User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch47

Johnson

I wanted to point this out. I honestly believe that it was your work and the rest that made Johnson worthy to be included as a B article, and then even more so as an FA. YOU YOU YOU. You should be proud. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You know darn well that article was written by Malleus and you. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No no no. Our work would just have Johnson. You made him part of the medical project and added something to make him legitimate in multiple fields of interest. That does a lot for inclusion. Thats all you and your awesomeness! Ottava Rima (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Truong Dinh FAC

I'd like to withdraw please...don't have the time to fix it up at the moment. AC elections are going better than I expected. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll move it on Tuesday if you don't mind (to make it easier on GimmeBot); please leave a note on the FAC ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Manually archived (as Sandy asked me to do, in the next section). Maralia (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Busy

I'm busy the next week or so and won't be replying quickly. Would be nice if you could postpone Tuesday to Thursday or something. Gimmetrow 05:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Will postpone, or manually botify as needed, also since I just came from the eye surgeon and my eyes need a rest. If Maralia could manually archive and botify YellowMonkey's request, I'd be grateful :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. Hope you recover quickly—and let me know if there's anything else I can do. Maralia (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Omg, who gave me this awful, awful sinus infection? Is there any human behavior that has been done by any person deserving of this? Is this not why Christ took the lashes? Did he miss one? I've been watching tv for days, hoping to get over this, but to no avail. Today I saw White Christmas and thought it was a good idea to have all the kids put on a show to save the general's farm. I need more drugs. --Moni3 (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Join the club: I'm miserable, and wishing I had a painkiller stash to make my eyes and head stop throbbing. Misery loves company !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Drugs? What is this drugs? Oh, you perhaps mean compounds used for medication. Yomangani^talk 02:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

When I had eye surgery, all I could do for 4 days was sit on the couch and watch bad movies that didn't require me to focus well. BAAAAAD movies. Rest your eyes!! And Moni, I think I am getting your sinus infection. I hate winter, or what passes for winter in the south. Karanacs (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ha! I have an inch of snow on the ground. And more coming tomorrow! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Concerns?

I was wondering what concerns you had about my candidacy, and if I could possibly address them or help clear them up? I believe I fulfill all five of the criteria you listed in your voter guide. I'm not a member of any clique or group (which is why I have the lowest voter participation), I'm an in-the-trenches categorization and article writer, I've got minimal involvement at AN/I or with the drama that this community constantly feeds upon, I'm an excellent writer and I'm as humble as humble gets. Please give my candidacy another chance. :) Thanks very much! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Hemlock; I wish I could have supported every FA writer, but I felt it was important this year to have a strategy to maximize the chances of change at ArbCom. Looking at User:SandyGeorgia/ArbStats, while I like your top-level contribs, I found almost no presence whatsoever in areas of dispute resolution—skills and knowledge needed at ArbCom in addition to writing ability. I did support a couple of candidates who didn't have as much dispute resolution presence as I'd prefer, but only because I have had the opportunity to observe them and had a basis other than the numbers on which to make the decision. Minimal involvement at AN/I wasn't necessarily what I was looking for: balanced contribs to both dispute resolution and article space is the best combination for ArbCom. Ideal candidates have both; I'd like to see more demonstrated dispute resolution skills. I'm sorry I couldn't support this year ... I just feel it's important to turn the ArbCom composition around, so I've focused my "votes" on those I thought would be the most electable, or fill a need at ArbCom, while demonstrating a good balance between article writing and the "just right" amount of dispute resolution. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No worries, that's completely understandable. Although I have participated in some ArbCom cases, my contributions by no means are balanced when compared to my content contributions. Over the course of the next year I'll be sure to be more involved in ArbCom cases and other dispute resolution areas. Thank you very much for your response! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 07:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be a bother, but since your concerns were about my admittedly limited user dispute resolution experience, I thought I'd just provide you a link to my answers to FT2's follow-up questions. The last four questions, where I illustrate related dispute-solving experience in areas outside of ArbCom/RfC/AN, might be more illuminating. Again, thank you for your consideration and happy editing! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Sandy, thank you for your confidence in me. I have not yet succeeded in convincing a majority of the electorate that my approach is part of an overall solution to Wikipedia's problems. The other candidates you recommended seem to be doing well. I hope you are pleased with the results. Best regards, Jehochman ^Talk 17:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tropical Storm Erick (2007)

Raul654:"I like your new hairstyle, Sandy"

Hi, Sandy. If possible, when you close Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tropical Storm Erick (2007), I'd be interested to hear your rationale for archiving/promoting. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying not to look yet :-) I think there's a conspiracy at Wt:FAC to make me tear my hair out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh, well, it has gotten a tad crazy. I try not to look either. :) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The FAC Tonsure. Because you're worth it. Yomangani^talk 19:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think I try to keep that article clean (the story of my life :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

On a slightly unrelated note, what are your views on the article? I haven't slept for a couple days... need to regain my sanity. :) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked at it yet this time through; I seem to remember there were ce issues last time, and I imagine those have been addressed. On the bigger picture, as long as the community is so divided on the other issues plaguing the talk page, I can only look for well reasoned arguments on the FAC based on the current WIAFA. Don't lose sleep over one article when there are so many more you can write :-) Or, go save some FARs ... that's where the real reward is :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch

Just thought I'd give you an update, I have three who have agreed, and I'll probably have it done by the end of the month (not for a couple of weeks though). One question I thought might be worth asking is "In what ways is the FLC process worse than FAC? In what ways is it better?" but I'm a little iffy on it so I thought I'd get your opinion. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Advice from the lawyers: never ask a question if you don't know the answer :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but I did want to ask something along those lines. Do you have a suggestion? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, make it less leading. Rather than "worse" or "better", just ask how it's different. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help then. How is this? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. You might run it by Tony (if you're brave enough :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, I was wondering when the Bart Simpson FAC might be closed. As far as I know, I've addressed all opposition and it does have support and has been closeable for a few days. Normally, I wouldn't ask, but it's the final piece of a potential FT and my goal was to have it promoted by the end of the year, so I wanted to nominate it as soon as possible. Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The only reason I didn't close it today was because it was the only FAC (out of 50) that is closeable, and I didn't want to fire up seven tabs in my browser to close one nom. But I can go ahead and close it, meaning I may have to botify it myself since I may have missed GimmeBot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles and other stuff

I really like the new organizational structure at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles. At first I thought I wouldn't, but it is coherent and easy to navigate, so nice job with that. I apologize for not yet working on the WP:FCDW for WP:FPORTs, have had some IRL things going on but I will try to think about what to write soon and draft something up. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"ce" reversions

Hi Sandy. Long time, no talk page... I thought this was neat:[1] it's been a while since someone did that. :-P (Sure they're minor, but they're better.) Another FAC to ignore then, I suppose. –Outriggr § 01:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ha, a stroll down memory lane :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, what the heck, I wanted to question the reversion somewhere, so I did comment at the FAC. –Outriggr § 01:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I particularly enjoyed the reintroduction of the comma before "saw rising" by the undoing, but "like" instead of "such as"? That's, like, no improvement, like. Yomangani^talk 01:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on, "like" is not so informal as we like to pretend, at least if the alternative is repeating "such as" in one sentence. (It probably depends where you live, too.) Are you saying "like" has been ruined by Valley girls (see also the Frank Zappa song; he's on the front page today)? –Outriggr § 02:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't living in the US then, but if the whole thing was as funny as the Spanish-language parody of it was ... like, totally. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

While we're on the topic ... I wish someone would go drag Tony back to FAC. His next project is fixing admin abuse; that should take longer than dates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixing admin abuse is an unfixable problem I fear. But to return to topic, if editors prefer their own crappy prose to something that's more likely to gain them that coveted bronze star, then so be it. I'm certain that I'm not the only one who sometimes has to bite their tongue at FAC while my "beautiful, impeccable, and unimpeachable prose" is "mangled" by those who very likely know better than I do. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Maletinazo

I know you have actively edited Maletinazo. I don't know if you have seen http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/04/world/americas/04suitcase.html . This part of the case was decided on November 3 and I have not seen much editing of the article since then. I have just updated María del Luján Telpuk.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently this is the fourth of four cases and I have not seen the other three.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The article needs a complete rewrite, but it's hard to get motivated to restructure and rewrite it all when the whole thing got whitewashed. Bridges in Brooklyn and all that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

re: en-ace

It's where all the election results are posted immediately after they're made. It's like a day at the races :-) Consequently, I haven't done a damn thing for the project but drool as the results roll in :-p (#wikipedia-en-ace fyi) Xavexgoem (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you're right. It seemed more cut and dry than it was. Again, my apologies. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh... I've been trying to get people from escalating to AN. That was my main goal. And you're right about GAN/FAC... I think I'll head off to the library sometime this week and bring my city's article up to GA... it's hideous atm. Been a while since I've actually, y'know, contributed in mainspace (I have my moments...). Tails start wagging dogs, as I'm sure you know :-P Xavexgoem (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hardness

Quoth SG: add inline, kinda hard to cite an article over edit conflicts. You're right. Sorry about that. Over and out for quite some time; the article is all yours.

I've nothing more to say, really. (I'm mystified by the notion of "motivational speaker"; perhaps I would have to be American.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Damn, another edit conflict (of a sort)! I hate ping pong discussions; come on over to my place. -- Hoary (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

A possible dispatch

Sandy, I've been thinking, off and on, about your comment at the talk page of the recent dispatch to the effect that one might think all FAs take less than twenty hours to write. That's probably partly because by selecting prolific FA writers, you are selecting for editors who either write shorter FAs or who write multiple FAs in the same mould, which also shortens the writing time in some ways. It might be interesting to interview a couple of editors with only a few FAs (or even only one), but who worked on really hard articles. If RCC had passed, that would be a prime example of the sort of article I'm talking about; you could pick others better than I can, though. Just a thought. Mike Christie (talk) 03:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm still surprised at what a lot of you wrote, since I read TS journal articles for ten years and then wrote for six months before approaching FAC. I don't think any medical article makes it through FAC without many months of work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That's one of the main reasons why I don't take WP:WBFAN too seriously. Those stars are not all equal -- not by an order of magnitude. Mike Christie (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

But everyone knows that; the key with WBFAN is knowing how to take it and not to use it to overinterpret and not to take it too seriously. And there are so many areas like that in Wiki; for example, I had no idea what DYK even was (nor did I care) until we wrote the Dispatch, and I realized I could have racked up DYKs for all those years :-) If people are in it for the tallies, that works, too ... if it motivates good writing. But I think we all know the articles that took months and months to polish to a shine. We could probably do more like Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-02-18/Dispatches; wanna volunteer?  :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to volunteer but I'm way overloaded at the moment, and I just don't want to give up my own article writing. The main problem is that I signed an employment contract this morning and am now officially moving to New York, so I have a house to get ready, a house to buy, and everything else to do before the move in June. Sorry to raise an idea and then refuse to run with it, but I hope I'll have a bit more time next year. Mike Christie (talk) 04:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That's exciting! (Good time to buy a house, too, unless you have to also sell one in Texas in exchange for NY prices :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I was already planning to write a dispatch on RCC when it passes FAC (I didn't have to write "if" this time!). If anyone notices any other complicated ones like that one (or Ronald Reagan) that should get spotlighted, I'll be happy to write about those, too. I just don't always notice when interesting FACs finally pass. Karanacs (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

One idea I was having was what has happened with large important articles at FAC (which often get 'snipped' to some degree in the process, is the creatin and embellishment of satellite articles, thus we now have history of depression, and treatment of depression, and a bunch of material for a causes page, as well as mood disorder being expanded, and pseudodementia created. I do recall this happening with schizophrenia - causes of schizophrenia. Similarly there were some subpages for vampires and lions too. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Giano got well over 10 DYKs from Winter Palace spin outs. It kills me that he withdrew the FAC for the page, its such a shame he feels alienated from the process. Since any anamosity that might have existed a year ago seems to have dissapated, and since he is a banner writer who absolutly should be on the front page as often as possible, I've been wondering how do we fold him back into the process. I do know that being part of the same project as an editor with his ability provides a lot of people with motivation. Ceoil (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I was going to offer to do some of the boring formatting stuff while reading through it but was a bit nonplussed after my last interaction there. It wouldn't actually take that much effort, and it is a good article I had intended looking at at some stage before getting bogged down elsewhere. There are other examples too...vampire had some rejigging of content in satellite articles. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: Something I always find really helpful is people chipping in to do some mundane stuff/gruntwork - eg Amanita muscaria needs alot of formatting of references as I entered and reffed alot of material a long time ago (before page refs were de rigeur). Even a few flow fixes and formatting from someone else can really give a boost to mood and desire to finish the damn thing. Hence I figure Giano would be happy/grateful for it too, I know I am. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I was offline at the time and missed the entire episode; Giano came and went before I even logged on. I hope some of the joke "opposes" weren't part of what discouraged Giano. Of the three Opposes Giano got before he withdrew, one was a joke and one was a very new account. I would have liked to do the minor sort of stuff I've always done, MoS cleanup and what-not, but I'm not sure it would be helpful for me to do the MoS cleanup I've always done for Giano. That sort of work chunks up a lot of edits, and has been used to claim I'm a significant contributor to articles,[2] even though my edits are trivial and meaningless. I was also attacked nd misrepresented once [3] [4] for merely mentioning on a GA that it was OK to cite surprising facts in the lead, [5] so it's probably best I not help out anywhere. I hope others will dig in and do the sort of work I've always done at FAC and FAR, and I wish we would see Giano back at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch

That's fine. I had a question about the picture anyway, so I'll hold off for this week. Ral315 (talk) 07:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Cornell University FAR

Cornell University's FAR appears to have been unlinked from WP:FAR without any action taken. Could you look into this and clear it up? Madcoverboy (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by 'unlinked without any action taken'. The FAR was closed by User:Joelr31 as 'removed' this morning. If you're asking why the article's talk page/articlehistory/etc haven't been updated, the answer is that those bot runs are only being done twice a week now; it should be updated within a couple days. Maralia (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I closed it since there were outstanding concerns without any recent edit activity. Joelito (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I've got to dash, back later, but Maralia, can you check this? I haven't caught up, but I think Xenu was a Keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Argh. Glad you noticed. Fixed, thanks. Maralia (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Maralia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Law

Hi! I see that you are still wiki-writing all the time! Well-done!

Could you have a look here? Your opinion matters to me, and I'd like to know what you think about.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Most alarming, certainly breaches criterion, but I recommend that you walk away and let it be. COI has been basically re-interpreted to an extent that has the potential to damage many articles, I've seen the effect of COI editing on many of the articles I edit yet I will hesitate now to point these situations out, but the pendelum usually swings back to normal when enough editors realize the problem. I'm sorry to see that happen to an article that you worked so hard on; it's part of the ongoing issues affecting articles and top content contributors, but for now, I suspect there's not much can be done about it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Poltergeisted again

Damn house. Fourth time in two years. I'm going to have to sell this house and move, but the thought of all that work makes me want to crawl into bed, roll over and play dead. Electrician just left, internet restored, but I'm out all afternoon; in case I missed anything that needs attention anywhere, I'll be back in several hours. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

How much do you intend to sell it?!--Yannismarou (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Half of what I would have sold it for a year ago :-) Good to see you here, Yanni! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Niobium

Sorry for the not perfect english in the article, but as non native speaker it is hard to get a good university degree and to learn all gramatics. Thanks! I will try to involve more native speakers next time!--Stone (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: deleted FAR

 Done sorry about that. When I saw the page's history, I had assumed he had decided to reopen it, then changed his mind and decided to close indefinitely. I didn't realize he had actually listed it. (I was patrolling C:CSD at the time) Also, if you'd like to 'run' for adminship so you can clean up my boneheaded mistakes by yourself, I know about 150 people (myself included) who'd like to nom you. ;-) Thingg^⊕⊗ 03:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Response

here--Tznkai (talk) 04:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Wanted to apologize again: I really didn't want to make you feel accosted or otherwise singled out for anything terrible or anything. I was trying to make a more general point and your name came up simply because I happened to have read your guide in depth and had found it informative thorough and well written.--Tznkai (talk) 05:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Really :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Acid dissociation constant

It is regrettable that it was impossible to reach consensus on this article. So be it. I do not intend to resubmit.

The point I want to make now is that there is not one article on a scientific topic in the FAC list. Surely something is wrong with policy here? Petergans (talk) 10:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You can find some historical data and trends at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-10-13/Dispatches; this data doesn't seem to indicate any particular issues in the science area, although it does highlight some other problem areas. Also, I just looked at the December promotions to date, and almost half (5 out of 11 promotions) are bio/med/science, so we seem to be doing OK. Perhaps what is on the FAC page at any given time is not a good overall measure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sending you some love

Happy movie day. I'm sending you a separate e-mail that I think you might like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Snickersnort (talk • contribs) 14:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

My dear Sir, what a lovely surprise to wake up to :-) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, can you replace the first external link at {{Clips of tics}}? It's a dead link at the moment, but probably recoverable to someone who knows what they're looking for at the site. Maralia (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Maralia: I'll go look now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Charmingly typical: the Tourette Syndrome Association strikes again, changing their URLs at random, just at a time when we could use that link. For now, I added a link to the archive.org. Maybe someone can get on the phone and find a new link; the TSA has a remarkable ability to shoot themselves in the foot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Brad Cohen

Copied over to Talk:Brad Cohen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I am so sorry I couldn't be of any help—I lost my Internet access some time this Saturday and only just managed to get it back online :( I'm only glad there wasn't much (any?) vandalism. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No vandalism, just boatloads of tears  :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Image reviews

Per this comment, Awadewit is unable to participate in image reviews. Let me know if any of the active FACs to which she has already commented needs revisiting. I will be happy to do that. I will also do my best to cover the ones newly nominated. --Moni3 (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You should be aware of the direction of this conversation. --Moni3 (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

About Venezuela

Hi there SandyGeorgia, I see that you continue editing stuff about Venezuela and Chavez. I would like to draw your attention to the entry on Transparency International, where comments of one of Chavez's apologists has been featured as proof of TI bias. I made a couple of edits there, would you keep an eye on it? Since you were part of that discussion with Flanker about the merits of not citing my website as reference, I would have thought you would be keen in learning that propaganda sources, such as Venezuelanalysis, continue to be presented as credible references, despite evidence to the contrary. Alekboyd (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)AlekboydAlekboyd (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't try to keep up with Venezuelan articles anymore; they are all institutionally WP:OWNed, and no one on Wiki cares. I did some cleanup there. Separately, your website is still not a reliable source. That's why Chavez beat you all; he worked the media, learned from Castro, benefitted from Carter's sellout, and spent a fortune of money that belonged to the pueblo on propaganda, while you all still sit there, gozando de la vida buena, wondering, cuando nos van a mandar las marinas? Translation: que los jovenes gringos corran sangre pa'que el chamo no tenga que hacerlo. Right; we'll get right on that, when you all do something about it yourselves, besides silly marches and ineffective radicalized websites. Cada pais merece su gobierno. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding opposing other candidates

You are currently abstaining based on my voting oppose for other candidates. I hope it will help if you understand "why", and also I would like to understand any concerns you have, so I have initiated a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Jayvdb#Opposing other candidates. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Harvnb

Yes or no - remove the harvnb template and have unlinked harvard referencing (Name, Year, Page) instead on Samuel Johnson. If you and Malleus both agree, I will bring it up on the talk page and push for it. The template is cute and all, but most pages going through FA don't bother with it, so that phase is gone and this will be updating to those standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't care either way, but Jbmurray and others in literary articles really seem attached to their Harvnbs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Technically, Harvnb stands for Harvard Notes, which is the Name, Year, Page. I don't know if they just like the template, or like that. However, we will find out if he chimes in on the talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Correct; what they like are their blue hyperlinks to the full citation. I've always disliked them, because getting back isn't intuitive and our non-registered readers might not understand how to use them, but I don't believe my personal preferences should stand in the way if that is the norm used in literature articles. So I take no position (I wouldn't be pleased if the literary folk tried to impose their citation preferences on medical articles). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I see a problem in the fact that a new hyperlink appears in the page at the top when you click on the link. Also, it is a loading issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

A new reason to oppose at RfA's

Hey there Sandy, Just thought you might be interested in knowing that you were the inspiration behind my adding a new reason to oppose to my RfA criteria.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman gets my kudos for bringing it up, because I have been noticing a lot of troublesome users changing their name-I generally only catch it when I notice an unfamiliar user talk page in my watchlist. But don't the users have to disclose their previous RfAs anyhow? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman. Seriously. You should know me better. Do you really think I don't have the user name change page watchlisted?  :-))) By the way, I'm so discouraged about what RfA is pumping out lately that I've sort of given up on opposing; it's futile. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh. No one can escape the watchful eye of SandyGeorgia :-0 I pity the poor sod whose RFA she next opposes! 86.29.235.46 (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, IP; so what was that checkuser story? Was there really abuse, or just a misunderstanding? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it if I were you. 86.29.235.46 (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not worried, but we should also keep an eye on any potential abuse of checkuser. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

User Name Change Page? Where's that, cause it needs to be on my watchlist. The things I don't know about this place would fill the Grand Canyon. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:RENAME. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

After being berated by MastCell on about 5 occasions for not availing myself of search functions, I found it, and watchlisted it. Seems like an awfully bureaucratic function. Figuratively and literally. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

MastCell, berate? Where? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Like I'm going to point you to those diffs. Yeah right. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Users have to disclose previous RfA's, but not everybody has had a previous RfA. Plus, if "janedoe" ran tomorrow, and you have a casual eye on RfA, would you as a person who doesn't read every RfA realize that Janedoe is the same person you had a major run in with last month? That's where my concern stems from.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"she keeps an eye out for people she ... dislikes"? I would hope her observations and subsequent declarations, as has heretofore been my experience, are founded in the candidate's suitability for the role and not personal like or dislike. Perhaps something analogous to "people about whom she has concerns" would be more appropriate? Am I reading too much into it? Эlcobbola _talk 16:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. Balloonman. I don't dislike hardly anyone; everyone is redeemable, no mistake is too big to overcome. I'm sorry goes a million miles in my book. Thanks for pointing that out, Elcobbola. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm the "hardly anyone". Sandy told me she dreamed she was granted one wish by a magic genie: that I would be gifted with a great and rusty trampoline, and that it would rest in a pit in my backyard, filled with large railroad spikes and shattered pieces of fine Austrian crystal. And murderous robot tigers. I cried when she told me this. --Moni3 (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ew, a whole new meaning for "ouch". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Just great, Moni, now I need to explain the copious laughter to my colleagues. For that, I hope those tigers eat slowly and play tiny bubbles on endless repeat. Эlcobbola _talk 17:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

One of SandyGeorgia's minions, exhibiting its metallic form and homicidal intent.

You should be gravely concerned. --Moni3 (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Robot tigers are easily distracted with a bowl of Rusted Flakes. They're Grrrr8! Frosted Flakes? Honestly! Frosties is a much better name Yomangani^talk 17:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Minions, minions. Darn that memory of mine. I'm remembering one of Yomangani's best-ever lines and I don't know where to find it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Changed to concerned about.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman, actually, it might be better just to not name names. I'm not short on enemies, you know? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Names changed to protect the innocent.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

All right, I'm back to pay more serious attention to this thread. There is no such thing as an unrecoverable mistake, and I don't necessarily oppose editors who have made mistakes; I made every one in the book when I was new, and it took me months to figure out the most basic of basics here. What will surely earn an oppose from me at RfA is an inability to put down the stick and walk away, or a failure to recognize past mistakes and make compensatory changes or amends if needed. Once that's done, clean slate. It's not a given that I would have opposed IP. The worst thing I ever saw on Wiki was an attack by an admin on his fellow admins, lodged cowardly at them on my talk page. The attacking admin never apologized to his fellow admins, or retracted, to my knowledge, although a year elapsed. Had he done so, the episode would have closed. The worst thing ever done to me was an accusation made on an article talk page, accusing me of abuse, never struck. Saying "I'm sorry" is a simple thing to do in life. If anyone wonders if I would oppose them at RfA or have concerns about their RfA, they should just ask. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

more candidates

If you have more names of people who are interested in running, I'd be willing to vet them if they are interested... the last time you gave me some names resulted in some excellent candidates.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

As usual, most of the people I know are too smart to submit to RfA, but I'll give you the list again in case :-) If I forget someone, it's early Alzheimer's, and I'll add them on later. Maralia, Ealdgyth, GrahamColm, Dr pda, Colin, Eubulides, Elcobbola, Steve, Kablammo, Awadewit, Brianboulton ... and I think I'll add Yomangani to the list just to bust his chops and see his funny response :-) More to come. My memory isn't getting better with age, and I will inevitably feel terrible for forgetting someone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Is Mike Christie an admin? But he's too busy these days, just put up a notice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

RelHistBuff, Qp10qp. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ling.Nut still pending, but you knew that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I can have my admin bit back without RFA as far as I know. Anybody want to buy it? Yomangani on Wheels, are you there? Yomangani^talk 17:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• I* think Ling would be a great admin... but I'm not sure if he could pass an RfA... But would definitely be willing if he ever decides to run...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any of us care if one of us could pass RfA; it's not exactly a badge of honor :-) Hey, Mangananny, what's the price? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't sell it to you. I haven't forgotten your role in the Society for the Destruction of Raul645 (whoever he may be). I think eBay is the way to go (I hear you can even get a good price for an unwashed shirt on there). Yomangani^talk 18:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

oh, you are a gentleman. What a nice way to spare an aging memory :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

<blushing> I wasn't referring to that shirt in my response above, by the way :/ <shudder> I meant the nice way you jogged my memory on the other. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, was that it? How disappointing. I was hoping for some forgotten gem that proved I was a shining wit. Yomangani^talk 18:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ten-foot pole time :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I still want to nom you for 'crat someday... without going through the RfA process first! You might be the first person to ever get 200 opposes and still pass with over 1000 supports!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

ah, but the opposers would have such fun. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I hear Sandy likes math. And she spelled my name wrong once. And she didn't immediately promote my FA when it gained a single support. Three strikes! Maralia (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I did more than spell your name wrong once; I mixed up you and Moni once. Which FA was that? Foiled cabalism? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

At least you didn't misspell my name as 'Malaria', a la TomStar :) Maralia (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That's nothing; how 'bout SandySucks (talk · contribs)? Don't answer that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Did someone just assign my identity based on rancid foods I am unable to consume? Actually, I can't understand the confusion either. Malaria does ships and copy editing. I do gay trees with clunky syntax. Not at all the same. --Moni3 (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Late at night, I sometimes confuse Sandy's name with George Sandys. To be honest, it has excited me many times and then led to a long depression upon realizing that no, it wasn't George Sandys. :( Ottava Rima (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you run for admin, Sandy? I want to see someone get to WP:400 with RFA supports. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll let my RfA press agent answer; he's much funnier than I am, and he's got shirts for sale. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Elcobbola already an admin? Or is he in my position - an admin only on another project? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

ready?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Boeing_777&redirect=no FAC is ready for promotion? Will fix if not but I honestly think it is ready. Chergles (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It's generally not a good idea to ask the FA director (or his delegate) for an article to be promoted. :) Also, at least AFAIK, promotions wait until Saturdays and Tuesdays. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Raul is the FA director; I am only his delegate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Chergles, the last time a Boeing article came through FAC, the nom pressed me to promote it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Keeping an FA pure (or at least nice)

I keep making this revert (over about 6 months, I bet) removing an amateur drawing from this FA. I don't mind illustrations, but usually they should be based on some reliable source. It's ticking me off, and I know you don't like dinosaur articles, but setting aside the article, let's say we were discussing a medical article like Autism. Would we allow an illustration of that nature in it? I don't think so. Actually, I know so. So, if you have a moment away from your cocktail parties (hehehehehe), and I know there's no baseball on tonight, can you render your opinion from high up? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Who said I don't like dinosaurs? I think Bish should opine on that image; that would be fun. The last time I got involved for free in an image discussion, I earned Shankbone's ire. Or something. Don't get started on cocktail parties again; you have no idea what chain of events you set in motion last time, but there are now some red dress pictures floating around cyberspace. Seriously. I'm killing time before I take my very sick dog to the vet; I'll look tonight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, those did not end up in my email. I'm sad now. LOL. And don't you blame me for that!!!!!! I said black cocktail dress. 18:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Meanie; you didn't wish my dog well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Gee, Orange, thanks for the heads up on why I'm not supposed to like dino articles: kiddie coloring book images, kiddie trivia, and kiddie IP 3RR edit wars. I hate filling out 3RR reports; have you checked the IP edits and filed a report? What a waste of time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

And on a much more critical point

ARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH. I hate the Yankees. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Holy 'mole, what is wrong with those people? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Have they picked up the Wall Street Journal lately? Who's paying for this guy? But if it causes the Yankees to fall on their face, who am I to complain. At least it wasn't the Amazin's getting him, since the my team would have been negatively affected by that move. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

They are afflicted. Someone should identify a genetic marker. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Jayvdb

I'm tired of the emailing and the such, so I will tell you how I interpret his view, as he thinks that you misinterpreted it. This is not to say you are wrong. This is not to say that I am right. This is just to make public my feelings on the matter. Furthermore, as I said before, I make the same thing known in private and public. I don't hide my feelings. I tell people exactly what I think of them, and if I think they are a benefit or not. I'm not here to make friends. I'm simply a content contributor.

Your concerns, as I see them are two fold: one, you feel that opposing other people is an unfair demonstration that could possibly signal abuse; two, you feel that the most important concern is dealing with content, especially with the scientific arguments.

To elaborate and address the first concern - all people have the right to voice their opinion. It is better for the public to know said opinion than not to know said opinion. If you are voting for one person for ArbCom and you believe they are the best, it is better for you to vote for people that they support because you know they will work together. This is the equivalent of people following your guide. No more, no less. Additionally, people cannot support themselves, so they have no ability to voice their prefence at all unless they vote oppose. This can be a negative, but, as John demonstrated, he supported the candidates that he thought would be best and that he could work with. Its the fundamental aspect of campaigning.

To the second concern. John made it clear that he cares about literature and that is his focus. We all have different focuses, but his is that field in particular. Just as I am able to see what is reliable and what is not, as is he. We do not know the "correct" answer of the scientific debate, but we can recognize what should be included within the debate. We know how to look at research that is not just slopped together, and conclusions that match the research. Not having a strong background in science removes the potential for us, as literary people, to be biased in one direction or another, which is the problem right now. The only way Solomon knew to cut the baby in half is because he was not a mother. A judge must be removed, not included, in order to be fair and true.

In addition, John is a strong supporter of the Academic Journal Wikiproject, which promotes reliable sources above others. Not only is that a good thing, it is probably the best thing for the promotion of science. Many people rely on websites and the rest, while thousands of journals are ignored, even though they are far superior. He is also building articles about each journal, so people can click on the sources, read about the journal, and recognize that it is reliable. That is an extremely important aspect of the debate. People claim "I'm right because I say this journal is reliable". He sets it up so people aren't acting as their own authority on the matter.

Finally, Jayvdb is a strong supporter of sourcing by reliable sources. That should be your number one priority right now. That is what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. You can have as many concerns that he may not side on your side of a debate, but if his only concern is making sure only reliable sources are used and making sure that people know which sources are reliable, then I think it is best for everyone to have such a person. We are not supposed to prejudge a topic and fill in articles to back it up. We are supposed to fill in articles that are reliable to form the topic. I think, in the long run, this is the only safe option, and it will serve your needs in the most effective way. Few other ArbCom candidates have such a background or have such considerations. Few ArbCom candidates have created as much content for the Wiki projects as Jayvdb, and few ArbComs have spent as much time offering the body of reliable human knowledge to the world for free as Jayvdb does. Those are my thoughts on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I responded on the page where Jayvdb asked me to respond. The issue is more complex than just whether a source is reliable; it's editors who aren't knowledgeable in science not understanding that a journal's reputation may be unrelated to whether a specific article is the best source to use, and admins who intervene against knowledgeable science editors and in favor of tendentious editors, and who may use the information in our journal articles incorrectly. That is not Jayvdb's issue; he only started the Project, and isn't responsible for how it may be used. I have not opposed him; I don't know him well enough to support him, but he can follow up on my concerns at the link he gave me, where I responded. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, am I knowledgable about Tourette Syndrome? Am I a literary person? Was I able to talk to you and figure out which sources were right, which were wrong, and able to provide you with a whole set to look through and work with? Then why would he be any different as a non-science person? And I strongly stand by certain sources being the top of their field as having more repute than other sources. I think it would be very different if information came from Nature than from Zoobooks, no? He is putting out that information so the whole community can be informed so many of the problems don't arise to begin with. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Any tips?

On an edit war in an FA that does not appear aggressive enough for admins to take action? Details here. --Moni3 (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

"The edit warring isn't really aggressive enough to justify a block at the moment." What does that mean? Edit warring either is or isn't. Well, it's not going to get better on that article, since it's likely to go to the Academy Awards; we'll just need to encourage more eyes on the article. If I had the tips, Tony wouldn't be so busy at User:Tony1/AdminWatch and I wouldn't be so concerned whether the outcome of the ArbCom elections this year will continue the impact upon content contributors. And we seriously need to pay more attention to what's on at RfA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe "Role as a spokesman" will solve it for now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That's what it was before Voooooh changed it again and deleted the topic sentence of the section. I appreciate both your and Karanacs' comments, however. --Moni3 (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Save the appreciation for Karanacs; I wish we could clone her :-) She left a good message on the user's talk; hopefully that will help. She's a cool cucumber. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think my husband might hide if there were two of me running around. He thinks one is hormonal enough ;) Although it would certainly make keeping up with a toddler a lot easier. Karanacs (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but if he has two wives, then you get two husbands. FWIW. YMMV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I left a message on the user's talk page explaining about WP:BRD; he's really, really new and maybe just doesn't understand the protocol when there is a disagreement. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 15:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

My candidacy

Hello. I've been looking through the different arbcom guides and noticed yours. It seems as if i'm the only one you haven't gotten to yet. Not sure if you forgot or are still evaluating me, so I thought I'd pick you in curiosity of your vote. I'll respect your decision either way, of course, I'm just wondering if you've made a decision, or if there's anything you need to ask me :) Wizardman 22:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That time of year

SG, While I am feeling much better, I am now overwhelmed with grading papers and finals. Whoo! I probably won't be able to get back to much reviewing until the 20th or so. So sorry, but, hey, my students come first! (Any ideas on how to convince my students that the final is not scary but is actually easy, if they came to class and participated?) Awadewit (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ugh.

Someone just created Thomas the tank engine and autism. Looking for spread, I found this: Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends#Popularity with autistic audience. I haven't wanted to stab myself in the eye with a fork this bad since Jenny McCarthy 'cured' her son. It doesn't take a medical degree to see how unscientific the two referenced 'studies' were, but this crap is certainly all over the internet, so maybe there's a (heavily skeptical) place for it here somewhere. Thoughts? Maralia (talk) 04:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The new McCarthyism; parents who use their children as guinea pigs. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Voodoo polls as sources in medicine. When Raul was on ArbCom, we got strong rulings on science. That's the best I can muster today; you might want to folow up there to make sure something happens. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas the tank engine and autism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Expert images

Sandy, this was brought up a few weeks ago with no real consensus. Images in Quark, FAC here, are made by a user on Wikipedia, and there's absolutely no way I can tell if it is accurate. I know that GrahamColm makes his own images of viruses based on his experience as a microbiologist, and he did not seem warm to the suggestion that he verify them. I knew this was going to come up, but I'm not sure what to do here. The licensing for them appears fine, but... I don't feel comfortable verifying their accuracy. In these cases, would you just like to see confirmation that the licensing appears to be fine? Or does this need to go back to the FAC talk page? --Moni3 (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I've only logged on briefly today, Moni, and I won't be able to look at that until tomorrow. My house is flooded (yes, again), and my dog has pneumonia (yes, again). I'll look tomorrow, but in the meantime, hopefully others will pitch in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Dang. Here's hoping the frogs, boils, locusts, and river of blood doesn't pile on. Don't anger God. If anyone else wants to pitch in this discussion, please give me your input. --Moni3 (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Excuse my butting in. When I drew an unacceptable image this was the response. Wikipedia encourages editors to upload their own images—in fact it is policy. There are even Wikiprojects to help editors who want to contribute them. What happened with my first diagram of an electron microscope is exactly how the accuracy of images should be judged. If a source does not exist for a home-made diagram, (and if it is truly home-made there should not be one), it would be silly to ask the creators to provide one. Elcobbola summed it up nicely here. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 19:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I asked for yours and anyone else's input into this, and I participated and and watched the conversation on the FAC talk page that you linked to.

• Question: Since I'm reviewing images for licensing and sources, and sometimes for reliability at FAC, is it my job to be able to verify the accuracy of images? What's best is if I can see a link to a web-based source. After that, a reliable source like a book or some other publication. If the image is self-made in a drawing program with no source, I just don't know what to do. It is my personal belief that the site exists to answer the fundamental question of "How do we know what we know?" The tags are intended to make people more accountable for their knowledge. I have no problem with self-made images, and think more should be on the site, but my issue is proving that they are accurate. I can't do that for quarks and viruses. Should that be left up to the community to decide if they are accurate, per the link to the electron microscope image? Should I make commentary on the licensing only and add a caveat in the FAC that I am unable to judge the reliability of the illustrations? Is the responsibility of a self-made illustration on the uploader or the community as a whole? Many questions, but I value your input. --Moni3 (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Moni, I think we can rely on the community to verify the accuracy, (and usefulness) of self-made diagrams. Where you and I lack expertise there are many others who have it. We must not confuse "licensing" with "accuracy". I don't want to reiterate all the points I made in that long discussion we had—but I still stand by them. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 19:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Update: Moni, I won't be able to look at that today; the perfect storm in my life got worse overnight, and I'm home alone, dealing with the "frogs, boils, locusts, and river of blood". And more. I took a break last night to run through FAC, and saw that there is still very little that I can close. I will spend a few hours now catching up, but I will only be able to pr/ar those that aren't too complicated, so I can get back to the locusts. Except for the image and source reviews, and the reviews from the steady few, there is nothing I can do at FAC if we don't get more reviewers; I saw lots of long FACs but almost no Support/Oppose declarations. It's not fair to nominators and writers for me to archive away half of the page for lack of input. I will leave a message to Raul about how we might address these problems after I get through this storm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. Hopefully everything gets well over there, and take your time to deal with stuff in meatspace. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Normally I would be doing a few full reviews, but the house is in the last stages before being finished, it's the holidays, I'm trying to get my barn into shape to move the horses to the new place, my SO's daughter needs a visit three states away and the weather is not cooperating, and I've done no Xmas shopping.. ARGH! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I've not been able to return to this discussion. It might help to have the role of the image reviewer defined a bit. It is my understanding that an image review entails checking the sources, licensing, and placement/aesthetics of images in the article. In checking sources, sometimes that overlaps with checking accuracy, just to make sure the nominator is aware that what is being listed as a source is reflecting the accurate link. Per Graham, accuracy is not a part of the image reviewer's tasks, particularly for self-made images. If questions arise about the accuracy of a Featured Article's images, they should go to the nominator. I'm worried that they would also go to me, when I am unable to confirm. If you agree that I should not be verifying accuracy, Sandy, I'll go ahead and check for the other parts in an image review. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Moni, I haven't forgotten you. I was just getting to this, but my electrician called and ... well ... I'll be back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What, did something arc from the breaker box, waking up The Monster? Get to it when you can. I'm kinda doing the best I can, with the resources I have. I feel like I'm not doing such a bang up job here, and that perhaps Elcobbola is wincing as he reads through what I'm doing. So, you know...ever helpful, like The Blue Beetle. Doing deeds that don't need to be done. --Moni3 (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That has probably happened, too; much too much to tell, over the few years I've been in this house, it's been one neverending thing after another. Long and short is I should have sued the builder a couple of years ago when I found out how bad things were, but ... I'm not the suing kind, and I didn't want to see that man in court for the rest of my life, thought I'd be able to fix it all myself for the same amount I was going to end up paying attorneys. Most of it seems unfixable, and every time something happens, everything happens. I kicked the guy off the property finally, have an utterly adorable new builder, but it's been a constant struggle, always something. Why the dog had to get pneumonia at the same time is the kicker, and then there's trying to get my tree finished still ... Why the steam shower that the dog needs to breathe also had to go out, unrelated, at the same ... sheesh ... locusts. There's much more, but that's the flavor ... it's the poor dog trying to breathe through pneumonia that is hard, and I haven't gotten the steam going yet, so it's a kiddie cool mist humidifier, not to mention rugs need to be dried out, furniture moved out then moved back ... that's enough, I don't mean to whine. I'm going to try to start reading that FAC now and see how far I can get. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Catching up: frustrating FAC, I can't tell who wrote what and I'll have to step back through the diffs to add unsigned templates. Moni, I'm not seeing a discussion of images there; is there a specific image in question? The article still has an unnecessarily complex lead, common theme in our math/physics articles, where the problem is the prose, not the science, but they get support anyway. I found a SLAC site last time through that gave a simple, straightforward introduction to quarks that I hoped would be used as an example. Unclear why Ruslik says here that images are exempted from OR. The wording at WP:OR is circular; it says they're not OR as long as they're not OR, not a very well-worded sentence. Then it goes on to clarify that OR is not allowed.

• WP:OR: Original images created by a Wikipedia editor are not, as a class, considered original research – as long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. ... Images that constitute original research in any way are not allowed.

The discussion here comes down to policy, WP:V, when to cite, and WP:OR, whether the image constitutes orignal research. As with text, sometimes that is not black-and-white and you have to toss it back to reviewers and domain experts. Quick look, I would guess:

File:Standard Model of Elementary Particles.svg contains data and a source.

File:Quark structure proton.svg seems to fall under WP:V, that is, just a schematic, domain experts would argue whether it is likely to be challenged or needs sourcing.

File:Quark decays.svg schematic and quantitative data, concepts that are hopefully sourced or discussed in the article text.

File:Hadron colors.png schematic, domain experts would argue whether it is common knowledge or likely to challenged, may not need a source, but why not add one to show it's not OR ? Interestingly, discussed in text, but no source, so the image has same issue as text.

So, Moni, on the question of your role as an image reviewer, I have a whole 'nother concern. I don't want image or source reviewers to burn out, so the answer is, you do what you can, you flag what you notice. I'd not pigeonhole the "job", or "segment" each kind of reviewer's "job" too narrowly; this overspecialization at FAC is misleading, and sometimes results in other reviewers slacking off and not looking deeper. As Ealdgyth does when she sees anything she's unsure of, you just flag things for reviewers to check. Whether reviewers do check is another issue ... <sigh> ... but the person who is running through checking licensing and sourcing of images can't do everything, be everything, know everything in every content area, and I'm more worried about burnout of image reviewers than whether you get every single detail. If there's something that troubles you and you feel it needs verification, you can flag that and let reviewers sort it out (or ignore it, as they often do). Generally, flag anything that you're unsure of, let topic experts sort it just as they would WP:V, WP:OR issues for text. I hope I'm answering the question you're asking; this is quick because I'm so far behind, so I may have completely missed the point. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the response, Sandy. Right now, I'll do what I can I suppose. I am clearly still learning and making a doof out of myself in the process. I feel a bit shifty commenting, for example, that the licensing appears to be fine, but in essence, I wash my hands of the accuracy of a self-made image. However, I don't see any way around that at the moment. Thanks for the clarification. --Moni3 (talk) 14:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom election

Hi Sandy. I can see from the above that you are busy. Hope all is well with the house and your dog gets better. If you have time, would you be able to look at what I've posted here (general comments in the form of a final election statement) and here (specific comments about your oppose rationale). Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 05:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

FAC question

Greetings. Though I see you are very busy, I wanted to ask you a question. I have a current FAC nomination Meshuggah. It is a week there now and it got almost no comments. What I can say for sure already now is that I would not have any time for another nomination. What can I do to help this one to get some comments?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 10:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

See User talk:SandyGeorgia#Expert images; reviews are lagging across all FACs. It might help if more nominators would take time to review other FACs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll be waiting. But please don't remove the nomination if it does not get enough reviews. Give it time please. I won't have any time for another nomination...I am too busy in "reality" already an I want to get this done :)--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 22:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I hope your house gets well soon.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 10:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

WT:TFAR

I've left a few suggestions on this page, as a basis for possible changes to the present TFA nomination system. Possibly similar suggestions have been made in the past and voted down, I don't know. Perhaps when you have time you could let me know, briefly, if you thing any of these ideas are worth pursuing. Thanks, and I hope your local troubles die down. Brianboulton (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

As soon as I get a free moment, I intended to formalize your proposal for feedback. It's best to start a new section and put up the exact current wording next to the proposed change, so others can opine. I will do it as soon as I'm able. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests#Proposal regarding high-point nominations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

FAC reviews needed?

Sandy, I may have a bit of unexpected time over the next 24 hours that I could use at FAC to do two or three reviews. I just did one, but I see you're promoting/archiving now. Are there any FACs you'd particularly like to get reviews on, or should I just start at the bottom after you're done and work my way up? Mike Christie (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Electrician is here; if you can wait a bit, I'll start at the bottom and see what I see. Thanks, Mike. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to be able to get any more done tonight, Mike; anything that doesn't have a clear direction needs review. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'll see if I can get some done in the morning. Hope the electrician did whatever was needful. Mike Christie (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: The Tic Code

Dear SandyGeorgia,
Thanx for letting me know all of this.
He did a fabulous job on this article!
Just to let you know, I edited before he did that fabulous job!
Thanx for showing me this!
ATC (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Croatian national football team, redux

You may get the article back on your hands soon, and it may or may not be FA worthy, but at least it isn't an embarrassment anymore. I pushed it into GAR, a couple of people did much of the copyediting and I got my hands dirty a little too and Domiy actually has a pretty good article on his hands, despite his best efforts to the contrary. The GAR will close once they come up with one more reference, I think, and then it's up to them. Good luck!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thinking of you  :-(

Check email.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have; you are such a dear. I'll be ok. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

PS, my apologies for the "All About Me, Me, Me" response ... your heart is as big as your wit and your waistline. Thank goodness for Moni, to remind me of my manners. Mr. Porcine, hearty congratulations for your strong showing in the election are in order; for a non-admin to finish as strong as you did shows the esteem in which you are held among the cognoscenti. I regret that other unfortunate affairs prevent me from attending the post-election party, and I hope the good food and drink flow freely. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo could always decide to go with someone not in the top seven. Of course, its possible that he may thing that there are too many skinny people on ArbCom and remedy it. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Transparency International

I don't try to keep up with Venezuelan articles anymore; they are all institutionally WP:OWNed, and no one on Wiki cares. I did some cleanup there. Separately, your website is still not a reliable source. That's why Chavez beat you all; he worked the media, learned from Castro, benefitted from Carter's sellout, and spent a fortune of money that belonged to the pueblo on propaganda, while you all still sit there, gozando de la vida buena, wondering, cuando nos van a mandar las marinas? Translation: que los jovenes gringos corran sangre pa'que el chamo no tenga que hacerlo. Right; we'll get right on that, when you all do something about it yourself, besides silly marches and ineffective radicalized websites. Cada pais merece su gobierno. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow Sandy. Now is you the one sounding every bit as a fanatical zealot. There's so much lack of objectivity and contempt in your 'reply' that I truly wonder how you dare call yourself a neutral editor. I didn't even mention my website, which, BTW, is no longer online. As per the 'marinas' I don't want or care for them; the whole world can look at Iraq to see what they're capable of. But you did get one thing right: cada pueblo tiene el gobierno que se merece. 82.35.33.205 (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC) Alekboyd82.35.33.205 (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sr. Boyd, se te olvidó algo? Por nada; a la orden. I cleaned up Transparency International per your request, but I saw nothing there and made no edits that you couldn't have made yourself. Yes, you did reference your website.[6] You are welcome to question the neutrality of my edits to Wikipedia, but the contempt is for Venezuelans showing up on my talk page and in my inbox asking me to do their work for them when they do precious little for themselves. I'm short on patience with Venezuelan men at the moment, so unless you intend to do some productive editing, rather than asking me to do it for you, la puerta está por allá. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course Sandy, I should have said thanks for editing out bias in the page about Transparency International. Allow me to be clear on a couple of things though : first, I decided to finish my website, no hard feelings about your discussion with Flanker about it, so my intention is not to have you, or anybody, revise your decision. Hugo Chavez is a known quantity by now, all that is required to realize who he is, and what he represents, is to read major news outlets, for they've figured out what kind of a 'leader' he is, so my work in that respect is already completed. Second, I am not a Wiki editor, you are, therefore I only wanted to call your attention on something in which you spend time: i.e. editing. Third, I can question whatever I want, whenever I want, wherever I want and whoever I want, so you're not exempt from criticism. As per having done precious little, I beg to differ. What I have done is on the public domain and recognized by chavistas, and their international cheerleaders, and opposition alike. Fourth, we agree, I am too short on patience on Venezuelans, that is why I decided to discontinue what I was doing. So I shall take my leave and leave you in peace. Thanks again for what you've done.Alekboyd (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)AlekboydAlekboyd (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Vamos a estar claro, OK? Cuando estás en mi casa—and my talk page is my house on Wiki—pidiendo que yo te hago un favor, you can question whatever you want to the extent that I decide not to show you the door. You can question my edits on article talk pages anytime you want. As to who has done precious little, the results speak for themselves. The Country Club is still full of sifrinas whining cuando nos van a mandar las marinas, Centro Comercial El Tolón is still full, the Johnny Walker Black is still flowing, the pueblo is still hungry, and corruption and crime are at unbearable highs. Y el venezolano sigue siendo tan comodo como siempre, y le importa un cariso. Good job, guys. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Accept my apology if you felt disrespected, honestly it was not my intention. I have never set foot in the Country Club and the last time I visited El Tolón, the place was sort of a theme park for kids. We're talking more than 30 years ago here Sandy. I don't drink whisky, and have better things to do with my life than hanging with brainless sifrinos/as, or those that you say wish for the marines to come solve our problems. However I do care about my country of birth, otherwise we would not be having this conversation, but you're right on the money with regards to los venezolanos in general and el pueblo is getting exactly what they deserve. I am not one of those though. Peace. Alekboyd (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)AlekboydAlekboyd (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Accepted, Alek, and peace to you and los suyos as well. (El Tolón is a shopping center now, like most of Las Mercedes.) I'm always glad to help, but the problem is, when you show up and ask me to do what none of them/you will do, well, that's muy venezolano, muy comodo, y muy arrogante, and I've no patience for it. 'Ya gotta help yourselves before asking me/us to do the work. I've never heard of a Venezuelan who doesn't drink whiskey :-) Cordialmente, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)