User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch66

ANI again

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Rd232 ^talk 10:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Tut tut. Have you been a naughty girl SandyG? Never catch me at ANI, except that time when ... oh and there was that other time ... and I'd forgotten about ... :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 13:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I should set up a subpage so Rd232 can harass me :) Does anyone wonder why Mark Weisbrot, who most people have never heard of, is suddenly so important to so many pro-Chavez editors? Following all of their edits is giving me some clues to what this is about ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Two articles

Hi Sandy, I'm having some issues understanding a few things. Have you got a moment to comment on the following?

• Talk:Criticism of Human Rights Watch#Confused
• Talk:Mark Weisbrot#Having issues parsing a sentence here...

I haven't got an issue with what's being said (I don't know anything about Venezuela at all I'm afraid), I'm just trying to work out what the sentence is trying to say! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Tbsdy, I looked at the second, and your proposal is fine. On the first, that article has been subjected to tendentious editing, and I don't have time to weigh in there. I'm sure that article is a mess, like others affected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Splarka/sysopdectector.js

Sandy, may I add a script to your monobook.js that will allow you to tell if someone is an administrator or not just by viewing their userpage? NW (Talk) 17:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I would appreciate that ... I've got to check out of my hotel. Thanks for doing that ... I'm usually a very busy editor, and I certainly missed that x 2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Done :) Cheers, NW (Talk) 17:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you; I won't have time to properly look at it and really thank you until I resurface. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I looked and it works great ! Thanks again, NW; now I've no excuse for my ... ummm ... incompetence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Moni3 and RegentsPark

Thanks for the reverts, but isn't it more fun to keep the crazy posts around so others can enjoy them :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's worth it to remove a mere "You suck!", but when it's really over the top, then it's a keeper. Like a snapshot of someone very angry and unbalanced, to keep in your pocket forever. --Moni3 (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I always like the projective factor in angry posts, but I don't think I want them in my pocket. Besides, I like to let the misimpressions stand ... they come in handy ... and sure beat the time a friend described the real me to all of UseNet :-( Stuck in the airport by a snowstorm ... damn, it's cold here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

And now Laser, too ... I could have come home to so much fun ! Engvar my face :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

One of the many irritating things about ANI

Are you offended that I closed the discussion? It was taking on the appearance of an ad hoc conduct RfC on you, complete with subheaders for involved and uninvolved editors' opinions. It seemed like the respectful decision in light of your long service to the project, but if you'd rather snark in reply then by all means conduct your disputes there as long as you'd like. Excuse the interference; it was intended kindly. Durova⁴¹² 02:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Not so much offended, since Rd232 shouldn't be waging his campaign against me at ANI anyway, but I believe you knew that I was bothered years ago when I announced I'd be busy with my family for a few hours, and the thread was shut down. Since that thread was about me, it seems strange for it to be shut down just when I announced I'd be away for a while. I appreciate your good intent, but I owed an apology to JN, which deserved the wider audience where the incident was raised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I've just gone through security and re-logged on to see that you unarchived the thread; that wasn't necessary. I merely wanted to apologize to JN (and I don't think collapsing should be used in place of archive top and bottom, since they hide the whole thread, and what Rd232 did there should be open and available for all to see). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It looked like a thread that had been misfiled from the start. Sometimes people go to ANI when dispute resolution is needed instead; the community rarely acts upon that type of complaint so the problem usually worsens as the participants become frustrated. In general, the best thing to do is refer it elsewhere when people start digging trenches and lobbing verbal grenades. I did not intuit any hidden meaning behind your posts and certainly didn't intend to prevent you from making amends. This may have been one of the exceptions and I apologize for any difficulty that created. Durova⁴¹² 03:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No difficulty, no apology needed ... Rd232 has been to about every noticeboard on Wiki ranting about me ... we should set up a special Rd232 rant noticeboard :) We also haven't gotten to the bottom yet of the potential coordinated meatpuppetry, or Rd232's strange statements/concerns about Mark Weisbrot appearing to be an unregistered agent of a foreign government.[1] [2] Beyond trying to figure out why or how Rd232 came up with that notion, I'm too tired to think about it right now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"Rd232 has been to about every noticeboard on Wiki ranting about me " - not that's you Sandy. Every bloody time at content-related dispute resolution you "ranted" (not an entirely unfair characterisation, though I wouldn't choose the word) about me (and often JRSP too). I'm more than than happy to provide diffs showing that; this would be a start. I have consistently sought to use DR for its intended purpose; and you have consistently sought to derail that purpose, and use it as a platform to attack me. This reached the point at WP:RSN (also due to another editor attacking as well, but Sandy did her share) that I had to start a separate thread to try to get back to an actual content discussion. Rd232 ^talk 08:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"Mark Weisbrot appearing to be an unregistered agent of a foreign government" - I said no such thing; and I object to you pretending that you do not fully understand the implications of your sustained attempt to link CEPR with VIO. Venezuela Information Office is a registered agent of a foreign government (well, was, I think they're defunct), and linking someone with them is clearly intended to discredit that someone. Given the tenuousness of the links and the gravity of the insinuation, an editor of your experience cannot possibly pretend that you do not know *exactly* what you are doing - which is to seek to discredit anyone writing about Venezuela in a way you don't like. Rd232 ^talk 08:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Rd232, whenever you decide whether you are or are not retiring, and can come to my talk page to discuss with me without attacking me, we can have a dialogue. If you continue to assume bad faith and lodge blatant personal attacks on me everywhere you post, dialogue is unlikely to be productive. The choice is yours; I'm all ears, but I am not going to engage your personal attacks or assumptions of bad faith, just to have you say you're retiring mid-discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

And there we are: whenever you cannot deal with straightforward issues you either make personal attacks, claim attacks on you, or just walk away. You are - very slowly - succeeding in giving me the motivation to take you to arbcom. please desist from doing so, as I can ill afford the time involved. Rd232 ^talk 19:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Re-iterating: when you are calm, willing to start a dialogue where you will refrain from personal attacks or disappearing into retirement, do come back here and talk to me, not at me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Another ANI

I bring your attention to my recent post at ANI - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Motion_to_close. Our choices at this point seem to be the Thunderdome-style drama of an arbcom case (you seem to be preparing for that), or burying the hatchet - chalking up past problems to some kind of miscommunication in order to regain mutual AGF. I realise I we have diametrically opposed views on Venezuela; but we ought nonetheless to be able to get along if we focussed sufficiently on content and worked hard enough to bring in many more editors via content dispute resolution. Anyway, it's up to you. Rd232 ^talk 15:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Rd232, I am encouraged to see two posts from you that include no personal attacks on me, and do hope that this means a line can be drawn in the sand and we can move forward more productively. (No, I'd not like to see an ArbCom case, which would be immensely difficult and time-consuming, but have found that I need to defend myself against the sustained attacks on multiple fronts by building a clear history, including work that needs to be done on these articles-- you might note that documentation came in handy when I had to address outrageously unfounded claims from The Four Dueces at AN/I,[3] and considering this situation is too complex and drawn out for uninvolved observers to follow.) However, I find one aspect of your ANI post confusing/troubling, and recognize that I may be misreading or misinterpreting (particularly in light of JN's good observations about what it has been like for me to deal with these sustained attacks while I have so much else going on IRL and on Wiki). Rather than drag all of ANI through my questions to you, I suggest resolving my concern/confusion about one aspect of your post to ANI here-- is that acceptable to you? I appreciate that you have now posted to me without attacks, and hope this is a sign of better collaboration ahead for us. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, clearly we also disagree on who attacked who more (and probably who attacked who first). As I said, the choice is between an arbcom case trying to settle that, or letting bygones be bygones and focussing on content. I'm glad you find the idea of an arb case as unappealing as I do. Whatever your outstanding questions or concerns are, ask away. Rd232 ^talk 23:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Rd, I'm not ignoring you, just have been really zapped by IRL issues, and way behind here. I must read FAC today and tomorrow, and may not get back to you until tomorrow or even Monday, because of IRL stuff. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Rd, let's put this chapter behind, try to "reset", and move forward constructively. We certainly have differing opinions about what happened here, but moving forward now is more helpful than re-examining the past. My questions became moot when the CU was denied, and I have confidence in the neutrality of the checkusers. If they didn't find my evidence sufficient, I accept that, and extend my apologies to you for any discomfort the SPI caused for you. (I would extend the same to Off2riorob, but he's made it clear that I'm not welcome on his talk page.) I am troubled, though, by some of your statements made at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp, after the clerk asked that we no longer comment there, preventing me from responding. Coordinated meatpuppetry was found, and that is the same as sockpuppetry for these purposes.

Eva Golinger popped up just as I had time to respond to you here, and I hope that using a rapidly-developing new article to show Venezuelan editors how to edit effectively, and where they run afoul of policy and guideline, will be constructive. I'd rather teach them to fish there than doing the fishing for them, but I hope you see how my edit count is so often inflated, simply by cleanup, and not use WP:EDITCOUNTITIS against me in the future :)

Separately, you have made some statements in all of this about my beliefs re Chavez which are incorrect. He is not a "dictator"; he was elected, due to arrogance by complacent and negligent Venezuelans, who have no one to blame but themselves (if I have any contempt, it's for them), with the help of some corruption in the electoral processes (subject to controversy, and depending on who you believe, but the controversy is real and valid, reliably sourced, and shouldn't be downplayed), furthered by Carter's naivete about the control of the electoral processes and exclusion of other voter oversight orgs, and again furthered by the Carmona debacle, yet another example of Venezuelan arrogance. Reliable sources clearly demonstrate the damage to representative democracy that has resulted in Venezuela through Chavez's consolidation of power and abuse of human rights. In summary; my contempt, if you detect any, is not for Chavez, but for complacent, arrogant Venezuelans whose behavior resulted in his election, who won't do their own work in recovering full democracy, and seem happy to leave the Wiki work to me, a solas, and as to the real world work, well, they expect the gringos to "mandar las marinas" (and Clinton sure isn't going to do that, nor should American boys shed blood where Venezuelans won't). Those are my beliefs, and they are backed by reliable sources, combined with my views on Venezuelan complacency, corruption and comfort, aided by Carter, Chavez and Castro (the six C's of the degradation of democracy in Venezuela). In the meantime, the rich get richer, and the poor and middle classes suffer. I know plenty in all classes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, reset button pushed... now.

On the SPI, (a) I read the clerk note as requesting no further evidence/discussion; my note was update/followup/implied request for action. (b) the elision of the initial sockpuppetry claim into "meatpuppetry", which I've addressed repeatedly, annoyed/annoys me. The edit histories of those accounts do not tally with meatpuppetry as described in WP:MEAT. Of course a slight danger remains, but now that it's all in the open (and two of the accounts were using real names anyway), and they seemingly know not to edit the relevant articles, the danger is much defused.

On your beliefs - OK, noted. I hope you'll do me the courtesy of accepting that my beliefs have not been accurately represented by my edit history; and in particular, the fact that I've used Venezuelanalysis as a source doesn't mean I'm "pro-Chavez" as you no doubt understand the term - for reasons that should be clear from it being widely used as a source in academic works and reading lists. To be clear, that I've often used it as a source certainly doesn't mean I think it should be the only source on a given topic; obviously no article should rely on a single source; but as you note, few are interested in really working substantively on Venezuela, so WP:WIP applies quite strongly. (It's a pity that so much of the activity there is seems to revolve around issues and sources which are not properly encyclopedic; too much "let's make Chavez look bad" and not enough "what should this Venezuela-related encyclopedia article look like.)

Much more generally, much of what relatively little I've actually achieved on Venezuela articles (so much more talking than doing) is presenting a bit more background about how messy the situation is, and how messy the situation was before 1998. Far too much of the discourse involves a selectivity premised on a 1998 "fall from grace" in which Chavez takes on an a quasi-Luciferian appearance. I do think that by and large at least the Venezuelan Chavistas have a clearer "warts and all" picture than members of the opposition, who seem too much to believe its own press. I could give some very concrete examples from my experience from both camps (I've better contacts to the latter :) ), but for privacy reasons I won't. Rd232 ^talk 18:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me butting in ... but are you talking about the Venezuelan recall referendum, 2004? As it happens, I've just read the Carter Center and Weisbrot papers on that controversy, as well as a little bit from Hausmann, and in the far distant future, when you have spare time again :), I'd love to debate the evidence with you. (I do have some basic skills in mathematical statistics, and I thought Weisbrot and the Carter Centre had it right.) --JN466 17:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Carter's role in that, and the absence of other oversight. You've got to read more than naive, justifying-his-actions Carter (I know what Carter said when he got his tail outta there, but that's not an RS :), partisan Weisbrot, and semi-partisan Hausmann. That one's going to be tough, JN, and there is so much to do, I'm not sure it's the best place to focus effort. There just aren't enough hours in the day ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

General question for TPS

Is there a forum on Wiki that deals with the ways different browsers read images and spacing and such? I'm having some issues with Internet Explorer reading a large white space in List of invasive species in the Everglades when the two large images appear stacked such as in this version. Another user shifted one of the images to another section because he says it looks disrupted. (See that version here.) I have looked at the version with stacked images in Firefox and IE and cannot notice a difference. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I have a big, ongoing problem with image display on IE, and went to WP:VP/T a month or so about that; they weren't able to resolve it. You can try searching VP:T for my old post about image display problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Moni, that thread is at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 70#Image display problems; I still have the problem on IE (which is very frustrating for FAC work), but I downloaded Safari (which I hate), and do not have the problem there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Why do you not use Firefox? I began using to escape pop-ups, but got so used to it I cannot seem to transition back to anything else. Thanks for the link, though. --Moni3 (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll try that next (in all my spare time :) Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Might have fixed it. See these, too. [4], [5]. --Moni3 (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I checked three articles that were giving me problems, and it does seem fixed. Does that mean I don't have to install Firefox now?  :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You are only postponing the inevitable, Sandy... Waltham, The Duke of 23:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Did I dream of a conversation recently where a script was revealed or developed that colors all ref text, or text between <ref></ref> tags? If someone knows about this script, can you direct me to it? If I dreamt it, can someone develop it? --Moni3 (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone did mention something like that, but also, see my monobook for a script that allows you to edit only refs while in edit mode on an article. I use that when I'm only cleaning up citations, not editing text, which means I can't use it to verify text, because it only shows what's between ref tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, I looked at your monobook while you weren't looking ... and copied some of the scripts into mine, but it's not doing what I think it should be doing. I'm trying to copy edit an article that uses cite templates, and they only make everything difficult to read in edit mode. --Moni3 (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, then you're looking for something else that was mentioned in some of the SlimVirgin conversations, either on WT:FAC, or in those that got moved to WT:WIAFA. Hopefully, a TPS will know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

That's WikEd that color-codes. I couldn't edit without it. Awadewit (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, Awadewit. Gah! I have to get used to all this colored text now. Thanks! --Moni3 (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

FAR on Flag of India and Darjeeling

They've finished work on it, if you want to check the MOS. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

YM, I will get to this, promise, but perhaps not til Monday or so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:ArticleHistory

I am under the impression that many of this page's TPSs are interested in this template, so perhaps a notification here about this is not a bad idea. The lack of comments is rather disheartening. Waltham, The Duke of 08:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Duke (where have you been all my life?) ... I'll read through that as soon as I have time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, o great one. Here is an offering for Your Excellency. Waltham, The Duke of 04:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

FAC question?

Hi Sandy, I'm Hunter Kahn. I had a question about the rule that an editor can only have one FAC out at a time. Currently, I have an FAC out and under review. There is another article that I have worked on with another nominator in the past, and when it is listed, we would both be co-nominators. If two people are listed as nominators, could we list that article on FAC, despite my having one out already? Or would that FAC with two co-nominators count as the one FAC allowed for both of us? Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 16:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I must admit that I haven't had time to see where that discussion at WT:FAC ended; perhaps others can weigh in? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I'll bring it over there. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 17:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Noronha skink

I replied to your queries at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Noronha skink/archive1. Since it's all relatively minor stuff, I hope we can resolve it quickly. Ucucha 22:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! (No need to ping me when I'm reading FAC, I watchlist them as I make notes :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

In that case, I'm sorry for the unnecessary ping (doing another now to make up for it). Thanks for the attention to detail there, even if I disagreed with your suggestions, and for promoting it. Ucucha 23:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome

Sandy,

Hello you deleted my edit on aspergers. Can you at least send it back to me so I don't have to rewrite it and I will look at the the guidelines and tailor my article to those, conversely I will submit it to you prior to posting. I am a writer I do not want to waste time writing when it wont be posted.

Sincerely,

Dawn —Preceding unsigned comment added by HFAgirl (talk • contribs) 00:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll respond on your talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

've moved the material you wrote for discussion to Talk:Asperger syndrome#Removed edits; if you click there, you can discuss your edits. First, it might be helpful to read WP:TALK about how to participate in talk page discussions. Add your comments below the text already there, indenting them by adding a colon first, and please be sure to sign your entries by adding four tildes (Dawn 01:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)) at the end of your post. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sandy,

Gosh it is nice to have someone to guide me. I have Aspergers obviously :), however a lot of times I have difficulty following or reading through directions like four tildes? This is ironic given that I have no problem reading a dissertation in the field of neurobiology lol. So if you can give me some of your patients, I would be so grateful, can I add to the page on Aspergers Syndrome under my own section? I had much difficulty with comprehension of the rules. I am a very extreme left brain thinker and things have to be explained to be like this;

1. 2. 3.

It is rather irritating to most however I am very intelligent and well educated in the area of Aspergers. I felt there needed to be a section with some explanation, I can remove that I have aspergers however I genuinely feel that would take away from what I have to say I can polish up post with more science and as you saw my footnote. I hope you can help me.

Sincerely,

DawnDawn 01:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Is that write with the signs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HFAgirl (talk • contribs) 01:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Tillson Harrison

Hello SandyGeorgia, I'm just dropping by to ask why Tillson Harrison was archived from WP:FAC. All issues raised had been resolved except one, and I had not had time to react to it before the nomination was archived. Thanks, Arctic Night 04:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Gracias Mija

I've been watching your slow but certain battles against partisan editors (probably on a certain government payroll) and take my hat off. I am new, and learning, but will not let them bully me or use rules they later don't apply when they create propaganda for the government in question. Eva is an interesting case study of how an article like this will develop. Two editors in particular will, no doubt, come to her defense and make any edit that approaches the truth a slow but impossible battle.MarturetCR (talk) 05:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Si ella es "la novia de Venezuela" quien soy yo? Chopped liver, I guess :) I did only the minimum to bring it beyond deletion, but it needs work. And when you add unsourced words like "propaganda" to an article, they will be deleted (Wiki is based on verifiability, not truth). If you want your edits to stick, read and learn policy, edit neutrally and impeccably, with content reliably sourced. Also, I don't want my talk page to become Chavez Central, nor do I want negative statements about other editors lodged on my talk page; much work is needed, and it can best be done by using Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela. Venezuelans need to learn policy here, and start doing their own work; I can't do it all, and the only reason every Venezuelan article on Wiki is POV is because Venezuelans are gozando de la vida buena, mientras yo trabajo a solas. Oh, and even though no Wiki articles discuss the truth about political persecution in Venezuela, if that's your real name, I suggest you seriously exercise WP:RTV and come up with a new username :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I read Voui's battle to have an article about human rights violations in Venezuela seem like the one on Mexico, Brazil, Colombia--you know: with *actual* information as opposed to how great the laws are. You may well understand that speaking out and up can lead to dire consequences. I don't think I will use RTV yet. I have distant cousins but the rest of us are far enough away that the government there couldn't touch us unless the country I am in changes dramatically.  :-) CRMMarturetCR (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, well, as long as you're clear on the risks you're taking here. Chavez does have a good finger on the internet, and I happen to like some of your relatives :) And I certainly hope you're not editing from CANTV or a Venezuelan IP, as those are not secure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

thanks for cleaning up the Eva Golinger article

I don't know how to do references properly yet. thanks for cleaning all of that up for me. I have been reading for hours and trying to follow all the wiki rules on verifiability, sources, and so on. it has been very educational. but I fail to make the entries organized. so, star for you!  :-) MarturetCR (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I edit in very small pieces, doing things intentionally one step at a time, so that you can learn from my edits (my detractors, who haven't read WP:EDITCOUNTITIS, often use that information incorrectly :). For example, footnotes go after punctuation (except for dashes). If you step back through my edits, you may learn some editing technique; the faster you can learn policy and guidelines, the more effective you'll be. The citations all need to be cleaned up and formatted, but I didn't spend time on that because I haven't examined the sources yet. When I do that, you will be able to follow my edits to learn how to format sources. Marturet, you really should avoid disparaging Rd232 (the Golinger article has taken what little editing time I have today, so I haven't responded to him yet, but Rd232 and I are *both* trying to reset a collegial relationship, so you might consider altering the section heading and your post on the talk page); that won't advance your goals :) Your article talk page sections should be studiously neutral, focused on content, not disparaging other editors. Not all editors are on the Chavez payroll; many editors may have never been to Venezuela, have little contact with the poor or middle classes other than those touted by the propaganda machine, or don't know how the poor and middle classes have suffered under Chavez or how the wealthy have gotten so much wealthier while a whole new class of corrupt Boliburguesía was created while resources are drained from the poor. Some people are simply ideologically oriented towards Chavez's stated goals, and unable to recognize that those goals have not been realized. And seriously, I don't want to see your relatives thrown in jail for jaywalking on Paseo Las Mercedes; have you considered changing your username as I suggested above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Two things

I have sent an email and here is a nice song . Ceoil ^sláinte 16:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Six things:

1. I'm glad someone still loves "La Novia Despreciada de Venezuela".
2. Why is the English so ugly, the Spanish better?
3. Yomangani needs to fix that translation.
4. Growin' old ain't for sissies, but it sure beats the alternative, and the wisdom that comes along with it is worth it.
5. I will look for a response, but I won't be home most of today.
6. Very busy, will respond to e-mail later :)

Besos, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you ask:

1. Quite
2. English sounds just fine when spoken with a gaelac brogue, thank you very much
3. Yomangani should be blocked for sloth, is my openion
4. Growin' old is fine for me so far, except for that one grey hair on my eyebrow
5. Your talk page is so busy you need a delegate
6. I will stay awake until 2am tonight for an email reply, after that I will be most upset, and will sit in the dark weeping and eating brandy flavoured ice-cream. Ceoil ^sláinte 17:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

2. OK, you win; didn't see the movie, don't plan to, don't like Richard Gere, Jennifer Lopez, or Susan Sarandon, but at least men know how to apologize in Hollywood :) I'll e-mail my return song. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

7. You call me a girl, you won't get your song before 2 am. Only my girls can call me a girl. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

2. I can imagine Helen Mirren non pulssed by Richard Gere's wavey hair and cheesy, €1M simle. Jennifer Lopez is equally unatractive.

7. Oh, I have a bunch of other euphemisms. Ceoil ^sláinte 01:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

2. I failed to send you a link about Helen Mirren being "the thinking man's sex symbol".

7. Obviously, you're a thinking man.

8. If no one joins my Yo-man the Sloth image caption contest, I'm going to pick up my toys and stomp home. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

8. Nobody loves a stomper.

2. Helen Mirren = sex symbol. I had that one down already- Prime suspect 4? gosh, even my cooking and knitting teacher, Mr Dunne, figured that out. Ceoil ^sláinte 01:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

8. Oh, well; I'm already home, and I've got no toys, so I can't stomp home with them.

2. No he didn't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

2. The former Mrs Dunne would hold the same view as you to this day. But IMO it was a once off moment of clarity; after which it was all about Richard Gere, big hair, and more Richard Gere. I lost touch around 95. Ceoil ^sláinte 02:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

2a. Richard Gere is not the "thinking woman's sex symbol". If you like Jennifer Lopez, I can introduce you to my girls. If you like Susan Sarandon, God help ye. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

2b: Ah, I'm fine any happy as I am without Sarandon and that Lopez chick, thanks all the same. Really nice of you to offer - Gosh! - but pass. I'm sure I will not have this choice IRL, but in an abstract internety way - no way. Ceoil ^sláinte 02:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

2c. How unfortunate that Facebook is for girls. Would Shankbone switch sides for my girls? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

2dd. Funny you should ask. I am a scientist, and I categorically state, on my reputation and on the reputation of my son's son, and based on my scientific know-how and certified whatnot - yes, actually us men folk, certainly, would. Ceoil ^sláinte 02:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You're not tricking me with that DD business. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

2. Reliably sourced, no less; I'll let some thinking man add it to Helen Mirren. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Section 8, subsection m, paragraph 152, line 1,549: If you stomp home, make sure your toys have fresh batteries. Otherwise, going home would be useless. --Moni3 (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Image caption contest for the adorably rugged one

Don't I look hot in my Don Juan mask and pale white manicure? My apologies for my absence, but I won't be able to write rigorous Riggrfied refreshing articles until I've finished chomping leaves and visited the barber for a touch-up of my greys. Once I tire of gazing at my reflection and budding grapes, I will again tend to my scattered flock. Aw, I just love this tree; let the wild rumpus start. Yours, Yo-man.

Once he tires of gazing at his reflection and budding grapes, perhaps Yoman will again tend to his scattered flock. Ceoil ^sláinte 01:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't I look hot in my Don Juan mask with these long pale fingernails? My apologies for my absence, but I won't be able to write rigorous Riggrfied ridiculous articles until I've finished chomping leaves and visited the hair salon for a touch-up of my greys. Yours, Yo-man. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Aw, I just love this tree! --Malleus Fatuorum 02:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Let the wild rumpus start. Kablammo (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, you missed your moment to get Yo-man blocked for sloth. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Um,

Moni,

what

are

you

doing

with

yourself?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This in essence, is what I am doing with/to myself. Is that hot, or what? --Moni3 (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Moni, way to ask a question to which the obvious answear would have me blocked. Ceoil ^sláinte 00:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a simple yes or no question. How could that possibly get you blocked? Unless by "answear" that turns out to be "Fuck, yeah!" (Or, hell no) --Moni3 (talk) 00:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"Fuck, yeah!" is impossible American; we say k in English. In other words, you know we all fancy you Moni. Ceoil ^sláinte 02:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll ping Eubulides and see if he can earn his alt-text keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Contest is over: I've used my adminly powers and blocked the sloth. I shall shortly block all others who sloffed off this thread. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Other sloths blocked; anyone on Wiki can overturn my blocks. I'm going to my herbal bath. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

CItation formats

Sandy, you're going around changing my citation formats to your preferred format. (Some of the refs in that diff aren't mine.) I'm quite happy with my manual citation format and use it consistently; I forget what standard it is but if you want I can check. So, er, please don't change my citations without discussion. Rd232 ^talk 21:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The citations in that article are all over the map, so the problem there is worse than on other articles. But, your "preferred format" puts the publisher before the article name, and other vagaries that are not part of any standard format on Wiki, and don't conform with any articles (you should stick with the format used in the article, and not change it, particularly to such a unique style). Perhaps we should just switch to cite templates because of so many different editors using different formats? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:CITE#How to present citations; "Once a style is selected for an article it is inappropriate to change to another, unless there is a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well who's changing what? I don't change other people's citations, I just use my own style, which I have for a long time. I rarely work on articles where consistency of formatting is an issue; where I do I might bother following the established style - though in principle I think this consistency is very unimportant. (Thinking it's important tends to go with FAC work - not sure about cause and effect...) Incidentally I prefer publisher before article title because it's more important in terms of "how good is this source". Rd232 ^talk 11:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with citation formatting on Ven articles is bigger than this one article; how about if I raise it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela (as soon as I have time, not likely today), so we can try for broader understanding and consensus (and hope someone is watching that page and participates-- but I'm unsure where else I might summarize all the issues). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Christ myth theory

Hi Sandy, my request that the Christ myth theory article be promoted to FA status has been denied. I sort of feel that the request was torpedoed by what appears to be a reflexively POV commentator, but I imagine that most people in my situation feel that way. (Blah, these grapes are so sour!) You indicated that the article would benefit from a peer review. I'm open to that--though a little cautious since the article seems to act as a magnet for POV edits and vandalism. But both Intelligent Design and Xenu made it so progress must be possible. Even so, the peer review page states that "14 days must have passed since any previous peer review or unsuccessful FAC" before submitting the article for review. So... what do I do now; am I stuck? Eugene (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Controversial topics can become featured, but that article has had no peer review; when POV is raised early on in a FAC that has had no other review, it's better sorted in other review processes first. You'll have a much better shot at dealing with any POV claims if you bring back a very clean article to FAC after a peer review. Thanks for asking, with a sense of humor :) I wasn't aware that they wouldn't let you bring it right to PR from FAC, when it has had no PR yet; I suggest that you contact User:Ruhrfisch and point him to this thread; he will probably be flexible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll do that. Just as an aside, to say the article had "no other review" isn't quite accurate; it recently passed GA review. Eugene (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, but that's only one editor, and some GA reviewers are less thorough than others; it's not a process that invites as much community-wide participation as others. Good luck with it; hope to see you back at FAC soon! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

And deliberately so, as you know, else it couldn't cope with the volume. I do think though that many editors aren't sufficiently aware of the different standards expected at GAN and FAC (would "gulf" be too strong a word to use in this context?). GAs are supposed to be basically sound according to what's expected at wikipedia in terms of sourcing and so on, but FA is a bus ride beyond that. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

(raises eyebrows slightly as the al-Durrah article, at which I raised significant POV concerns, was allowed to stay and was eventually promoted over my oppose despite not having a PR or GA review.)--Wehwalt (talk) 12:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

FAC instructions have changed since then, allowing for quicker archives; and, my read of your input on that FAC is that even you were somewhat uncertain where you stood on that article. (PS, I keep meaning to point you toward this, that mentions one of your articles. I haven't studied it thoroughly, just happened across it because THF weighed in on articles I'm involved in right now.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. If there are alternate points of view on what Scalia's gesture meant that I do not mention (I think I mention three), I will be happy to include them. I've also asked THF to weigh in if he feels there is a problem with the use of that comment. If you see a problem, please feel free to so state on the FAC or article talk page. At this point, Scalia is in a holding pattern as I await new images from the Supreme Court.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw your query to him; I haven't looked at the article yet, but THF mentions Maureen Dowd. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Shrug. I added the Dowd bit because I had a reviewer say that the piece was too pro-Scalia. Dowd is attributed inline. Does he have a problem with my use of conservatives who praise Scalia?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I interpreted his draft there as a general commentary on/documentation of the double standard on Wiki (that most certainly exists on Venezuelan articles, where sources are rejected when anti-Chavez, and then same/similar even lesser quality sources accepted when pro-Chavez); no idea if he has a problem with anything, or if you'll hear back from him. Just happened across it while doing other stuff. I think he was just pointing out that what's good for the goose is not good for the gander on Wiki; he may have no problem with your text, rather using it to show that the same standard should apply across the board, on the other side of the aisle. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah so. Excuse me, back to Japan and my next project--Wehwalt (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

talkpage request

Hi, I saw a couple of comments and wanted to comment, I am not the type of person to hold bad feeling about isolated issues like the Weisbrot article and the SPI. It is all over for me and I bear no bad feeling at all about it, my request to you not to post on my talkpage was over that single discussion that was imo not going to be very productive, so you are free to post on my talk if and when you need to or want to. Things did get a bit excited but, no worries. Off2riorob (talk) 01:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, riorob ... then I guess you saw my apology for any discomfort the SPI caused, and I appreciate your post and a return to collaborative editing. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It's official

Your watchlist may have lit up a few minutes ago. It's official. I've lost my mind (or at least my temper), and I've apparently beaten you to the glories of arbitration scrutiny, lucky me. Don't worry if I'm not seen as often at WT:FAC for a little bit. I feel sorriest for Arbcom right now.... Karanacs (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I can cover FAC all you need between now and mid-March; hang on to your sanity :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm still planning to do my FAC duties (nice, well-written articles to read :)), but I may not be around on some of the discussions. Ping me if there's something ultra important that I might have otherwise missed. Karanacs (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Will do ! (Saw a red link in your arb filing.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget to finish off Lady of Quality before this all kicks off again Karanacs. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Half Barnstar
		Awarded to you and Rd232 – for having the courage to forgive, and for proving to the rest of us that it is possible to rise above disagreements. Here's to you both! JN466 21:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh noes! Now we really have to make it work! :) Rd232 ^talk 22:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. 466? Isn't that almost exactly double 232? What's the number for SPI?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks JN; very kind of you :) (Wehwalt, 466? Been too busy to wrap my head around things, don't know what that refers to.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It refers to JN466. Hadn't noticed that before (232 x 2 = 464)! Won't take it ill if someone genuinely feels the need for SPI. Rd232 ^talk 13:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

ah, ha :) Too busy-- humor impaired :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

JN, documenting the POV across all of the Ven/Chavez articles is more than any one (busy :) editor can keep up with at User:SandyGeorgia/Chavez sources (which remains grossly incomplete, as I struggle to keep up with all of it while also developing Eva Golinger). If you e-mail me, I can send you sources that aren't available online as I develop and locate them. I understand your concerns about Hausmann et al in the Recall Referendum, but there is more to the voter fraud issues that I haven't yet explored completely. Also, I still need to get back to you on the misunderstanding stated at ANI about Ludwigs2's comment on NPOV, but I just haven't found the time yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I have so much RL work to do right now I shouldn't even be here! But I'll drop you a mail and will be glad for sources. --JN466 15:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, JN :) I'm glad you understand that FAC has to remain my first priority, six RFCs appeared there simultaneously with my work on Ven/Chavez articles and significant IRL stresses, and I can only get to things as I'm able. I did think the Eva Golinger new article presented a good opportunity to show by example issues occurring on all sides, so I spent my time there. Please do e-mail me, and I'll send you things as I get to them. I appreciate all of your work on these articles, and know you're also busy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Page notice for FAC

Sandy, are you planning to keep up the Urgents template along with the "Older nominations" page break? Seems to me the page break eliminates most of the need for the Urgents list, and is easier to maintain. If the Urgents list is to go away (and perhaps that needs a WT:FAC discussion) then we should update the page notice for FAC to say "Wait! Before nominating an article, please consider reviewing existing candidates, especially the older nominations." Or something like that. Mike Christie (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's wait until Karanacs has had a chance to pr/ar to see what she thinks of the new "Older nom" line. I like it because it allows me to quickly scan those at the bottom, and because updating it involves moving only one line. But let's decide on this, and what to do about the Urgents template, after Karanacs has weighed in, and maybe even after a few weeks of seeing how it works. Thanks for doing all of this, Mike; I've just been much too busy to follow it in detail, but with you on board, I know it's in good hands. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I actually plan to bring a candidate to FAC in the next month or so; it's been over a year! I'll wait on the page notice until we see how useful the page break is. Mike Christie (talk) 13:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike; it's been hard to keep up with so many RFCs at FAC at once, as well as my watchlist going off across so many articles I'm trying to keep up with. Have I already mentioned how nice it is to have you back?  :) Glad you will be writing featured articles again! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Aha. Well I'll live without infoboxes (which provide a neat summary, and edit warring can be limited by sensibleness and sourcing) if you live without cite templates... :) Rd232 ^talk 15:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I also hate citation templates, but they do sometimes help when too many new editors are junking up citations (that often are used or needed across multiple articles, and should be standardized for ease of editing) ... we still need to have a broader discussion about citation issues at Ven articles, but there are only so many hours in a day, and I'm tearing my hair out :) I need to take a few days off, and go have a massage! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. If it helps, remind yourself of WP:WIP. Rd232 ^talk 15:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) I try, but then some editors misrepresent my intent or motivation, and I do get frustrated. Aleks' intransigence doesn't help :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

History of logic

After some years of gestation, the material of this article is now finished. I am thinking of taking it to FA but would like some thoughts from you at first, as I have heard such bad things about this process. It should go there one day, the history of logic is one of the top 50 articles that should be in an encyclopedia. I welcome your thoughts.HistorianofLogic (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

SandyG is very busy, so let me offer some thoughts. On a quick read through I see several issues that would be a problem at FAC, the most serious of which is that substantial chunks of the article appear to be unsourced, Logic in India, for instance, giving the impression of a personal essay. Secondly, all images need to be given alt text, and thirdly there seems to be a problem with the licensing of the image of Kurt Gödel, which is flagged for deletion. He's variously called "Gödel" and "Godel" as well, and that kind of inconsistency will be picked up at FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

thanks I did notice about the Godel. I have a Godel pic in a book which I can take in low resolution, I believe that is allowed. I didn't write the India logic section but can source from Bochenski, thanks for that. Thirdly, what is alt text??? HistorianofLogic (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:ALT. It's a relatively new requirement. Karanacs (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Elvis

Thanks for this[6]. That summed up my thoughts completely. I was very tempted to oppose on size grounds, but felt that was unfair given my request as a delegate. I hacked poor Battle of the Alamo to pieces to make it a readable size, and it actually became a better article. It frustrates me that there isn't that willingness - or even recognition of the need! - from others with similarly important yet very detailed topics. Karanacs (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought about Opposing myself, but best we let reviewers enjoy their consensus and stay out of it. I hope they'll also enjoy reading future 15,000 word articles at FAC ... this is a new FAC record. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

God, I wish I'd looked at that. :-( --Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That article is enormous! Kind of scary how much there was on him, though, if you think about it... ceranthor 21:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Got the pics back from the developer's

Finally got all the rolls of film back from the developer's from our weekend jaunt. Not too many of them came ou well. Sandy. I'm, concerned.

Dinner was ok, but the ambiance was somewhat off.

Ealdgyth came out ok, lookin' fine.

The concert was fun, but a little crowded and strange.

I look good in red, and you in black, and I'm glad we got away from that lumberjack gnome friend of yours.

I can't remember, was this Malleus, or Kablammo? I'm bad at putting names to faces.

The reception was divine, and you looked stunning in your blue blouse, me again looking good in black.

Look, Ceoil and Outriggr are nice and all, but they kind of left me feeling weird.

This one actually came out ok, great pic of us, but the Duke of Waltham shouldn't just turn around when the camera comes out.

Tony1 was a sweetheart, re-enacting the first time he read one of my articles.

Our sweet reunion was observed by many, near and far, but I don't remember that guy's name although he stayed close all night.

At any rate, I hope our next visit will be photographed better. If you have images to replace these from your camera, please let me know, ok? Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 13:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You left out Yomangani, Karanacs and MastCell (they deserve it, for sloth). The internet will slow down today appreciably, as my TPS check us out, but you shouldn't confuse them: I always take off my eyeglasses for pictures, and my thongs are Hanky Pankys. My pics are still at the developers, but I'll Be Back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

POV tagging

Hi Sandy, I wanted to suggest that adding POV tags may not be the best way to go about addressing your various Venezuela concerns. In general, it frames the problem in an unhelpfully divisive way; you're less likely to get people collaborating to help address your concerns, and more likely to meet resistance. It's better, if possible, to frame it as "let's make it better" than "it's awful" (especially as on a POV issue it implies the awfulness is possibly intentional, i.e. bad faith).

In addition, the time saved by simply linking to your list of sources as justification for POV tags is surely outweighed by the inevitable discussion about the tag, which is energy that would be far better spent on the actual content issue. But that's only going to happen with specific points made, text proposed, or easily accessible sources provided. Bottom line: you complain (rightly) that there are too few people working on Venezuela - so think about how you can best draw people in to a collaboration, and avoid creating unproductive conflict. Providing specific sources on a subject, and asking for help in using those, is more likely to produce collaboration and less likely to create a situation where you have to do all the research, than adding POV tags. Rd232 ^talk 13:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You know what's frustrating/irritating (frustracherra for those in the lingo)? No one except you and me (and JN) is doing anything to actually edit and neutralize articles, no matter what I do or how many sources I provide or how much time I spend on talk page. I could take a full day or two of my own and clean up The Revolution ... myself, but the point is, we showed them on Golinger how to write an article correctly in three days, and yet all we get is people soaping and ranting on talk pages, but never editing articles. I don't know how to draw them in: I've suggested repeatedly that we should coordinate work and discussion through WP Venezuela, but honestly, it seems they would all rather rant and soap on talkpages, using non-RS, than actually do some work. So until I/we/someone figures out how to encourage them to actually do some of the editing work, I don't see what else I can do but POV tag the articles. I'm open to more ideas; I'm hoping they'll all eventually understand that talk page rants are not effective or useful, and they'd best start editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(pre-coffee ps) Maybe I should stop spending so much time at User:SandyGeorgia/Chavez sources, developing sources that demonstrate the problem across so many articles in the hope that someone else will begin to NPOV so many articles (I haven't even gotten through all The Economist articles yet, much less moved on to other sources), and instead go buy the book that DGG has now "blessed", better spend my time reading a book, and do all the editing myself. That will take a lifetime. I'm hoping the talk page discussions, particularly at Golinger, will show all of them a more collaborative path, so we don't have to do it all, and spend so much time in nonproductive talk page discussions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

WP Venezuela

I think the only way to realistically boost collaboration and involvement is to try and resuscitate Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela. Obviously that would start with reaching out to various people who have been active on Venezuela articles recently who aren't members, as well as to various relevant wikiprojects (most obviously South America) for new recruits. But probably most important is to come up with some relatively straight-forward collaborative tasks to get some momentum; getting more people in and piling on to a hard nut like the Hugo Chavez article will be a recipe for turning people away and getting bogged down. We'd need to identify a few examples of easier cases to create/develop/improve; maybe 5-10 lower-profile articles from different topic areas which project participants agree to work on over the next month. Different topic areas will give the opportunity to post requests for involvement to wikiproject(s) relevant to that topic. If we can get a handful of successful collaborations like that, then we can move on to something trickier, like Economy of Venezuela; making something like that work would depend on being able to break the task down into different chunks (as well as, in this case, bringing in Wikiproject Economics people).

I think in the first place, having identified inactive participants, we should (a) ask recent Venezuela editors who aren't participants to join; (b) notify existing participants of the resuscitation plan, and ask them to help out at least with getting it underway; (c) kick off a draft of the plan, and hope some input comes and agreement can be reached; (d) get the plan underway (including the notifying of wikiprojects). Nothing succeeds like success; if we can get some collaboration going on relatively easier things, as we were able at Eva Golinger, then that momentum and spirit should hopefully carry onto the harder things.

If this sounds reasonable, I will try and help, especially at the initial stages, but RL demands on my time seem to be multiplying by the day, so I'm afraid you'd have to take a lead. Whilst there's no guarantee of success, I think it's a good risk and worth the time investment if you can afford it. Rd232 ^talk 18:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've long thought along these terms, but hoped that using a few, smaller, easier to show by example articles (like Golinger) would help some of the established editors see more effective ways of editing, the need for collaboration, and the uselessness of talk page rants based on blog posts. Until they see the need, I don't think they'll join (which is why I tag an article and wait for some of them to realize they need to do the work ... the tag was removed twice at The Revolution ... without that editor making a single edit, when I clearly gave him a source). On the other hand, your suggestions may help bring in new editors. So much to do, so little time; is it effective for me to develop the source list? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ps, good plan, but does anyone else care or notice, or are we spinning our wheels? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Can but try. Worth a go, I think, especially on the "bringing in others" aspect. Rd232 ^talk 18:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

NB the point I made in kicking off this thread was that that approach (POV tagging based on sources you list and describe elsewhere, in a way that no doubt makes the POV problem very clear to you, but not that clear to others) wasn't necessarily the most collaboration-inviting. In this case just adding the quote (despite its vagueness; if the article doesn't explain any better, the book is essential to explain) and asking people to expand the critical views, using the source(s) given, would be more likely to get others to help. (Maybe not likely, but more likely.) In other cases, listing the relevant sources on the actual talk page, and asking for help, would be better than POV tagging. Rd232 ^talk 18:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm losing patience, but how about if we use that article as one final example of how to clean up a relatively small article, to show how it's done? It's more contentious than some other articles, but less of a headache than the "coup" or Chavez, and maybe some of them will learn. On the other hand, if we're going to do that, I should get the book. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, it can be one of the examples. But there should be several on different topics running in parallel, such that different wikiprojects can be invited to contribute. (This one could be Wikiproject Film.) And merely going ahead with "doing it" won't suffice, it needs to be part of a collaborative plan which a number of people sign up to, with it being one of the Collaborations of the Month for March. That's what I think, anyway; YMMV. Rd232 ^talk 19:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, let me order the book (it could be slow in coming, since it's not so popular), and that will give us time to pull together some coordination ... I'm not sure I can handle more than one at a time :) But you're right, working on a film would allow us to bring in some very experienced editors, like Steve (see below) and Erik. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

WP Venezuela Invite template

Maybe one of my TPS will develop a welcome template that we can use to invite other editors to join WP Venezuela? I'm not good at that sort of thing. I'll reward them with chocolate :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

An additional good idea. I had also a mention of WP:BANNER in my previous draft of the post (before my browser crashed). Rd232 ^talk 18:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"TPS"? Rd232 ^talk 18:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

TPS= Talk Page Stalkers (those who follow my talk). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at {{Wikiproject Venezuela invite}}, see if it's the sort of thing you had in mind. It's a basic design, based on the WP:FILM invitation; I'm sure others could spruce it up a bit, but it's a start. All the best, Steve ^T • C 19:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Steve; I have starred your barn, but will also send chocolates if you prefer. But I'm trying to make one change that won't work for some reason. The "new" Venezuelan flag is controversial (Chavez made changes to it, that not everyone likes, and that flag is offputting to many). I was trying to switch the image to File:Angel falls.jpg, but for some reason, it won't work? (He also changed the age-old name of Angel Falls, named after the American discoverer, but going back to the indigenous name isn't quite as objectionable as some of the changes to the flag, like making the horse left-leading :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, found and fixed! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Steve, the article that Rd232 and I are discussing here is a controversial film, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (documentary). Consider Erik and you as the first invitees, but I need to order a book first (see talk page). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

And clicking on that link, I see Wikispan (talk · contribs) is still edit-warring away the clearly justified POV tag, without making a single change to the article, although I provided source on talk :) Ah, well ... we'll fix it anyway :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It takes two edit war... You define it as "edit warring away a clearly justified POV tag" - he asks - quite reasonably - for a clear explanation of what the problem is. Your Economist snippet (which is vague, and on the talk page not properly sourced) isn't enough to clearly justify it. Your latest talk page comment says " add to the article and the lead the fact that the film has recieved praise as well as criticism and charges of "manipulation"..." but the criticism is clear in the Reception section, so really your proximate complaint is that the lead doesn't reflect the article. You could have corrected that by now in the time spent arguing about the POV tag, added the Economist/Nelson quote, and noted that you want to expand on it from the book and would welcome more help in expanding criticism of the doc. It takes two to establish a collaborative mindset, and POV tags don't help. Rd232 ^talk 20:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

And he made no effort to even add the new info; isn't it better to teach 'em to fish than do all of it for them? When I start editing that article, it's going to take a lot more to fix it than just these small steps. I understand your point, but I can't just fix that article with a few small edits; they need to start collaborating (and by "they", I include those on the "other side of the aisle" who prefer to rant on talk pages with non-RS :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

New info is vague (is there no more detail to be had from the Economist article than "many manipulations"?), and the source on your subpage rather than on the article talk page. And if you make clear that part of the problem is the lead not reflecting the criticism (noting the Economist/Nelson book as making the criticism more significant, relevant for due weight) your concerns will be clearer and somebody else might act on them. Part of this is communication: you have to be clear enough about what you want to happen to expect others to understand and possibly act. Rd232 ^talk 20:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I will go over there and expound after dinner, but getting him to listen may take as long as doing the work myself. And editors shouldn't use WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT as a justification to remove a POV tag, particularly in an article with a history of POV like that one has. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It takes two to communicate. I don't think you've been clear enough, and his latest response sums up the issue pretty clearly, in regards to the Economist snippet. Rd232 ^talk 22:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

And I don't think someone who doesn't want to hear will hear no matter how much I expound :) We haven't seen a lot of flexibility from editors on either side of the aisle here, and there's a lot of IDIDN'THEARTHAT here. At this point, it will certainly be quicker to just do the work myself, he will learn nothing, the article will get NPOVd in spite of his stance, but I'd rather finish up Machado tonight, before JRSP removes all my links again. (Thanks for the note on the red-linked editor who inserted OR ... by the time I got over there to leave a note, you had already done it.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I stress this again, because it's an exact repetition of what happened at Hugo Chavez with a number of other editors - which ought to give you pause for thought. As I said, it takes two to communicate, but you're the one trying to say something here, so the burden is on you to be clear enough, and not to fall back on frustrated assumptions of bad faith when you don't get your points understood. I'm sure it's that sort of frustration leading to WP:AOBF which contributed to the very negative place we ended up in and hope not to return to; but I hate to see you making the same mistake with others. Rd232 ^talk 23:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

And I state again that the Chavez example demonstrated that you just don't remove a POV tag until it's resolved. I don't have time to deal with every single article. I'd rather finish Machado tonight. If he removes it again, he shows himself to be an edit warrior, against policy, and I can't spend endless time explaining the obvious to someone who won't listen. That article will get fixed, and it is POV, no matter how many times he removes the tag, which I have already justified. How hard is it for him to add one sentence to the article and to the lead, and do some cleanup of the POV while he's in there? I'm not trying to be difficult, but do I have to do everything? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You're exhibiting some IDIDN'THEARTHAT. I keep telling you need to communicate better and continue to AGF; and you declare that you've justified it well enough and it's obvious anyway and do you have to do everything... One last time before I go to bed: when you're coming from what is obviously a substantially different place, you can't rely on what seems obvious to you, and assume bad faith when people don't get it. Go back again over your exchange with him: at what point did you clearly explain your concerns (of which the lead not reflecting the criticism is the most concrete one clear to me) as if to someone who does not share your brain? Try and see the exchange from Wikispan's point of view; that someone comes along to an article you see nothing wrong with and assumes the POV is obvious, and that everyone understands that and will welcome a source to help in the tackling of the well-established POV problem. Rd232 ^talk 23:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Just for you :) I'll go over there and try one more time:) I hope I don't have to come back here and say, "I told you so"! But first, I will take a small break and call my best friend to wish her a Happy Birthday, and come back in a more refreshed mood. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Did it myself; took an hour, I wanted to work on Machado and finish my sources, but probably faster than talk discussions, which were going nowhere. The article is still awful, but Steve and the film folk will fix it up with scholarly sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the template needs to be subst:ed for the header parameter to work. This ought to be fixable, but I don't know how. WP:HELPDESK maybe. Rd232 ^talk 20:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It's fixed ... Thank you, Steve! Who needs the HELPDESK when you have wonderful TPS :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Revolution ... (film)

Funny you should have been talking about this today. I saw the film a few years ago and I've had half an eye on its article since the recent Venezuela-related kerfuffle kicked off. I'd been idly wondering if I could do anything with it, but was planning to wait until a couple of other projects were out of the way. I do have some definite recommendations, from a WP:FILM perspective; most are uncontroversial, but should help with the perceived bias. When I get a spare hour tomorrow, I'll toss out some preliminary thoughts onto the Revolution talk page. All the best, Steve ^T • C 22:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's good for now, but I'd like to get WP:Venezuela to a state that my talk page won't continue to be "Chavez Central", and start using your invite template (but I've been distracted by news at Maria Corina Machado and hope to finish that article tonight instead). Can you remind me of the name of Michael Moore's Academy Award-winning "documentary"? What kind of shape is that article in? It might give us a sample format, since the controversy is the same. I'm glad to know you've seen the film: I'm uninterested in watching Venezuelans be shot, and the perpetrators get off scot-free. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be Bowling for Columbine. The article isn't in brilliant shape, unfortunately, nor is the one for Moore's follow-up, Fahrenheit 9/11. So I don't think either would be a good template. To my mind, the best way of making a start at Revolution is to sideline the controversy entirely, at least for now. Build up the conventional, non-disputed aspects first, to make something that includes all the things we'd expect to see in a normal film article. Background, production, funding, distribution. The boring stuff. (I can help with that.) Ringfence everything controversial/disputed in one or two sections; field it out to other articles whenever possible. If the remainder becomes stable and strong enough, crafting a truly neutral "Accuracy" / "Criticism" section will be a lot easier, especially if the atmosphere has become more collaborative by then. Start by identifying those gaps in coverage and restructure/expand accordingly. Let me see what I can put together as an example. Nothing tonight (I'm going to faff around with the template for a bit, see if I can get it to display properly on the WP:VEN page), but I'll try to sandbox the sort of thing I mean at some point this week. Best, Steve ^T • C 22:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much, again, Steve: your experience with film articles, and your special talents as an unflappably calm and fair editor, will come in handy there. That "documentary" is as controversial as Farenheit, it is the "darling of the revolution" and many of its adherents simply refuse to accept that it's controversial and manipulated, but at least Farenheit's lead states that it's controversial, even if it's only a B-class article. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Based on my previous comments—that the focus should be more on the filmmakers—I've thrown together a few paragraphs for a potential "Background" section at Revolution. Being very careful to avoid drawing too much pure opinion from the two sources (one a mixed critique of the film from Columbia Journalism Review, the other a positive-leaning interview with the filmmakers), I've crafted something at at User:Steve/Sandbox2#Background that I think paints a reasonably neutral picture, better putting the film in context. I'll be offline for a few hours, so mull on it for a while and please let me know (Sandy, Rd232 or anyone else who wants to pitch in) if I've got any of the core facts, or the balance, wrong. All the best, Steve ^T • C 16:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent; you are utterly amazing. I know how to pick 'em :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to watch it on Google, but the beginning really drags, and the filmography is just ... amateur ... I've seen boatloads of better films from pre-professional high school arts students. Has any critical review mentioned that this film would not have garnered any awards if not for the fortunate timing of the filmakers, being present during Chavez's resignation? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, that is one bad film from a filmography point of view. And, the google video crashed my browser half an hour in, causing me to lose half an hour's work of adding the OAS report to Hugo Chavez, going into chkdsk, and I'm sure not going to sit through that again, so I never got to the punchline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Somehow, I don't think you'd like it. To answer your other question, no; few, if any, of the reviews mention the tech credits, and I don't really remember that aspect myself. Still, no matter what the rest of the article ends up like when it's cleaned up, it looks like you may have to brace yourself for the fact that you will disagree with what the "Critical reception" section has to say. :-) You likely already know that the film received overwhelming praise from mainstream US and UK film critics. And that's fine. Readers will get the context. The Venezuelan reaction, on the other hand, is going to be much more difficult. But before all that, I think I'm going to watch the film again at the weekend; I think the easiest section to craft will the the synopsis, because it can be straight description; no interpretation necessary, no conflicting secondary sources to juggle. Almost impossible for anyone to argue with. In theory. Steve ^T • C 22:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Darn, forgot completely about rottentomatoes, since it didn't pop up on Google. Well, them's the breaks :) Michael Moore got an academy award for a non-documentary documentary, too! Thanks for everything, Steve ... it's still a mess, and I realize a lot of the work I did will likely be lost, but you'll leave it in good shape. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

FAR

Oh, I am reluctant to name bad articles explicitly, as I think that would be out of order to then close it even if I didn't give a reason for it being bad. But WP:URFA is full of articles with half or more of the paragraphs with no source whatsoever. On another note the Flag of India and Darjeeling FARs are almost done; Laser is doing the prose, and if you want to raise any objections about the MOS, well it's still open YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

FAC: one-at-a-time rule

I saw the discussion on the FAC talk page and had a question. (I would post it under that topic, but I didn't want to complicate things with a question about exceptions.) Early on in the discussion you had said, "At the same time, there are some nominators, with co-noms, who bring well-prepared articles to FAC, and can handle more than one at a time." Now I don't co-nom, but otherwise I would like to think that I meet the last two criteria—especially as I gain more and more experience with the FAC process. I have no doubt that I could handle feedback on more than one nomination, especially for some of the small articles I've been churning out lately, such as Babakotia, Mesopropithecus, and Hadropithecus. Currently, I have Gray Mouse Lemur sitting in the queue, but would like to nominate Babakotia since I know that I have sourced every primary and secondary source available on that topic. It would fall under WP:VSFA, and as long as the group agrees that it's worth nominating, I could easily handle it and at least one other small one like it.

In short, I would like to be able to nominate a max of 1 long and maybe 2 short articles at the same time... assuming I feel that I can handle it. (Each case will be different, and I would judge them carefully before nominating.) Unfortunately this will not be just a single case for me, otherwise I would just sit back and wait. I may have many, many small lemur articles forthcoming (pun intended), especially once I pull myself away from my current, massive re-write projects (such as Lemur). Either way, just let me know. I can wait if needed, but I figured it was worth asking. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The one-at-a-time rule is not solely for underprepared nominations. It also contributes to the backlog, potentially slowing down the promotion of any nomination. There are several very prolific FA writers, and most simply nominate a new article as soon as the old one is promoted. That's generally a fairer process, and where we'd like to stay. The big problem is how to handle conoms, as you can see on the talk page.... Karanacs (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Asperger Syndrome

Hello

I think we may have been in something of an editing battle and I regret this. I did try just to add my own edit and keep yours, but when it appeared that this did not happen, I resorted to deleting your edit. This was inappropriate and I understand it may have irritated you, but then also your edit irritated me when I read it as I believe it is wrong. Basically I find Wikipedia is not exactly user-friendly so it is extremely awkward for me to find my way around. I hope you find the time to read this. I wish I knew more about you as I feel I am talking to someone I don't have a clue about.

Regards

Steven

Stiivyn (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for your reply. It is difficult for me to quote sources because the source is myself. I am diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome and have lived with the condition for 41 years. My edit is based on my own experience and observation of real-life real-world events, not on anything I have read somewhere. To be honest I don't understand the need for a separate chapter on "Social aspects" of Asperger Syndrome as I think the social difficulties are at the very heart of Asperger Syndrome. I also stand by my assertion that Asperger Syndrome affects men way more severely than it affects women, and any ideas to the contrary are utterly untenable.

Steven Stiivyn (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Just Foreign Policy

Re your remark here - the AFD is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Just Foreign Policy. I didn't comment either way, because I thought it ought to have enough coverage for WP:N given some of the names involved; but couldn't actually find any. If you do find any, you can create a new article (with substantially better sources it won't be a recreation of the old). I can userfy it for you if you're interested. Rd232 ^talk 16:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I was very surprised to see it deleted with only one opinion, but I don't follow AFD closely: is that normal? I don't have time to work on that, but was surprised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

PS, I left the unbalanced tag on the "Economy" section at Chavez because now it needs more in the other direction, in case you have sources-- if not, unbalanced is good to go for me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Query

If the USSMinnesota account does turn out to be a sockpuppet, how will that affect my nomination? It had 5 supports and no opposes prior to this, and I was certain it was only a day or so away from promotion. To be honest, I'm not even sure how to respond to the comments; all I can think of to say is that none of the FA song articles I have checked out are written in such a manner, but that just feels like a variation of OTHERSTUFF. The only other thing I can think of is that Wikipedia is written for the layman instead of the professional, but I'm not entirely sure if that's even accurate! Eh, sorry if this is coming across as whining or ranting; just not had a very good day and this was the icing on the cake! Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls; have some wine with your icing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'll have to decline on that; always been more of a cider man, I'm afraid ;). MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Chocolate works :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I'd forgotten about that magical food! Some chocolate with Strongbow would go down rather nice! Cheers! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No One Who Comes To My Talk Page Is Allowed To Forget Chocolate! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that; twas a very enjoyable (and educational) read. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 03:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Giano has gotten me a lot of chocolate :) Take care, have a better rest of your day! And in case I forget later, if the SPI comes back positive, you can remove those comments even after the FAC is closed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Will do; cheers (and thanks). MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 03:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Though I know you're (obviously) already aware about the comments (given my mini rant above), I figured that I should let you know I've responded to them voicing my disagreement with their position instead of just ignoring it as you suggested (though I've tried not to do any unnecessary feeding); just to cover my backside in case Karanacs or another helpful volunteer is the one who ends up closing it. If the CU comes back positive then it'll all be removed. Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 07:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The CU was stale: I don't speak SPI very well, but I think that may mean that you and User:Collectonian may need to put your heads together to present enough behavioral evidence that demonstrates the case. I've moved the commentary to talk (don't want to remove it without CU evidence). If the account comes back, please don't engage; leave it to Karanacs, me, or uninvolved admins if needed; let others deal with it. Any new commentary by that account should be moved to talk for now, but let others engage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Will do. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 17:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Charles Rodriguez

You've probably noticed, but following Mr Rodriguez around wouldn't be enough to cause anyone to break sweat with only 81 contributions, all in the last few days. What a hornet's nest you've stirred up. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Look at his first three contribs;[7] it seems that it won't matter how nice I try to be to him. I'm embarassed that I wasted my SPI credibility on others, who apparently didn't deserve it! Now my SPI cred is at 98% instead of 100%-- which is one hell of a lot better than I do at AFD :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Feel free to revert if you disagree, but I've added Steve's article to the Urgents and another one. Steve's has only had one review since the 20th and the other hasn't seen many at all. Just letting you know, ceranthor 14:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Scalia

I've acted on your query, and also responded at FACso indicating.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nick Adenhart/archive1

I feel bad throwing more onto your talk page, but nonetheless I'll ask. What more is needed in terms of reaching a decision on the article one way or the other? If it needs one more major review from one of the regulars I can try and find one. If you just haven't gotten to it yet and I'm impatient, that's fine too. Though based on convos we've had in the past it sounds like one Karanacs will end up closing (since it's baseball), so maybe I should ask over there. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The support level isn't strong; you've got one provisional support, and one support from a reviewer I don't know well, only three supports total. Maybe you can ask User:Giants2008 to look at it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Giants left comments earlier but never wrapped it up, so I'll have him do that. I'll find another, too bad a lot of reviewers are burned out from the cup right now. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep ... it's caused us to have to be more aggressive about archiving. :-( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd review more FACs myself, but alas I'm trying to keep GAN from imploding (and failing). Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I know it's a big problem everywhere; at least FACs numbers are starting to come back, as we've taken action to reduce the page size. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Gray Mouse Lemur FAC

I'm wondering if there might be an issue with the Gray Mouse Lemur FAC. The reason I ask is that I've noticed and read about the increase in archiving lately due to a decrease in the number of reviewers. I have four supports so far, and all issues have been addressed. I don't mean to sound impatient. I just don't want it to get held up (or worse... archived) over an issue I'm not aware of and might be able to help resolve. And by the way... what amount of support is required to pass? In the past, Ring-tailed Lemur passed with four supports and Ruffed lemur passed with two. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Almost the same instant I ask, the article gets promoted. That's almost classic. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ruffed Lemur has three. You had me worried; I was afraid Wehwalt was gonna come after us :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops! I miscounted. Anyway, I'll tuck my lemur tail between my legs for now and go hide in a tree. I've probably caused enough trouble today. ...But not until after I submit a small, but very thorough article for FA (under the banner of WP:VSFA). Don't worry... it's more than 800 words long and may help reduce the backlog by preventing me from submitting anything larger for a little while. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)