...and a happy new year from me too! May 2012 bring more sanity to this place :) Geometry guy 00:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
...and a happy new year from me too! Glad to see you editing TS again. Wishing you and your TPS more content and less drama in 2012. Colin° Talk 12:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)== Your Arbitration evidence is too long ==
Hello, SandyGeorgia. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Civility enforcement Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, of User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Words words and User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Diffs diffs maximum, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 569 words and 6 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ArbClerkBOT( talk) 00:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Previously you've mentioned IRC. The relevant IRC channel (freenode#wikipedia-en-admins) appears to only keep private logs available to the Arbitrators: Per their off-wiki spiel. Would you like to go halves in requesting by motion that arbitrators seek and examine such logs (as the off-wiki organisation accords them this power?) The same availability of "secret" logs may be true for other "official" IRC channels that nominally discuss en wikipedia. Fifelfoo ( talk) 22:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. If I understand correctly, the fact that I have the page watchlisted means I probably saw the comment in question. Unfortunately, I have too many pages on my watchlist to follow every edit. I've got over 3500 user pages on my watchlist out of a total of 14,646 pages. I barely notice what people post to my own user talk page, much less what's posted elsewhere (though I occasionally see and respond to postings I do notice). Anyway, best of luck with your case and happy new year. Will Beback talk 00:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay, just in simple words, why am I cited on an Arbcom case that has nothing to do with me? The Rambling Man ( talk) 22:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi SandyGeorgia, FYI, I have nominated Franco-Mongol alliance for FA status. Because of our past interactions, it is probably best though if you are not involved with the nom, thanks. Best wishes and Happy New Year, -- El on ka 19:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry but my eyes suck - I can't see the difference between an emdash and an endash. Can you or a TPS scan this page to see whether the dashes are emdashes or endashes (they look like emdashes to me), and let me know so I can strike this very minor MoS issue. Thanks. Truthkeeper ( talk) 23:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
You can find them on the "Insert" line below your edit window. So, go to the article, in edit mode, edit copy one of those, then edit paste it to do a ctrl-f find on endashes, then another on emdashes, then another on hyphens. That way, even if your "eyes" can't see them, your computer will tell you which they are :) In this case, my preliminary look says we're good. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Could you please check my update of Wikipedia:Featured article statistics from the 1st - I just worry if no one double checks it for any stupid mistakes I might have made. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Looks good-- not sure what we can do to get the FAR folk to archive at month-end, though, since that link is typically red. I've raised it before, so maybe they're not concerned. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
To you as well, Sandy! [1] If there's ever a FAC genuinely in the lurch, drop me a message and I'll try to stop by. Эlcobbola talk 18:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
About what I said on the FAC talk page, I hope I didn't offend you at all. You really are doing a wonderful job, and don't often get enough credit. I was wondering, is there anything else I should do for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Typhoon Gay (1992)/archive1? --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 03:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Spotchecks completed, ready for takeoff! Sasata ( talk) 17:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The discussion I started [3] is out of control. I feel IP 96.49.3.223 has crossed the line. I'm making a call to action to stop this IP from personal attacks against people with AS. That is what IP is doing and it is insulting as hell. Please address this at the talk page or feel free to visit my talk.-- Djathinkimacowboy BUCKSHOT 12:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
is the use of the "alt" tag still a considered a good practice on images? — Ched : ? 16:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Your attention is requested here: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Reshoot_of_Yogo_sapphires. PumpkinSky talk 23:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, SandyGeorgia. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumastan ( talk • contribs) 03:41, January 9, 2012
Seems like a Kobayashi Maru type scenario to me SG. I don't really think there is anything to say. But I'll try. Prodego talk 05:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Congratz! You won. You have insulted me and my lack of knowledg on effectively opening some sort of come back has left me wasted. It is a true shame that no one will see the true you. You have not come out right, but do not think I did not sense the tone of your messages towards me, and quite frankly, I dont care anymore. If I may speak freely, you are ill-mannered and rude, and if I may not speak freely, go a head and report me, you have effectively made me lose interest in trying to help wikipedia. I hope you feel some sort of satisfaction, else everything would have been in vain. I hope you do see the error of your ways and start behaving a bit more civilly, but I guess you dont care how you come off to others. Well, have a nice day and I am sorry for having had bothered you with my "complaints". Cristiano Tomás ( talk) 05:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey Sandy, I took the liberty of expanding the SP's coverage of the recent kerfuffle over at FAC, as I didn't think TCO's failed RfC deserved half the coverage, with your resignation getting the other half. Would you take a look and ensure I haven't misrepresented your views in any way, shape, or form? I think I have them all correct, but I'd rather address any issues before publication. I don't normally write for the SP but I assume it's a bit easier beforehand. ;-) The link is here. Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Things like this [5] really do make me think that it's about time that someone started an RfC on the Signpost and its role on Wikipedia. Before it ends up in an AbrCom case. It's becoming more and more of a forum for particular editors to pursue grudges, has de facto abandoned any pretense of journalistic objectivity while still trying to maintain an image of impartiality and has ... generally gone to the dogs. It's been getting worse and worse. Part of the problem is just plain ol' lack of competition (it's the only Wikipedia "newspaper") and part of it is just the regular Wikipedia phenomenon that "that which is not actively defended and improved depreciates towards crap over time". VolunteerMarek 02:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Sandy, I got an e.c. with The ed; in any case, I've got to close down my puter and take it back to the techs for the third time in four days, so it's not a good time for me. Please liaise with The ed if you think the story is not balanced after he has finished. Tony (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey Sandy - don't drive yourself crazy over the ANI thread. Go get a good night's sleep, spend tomorrow doing something relaxing, and come back in a couple days feeling better. Raul654 ( talk) 06:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
[6] Lara 04:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Are access dates mandatory for book citations with a URL? The article in question is Tony Award for Best Featured Actor in a Play. Thanks. Albacore ( talk) 21:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, you know that with edit summaries like this you are just giving me more diffs, right? [7] -- El on ka 01:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Elonka, you are painting yourself in a very poor light here. Instead of having the grace to say "oh, sorry I misunderstood" when Sandy explained the self reference, you ignored her response and moved on to to the next accusation. I encourage you to think seriously about modeling the behavior you hope to encourage. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 02:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, you may not have noticed, but I asked you a couple weeks ago, very nicely I thought, to please avoid my FMA FAC, so I was a bit surprised to see you suddenly start participating there today. It's really probably best if we both try to disengage from interacting with each other, thanks. -- El on ka 22:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I have responded to your issues at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Turning Point (2008)/archive4.-- Will C 23:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The reply I gave on the talk page I am a little uneasy with. While I wanted to alert the user concerning the Talk page not being a forum, I also felt it inadequate to only reply with 'not a forum' and that there should be at least a brief answer to his question to end the thread with. I gave a brief answer, but I feel it is overly simplified (I'm not too comfortable with giving incomplete answers that might lead to a false impression). The other thing I was uneasy with was giving an answer rather than just 'not a forum' (so I'm generally conflicted on my reply in whole). My question is did I — in your opinion — reply in a proper WP way, or should I have answered that differently. Your thoughts/criticism/recommendations greatly appreciated. — al-Shimoni ( talk) 00:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Is there really a problem with the image gallery? A user has revered it back feeling that it fits WP:IG. LittleJerry ( talk) 11:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Image galleries are typically discouraged, but that's a matter for reviewer consensus, and discussion belongs on the FAC, not on my talk page. IMO, image galleries are sometimes appropriate-- for instance, in an article about a painting or a series of paintings or where the images are what the article is about. That is precisely what "may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images" speaks to, and is not the case for giraffe. In this case, IMO, it's just adornment, adds nothing to the article (don't we all know what giraffes look like), and accomplishes nothing that can't be seen in the Commons category. They also set up issues as occurred at the Lion FA, where everyone and their brother wants to add their favorite picture. We aren't a picture book, we're an encyclopedia, and images should be carefully selected to display our best work, not a picture book. The text is cluttered with pictures, and text is squeezed where it is sandwiched between images (and that's against MOS). But that's just my opinion, as one editor, and consensus is formed where the discussion of that belongs-- on the FAC. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
FYI, I saw this and this, but Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr./archive1 has no {{FACClosed|promoted}} tag, so it's still technically open? :) María ( yllo submarine) 15:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, I've finished reviewing here and am pinging as requested. Cheers, Sasata ( talk) 17:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sandy. Just wanted to let you know that I've done a few "technical" reviews of the longer-running FACs, found a surprising number of issues. Anyway, if you wanted me to focus on any FAC in particular when reviewing against MOS etc (in particular articles which incorporate lists, such as highway or wrestling articles) then don't hesitate to ping me. Naturally, I'm a bit of an impostor at FAC so if my intrusions are unwelcome (I'm sure some of the comments will be unpalatable, but hey) then let me know, but hopefully I'm net-gaining the project. All the best. The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Stanford University, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Stanford University. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! |
ralphamale ( talk) 22:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
[12]. Anyone got a shilling for the meter? Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd be more than happy to talk Sandy. I'll even offer an apology if you're willing to accept it. I never meant to hurt anyone's feelings. I never meant to "taunt" .. I was only trying to stop the fighting. Now if you want to chew me out for that - then feel free. If you want me to never again post to your page, then I'll honor that request as well. go ahead. — Ched : ? 00:28, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
So, back on topic. There's a lot to talk about here, so rather than dig in to the beginning and answer each of your questions (yes, I do think you abused of someone, but that's water under the bridge, so let's try to work backwards to some sort of understanding) and all that is wrong with ANI and how it doesn't typically do anything helpful, often escalates disputes, I'll instead start at the end, where you said you "just wanted the fighting to stop". You admit you know little of FAC, and yet several times during the discussion, you made statements critical of FAC like "No wonder people stay away". Do you think it fair to make statements like that about a place you know little of, and without knowing who is agitating, creating the impression of a leadership crisis, creating and fomenting the discord, alienating FA writers and reviewers alike, and for what purpose? Or let me put it this way ... have you given any thought to just who might be benefiting from making it look like there are problems at FAC? Hint: consider who is looking for someone else's "job" compared to who resigned so they could get back to editing. Who doesn't want the fighting to stop? If you can answer that, you might understand why ANI never resolves disputes. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
First, please don't start yelling at me. I will talk. I will listen. As I said from the get go, if I messed up then I'm sorry. AN and ANI are places where it's a "quick - put out the fire" area, and that's the way it's been for ages. And perhaps I was wrong to try to stop the arguing (I don't know), but let's be a bit more accurate please ... I might have said "bang - bang" .. but I never pulled the gun out of the holster, let alone pulled the trigger - can ya please give me some credit for that? huh? Geesh .. I didn't even close the thread. I didn't even make a smart remark at the couple responses to my efforts. Just because there are a lot of admins. that think "admin" is something special, doesn't mean I do. I'm supposed to be helping you, I'm here by your authority - and it's something I'm keenly aware of. Yes, I played the game for the popularity contest, I admit that. I didn't realize as much then as I do now. It wasn't a deliberate attempt to get some faux power on some website. It was an honest desire to want to do good things here. I didn't realize all the stigma that went with it, and I doubt I'd ever do it again. But don't shut me out .. please. Ask Malleus, well .. maybe some other time when he's not being so beat upon and kicked and stabbed in the back would be better ... but he may tell you that I'm an idiot, he may tell you he doesn't particularly care for me - but I think he'd tell you that I am an honest, and a fair person. — Ched : ? 02:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
No, ANI wasn't always that way-- in 2006 and 2007 it was a very deliberative place, but we had more adults around then. Now it's got the attention span of an average 16-yo (and that has extended even to the adults) ... maybe because of declining editorship we are ALL overworked, and that includes admins, who want quick fixes. Well, maybe you think that you threatened to block but didn't is a good thing to do-- did you do that on purpose, or did someone talk you down before you pulled the trigger? I'm not shutting you out-- I'm trying to get folks to understand how badly broken ANI is, and how that destroys editors like Malleus and has made Wikipedia a horrid place. Maybe if I can get through to one person, it will get better. Bottom line: not everyone wanted the fighting to stop. Some are agitating for it because destabilizing FAC makes it look like there's a problem and hence will lead others to think they need to throw out Raul. Understanding complex conflicts before weighing in on them is a good thing. Things aren't always what those involved present at ANI, and it takes more than a few hours to get to the bottom of things. Again-- what happened to the concept of consensus? Read that ANI thread now, and tell me there weren't plenty of people saying FAC is being disrupted. So, it still is ... no thanks to ANI. Best, going to bed now, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Waiting on you, both of us responded. :) Gotta take the Jeopardy! online test in a few minutes though, so we'll see. Mitch32( Never support those who think in the box) 00:50, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm apoplectic about this proposed remedy; ArbCom cases certainly seem to ferret out the arseholes.
I've just seen your FAC comment at Beyoncé's "Halo". I came up against the same problem with chart numbers in text in her previous FAC, "Put a Ring on it", and I came to the conclusion that chart positions should always be given in digits, not words. IIRC I went through and made that change but got reverted. It's a difficult article to keep on track copyedit-wise, as the text has been insufficiently stable. Malleus Fatuorum 18:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestions. Clearly, I share an interest with the user you mentioned, though counter to what you seem to be suggesting, this is my only account. I am quite capable of backing up my qualifications.
It seems that you have misunderstood/misused the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), as it states not that primary sources should be deleted, but that they should be improved with the addition of reviews or textbook sources. In addition to the fact that it explicitly states that primary research is acceptable when no reviews exist. I have published papers in these areas, and I can assure you, no reviews or secondary sources exist to address many of the changes you deleted.
Censoring of primary peer-reviewed university peformed and published objective research is counterproductive for the furthering of scientific knowledge. If you think an objective peer-reviewed citation is insufficient, then improve it. NutritionalNeuroscientist ( talk) 19:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
So after saying what a mild winter it's been before my latest trip down to Vegas...I wake up to 3" of snow outside before the 9 hour drive through the desert! As I shoveled that snow on monday, it hit me..."Sandy must have cancelled her ski trip!", Mountains are loaded with powder now and we're expecting more tomorrow! DOH!-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 10:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Greetings Sandy. Hope everything is going well for you. I saw this note here. Hmm, I was a bit confused and want to ask you if I can request people to do the spotcheck? Jivesh1205 ( Talk) 05:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. This FAC was recently closed, but the issues raised in the FAC are fixed or answered, where some comments are invalid. I am unsure what I possibly can do before another FAC. What do you think? Would PR be a good option? -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
[14]. Giacomo Returned 18:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I feel you archived this to early, as I have finished all the points listed. :) Mayhem Mario 18:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
indicates that peer review might be a better place to pursue article development. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)A complete audit by an independent editor will be needed, to check for plagiarism and mis-attribution
The Content Review Medal of Merit | ||
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured article reviews for the period October–December 2011, I am delighted to award you the Content Review Medal. Buggie111 ( talk) 17:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC) |
Thanks for helping | ||
Thanks for your help getting W. E. B. Du Bois promoted to FA status. He was a great man, and deserves a great article. -- Noleander ( talk) 03:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC) |
The Special Barnstar | |
Thanks for all the help with Poppy Meadow! Mayhem Mario 20:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC) |
I had a couple questions:
thanks, — Ched : ? 18:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
FAC loses a lot in losing you as a delegate, but I am full of admiration for the work you have done there, and for your dedication to Wikipedia in general. Your heartfelt desire to make the best positive impact you can in whatever way you can, in the face of the many challenges Wikipedia faces, is inspiring. Geometry guy 05:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Goddamn motherfucking cocksucking son of a bitch fuckface shit shit shit twatdiddling fuckdamn. -- Moni3 ( talk) 14:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I've been biting my tongue for about a week, and unfortunately am very aware how this started and where it came from. I thought you've shown great fortitude in the face of intolerable hostility. You've dealt with it better than I could have any day - but I'm only a thinskinned wiki writer, you're the one who makes the hard decisions. Personally I'd like you to reconsider. I think being forced into something like this is a bad way to go, but if it's what you feel is right then grudgingly I'll tell you good luck. Truthkeeper ( talk) 14:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I was very pleased to see you and Graham on my watchlist in the new year editing your FAs keep them tip top. I'm so glad your edit on my talk page was "I'm back!" rather than "I'm gone!" even though you were announcing your resignation. My mind boggles to think how many (thousands of?) hours you must have spent on this over the four years. To commit that much time as an unpaid volunteer is amazing. Over 1400 promotions? That's a heck of a lot of judging consensus. Bravo! Colin° Talk 15:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm really sorry to see this. Your work at FAC has been perceptive, tactful and insistent - a set of qualities rarely combined. Gimmetoo ( talk) 23:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Dear Sandy,
I have been shown in the files on the Military history Project a statement from a member of our current coordinator tranche that you are to be retiring from your position within the next 30 days. I understand how powerless we are in the face of these changing times on Wikipedia, and I know that all good things must eventually end, yet I can not refrain from posting here my admiration of your skills and conduct while you were working as an FAC delegate, nor the sorrow I feel as our community loses yet another skilled volunteer due to project apathy. In my eyes, you represent that which is greatest in us all, and I consider myself honored to have received your input on the articles I ran through FAC. Wherever you will go, and whatever you do, I wish you the best of luck and fortune, and pray that you always remain faithful to yourself and and your beliefs.
Your sincerely and respectfully,
TomStar81 (
Talk)
10:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure how exactly to respond, but I do know this much: FAC has lost an extraordinary editor. Among all the turmoil that plagues Wikipedia from time to time, you have always been a rock, Sandy. Thanks for all that you've done, and give 'em hell. Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Sandy, I always really respected and admired your work at FAC a lot. The rigour that you brought to the process has kept the level of new FAs very high. And thank you for your guidance during the FACs I was involved in. I'm sorry to see you leave your post as an FAC delegate. But I'm also happy for you that now you're going to have time to work on medical articles. I'm sure that's going to be great for you to just be free to do lots of fun editing without having to worry about the responsibilities of FAC. Good luck with all your future projects! Moisejp ( talk) 05:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Happy New Year. I just wanted to thank you for all the great work you have done at FA over the years (and all the help you have given me), and I hope we get to work on some articles together soon. I hope you have been able to spend more time on writing that is enjoyable for you. All the best! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Bleh my mistake, I didn't see the full history that went back months ago. I thought the recent attack on FAC by TCO and friends had slightly to do with the Malleus ArbCom case because of his involvement with FAC and the bullshit claims (which I heard from quite a number of users, including administrators who should know better) of "favoritism" in the FAC reviewing. Also I been a bit out of touch with the FAC community, as I never seen such drama in the FAC talk page, and this being discussed the same time as the Malleus case, it seemed like it was radical editors adding fuel to everything Malleus is involved with. We are here to build an serious encyclopedia first and foremost, and not drive away our best editors and article writers or attacking our policies and guidelines. Some users obviously don't seem to get the point and need to stop.
It's very sad to see you leave FAC, as you are the no nonsense editor this very important process needed, and you are among the best in reading consensus and understanding policies. Enjoy being a regular editor and I hope you still leave your feedback on certain FACs.
As for me I'm going to participate in FAC more often, including image reviewing and online source/fact checking (though not much in prose as that's a weakness). I couldn't in the past few years because of my poor health and my online spottiness but I have more time this year. Thanks Secret account 07:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
Awarded for your considerable service to Wikipedia, especially for your work at WP:FAC. Jezhotwells ( talk) 16:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC) |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
given with respect and admiration to SandyGeorgia for all your work on Wikipedia, especially that upholding standards and especially at WP:FAC. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC) |
It's been a while Sandy, but I'm sorry to see the recent FA circumstances. Anyway, I just want to thank you for all you've done in helping with The Texas Chain Saw Massacre FACs, even if it wasn't ultimately promoted for, like the 6th time? :) You were great in helping out the article.-- Tærkast ( Discuss) 17:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Sandy...we haven't always agreed of course, less so lately than I'd like. However, I have always appreciated your efforts in the past to do some copyediting on my FAC's and to provide a generally neutral assessment of my research and especially my admittedly mediocre quality prose. If indeed, as you have stated, we have a core topic area that is suffering with an influx of inaccurate data and your time would be better spent helping to correct that issue, then, as one who is primarily a researcher, I applaud your desires to refocus your energies towards helping ensure we maintain reliability and accuracy in our articles...I have always believed that such is far more important than prose, even in at the FA level, though I recognize that it is prose that is a determining factor (and should be) for any bronze star.-- MONGO 18:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I just saw. Sorry to see you leave, you were great in that role. At the same time I can see how it is a lot like herding cats and can be a bit much. Good luck, it will probably be more enjoyable to edit without the stress and headaches from FAC.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 11:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The Resilient Barnstar | |
For all your hard work on FAC, you definitely deserve more than this, but presenting you with this barnstar is the least I can do. Remember ( talk) 14:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC) |
for all your work on FAC, good luck on the medical articles Tom B ( talk) 17:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to hear about all the frustrations at FAC, with the state of medical articles and all. :( I can't thank you enough for your contributions in keeping the FAC process going and raising the quality. I hope to get back to doing more FA writing and reviewing at some point. I am also curious and hopeful efforts like WP Medicine Translation Task force (80 articles to GA or FA) can be helpful, though not sure what I can personally do to help with that. All the best. -- Aude ( talk) 04:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Sandy, a recent edit by Lecen caught my attention. I've started an ANI thread about it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Unacceptable edit. You may wish not to get involved (as may become clear once you see the edits in question), but I thought you should be aware of the edits made and the ANI thread. I'm aware there is quite a bit of background to this, and have seen it rumbling on over several talk pages, but these latest edits crossed the line as far as I'm concerned. I'm going to check back in an hour or so to see what the situation is then. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Update: Agree with Manning, best to let things calm down right now. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, Lecen appears to be accepting his block. I am participating only to put out the fires. Hence I am requesting that we all just allow this matter to die down. If Lecen (a) redacts and apologises for his conduct and (b) presents a formal grievance of some kind about your alleged wrongdoings, then we can proceed to examine the matter objectively (with full consideration given to the arguments from both sides, naturally). Until then, there is nothing to be done, and nothing to be achieved by talking about it further. Regards Manning ( talk) 01:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Can I please have link to the request, [16]? Thanks. Truthkeeper ( talk) 18:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
and here:Update: Agree with Manning, best to let things calm down right now. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, Lecen appears to be accepting his block. I am participating only to put out the fires. Hence I am requesting that we all just allow this matter to die down. If Lecen (a) redacts and apologises for his conduct and (b) presents a formal grievance of some kind about your alleged wrongdoings, then we can proceed to examine the matter objectively (with full consideration given to the arguments from both sides, naturally). Until then, there is nothing to be done, and nothing to be achieved by talking about it further. Regards Manning ( talk) 01:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Noting removals for archival purposes:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
So how much source checking do you what before you check it out? LittleJerry ( talk) 20:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
The citation bot that was run in Kolkata inserted the following in several citations : ref=harv|postscript=!-- Bot inserted parameter. Either remove it; or change its value to "." for the cite to end in a ".", as necessary. --{{ inconsistent citations}}}}
What does this mean? How to correct this? Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 03:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I gave him IPBE. Despite having only opened the account a week ago, he seems to have amassed enough productive edits, and this is just easier than trying to figure out a way through the rangeblock. Daniel Case ( talk) 04:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that I've pinged you and I wish you all the best. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I think you gonna like this. And don't resignate of nothing, that is what they want. The trouble is that these guys came, I think, more or less all from vulgar genealogy sites, and they have all the respectiv defects.
Abraço, Saint George, also known by Jorge alo ( talk) 09:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Adam/Shoe cited Learned Hand; Alarbus et al cleaned up citations and sources when new account. Adam/Shoe and Wehwalt have a long-standing nexus on theatre/opera articles. Adam from UK; Alarbus mentions folks from US being puritanical. Adam/Shoe had a dispute with Durova, who shows up at MilHist about a Portuguese conflict (wha?) in the midst of all of this. And there's more ... but I digress ... the real question is, why did Alarbus create multiple socks, why is he behind "Wehwalt for FA director", and is he abiding by CLEANSTART or evading scrutiny to take on FAC after a dispute over Featured Lists and Sounds on the mainpage? I'd sure like to hear from The Rambling Man. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Just as a point of information, the SOPA blackout was implemented via javascript, not a template, and Alarbus evidently wrote {{ Blackout}} in order to blackout his own user and user talk pages, not for anything else. Geometry guy 01:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
In the discussion about Elvis Presley as TFA you wrote that it is too long. I agree that articles should not be too long. Would you be for a definite ceiling as FA criterion? My main interest here is (of course) that I think it would take less effort to write and maintain a shorter text. But as you say, there is also the aspect that more text and images waste the time of the person waiting for them to load. There is also the server and data transport costs for Wikimedia. My intuition is that on average people read a very small percentage of the longest articles (per download). -- Ettrig ( talk) 19:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey Sandy I am hopeless when it comes to prose. Wondering if you knew of someone who could help me here at the GAN for Hepatitis C http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hepatitis_C/GA1#GA_Review
Thanks Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, I was wondering whether you'd be interested in this? Kind Regards -- Marek. 69 talk 19:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, so as you have de-promoted and re-promoted the article, you might want to have a look at the talk page for a request to promote the article to A class again. ~~ Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 20:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I was just wondering if there was anything that was preventing Turning Point (2008) from being promoted? Judging from the review pages, it seems to be ready to promote.-- Will C 09:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The article about the Alexander technique (about improving movement efficacy and relieving pain through better posture) needs work. It combines a lot of true-believerism and a smattering of reference to scientific studies. Kiefer. Wolfowitz 15:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
What are the requirements for source spot-checking and is this something anyone can help with? If I review an FA, what proportion of citations should I check for it to be considered properly spot-checked? How much information should I then post to the FAC page? Spinning Spark 11:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi SG. May we discuss your recent revert?
Personally, I think that the portal at the start of the References section looks a little odd. Usually it's in the See also section if one exists, I understand. Moreover, having it in the Refs section means each of the 200 lines that follow it are squashed to the left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trafford09 ( talk • contribs) 19:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Hence, why not have a See also section? I'm aware some may view having a See also section as a slight on the quality of an article, but that's not a view I subscribe to much.
Now, isn't the idea of a See also section to bring to the reader's attention articles which relate to the article, but weren't mentioned on the page itself? I'd argue that a percentage of readers of the AS page may wish to follow the lead to the 2 articles I included.
You say there there are scores of books on AS. That may well be so, but there is just one notable enough to have its own WP article, with AS in its title. Unless there's a deluge of books being added, I think that the one book does some good - to a percentage of readers.
I'd be interested to read your views, though.
BTW, which part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles did I not adhere to?
Best wishes, Trafford09 ( talk) 19:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The India Barnstar | ||
Given to SandyGeorgia for your hard work reviewing Kolkata FARC, given now independent of the outcome. AshLin ( talk) 05:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC) |
OK, re-thinking the whole argument, I still think it's huey (and tossed around often as a cover for the fact that Way Too Many Editors these days are simply looking for baubles for their talk page, rather than collaborating). I don't think it's because so much content has already been addresssed: I do think it's because too many editors are engaged in the Reward culture. Look at all of the articles in these samples that are start or C-class, and could at least be raised to B-class easily:
Or take your pick from Category:Lists of popular pages by WikiProject-- I list Medicine because I work there, and MilHist because Medal of Honor is at WP:FAR, I pinged them, and no one cares. And Psychology because-- with the exception of Casliber and Fainites-- they've never written an FA (most FAs tagged as Psych were written by medicine editors, and the rest of the Project is a mess). There is still plenty of work that can be done in here; going for the easy rewards is what motivates many contemporary editors here, and that simply wasn't the case to such an extent in past years, IMO. There is less work at FAR now because there's no "bauble" to display on one's user page or contest to be won-- that wasn't the concern at FAR in 2006 thru 2009. In other words, I still dislike the Reward Culture and what it's done to Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
So, back to FAR: I looked at another area I work (just as an example of what "dismal" looks like, and how much more can still be done and why I think that meme is huey-- Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Popular pages (seriously, Angels Falls or Tepui can't be improved by anyone???) -- but that led me to next look here:
where the two most popular FAs (which are waaaaay down the page) are 1) a Marskell FA (not Brasil at all, but Mr. FAR and FAC), and 2) a medical article written by WT:MED and restored at ... FAR! The discussion was about FAR ... that we used to work hard to restore work, even if no "baubles" were accrued. Has nothing to do with page views, except that page happens to list each article, where other assessment pages don't seem to-- at least not that I can find. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
While the city's name has always been pronounced "Kolkatā" or "Kolikatā" in Bengali, (I don't know how to fix this, but these spellings give us no idea of the pronunciation they reference)...
Do you suggest IPA pronunciation should be given? How about audio files? Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 16:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
An comment at the PR reads: "Per SandyGeorgia at Kolkata, reference titles should either all be in sentence case, or they should all be in title case". Just wanted to clarify about this. The capitalization styles of books differs and at Ahalya, it is as printed. So should I change it? Any wiki-policy about this? -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you... but it's just that I missed the "two weeks window" part of WP:FAC, and restarted a nom after just 2 days - me and another user just finished the copyedit, and after all the previous one was killed partly because the only Oppose in that would not answer me. Is it okay to keep the nom or it's better for me to wait? igordebraga ≠ 23:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Would love to see you come and join us here Wikipedia:MED/Translation_project :-) -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm mulling over a potential dispatch on FPOC writing. In the meantime perhaps you could tell me how close Hawaii hotspot looks to sticking (round four sometime in the future). Cheers, Res Mar 02:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I took a stab at a Dispatch. It's not nearly finished, as the bulk of it remains to be written (what's there right now is just some introductory material), but I feel as though we can get this published in the next week's Signpost. I'm hoping a Dispatch could help users get used to writing Featured portals, and perhaps draw some more attention to the process. Res Mar 04:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm "tendering" this for publication next week, but probably as a special report, because I'm one of those dirty "caterers" who wants to put the silliness that is FCDW behind themselves. Although perhaps not as enthusiastically and frantically as Sven had, hehe. Res Mar 02:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I can tell you are busy, but I’m looking for someone who has a better critical eye than I have, and you are my first choice.
I ran into User:Beebuk a year and a half ago, when he was working on some articles as a new editor, and running into some challenges from other editors. He specializes in pantomine related topics, an area I know very little about. (And I’m not presuming you do have or do not have expertise in this area, I’m looking for your expertise as an editor)
He recently asked me to take a look at Pedrolino. I’m happy to note that he is well beyond the basics, so I am struggling to be helpful. I offered some comments at Comments_on_Pedrolino, but I realize I need the big guns. If you could find the time to make a few comments, it would be appreciated.
As an aside, I plan to work on bringing some articles to GA and FA eventually, but in my area of interest, the low-hanging fruit is still ungathered, so I confess to lack of knowledge of those areas. That said, I’m surprised to see Pedrolino as start class, and Charles Deburau as C class. I wonder what I’m missing, as both articles seem well written to me.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
...and a happy new year from me too! May 2012 bring more sanity to this place :) Geometry guy 00:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
...and a happy new year from me too! Glad to see you editing TS again. Wishing you and your TPS more content and less drama in 2012. Colin° Talk 12:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)== Your Arbitration evidence is too long ==
Hello, SandyGeorgia. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Civility enforcement Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, of User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Words words and User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Diffs diffs maximum, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 569 words and 6 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ArbClerkBOT( talk) 00:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Previously you've mentioned IRC. The relevant IRC channel (freenode#wikipedia-en-admins) appears to only keep private logs available to the Arbitrators: Per their off-wiki spiel. Would you like to go halves in requesting by motion that arbitrators seek and examine such logs (as the off-wiki organisation accords them this power?) The same availability of "secret" logs may be true for other "official" IRC channels that nominally discuss en wikipedia. Fifelfoo ( talk) 22:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. If I understand correctly, the fact that I have the page watchlisted means I probably saw the comment in question. Unfortunately, I have too many pages on my watchlist to follow every edit. I've got over 3500 user pages on my watchlist out of a total of 14,646 pages. I barely notice what people post to my own user talk page, much less what's posted elsewhere (though I occasionally see and respond to postings I do notice). Anyway, best of luck with your case and happy new year. Will Beback talk 00:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay, just in simple words, why am I cited on an Arbcom case that has nothing to do with me? The Rambling Man ( talk) 22:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi SandyGeorgia, FYI, I have nominated Franco-Mongol alliance for FA status. Because of our past interactions, it is probably best though if you are not involved with the nom, thanks. Best wishes and Happy New Year, -- El on ka 19:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry but my eyes suck - I can't see the difference between an emdash and an endash. Can you or a TPS scan this page to see whether the dashes are emdashes or endashes (they look like emdashes to me), and let me know so I can strike this very minor MoS issue. Thanks. Truthkeeper ( talk) 23:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
You can find them on the "Insert" line below your edit window. So, go to the article, in edit mode, edit copy one of those, then edit paste it to do a ctrl-f find on endashes, then another on emdashes, then another on hyphens. That way, even if your "eyes" can't see them, your computer will tell you which they are :) In this case, my preliminary look says we're good. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Could you please check my update of Wikipedia:Featured article statistics from the 1st - I just worry if no one double checks it for any stupid mistakes I might have made. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Looks good-- not sure what we can do to get the FAR folk to archive at month-end, though, since that link is typically red. I've raised it before, so maybe they're not concerned. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
To you as well, Sandy! [1] If there's ever a FAC genuinely in the lurch, drop me a message and I'll try to stop by. Эlcobbola talk 18:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
About what I said on the FAC talk page, I hope I didn't offend you at all. You really are doing a wonderful job, and don't often get enough credit. I was wondering, is there anything else I should do for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Typhoon Gay (1992)/archive1? --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 03:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Spotchecks completed, ready for takeoff! Sasata ( talk) 17:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The discussion I started [3] is out of control. I feel IP 96.49.3.223 has crossed the line. I'm making a call to action to stop this IP from personal attacks against people with AS. That is what IP is doing and it is insulting as hell. Please address this at the talk page or feel free to visit my talk.-- Djathinkimacowboy BUCKSHOT 12:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
is the use of the "alt" tag still a considered a good practice on images? — Ched : ? 16:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Your attention is requested here: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Reshoot_of_Yogo_sapphires. PumpkinSky talk 23:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, SandyGeorgia. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumastan ( talk • contribs) 03:41, January 9, 2012
Seems like a Kobayashi Maru type scenario to me SG. I don't really think there is anything to say. But I'll try. Prodego talk 05:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Congratz! You won. You have insulted me and my lack of knowledg on effectively opening some sort of come back has left me wasted. It is a true shame that no one will see the true you. You have not come out right, but do not think I did not sense the tone of your messages towards me, and quite frankly, I dont care anymore. If I may speak freely, you are ill-mannered and rude, and if I may not speak freely, go a head and report me, you have effectively made me lose interest in trying to help wikipedia. I hope you feel some sort of satisfaction, else everything would have been in vain. I hope you do see the error of your ways and start behaving a bit more civilly, but I guess you dont care how you come off to others. Well, have a nice day and I am sorry for having had bothered you with my "complaints". Cristiano Tomás ( talk) 05:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey Sandy, I took the liberty of expanding the SP's coverage of the recent kerfuffle over at FAC, as I didn't think TCO's failed RfC deserved half the coverage, with your resignation getting the other half. Would you take a look and ensure I haven't misrepresented your views in any way, shape, or form? I think I have them all correct, but I'd rather address any issues before publication. I don't normally write for the SP but I assume it's a bit easier beforehand. ;-) The link is here. Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Things like this [5] really do make me think that it's about time that someone started an RfC on the Signpost and its role on Wikipedia. Before it ends up in an AbrCom case. It's becoming more and more of a forum for particular editors to pursue grudges, has de facto abandoned any pretense of journalistic objectivity while still trying to maintain an image of impartiality and has ... generally gone to the dogs. It's been getting worse and worse. Part of the problem is just plain ol' lack of competition (it's the only Wikipedia "newspaper") and part of it is just the regular Wikipedia phenomenon that "that which is not actively defended and improved depreciates towards crap over time". VolunteerMarek 02:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Sandy, I got an e.c. with The ed; in any case, I've got to close down my puter and take it back to the techs for the third time in four days, so it's not a good time for me. Please liaise with The ed if you think the story is not balanced after he has finished. Tony (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey Sandy - don't drive yourself crazy over the ANI thread. Go get a good night's sleep, spend tomorrow doing something relaxing, and come back in a couple days feeling better. Raul654 ( talk) 06:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
[6] Lara 04:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Are access dates mandatory for book citations with a URL? The article in question is Tony Award for Best Featured Actor in a Play. Thanks. Albacore ( talk) 21:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, you know that with edit summaries like this you are just giving me more diffs, right? [7] -- El on ka 01:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Elonka, you are painting yourself in a very poor light here. Instead of having the grace to say "oh, sorry I misunderstood" when Sandy explained the self reference, you ignored her response and moved on to to the next accusation. I encourage you to think seriously about modeling the behavior you hope to encourage. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 02:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, you may not have noticed, but I asked you a couple weeks ago, very nicely I thought, to please avoid my FMA FAC, so I was a bit surprised to see you suddenly start participating there today. It's really probably best if we both try to disengage from interacting with each other, thanks. -- El on ka 22:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I have responded to your issues at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Turning Point (2008)/archive4.-- Will C 23:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The reply I gave on the talk page I am a little uneasy with. While I wanted to alert the user concerning the Talk page not being a forum, I also felt it inadequate to only reply with 'not a forum' and that there should be at least a brief answer to his question to end the thread with. I gave a brief answer, but I feel it is overly simplified (I'm not too comfortable with giving incomplete answers that might lead to a false impression). The other thing I was uneasy with was giving an answer rather than just 'not a forum' (so I'm generally conflicted on my reply in whole). My question is did I — in your opinion — reply in a proper WP way, or should I have answered that differently. Your thoughts/criticism/recommendations greatly appreciated. — al-Shimoni ( talk) 00:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Is there really a problem with the image gallery? A user has revered it back feeling that it fits WP:IG. LittleJerry ( talk) 11:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Image galleries are typically discouraged, but that's a matter for reviewer consensus, and discussion belongs on the FAC, not on my talk page. IMO, image galleries are sometimes appropriate-- for instance, in an article about a painting or a series of paintings or where the images are what the article is about. That is precisely what "may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images" speaks to, and is not the case for giraffe. In this case, IMO, it's just adornment, adds nothing to the article (don't we all know what giraffes look like), and accomplishes nothing that can't be seen in the Commons category. They also set up issues as occurred at the Lion FA, where everyone and their brother wants to add their favorite picture. We aren't a picture book, we're an encyclopedia, and images should be carefully selected to display our best work, not a picture book. The text is cluttered with pictures, and text is squeezed where it is sandwiched between images (and that's against MOS). But that's just my opinion, as one editor, and consensus is formed where the discussion of that belongs-- on the FAC. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
FYI, I saw this and this, but Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr./archive1 has no {{FACClosed|promoted}} tag, so it's still technically open? :) María ( yllo submarine) 15:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, I've finished reviewing here and am pinging as requested. Cheers, Sasata ( talk) 17:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sandy. Just wanted to let you know that I've done a few "technical" reviews of the longer-running FACs, found a surprising number of issues. Anyway, if you wanted me to focus on any FAC in particular when reviewing against MOS etc (in particular articles which incorporate lists, such as highway or wrestling articles) then don't hesitate to ping me. Naturally, I'm a bit of an impostor at FAC so if my intrusions are unwelcome (I'm sure some of the comments will be unpalatable, but hey) then let me know, but hopefully I'm net-gaining the project. All the best. The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Stanford University, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Stanford University. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! |
ralphamale ( talk) 22:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
[12]. Anyone got a shilling for the meter? Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd be more than happy to talk Sandy. I'll even offer an apology if you're willing to accept it. I never meant to hurt anyone's feelings. I never meant to "taunt" .. I was only trying to stop the fighting. Now if you want to chew me out for that - then feel free. If you want me to never again post to your page, then I'll honor that request as well. go ahead. — Ched : ? 00:28, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
So, back on topic. There's a lot to talk about here, so rather than dig in to the beginning and answer each of your questions (yes, I do think you abused of someone, but that's water under the bridge, so let's try to work backwards to some sort of understanding) and all that is wrong with ANI and how it doesn't typically do anything helpful, often escalates disputes, I'll instead start at the end, where you said you "just wanted the fighting to stop". You admit you know little of FAC, and yet several times during the discussion, you made statements critical of FAC like "No wonder people stay away". Do you think it fair to make statements like that about a place you know little of, and without knowing who is agitating, creating the impression of a leadership crisis, creating and fomenting the discord, alienating FA writers and reviewers alike, and for what purpose? Or let me put it this way ... have you given any thought to just who might be benefiting from making it look like there are problems at FAC? Hint: consider who is looking for someone else's "job" compared to who resigned so they could get back to editing. Who doesn't want the fighting to stop? If you can answer that, you might understand why ANI never resolves disputes. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
First, please don't start yelling at me. I will talk. I will listen. As I said from the get go, if I messed up then I'm sorry. AN and ANI are places where it's a "quick - put out the fire" area, and that's the way it's been for ages. And perhaps I was wrong to try to stop the arguing (I don't know), but let's be a bit more accurate please ... I might have said "bang - bang" .. but I never pulled the gun out of the holster, let alone pulled the trigger - can ya please give me some credit for that? huh? Geesh .. I didn't even close the thread. I didn't even make a smart remark at the couple responses to my efforts. Just because there are a lot of admins. that think "admin" is something special, doesn't mean I do. I'm supposed to be helping you, I'm here by your authority - and it's something I'm keenly aware of. Yes, I played the game for the popularity contest, I admit that. I didn't realize as much then as I do now. It wasn't a deliberate attempt to get some faux power on some website. It was an honest desire to want to do good things here. I didn't realize all the stigma that went with it, and I doubt I'd ever do it again. But don't shut me out .. please. Ask Malleus, well .. maybe some other time when he's not being so beat upon and kicked and stabbed in the back would be better ... but he may tell you that I'm an idiot, he may tell you he doesn't particularly care for me - but I think he'd tell you that I am an honest, and a fair person. — Ched : ? 02:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
No, ANI wasn't always that way-- in 2006 and 2007 it was a very deliberative place, but we had more adults around then. Now it's got the attention span of an average 16-yo (and that has extended even to the adults) ... maybe because of declining editorship we are ALL overworked, and that includes admins, who want quick fixes. Well, maybe you think that you threatened to block but didn't is a good thing to do-- did you do that on purpose, or did someone talk you down before you pulled the trigger? I'm not shutting you out-- I'm trying to get folks to understand how badly broken ANI is, and how that destroys editors like Malleus and has made Wikipedia a horrid place. Maybe if I can get through to one person, it will get better. Bottom line: not everyone wanted the fighting to stop. Some are agitating for it because destabilizing FAC makes it look like there's a problem and hence will lead others to think they need to throw out Raul. Understanding complex conflicts before weighing in on them is a good thing. Things aren't always what those involved present at ANI, and it takes more than a few hours to get to the bottom of things. Again-- what happened to the concept of consensus? Read that ANI thread now, and tell me there weren't plenty of people saying FAC is being disrupted. So, it still is ... no thanks to ANI. Best, going to bed now, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Waiting on you, both of us responded. :) Gotta take the Jeopardy! online test in a few minutes though, so we'll see. Mitch32( Never support those who think in the box) 00:50, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm apoplectic about this proposed remedy; ArbCom cases certainly seem to ferret out the arseholes.
I've just seen your FAC comment at Beyoncé's "Halo". I came up against the same problem with chart numbers in text in her previous FAC, "Put a Ring on it", and I came to the conclusion that chart positions should always be given in digits, not words. IIRC I went through and made that change but got reverted. It's a difficult article to keep on track copyedit-wise, as the text has been insufficiently stable. Malleus Fatuorum 18:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestions. Clearly, I share an interest with the user you mentioned, though counter to what you seem to be suggesting, this is my only account. I am quite capable of backing up my qualifications.
It seems that you have misunderstood/misused the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), as it states not that primary sources should be deleted, but that they should be improved with the addition of reviews or textbook sources. In addition to the fact that it explicitly states that primary research is acceptable when no reviews exist. I have published papers in these areas, and I can assure you, no reviews or secondary sources exist to address many of the changes you deleted.
Censoring of primary peer-reviewed university peformed and published objective research is counterproductive for the furthering of scientific knowledge. If you think an objective peer-reviewed citation is insufficient, then improve it. NutritionalNeuroscientist ( talk) 19:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
So after saying what a mild winter it's been before my latest trip down to Vegas...I wake up to 3" of snow outside before the 9 hour drive through the desert! As I shoveled that snow on monday, it hit me..."Sandy must have cancelled her ski trip!", Mountains are loaded with powder now and we're expecting more tomorrow! DOH!-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 10:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Greetings Sandy. Hope everything is going well for you. I saw this note here. Hmm, I was a bit confused and want to ask you if I can request people to do the spotcheck? Jivesh1205 ( Talk) 05:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. This FAC was recently closed, but the issues raised in the FAC are fixed or answered, where some comments are invalid. I am unsure what I possibly can do before another FAC. What do you think? Would PR be a good option? -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
[14]. Giacomo Returned 18:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I feel you archived this to early, as I have finished all the points listed. :) Mayhem Mario 18:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
indicates that peer review might be a better place to pursue article development. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)A complete audit by an independent editor will be needed, to check for plagiarism and mis-attribution
The Content Review Medal of Merit | ||
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured article reviews for the period October–December 2011, I am delighted to award you the Content Review Medal. Buggie111 ( talk) 17:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC) |
Thanks for helping | ||
Thanks for your help getting W. E. B. Du Bois promoted to FA status. He was a great man, and deserves a great article. -- Noleander ( talk) 03:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC) |
The Special Barnstar | |
Thanks for all the help with Poppy Meadow! Mayhem Mario 20:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC) |
I had a couple questions:
thanks, — Ched : ? 18:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
FAC loses a lot in losing you as a delegate, but I am full of admiration for the work you have done there, and for your dedication to Wikipedia in general. Your heartfelt desire to make the best positive impact you can in whatever way you can, in the face of the many challenges Wikipedia faces, is inspiring. Geometry guy 05:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Goddamn motherfucking cocksucking son of a bitch fuckface shit shit shit twatdiddling fuckdamn. -- Moni3 ( talk) 14:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I've been biting my tongue for about a week, and unfortunately am very aware how this started and where it came from. I thought you've shown great fortitude in the face of intolerable hostility. You've dealt with it better than I could have any day - but I'm only a thinskinned wiki writer, you're the one who makes the hard decisions. Personally I'd like you to reconsider. I think being forced into something like this is a bad way to go, but if it's what you feel is right then grudgingly I'll tell you good luck. Truthkeeper ( talk) 14:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I was very pleased to see you and Graham on my watchlist in the new year editing your FAs keep them tip top. I'm so glad your edit on my talk page was "I'm back!" rather than "I'm gone!" even though you were announcing your resignation. My mind boggles to think how many (thousands of?) hours you must have spent on this over the four years. To commit that much time as an unpaid volunteer is amazing. Over 1400 promotions? That's a heck of a lot of judging consensus. Bravo! Colin° Talk 15:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm really sorry to see this. Your work at FAC has been perceptive, tactful and insistent - a set of qualities rarely combined. Gimmetoo ( talk) 23:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Dear Sandy,
I have been shown in the files on the Military history Project a statement from a member of our current coordinator tranche that you are to be retiring from your position within the next 30 days. I understand how powerless we are in the face of these changing times on Wikipedia, and I know that all good things must eventually end, yet I can not refrain from posting here my admiration of your skills and conduct while you were working as an FAC delegate, nor the sorrow I feel as our community loses yet another skilled volunteer due to project apathy. In my eyes, you represent that which is greatest in us all, and I consider myself honored to have received your input on the articles I ran through FAC. Wherever you will go, and whatever you do, I wish you the best of luck and fortune, and pray that you always remain faithful to yourself and and your beliefs.
Your sincerely and respectfully,
TomStar81 (
Talk)
10:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure how exactly to respond, but I do know this much: FAC has lost an extraordinary editor. Among all the turmoil that plagues Wikipedia from time to time, you have always been a rock, Sandy. Thanks for all that you've done, and give 'em hell. Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Sandy, I always really respected and admired your work at FAC a lot. The rigour that you brought to the process has kept the level of new FAs very high. And thank you for your guidance during the FACs I was involved in. I'm sorry to see you leave your post as an FAC delegate. But I'm also happy for you that now you're going to have time to work on medical articles. I'm sure that's going to be great for you to just be free to do lots of fun editing without having to worry about the responsibilities of FAC. Good luck with all your future projects! Moisejp ( talk) 05:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Happy New Year. I just wanted to thank you for all the great work you have done at FA over the years (and all the help you have given me), and I hope we get to work on some articles together soon. I hope you have been able to spend more time on writing that is enjoyable for you. All the best! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Bleh my mistake, I didn't see the full history that went back months ago. I thought the recent attack on FAC by TCO and friends had slightly to do with the Malleus ArbCom case because of his involvement with FAC and the bullshit claims (which I heard from quite a number of users, including administrators who should know better) of "favoritism" in the FAC reviewing. Also I been a bit out of touch with the FAC community, as I never seen such drama in the FAC talk page, and this being discussed the same time as the Malleus case, it seemed like it was radical editors adding fuel to everything Malleus is involved with. We are here to build an serious encyclopedia first and foremost, and not drive away our best editors and article writers or attacking our policies and guidelines. Some users obviously don't seem to get the point and need to stop.
It's very sad to see you leave FAC, as you are the no nonsense editor this very important process needed, and you are among the best in reading consensus and understanding policies. Enjoy being a regular editor and I hope you still leave your feedback on certain FACs.
As for me I'm going to participate in FAC more often, including image reviewing and online source/fact checking (though not much in prose as that's a weakness). I couldn't in the past few years because of my poor health and my online spottiness but I have more time this year. Thanks Secret account 07:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
Awarded for your considerable service to Wikipedia, especially for your work at WP:FAC. Jezhotwells ( talk) 16:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC) |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
given with respect and admiration to SandyGeorgia for all your work on Wikipedia, especially that upholding standards and especially at WP:FAC. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC) |
It's been a while Sandy, but I'm sorry to see the recent FA circumstances. Anyway, I just want to thank you for all you've done in helping with The Texas Chain Saw Massacre FACs, even if it wasn't ultimately promoted for, like the 6th time? :) You were great in helping out the article.-- Tærkast ( Discuss) 17:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Sandy...we haven't always agreed of course, less so lately than I'd like. However, I have always appreciated your efforts in the past to do some copyediting on my FAC's and to provide a generally neutral assessment of my research and especially my admittedly mediocre quality prose. If indeed, as you have stated, we have a core topic area that is suffering with an influx of inaccurate data and your time would be better spent helping to correct that issue, then, as one who is primarily a researcher, I applaud your desires to refocus your energies towards helping ensure we maintain reliability and accuracy in our articles...I have always believed that such is far more important than prose, even in at the FA level, though I recognize that it is prose that is a determining factor (and should be) for any bronze star.-- MONGO 18:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I just saw. Sorry to see you leave, you were great in that role. At the same time I can see how it is a lot like herding cats and can be a bit much. Good luck, it will probably be more enjoyable to edit without the stress and headaches from FAC.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 11:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The Resilient Barnstar | |
For all your hard work on FAC, you definitely deserve more than this, but presenting you with this barnstar is the least I can do. Remember ( talk) 14:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC) |
for all your work on FAC, good luck on the medical articles Tom B ( talk) 17:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to hear about all the frustrations at FAC, with the state of medical articles and all. :( I can't thank you enough for your contributions in keeping the FAC process going and raising the quality. I hope to get back to doing more FA writing and reviewing at some point. I am also curious and hopeful efforts like WP Medicine Translation Task force (80 articles to GA or FA) can be helpful, though not sure what I can personally do to help with that. All the best. -- Aude ( talk) 04:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Sandy, a recent edit by Lecen caught my attention. I've started an ANI thread about it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Unacceptable edit. You may wish not to get involved (as may become clear once you see the edits in question), but I thought you should be aware of the edits made and the ANI thread. I'm aware there is quite a bit of background to this, and have seen it rumbling on over several talk pages, but these latest edits crossed the line as far as I'm concerned. I'm going to check back in an hour or so to see what the situation is then. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Update: Agree with Manning, best to let things calm down right now. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, Lecen appears to be accepting his block. I am participating only to put out the fires. Hence I am requesting that we all just allow this matter to die down. If Lecen (a) redacts and apologises for his conduct and (b) presents a formal grievance of some kind about your alleged wrongdoings, then we can proceed to examine the matter objectively (with full consideration given to the arguments from both sides, naturally). Until then, there is nothing to be done, and nothing to be achieved by talking about it further. Regards Manning ( talk) 01:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Can I please have link to the request, [16]? Thanks. Truthkeeper ( talk) 18:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
and here:Update: Agree with Manning, best to let things calm down right now. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, Lecen appears to be accepting his block. I am participating only to put out the fires. Hence I am requesting that we all just allow this matter to die down. If Lecen (a) redacts and apologises for his conduct and (b) presents a formal grievance of some kind about your alleged wrongdoings, then we can proceed to examine the matter objectively (with full consideration given to the arguments from both sides, naturally). Until then, there is nothing to be done, and nothing to be achieved by talking about it further. Regards Manning ( talk) 01:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Noting removals for archival purposes:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
So how much source checking do you what before you check it out? LittleJerry ( talk) 20:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
The citation bot that was run in Kolkata inserted the following in several citations : ref=harv|postscript=!-- Bot inserted parameter. Either remove it; or change its value to "." for the cite to end in a ".", as necessary. --{{ inconsistent citations}}}}
What does this mean? How to correct this? Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 03:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I gave him IPBE. Despite having only opened the account a week ago, he seems to have amassed enough productive edits, and this is just easier than trying to figure out a way through the rangeblock. Daniel Case ( talk) 04:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that I've pinged you and I wish you all the best. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I think you gonna like this. And don't resignate of nothing, that is what they want. The trouble is that these guys came, I think, more or less all from vulgar genealogy sites, and they have all the respectiv defects.
Abraço, Saint George, also known by Jorge alo ( talk) 09:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Adam/Shoe cited Learned Hand; Alarbus et al cleaned up citations and sources when new account. Adam/Shoe and Wehwalt have a long-standing nexus on theatre/opera articles. Adam from UK; Alarbus mentions folks from US being puritanical. Adam/Shoe had a dispute with Durova, who shows up at MilHist about a Portuguese conflict (wha?) in the midst of all of this. And there's more ... but I digress ... the real question is, why did Alarbus create multiple socks, why is he behind "Wehwalt for FA director", and is he abiding by CLEANSTART or evading scrutiny to take on FAC after a dispute over Featured Lists and Sounds on the mainpage? I'd sure like to hear from The Rambling Man. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Just as a point of information, the SOPA blackout was implemented via javascript, not a template, and Alarbus evidently wrote {{ Blackout}} in order to blackout his own user and user talk pages, not for anything else. Geometry guy 01:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
In the discussion about Elvis Presley as TFA you wrote that it is too long. I agree that articles should not be too long. Would you be for a definite ceiling as FA criterion? My main interest here is (of course) that I think it would take less effort to write and maintain a shorter text. But as you say, there is also the aspect that more text and images waste the time of the person waiting for them to load. There is also the server and data transport costs for Wikimedia. My intuition is that on average people read a very small percentage of the longest articles (per download). -- Ettrig ( talk) 19:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey Sandy I am hopeless when it comes to prose. Wondering if you knew of someone who could help me here at the GAN for Hepatitis C http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hepatitis_C/GA1#GA_Review
Thanks Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, I was wondering whether you'd be interested in this? Kind Regards -- Marek. 69 talk 19:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, so as you have de-promoted and re-promoted the article, you might want to have a look at the talk page for a request to promote the article to A class again. ~~ Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 20:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I was just wondering if there was anything that was preventing Turning Point (2008) from being promoted? Judging from the review pages, it seems to be ready to promote.-- Will C 09:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The article about the Alexander technique (about improving movement efficacy and relieving pain through better posture) needs work. It combines a lot of true-believerism and a smattering of reference to scientific studies. Kiefer. Wolfowitz 15:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
What are the requirements for source spot-checking and is this something anyone can help with? If I review an FA, what proportion of citations should I check for it to be considered properly spot-checked? How much information should I then post to the FAC page? Spinning Spark 11:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi SG. May we discuss your recent revert?
Personally, I think that the portal at the start of the References section looks a little odd. Usually it's in the See also section if one exists, I understand. Moreover, having it in the Refs section means each of the 200 lines that follow it are squashed to the left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trafford09 ( talk • contribs) 19:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Hence, why not have a See also section? I'm aware some may view having a See also section as a slight on the quality of an article, but that's not a view I subscribe to much.
Now, isn't the idea of a See also section to bring to the reader's attention articles which relate to the article, but weren't mentioned on the page itself? I'd argue that a percentage of readers of the AS page may wish to follow the lead to the 2 articles I included.
You say there there are scores of books on AS. That may well be so, but there is just one notable enough to have its own WP article, with AS in its title. Unless there's a deluge of books being added, I think that the one book does some good - to a percentage of readers.
I'd be interested to read your views, though.
BTW, which part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles did I not adhere to?
Best wishes, Trafford09 ( talk) 19:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The India Barnstar | ||
Given to SandyGeorgia for your hard work reviewing Kolkata FARC, given now independent of the outcome. AshLin ( talk) 05:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC) |
OK, re-thinking the whole argument, I still think it's huey (and tossed around often as a cover for the fact that Way Too Many Editors these days are simply looking for baubles for their talk page, rather than collaborating). I don't think it's because so much content has already been addresssed: I do think it's because too many editors are engaged in the Reward culture. Look at all of the articles in these samples that are start or C-class, and could at least be raised to B-class easily:
Or take your pick from Category:Lists of popular pages by WikiProject-- I list Medicine because I work there, and MilHist because Medal of Honor is at WP:FAR, I pinged them, and no one cares. And Psychology because-- with the exception of Casliber and Fainites-- they've never written an FA (most FAs tagged as Psych were written by medicine editors, and the rest of the Project is a mess). There is still plenty of work that can be done in here; going for the easy rewards is what motivates many contemporary editors here, and that simply wasn't the case to such an extent in past years, IMO. There is less work at FAR now because there's no "bauble" to display on one's user page or contest to be won-- that wasn't the concern at FAR in 2006 thru 2009. In other words, I still dislike the Reward Culture and what it's done to Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
So, back to FAR: I looked at another area I work (just as an example of what "dismal" looks like, and how much more can still be done and why I think that meme is huey-- Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Popular pages (seriously, Angels Falls or Tepui can't be improved by anyone???) -- but that led me to next look here:
where the two most popular FAs (which are waaaaay down the page) are 1) a Marskell FA (not Brasil at all, but Mr. FAR and FAC), and 2) a medical article written by WT:MED and restored at ... FAR! The discussion was about FAR ... that we used to work hard to restore work, even if no "baubles" were accrued. Has nothing to do with page views, except that page happens to list each article, where other assessment pages don't seem to-- at least not that I can find. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
While the city's name has always been pronounced "Kolkatā" or "Kolikatā" in Bengali, (I don't know how to fix this, but these spellings give us no idea of the pronunciation they reference)...
Do you suggest IPA pronunciation should be given? How about audio files? Regards.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 16:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
An comment at the PR reads: "Per SandyGeorgia at Kolkata, reference titles should either all be in sentence case, or they should all be in title case". Just wanted to clarify about this. The capitalization styles of books differs and at Ahalya, it is as printed. So should I change it? Any wiki-policy about this? -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you... but it's just that I missed the "two weeks window" part of WP:FAC, and restarted a nom after just 2 days - me and another user just finished the copyedit, and after all the previous one was killed partly because the only Oppose in that would not answer me. Is it okay to keep the nom or it's better for me to wait? igordebraga ≠ 23:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Would love to see you come and join us here Wikipedia:MED/Translation_project :-) -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm mulling over a potential dispatch on FPOC writing. In the meantime perhaps you could tell me how close Hawaii hotspot looks to sticking (round four sometime in the future). Cheers, Res Mar 02:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I took a stab at a Dispatch. It's not nearly finished, as the bulk of it remains to be written (what's there right now is just some introductory material), but I feel as though we can get this published in the next week's Signpost. I'm hoping a Dispatch could help users get used to writing Featured portals, and perhaps draw some more attention to the process. Res Mar 04:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm "tendering" this for publication next week, but probably as a special report, because I'm one of those dirty "caterers" who wants to put the silliness that is FCDW behind themselves. Although perhaps not as enthusiastically and frantically as Sven had, hehe. Res Mar 02:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I can tell you are busy, but I’m looking for someone who has a better critical eye than I have, and you are my first choice.
I ran into User:Beebuk a year and a half ago, when he was working on some articles as a new editor, and running into some challenges from other editors. He specializes in pantomine related topics, an area I know very little about. (And I’m not presuming you do have or do not have expertise in this area, I’m looking for your expertise as an editor)
He recently asked me to take a look at Pedrolino. I’m happy to note that he is well beyond the basics, so I am struggling to be helpful. I offered some comments at Comments_on_Pedrolino, but I realize I need the big guns. If you could find the time to make a few comments, it would be appreciated.
As an aside, I plan to work on bringing some articles to GA and FA eventually, but in my area of interest, the low-hanging fruit is still ungathered, so I confess to lack of knowledge of those areas. That said, I’m surprised to see Pedrolino as start class, and Charles Deburau as C class. I wonder what I’m missing, as both articles seem well written to me.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)