[1] ;) Dabomb87 ( talk) 19:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Not quite sure which "sources" are referred to in your comment when restarting this FAC, "unclear if sources and image concerns have been resolved." Do you mean image sources, or the vague concern raised about sources for the article and use of primary sources? I've added a note confirming that all image sourcing concerns have now been met. The editor concerned about article sourcing didn't respond further after I'd checked and ensured that the article is properly sourced, is another statement to that effect required? Thanks for your help with this, dave souza, talk 20:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, there has been a change in how the semi-automated peer reviews (SAPRs) are linked in peer reviews (now the link is to the SAPR script on the tool server allowing interested users to run SAPRs themselves if they want). This means there will no longer be an archive of SAPRs to use as the PR stat for WP:FAS. Since the stat used to be how many PRs were in the archive for that month, and will be going back to that for August and beyond, I was planning to go back and change the stats for the months using SAPRs to the PR archive stat instead. The two numbers are not identical - for one thing SAPRs are a measure of PRs opened in a month, while the archive is a measure of PRs closed in the same month. I figured it was better to be consistent for the Dec 2007 to July 2009 stats and make the switch in FAS, but wanted to check with you first. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, there.
I noticed that you have made changes to the dyslexia article in the not-too-distant past and would like to solicit your input.
I just started a new conversation on the Wikiproject dyslexia talk page about our attempt to provide a worldwide view in these articles. We could use as many people providing feedback as possible. Please read and respond, if you can.
Thanks!
Rosmoran ( talk) 21:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Sandy, we at Wikivoices were thinking of doing a real-time review of an FAC candidate for an upcoming episode. The idea of the episode would be to demonstrate what all goes into a comprehensive review. We would like to have the nominator there as well. As this would result in a bunch of supports and/or opposes popping up simultaneously at the FAC page, we wanted to run this by you and Karanacs first. Awadewit ( talk) 01:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Sandy: I presume you're aware of this. Tony (talk) 04:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Now has plan, infobox removed and replaced with interior image. I think all objections are now dealt with (although the FAC page is becoming a coffee house). Perhaps you'll take a look in and promote? -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 15:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Easier said than done sometimes, 'innit? :) I've said my piece and will leave the rest to the people who can actually talk to Slim without getting irked, I'm afraid that's a personal failing of mine. Great nom statement at Steve's RfA, by the way (better than Andy's, IMO, but don't tell him that.) -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 16:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated WP:SANDY and its talk page WT:SANDY for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. -- Soap Talk/ Contributions 04:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I told you you should get a number for drunk dialing. TOnight would be perfect. Karaoke and something else. George Harrison is playing, I would totaly drunk dial your toll free number. My inane babbing would be something to keep for like...ever. This was incredibly hard to type. Thank god someone is keeping Wikipedia WP:SANDY free. It would be a shitbox with the WP:SANDY. Srs. --
Moni3 (
talk)
04:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I can't feel my feet. -- Moni3 ( talk) 04:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I miss Jeff. User:SandyGeorgia/Barnstars#Dear SandyGeorgia. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Why was Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/South Park (season 1)/archive1 closed while Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Howie Morenz/archive2 wasn't? The first has 1 oppose and 1 support while the latter has 0 & 0 and is older! Nergaal ( talk) 01:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I will drop you a note as a courtesy when the specific changes and concerns you pointed out are made and addressed (need coffee). I understand your position.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 11:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I saw you're an editor of the article and thought I'd ask for your and others responses to my Talk page comments.-- GzRRk 4 ( talk) 18:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi SandyGeorgia. This is about a worry that Steve was cajoled into accepting your RfA co-nomination—a step he apparently hadn't previously envisaged. I don't want to stir things up on the RfA page but I really want to understand the assumptions you're bringing to this situation. What makes you propose Admin candidates? Why Steve? Will this take him/her somewhere useful? Won't it detract from his superb contributions to articles? Isn't this a poisoned chalice? Why can't we find a better way to recognise the quality of his contributions than to nominate him for a mop that you yourself don't choose to hold? - Pointillist ( talk) 23:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey there, hope you're well. I've kept to out-of-the-way areas for most of the day, as I wanted to make sure it didn't look as if I considered the RfA pass anything more than some very useful tools given to a trusted editor. Dunno if I succeeded at that, but screw it, I didn't want to go through today without saying thanks to you and Andy for putting that trust in me; I'll make sure it isn't misplaced. All the best, Steve T • C 21:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Pointi,
Since I can't recall having previously made your acquaintance, I have deferred responding until I could cope with your messing with "the tender place where love is born" in your references to my relationship with an editor to whom everyone knows I am hopelessly devoted (although I'm possibly confused, and actually just hopelessly devoted to that green zip-down-the-front dress and the Golden Retriever). Your statements about His Corpulence are curious, as I, too, have encouraged him to further academic pursuits (but then, you're not reading my e-mail, are you?). I have it on good authority that His Obesity has only a few pounds on me: [2] just enough to make him big enough to handle all of me. I imagine that in his periods of absence from Wiki, he's engaged in pursuits more important than either Wiki or academics. I trust this helps clear things up for you? If you're still concerned about my noms or relationship with His Corpulence, my best recommendation for a re-alignment of priorities is to ignore Clarence Carter's list of questions and consider strokin' during breakfast-- add helpful quantities of strawberry, [3] mango, [4] banana, [5] and fiber to assure a clean colon.
Regarding the substance of your questions, I hope my record of RfA noms speaks for itself; to my knowledge, none of the editors I have nommed at RfA have given up article work and they have been conscientous, thorough and helpful admins. I hope my record speaks for itself wrt to the kinds of editors I support at RFA.
Best regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. I found (via Google search) and fixed other references to mindsite, at Major depressive disorder ( fix) and Polysubstance dependence ( fix). I don't know of any other references. In Autism I dodged that bullet long ago by citing the CDC, which helpfully has a copy of that particular criteria set online. Wish they'd do the same for other diagnoses. Eubulides ( talk) 07:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Can you give me your explanation for why you closed this FAC? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 13:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Deacon. As others have explained (correctly), the FAC had been up more than two weeks with no support, concerns about the prose, and a long discussion about the name that may have deterred other reviewers from engaging. A fresh start, after reviewing prose with Tony, is often the fastest route to featured status when a FAC becomes bogged down at the bottom of the page with no support. I encourage you not to view this as a "failed" FAC, rather a chance for a fresh start and success. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
At the start of the month, Raul scheduled 17 days of TFA. Normally he doesn't do it very far in advance, I saw often only 3-4 days in advance in recent times. Do you know if he will be away until then? Did he announce it anywhere? YellowMonkey ( cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated. I was getting a bit stressed out, so I took a few days away from Wikipedia - went to Nambe Falls, started reading A great book, did some cooking, etc. I didn't announce it because I didn't expect it to go on for a week. I intended to resume editing last night, but Wikipedia was having weird technical issues that prevented me from editing. Anyway, I'll resume my regular editing later today or tomorrow. Raul654 ( talk) 14:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
There's clearly no consensus for the current version though. Perhaps a straw poll? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 16:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I took the liberty to update your stats (I added one that you missed). Dabomb87 ( talk) 02:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Left a q about how long a FAR save takes YellowMonkey ( cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 03:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to build on the comments made before by Objectivity... Lots of revisions before, editing out highly contentious judgments and interpretations and reviews. I recently edited out an editors additions; he put the back and then added more of the same quality; 3rd paragraph of article. Could you look at my comments and the past comments. Seems the editors interpretations are poor...very tangential, not directly related to what he's trying to interpret, etc. 2nd and 3rd sentences. Also, he gives ISBN numbers that don't link to anything. Source cited should be verifiable? With text electronically accessible? Re the general criticism he gives, seems like a review kind if thing ... so I could find good reviews to add along as well. I thought the article as it was was good and factual. If people want reviews of the movie, then why not search for reviews elsewhere, rather than at an encyclopedia. Eg movie review sites, discussion boards, etc.-- GzRRk 4 ( talk) 07:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi SandyGeorgia,
I asked
User:Eubulides if we could work together on the Bobby Newman article I created yesterday; but he is taking time off and I know it takes more then a few people to get things done.
I was wondering if you could help in the mean time; Bobby Newman, PhD, is a behavioral analyst, author, and physiologist known worldwide for his work. He works with children on the
Autism spectrum through the process of
ABA.
Thanx!
ATC .
Talk
15:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I deleted the talk page so it can be discussed.-- ragesoss ( talk) 16:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
You closed the FAC on Otto Julius Zobel but I am a bit in the dark why it failed. I am not making an argument that was a wrong decision, I would just like to get some understanding, because it is not clear from the discussion, at least to me. I believe all the points raised in the discussion were addressed in the article during the course of the FAC (except for what I think was an ill-informed comment on the copyright status of some of the images). Is it possible to get some sort of review? SpinningSpark 18:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Was there a discussion over this change? I don't recall one, but am wary of reverting. Dabomb87 ( talk) 19:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of what everyone thinks, I honestly do not enjoy having to do this kind of thing. All it does is breed hurt feelings and alienates the person putting up such from others. I would rather someone else do this instead. Ottava Rima ( talk) 00:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Incidentally, how is an oppose over length treated? Dabomb87 ( talk) 21:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
On an slightly related note, I'm home. Very tired after a very busy two weeks. Hopefully will get to FAC this weekend sometime. I shouldn't be gone much for a bit, and hopefully gone a bit less this fall... I hope. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I had never known of that check.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 04:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Nick-D raised an interesting question over at the milhist coordinator talk page concerning whether the tightening of our A-class reviews over the past few monthes has resulting in an increase in milhist article quality at the time one of our articles arrives WP:FAC for its bronze star. I was wondering if you could provide an answer to that question, being as how you are usually pretty involved in FAC. TomStar81 ( Talk) 06:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Should be all caught up. Left one unresearched as there were citation needed tags and I am starting a new policy of not doing those because the sourcing will change. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I have a problem that I don't quite understand. While other FAs garner dozens of comments and !votes, mine tend to stale very quickly and eventually end a few weeks later due to threadbare activity. Point in case: Hawaii hotspot. Here the FA didn't even get its first comment for 5 days, and once it did it was too little too late. Pretty much the same thing happened with Loihi-twice. While I eventually got something to chew on it all eventually came too late and the FA closed. I've tried everything - notifying wikiprojects, spamming talk pages, blacklisting them on the Urgent FAs List - but no one shows up. I guess it's a unique problem I have, compared to the hectic buzz of the FA process. Res Mar 15:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, I've been trying to damp down the flames discreetly. Your recent post, you know where, does not look at all discreet. -- Philcha ( talk) 18:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I added some external links but they were removed. And this comment on my Talk page, I don't understand really. Seems to conform to external link policy. I now see it was done by a bot, but thought I'd check with you. Feel free to check my own unique IP, I joined here because autism issues are being discussed among many of us.-- Wanda Folan ( talk) 21:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to invite you in particular to our recording, since you make promotion decisions. I thought you could help us explain the FA critieria. :) If you can come, please sign up here. Thanks. Awadewit( talk) 21:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Can you withdraw the Barryville-Shohola Bridge article and topic ban me from FAC, because its becoming apparently obvious that I cannot get an article passed anymore and that any service to nominating something nowadays will never pass. :| - Mitch32( Want help? See here!) 17:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Not meaning to pick on Mitch here, as he's not really bad, but I've definitely noted a problem Wikipedia has of letting go of your prose. Not everyone can be everything on an FA, it's just not possible to be excellent at all parts needed to bring an article to FAC and pass. In my case, my failing is prose. I have decent prose, and can do well at GAN, but the standard is higher at FAC, and you have to be willing to let others (and yes, plural is better) take over your prose. It's very very hard to do so, though, because too many copyeditors can do damage to an article's sourcing by moving stuff around without taking care with the citations, or don't take care to preserve the meaning of the prose while working it over. But at least ONE copyedit by someone who isn't the primary author is pretty much required for an article to pass FAC, and really two or three is better, especially for something technical. It's not a reflection on the main author that this is needed, it's just a fact of life. Printed authors need it too! An example, look at Robert Jordan, and his sprawling Wheel of Time series. The first two were pretty good, well written (within limits) and not too difuse. But as they became bestsellers, it's obvious that his publisher and editor relaxed their restraining influences, and the series got less and less coherent and the writing suffered also. Editing and copyediting are a necessity, and we shouldn't expect our articles to not need them for FAC. There, I've rambled quite a bit.. sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Sandy. In the absence of The Land from the Wiki I'm going to assume responsibility for the article Battleship and incorporate its well being into Operation Majestic Titan. If you would grant my friends and I a few months (say two or three) to put the article through PR and sort out the citations and such I am fairly certain we can bring the article up to current standards. Land did a good job with citations, and it appears that there are a number of references cited in the article itself, so it shouldn't be too hard to address the issues in the article. TomStar81 ( Talk) 21:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, nobody believes anything I say, and think that I'm rampaging around vandalising and trashing everything (probably people give me these jobs as a poisoned chalice so I can take the blame or whatever as people think I'm a troll, and my opinions were never hidden), but whatever, I'll rant. Sandy went and posted warnings to the talk pages of articles with five different tags on them: Wikipedia:Featured_articles/Cleanup_listing. The number of variety of tags is not a good rank of FA-endangeredness. A lot of the articles high up on that list are well-cited, which is why the odd uncited sentence sticks out and is usually tagged for cites, whereas a lot of heavily citation-lacking articles like Fauna of Australia aren't, because there is no point in tagging almost every sentence. Bodyline has four problems listed, but only four sentences are unaccounted for. Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport and Rail transport in India were removed for having 75%+ home-made or non-independent sources, but neither have any tags. A lot of the weakest articles sent to FAR had little/no tags before they were nominated; I mean most unreferenced start-class articles (and thus FAs), nobody adds citation needed everywhere. YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 06:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Sandy,
I noticed you had reverted my edits to the Laika story. I reverted them back. All the photos are relevant to the story, and are from WC, so they should be sound. I am an experienced editor, however you may be correct on thumbnail sizes. At any rate I do appreciate you checking to make sure edits are correct. Cheers from Halifax, NS. -- Rob NS 03:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Since my head is pounding today, can someone help me explain why using unreliable sources isn't a great idea? I'm so loopy from sinus pills I am not sure I'm making much sense. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
If you want me to do something specific, you can and should ask me rather than vaguely and condescending pointing me to a policy because I angered you. Hyacinth ( talk) 18:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated list of diseases and conditions with unusual features for deletion, and, if available, your comments there would be appreciated. --- kilbad ( talk) 20:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
An editor is demanding the removal of any references or sourcing to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography because it is a subscription database. Help in discussing this would be appreciated, because I'm about to beat my head against the wall. I dug out discussions from WP:RSN, which have been dismisseed as "opinion". Also pointed out that WP:V doesn't say a thing about not using subscription databases, but this has no effect. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I emailed you. Ottava Rima ( talk) 14:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
You can try out Brighterorange's script if you like. I've been using it since June of last year without a hitch :) Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 19:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Before I start another round of comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie/archive2, can I cap my resolved comments using {{ hidden}} or do you prefer them to be stricken? Matthewedwards : Chat 04:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Sandy. I noticed that you didnot promote the " 4 Minutes (Madonna song)" article. May I know the reason why? As I can see every concern that fellow editors had had been adressed and was even supported by User:Drewcifer3000. So I'm kinda baffled as to what went wrong? Would you please explain? --Legolas (talk2me) 11:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Legolas, I hope you've had a chance now to read through some of the other discussion on my page. When a FAC has been up for two or three weeks without receiving support, the quickest path to the bronze star is usually a fresh start in a few weeks. Additionally, because it's August, there may be more reviewers around in a few more weeks. Good luck next time through ! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Sandy, a barnstar from you is high praise indeed, and I appreciate it. A lot. You deserve many, many barnstars for the work you've done over the years. Thank you. Dabomb87 ( talk) 13:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) It works in IE 7. Dabomb87 ( talk) 18:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you all so much: I'm a very happy camper ! Let's see if it helps. Best,
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
18:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Who are you? Do you sit around and look at everything that is posted to Wikipedia to see if it is legit? You do realize that this website is extremely unreliable and cannot even be cited as a source in colleges. You should find something better to do with your time... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.225.196.111 ( talk • contribs) 18:02, August 23, 2009
You can now nominate that article at TFA/R. There are three vacancies on the page and even high point articles are OK through late September. Told you I'd remember! Go for it.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 08:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how to format properly and I am tring to give a major technical upgrade to the entry for Eduardo Mendoza Goiticoa. You seem to be an expert on this. Pls help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verdadseadicha ( talk • contribs) 00:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
i think the article is in much better shape! I have added more references and hope to work on it the next few days. Verdadseadicha ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC).
Sandy, if you (or any talk page watchers) know off the top of your head where it says to be uniform in naming people and to stick to last names is on the MoS (it is too cluttered for me to find it), could you please answer him. He made this change of all uses of "Cambridge" (last name) to a mixed use of naming. I pointed out that this was inappropriate and he wants a specific location as to where it says so. Ottava Rima ( talk) 18:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear, it appears that Karanac's notice isn't working [8] [9]. ceran thor 10:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there a procedure to follow if an editor wants to give FA(C) credit to another editor as well as himself? JKBrooks85 ( talk) 10:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Just add them in, but you might want to check with the other editor first as a courtesy, and if that editor objects and removes name, don't sweat it. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, btu could you have a look at this? I found some major problems, but the page has devolved into one person claiming I've done this for sinister motives (and being shot down by everyone else) and another person (who abused sources ridiculously) trying to draw out discussions about how he was actually completely justified to write things not present in the source.
It's completely out of control, and I don't see how the hell we're going to rescue this article if it's going to be turned into a circus where anyone pointing out problems is the subject of a massive campaign of personal attacks on multiple fora (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive559#User:Nemonoman - they've continued apace since then, so it would've been nice to have had it dealt with then, but, you know how administrators on here can be at times.
Please do something? Shoemaker's Holiday Over 200 FCs served 14:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I noticed you undid ALL the article history info I left on the Talk:List of Medal of Honor recipients for World War I article. I just wanted to let you know that I did read the instructions but it still built it incorrectly so perhaps someone needs to review the instructions so that the are clearer. Also, rather than eliminate the entire thing perhaps in the future it would be better to fix the problem rather than erase it completely. Know someone else will still have to go and add the article history when all it needed was a minor change to fix the problem. Just a recommendation. -- Kumioko ( talk) 19:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
... at the TFA blurb for Samuel Johnson's early life. I think it's better, hopefully you do as well. [10] -- Malleus Fatuorum 20:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi SG,
If you've the time, I've made a lengthy point here. Hillpna seems to be taking the expert approach to editing, which is interpreting the sources in a way I see as inappropriate. I think s/he has a point that bioidentical hormones do exist as something rarely discussed by either scientists or BHRT advocates, but I don't think wikipedia is the place to have that discussion. If you have the time, I fear my previous optimism was perhaps misplaced. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 01:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
It saddens me to say it, but I'm very much afraid that you and Moni3 have been proven right. Mattisse's advisors/mentors have not stepped up to the plate as we ought to have done. -- Malleus Fatuorum 18:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I want to add something on here, for perspective, because I don't recall if you (Malleus) were following my talk page back in the days of "we admins". [11] I know very well what it is to be legitimately targeted and attacked by a group of admins-- better than many editors. However, unlike Mattisse (who seems constitutionally unable to "bury the hatchet"), I dropped it, dug in, did my work, made myself useful, saw the futility in fighting a pack, and saved the diffs until the day they were needed. Had FeloniousMonk ( talk · contribs), at any point, simply retracted his unfair accusations about Marskell and Vickers and Tony1-- three editors who do not hide behind anonymity on Wiki-- I would have erased those diffs and forgotten the incident. He didn't; that eventually took care of itself. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
(undent) I hope you guys are all enjoying agreeing with each other. I disagree. There was never a "right" answer, and none of you had it, despite your very, very frequent assertions to the contrary. The goal was never to defend M., nor to punish her, but to help her to see the reality of Wikipedia—and then either live with it, or leave it. This is—by its nature— a very long-term project. I reject all of the analyses that assert otherwise. Ling.Nut ( talk) 05:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
It saddens me to see this blow up in the way it did, but I am absolutely not surprised. The behavior exhibited recently is the same as what people have been complaining about for years. The Arbcom hearing didn't really change anything, snd the level of disruption appears to be outweighing the level of good contributions recently. I expect Mattisse to be back in 2 weeks, and I further expect that she'll be back at Arbcom soon after. Karanacs ( talk) 15:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
If Mattisse were to return, particularly in light of her commentary after the block (which I find in many ways more problematic than the sockpuppetry), then regardless of what anyone else does, I will bring this situation to ArbCom. It's not healthy or tenable, and I can't believe it's what they had in mind when they closed the last case. I have a personal opinion on the proper course of action at this point, which is probably not overly difficult to discern. Regardless, if Mattisse returns to editing, something else needs to be in place, and it needs to be constructed by taking advantage of the hindsight and experience gained from this round of mentorship. MastCell Talk 19:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I have made it utterly plain in all of my contributions to this process and I will make it utterly plain again. Mattisse's plan was, has been, and remains (if she returns) her responsibility alone. She wrote it, Arbcom approved it, and it is up to her to live up to it, or not (as in this case), and suffer the consequences accordingly. Apparently some editors here have a different idea, sometimes based on completely different experiences, that her mentors are some sort of combination of a police force and social work group who follow her around, steering her clear of trouble and smacking her when she breaches her plan. In contrast, I have always, and continue, to view this mentorship as a resource for Mattisse to draw on when she needs it to help her stick to her plan. She did nothing of the sort in this case, yet within hours of her being blocked, editors who ought to know better start posting "I told you so's", how badly wrong it all went, how the mentors have not been doing their job, tarring them all with one brush in the process (and then making occasional exceptions for Malleus, as if to prove sweeping generalizations are not being made).
Sorry folks, I edit Wikipedia in my leisure time, and I have no desire to spend it stalking someone else's contributions. If anyone (e.g. Mattisse) wants my help, they can come to me, and I'm usually happy to do so. From reading this thread, one would think that Mattisse's sockpuppetry had catastrophically undermined the encyclopedia. I imagine Bishonen is laughing his head off. No damage there, then. Indeed, the handful of edits by Mattisse's socks did no damage to anyone except herself and she's done herself further damage by letting the outcome feed into her persecution complex.
The most damaging fall-out to the encyclopedia are threads like this, where editors who normally hold each other in great mutual respect try to unpick what went wrong and point fingers of blame over an issue that is a trifle compared with the many more important things that need to be done to improve this encyclopedia.
Enough. Geometry guy 21:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I have stated in multiple places that Mattisse's behaviour was utterly unacceptable. However, Bishonen, I apologize if I misread the sitation, and you were more personally affected than I had appreciated from my review of the edit histories. Geometry guy 00:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, biting the bullet. I guess it's clear that I believe there was a process failure here. Mattisse's block, if served for two weeks, expires Sept. 11. Would everyone be willing to take a new approach, and not re-open a new Arb for at least two weeks after that (Sept. 25)? And instead, get a system where she is really warned and blocked the second she violates her Plan, in the event she does? I don't believe she has been well served here, so I'm wondering if re-opening the Arb is the best course. Feel free to shoot me down if I'm wrong: I'm a hopeless Pollyanna. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Let me try to better explain my concerns:
1. Yes, while the blows hurt us just as they hurt any other editor, the truth is, editors like Bish, you and me can deal with those better than others. We need not be in a hurry: we need to get the best result.
2. I'd like to see a mentorship more like ATC's, where the combo of swift admin blocks backed by patient explanation of where she went wrong turned her into a productive editor. I've seen neither swift action, nor explanations of her frequent misunderstandings for Mattisse.
3. I put a wee bit of blame on ArbCom for accepting such an ill-defined plan ... the shortcomings were apparent to all of us who knew that Mattisse's issues occur over her grudge-bearing, but no one got on top of that, and a few of the mentors never saw it.
4. I always believed the biggest chance missed by ArbCom was that the mentors blocked the idea of a short break that was floated by NYB (which he did *not* call a block) for Mattisse. Some editors are more able than others to deal with the addictive potential of Wiki, and I'm holding out hope that she will gain perspective if the two-week block is served.
Beyond that, I say get some admins on board who will do whatever needs to be done. If she continues as she always has, the Arb gets re-opened on Sep 25, and the conclusion is likely foregone. But maybe the time off will result in change, and if it doesn't, swift admin action should prevent too much damage. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
There are several important points made above, and I welcome efforts to find a way around this conundrum. It is very difficult to find a workable solution that isn't tantamount to a ban. In this respect, let me point to the danger of entering into fantasy mentor land. When the mentor role is advisory, a resource for Mattisse to call on, it is appropriate and desirable for the mentors to include editors (like myself) with whom Mattisse has had past conflicts and those (like Malleus) who will not mince their words when she is on a destructive path. If a more active mentoring role is needed then we need to find mentors who
Where are such mentors going to come from? For instance I fail both 1 and 2. My RfA was based on a platform in which I stated that I would not use the block tool, and a statement to that effect remains on my user page; while I am happy to do what I can to help Mattisse get on better with the rest of the encyclopedia, I have always made it clear that I am only interested in doing so in an advisory capacity. If she screws up, either by not seeking advice (as in this case) or by not listening to advice, then she is likely heading for a block (as in this case), but not by me.
I don't wish only to accentuate the difficulties, though, so let me make one small positive proposal. If Mattisse decides to return to editing after her block, I would support a topic ban on all psychology related articles, for instance as an Arbcom motion. This may come as a surprise to some editors, as I have generally found Mattisse's comments on such articles to be informed and helpful with regard to content issues, and have taken them into account at GAR. However, that is only half the story. Having now seen several independent examples, it seems to me that, partly because of her expertise, her efforts to make her point lead to an emotional engagement that results in widespread devastation. If this one thing were removed from the equation, I imagine many of the conflicts that editors here have had with Mattisse would not be repeated. Geometry guy 20:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Based on Gguy's observations above, what do others think of something along these lines ?
1. Get an admin on board; based on the previous Arb findings, set up a series of escalating block provisions in case issues recur.
2. Specify a page where concerns can be lodged; the current Plan left it unclear how and where concerns should be lodged, and a few of the mentors appeared to beat back anyone who had concerns. For example, her Oppose of Johnson at TFA/R really raises eyebrows, and a neutral party should have been able to talk her through that.
3. In exchange for shortening the overall length of her block by five days, and to avoid another ArbCom (as a show of good faith, and J.delanoy would have to agree), Mattisse agrees not to review at GAN or FAC or submit to FAR or GAR psych articles or articles of editors with whom she has had previous conflict or targetted in the past (Fainites, Casliber, Moni3, Giano/Bish/George/Filiocht articles ... ??). I don't like the idea of a significant shortening of her block, because I really believe the forced time off could be helpful for her, but a few days would show good faith.
4. In order not to lose her input on psych article FACs and FARs, she is allowed to lodge her concerns on the associated talk pages of the FAC or FAR-- that should prevent the type of derailing that occurs when she gets emotionally involved? (Don't know how to fix that with GAR, as they occur on talk pages.)
I'm just thinking aloud ... again, feel free to shoot me down if I'm too Pollyanna. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
The "concerns" page is a good idea if this is going to work at all. It is totally impractical to expect another editor to monitor all the edits of someone as prolific as Mattisse. As for the list, many on the plague list come into that category. Fainites barley scribs 21:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Although I can't find the diff at the moment, Mattisse did say at the Arbcom proceedings that she was not willing to work with someone with the power to block her - that she would rather retire. The current plan was the limit of what she would agree to do. Karanacs ( talk) 22:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not really clear on the procedural issues here, but I suspect that if most of us can come to some sort of agreement, we would eventually propose it at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Then, considering her block, there would have to be some way for Mattisse to weigh in. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
(undent) That's fine, but let's skip the laborious pretense and just fucking ban her now. That would reflect integrity, indeed. Ling.Nut ( talk) 23:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
(undent) I was gonna say more, but I'll skip the more personal responses. the world keeps turning. :-) Mattise continually fights against feeling of powerlessness and/or persecution, and does so in a manner that is socially unacceptable. In order to help her, the entire community (or the significant majority thereof, and certainly everyone who has nay political capital to speak of) would have to embark on a rather long-term plan to do so. There is no desire to do so. I won't speculate on the motivations for this lack, aside from saying that they are not monolithic, and the degree to which they merit respect varies more than a little. But... there is nothing that can be done. Make your plans. As I said, I have no political capital left. G-guy, though rather harshly and undeservingly insulted, does. Perhaps he can help make sure the plans are not too hostile. That's all. Gotta go for today, and still really need to quit Wikipedia. Ling.Nut ( talk) 00:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
in the midst of a flurry of unnecessary drama,my wife is calling me to bed. really. You asked for concrete suggestions: I suggest that Sandy, Malleus and perhaps others have the good conscience to recuse themselves from any leadership roles or active input in the ArbCom that I am sure will happen soon, as they are not neutral, but rather hostile parties. G'night. Ling.Nut ( talk) 15:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Most of the translations of the plates in the gallery of The Disasters of War are taken from the Spanish article via Bablefish, so I'm not confident of them. A check from an editor proficient in Spanish would go a long way to easing my worries. Not urgent, but if you have time, sometime. Ceoil ( talk) 20:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
"Men will be boys"! Where does this stand now? Are you going to look for reliably-sourced translations, do you want me to do that, or should I work on them myself? (Tomorrow ... today was a very full day.) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think a link is necessary, as you don't need to revisit the FAC. I just wanna' let you know that Nev1 is already going to check the article out, hopefully by the end of tomorrow, so that works out perfectly. Thanks for your help, as always, Sandy. ceran thor 01:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC) '
Hi SandyGeorgia,
I looked at
WP:FAC/ar, but did the Bot add everything and do I need to put any tags up on the discussion page for
The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie yet?
If the Bot didn't put a tag that the article has been approved by FAC and by
User:Raul654. Does that meant it wont be; also is their a certain amount of time to help the following fix up before the discussion is closed?
Because I don't think I fixed everything that
User:Matthewedwards had requested to fix, because his time is limited because he put up a template that said: he is moving and doesn't have an internet connection.
Thanx!
ATC .
Talk
17:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
[1] ;) Dabomb87 ( talk) 19:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Not quite sure which "sources" are referred to in your comment when restarting this FAC, "unclear if sources and image concerns have been resolved." Do you mean image sources, or the vague concern raised about sources for the article and use of primary sources? I've added a note confirming that all image sourcing concerns have now been met. The editor concerned about article sourcing didn't respond further after I'd checked and ensured that the article is properly sourced, is another statement to that effect required? Thanks for your help with this, dave souza, talk 20:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, there has been a change in how the semi-automated peer reviews (SAPRs) are linked in peer reviews (now the link is to the SAPR script on the tool server allowing interested users to run SAPRs themselves if they want). This means there will no longer be an archive of SAPRs to use as the PR stat for WP:FAS. Since the stat used to be how many PRs were in the archive for that month, and will be going back to that for August and beyond, I was planning to go back and change the stats for the months using SAPRs to the PR archive stat instead. The two numbers are not identical - for one thing SAPRs are a measure of PRs opened in a month, while the archive is a measure of PRs closed in the same month. I figured it was better to be consistent for the Dec 2007 to July 2009 stats and make the switch in FAS, but wanted to check with you first. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, there.
I noticed that you have made changes to the dyslexia article in the not-too-distant past and would like to solicit your input.
I just started a new conversation on the Wikiproject dyslexia talk page about our attempt to provide a worldwide view in these articles. We could use as many people providing feedback as possible. Please read and respond, if you can.
Thanks!
Rosmoran ( talk) 21:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Sandy, we at Wikivoices were thinking of doing a real-time review of an FAC candidate for an upcoming episode. The idea of the episode would be to demonstrate what all goes into a comprehensive review. We would like to have the nominator there as well. As this would result in a bunch of supports and/or opposes popping up simultaneously at the FAC page, we wanted to run this by you and Karanacs first. Awadewit ( talk) 01:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Sandy: I presume you're aware of this. Tony (talk) 04:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Now has plan, infobox removed and replaced with interior image. I think all objections are now dealt with (although the FAC page is becoming a coffee house). Perhaps you'll take a look in and promote? -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 15:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Easier said than done sometimes, 'innit? :) I've said my piece and will leave the rest to the people who can actually talk to Slim without getting irked, I'm afraid that's a personal failing of mine. Great nom statement at Steve's RfA, by the way (better than Andy's, IMO, but don't tell him that.) -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 16:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated WP:SANDY and its talk page WT:SANDY for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. -- Soap Talk/ Contributions 04:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I told you you should get a number for drunk dialing. TOnight would be perfect. Karaoke and something else. George Harrison is playing, I would totaly drunk dial your toll free number. My inane babbing would be something to keep for like...ever. This was incredibly hard to type. Thank god someone is keeping Wikipedia WP:SANDY free. It would be a shitbox with the WP:SANDY. Srs. --
Moni3 (
talk)
04:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I can't feel my feet. -- Moni3 ( talk) 04:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I miss Jeff. User:SandyGeorgia/Barnstars#Dear SandyGeorgia. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Why was Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/South Park (season 1)/archive1 closed while Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Howie Morenz/archive2 wasn't? The first has 1 oppose and 1 support while the latter has 0 & 0 and is older! Nergaal ( talk) 01:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I will drop you a note as a courtesy when the specific changes and concerns you pointed out are made and addressed (need coffee). I understand your position.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 11:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I saw you're an editor of the article and thought I'd ask for your and others responses to my Talk page comments.-- GzRRk 4 ( talk) 18:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi SandyGeorgia. This is about a worry that Steve was cajoled into accepting your RfA co-nomination—a step he apparently hadn't previously envisaged. I don't want to stir things up on the RfA page but I really want to understand the assumptions you're bringing to this situation. What makes you propose Admin candidates? Why Steve? Will this take him/her somewhere useful? Won't it detract from his superb contributions to articles? Isn't this a poisoned chalice? Why can't we find a better way to recognise the quality of his contributions than to nominate him for a mop that you yourself don't choose to hold? - Pointillist ( talk) 23:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey there, hope you're well. I've kept to out-of-the-way areas for most of the day, as I wanted to make sure it didn't look as if I considered the RfA pass anything more than some very useful tools given to a trusted editor. Dunno if I succeeded at that, but screw it, I didn't want to go through today without saying thanks to you and Andy for putting that trust in me; I'll make sure it isn't misplaced. All the best, Steve T • C 21:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Pointi,
Since I can't recall having previously made your acquaintance, I have deferred responding until I could cope with your messing with "the tender place where love is born" in your references to my relationship with an editor to whom everyone knows I am hopelessly devoted (although I'm possibly confused, and actually just hopelessly devoted to that green zip-down-the-front dress and the Golden Retriever). Your statements about His Corpulence are curious, as I, too, have encouraged him to further academic pursuits (but then, you're not reading my e-mail, are you?). I have it on good authority that His Obesity has only a few pounds on me: [2] just enough to make him big enough to handle all of me. I imagine that in his periods of absence from Wiki, he's engaged in pursuits more important than either Wiki or academics. I trust this helps clear things up for you? If you're still concerned about my noms or relationship with His Corpulence, my best recommendation for a re-alignment of priorities is to ignore Clarence Carter's list of questions and consider strokin' during breakfast-- add helpful quantities of strawberry, [3] mango, [4] banana, [5] and fiber to assure a clean colon.
Regarding the substance of your questions, I hope my record of RfA noms speaks for itself; to my knowledge, none of the editors I have nommed at RfA have given up article work and they have been conscientous, thorough and helpful admins. I hope my record speaks for itself wrt to the kinds of editors I support at RFA.
Best regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. I found (via Google search) and fixed other references to mindsite, at Major depressive disorder ( fix) and Polysubstance dependence ( fix). I don't know of any other references. In Autism I dodged that bullet long ago by citing the CDC, which helpfully has a copy of that particular criteria set online. Wish they'd do the same for other diagnoses. Eubulides ( talk) 07:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Can you give me your explanation for why you closed this FAC? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 13:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Deacon. As others have explained (correctly), the FAC had been up more than two weeks with no support, concerns about the prose, and a long discussion about the name that may have deterred other reviewers from engaging. A fresh start, after reviewing prose with Tony, is often the fastest route to featured status when a FAC becomes bogged down at the bottom of the page with no support. I encourage you not to view this as a "failed" FAC, rather a chance for a fresh start and success. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
At the start of the month, Raul scheduled 17 days of TFA. Normally he doesn't do it very far in advance, I saw often only 3-4 days in advance in recent times. Do you know if he will be away until then? Did he announce it anywhere? YellowMonkey ( cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated. I was getting a bit stressed out, so I took a few days away from Wikipedia - went to Nambe Falls, started reading A great book, did some cooking, etc. I didn't announce it because I didn't expect it to go on for a week. I intended to resume editing last night, but Wikipedia was having weird technical issues that prevented me from editing. Anyway, I'll resume my regular editing later today or tomorrow. Raul654 ( talk) 14:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
There's clearly no consensus for the current version though. Perhaps a straw poll? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 16:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I took the liberty to update your stats (I added one that you missed). Dabomb87 ( talk) 02:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Left a q about how long a FAR save takes YellowMonkey ( cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 03:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to build on the comments made before by Objectivity... Lots of revisions before, editing out highly contentious judgments and interpretations and reviews. I recently edited out an editors additions; he put the back and then added more of the same quality; 3rd paragraph of article. Could you look at my comments and the past comments. Seems the editors interpretations are poor...very tangential, not directly related to what he's trying to interpret, etc. 2nd and 3rd sentences. Also, he gives ISBN numbers that don't link to anything. Source cited should be verifiable? With text electronically accessible? Re the general criticism he gives, seems like a review kind if thing ... so I could find good reviews to add along as well. I thought the article as it was was good and factual. If people want reviews of the movie, then why not search for reviews elsewhere, rather than at an encyclopedia. Eg movie review sites, discussion boards, etc.-- GzRRk 4 ( talk) 07:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi SandyGeorgia,
I asked
User:Eubulides if we could work together on the Bobby Newman article I created yesterday; but he is taking time off and I know it takes more then a few people to get things done.
I was wondering if you could help in the mean time; Bobby Newman, PhD, is a behavioral analyst, author, and physiologist known worldwide for his work. He works with children on the
Autism spectrum through the process of
ABA.
Thanx!
ATC .
Talk
15:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I deleted the talk page so it can be discussed.-- ragesoss ( talk) 16:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
You closed the FAC on Otto Julius Zobel but I am a bit in the dark why it failed. I am not making an argument that was a wrong decision, I would just like to get some understanding, because it is not clear from the discussion, at least to me. I believe all the points raised in the discussion were addressed in the article during the course of the FAC (except for what I think was an ill-informed comment on the copyright status of some of the images). Is it possible to get some sort of review? SpinningSpark 18:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Was there a discussion over this change? I don't recall one, but am wary of reverting. Dabomb87 ( talk) 19:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of what everyone thinks, I honestly do not enjoy having to do this kind of thing. All it does is breed hurt feelings and alienates the person putting up such from others. I would rather someone else do this instead. Ottava Rima ( talk) 00:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Incidentally, how is an oppose over length treated? Dabomb87 ( talk) 21:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
On an slightly related note, I'm home. Very tired after a very busy two weeks. Hopefully will get to FAC this weekend sometime. I shouldn't be gone much for a bit, and hopefully gone a bit less this fall... I hope. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I had never known of that check.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 04:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Nick-D raised an interesting question over at the milhist coordinator talk page concerning whether the tightening of our A-class reviews over the past few monthes has resulting in an increase in milhist article quality at the time one of our articles arrives WP:FAC for its bronze star. I was wondering if you could provide an answer to that question, being as how you are usually pretty involved in FAC. TomStar81 ( Talk) 06:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Should be all caught up. Left one unresearched as there were citation needed tags and I am starting a new policy of not doing those because the sourcing will change. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I have a problem that I don't quite understand. While other FAs garner dozens of comments and !votes, mine tend to stale very quickly and eventually end a few weeks later due to threadbare activity. Point in case: Hawaii hotspot. Here the FA didn't even get its first comment for 5 days, and once it did it was too little too late. Pretty much the same thing happened with Loihi-twice. While I eventually got something to chew on it all eventually came too late and the FA closed. I've tried everything - notifying wikiprojects, spamming talk pages, blacklisting them on the Urgent FAs List - but no one shows up. I guess it's a unique problem I have, compared to the hectic buzz of the FA process. Res Mar 15:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, I've been trying to damp down the flames discreetly. Your recent post, you know where, does not look at all discreet. -- Philcha ( talk) 18:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I added some external links but they were removed. And this comment on my Talk page, I don't understand really. Seems to conform to external link policy. I now see it was done by a bot, but thought I'd check with you. Feel free to check my own unique IP, I joined here because autism issues are being discussed among many of us.-- Wanda Folan ( talk) 21:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to invite you in particular to our recording, since you make promotion decisions. I thought you could help us explain the FA critieria. :) If you can come, please sign up here. Thanks. Awadewit( talk) 21:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Can you withdraw the Barryville-Shohola Bridge article and topic ban me from FAC, because its becoming apparently obvious that I cannot get an article passed anymore and that any service to nominating something nowadays will never pass. :| - Mitch32( Want help? See here!) 17:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Not meaning to pick on Mitch here, as he's not really bad, but I've definitely noted a problem Wikipedia has of letting go of your prose. Not everyone can be everything on an FA, it's just not possible to be excellent at all parts needed to bring an article to FAC and pass. In my case, my failing is prose. I have decent prose, and can do well at GAN, but the standard is higher at FAC, and you have to be willing to let others (and yes, plural is better) take over your prose. It's very very hard to do so, though, because too many copyeditors can do damage to an article's sourcing by moving stuff around without taking care with the citations, or don't take care to preserve the meaning of the prose while working it over. But at least ONE copyedit by someone who isn't the primary author is pretty much required for an article to pass FAC, and really two or three is better, especially for something technical. It's not a reflection on the main author that this is needed, it's just a fact of life. Printed authors need it too! An example, look at Robert Jordan, and his sprawling Wheel of Time series. The first two were pretty good, well written (within limits) and not too difuse. But as they became bestsellers, it's obvious that his publisher and editor relaxed their restraining influences, and the series got less and less coherent and the writing suffered also. Editing and copyediting are a necessity, and we shouldn't expect our articles to not need them for FAC. There, I've rambled quite a bit.. sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Sandy. In the absence of The Land from the Wiki I'm going to assume responsibility for the article Battleship and incorporate its well being into Operation Majestic Titan. If you would grant my friends and I a few months (say two or three) to put the article through PR and sort out the citations and such I am fairly certain we can bring the article up to current standards. Land did a good job with citations, and it appears that there are a number of references cited in the article itself, so it shouldn't be too hard to address the issues in the article. TomStar81 ( Talk) 21:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, nobody believes anything I say, and think that I'm rampaging around vandalising and trashing everything (probably people give me these jobs as a poisoned chalice so I can take the blame or whatever as people think I'm a troll, and my opinions were never hidden), but whatever, I'll rant. Sandy went and posted warnings to the talk pages of articles with five different tags on them: Wikipedia:Featured_articles/Cleanup_listing. The number of variety of tags is not a good rank of FA-endangeredness. A lot of the articles high up on that list are well-cited, which is why the odd uncited sentence sticks out and is usually tagged for cites, whereas a lot of heavily citation-lacking articles like Fauna of Australia aren't, because there is no point in tagging almost every sentence. Bodyline has four problems listed, but only four sentences are unaccounted for. Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport and Rail transport in India were removed for having 75%+ home-made or non-independent sources, but neither have any tags. A lot of the weakest articles sent to FAR had little/no tags before they were nominated; I mean most unreferenced start-class articles (and thus FAs), nobody adds citation needed everywhere. YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 06:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Sandy,
I noticed you had reverted my edits to the Laika story. I reverted them back. All the photos are relevant to the story, and are from WC, so they should be sound. I am an experienced editor, however you may be correct on thumbnail sizes. At any rate I do appreciate you checking to make sure edits are correct. Cheers from Halifax, NS. -- Rob NS 03:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Since my head is pounding today, can someone help me explain why using unreliable sources isn't a great idea? I'm so loopy from sinus pills I am not sure I'm making much sense. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
If you want me to do something specific, you can and should ask me rather than vaguely and condescending pointing me to a policy because I angered you. Hyacinth ( talk) 18:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated list of diseases and conditions with unusual features for deletion, and, if available, your comments there would be appreciated. --- kilbad ( talk) 20:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
An editor is demanding the removal of any references or sourcing to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography because it is a subscription database. Help in discussing this would be appreciated, because I'm about to beat my head against the wall. I dug out discussions from WP:RSN, which have been dismisseed as "opinion". Also pointed out that WP:V doesn't say a thing about not using subscription databases, but this has no effect. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I emailed you. Ottava Rima ( talk) 14:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
You can try out Brighterorange's script if you like. I've been using it since June of last year without a hitch :) Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 19:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Before I start another round of comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie/archive2, can I cap my resolved comments using {{ hidden}} or do you prefer them to be stricken? Matthewedwards : Chat 04:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Sandy. I noticed that you didnot promote the " 4 Minutes (Madonna song)" article. May I know the reason why? As I can see every concern that fellow editors had had been adressed and was even supported by User:Drewcifer3000. So I'm kinda baffled as to what went wrong? Would you please explain? --Legolas (talk2me) 11:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Legolas, I hope you've had a chance now to read through some of the other discussion on my page. When a FAC has been up for two or three weeks without receiving support, the quickest path to the bronze star is usually a fresh start in a few weeks. Additionally, because it's August, there may be more reviewers around in a few more weeks. Good luck next time through ! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Sandy, a barnstar from you is high praise indeed, and I appreciate it. A lot. You deserve many, many barnstars for the work you've done over the years. Thank you. Dabomb87 ( talk) 13:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) It works in IE 7. Dabomb87 ( talk) 18:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you all so much: I'm a very happy camper ! Let's see if it helps. Best,
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
18:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Who are you? Do you sit around and look at everything that is posted to Wikipedia to see if it is legit? You do realize that this website is extremely unreliable and cannot even be cited as a source in colleges. You should find something better to do with your time... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.225.196.111 ( talk • contribs) 18:02, August 23, 2009
You can now nominate that article at TFA/R. There are three vacancies on the page and even high point articles are OK through late September. Told you I'd remember! Go for it.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 08:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how to format properly and I am tring to give a major technical upgrade to the entry for Eduardo Mendoza Goiticoa. You seem to be an expert on this. Pls help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verdadseadicha ( talk • contribs) 00:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
i think the article is in much better shape! I have added more references and hope to work on it the next few days. Verdadseadicha ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC).
Sandy, if you (or any talk page watchers) know off the top of your head where it says to be uniform in naming people and to stick to last names is on the MoS (it is too cluttered for me to find it), could you please answer him. He made this change of all uses of "Cambridge" (last name) to a mixed use of naming. I pointed out that this was inappropriate and he wants a specific location as to where it says so. Ottava Rima ( talk) 18:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear, it appears that Karanac's notice isn't working [8] [9]. ceran thor 10:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there a procedure to follow if an editor wants to give FA(C) credit to another editor as well as himself? JKBrooks85 ( talk) 10:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Just add them in, but you might want to check with the other editor first as a courtesy, and if that editor objects and removes name, don't sweat it. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, btu could you have a look at this? I found some major problems, but the page has devolved into one person claiming I've done this for sinister motives (and being shot down by everyone else) and another person (who abused sources ridiculously) trying to draw out discussions about how he was actually completely justified to write things not present in the source.
It's completely out of control, and I don't see how the hell we're going to rescue this article if it's going to be turned into a circus where anyone pointing out problems is the subject of a massive campaign of personal attacks on multiple fora (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive559#User:Nemonoman - they've continued apace since then, so it would've been nice to have had it dealt with then, but, you know how administrators on here can be at times.
Please do something? Shoemaker's Holiday Over 200 FCs served 14:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I noticed you undid ALL the article history info I left on the Talk:List of Medal of Honor recipients for World War I article. I just wanted to let you know that I did read the instructions but it still built it incorrectly so perhaps someone needs to review the instructions so that the are clearer. Also, rather than eliminate the entire thing perhaps in the future it would be better to fix the problem rather than erase it completely. Know someone else will still have to go and add the article history when all it needed was a minor change to fix the problem. Just a recommendation. -- Kumioko ( talk) 19:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
... at the TFA blurb for Samuel Johnson's early life. I think it's better, hopefully you do as well. [10] -- Malleus Fatuorum 20:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi SG,
If you've the time, I've made a lengthy point here. Hillpna seems to be taking the expert approach to editing, which is interpreting the sources in a way I see as inappropriate. I think s/he has a point that bioidentical hormones do exist as something rarely discussed by either scientists or BHRT advocates, but I don't think wikipedia is the place to have that discussion. If you have the time, I fear my previous optimism was perhaps misplaced. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 01:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
It saddens me to say it, but I'm very much afraid that you and Moni3 have been proven right. Mattisse's advisors/mentors have not stepped up to the plate as we ought to have done. -- Malleus Fatuorum 18:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I want to add something on here, for perspective, because I don't recall if you (Malleus) were following my talk page back in the days of "we admins". [11] I know very well what it is to be legitimately targeted and attacked by a group of admins-- better than many editors. However, unlike Mattisse (who seems constitutionally unable to "bury the hatchet"), I dropped it, dug in, did my work, made myself useful, saw the futility in fighting a pack, and saved the diffs until the day they were needed. Had FeloniousMonk ( talk · contribs), at any point, simply retracted his unfair accusations about Marskell and Vickers and Tony1-- three editors who do not hide behind anonymity on Wiki-- I would have erased those diffs and forgotten the incident. He didn't; that eventually took care of itself. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
(undent) I hope you guys are all enjoying agreeing with each other. I disagree. There was never a "right" answer, and none of you had it, despite your very, very frequent assertions to the contrary. The goal was never to defend M., nor to punish her, but to help her to see the reality of Wikipedia—and then either live with it, or leave it. This is—by its nature— a very long-term project. I reject all of the analyses that assert otherwise. Ling.Nut ( talk) 05:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
It saddens me to see this blow up in the way it did, but I am absolutely not surprised. The behavior exhibited recently is the same as what people have been complaining about for years. The Arbcom hearing didn't really change anything, snd the level of disruption appears to be outweighing the level of good contributions recently. I expect Mattisse to be back in 2 weeks, and I further expect that she'll be back at Arbcom soon after. Karanacs ( talk) 15:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
If Mattisse were to return, particularly in light of her commentary after the block (which I find in many ways more problematic than the sockpuppetry), then regardless of what anyone else does, I will bring this situation to ArbCom. It's not healthy or tenable, and I can't believe it's what they had in mind when they closed the last case. I have a personal opinion on the proper course of action at this point, which is probably not overly difficult to discern. Regardless, if Mattisse returns to editing, something else needs to be in place, and it needs to be constructed by taking advantage of the hindsight and experience gained from this round of mentorship. MastCell Talk 19:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I have made it utterly plain in all of my contributions to this process and I will make it utterly plain again. Mattisse's plan was, has been, and remains (if she returns) her responsibility alone. She wrote it, Arbcom approved it, and it is up to her to live up to it, or not (as in this case), and suffer the consequences accordingly. Apparently some editors here have a different idea, sometimes based on completely different experiences, that her mentors are some sort of combination of a police force and social work group who follow her around, steering her clear of trouble and smacking her when she breaches her plan. In contrast, I have always, and continue, to view this mentorship as a resource for Mattisse to draw on when she needs it to help her stick to her plan. She did nothing of the sort in this case, yet within hours of her being blocked, editors who ought to know better start posting "I told you so's", how badly wrong it all went, how the mentors have not been doing their job, tarring them all with one brush in the process (and then making occasional exceptions for Malleus, as if to prove sweeping generalizations are not being made).
Sorry folks, I edit Wikipedia in my leisure time, and I have no desire to spend it stalking someone else's contributions. If anyone (e.g. Mattisse) wants my help, they can come to me, and I'm usually happy to do so. From reading this thread, one would think that Mattisse's sockpuppetry had catastrophically undermined the encyclopedia. I imagine Bishonen is laughing his head off. No damage there, then. Indeed, the handful of edits by Mattisse's socks did no damage to anyone except herself and she's done herself further damage by letting the outcome feed into her persecution complex.
The most damaging fall-out to the encyclopedia are threads like this, where editors who normally hold each other in great mutual respect try to unpick what went wrong and point fingers of blame over an issue that is a trifle compared with the many more important things that need to be done to improve this encyclopedia.
Enough. Geometry guy 21:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I have stated in multiple places that Mattisse's behaviour was utterly unacceptable. However, Bishonen, I apologize if I misread the sitation, and you were more personally affected than I had appreciated from my review of the edit histories. Geometry guy 00:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, biting the bullet. I guess it's clear that I believe there was a process failure here. Mattisse's block, if served for two weeks, expires Sept. 11. Would everyone be willing to take a new approach, and not re-open a new Arb for at least two weeks after that (Sept. 25)? And instead, get a system where she is really warned and blocked the second she violates her Plan, in the event she does? I don't believe she has been well served here, so I'm wondering if re-opening the Arb is the best course. Feel free to shoot me down if I'm wrong: I'm a hopeless Pollyanna. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Let me try to better explain my concerns:
1. Yes, while the blows hurt us just as they hurt any other editor, the truth is, editors like Bish, you and me can deal with those better than others. We need not be in a hurry: we need to get the best result.
2. I'd like to see a mentorship more like ATC's, where the combo of swift admin blocks backed by patient explanation of where she went wrong turned her into a productive editor. I've seen neither swift action, nor explanations of her frequent misunderstandings for Mattisse.
3. I put a wee bit of blame on ArbCom for accepting such an ill-defined plan ... the shortcomings were apparent to all of us who knew that Mattisse's issues occur over her grudge-bearing, but no one got on top of that, and a few of the mentors never saw it.
4. I always believed the biggest chance missed by ArbCom was that the mentors blocked the idea of a short break that was floated by NYB (which he did *not* call a block) for Mattisse. Some editors are more able than others to deal with the addictive potential of Wiki, and I'm holding out hope that she will gain perspective if the two-week block is served.
Beyond that, I say get some admins on board who will do whatever needs to be done. If she continues as she always has, the Arb gets re-opened on Sep 25, and the conclusion is likely foregone. But maybe the time off will result in change, and if it doesn't, swift admin action should prevent too much damage. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
There are several important points made above, and I welcome efforts to find a way around this conundrum. It is very difficult to find a workable solution that isn't tantamount to a ban. In this respect, let me point to the danger of entering into fantasy mentor land. When the mentor role is advisory, a resource for Mattisse to call on, it is appropriate and desirable for the mentors to include editors (like myself) with whom Mattisse has had past conflicts and those (like Malleus) who will not mince their words when she is on a destructive path. If a more active mentoring role is needed then we need to find mentors who
Where are such mentors going to come from? For instance I fail both 1 and 2. My RfA was based on a platform in which I stated that I would not use the block tool, and a statement to that effect remains on my user page; while I am happy to do what I can to help Mattisse get on better with the rest of the encyclopedia, I have always made it clear that I am only interested in doing so in an advisory capacity. If she screws up, either by not seeking advice (as in this case) or by not listening to advice, then she is likely heading for a block (as in this case), but not by me.
I don't wish only to accentuate the difficulties, though, so let me make one small positive proposal. If Mattisse decides to return to editing after her block, I would support a topic ban on all psychology related articles, for instance as an Arbcom motion. This may come as a surprise to some editors, as I have generally found Mattisse's comments on such articles to be informed and helpful with regard to content issues, and have taken them into account at GAR. However, that is only half the story. Having now seen several independent examples, it seems to me that, partly because of her expertise, her efforts to make her point lead to an emotional engagement that results in widespread devastation. If this one thing were removed from the equation, I imagine many of the conflicts that editors here have had with Mattisse would not be repeated. Geometry guy 20:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Based on Gguy's observations above, what do others think of something along these lines ?
1. Get an admin on board; based on the previous Arb findings, set up a series of escalating block provisions in case issues recur.
2. Specify a page where concerns can be lodged; the current Plan left it unclear how and where concerns should be lodged, and a few of the mentors appeared to beat back anyone who had concerns. For example, her Oppose of Johnson at TFA/R really raises eyebrows, and a neutral party should have been able to talk her through that.
3. In exchange for shortening the overall length of her block by five days, and to avoid another ArbCom (as a show of good faith, and J.delanoy would have to agree), Mattisse agrees not to review at GAN or FAC or submit to FAR or GAR psych articles or articles of editors with whom she has had previous conflict or targetted in the past (Fainites, Casliber, Moni3, Giano/Bish/George/Filiocht articles ... ??). I don't like the idea of a significant shortening of her block, because I really believe the forced time off could be helpful for her, but a few days would show good faith.
4. In order not to lose her input on psych article FACs and FARs, she is allowed to lodge her concerns on the associated talk pages of the FAC or FAR-- that should prevent the type of derailing that occurs when she gets emotionally involved? (Don't know how to fix that with GAR, as they occur on talk pages.)
I'm just thinking aloud ... again, feel free to shoot me down if I'm too Pollyanna. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
The "concerns" page is a good idea if this is going to work at all. It is totally impractical to expect another editor to monitor all the edits of someone as prolific as Mattisse. As for the list, many on the plague list come into that category. Fainites barley scribs 21:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Although I can't find the diff at the moment, Mattisse did say at the Arbcom proceedings that she was not willing to work with someone with the power to block her - that she would rather retire. The current plan was the limit of what she would agree to do. Karanacs ( talk) 22:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not really clear on the procedural issues here, but I suspect that if most of us can come to some sort of agreement, we would eventually propose it at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Then, considering her block, there would have to be some way for Mattisse to weigh in. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
(undent) That's fine, but let's skip the laborious pretense and just fucking ban her now. That would reflect integrity, indeed. Ling.Nut ( talk) 23:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
(undent) I was gonna say more, but I'll skip the more personal responses. the world keeps turning. :-) Mattise continually fights against feeling of powerlessness and/or persecution, and does so in a manner that is socially unacceptable. In order to help her, the entire community (or the significant majority thereof, and certainly everyone who has nay political capital to speak of) would have to embark on a rather long-term plan to do so. There is no desire to do so. I won't speculate on the motivations for this lack, aside from saying that they are not monolithic, and the degree to which they merit respect varies more than a little. But... there is nothing that can be done. Make your plans. As I said, I have no political capital left. G-guy, though rather harshly and undeservingly insulted, does. Perhaps he can help make sure the plans are not too hostile. That's all. Gotta go for today, and still really need to quit Wikipedia. Ling.Nut ( talk) 00:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
in the midst of a flurry of unnecessary drama,my wife is calling me to bed. really. You asked for concrete suggestions: I suggest that Sandy, Malleus and perhaps others have the good conscience to recuse themselves from any leadership roles or active input in the ArbCom that I am sure will happen soon, as they are not neutral, but rather hostile parties. G'night. Ling.Nut ( talk) 15:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Most of the translations of the plates in the gallery of The Disasters of War are taken from the Spanish article via Bablefish, so I'm not confident of them. A check from an editor proficient in Spanish would go a long way to easing my worries. Not urgent, but if you have time, sometime. Ceoil ( talk) 20:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
"Men will be boys"! Where does this stand now? Are you going to look for reliably-sourced translations, do you want me to do that, or should I work on them myself? (Tomorrow ... today was a very full day.) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think a link is necessary, as you don't need to revisit the FAC. I just wanna' let you know that Nev1 is already going to check the article out, hopefully by the end of tomorrow, so that works out perfectly. Thanks for your help, as always, Sandy. ceran thor 01:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC) '
Hi SandyGeorgia,
I looked at
WP:FAC/ar, but did the Bot add everything and do I need to put any tags up on the discussion page for
The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie yet?
If the Bot didn't put a tag that the article has been approved by FAC and by
User:Raul654. Does that meant it wont be; also is their a certain amount of time to help the following fix up before the discussion is closed?
Because I don't think I fixed everything that
User:Matthewedwards had requested to fix, because his time is limited because he put up a template that said: he is moving and doesn't have an internet connection.
Thanx!
ATC .
Talk
17:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)