would make you fifth. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 17:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Just need to blow off steam a bit

Not asking for help, but you were the first person that I interacted with on Wikipedia, and I just needed a shoulder to cry on.

I've gotten myself into a bit of an edit war, and no, I'm not blameless in this. I noticed that while editing Ives–Stilwell experiment and Michelson–Morley experiment, Chrome has a tendency to split up numbers written in scientific notation when the exponent had a minus sign. So I inserted the HTML for the unicode non-breaking hyphen, which is to say, ampersand pound 8209 semicolon. Dicklyon wrote on my talk page saying that use of cryptic unicode wasn't good, that there is Template:nbhyph available, but I need to be using the minus sign. And he proceeded to change all of my non-breaking hyphens to ordinary minus signs in both articles.

I didn't appreciate that, so I changed the minus signs to Template:nbhyph and was a bit rude in my comments.

Incnis Mrsi has just reverted my use of Template:nbhyph back to ordinary hyphens and has accused me of either vandalism or extreme incompetence in his comments to his reverts on Michelson–Morley experiment, and threatened me with a block for my disruptive behavior. So now I have numbers written in scientific notation that are liable to break up at the end of a line, and if I try to fix them, I'm liable to be blocked. :-(

Thanks for your shoulder, and sorry if I got it wet. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Things are managing to resolve themselves. Seems that Dicklyon is on vacation, and with high internet charges had kept his comments so brief that they inadvertently came out sounding insulting. What he didn't explain adequately the first time was that the keyboard hyphen is not the same as a mathematical minus symbol. A hyphen can break if you use it in an exponent like 10^-5 but a true minus won't in 10⁻⁵. The conversation between Incnis Mrsi and myself was tense though, for a bit. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 01:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a talk page stalker. I'm glad things are resolving. Happy editing! Biosthmors (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012 Study of authors of health-related Wikipedia pages

Dear Author/SandyGeorgia

My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at the University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address recently edited an article on Endometriosis. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article and or other health-related articles. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hydra_Rain) and if interested, please reply via my talk page or e-mail me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance. Hydra Rain (talk) 12:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Maternal sensitivity

Can you take a look at Maternal sensitivity to make sure the sourcing is compliant with WP:MEDRS? --LauraHale (talk) 04:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm enjoying my summer vacation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I hope you're enjoying yourself

I hope you'll also come back and start making some more excellent contributions sometime in the near future -- if this can be done in a way that keeps things fun. Enjoy your break. Biosthmors (talk) 02:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks ! 03:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Email

Hello, SandyGeorgia. Please check your e-mail – you've got mail!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

188.28.158.65 (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking forward to your return

Sandy, I hope that vacation isn't too long! Tony (talk) 07:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony1-- I am having a fabulous summer ! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey Sandy, here's Johnny come lately: likewise. Drmies (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Notification

Hi, sorry Sandy, I should have done this earlier, but a very long discussion is going on here re TFA and I mentioned your name so thought I'd notify you. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks ... I guess the rest of the Project thought vacation means dead, and that it's OK to talk about me without notifying me. I was wondering who would take the time to ping me, since I knew about the discussion :) Appreciated, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well...I got talked about in the same discussion, and nobody thought to notify me. Perhaps I am dead, also. Brianboulton (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I get talked about all the time, rarely in a complimentary way and almost never get pinged. C'est la vie. Malleus Fatuorum 19:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

She's just better looking than both of you...Modernist (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

No doubt she is. Malleus Fatuorum 20:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

My point was that it was Sandy who talked about me (and called me "Brain", which is most discerning). Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry Brian, I mentioned Sandy and Dabomb and notified both of them, albeit a bit late. I did also respond to a comment in regards to you and Malleus and didn't think to notify you. I don't think of you as dead. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You and Sandy can talk about me as much as you like, provided you call me Brain. Brianboulton (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

	The waterskiing barnsar
	Hope you enjoyed your vacation. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Featured article process and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Rschen7754 09:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

MEDRS handout followup

Hi Sandy! Just wanted to point you to the comment I left User_talk:Colin#Education_problem_and_potential_RfC here on Colin's talk page, following up on discussion you two were have several months back about a MEDRS 101 handout.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Sage ... goodness are you missed "in here" ... The Signpost has never been the same. It took me a while to find WP:MEDHOW because your link above is faulty. I'm glad an attempt was made to stem the problems with student editing, but that page is not remotely close to all that I thought was needed nor does it address all of the recurring and ongoing problems with student edits to medical articles. But ... I don't mean to criticize whichever editors at least did something, since I've had time to do nothing ... just want to let you know that I doubt that page will make a dent in the substantial problem with student editing that has made keeping up with my medical watchlist no longer an enjoyable hobby. It barely scratches the surface of what students are doing wrong. Should I find time to return to more active editing, I will try to help with that page, but can't just yet ... I hope the fall term sees medical articles fare better than they were last spring when the effort to keep medical articles clean seemed ill spent, unenjoyable, and never enough to turn the tide. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey Sandy. This page was more geared towards a group of librarians and physicians than students. Will be presenting it to the World Health Organizations here in Geneva in a couple of weeks. Anyway hope you are enjoying your time off. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Berlin peer review

I have put Berlin up for peer review. I would like a critical review of the article based on Featured Article criteria. As you are experience in dealing with Featured Article criteria, your comments would be appreciated. You can find the peer review here Kingjeff (talk) 05:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Front of the Class

• See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Front of the Class. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I fixed it myself, but I do hope someone will keep an eye on that user's moves, and that admins won't automatically fulfill requests for incorrect moves. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Bit of history

Hey Sandy - I understand you are familiar, and relatively neutral, with the issue at Talk:Down_syndrome#Picture_of_boy_needs_to_go_with_immediate_effect - I understand that the conversation has got lively before and I was thinking that if you were to pop over and nip it in the bud (in either direction) that would be an excellent way to move smoothly forward with the article, without getting sidetracked... I do, of course, know you are busy, so a simple 'Not got time' would be entirely understood :) Fayedizard (talk) 06:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Parkinson's science learning project in Wikiversity

Hi. I'd like to bring your attention to a new learning project in Wikiversity. As you have been involved with the discussion on the wikipedia Parkinson's disease page I felt you might be interested in looking at the project and perhaps even contributing material to it. Please see my Talk page, http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Droflet#The_Science_Behind_Parkinson.27s_learning_project , the subpage, http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Droflet/ProjectDescription or the project itself , http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Portal:The_Science_Behind_Parkinson%27s . It would be great if you could bring the project to the attention of others who might be interested in helping us develop it. Thanks.

Jtelford (talk) 16:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC) (My Wikiversity Username is Droflet)

Hey Sandy

You where mentioned in this discussion here [22]. I initially indefinitely banned this user as per discussion here [23] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Notification again

Hi SandyGeorgia - sorry about this but it needed to be done. Long thread [24] on my page and I'm sure you're mentioned a time or two in the diffs (some from your page) so thought I'd notify you. Huge apologies. Best. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Amazing. But then most of what's going on in here lately is :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Medical article for FAC

Hey Sandy. I've been working on deep vein thrombosis for a while and I am shooting for a FAC submission in November. If you make some edits here in the meantime your input would be appreciated. I've opened Wikipedia:Peer review/Deep vein thrombosis/archive3. After DVT I plan on getting pulmonary embolism upgraded. That shouldn't be terribly difficult, as the two entities are considered together as venous thromboembolism. I hope all is well. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 03:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back

We've missed you, welcome back! LeadSongDog come howl! 12:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I would like to file an official complaint on the grounds of I CAME BACK AND YOU WEREN'T HERE. Luckily you returned in time for me to gripe about how long it took me to figure this one out. Not sure whether I should chalk it up to senility or straight-up incompetence. ANYWAY. How's things? Maralia (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see you back editing.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Saluts

Saluts from Venezuela. I have seen you have a long track history of editing articles related to my country, and I always wanted to have a talk with you. I've sene your work here and I consider that I may learn / have a good time talking with you. I am revamping the WP Venezuela and I am interested too in editing Venezuela-related topics [as well as others, of course]. Well, I just wanted to say Hi. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Course project: Myoclonic epilepsy

Hi, thank you for your posts related to this article. I take responsibility for not being aware of Wikpedia's medical sourcing guidelines or Wikipedia's guidelines for the organization of medical topics. I will read these as soon as I can (probably next week). I apologize that unintended problems were created on the Myoclonic epilepsy article page. I have not looked over this page in detail since it has been edited but will do so next week. In the meanwhile, if problems as you see it are so big that the article need to be immediately reverted, please do so (but please leave a note on the talk page so students know why). I can always use the History tool to get students' work for grading purposes. I appreciate your patience as newbies (including myself) learn how to use Wikipedia in a way that is beneficial for education as well as the internet community. Neuropsychprof (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll spend some time on this topic tonight. Colin°^Talk 19:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Periodic table opposes

I was just about to update the oppose tally before you did. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

TFAR

Thanks for your message re this. I've been away from computers for the last 29 hours or so with a long and delayed train journey in the bad weather the UK's got at the moment, a night in a hotel, a busy work day and a long and delayed train journey back (still in bad weather!). As the situation has moved on somewhat since you left your question/comment for me, I thought I would reply here, particularly as some of the issues appear to me to be more about me than TFA or TFAR in general.

I *obviously* know the following points: (1) it is exceedingly exceptional for an FA to appear twice as TFA (and I think that should remain the case); (2) this is a volunteer project (though why you think that I might not be aware of this, or what the relevance of your comment was to the matter under discussion, goodness only knows!); (d3) all FAs are equally worthy of appearing on the main page: in fact, I specifically supported a TV episode that Jack Merridew, or however you want to refer to him, had opposed on the grounds of being a "very boring topic" and unencyclopaedic, to give just one example.

But I do *not* have to have the same attitude (that all FAs are equal) to whether former TFAs should be re-run. Just because I opposed Sesame Street being re-run does not mean that I have to oppose Periodic table. The two are very different articles, *not* because one is a TV show and the other is a science topic, but because one has been designated as a "vital article", i.e. a key topic - and you and I both know that we have precious few vital articles at FA level. As you will have seen, Sesame Street was being proposed for the show's 43rd anniversary - hardly an exciting occasion worthy of breaking the rule, particularly when "History of Sesame Street" was still available for selection as TFA (as in the end happened) - and also because the show had been in the news in the US election cycle, which seemed another very very poor reason to IAR.

In retrospect, my use of the term "pop fluff" was a poor choice of phrase for the point I was trying to make. However, I was not thereby intending to denigrate in general terms a large group of FA articles (or their authors) and I am not trying to create two classes of articles and writers. I had hoped you knew me better than that, but perhaps not after all. I was clearly confining my remarks to the case at hand, namely a vital article being nominated for a second TFA appearance. I see a number of other editors got the point I was trying to make. There really was and is no reason for you to assume the worst of me and give the impression in your comments that you think I have double standards based on topic content e.g. "It leaves the appearance that what applies to science does not apply to culture articles". No, not at all. The greater the variety of articles that are nominated at FAC and TFA the better. Different things appeal to different readers of different ages in different countries with different outlooks, interests, backgrounds etc etc and long may Wikipedia and the FA process reflect and serve that. I hope that makes things clearer for you.

And I share your concern about keeping TFAR under control so that it remains useful for those carrying out the scheduling. That is *exactly* what I have been trying to do in recent months in particular. I have made many edits in that time to shorten blurbs or make them conform to standards, fix pictures, urge point calculations or correct inaccurate calculations, remove incorrect nominations etc. You will find my talk page activity in the recent archives, and I hope it speaks for itself. However, as a sign that the requests page is heading out of control or back to the bad ol' days of 200 editors clamouring for their day. I would have thought that that sort of "slippery slope" argument was beneath you!

I hope that sorts things out to your satisfaction, and I look forward to working with you in the same friendly way that we did before, at TFAR and elsewhere. It is good to see your name popping up on my watchlist more regularly these days. Yours, and very best wishes, Bencherlite^Talk 23:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bencherlite ... welcome back after what sounds like a frustrating day. I appreciate the long explanation-- some of which satisfies some of what concerned me (the "pop fluff" comment predisposed to some concern about two classes of FAs), but some of which leaves me with more questions and concerns.

1. exceedingly exceptional for an FA to appear twice as TFA (and I think that should remain the case); ... I'm glad there seems to be agreement on that important point, but the broader concern is the lack of discipline that had overtaken the page, a complete flaunting of the processes established to help the delegates, and a lack of regard for the job the delegates have to do. As far as I can tell, neither DaBomb87 nor Raul654 were asked if they approved this exception for Periodic table, and it should have been removed from the page, with a broader discussion about the matter of making exceptions for TFAs to run twice. If the community wants a larger hand in scheduling, that should be exercised responsibly. The page has become not an exercise in IAR, rather an exercise in POINT-- leading towards destabilization of the process.
2. (2) this is a volunteer project (though why you think that I might not be aware of this, or what the relevance of your comment was to the matter under discussion, goodness only knows!); ... The relevance is that we can't tell editors what topics to work on or force them to care more about one topic or another, and that is an essential part of how TFA is run. We don't value or reward one kind of editor's work over another's, beyond what consensus has already established via the point system (meaning, we don't denigrate "pop fluff" while we hold up other topics as more rigorous). You say you didn't intend that, but the end result is that we've made an allowance for an article (by leaving it on the requests page without broader discussion) simply because a small group of editors consider it "vital" (and the problems with that whole issue have been well discussed many times at TFAR and at FAC).
3. ... 3) all FAs are equally worthy of appearing on the main page: ... I'm glad we agree on that point, within the point system already established and subject to the exceptions already laid out by Raul. And yet, we've made an exception here beyond any circumstances worthy of the exception IMO (we appear to legitimately disagree as to whether and when we should be opening the door to exceptions, but my view is that we have never allowed exceptions to be added to the page, and it is the lack of discipline and POINTINESS that has taken over that page that is my concern now-- the page is supposed to be an aid for the schedulers, not a free-for-all).
4. Just because I opposed Sesame Street being re-run does not mean that I have to oppose Periodic table. ... IMO, it shouldn't even have been a matter of opposing or not: they didn't and don't belong on the TFAR page according to long-established consensus, and whether we want to make one of these exceptions that are supposed to be exceedingly rare should have been posed to the broader community. Periodic table was added as a request based on the feedback of less than half a dozen editors, and with no attempt to consult beyond the few editors who happened to participate in that discussion. The idea that this is IAR is faulty IMO-- it's POINTY as is a whole lot of what is going on at that page. Opening the door to any FA that is re-written being run twice is something that requires broader discussion, and IMO, the explicit blessing of those who have to do the scheduling and deal with the fallout of the many editors whose articles have never run on the mainpage.
5. ... but because one has been designated as a "vital article", i.e. a key topic ... We allow for vital articles in the point system, and even at that, there have been numerous discussions in the past of the issues with the core and vital articles, and how very few editors contribute to the decisions about the makeup of those article lists. Choosing to allow an article that some group considers "vital" to re-run, when we won't allow other kinds of articles to be re-run, does create two classes of FAs, TFAs, and editors. Something like that undoes the years of careful and judicious tending of TFA that Raul cultivated. I can see nothing good that comes from creating tiers at TFA beyond what the community has already agreed to via the point system. Something like this only confirms to all of those editors who work just as hard on their "pop fluff" topics that they are not valued. We have always sought to avoid this in the Featured article process, because volunteers will work on what most interests them and Wikipedia appeals to a much wider audience than, for example, scientists and chemists. As FAC delegate, it was most important to me that I not value a "core" or "vital" topic over a road article, a hurricane, whatever-- because that de-motivates editors.
6. In retrospect, my use of the term "pop fluff" was a poor choice of phrase for the point I was trying to make. ... And I share your concern about keeping TFAR under control so that it remains useful for those carrying out the scheduling. That is *exactly* what I have been trying to do in recent months in particular. It was your "pop fluff" comment that led to not a small amount of concern on my part, particularly because you have been taking an important role at TFAR and I respect your work. It is important to me that you recognize and understand that in the Featured article process we really have to strive to treat editors of different topic areas as equals. I strongly disagree with what is happening with Periodic table, but should the broader community, or Raul, or Dabomb disagree with me, I'll bend to community will and the voice of experience. My much bigger concern is the POINTY lack of regard for consensus and lack of discipline that is taking over that page.
7. I do not see one good-faith nomination of a second-run TFA ... It was a good-faith nomination, but even the nominator indicated after the very brief discussion on talk that s/he hadn't read and didn't understand the page instructions (meaning s/he clearly didn't understand the implications or that the point system wouldn't work at all for such a case). If we want the page to be useful to delegates-- and not descend into every-editor-looking-out-for-their-own-interests and to heck with the rest that prevailed a few years back-- I would have much preferred to see the page conventions as established respected, and a broader discussion about whether to set aside the previously established consensus (for example, consult WT:FAC) attempted.

Raul was and has always been clear and adamant when discussing exceptions; I have not seen any feedback from DaBomb87 on the topic, and we have not seen a broad community discussion yet. (And that's not likely to occur over a US holiday.) I believe you know, or hope you know, that I have always respected your work, and of late I have particularly been happy to see you participating at TFAR-- because the page has become unhelpful and because you were helping, quite effectively. I am relieved that you didn't intend the "pop fluff" comment, but I hope going forward that you will take under consideration three things: a) a realization of the history of that page and what happens when pointy I-want-mine-and-to-heck-with-the-rest takes over, b) the wisdom in the way Raul has managed that page and the FA process and not undoing his years of progress, and c) the importance in the FA process of valuing equally all kinds of editors and topics, and taking great care not to give even the impression that certain kinds of editors or articles are valued over others. All the best to you, always, and I do look forward to continuing to work together. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

You should be aware of WP:QAI by the way. I've been trying to keep an eye on the whole thing while Raul's been gone, and keep things somewhat in order (even telling Gerda not to schedule any more articles by herself) but not being associated with the FA process, it's been difficult... --Rschen7754 03:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for jogging my memory, Rschen ... I actually am aware of that page, and have noticed with some concern that certain editors' FAs are always allowed a free pass in spite of long-standing and already discussed prose issues. It's most curious; some editors are exempt, while others are scrutinized. A bit cabalistic IMO, but then it's difficult to find a way to point out certain prose issues without finger pointing. So ... I just wish if that group really wanted to improve articles, they would improve them all equally (including articles written by members of that Project). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Good, I'm relieved we're still on speaking terms! I agree with you about much of what you've said about TFAR's recent problems. Some of that was due to trolling by Jack Merridew; some of it was due to repeated nominations or comments made by editors with little apparent understanding of the purpose of the page and its points mechanism, or that the page is there to assist with scheduling rather than decide upon it. Hopefully the return to TFAR of Raul and of experienced editors such as yourself will assist. Dabomb seems from his recent editing history to be too busy to engage in TFA-related discussions, which is a real shame and I hope it is not a permanent situation. Certainly in his de facto absence and Raul's complete absence recently, I did feel on occasions that we sorely needed their help and I was not the only one to think so. Fingers crossed for the future.

Obviously we can't tell people what to work upon, but the TFAR system as it has been running for some years already gives priority through points to vital articles and topics in under-represented subject areas, to give two examples. If you're concerned about the inadequacy of the "vital article" list as a basis for my distinction between Sesame Street and Periodic table, or as a basis for distinguishing between regular nominations at TFAR, then please propose removing the bonus points that vital articles get. Attacking the distinction as one made by a "small group of editors" is unfair, since it is part of the long-established consensus method of points calculation at TFAR.

I don't think that anyone involved in the nomination or discussion of Periodic table was intending to "disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point". (In fact, I am not even sure that the problems at TFAR have been due to deliberate disruption by anyone, with the exception of Jack Merridew, as opposed to some WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problems.)

I am perfectly happy for such rare requests to be opened up to the broader community, as you are too. You're right, I don't see messages on either Raul or Dabomb's talk pages about Periodic table either. But I don't see anything particularly horrendous about a discussion at TFAR, particularly bearing in mind that (a) it is the community venue for discussing (not deciding upon) TFA requests (b) Raul or Dabomb would inevitably see the discussion at some point so nothing was being done behind their backs (c) they have the final say and have the absolute right to say "no" even if the discussion is heavily in favour of an exception, but a discussion would at least help gauge the views of some of those more regularly involved in evaluating TFA requests (d) the door is not absolutely closed to re-runs, as history has shown, but the instructions do not say where else to discuss such re-run requests and (e) in fact, the instructions say "Please confine requests to this page", which might make one think that taking the request to Raul and/or Dabomb's talk page was frowned upon. I see that Raul has now clarified that such requests be made to his talk page, and I will update the instructions accordingly; this of course would not have worked during his recent lengthy absence when he was not responding to any messages on his talk page. In fact, he did not even respond to a message about making a TFA exception for the US election: User talk:Raul654#November 6 TFA (although as the consensus was against it, Dabomb's decision was probably one of the easier ones he has had to make as a delegate!).

To reassure you, I do have an appreciation of the history of the page (I have been a regular editor of the page for over 3 years, and have only slightly fewer edits to it than Raul!) and its purpose, and the all-inclusive aims and atmosphere of FAC/TFAR. With best wishes, Bencherlite^Talk 08:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

G'morning (over here), Bencherlite ... my apologies for my rambling message of yesterday after Too Much Turkey. I'm glad you were able to parse something useful out of that.

I'm not concerned about the assignment of points at TFAR to core and vital articles; I was concerned that we not make them the basis for an exception, since those lists don't enjoy wide support (see past discussions) and since IMO mainpage diversity means that we shouldn't value those articles over other kinds of articles when it comes to exceptions. I was also concerned that the points system is simply not set up to handle re-run requests-- you do point out that the instructions don't deal with these rare situations, but IMO, they don't need to. It should be very simple, no need to expand already long instructions: requests that are specifically disallowed on the TFAR page go on TFAR or delegate talk, with encouragement to the broader community to opine (WT:FAC is the most read FA page, so a crosspost there is helpful). Perhaps we could add one clause covering that to the instructions? But I suspect that is already dealt with in some of the links at the top of WT:TFAR.

On Raul's absence and DaBomb's silence, considering the sock assault/disruption and what you rightly identify as IDHT occurring at TFAR-- and the failure indeed outright refusal of some arbs to deal with that situation with one of them even welcoming a returning sock-- I think the wisest course of both delegate and director was to remain above the fray and silent until the socking and the other CLEANSTART violation was dealt with or the community decided it had had enough of the situation (old grudges being visited upon FAC in general and Raul in particular). As I saw it, their hands were tied, with arbs effectively endorsing continued disruption from a sock, combined with issues that have been coming from only about half a dozen editors for over a year now. Fortunately, even with the failure of ArbCom to address the disruption from socking, the community now seems to be better dealing with these matters.

I'm sorry I was also absent; now that winter is upon us, I hope I'm finished with the extensive remodeling and landscaping I've done in my new house, and will be able to engage more frequently. And I appreciate that you hung in there and did all you could to keep things moving and on track there. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I browsed around in the links that are included at WP:TFAR, and one way to accomplish more info about re-runs etc would be for Raul to update User:Raul654/Featured article thoughts-- I'll ping him to this. Since that is already linked from the TFAR page, expanding and updating it might be called for anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Template

• [25]

Ok I laughed when I saw the edit summary : )

Several have complained about the complexity of the template. So don't feel like it's only you (or me : ) - jc37 23:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Deep vein thrombosis peer review

Would anyone like to comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Deep vein thrombosis/archive3? I'd like for it to become my first FA sometime soon. Best wishes. Biosthmors (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Bio ... I'm sorry I've not been around more to help you due to my very busy summer and fall, and I regret that your PR is up during the US Thanksgiving holiday, which is a notoriously slow time for content review processes because so many of us are traveling or have family visits. I have a fairly busy Thanksgiving planned, but will try to get over there when I have a moment. Several of the best FA medical reviewers are Colin (talk · contribs) (I see he's already visited-- having Colin on board will be helpful, ditto for Sasata), GrahamColm (talk · contribs), and Jfdwolff (talk · contribs), so you might ask them to participate, particularly since Colin and Graham are not in the US and might not be on vacation this week. Also, have you checked with Jmh649 (talk · contribs) and Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs)? Also Mastcell (talk · contribs) is one of Wikipedia's finest, but he seems to have given up-- might be worth a try, but you may have better luck by emailing both MastCell and Jdfwolff. Also, perhaps ask that the PR be kept open until more medical editors weigh in ... there is an unfortunate trend of late in content review processes where folks who don't really know or engage the criteria are dominating the processes, so your FAC will go smoother if you make sure these folks weigh in in advance. Good luck, and I will try to get over there after my turkey ... next weekend is more likely. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Ack, I took a quick look at what was already on the page, see that Jfdwolff has already been there, and found quite a bit of incorrect info. GrahamColm is a FAC delegate, and I retired as FAC delegate earlier this year-- Graham knows his stuff, and I'm sorry you've encountered faulty info-- hope you aren't chasing your tail! Lack of knowledgeable review is becoming an issue every where ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look! Biosthmors (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to do more after Thanksgiving, but you're in good hands with Malleus, and I see Jfdwolff also reviewed. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Article alerts

Sandy, thanks for having that on your user page. I put it on mine. It's pretty handy. But, is there a way to (easily, perhaps?) generate the same thing but exclude all of the red/old/expired items? That would be nice to include at WP:MED, in my opinion. Biosthmors (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know ... ??? It's certainly awkward, isn't it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

TFAR limits

Hi Sandy, contrary to your recent edits at the TFAR instructions subpage, TFAR *has* been operating at 10 date-specific nominations for some months now, without complaint from Raul. So I'm not sure why you changed it back to 5 without discussion. I would have thought that if Raul wanted to change from 10+5 back to 5+2 he would have done that, instead of simply changing "+5" to "+2" without a comment on the other limit of 10. So, would you mind amending your changes, please? If you think that 10 is too many, then by all means start a discussion on the talk page or ask Raul to make an executive decision. FYI (1), the previous discussions are in Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests/Archive 14 and FYI (2) here's a recent example] of the page using all 10 nominations - not the only time it's been above five recently. The first 8 requests on that link were scheduled, so presumably whoever was doing the scheduling found those nominations useful. Yours, Bencherlite^Talk 20:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, the history was unclear and I may have been wrong. My understanding was that it had been five plus two, was changed to five plus five (which yielded the ten that got left behind in corrective editing), then was changed back to five plus two. Give me a moment to catch up ... back in a flash. If it is in fact ten plus two now, then the page was still wrong, so just reverting my edits won't correct the problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Back ... please forgive my blondeness, Bencherlite, but the edits made to the actual page instructions were unclear, and this discussion is as clear as mud as well. It was not my intent to undo or revisit anything-- I thought I was merely correcting something that had been missed in the editing when the five plus five that got changed to five plus two. Now it is even less clear to me. If, as you say (and if you are better able to make sense of the gibberish that has been part and parcel of the confusing discussions at that page for some time now) it should be ten plus two, the page instructions were still incorrect. I am unsure how they should be fixed now, and will defer to you, since you followed the whole mess as it occurred. Please correct as needed-- as I again begin to keep up daily with the page, I will point out (as I have been recently) when a few very vocal participants are making confusing and inaccurate statements ... but from here, I can't discern what that conversation intended. I apologize for creating more work for you, but would be grateful if you would correct the page instructions based on your understanding, since it seems more clear to you than it is to me. Are we seriously going to ten date slots, which makes fully one-third of our TFA decisions tied to dates, which should be only one of the rationale for TFA? This is most counter-intuitive to the purpose of the page (diversity-- date connection should be and has always been only one factor in scheduling), and why I thought it wrong. Providing ten date slots means we're giving a lot of importance to a date connection at the expense of other scheduling factors ... just saying, wasn't my intent to change anything though. Once you've adjusted the page to what it was to have been, I will probably re-open a discussion, because scheduling so much of the mainpage around date significance (that is all too often tenuous and artificial) is goofy, and I rather imagine that to have been a discussion around the usual small group of editors that were opining at that page recently. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Bencherlite, are you still there? :) :) I'm sorry for the delay-- your message came just as I was finishing my arb guide, and then I had to prioritize responding to some concerns there. Turning my attention back to this now ... I found an older discussion in the archive you pointed me to, and am going to try to repair the instructions now. But they were wrong before-- it I miss something, pls feel free to repair. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm still on the fence about the 10 date-specific nominations. I've never been thrilled by it, but I haven't overruled it (yet) either. I guess I consider it an experiment in progress. Anyway, hopefully tonight I'll be making some new delegate appointments. Raul654 (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I just corrected the page to reflect ten plus two; I guess it is correct now? Since they aren't really being used now, I'm not immediately concerned, but at some point we might open a discussion as to whether that makes the scheduling too reliant on dates at the expense of other diversity factors etc. Bencherlite is doing a good job in there ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Reminder to self

Once again, figure out how to negotiate the SPI page or contact MRG or EdJohnston on this and Venlur (talk · contribs) and various IPs at List of Venezuelan writers.

• Overlap.
• Focus on List of Venezuelan writers (IPs need to be checked).
• Started editing in May, after last Feb CU.
• Based on a quick look, I didn't find copyvio text (because almost no text has been added, although some uncited text may need to be reverted per past copyvio), but images need checking. I don't do images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Sandy, Caracas 2000 (talk · contribs) and GJRFMorelligu (talk · contribs) have been blocked since February. I assume you think Venlur (talk · contribs) is a reincarnation, but the behavioral evidence is very thin. You probably need to wait until he makes more edits. The overlap shows a grand total of two articles in common between him and the others. His edit at List of Venezuelan writers looks fine. The latter article gets about 20 edits a year, unlikely to be a hotbed of anything, or to deserve semiprotection from IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 05:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Palilalia and...

Sandy, thank you for your contributions.[26] I have good news and bad news. The good news (or is it bad?) is that I have a list and some contact details you can locate from User:Biosthmors/Intro Neuro. The bad news is that I started as an ambassador after the semester started, and I've only been able to interact with the students in a very limited manner. At this point my highest hopes are to 1) collect a list and 2) make sure next semester goes more smoothly. I've seen from your contributions that interacting with an onslaught of new editors who have not yet learned how things work is disheartening. I don't want to push you over the edge. I just want to let you know I'm also trying to help keep things working well here too. I'm confident you know what you're talking about when it comes to palilalia. One thing though, I think I'm a bit more lenient with temporarily citing a primary source (per WP:MEDREV) until a review is available or possibly citing another primary article as a secondary source for another primary study. I look forward to working with you to help keep things in check. Best wishes. Biosthmors (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

ah, ha ... so it's a class project! Engage pet peeve number 156: why do they never identify on article talk that a class is editing a project !? Then one can go to the class page and find ... inevitably ... that the professor is entirely unaware of WP:MEDMOS or WP:MEDRS, which is the norm. In this particular article, the student is focusing on not only wildy speculative case reports, but also case reports and articles that deal with stuttering rather than palilalia. And not only is some of the information simply wrong-- other correct information has been deleted. There are certainly times when leniency in primary sources applies (I allowed for that at klazomania), but it's not clear to me that this student is using sources correctly at all. I hope you can try to get that course on track ... whichever course it is, because by checking the editor's contribs, I find no edit to any course page, in addition to no tag on article talk ... so ... the usual frustrating stuff. Had they tagged talk, I would have located good sources for them months ago, but when I'm on Thanksgiving break, and they're trying to finish up and get a grade is a bad time to find out it's a course. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the course page today to clarify things further. Feel free to open a discussion there if you think my wording could be improved about primary/secondary/tertiary. The student working on palilalia has now started using the talk page per email advice. The professor is aware of this particular article/issue/revisions made to the course page from an email thread. And I'd love to have a specific template made that links back to User:Biosthmors/Intro Neuro from the talk pages of all articles. There should be a template put on all the talk pages. You're right. Once we identify the best form, I'd happily email the professor to ask the class to do it. That's how I got the list generated. And yes, our shared concerns about the appropriateness of encyclopedic writing and sourcing are why I volunteered to help the class. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

And I see there are ways to specify parameters in Template:Educational assignment. Great. Biosthmors (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

We could probably tag all of the relevant pages with {{Educational assignment|year=2012|link=User:Biosthmors/Intro Neuro}} and that would help out other editors. I didn't know there was a template for that, but it makes sense. Disavian (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

We could. And maybe using auto-wiki browser (though I'm unfamiliar) could save some time? Biosthmors (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Well I emailed Professor Potter and asked that he ask all of the students to make this edit. That should help for the time being. Biosthmors (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Bio, I started back to work at Palilalia but have been called away. There's nothing on talk, and the student continues to use primary sources incorrectly (there may be some limited use for primary sources-- such as I accepted at klazomania for other students-- but we really cannot be making Treatment statements based on one case report). I'll come back to this tomorrow, but there seems to have been no change there. I still have more repair to do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

On palilalia

I really appreciate all the work you've put into palilalia, helping make it a better article. I apologize if I've been causing you headache, I'm learning Wikipedia etiquette as fast as I can. Thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khuang35 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

FFAs

Yes, I saw your edit at WP:FFA and guessed I might have sparked it off. Then I saw your edit at WT:FAC in my watchlist and knew I had! Fingers crossed that there are not too many other ones like that out there; in any case, if I'm working from WP:FA2012 (for example) I check the article talk page just in case the list of promotions by year hasn't been updated with main page appearances. Actually, looking at it, I don't think it is anymore - and I think the bot could probably stop adding dates with wikilinks as well... Bencherlite^Talk 15:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Gimme can probably run a botcheck on that ... another editor who is great at that sort of work is User:Maralia. I would help, but the university term-end is approaching, and my watchlist was suddenly and unexpectedly (meaning classes never tag article they are working on so they can be guided, and their work is always last-minute as grades are due) clobbered last night by last-minute faulty student edits. If I give up and go to my garden, you'll know why (I had the best intentions of helping out at FAC and TFAR, but WMF has made this place unbearably awful); editing medical articles was supposed to be fun, and I was supposed to have time to help out at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw your post and put it on my mental to-do list. I'm not terribly worried because re-promotions are fairly rare, but I'll get to it soon. How far back do I need to look—February or so, right? Maralia (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure ... after the fact, I realized that GrahamColm may have gone back and picked them up ... ask him? Glad to have you back, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I went through February–June and found only one other re-promotion: Jaws (film), which is in the right place on WP:FFA. There is not enough wine in the world to make me consider attempting July–November tonight, but I'll probably get to it tomorrow. Maralia (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Switch to the hard stuff! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI, SG and Maralia (who I don't think I've had the pleasure of interacting with before - hello!), RickBot is now correctly adding TFA dates (non-wikilinked!) to WP:FA2012 etc so that should make the remaining months easier to double-check. Bencherlite^Talk 10:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Applied behavior analysis

Hi SandyGeorgia,
How are you? It's been a while!
I wanted to know if you could reply to my comment on the talk page to merge the Behavior modification article into the Applied behavior analysis article, as ABA is the new term of Behavior mod.
See here: Talk:Applied behavior analysis#Merging_the_articles_Applied_behavior_analysis_and_Behavior_modification
Thanks!
ATC ^{. Talk} 03:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Tone

Sandy, I used to have a lot of respect for the wrk you did around featured articles, and it is with considerable regret that I note that your tone has completely changed from what I remember. Two recent edit summaries of yours read, "what a nice man", and "tsk tsk". I don't think this is in line with the usual concept of constructive contributions to the project. Well, here's hoping that the old Sandy reads this. Thanks. Samsara (FA • FP) 16:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and I know we are far from the only people who think that. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Guys, I find the edit summaries quoted pretty mild in light of how strident many people's comments have been around FA lately. Come on, all of us could benefit from counting to 10 before we post. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Seconding Ian. --Rschen7754 08:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. They should also be read with an eye towards sarcasm or self-deprecation as well. a little AGF on intent goes a long way. Imzadi 1979 → 08:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I worry that the sarcasm is a sign of becoming disaffected with the project. This is not what anyone is looking for. Samsara (FA • FP) 08:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Samsara, you "endorsed" Wehwalt's statement, which included the comment that "the two editors who were Raul's enforcers, SandyGeorgia and Moni3, are gone or nearly gone, and without their intimidation, ..." (my emphasis). Do you endorse such language? Do you agree with the concept of Sandy the enforcer, intimidating other editors into supporting Raul? Do you think those who supported Raul appreciate the implication they are biddable pawns? -- Colin°^Talk 09:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

So hold the phone, are we skipping over the last several months of her trolling posts? While I personally think she did an excellent a great FAC delegate, she showed a much different face starting the day she resigned. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Eh? Samsara came over hear to lecture Sandy on a mildly sarcastic edit summary, just after endorsing a clear personal attack, and you come here to call Sandy a troll. What are you trying to achieve here that is remotely related to building an encyclopaedia through mutual collaboration and good faith in each other? And Samsara, I suggest you look up "disaffected" in the dictionary. Colin°^Talk 12:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

What am I trying to achieve? Collegial interactions from a colleague I used to respect. I have not been the only target of Sandy's posts over the last several months, and I think she could use a rethink of her approach to the site, rather than reopening old wounds. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

And "Collegial interactions" involve saying someone is a troll? Go and set an example by being collegial: that FAC talk page was anything but. Do you think Wehwalt was looking for a collegial interaction with Sandy, Raul or Moni3 after what he said (in some naive assumption that he was out of earshot)? Matthew 7:3 is most appropriate for this whole situation. Let's build an encyclopaedia and stop this nonsense. Colin°^Talk 15:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Colin, I think some of what happened in that RfC was more of the same. As I've said, regrettable. Samsara (FA • FP) 18:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I missed the diff where you went over to Wehwalt to lecture him on personal attacks. -- Colin°^Talk 19:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Samsara ... I'm relieved to hear that there is concern that a handful of participants continues to turn the FAC process into a WP:BATTLEGROUND and glad to know that you will be campaigning for a more collegial environment there to address these concerns. I'm sorry that "such a nice man" troubled you so, particularly considering the level of vitriol on that talk page, although I admit it's curious that folks would find sarcasm in a reference to Wehwalt as "nice". It's alarming that many of the participants both engaging in and supporting the battleground and uncollegial environment at FAC are admins-- has the long-standing campaign to get admins to conform to community standards been finally lost? I don't know that there were ever any "good ole days" on Wikipedia, but in older days that I recall, admins were routinely sanctioned for the type of conduct we're seeing on that page. I do think it would be good if you could do something to reign it in, and I promise not to refer to Wehwalt as a nice man again. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Otis Redding

No. I won't withdraw it, sorry. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 15:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You unfairly comment on me

Without responding to talk page sections I started, followed by edits I made, other editors started multiple talk page discussions of me, not the content or sourcing of my edits, at multiple other pages. Then you made it look like I was the cause of discussion being all over, by saying I am posting similar content at six different pages. This is unfair and a mischaracterization. The opposite is true. I tried to consolidate the discussion, and moved the consolidation to MEDRS after other editors commented that the talk pages where it was occuring was not the appropriate forum for the discussion (which other editors brought there). I consolidated the discussion, including pf your "common knowledge" comment, by strting a single section here, and pointing to it at the six talk pages you tried to make it look like were all started by me (some of which sarted by an attack on me, not my edits or sourcing, without any notice to me, resulting in comments and bias in other editors, my not having any response since I was not noticed). ParkSehJik (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I see the issues you have with interpreting Wikipedia policies have now extended to at least eight pages on my watchlist. I'm sorry, but you cannot prevent me from unwatching those pages, letting other editors know that I have done that, or force me to engage with an editor who puts a "Dubious" tag on the statement that Psychiatry is medicine and adds UNDUE text to the leads of multiple articles. I do appreciate your post here, and hope it will bring other eyes to your concerns, but I am no longer engaging. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Afroyim v. Rusk hopefully FAC soon

Hi. Afroyim v. Rusk (a 1967 Supreme Court case on citizenship law) is, I believe, very close to being ready for FAC. As a significant contributor to my last FAC a year ago (United States v. Wong Kim Ark), I'd be interested in whatever observations you might have. In order to avoid another knock-down, drag-out FAC session like last time, I'd very much like to clean up Afroyim v. Rusk as much as possible before I formally nominate it. Thanks, in advance, for any help. — Richwales 19:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Do I wanna look? ...

I see you're doing some reviewing at FAC .. I've been so busy I haven't looked recently... do I wanna? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

yes, you do. Prose standards have gone to hell in a handbasket, it's not at all fair to the delegates who have to pass on poor reviews, and I didn't even check sourcing-- if sourcing has gone as far down as prose has, you might at least highlight a few to get some of the newer reviewers better trained up. Just Do It ... it is not fair to the current delegates that they are having to pass articles on scanty review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Pisco Sour all yours - too much Spanish for me. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I already looked at it days ago, and threw my hands up. I'm willing to help, but I'm not entirely a glutton for punishment! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, but you're willing to make ME a glutton for punishment! Gee... thanks! (Working my way up from the bottom...) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I've done too much original research (actually, I prefer Nocello) after finding five articles on my watchlist killed by student editing to an extent that will take me weeks to repair. I didn't even try to work through the majority ... I just looked at some that were ill-prepared and burdening the page or had a lot of what was apparently unqualified driveby support. I had reviewed an FLC weeks ago in my domain of interest, which made me realize we had some reviewers who are consistently not engaging the criteria. Poor delegates ... feel badly for leaving them such a mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, got up to the marker. Going to take a break, and try to get to a few of those history related ones for full reviews. You owe me a new pair of glasses after reading all that fine print in the references sections. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, ok ... I may put on my big girl pants and go deal with the Pisco. But not today. With Maralia, you and me back in for a bit, maybe things will turn around soon, and the delegates can have the fun kind of job I had before ... all that ... instead of having to do everything themselves. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Your comments about me

Hi SandyGeorgia, I've just read this comment on the Cher FAC and thought I should respond to it. While I agree with you that several problems have come to light since my review, I think it's slightly unfair of you to say I'm not properly engaging with the FAC criteria. I have difficulty reading small text, so tend to use Microsoft Speech to listen to very long articles like that one. It saves a lot of time and energy, and often allows me to pick up things that I might miss during a manual read through. Unfortunately though the downside is that it doesn't always recognise things such as grammatical errors or overlong sentences. I do hope you will be a little less critical of my efforts in future as I am giving these as much attention as possible. Thanks. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that info, Paul ... have you made the FAC delegates aware? Or better yet, User:Dank has a standard disclaimer on all of his supports ... one thing you might do is indicate via a standard disclaimer that you aren't always able to pick up such grammatical errors, and explain why. This issue isn't specific to you ... what we are seeing recently at FAC is support declarations by reviewers who don't indicate what they have engaged v. what they have not engaged, which is information the delegates need. It's troubling that we have so many supports from reviewers who don't indicate if they have checked for copyvio, checked for reliability and accurate representation of sources, checked that images comply with policy, checked sourcing for a thorough search of the scholarly literature, and so on. Thanks again for pointing this out, Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I think I've mentioned various problems during my FAC nominations, but not actually spoken directly to any delegates about it. It sounds like a good idea though. Would I need to contact them individually, or is there a forum where I could leave a message? I'll also put together a disclaimer as that seems like it would be useful for others. I do tend to agree with you about the number of support votes. It makes me wonder how in-dept they've been. Thanks again for your help, and I'll work on the disclaimer. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

A standard disclaimer might be good, or you could watchlist any reviews you engage and only Support after you're sure other reviewers have checked items you might miss. I don't think you need to contact the delegates, because I believe they all have my page watchlisted. Thanks again for the feedback ... I empathize with your difficulty in reading small text ... I also have a very difficult time on Wikipedia, and have to correct most of my posts two or three times as a result. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I must confess I've made a few similar mistakes over the years. I think my record was six edits on one posting to correct typos, etc. :) I've spent the last hour or so putting together a disclaimer, and I thought it might also be useful to compile a list of contributions. Waiting for others to comment sounds like a good solution for FAC. At GA I can always ask for a second opinion just to make sure everything's been covered. Thanks once again for the advice. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Nicely done, Paul ... and now I will add you to my list of folks to bug about accessibility issues (eg Graham87) ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

ok, give me a shout and I'll do what I can to help. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty much a waste of time though for every single reviewer to check stuff like image licensing; one competent reviewer is sufficient. Same with the formatting of sources that Nikkimaria used to do, or the reliability of sources checks that Ealdgyth used to do. I'd bet there isn't even a single reviewer who ever has access to all of the sources the nominator has used. Who in their right mind would spend good money on a copy of Roy of the Rovers: The Unauthorised Biography? (Except me of course.) I read an article, I check a few things that don't quite seem to add up, look at the licensing for images that on the face of it might be problematic, cross-check with whatever sources I have available or can be found online, and then either support or oppose based on my overall impression. I'm really not a fan of this new fashion for qualified supports. And to be brutally frank, it seems to me that very often reviewers haven't even taken the trouble to read the whole article before supporting. Malleus Fatuorum 18:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes to a lot of that, but the pendelum has swung waaaay too far, and the delegates are having to pass articles on ... nothing. Plain, driveby supports with no indication of what has and hasn't been reviewed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You may well be right. I haven't really looked at FAC much recently, or even GAN for that matter, as I think reviewing is a job best left to you Wikipedians. Malleus Fatuorum 18:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the chuckle !! You should take a look-- what the delegates are having to get through is awful. When even I can spot glaring prose issues, we are well below where FAC should be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I might take a look later, after a few glasses of a nice red wine to get the creative juices flowing. Another problem though is one you've mentioned a few times in the past, a reluctance on the part of reviewers to oppose early in the review process when an article clearly needs an awful lot of work. But then I see that PR is having its own problems in attracting reviewers, so where's a nominator to go?

Did you get an email I sent you a week or so ago? Malleus Fatuorum 18:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR

Hi there. You're one of the first 100 people to sign up for a free JSTOR account via the requests page. We're ready to start handing out accounts, if you'd still like one.

JSTOR will provide you access via an email invitation, so to get your account, please email me (swallingwikimedia.org) with...

• the subject line "JSTOR"
• your English Wikipedia username
• your preferred email address for a JSTOR account

The above information will be given to JSTOR to provide you with your account, but will otherwise remain private. Please do so by November 30th or drop me a message to say you don't want/need an account any longer. If you don't meet that deadline, we will assume you have lost interest, and will provide an account to the next person in the rather long waitlist.

Thank you! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Your 2012 ArbCom elections guide

Your latest effort now is a bit Zen. :D Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You said that 42,000 bites ago! User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes2012. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You can see that---while short of the "your thoughts are my thoughts" of the Vulcan mind meld---your guide was informative and influential again this year, at least on mine.

On a personal note, I was cheered to see you writing a guide again.

The (01:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)) Other guide writers neglected to discuss the Featured-Article red guards, and that is really inexcusable. Victims should have champions and advocates, and you should not have to expose the problems of the last year in your guide. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, I discussed it briefly, and Coren I think sort of got what I was getting at before he deleted his guide. --Rschen7754 01:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it's dismal that I had to re-visit that sad little affair, but a) some folk still haven't dropped the stick and are still battlegrounding it all over the Wikipedia; and b) it came home to roost in multiple candidates. It's not good to have to revisit such drahmaz, but some folks don't seem to have any self awareness or awareness of community sentiment ... and a really strange version of the events was being replayed in multiple places. oh, well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Kiefer, what is this? On second thought, I don't want to know-- that code is just humiliating, and the instructions are gibberish! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The Euclidean algorithm. Take off your shoes, for you are on holy ground!

You forgot to update my divisor from 15 to 16, so that the next person's remainder was the same as mine and so it overwrote mine. In short, you disappeared my guide! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for writing the guide, Sandy. I always value your thoughts. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Fuchs, now that you're here, can you explain to me concerns that you've been somewhat inactive? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

A change in jobs, a death in the family, a move, a documentary film project that's finally nearing completion, and a Kickstarter, mostly. I've maintained a presence on the mailing lists, primarily since that is far easier to keep track of and respond to while on-the-go. Things have finally settled down in about the past month and I'm expecting to fully return to onwiki-editing after the holidays; I've certainly got a mound of sources and a big to-do list that isn't going to sort itself. I can certainly understand people's apprehension that I haven't been active, because most of the appeals and audit subcommittee stuff never touches the wiki directly unless there are big announcements to make; it's perfectly valid for people to judge based on the contributions they can see. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what a Kickstarter is, but a move with a change in jobs with a death in the family is a boatload of stress and requires a lot of time and adjustment. I am so sorry for your loss. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. As to Kickstarter, it's all about convincing strangers to give you money. Surprisingly, that's more tiresome than it sounds and isn't something I'll be keen on doing in the future :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

For fun...

And because I'm a geekette - User:Ealdgyth/2012 Arb Guide consolidation chart. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It would be more interesting if you added a version that takes out the non-contenders (no support) and the for sures (NYB and NW, no opposes), leaving those who are actually "in the race". By the way, this year's RFC disallowed those things from the template, in case you didn't know. They can be misleading ... there are problems there (like the non-disclosures we mentioned elsewhere, and the fact that some of those guides are written by folks who don't follow ... well, anything ... or don't include any reasonable rationale). The "uninitiated" might give equal weight to all guides and vote according to a tally. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that's why I don't link it from my guide nor am I really putting bells and whistles on it. I did it mainly to see if my brain's tally of who was pretty much a shoe in or a shoe out was the same as the actual guides... I might work it over after voting is finished and try to figure out who did the best on predicting, but I doubt I'll have the energy with the holidays coming up. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have no plan to figure highly on the "best at predicting" this year: I don't care what the rest of the community thinks, I'm not supporting candidates we don't know enough about just because we don't have eight good candidates. So I don't expect to be a good predictor this year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad I saw this, because I was mulling over putting one together. Thanks, now I don’t need to. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)