User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch74

AfD

Hi. Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manama incident, I can only say that my opinion was based solely on the content of the article with reference to WP:NOTNEWS, and was in no way meant personally, so I'm sorry if it came across that way - my !vote would be the same no matter who created the article. I've reworded my comments to explain my reasoning a bit further, and have removed my reference to recent events. (It's now clear there are personal issues involved that are none of my business). Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Boing ... I just haven't had the time to do the research yet, but I suspect it will avoid NOTNEWS by looking into broader human rights issues there, such as AI or HRW reports. If this article is discusses something that is related to broader human rights issues in Bahrain, it may just need a new article title, more research on different keywords, etc. I wish I had 36 hours every day! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The NYT article clearly speaks to broader human rights issues that could be expanded in this article; my concern is that by deleting this article, we open the door to similar deletions of BLPs of notable human rights cases in the Venezuela/Chavez articles. I hope someone will find the time to search out more sources, as I don't know the keywords or issues well enough to do it myself. I also hope that the quality of Marskell's past contributions on Wiki will be taken into consideration; he is unlikely to start a trivial article, even if he hasn't had time to finish it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of which have you seen the circus about his reincarnation? YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Revert on ALS

I was a bit surprised by your revert here: WP:NOT, WP:RECENTISM, WP:MEDRS, pls do not add primary sources unless reviewed by secondary reviews. You undid three edits of mine, all of which were accompanied by clear edit summaries, and all of which (I thought) were quite respectful of Wikipedia policy — including those relating to careful use of reliable sources in medical articles. I'm concerned that your blanket revert didn't address the points raised in my edit summaries, and I'm also concerned that you didn't make any comment on the article talk page (or my talk page) before or after you undid my edits. Here are my three non-minor edits, and their rationales.

1. remove image - the point mutations marked were the eight investigated in one particular PLoS ONE paper; there are more than a hundred ALS-associated mutations in SOD1, scattered all throughout its sequence This edit removed a recently-added image which implied that only eight point mutations to SOD1 had been studied in the context of SOD1. In fact, more than a hundred ALS-associated mutations are known (I think it's up around 150 in the literature, now), as correctly reported in the body text of the article. The image was misleading — an accurate graphic of all the residues associated with ALS would highlight virtually the entire protein. (That absence of localized hotspots is actually rather remarkable in itself.) The confusion arose (presumably) because the graphic was drawn from a single paper, in which mutations of just those eight residues were studied.
2. tidy of phrasing, remove press release, replace with Neuro. Today link. This edit tidied up some rather promotional-sounding language, added a bit of detail (particularly important that it was a Phase II trial, and the number of patients) and replaced a link to a press release on Netherlands Corporate News with a link to a less-commercial, more fact-driven article in Neurology Today (published by the American Neurological Society).
3. Note trial that found minocycline to be detrimental in humans (in contrast to its effect in rodents) This edit added a description (including outcome) of what is – as far as I know – the largest and the only Phase III clinical trial conducted involving minocycline treatment of ALS. The study I linked was published in The Lancet Neurology in 2007; there hasn't been anything in the field since — as such, I would dispute that this is an instance of WP:RECENTISM. As well, the only other source in that paragraph about minocycline is a link to a 2002 news article which described the rodent studies that prompted human clinical trials. Even then, that article carries an appended note referring to the 2007 trial, noting that human trials of minocycline had a negative outcome.

Before you revert me again, could you be a bit more specific about your concerns with my edits? I don't think I've taken any untoward liberties with our sourcing rules. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I will catch up with you on this as soon as I have a free moment-- later today, likely. Thanks for your patience, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Incidentally, I saw (and applaud!) your recent efforts to keep our article on an even keel during the whole "Lou Gehrig didn't have Lou Gehrig's disease" media circus. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Busy day, pressing matters, busy two weeks ahead -- If I forget to back to you soon on this, please DO pester me! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Finally turning my attention to this, in bits and pieces as I'm able ... on No. 1, you are correct, and I did not mean to roll that into the revert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

On Nos. 2 and 3, I see and agree with the direction you were trying to head, but I suggest that a better approach is to simply reduce the reliance on primary sources to begin with, rather than trying to clarify/qualify them. If they haven't yet been mentioned in secondary review articles, they might not belong there at all, other than a mention that clinical trials are underway. Battling the constant insertion of primary sources in medical articles is ongoing, there aren't enough of us to stay on top of it, and my revert was probably hasty and I could have better simply removed the entire text based on primary sources, rather than your clarifications. What do you think? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No. 2 is an area I don't know a lot about. A quick skim of the report on the Phase II trial passed my internal sniff test; a good-sized trial (for a Phase II) demonstrated a statistically significant (but plausibly modest) improvement in outcomes. There I was primarily interested in replacing a press-release-ish business 'article' with a somewhat more rigorous source, but I'm not equipped to evaluate the details. That entry also rubs me the wrong way a bit because it's transparently obvious that a shill for the company has been plugging their 'new' drug here and in other articles — but I'm reluctant to slap them down solely on that basis. I don't know what level of detail has been deemed appropriate for presenting clinical trial outcomes; is there a good discussion somewhere? My gut instinct is that something that has made it as far as completed and published Phase II or (particularly) Phase III trials may be worthy of mention. In the ALS article we're not exactly being swamped by the size of the experimental drugs section.

No. 3 is the outcome of a Phase III trial, and as far as I know it is the only Phase III trial of minocycline for ALS. The fact that the trial found a worse outcome with the drug than with placebo is worthy of note for a couple of reasons. First, the drug appeared promising in rodent studies, which prompted a great deal of interest in this area — and was sufficient for this treatment to be pushed right into a Phase III; and second, minocycline is already FDA approved (though not for this indication) with a good safety record — why would an otherwise-harmless antibiotic worsen the symptoms of ALS? The negative outcome here was probably just as interesting in the clinical community as last year's failed lithium trial ([1]). While review articles and secondary sources may in general be preferred, I don't think that we should be too quick to dismiss the outcomes of large scale Phase III trials — certainly not to the point to rolling back mention of them out of hand. (That said, there is an on-point review here, though I would honestly say that the primary paper on the study (published in Lancet Neurology) is a better-quality reference than the review article (which skimps on detail, and appears in Behavioural Brain Research). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That all sounds very reasonable, but see my general rant at User talk:MastCell on the topic; the kind of reasoning you've employed here is not evident in most editors' overreliance on primary sources (and I need to review WP:MEDRS to see if it speaks to Phase II and III clinical trials, unless you've already done that?) I apologize for being too quick to revert you; I plead my general primary sources hot button :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

We do have some wording at Wikipedia:MEDRS#Respect secondary sources; do you think that's adequate? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that your feelings and mine about the (mis)use of cherry-picked sources for medical articles could probably get along quite comfortably in close quarters. Looking at MEDRS' wording, it probably says what it should. While we'll always need wiggle room for edge cases, I'd be content, as a rule of thumb, to avoid Phase II trials. (That should cut down on the pharmaspam a bit, too.) MEDRS is silent on Phase III trials; while I'm hesitant to jump to a 'silence implies consent' conclusion, Phase III trials that have been reported in a reputable journals are probably fair game for inclusion. Unless exceptionally newsworthy, I would prefer to avoid discussing the outcomes or interim results of unpublished or incomplete trials in our articles.

From the perspective of forest instead of trees, I'd read MEDRS' guidelines on secondary sources as having two major aims. First, we want to discourage everyone who has a pet theory (or conspiracy) from incorporating every little cell-culture or rodent trial (or small clinical trial in a press release or low-impact journal) that might support their favorite story. Second, we want to avoid Wikipedia becoming a vehicle for plugging every new pharmaceutical startup's new pipe dream product before the IPO. I think that if we work with those goals in mind, we're not going to go too far astray. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Now that Colin (talk · contribs) is active again, it might be good to ping him for thoughts on Phase III trials (he largely wrote MEDRS). The problem with enforcing MEDRS is that soooo many articles are so overtaken by primary sources to promote pet theories, that it is just impossible to weed them all out. I wish we could find a way for the Diberri template filler to identify reviews, but I suspect that's not possible. <sigh> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Sandy is too generous. The WP:MED project had a mixed project guideline that I split into two: MEDMOS and MEDRS. After the split, you could say MEDRS was a Stub and I expanded it to a Start. Others took it to where it is now. There are others more qualified than me to comment on drug trials and judging the quality of research.

OK. IMHO... Context is vital to judging sourcing issues. But as a general rule, our policy is fairly simple: as a tertiary source, Wikipedia should primarily be based on reliable secondary sources and this means we base our presentation of the facts upon the opinion, wisdom and experience of published experts reviewing the literature. The citation of primary research studies should be exceptional.

I know nothing about ALS beyond what I can read on WP. I looked up the phase III trial in PubMed and clicked on the "Cited in PubMed Central" link. People with better journal access than me could improve on this. Three reviews caught my eye. The first result was PMID 20592948 (Neurotrophic growth factors for the treatment of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: where do we stand?) and this says a small amount. Much more promising was PMID 19966906 (Current and emerging treatments for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis). This looks like the sort of foundation source the Treatment section might do well to be built upon.The last PMID 19192301 (Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) is a general review of the disease. BTW: I note that Lithium seems to have crept into the Approved drugs section but it isn't. I can't comment on the journal quality or the quality of those authors. But we have to remember the alternative is Wikipedian's doing the literature review and Wikipedia is an awful medical journal and Wikipedian's are awful editors with no reputation to uphold.

My second comment is that text like "A 412-patient randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase III trial conducted between 2003 and 2007 found that minocycline thereapy did not improve patient survival. In that trial, patients taking minocycline actually declined faster than patients receiving placebo by a number of measures." is not typical encyclopaedia material. Generally, we should state facts, with the degree of certainty our sources allow. We should try to avoid proving the case in front of the reader. The text "412-patient randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase III trial" is nothing to do with ALS and everything to do with using jargon to boast about all the wonderful qualities of the research. Sometimes the trial information is interesting in the History section. Sometimes, we need to explain to the reader why some fact is known for certain or is actually not confidently know, and we might then explain the deficiencies or strengths of the research.

Given the damning results of the minocycline trial, it seems like this is no longer an "experimental" therapy for ALS. Perhaps that whole paragraph could be shortened to a sentence on how optimistic pre-clinical research was followed ultimately with harmful effects when its efficacy in patients was studied. WP:WEIGHT demands we judge the space we allocate to text based on the space given by reliable sources. I note that PMID 19192301 (the review of ALS) gives minocycline just one word: itself. It lists it as one of many failed experimental therapies. Perhaps we should do likewise. Colin°^Talk 20:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I love Colin because he makes me look so lazy and incompetent :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Colin - I'm not sure that I would go so far as to say that the sentence was "using jargon to boast about all the wonderful qualities of the research". As an active researcher (albeit one who hasn't published in the ALS field), I thought that the sentence provided a concise description of the study that included much of the information I would want to perform a quick evaluation of the quality of the source. I'll admit that it was clunky prose, but I thought it was better to err on the side of more detail rather than less, if only to give future editors some meat to work with. If we just say that "A study found minocycline didn't work", then (probably because of the chronic crappy abuse and misuse and overstatement and misrepresentation of primary sources on Wikipedia) it would immediately raise red flags in my head. What sort of study was it (a phase II or III clinical trial, or some wingnut's anecdotal case series)? How was it controlled? How many patients? Did they look at survival, forced vital capacity, grip strength, or what? How long was the followup? I'm sure that when you run across a new study (or worse, a popular press account of a study) you've got a similar list of questions that pop immediately into your head.

As editors of medical articles, we face a difficult balancing act — to what extent do we evaluate the sources ourselves, versus allowing readers to evaluate them? As we write, paraphrase, and condense, we necessarily make judgements about which sources to include and what (or how much) we say about them. Where possible, I think it's worthwhile to intimate to our readers a little bit about how and why we reach those judgements. Perhaps "A 412-patient trial in 2007 found that minocycline treatment was actually slightly detrimental" or words to that effect? Knowing the size of the trial is a passable (if imperfect) proxy for study sensitivity and value, and it avoids anything that might remotely resemble "jargon". TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with the original text or references if this was a literature review in a medical journal. The "concise description of the study" is fine and actually your sentence is practically identical to the text in one of those reviews I cited. The issues are completely to do with Wikipedia and the needs of the general reader (vs other editors and researchers like yourself). I wouldn't shorten it to "A study found minocycline didn't work" either. Those of us who find the research fascinating tend to want to discuss the research. But research is only a means to an end. The end is knowledge, facts, and it is those things that encyclopaedias contain. Unless the studies and the experiments are themselves notable and warrant WEIGHT in the topic, they are a distraction. The general reader doesn't know what an RCT or a phase III trial is, and it isn't worth explaining that in this case. The facts are that minocycline was a promising drug based on basic science, animal models and early human trials, but that it ultimately proved harmful rather than efficacious when tested. It might have deserved a short paragraph three or four years ago but it hasn't been an "experimental drug for ALS" for three years and likely never will again. It is only one of many such drugs, many of which are listed in the ALS review I cited. So I'd argue the only facts a general reader need to know about ALS and minocycline are that it is a failed experimental drug therapy. And there's a strong case for not mentioning it at all unless it was a particularly notable "great failed hope".

One of the problems I have with MEDRS is that it does go into detail on how to judge research and "read a paper". These are useful skills and sadly lacking in general but ultimately skills that can become WP:OR. It is great to have folk like yourself who know about how research works, and even better if we get a subject expert. These skills are useful for talk page discussions and a vital aid to understanding the sources. But when it comes down to actually writing article body text, you must leave some of that at the door and build on the published work of other experts. We don't need to make the case that the RCT of minocycline was a good study or a poor study either in body text or in the citation. We have a reliable secondary source (review) written by an expert who has done that analysis. His or her, or their conclusions are that it is a failed experimental therapy and that's all the evidence we need to repeat the same here. Colin°^Talk 20:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

My talk page is getting long-- is this discussion archivable now ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

3000

I just don't want to bother anymore. I'm tired of two weeks of arguing against a wall. You can try and save it if you'de like, but 99% likelyhood is that it's going to go to the trash heap. Wish I never even bothered to put the damn thing togethor, if this is the response I get. ResMar 20:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It takes time to write a Dispatch correctly, and collaboration ahead of time amounts to "an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't suppose you know what to do with now? The way things are going, the article is going to become stale trash in the wouldabeen pile. ResMar 02:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If I had tits, this would get on my tits

[2] (It's another of those British sayings, nothing sexist) I was asked earlier today, for instance, to help with Alboin's FAC, which I'm happy to do, but it does make me wonder who's the fool. Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately, university is back in the session in the USA, so I can supply several comebacks:

• (519) Ah, I knew it wouldn't be long before my boobs were introduced into the conversation.
• (773) I wish straight boys touched me the way gay boys do.
• (412) I have big tits. Rules don't apply to me.
• (250) I'm just trying to jam my tits into some coconuts and I'll be on my way

And a random off-topic TFLN for good measure:

• (540) For future reference, orgasms clear sinuses.

Malleus, if you had tits, I'd have cojones ... and then I'd need an air-conditioned car seat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

We bought one of those gas-guzzling Jeep Cherokees a few months ago. It's got air-conditioned everything. Malleus Fatuorum 21:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Malleus! Why are you buying US-made cars? Can't your Brit carmakers handle heating and air conditioning of essential body parts? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Brit carmakers? This really is the 1970s. I believe the largest surviving British car company is Bristol Cars, who are not exactly a mass-market producer. – iridescent 21:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, crap, what do I know about cars? Although I do seem to recall that some horrid US company bought out Jaguar and ruined them ... who makes Range Rovers? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

American cars are so much more basic and brutal, but we've also got a Jaguar and an MGB. I'd probably kill for for a decent Mustang or GT40 though. Malleus Fatuorum 21:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec, re Sandy) Range Rovers were made by Ford; they're now made by Tata Motors of India. – iridescent 21:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of brutal-- ever check out the size of the Jeep Cherokee's back seat? Seriously lacking for comfort for whatever ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I've never sat in the back, but the reason we bought ours was because it was so comfortable in the front. We hired one on a skiing trip to Lake Tahoe, and it did the job. Malleus Fatuorum 21:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

For lack of size, there is the Peel P50. Brillant if you want to drive through the offices of the BBC, though. Эlcobbola _talk 21:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

MF, don't you always try out the back seat before buying a car? Iri is trying to lead me astray; I'm not that dumb. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just realised that I may have caused some confusion here. We don't have a Cherokee, we have a Grand Cherokee. Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Same crappy backseat :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

With the seats down I've slept in the back quite comfortably, but I sense you're not talking about sleeping. Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Why, Malleus-- you surprise me. You know I'm an ingenue. I'm talking about riding in them-- those seats are so damn short you fall off when going through Caracas potholes. In the 70s, Caracas drove Range Rovers; 80s, Landcruisers; 90s, Cherokees (or is that backwards?). Now, they drive Hummers, unless they have to drive armor-plated cars. I don't need a large seat for activities other than sightseeing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

<insert unneccessary charecter spacing here> ResMar 01:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you! Your copy edits helped Capitol Loop pass its FAC. Imzadi 1979 → 00:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Finally...

I'll have about 24 hours of relatively free time on my hands to go over Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná. It shouldn't be in FAC urgents for long... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much-- you're the man for the job! I won't be going through FAC again for several more days, so no hurry until about Friday. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Oopsie, I misspoke-- I'm recused from that article because I interact elsewhere with the nominator, so Karanacs will probably get to it next week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I feel a little less guilty now. By the way, I have two questions: (a) why is Tourette syndrome not protected, and (b) how did an IP pick up on this and not you? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

a) It's not protected because it's now part of Pending revisions (which is still Greek to me). b) I'm not certain that edit is correct, but I can't locate the background. Colin and I discussed it once (or maybe Eubulides, can't remember), because sources disagree. I suspect it may have to do with old style dates vs. new, but we never could sort the discrepancy, and now I can't locate the source of the discrepancy or remember where we had the discussion. And since it doesn't really affect the TS article, I give up :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If pending changes proves a problem, it is fine to change back to semiprotection. I am guessing this is how more material is entering these articles. I just changed back schizophrenia and will look over some others too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

All done. And just in time, might I add... :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I imagine Karanacs had good faith in you :) Thanks, Fv ... we don't have enough editors who ca cover some areas, particularly when languages other than English are involved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the comments; I'll get to them shortly. ceranthor 18:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Should have gotten those comments; I assume you have more... :) ceranthor 19:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll run through it again after more review-- nice work. You may need to fix my inelegant adjustment in the lead-- didn't want to go into the whole translation, name change, but don't think my solution is the best. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ha, I tried to fix it. Maybe someone will swing along and fix mine, too. ceranthor 19:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, are you promoting on Tuesday? ceranthor 13:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I am no longer going to be advertising when I'm promoting, or sticking to schedules dictated by processes and publications outside of the FAC process. I am concerned that the integrity of the process is being undermined by editorial choosing of "favorites" and issues unrelated to the FAC process, and have long been concerned that reviews are lagging because reviewers and nominators know they have until Tuesday or Saturday to review. I think it's time to get back to the way FAC was run historically-- promotions occurred when they occurred, and reviewers and nominators had to stay on top of FAC. We went to the Tuesday/Saturday schedule to facilitate the amount of tedious work Gimmetrow has to do to run Gimmebot, but that has been addressed with the use of the {{FACClosed}} template. I am not willing to have FAC closings affected by the recent trend in the Signpost towards editorial opinion over helpful, factual content designed to advance content review processes, and am concered that the rush to "pick one's favorite" could affect reviews, so I plan to go back to closing FACs whenever I see they're ready. It worked well before, and it's time to get back to that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for the info. ceranthor 01:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Author's Farce/archive3

Hello, I would like to withdraw Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Author's Farce/archive3 as to save everybody the time and energy; it is clearly not meant to be. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^♯♭ 21:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No, please don't Sandy. NocturneNoir, it's easy to get discouraged at FAC, but the comments that Brian and I made needn't be showstoppers, and could be dealt with fairly easily. Similarly, all of Awadewit's objections during the last FAC have almost certainly been dealt with as well. All I'm asking for is a bit more surgical precision. As I've said in the past on your talk page, I think you're too concerned about what Ottava might think if you cut or reorganised a little, but the harsh truth is that Ottava isn't here, and there are some things that need to be done whether he'd approve or not. Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I am both unwilling and unable to cut the prose further. Feel free to do so yourself. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^♯♭ 21:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Unable I can relate to, but why unwilling? Malleus Fatuorum 21:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If I'm going to do a terrible job cutting, I sure as hell don't want to. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^♯♭ 21:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing like being optimistic, and that was nothing like being optimistic. Would you object if this FAC was kept open for just a little longer? Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's failed twice and there's not even the slightest indication that it'll pass this time around. Not quite sure where you're finding your optimism. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^♯♭ 21:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Neither am I. As a Capricorn I'm by nature rather saturnine, but this is a nice article, and could pass easily if you'd just let Ottava loosen his grip on it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

As NocturneNoir and I can't agree on what needs to be done, and this nomination is close to dropping off the list, then it may be better to withdraw it now. It still (IMO) needs some work, and I'll try to bring it back when I'm happy with it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sandy gism? That does not sound healthy. Nev1 (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I meant "SandyGism", wasn't trying to invent a new disease. Like her, I often have to go back and correct what looked perfectly OK to me when I typed it in. Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Being unable to do what's asked isn't quite the same as failing to see eye to eye. Further, it doesn't quite matter what I think. Everybody else agrees that the article needs cutting, which I'm unable to do. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^♯♭ 23:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I see it more as unwilling to do what's asked, which is my beef. I've been on at you for ages to cut some of Ottava's flowery crap out of this article, but you resist, for God knows what reason. Malleus Fatuorum 00:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I've said unable about twenty times in the course of this entire conversation. Again, it's not an issue of resisting. I've cut crap. I just don't know what else to cut and keep the article coherent. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^♯♭ 01:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not talking about this conversation, I'm talking about earlier conversations, during which I told you exactly what I thought needed to be done, but you deferred to Ottava. Malleus Fatuorum 01:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to forgive me for deferring to the expert then, since I have no expertise in the subject matter. Also, does this look good to you? I feel like I've broken something. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^♯♭ 01:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That generally looks a lot more focused to me, lots of distracting detail gone; I certainly don't think you've broken anything. Courage mon brave, I really do think that you can make it this time. We're clearly very different people though, as I defer to nobody when I think I'm right, as in this case, expert or no. Malleus Fatuorum 14:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Ebionites#Missing_material_from_Epiphanius

SandyGeorgia, you participated in the FAC and FAR on the Ebionites article, and I was hoping you could take a minute to look at the above link. The issue is how best to present a list of primary source quotations in the article, either in list or abstract form, or perhaps using a link to a hidden page or WikiSource. Thanks. Ovadyah (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Ceoil (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Featured article doubt

Hi, Sandy. I was wondering if you could clear a doubt I have about featured article nominations. Well, I am nowadays the only editor who is writing anything on Brazilian history-related articles (no, I do not live only roaming around Hugo Chávez article!). Which means that I don't anyone else to ask. How does a nomination to featured category ends? I've noticed that you are one of the administrators that deals with it. Is it you who says how many reviewrs are needed and when the article is ok?

Sorry to bother you, but I'm going to nominate a couple soon (and I do have another one now being reviewed) and I wanted to be sure on how it works. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Because you and I interact on Chavez, I've recused from promoting or archiving your FAC, and the other delegate (Karanacs) will handle it. A FAC is promoted when all issues are resolved, and sufficient reviews have been provided to show consensus that it meets the criteria. There is no set number of Supports needed for promotion-- it depends on many factors. Fvasconcellos-- who speaks Portuguese-- is planning to review your FAC, so Karanacs will probably have a look at it in next week's FAC run. (PS, I'm not an admin-- I'm a delegate at FAC :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! That's what I wanted to know. Glad to know that I can count on you. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost and ownership

Dispatches

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Sandy, I was disappointed to see that you took a "hey, that's my patch" attitude to the relationship between the revamped "Features and admins" page and the almost defunct and appallingly named "Dispatches". As far as I can see, Dispatches serves us well and can continue to do so as an occasional piece, when it has something good to deliver about featured content that can be the basis of a well-judged page (not too long, not too short). As I said to you in its heyday, there is just not enough material to supply a weekly page. My objection to Mario's piece was its extended blurbs that had already been covered in the previous week's F and A. After the opening section, it was not an engaging read, mostly because it was stale by that stage and repeated a formula that is now handled succinctly and freshly by F and A. I took what was distinctive, improved it, put it at the top of F and A, changed the title of F and A to thematise it, and added Mario's name as a co-author. It seemed the best way out of a bad situation.

That you would seek to lob hand-grenades at F and A by announcing "Who would read the F and A blurbs", or some such, and by framing me on this page as unreliable, someone to takes up projects and drops them, is inexplicable. It was an unnecessary and personal attack on me for all of the work I've done to improve and promote FAC. I'd have thought you'd be glad to have FAC highlighted in the way we now do it, every week, with some 1500 visits to each page. Just why it should be seen in territorial terms as broaching the traditional remit of Dispatches is beyond me: Dispatches is for special stories about featured content; F and A is for highlighting the talent and results of our best content creators and our reviewers on a weekly basis. The FCDW—developed when there were weekly Dispatches—is highly bureacratised. Its multi-stage gobbledy instructions would put off all but the most determined authors. It would be better put to bed, and whenever a Dispatch page is under way, a few prominent notices inserted at WT:FAC and the like—even the nomination pages themselves.

My objection to Mario's current "tools" Dispatches is that it doesn't mention featured content. This could be corrected, I suppose, by adding a prominent reference to featured articles and listds in the first paragraph. Otherwise, Dispatches is going to be treated as a receptacle, an empty space, in which anyone can write any story as they wish. My demand would be that the tools story go on its own separate page; why is it using the "Dispatches" slot? Tony (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that the name "Dispatches" troubles you so; I thought you were part of choosing that name, but my memory could be faulty.

I don't recall any "Hey, that's my patch" attitude, but you may be reading the issues differently than I am. The Tools Dispatch was put forward without the benefit of review or collaboration that was typical of past Workshop publications, hence, it had (and still has) multiple problems. Ragesoss and Ral315 respected that Dispatches ran through the Workshop before being brought to the Signpost; if HaeB wants to run things differently, and if Signpost readers prefer individual editor opinion over well-written, well-researched articles developed via collaboration and designed to advance content review processes, it may be time to mark FCDW historical and close it up, so that the quality that was typical of those publications doesn't deteriorate. I've seen frequent misstatements that the Dispatches applied only to featured content, and that is not and never was the case; the proposed Tools Dispatch is well within the scope of that Workshop, and in line with past articles there.

The 3000th FA Dispatch was a different matter than the Tools proposed Dispatch. I did not object when you unilaterally undid that Dispatch, because no good would come from that-- your action was late due to the Signpost deadline, and it was a done deal, by fiat-- but you took that action unilaterally and without consulting anyone else involved, and it's no wonder that ResMar was offended. The 3000th FA undeniably warranted a Dispatch, and Raul654 agreed that ResMar could write it;[3] without consulting Raul, ResMar, Karanacs, or me, you eliminated that Dispatch. It seems to have contributed to some illwill from ResMar, and that is not surprising, considering that Raul agreed that he should write it and the 3000th FA warranted a Dispatch. The end result is that we have no Dispatch marking an important milestone, and if that isn't precisely the kind of article that should be published in the Dispatches, then there is little reason to keep that Workshop alive. Rather than eliminating that Dispatch, you might have instead deleted the redundant portions, and referenced the past Signpost publication covering those articles. Or you might have asked others how to handle it-- Dispatches don't need to run every week, and there was no hurry. At any rate, there was an absence of coordination and collaboration there.

I'm uninterested in Signpost publications that are editorial opinion over content designed to advance article review, so I suggest it's time to open a discussion about whether the Dispatches should be marked Historical and the Workshop closed. I'm disappointed that the respect that Ral315 and Ragesoss had for the quality of the Dispatches is no longer evident, uninterested in the Signpost trend towards editorial opinion, and concerned that this editorial "picking of favorites" could affect the integrity of the FAC process. Considering past allegations of "cliques" or "favoritism" at FAC, I don't see what good can come from this editorial "picking of favorites", and I see plenty of potential for risk in this activity, as nominators could be offended that they are not chosen, and reviews could be rushed so editors can pick their favorite. By what process are you deciding who gets to pick their "favorite", and how can that not lead to allegations of "cliqueism"? I understand that you have the best of intentions in this endeavor, but am concerned that the downside risks could affect FAC. I regret that because I've been so busy IRL, I wasn't aware that this "choosing of favorites" was even occurring in the Signpost and apologize for coming late to this issue. I don't recall being made aware that this was occurring, although I've been so busy that I may have missed it, and wish I had been made aware because of the potential for this to affect FAC reviews in the same ways that other aspects of the "Reward culture" expanding on Wiki can affect FACs.

Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply: "you took that action unilaterally and without consulting anyone else involved, and it's no wonder that ResMar was offended"—But no consultation in the planning stage by Mario. I would have piped up straight away and said "please don't duplicate what F and A does". The 3,000 article should have been planned in the appropriate week, since it would easily go stale. If there had been timely notice, we might have simply listed and linked the six articles at issue at F and A the previous week, and flagged that there would be a Dispatch treating them in greater detail. It's not my fault that didn't happen. But the greater problem was the tenor of the text: much of the information about how they'd gone through GA and this and that was boring, frankly. It did not hold my interest, and nor would it have held readers' interest, even if the duplication had not occurred. If you think that was a good read, there's a problem. Is that the best Dispatches can do? If so, no more, please. More than that, in my view, most of the past Dispatches have been on the long, dry, and tedious side.

This brings me to a fundamental disparity in the way you appear to view The Signpost and the way I and others have encouraged it to move. The Signpost started as a nerdy newsletter ministering to a relatively small readership. As such, it placed little emphasis on brevity, interest, and readability—witness the almost straight dumping of prefabricated questionnaire responses into the Wikiproject Report; the focus at F and A on what has already seen huge exposure on the main page, rather than rewarding newly promoted content with exposure; the failure to take advantage of opportunities to bring out the interesting personal/skill-base aspects of newly promoted admins, or of image opportunities in the newsy pages, or of interwiki coverage.

Perhaps it will surprise you to know that I pushed for a more journalistic, competitive approach largely on the basis of what you, Bishonen, and a few others I respect had said to me: that you found it boring, and no longer read it. It was only 18 months ago, I think, that the bot subscriptions were introduced (soon to be expanded interwiki), with a significant increase in visibility and readership for the journal. The WP community itself has been maturing during this time. The Signpost HAD to respond by becoming more interesting, more streamlined (it still has a way to go in terms of greater brevity, and I include F and A in that).

The key idea is that we have to compete to get people to read it. That aim does not make it cheap, non-neutral, or commercial in flavour. And at F and A, asking for explicitly framed opinions by reviewers each week is another way of recognising and publicising the talent and insight our people exercise on the promotions pages. It was with an eye to increasing the profile of both reviewers and nominators that I designed the Choice of the week sections; this idea has proved to be very popular, and there have been no complaints, except from you. The Signpost needs a careful mix of opinion to stop it being boring. It is a pity that you are taking such a destructive line on my work. I disagree with almost everything you said in your post.

One more thing I need to clarify: it was entirely coincidental that my greater involvement there happened around the time the excellent Ragesoss had to leave the Managing Editorship; I felt he was and remains on side in the moves to change the journal. The new Managing Editor, who is hard on me, is impressive—we were lucky to have such a smooth transition. I just hope you take a serious look at how the new F and A is beneficial to FAC. Tony (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

We do not disagree that neither of the proposed articles was ready for publication, and that problem occurred precisely because they circumvented the Workshop. That Dispatch was by no means ready for publication, I agree with your critique of it, and I was planning to work on it or enlist other accomplished writers to do so. However, the 3000th was discussed with Raul, it is well within the remit of the Dispatches, you might have checked that with Raul or me before taking action, and eliminating it was unfortunate, led to illwill with ResMar, and showed a lack of collaboration all round. If even I didn't know what the F&A section of the Signpost was up to, who else didn't know? I have lost all interest in reading the Signpost or continuing my work on the Dispatches; my concern now is with the integrity of the FAC process and the potential for allegations of "cliqueism" or rushed reviews so "favorites" can be chosen. I consider it "part of my job" to watch for all aspects of the Wiki "reward culture" that might affect FAC, and now I have one more to watch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"You were planning to work on it"—but the deadline was up, and the whole idea of a benchmark is to report it fresh. You don't wish someone happy 40th three weeks after the day, do you? My inclination is to bin stuff that doesn't work or is not on time. That's the way to maintain standards. I don't give a dump about ill-will with Mario; that is his problem. Nor do I care that Raul said to go ahead and write it. That would matter only if Raul had supervised the planning and writing—but he didn't. And why did Raul have to agree to it, anyway? "eliminating it was unfortunate"—no, it was most fortunate. We binned an unsatisfactory read and salvaged a nice little opener that zapped up F and A. On the talk page, in amongst Mario's caterwauling, people liked the coverage, which I think was about right in length and prominence. "Cliqueism"? Who would be the clique? Certainly not me. Or do you suspect that we will choose a narrow group of reviewers (our "friends") in rotation? No, we're far more interested in garnering wide opinion, some of it from foreign experts, too. What are these cliques? "rushed reviews so "favorites" can be chosen": sorry, I'm a bit thick. Do you mean nominators would put pressure on you to pass a nomination so their new FA can be included in an F and A at which they know a sympathetic judge will be invited? This is all too far-fetched. And COTW is framed as opinion, as the favourite, as a chance to praise technical characteristics. We learn more about the article and the process in many cases. People don't take them that seriously.

But the matter you haven't touched on is our selectivity: we display what we feel are some of the good FPs and images from FAs—preferably those that will fit together nicely on the page. This is selectivity, rather than favouritism: it creates the best effect, and avoids swamping readers with huge galleries of every image. It is likely that we may even move towards providing blurbs for only some FAs and FLs: our selection. Readers will just have to trust our good faith. It's called professionalism. It's chicken feed compared with the opinion and selection they must endure during the FAC process. Tony (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Having just written a little piece for The Signpost myself, as Tony asked me to do, choosing my favourite of last week's promotions, I'm not sure I see where the reward aspect comes into it. It's hardly any more of a reward for me to say in The Signpost that my favourite was X than it would be for me to post on the nominator's talk page that I really liked the article, as I not infrequently do anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 15:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

But you, Malleus, are more mature than some Wiki editors-- I can see this becoming another bauble for some to accumulate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind if people accumulate that bauble: good on them. I want a more competitive atmosphere, the difference being that COTW rides on The Signpost's authority, which sits ambiguously between an official mouthpiece of the project and something less official but still public. Sandy, you seem to concentrate on people getting hurt. I don't see that. Everyone knows there's a certain arbitrariness in such a competition.

What will you think when we launch The Signpost Award for the Best Featured Article of 2010? Now that will really be interesting. Tony (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I was pleased that Malleus selected my article, Liberty Bell (tempered by the fact he was hoping another article would be promoted and would have selected that one instead, I gather). But it isn't a trophy for my wall and I won't be putting up an infobox for it or anything.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I was also surprised to see a German editor chose The Body as his pick of the week of the FAs. I admit I was pleased, but it won't keep me up at night or change the way I edit. --Moni3 (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Pig-faced women would have been just about irrestistible as far as I'm concerned, but that takes nothing away from your excellent article Wehwalt; rather, it's an(other) indication of my quirky taste. These choices are always going to be personal ones. I suppose I could be upset that nobody's yet picked one of my FAs, but I'm not, it's just a bit of fun. Malleus Fatuorum 16:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, both of you are more mature than some Wiki editors; Tony may have missed this exchange, and what if less mature or experienced editors had been involved? We do have some of those, as Malleus knows better than most :) :) I will not have the desire to pick "favorites" become a factor in FAC promotions, and I have long been concerned anyway that the announced pr/ar schedule has been contributing to the FAC backlog, in addition to my concerns about the "reward culture" impacting FAC reviews. This was merely another straw that burdened the camel's back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I wasn't pushing for anything to be promoted, I was only asking if the list I was asked to work from was likely to be the final version as there were already 11 articles on it and I wanted to know whether I could make a start on writing my little offering. Malleus Fatuorum 16:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I understood that, MF, and did not intend to single you out or imply anything-- you are a mature, balanced editor, but this shows where this can lead wrt less mature editors, the reward culture, the integrity of FAC, etc. That (over the Signpost) has to be my main concern, and I've long been concerned that an announced pr/ar schedule is affecting FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you will get the same grumbles from people who are overly anxious regardless of whether you did a promotion schedule or not.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we got so many of those grumbles before, under the RaulRegime of a random pr/ar schedule, but my memory could be wrong (again :). At any rate, sticking to a schedule has other issues-- when I could promote as FACs were ready (usually daily), I thought that helped lower the backlog, and kept reviewers and nominators on their toes. So I have other reasons for wanting to get away from a set schedule. Karanacs may see this differently, so I'm looking forward to her input (likely tomorrow, since she rarely edits on weekends). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that trying to stand in the way of the reward culture is like Canute trying to hold back the tide. Just look what happened when the new pending changes abortion was rolled out; within a day or so shiny new sheriff badges started to appear on reviewers' talk pages, and I don't doubt it'll be the same with COTW soon enough. I fully expect to see demands for the {{ArticleHistory}} template to be updated to include it. I've made a mini-stand at GAN, and received some stick for my refusal to review WikiCup nominations, which I think are far more damaging in all sorts of ways than a one paragraph personal opinion published once a week by a series of different editors. Malleus Fatuorum 16:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

@ Tony: Both of us care about the qualtity, not only of articles, but writings on Wikipedia about articles. We diasagree about the FA of the week; this is not a big deal, rather another factor I have to watch for in FAC reviews. If the new Signpost trend leads to more interest, fine. If it leads to more award-hunting, templates, baubles, competition for the most of everything, or charges of "cliqueism" at FAC, not so good, but no surprise either, given the need of some participants for recognition. We're both concerned about content quality, so I do hope you'll view this discussion in that context, Tony, as your words have been unnecessarily harsh and divisive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I would say that if it starts to become a problem, either axe it or limit it to works by first time FA writers.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, but it is yet another thing delegates have to watch over and be aware of, along with all of the other "competitive" rewards on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, I was going to reply anyway to some of the things you said earlier (from this thread which got archived rather quickly, as it was the end of the month). I think I have come to understand your perspective on the Dispatches workshop a little better since then, but I am concerned to see my stance continue to be misrepresented here, and I do not think all judgments that you expressed about the Signpost and its current contributors were well-founded.

I/FCDW worked very well under Ral315's and Ragesoss's leadership; it wasn't broke. - No one said it was broken, but several people remarked it had been inactive for a long time, with only four stories after May 2009, the last one in March. You should not have insinuated that this might have something to do with the change in the Signpost's leadership in June. Also: Ragesoss and Ral315 respected that Dispatches ran through the Workshop before being brought to the Signpost; if HaeB wants to run things differently ... - If I was in the situation that Ragesoss and Ral315 were in, namely that the Dispatches workshop would be preparing articles in its own way and then present me as editor with a good, almost finished story, I would do things exactly as they did. However, this is not what happened here. What happened is that someone had a nice idea for a topic, wrote an article about it but made the mistake of insisting to use the "Dispatches" label for it without notifiying the workshop (i.e. those users who still had its page on their watchlist) about it, which admittedly wasn't very polite. On this basis, you came in and insisted that the Signpost's usual quality control process - discussion in the Newsroom - was inadequate, and quality could only be ensured by following the Dispatches protocol to the letter, which had not produced a single article for five months.

So the main disagreement was not about content, it was about processes. For example, I never said RM's tools article had already been proofread 100% (you may have noted that I did some copyediting on it earlier today). And although I may not have agreed with all of them, I took the objections and suggestions about the article seriously, as long as they were specific and about the content itself. In fact, they (mainly Dispenser's) convinced me to push it back once more as the publication of the last issue was imminent.

the Dispatches were my pride and joy on Wiki, more than anything else I've done here. - I absolutely respect that and I acknowledged before that the project had produced very good stories, you can and should feel proud about that. I just wished you had realized that your feelings about Dispatches might be very similar to how I and presumably several other Signpost regulars feel about the Signpost. It was not appropriate to attack the general quality of our work in the way you did and make sweeping judgements like "goodness, signpost losing its way" etc. based on disagreements about the handling of one single article. (Do you even read the other sections - News and notes, In the news, Arbitration report, Technology report? And personally, I make a lot of effort each week to ensure accuracy, unbiasedness, and other quality aspects. I invite you to go through my Signpost related edits and tell me where you feel I wasn't committed enough to quality.)

If pride in collaborative work is "ownership", so be it. - No, I'm pretty sure that's not what Stepshep was referring to here. It's more likely that he had something like example #10 on Wikipedia:OWN#Examples_of_ownership_behavior in mind ("Please clear this with project X first."). As Signpost editor, I want good coverage of all the relevant topics for our readers, also about featured content, but I don't care much which project or writer is producing it. I read your comments about Tony with interest, and I do sometimes have issues regarding his Signpost work (right now, as you can see here, about factual accuracy, a topic I assume you care about too). But by and large, I think his work is beneficial for the Signpost and I am happy to have him on board. I would like to have you on board, too, and it is unfortunate that we have let RM's initial mistake damage what could otherwise have been a much better relationship.

About Raul and the 3000th featured article, I'd like to note that he actually posted a suggestion about the topic on the Signpost tip line on August 18 - without any indication that this should be considered a topic reserved for Dispatches.

making a decision to ignore the significance of the 3,000th Featured article? - I don't think its significance has been ignored. Btw, it was one of the three topics I chose to highlight in the Twitter announcement of the new issue, and the close to 400,000 friends of Wikipedia on Facebook got a chance to learn about it via the Signpost, too. Achim Raschka, who wrote a story about it for the Signpost's German sister publication (de:WP:Kurier#3.000 Featured articles), also appears to have noticed it via the Signpost.

Should [Tony] choose to do that with the Features and Admins, will you all be happy at having killed off the Dispatches - I never intended to kill off Dispatches, it is disingenous to blame me for its state rather than the inactiviy of its writers. Rather than seeing the Dispatches workshop closing down for good, I'd much more prefer to see it becoming revived again. I know you said you don't have the time in the near future to be much involved in it, but just to give me an idea of the potential, could you (tentatively) name some topics that might be suitable for future Dispatches, in your opinion?

Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It was not my intent to "blame you" for any of this debacle, and there were plenty of missteps going around-- I'm sorry and apologize to you if my posts came across that way. I certainly did want to call your attention to an unfolding debacle with plenty of downside risk. My prose isn't usually very precise, and misunderstandings are possible. You most certainly were presented with a difficult and unprecedented situation on the proposed Tools Dispatch, but what happened with the 3000th FA Dispatch is another story and took things to a whole 'nother, and unnecessary, level. There was a time when anyone involved in FAs had Raul's talk page watchlisted and would have known the Dispatch was in progress and collaborated to make sure text was not redundant-- apparently times have changed. On the other hand, my impression (which could be wrong) was that Ral315 and Ragesoss both deferred to the Workshop on publication of Dispatches and any Signpost articles dealing with content review processes. Without some kind of editorial oversight or the kind of collaboration that existed before, these kinds of kerfuffles are likely to re-occur. I appreciate your kind words about the quality of previous Dispatches, but it is unlikely I will regain interest in putting the kind of effort I used to put into them-- they relied on a collaborative effort, and I do think this kerfuffle killed off any of that thay may have been left, and I was too busy IRL over the last year to keep them going. It looks like no one else cared about them, so it is natural that you carry on in whatever way you think best. Tony's charge that FCDW was "bureaucratized" mystifies me, considering his edits and contributions to the instructions there. Also, his criticism of past Dispatches is most curious, considering I always relied on him to copyedit them, and he probably wrote more of them than any other editor, so all in all, this is beginning to smell like a "turf war", and it's probably best that shop close up and we all move on to whatever greater plans y'all have. Best of luck with everything, and keep up the good work, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

(1) "I will not have the desire to pick "favorites" become a factor in FAC promotions"—Fine, so why do you take a default position that others will be corrupt. Others like me. One could just as well accuse you, Karanacs, YellowMonkey, and Dana of having "favourites". While we're at it, let's launch a full-on attack on the arbitrators, the CUs, the OSs, Dabomb87 at FL, of course, accusing them of harbouring "favourites". These assumptions are white-anting what I do, and I ask you to desist. It is offensive. You need to AGF.

(2) I edited the instructions at FCDW because when I needed them, they turned out to be incomprehensible. I had to seek your clarifications on a number of matters to make them functional.

(3) You seem to be casting around to blame one and all for anything you can grasp at. It is unseemly. Tony (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FA of the year proposal

• The FA of the Year will be announced in early February, I think. The idea is to call for nominations of any FA promoted during 2010, with a few extra conditions placed on them beyond the criteria. A user cannot nominate more than, say, three. A small committee (of three, possibly) will short-list from this, down to about 25 FAs (perhaps more FPs, since they require so much less time to peruse than an article; perhaps fewer FLs, since the numbers overall are fewer—I'm unsure). A panel of three, including at least one foreigner, will select first, second and third prizes. There will be a people's prize chosen by popular vote. The main thrust of political objections will be the short-listing. But that is too bad; we can't expect an international panel to have to sift through 100 articles.

In philosophical terms, all the way through this we are playing out issues to do with what is desirable in FAs. This is a good thing to be the focus of debate while the short-listers and the panel get on with their job. I was considering themed prizes, such as in the German writers' competitions (best science article, best history article), but that requires separate panels of short-listers and judges, and becomes too complex. I don't mind the notion of having to compare quality across quite different topics. [then tweaked numbers, grammar, 2:46 UTC, 6 Sept, Tony1] Tony (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

That process sounds a little more useful than one Wiki editor choosing one other Wiki editor to pick his or her favorite, which is likely to lead to charges of cliqueism. But who gets to choose this panel? We discussed something similar long ago, and we strongly disagreed, because I felt that the most active FAC reviewers should be on the panel, as a way of rewarding them for reviews. I will not support a program where any one editor gets to say who gets to say-- elitism and cliqueism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Or one FAC delegate passing or failing a nomination: clique special, Sandy. Do they bribe you? The failure to assume good faith is making me ill. Tony (talk) 00:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I can see an argument for not having active FAC reviewers on the panel; it might introduce a slightly different and fresher perspective. On the "cliquism" charge, I don't really see that. As I'm sure Wehwalt would confirm, he and and I have not always agreed on a whole range of issues, perheps even never agreed, but that wasn't a factor in choosing (or not) his Liberty Belll article. Malleus Fatuorum 16:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about an FA of the year competition ... it makes FA a little less its own reward. But yes, I would have the panel majority those who are not FA writers. I just hope there's no mass voting by wikiprojects.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

@ Malleus, again, it's not mature reasoned experienced editors that concern me; you might recall that the charges of "cliqueism" didn't come from those quarters, but they did contribute to a lot of illwill at FAC nonetheless. This endeavor is fraught with negative potential; I hope Tony is right and the upside potential outweighs that. Time will tell, but I'm within my right to say 1) I want nothing to do with it, and 2) I've got to do whatever best to maintain integrity at FAC, so I'm not going to time promotions around the Signpost's schedule. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Again, Sandy, this "mature" thing you've been chiming in with—more assumptions of bad faith? In my experience, the featured-content processes on enwiki show striking maturity. They used not to; they do now. It is thrilling to work with the promoted material, our very best content. It is now something we can be proud of. I find good faith among reviewers and nominators wherever I have communicated with them WRT The Signpost's F and A. Only an immature process would throw up difficult issues in running F and A, COTW, and now, I believe, an FA of the Year. Tony (talk) 00:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, for COTW, your clear assumption is that there is deliberate or accidental bias in our selections from week to week. However, the idea is to rotate as widely as possible—to give as many reviewers and nominators the experience of acting as a judge, over the medium term. We have not repeated one choice, although we may from time to time invite the same person twice in a year. Fifty slots a year are not easy to fill. It is more a case of locating enough regulars, ex-regulars, and foreigners. People like being asked. No one has refused. It's a good experience for them to be put in a position of choosing, and giving their reasons publicly for their choice. And it makes the rest of us choose our own putative article, which is sometimes the same as the judge has chosen (always a pleasure, but equally good when you're made to think differently by a judgement that's not what you'd have done). I remember the Latter Day Saints List a month ago, which I was instinctively thought ill of, because of my fervently anti-religious viewpoint; but when I looked at the winning list, I couldn't help feeling this was the right choice—technically so, so good, and so useful for readers. It made me think differently.

So Sandy, your idea is to stay right out of the COTW and FA of the Year processes: this is good and proper, and although I've invited both FARC delegates, I had decided not to go as far as inviting you or Karanacs—best to keep your distance, so that you can continue to carefully weigh up the multitude of opinions expressed on FAC pages. It's just transposed at The Signpost.

You are all right that the FA of the Year panel (possibly the short-listers, too) needs to be a little distant from the process. That is why foreigners are being identified for some of these tasks. (You know I'm all for interwiki bonds, and this is a good chance to foster them.) And there's no reason an FA person might not judge or short-list the FL nominations, and vice versa. Or Jimbo. There are Commons people who could do the FPs. There are many ways of doing it. My first concern is to write the additional criteria, beyond those for FAC normal. Tony (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Oddly, I think there's more value and less damage in a COTW than an FA of the year. While COTW is "aw, nice", FA of the year has the potential to be a lot more. Something to argue over and to pin one's identity on. Like Lola the Showgirl at the Copa, Copacabana the hottest spot north of Havana: "Obey me! I got the FA of the year for 2010!" --signed Moni3 September 5, 2028. When we all know the horrible, horrible things Moni3 did to get the FA of the year. Srs, Ron Jeremy wouldn't do those things. --Moni3 (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with that. Malleus Fatuorum 19:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

As am I; "choice of the week" doesn't (to my mind) imply any "this is the best" judgement, but simply "this is the one I found most interesting", and there are enough weeks in the year that any "prestige" will be diluted fairly quickly, since I imagine most of the regulars will have one fairly quickly. As regards bias, I can't speak for others but I know that when I was asked to choose, I picked one which happened to be by someone I don't think I've ever even heard of before. I very much doubt "choice of the week" is something which would provoke any kind of canvassing or cliqueyness—it's not important enough to get the groupies. – iridescent 20:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you underestimate "the groupies" :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Is everyone else getting groupies? I was asked to do this twice (I declined the first time, as by a quirk of timing there was a lot of material I'd been involved with in the Signpost and I didn't want it too much about me) and didn't get a single offer. – iridescent 22:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Me neither. I was away the first time I was asked, but I've not yet had a single call. Malleus Fatuorum 22:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

COTW

Could someone please educate me as to just what COTW stands for and who runs it and where? Collaboration of the Week is a feature of many WikiProjects, so I don't know what this acronym is, and what community process it reflects. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Choice of the week, the selected new featured article, list, and picture in each week's Signpost. Ucucha 17:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

More specifically, it's become a weekly "feature" in the "Features and admins" column since the July 5 edition. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, Tony's scathing criticism of the name Dispatches aside <smile>, isn't that a bit confusing, considering the long-standing Wiki Collaboration of the Week? And where is the community page that manages this venture? Or is it just one editor asking another editor for opinion? Am I really the only person who is troubled by that kind of editorializing at the Signpost? If so, shoot me and put me out of my misery :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that because the users vary weekly in their thoughts and views of what constitutes a choice of a week, it ends up working out well. If it was someone controlling it week in week out you'd be right, but since it exploits the idea of everyone having differing opinions, ironically it works. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

... added to which, as very few know who the next week's guest reviewer is going to be, it would be pretty hard to boogie up to them anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 23:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd support a rename (Selection Of The Week?) to avoid confusion with WP:COTW, if it's causing problems. – iridescent 23:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

@Wizardman, since I wasn't even aware this was going on, you could be right about the ultimate effect. I do share the concerns others have expressed here about FA of the year, but I really need to bow out of this kerfuffle and focus on making sure FAC itself is not affected by this side issue and the "reward" culture; I'm always troubled when our best reviewers and nominators are spending time elsewhere that they could be spending writing FAs and reviewing FACs. For that reason, I'd rather see FCDW closed up, than to see the quality decline there, as I just don't plan to make time to oversee them in this environment as I used to. I'll keep my fingers crossed that I never have occasion to say "I told you so", and that this venture will work out well without affecting FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

What is it exactly about this "reward" culture that you find threatens the integrity of FAC? Tony (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not Sandy, but I suspect it's down to an incident at GAN a while back, where two Wikicup contestants were waving through each others' articles despite them all being full of errors and MOS violations, in order to boost their point scores. Personally, I don't think that would be a problem at FAC; the consensus-and-discussion format means anyone making driveby supports will be ignored. I can see the potential for clique-ism at the Signpost ("I chose one of yours, now you choose one of mine"), but in all honesty I don't see "choice of the week" as enough of an honor to make it worth gaming. – iridescent 08:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That kind of backscratching at The Signpost would be outrageous. People are generally flattered to be asked, and know that their choice is very public. It would be bizarrely stupid and in bad faith for users to indulge in corrupt reciprocity at F and A. I don't think anyone regards COTW that way. Again, why do people here assume childish bad faith as a default; goodness me, it encourages bad faith to assume it so unerringly. I have more confidence in the community than that—at least in the people I deal with. COTW has been strictly a positive experience and is framed as showing us one person's reasoning, that's all—their insights, for us to reflect on. The FAC mindset is to take pot-shots, cutting it down because it dares to publicise opinion and reward talent. I mean, we dare to highlight some featured content over the rest. It's a sin according to the world of Stalinist Russia, but I'm more interested in providing a good read for the community, and through that promoting the whole featured-content system. If that means displaying a pic from one FA and not another, because a pic happens to go well visually with the one above it, fine. The feedback at F and A is in marked contrast with the policitised negativity and default of suspicion and mistrust that abounds here. I am disregarding it. Please move on, people. Tony (talk) 08:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Tony, I'm agreeing with you—if I saw a problem with this, I wouldn't have agreed to do one myself. All I'm saying is that Sandy's concerns about gaming-the-system aren't coming from a vacuum; there are past precedents for people supporting each others' articles when they're clearly not ready, members of a WikiProject turning up en masse to support or oppose something, etc. I don't see it as ever being an issue at the Signpost, where the regulars would soon notice anything odd going on, but I can see why people think there could be a problem. – iridescent 08:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Iri has hit on some of the issues/concerns (thanks!), but as I said, it's time for me to bow out of this discussion. Tony1 cares about content-- and writing about content-- as I do, but my "job" is to watch for issues that could affect the integrity of FAC or lead to ill will and charges of "cliqueism"; Tony sees his mission to advance featured content in other ways, and that's fine. But charges of failure to AGF and "this makes me ill" language won't advance the discussion; reasonable editors can disagree without such dramatics and charges of bad faith. Let's move on or keep it positive lest DaBomb87 need close out another thread here. I didn't start this "lobbing of grenades", but I will be the one to end it. Carry on, folks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Downbeat

Saturday tune delivered on Sunday, and given the times, its downbeat[4]. However you can see Neil Young's ass in the vid, so things are not compleatly lost. Ceoil (talk) 06:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Not downbeat at all! "I wouldn't buy, sell, borrow or trade anything I have to be like one of them." A Neil Young song from Emmylou Harris. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. O do I like Emmylou. Ceoil (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Akira Kurosawa

Hello. I nominated the Akira Kurosawa article as a Featured Article candidate (see here), and in my nomination statement, I mentioned that I was hoping against hope that the page could become a "Today's Featured Article" on September 10th, the 59th Anniversary of Rashomon winning the Golden Lion at Venice. You were kind enough to let me know (although it was bad news) that that day had already been assigned.

I have answered almost all the comments that have been made about the article, making all necessary changes, and I'm wondering what I can do further to assist the article's eventual promotion (my goal is to make it a Today's Featured Article before the end of the 2010, Kurosawa's centennial) short of canvassing, which I'm told one must avoid like the plague.

If these are inappropriate questions to ask of you, please pardon my inexperience. Dylanexpert (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Not inappropriate at all-- the best things you can do to assist promotion are 1) respond quickly and politely to reviews, 2) help out at FAC by reviewing other FACs (see one of our many shoddy "Dispatches" on how to review FACs <just kidding>), and 3) post neutral (avoiding WP:CANVASS) notices at relevant WikiProjects. Good luck ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Question

What should be the currentstatus in the ArticleHistory for this thing? Ucucha 23:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Since it hasn't yet passed GA, we should note that before noting that it also failed FAC and FLC. I think. If Gimme disagrees, he'll likely fix it. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. Ucucha 00:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

TPS

I'm going to be away from computer all day tomorrow (Tuesday), and there's a problem developing here, even after two FAC removals and a talk page warning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

A review of the template articlehistory at Real Madrid C.F. may be instructive regarding article overlap-- I haven't had time to look closely. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'll have a look at this. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Saw it almost as soon as you did. Delisted, deleted, warned, and soon to be blocked I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking this on; don't forget these! Have you considered an SPI on Hadrianos1990 (talk · contribs), per the Real Madrid F.C. overlap? Real Madrid C.F. had nine FACs, and similar intransigence, and Taro-Gabunia's first edits were to Real Madrid. There's also Spanish-language overlap. [5] Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't had the time to really go into SPI, for what it's worth if this editor continues to do this, I'll indef block in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Adventures in the popular press

Do you feel up for a game of telephone? Let's start with PMID 20439575 (full text), "The Effects of Growth Hormone on Body Composition and Physical Performance in Recreational Athletes", from Annals of Internal Medicine. The article itself notes:

The athletic significance of this improvement in sprint capacity is uncertain. We do not know how an improvement in Wingate test performance translates to performance in the sporting field, but we speculate that the approximately 4% increase in sprint capacity that we observed could translate to an improvement of 0.4 second in a 10-second sprint over 100 meters or of 1.2 seconds in a 30-second swim over 50 meters. (emphasis mine)

Note the use of words like "uncertain", "we do not know", "we speculate"... the study actually says nothing about how the measured changes would affect actual performance in competitive athletics, although the authors are willing to speculate, with clear caveats.

Now let's see how the article was covered in the Daily Telegraph: "Human growth hormone 'makes worst athlete the best'". The subheader reads: "Human growth hormone is powerful enough to make the worst athlete in an Olympic race finish first, a study has shown." O RLY? Is that what the study has shown? Additional gems:

• "Tests found that HGH could lead to a 0.4 second improvement over 10 seconds in a 100 metre sprint." (No, "tests" didn't find anything of the sort. The 0.4-second improvement was pure speculation, and identified as such by the authors).

OK, but the Telegraph is just a sloppy, partisan British rag, and its health coverage should be judged in light of the high bar set by the Daily Mail, right? So let's go to the Los Angeles Times... "Study shows growth hormone boosts sprint speed". The Times repeats the attention-grabbing lead: "Injections of human growth hormone can improve sprint capacity enough to turn the last-place finisher in the Olympic 100-meter dash into a gold-medal winner, according to a study released Monday." Mind you, this wasn't even among the study's conclusions - it was a brief paragraph of entirely hypothetical, data-less speculation in the discussion.

So now, in our articles on human growth hormone et al., we will have to contend with the idea that HGH has been shown to shave specific amounts of time from specific sprinting events, and can turn a last-place finisher into a gold medalist. It's reliably sourced, and who are we to suggest that peer-reviewed or scientific sources are more "accurate" or "better" than journalists? Sorry for preaching to the choir, but I felt like writing this up as a case study, for the next time someone complains about sourcing elitism. MastCell ^Talk 21:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, please do. That would look good in the Signpost. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Who knew the gentlemanly Fv enjoyed stirring the pot !!! :) Actually, MastCell, writing up this incident, together with the Lou Gehrig New York Times incident for a Dispatch on how to use sources in bio/med articles, linking to the previous Dispatch on sources in biology and medicine, could be most helpful-- are you game? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It's been simmering far too long, Sandy—like a good soup, it will just boil over if no one stirs it. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Methinks it already has :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the canonical example is the vaccine-autism story. If you go back and look at the quality of Andrew Wakefield's actual data (even before it was impugned) and compare it to the volume and tone of press coverage, you will despair for humanity. The entire vaccine hysteria was fomented by crappy science journalism. And there were concrete consequences of the journalistic irresponsibility - measles outbreaks, death threats against vaccine researchers, a withdrawal from new vaccine development by companies afraid of litigation and bad press... people died.

I used to think that vaccine coverage in the media became more responsible because of the massive accumulation of high-quality scientific data showing that vaccines are safe and do not cause autism. But that's wishful thinking. The press doesn't really do science - it does personalities and scandals. As it turned out, Wakefield (and some other prominent members of the vaccine-autism industry) had feet of clay on ethical grounds. Essentially, Brian Deer brought down the vaccine-autism complex, and he didn't do it by pointing to the scientific evidence. He did it by exposing the tawdry and questionably ethical side of the enterprise.

Journalists don't really cares what the science says, but they're interested in Wakefield's personal shortcomings. The latter are what discredited the vaccine-autism thing in the eyes of the popular press, I think - not the scientific argument. If Wakefield was personally irreproachable on ethical grounds, then the popular press would still be writing its typical stuff: "The National Academies of Science of every nation on Earth have rejected a vaccine-autism link. However, Andrew Wakefield argues that blah blah blah... And Some Guy With A Lab In His Basement argues blah blah blah..." MastCell ^Talk 16:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, now you've got three examples for your Dispatch; it should be good reading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I wouldn't say the vaccine-autism story was a "canonical example" of the press not reporting science well or responsibly, though I fully agree with MastCell that they are guilty as charged. Other significant players in that story are the legal profession (seeking compensation for their clients) and parents refusing to vaccinate their children (or demanding alternative vaccines). Whole books have been written on the subject. All three players "don't do science" and much of the blame isn't simply ignorance but basic greed and our modern society's attitudes towards blame, personal freedom, and a mistrust of authority and experts. To show that the press don't do science/medicine well, we could pick a simpler less controversial example, like that above (or see NHS Choices: Behind the Headlines for other examples). To discuss why the press don't do science/medicine well, stories like MMR are good but it is just one example. Other factors like cost cutting and speed-to-print/broadcast/go-online are important too.

The hero/villain personality aspect MastCell mentions is an interesting one and comes from the journalist's attempt to find an angle on the story that they and their readers can get interested in and understand. Ben Goldacre's recent article on anecdotes is his take on why the press don't responsibly report the science, economics and politics of drug rationing in the NHS.

I'd be interested to know if editors in other fields have to put up with over-use of the press as sources to cover matters outside of their core topics like current affairs (and the historical reporting of such) and opinion/review? Does Awadewit ever have to say "Sorry, the Radio times is not a reliable source for Joseph Priestley"?

Here's a bit of fun on the challenge of making science accessible: Armstrong & Miller. Let me know if you can't access it. Colin°^Talk 18:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, goodie ! Colin just signed on with MastCell and Fvasconcellos to write a Dispatch! Just wait 'til I haul TimVickers in here, too! And once he sees it, maybe even Eubulides will resurface. And Slp1 ... this is going to be a nice collaborative venture :) Get moving! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It's true, I did oversimplify the vaccine thing pretty egregiously. The press coverage would not have been so atrocious without the willing participation of a subset of researchers and, of course, lawyers. And there was certainly a fertile ground of pre-existing anti-vaccine sentiment in which these seeds grew. I agree it may be better to stick with simpler and clearer (and probably less emotive) examples. Of course, aggregate numerical and scientific illiteracy (at least in the American population) is a major contributing factor as well. MastCell ^Talk 18:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If you think the U.S. population is scientifically illiterate... boy, do you need to get out of the country more often :) By the way, this is certainly worth 218 seconds of your time. I've even shown it to some of my classes for debate. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there any evidence we've become more scientifically illiterate? Is it not just the case that the need for scientific literacy has increased? For example, we (rightly) no longer blindly trust the doctor to know what is best for us and want to be involved in the decision making process, which requires an understanding of scientific concepts. Plus, science is not the answer, it is a method for finding out answers. So when asked "What caused my child's autism?", science has no answer (yet), but an actress does. So we listen to the actress. Colin°^Talk 19:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's an insightful point. People have been empowered and encouraged to question scientific authority, but they haven't been given the critical-thinking tools necessary to do so effectively. The end result is that they're susceptible to deceptive, misleading, or just poorly thought-out claims. MastCell ^Talk 22:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

A bit chilling to realize that people are still going to believe whatever they want to. Take, for instance, Snopes. They say in recent interviews that it doesn't really matter what they write, people are just going to believe the thing they want to. Interesting post by them recently about how folks just tune out all the evidence and blunder on. --Moni3 (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

See also "How Facts Backfire". Granted, it's popular-press coverage of a scientific study... :P MastCell ^Talk 22:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Colin, I think medicine may be particularly susceptible to the kind of problem identified here because people are more closely interested into it than in most branches of science. I usually write on animals that don't get any attention at all except in the scientific literature, which simplifies matters greatly. Even when there is press coverage, it's rarely useful except for filling out some details that may be of interest to an encyclopedia but not to a scientific paper (cf. Saadanius). I'd throw out any popular press reference in an instant in favor of a scientific paper where that is possible. Ucucha 18:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• What an appalling misrepresentation of the findings from the original article, and an excellent example of why WP needs to use the highest quality sources. Another reason that comes to mind is that Science by press conference is such a popular way of getting the message out about medical pseudoscience. Facilitated communication and oxygen therapy|hyperbaric oxygen treatment with people with disabilities- (the latter article, BTW, looks like it needs a significant rewritting given the OR and RS problems). Why do the press seem to misrepresent medical stories? I guess it is the human aspect of it; we are all interested in health and cures for various diseases.--Slp1 (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • As to why these sorts of things happen, I think it has to do with the way journalism is practiced in general. Man bites dog is news; dog bites man isn't. "Every expert on Earth agrees that HIV causes AIDS" is not really a news story. On the other hand, "Contrarian scientist claims HIV is harmless" is news. On a less fringey note, consider the following two headlines: "Statins quietly save thousands of lives a year", vs. "Blockbuster heart drugs may carry hidden risks". Both are true in a technical and legal sense; which do you think a newspaper editor will greenlight? The popular press is biased towards the unusual, the unexpected, the scary, and the counterintuitive, because those are the sorts of things that grab people's attention and get them to buy the newspaper. That's fine as far as it goes. The problem is that you can't judge the validity or prominence of scientific views by totalling up their coverage in the popular press, because of the biases in journalistic priority. MastCell ^Talk 05:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

MastCell's right that the sensational news will always win. But there are other weaknesses in the press that are more recent and getting worse. I take the following from Nick Davies Flat Earth News, which I accept is a paperback written by a journalist with a sensational news story to tell. Ignoring tabloids, the Financial Times and the sports pages, an academic study found that 60% of news material was either wholly or mainly taken from public relations press releases or from wire agencies like Press Association, and a further 20% contains some of that material. The PR sources are clearly biased and not interested in truth. Wikipedia regards them as self-published sources, but the shocking thing is that they are so often repeated verbatim in the press without any fact checking. The interesting distinction is between the role of a journalist at a newspaper (which should be to investigate and tell the truth) and the role of a reporter at a news agency. The latter has no obligation to tell the truth, only to be accurate. So when Tony Blair says there are chemical weapons in Iraq, the PA will accurately report that Tony Blair says there are chemical weapons in Iraq. The press, TV and online news have become dependent on news agencies due to cuts and time pressures. So these news agencies now package up their material in the form of a newspaper-ready story that they are apparently happy to have plagiarised and have the newspaper's own journalist's name stuck on top of. The newspapers/etc buy these "ready meals" and may only copyedit them to the house style. The BBC Online is a frequent source on WP and it has many good qualities. But their staff are under pressure to get a breaking story onto the headline ticker along with a four paragraph body within 5 minutes and then write at least ten paragraphs of copy within another 15 minutes. What level of fact checking do you think they can do. And where do you think they get their background filler material from in that time?

Here's an example of scientific study, followed by press release, followed by article in the Daily Mail followed by comment by "Behind the Headlines". The newspaper article is 100% rehashed press release with no additional material or evidence of fact checking. BTW: I understand that newspaper headlines tend not to be written by the journalist, and in this case it is the heading that is complete bollocks and the article is ok as far as it goes. Colin°^Talk 09:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Article at GAR and FAC simultaneously

See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dhaka Residential Model College/archive1 and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Dhaka Residential Model College/1. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Dabomb87-- Karanacs archived that yesterday, but the bot hasn't been through yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, OK; I didn't see {{FACClosed}} so I thought it was still up (I'm slipping!) Dabomb87 (talk) 02:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, see this (not sure if it matters, but I thought you should be aware). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/German Type UB I submarine/archive1

Sandy, I wanted to clarify a point with regards to my comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/German Type UB I submarine/archive1: when I supported it was with the understanding that White Shadows would clarify the source issues in the article along with the other issues raised above mine. Anytime i leave a review with comments I fully expect that said comments will be addressed by the nominating parties, but to allow time for the parties to get back to me on the issues I usually give a 5-7 days reprieve on the assumption that if I am busy then they will be too, and I do not want shoot down someone if they simply have not yet had the time to get back to me. After looking at the review again I see there are source issues still left unresolved, and I would switch my vote to oppose for this but the review is already closed. I just thought I would let you know since I sensed some doubt from you in the review I left. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Tom ... what you might do instead in those cases is enter a leaning to support if <whatever> issues are resolved. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Duly noted. Thanks for the advise. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I've corrected what I think is another SandyGism, but if I'm wrong then hit me with a wet kipper and call me God. Malleus Fatuorum 01:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Good one, MF-- should I hire you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I dunno. Would we be likely to get along? Would either of us care? So many questions, so little wonga. Malleus Fatuorum 01:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Turkey test, MF, turkey test! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I remember. My view has always been that there needs to be give and take, just like my tree analogy in the comment I made on the nominator's talk page. When being interviewed you're the tree, facing the wind of the interviewer. Malleus Fatuorum 01:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Well anyway ... thank you for the correction, and I hope TomStar81 wasn't offended-- it would have taken me days to see that particular typo. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Turkey test, eh? I've seen that one in some papers I've translated. You can always count on grad students to bring some fun into statistics. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure what the issue was, but what ever it was I am sure I would not be offended. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Heads-up on recusals

Hi Sandy. I've put my reviewer hat on again in thanks for the reviews that my nomination has gotten. That means I'm recused as a delegate from these (you will/have probably notice[d] this yourself, but thought I'd make it clear):

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Suillus brevipes/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Petitcodiac River/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/School for Creative and Performing Arts/archive1
  • Me, too! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aquaria (video game)/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paul E. Patton/archive2

If I have more reviewing time I may add more to this list. Karanacs (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It's great of you to find time for reviews ! I'll have a look after guest leaves tomorrow. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Also: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Menominee Tribe v. United States/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

SandyG-ism & a particular word in Southern US slang

• Every time I see "SandyG-ism" on my watch list, the last four letters bring to mind a particular word in Southern US slang. I bet it's probably mentioned on the Wikipedia article for jazz music. Where's Moni for color commentary? • Ling.Nut 23:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Keeping her mouth shut. Although I notice it every time I see it. --Moni3 (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Dirty minds think alike. • Ling.Nut 23:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• My ears are plugged;[6] I'm sitting on my fingers (does that hurt, Moni?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

you should know that i cut my index finger open. doing anything to my fingers hurts just thinking about it. on the bright side, forced wikipedia holiday! --Moni3 (talk) 02:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you had been supplying "color commentary" here instead of playing with knives, that woudn't have happened, hmmm ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Question on FAC

Question for you at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Albany, New York/archive2. Thanks! upstateNYer 02:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Question on FAC for Menominee Tribe v. United States

Sandy, can you advise me what else I need to do on this? I'm not sure if you are aware, but I touched the third rail of Wiki (Connolley/CC) and will probably be at least topic banned (CC/GW only), if not blocked, and I would sort of like to do what I can for this article before that happens. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 03:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been following that case, and am aware; hopefully, reviews will be done soon, but why would any possible ban on CC affect you on that article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they will stop there. And I'm not going to roll over and play dead or beg for forgiveness (since I did nothing out of line), so I anticipate they'll continue to come after me until they run me off or blocked me indefinitely. They don't like it when one points out double standards or that written words in sources actually have meaning. I am just trying to do what I can for the Menominee article before that happens, and if I don't get blocked, I'll be bringing another article (Ex parte Crow Dog - currently in peer review) that is a better article (IMO). So many people have told me you're the expert to go to on FAC, so I was just hoping you could give me some advice if I needed to do anything here. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 04:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that if you explain what you want to do here to people "in charge", they will be reasonable, and that would be the best course of action. Note that I say this in spite of the fact that you supported the topic banning of myself and other good knowledgeable editors on climate change and falsely accused us of bad behavior with no evidence, so I find your above complaint "since I did nothing out of line" to be a good example of the double standards that you complain about here. But because I think that you could do something useful on Wikipedia, I do fully support you in finishing those articles and am willing to help you to be able to do so if I can. Awickert (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about ATren's proposal to wipe the slate clean? If so, I was including myself in those that would go - my thought was get rid of everyone in the area, and maybe new editors wouldn't be as combative as it has become there. I wasn't directing that at individual editors, but if I offended you by supporting it, my apologies. In any event, thank you for the advice, kind words, and support. GregJackP Boomer! 07:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you did; I have quite a bit invested in that area, though I don't so much care about this blog or that politician, so you may not have seen me so much. In any case, you did make the blanket statement that those opposing it had universally misbehaved, which I completely reject, along with any idea that those who are responsible for the original construction and high quality of many of those articles must go. But that is neither here nor there; leave me a message if it looks like your ability to finish those articles will be jeopardized, because that is the bottom line here, and I will do whatever I can to make sure that you are able to. Awickert (talk) 07:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you posted neutral (avoiding WP:CANVASS) requests for review at all of the relevant WikiProjects? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I posted just a general statement at each, just asking for a review. GregJackP Boomer! 16:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I was unaware at the time that I posted at ANI that GregJackP had a nomination at FAC. I'm going to recuse myself from closing that nomination to avoid any appearance of impropriety. From what I've seen of the conversation, I think it unlikely that GregJackP will be blocked at this point, which will hopefully allow the FAC nomination to continue. Karanacs (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem :) Just don't go weighing in on any Chavez editors, or we'll have no unrecused delegate :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Editing without ref templates

I know that, like me, you find it tiresome to edit an article with a lot of reference templates. This script - User:PleaseStand/References segregator - allows you to separate the templates from the text. I've just installed it and it's wonderful! SilkTork *^YES! 08:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and glad you also suggested it to Slim, as she's asked several times for something that accomplishes this-- I won't have time to review it until later, I used editrefs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

3 RR?

I did add the additional MSNBC link. I figured that it would therefore not constitute '3RR'. But, thanks.JoelWhy (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Villa del Cine

Arrggh. Just to let you know I have placed a {{GOCEinuse}} tag on the article. I just had an edit conflict and well ... oh well. Just wanted to let you know (to make sure this message isn't interpreted weirdly: I am not upset; I actually thought it was hilarious.) Cheers, --Schwindtd (talk) 01:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry! But I'm wondering what you're going to do about the four edit conflicts with ValenShephard since you placed the tag :) Tomorrow I'll deal with the fact that the ISP source does not support the text in the lead where he added it as a source-- unless I'm blind (which I could be by now :). Good luck ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. I only saw your edit in my watchlist. Doesn't really matter, though. It ain't that important. --Schwindtd (talk) 01:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I didnt get a heads up that it was coming up again. The IPS source says "Luis Girón, the president of the governmental but independent film institute (the Centro Nacional Autónomo de Cinematografía - CNAC)". Its explained in full detail later in the article. ValenShephard (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

RfA thanks spam

Hello SandyGeorgia, thank you for supporting my RfA!
I was promoted with a final tally of 65/4/3.
I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations, do my best for Wikipedia, and take to heart the constructive criticism. Always feel free to message me if I'm around.

Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Andre Rieu article

A couple of us are having trouble with User:ValenShephard on the Andre Rieu article. He deleted a chunk of text without any discussion, and is now being rather insulting to another editor. The argument seems to be about whether there is too much in the criticism section, and whether too much of that comes from Australia. He is quoting Wiki policy a great deal. Thank you for looking. Myrvin (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing with him on his talk? He is taking a great deal of my time, so I don't really want to delve into another article, and suggest talking with him is the best (first) approach. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

"without any discussion". That is simply not true. I made an initial deletion, summarising my reasons in the edit summary. This was later reverted, and I took it to talk, where I discussed the issue heavily. The user opposing me didn't formulate an argument and left the discussion for several days, so I brought my changes back. This also looks alot like canvassing. The user didn't just bring your attention to an issue, but offered his own point of view and commentary in an attempt to colour your reaction. ValenShephard (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Please continue on your own talk, where I will start a section. No, it's not canvassing to call the attention of another editor with whom similar issues are occurring and who has been trying to help mentor you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Saturday tune

On saturday for once. This is a very indie rocker tune, very TFMWNCB, and beautiful if you listen closely (the pay off is at 1.16), but has a lot of tension as well. [7]. The band Mogwai will allways be heroes of mine for their mid 90s 'Blur are Shite' t-shirts. Correct, Blur were shite (indie is very partisan sorry). Ceoil (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Asperger's / Autism

Are you a person that is a member of this subset?

My wife is.

The violet (not the viola as in your chosen photo) happens to be one of her favorite flowers. I should probably ask why.

You may respond via email or on your talk page. No, I have not read the rest of your talk page nor do I intend to so do, it is your area and I would not do so w/o invitation.

Thank you,

Jesse —Preceding unsigned comment added by Outcastleperunclean (talk • contribs) 21:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not; I chose the violet to reflect the purple and green theme on my talk page and in my sig. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Question on FAC process

On FAC for Menominee Tribe v. United States there was an oppose !vote. I have tried to address the concerns and I notified the user of that and requested that they look at it again. They have not, so I posted a comment per the FAC instructions.

What criteria is used to see if the concerns have in fact been addressed? I'm not familiar with the process here, and just want to make sure that a) I do everything that I can do to improve the article, and b) the article passes to FA status (while meeting all of the FA criteria, of course). I hate to keep pestering you with these questions, and greatly appreciate your time and helpful advice. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 13:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem :) Tony1 is frequently delayed in returning to his Opposes, as he is a very busy editor. If other copyeditors indicate prose concerns are resolved, I can overlook Tony's oppose in the event he isn't able to revisit, as sometimes happens. You did the right thing by posting the diffs to the FAC that you had asked him to revisit-- you don't need to do anything else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 14:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Edits at VdC

Hey, I just checked out your changes. I agree with all of them and find them useful. Thanks, looks like good work. Cool, you started the La Clase page. ValenShephard (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Evanna Lynch/archive1

my comments are NOT disruptive. i have reviewed the article that no one else wanted to and this is the tanhs I get? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.247.236 (talk) 02:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Quoted you

I have quoted a comment you made on Wikipedia talk:MED#Adding template in another conversation: Portal talk:Disability#Where the template does and doesn't belong. Not trying to involve you directly, just to let you know. Mirokado (talk) 03:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know-- I'll try to look in tomorrow, tired! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:ValenShephard#Reverting_my_edit

Sandy, what was the point of this? Is it really necessary to be so sharp with him?--Chaser (talk) 00:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I've been sharp with him, rather exceedingly patient, but you are right, there is no point to pointing it out to him, as he just won't hear it, and there's no reason for me to engage him anymore, whether in kindness, patience, frustration, or anything else. He's been in at least five edit wars in two or three weeks, the problem notices on his talk never stop, he benefited from my generosity by not reporting his other edit wars (and he archived them away) so he didn't learn and continues to edit war, and I've chased my tail trying to help him, to utterly no avail whatsoever. Thanks for the note, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked closely at the reverts. Assuming I did so and found what you see, do you think it would help any if I stopped playing good cop?--Chaser (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

They're old now anyway, so a block would probably be against policy, and it was my fault for not reporting them. I shoulda been tougher when they occurred so he would learn. No, I don't think the situation will necessarily improve by you stopping your role-- my experience with mentorship leads me to believe it works best when one person is trying to help, direct, guide, while another is willing to block until the editor "gets it" or is indeffed. I'm done with him, so I guess you get to choose your role :), but it does help to have both a mentor and an admin willing to block on board with editors who continue to edit war and disrupt. I am a bit troubled about how far and wide his issues spread, based on the number of complaints showing up on his talk. I had hoped to reach him with patience and kindness, but I'm an unbearable Pollyanna, and the similarities with a former sockmaster are becoming too uncanny for me to stay involved. I had also hoped that the Villa del Cine article would provide a less-charged atmosphere to de-escalate the behavioral issues occurring across all Venezuela/Chavez articles, but that looks unlikely as well. I do appreciate all you've done, in good faith, I note :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, but you've spent far more time on this. On the sockpuppetry issue, I got roughed up a few years ago, so I won't act without an SPI laying out evidence.--Chaser (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That looks fun ... almost as much fun as the three I was in :) I'm not concerned about an SPI; that sock always eventually outed itself, and never needed help from me. I suspect edit warring will be the final straw here, though, because after all of my patience and counsel, I'm coming to the conclusion that he can't help himself. POV warriers characteristically go at it until they get indeffed, and rarely change. Take care, and thanks for the help-- it was nice crossing paths with you, and I hope our next circumstances are more pleasant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Same to you, Sandy.--Chaser (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I know that I know few of the facts in this matter and it is true that Valen has been edit warring. That being said I would like to leave you with the wisdom of Star Wars:

Yoda: [Looking away from Luke] I cannot teach him. The boy has no patience. Obi-Wan: [voice-over] He will learn patience. Yoda: Much anger in him... like his father. Obi-Wan: [voice] Was I any different when you taught me? At times it seemed like progress was happening! Some of your lessons are seeping through, gradually. I have faith; give it time. He will learn. You are as wise as Master Yoda. There is no doubt that you can teach him. A humble padawan, --Schwindtd (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I have not seen a picture of Sandy, but for everyone's sanity, I hope she is not green like Master Yoda. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Schwindtd (and Tito, epa!), if you only knew about me and Luke and Yoda and StarWars :) What a nice note. By the way, other than periodically checking in to make sure my POV tag hasn't been removed without addressing the issues, I've unwatched and am done with that article, so you can archive now anything I've marked resolved if you wish. I have a history of doing all the hard work of improving, expanding and cleaning up Ven/Chavez articles, only to find I've become one of the lead editors on another POV piece of junk-- it's downright embarrsssing to have such a high edit count contribute towards making a POV article at least look good. Best to you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm just about done with making substantive changes in the Chavez section. Until we have more editors to counter to extreme bias of people like Valen, the page is not going to be improved. IMHO, the Crime section I wrote was fairly balanced. Perhaps it could have used some additional info on Chavez's efforts to combat crime, but I made an effort to make it content neutral. What it's been perverted to, however, just epitomizes what has happened throughout the entire article. I understand, this is a slow process. But, I don't think time is going to change anything -- more unbiased editors need to get involved or else I don't see how it's possibly going to be improved.JoelWhy (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

JoelWhy, I'm sorry you've been so beaten down there (it takes extreme resistance and patience to stand up to so much policy violation :), but this is the "lather-rinse-repeat" cycle that happens on those articles. I unwatch in the face of ownership, battleground, and tendentious editing, a new editor comes along and tries to make some progress, is beaten down and comes to my talk page asking for help, I re-watch and re-engage and waste a lot of time and make no progress because the new editors won't learn policy and engage in dispute resolution. I can't do it alone; if you and others don't engage WP:DR, the disruption and POV will continue, and I tire of new editors asking me for help and then leaving me holding the ball. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll stick around. I'll read through the dispute resolution section and see if I get any ideas. But, it seems to me like the only thing that can be done in the short term is to ensure the POV tag remains. I'm also going to try to recruit some more editors. As it stands, there are 4 or 5 editors that make it seem like you and I are the right-wing fringe out to destroy Chavez. It's really quite maddening.JoelWhy (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is, but 1) take care with whatever you mean by "recruiting", as that could involve either WP:CANVASS or WP:MEAT, and 2) the only way the POV and tendentious editing at Ven/Chavez is going to be resolved is if enough editors engage appropriate dispute resolution. See User:SandyGeorgia/Venezuela articles; I honestly want to scream every time a new editor comes here asking me for help, and then doesn't learn policy or dispute resolution, and leaves me stuck with the mess after I invest a lot of time into helping. We have a collective bloc of editors violating WP:V, WP:DUE, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:NPOV and whole lot more and casting aspersions that can only be dealt with via dispute resolution-- it is too big for any one editor to deal with alone. ValenShephard is blocked for a week now, but there are plenty of others who will continue same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Speechless (Michael Jackson song)

I was thinking of what do you think of this recently passed FA. To me, its condition has deteriorated gravely. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Diff since promotion; what are the issues? Have you raised them on article talk? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Tool query for TPS

My regular computer is glitching, so I've had to go to another computer, where I don't have my bookmarks. Could anyone link me to that tool that analzyes an editor's contribs and provides two big graphs, one by time, another by date? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Not this, is it? Bencherlite^Talk 11:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably http://en.wikichecker.com/ Ucucha 11:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, wikichecker-- thanks to both! I love my TPS :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't used it myself, but I hear that Google Bookmarks works pretty well if you already use Google's other tools. NW (Talk) 13:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

wikichecker appears to be busted right now-- anyone know anything about that? My computer glitch is temporary-- my wifi access is down-- and I hate to log in to google mail, but thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikichecker works for me: Yours for example. If you get the "don't have permission /user/" message, I just refreshed the page and it worked. Regards, Woody (talk) 13:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Look at the bottom graph here; he's been editing since May 1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Underneath that graph, click "Analyse all edits for this user." The graphs only do a snapshot of recent edits unless you tell it otherwise. Woody (talk) 13:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

argh, thanks, my bookmarked page already had that checked! But the last 500 edits were instructive anyway! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, now I see it can be used to look at the last 500, 750, 1000 edits etc, but is there any way to look at edits for specific time periods, or any tools that do that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, X's edit counter has the breakdown of edits by month which shows namespace, take mine for example. Is that the kind of thing? Woody (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking for edits by time (as in Wikichecker), not by month, as editing times can vary according to travel. Thanks, Woody! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Shinan District AH error

Saw the error, actually. Just didn't know how to fix it. When I went to the AH talk page and saw there was a notification at the top of the page that there was an error, I knew someone would be along to take care of it. So thank you! ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 13:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

How much needed is a legacy section?

Hi, Sandy. The question is quite simple: let's say I am writing an article about a general who won several battles. He is a well known historical character. One of Alexander the Great's generals, for example. Do I have to include a "legacy" section into his article to be nominated to featured status? --Lecen (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It depends on his specific "legacy" and whether items included would be substantial or WP:TRIVIA. I suggest you might review WP:FA, looking for recently promoted FAs about similar generals, to see what kinds of "Legacy" sections they contain (perhaps a TPS will suggest one). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd say if there's a concrete legacy (cities named after him, significant statues of him, military tactics named after him, etc) it warrants a legacy section, but the "every historical article needs a legacy section" mentality isn't one you should pander to. Sometimes, someone who was a significant character in their time really hasn't left any substantive legacy. – iridescent 15:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec with Iri) I'd say it'd depend on the general - Callimachus or Ptolomy (I can never spell his name!) would be different than say some obscurer general. You'd need one for Ptolomy or any of the other Successors, and it'd be nice for some of the also-rans in the Successor race. A lot depends on how much has been written about the general. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The subject’s legacy should be included if it is needed to make the article comprehensive. It need not be under a section entitled “Legacy”; such content has been included in sections entitled "Significance", "Importance", "Aftermath" (of an event), etc. Nor is there any reason why it has to appear in a separate section, if the material fits better elsewhere. As a general matter, somewhere you should tell us why the person is important in history. Kablammo (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with all comments above, and I would additionally note that "Legacy" sections can become problematic, as they attract trivia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you all! --Lecen (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong, actually

A delayed response I suppose, but contrary to what you think, my following of FAs is poor. Mostly because the page is very long and takes a loooonnng time to load. I like getting review messages – it makes me feel important :P ResMar 01:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"Outstanding comments": Well, he hasn't responded, so they are less outstanding comments then pending comments. I can't do anything if I don't get any feedback. ResMar 23:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You can, you can chill out. Your behaviour at this FAC is winning you very few friends. Malleus Fatuorum 23:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

And you're verging now on chasing off three different reviewers with your belligerance: without reviewers, we don't have FAs, and they get *no* reward for that star. Be nice, answer questions, resolve issues, stop filling the FAC with sarcasm, and you'll get reviews. You've gotten way more feedback than many FACs, and you haven't responded in a way that will encourage anyone to revisit, and they aren't obliged to revisit rude commentary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Paul E. Patton

Regarding your comment at my (now closed) FAC of Paul E. Patton, the proper rendering of "judge/executive" contains a slash (it's in the Kentucky Constitution that way), but I see it in common usage with a hyphen ("judge-executive"). Would it be helpful/acceptable to use the hyphen instead? Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you think best-- the idea is to avoid the technical issues of a slash in a heading-- you could either change it, or recast the heading to use different wording. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that it can be "recast". There isn't really another way to express the title "judge/executive". The office is unique to Kentucky, I believe. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to fix it; maybe you could ask Graham87 (talk · contribs) how awful a slash is in a heading? I'm not even certain what the issue is-- just know MOS says to avoid it (but MOS says all sorts of things :). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem I think is that the slash makes the page a subpage of whatever page name precedes the slash. Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is in a section header, not an article title. If "judge/executive" is how the office is normally referred to, I think we should use it too. Ucucha 23:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Supposedly (if we believe MOS) section headings have to follow article titles-- someone should ask Graham87 what the bug is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hope you don't think I'm overloading FAC

I'm conscious that this is my third FAC nomination in fairly quick succession, but it was you who made me me do it, by posting your FA stats comparing 2008 and 2010. I've lobbed one at GAN as well, so don't feel like I'm singling FAC out. Malleus Fatuorum 22:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll complain when you put up an ill-prepared FAC that zaps reviewer time, and then don't do any reviews in return :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, next week then, that's a date. I've got loads of ill-prepared FACs. Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I got a delightful e-mail about a new reward program we might start, that you might qualify for then, but I'm afraid I can't post that e-mail here. First, it's too damn funny, and second ... it's too damn funny. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Mmm. Post it. We could all use a bit of merriment.• Ling.Nut 04:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Paul Krichell

I do need help with the prose, as I'm dylexsic when it involves grammar, you know anyone who could copyedit for me from top to bottom. I excusted most of my sourcing, as nothing has been written about the subject in general, everything is passing mentions. I'll see what I could do on Monday. Thanks Secret ^account 01:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

My prose stinks-- I can see problems, but am less good at fixing them. Perhaps a kind soul will help out! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll take another look. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Stupid Question but how you remove the italics from the websites, I think the cite web placed it there automatically. Thanks Secret ^account 22:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll go look now and leave you a sample edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see what you've done now-- you included a "work" and a "publisher", so I suspect what you've done is fine. (Work italicizes automatically, Publisher does not, but since you listed both, we can tell it's a website.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm already starting to process biblography section, as I'm not used to this style, what I'm doing is correct. What about if it's two different books by the same author. Also Sporting News archives before 1930 gives me no hits on Krichell though I did a random newspaper search for around the time Krichell signed Gehrig and his name was there, so I think I could expand it a bit more but I have to go though a whole lot of newspaper archives from 1903-1933 and that would take months if not years. Thanks Secret ^account 00:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

What you're doing looks fine at a quick glance. If you have two books by the same author, you can add the year in parentheses to the short citation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks, btw I think I'm going to start a WP:RFC or go to WP:AN/I on Ajona1992 for general disruption, look at his response to the talk page of the Selena FAR. I think he would continue to disrupt the Selena article once it gets unprotected. Thanks Secret ^account 01:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I just saw his last post; I guess it's not a legal threat, but he surely should be blocked. Should I be shaking in my boots? Where are admins when you need one? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Cases like this makes you want to become an admin, but there are 375 people watching your talk page, I'm sure at least one is an admin ;). Secret ^account 01:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I took it to WP:AN/I. Secret ^account 01:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yea he's getting ridicolus, he's just a waste of time, I'll work on finishing the Krichell article by Tuesday night, if it's not promoted, I'll ask you ahead of time if the article is ok I asked two cricket copyeditors for help. I couldn't finish my essay and I have to spend the whole day in the library of the main FIU campus tomorrow researching microfilms for a 15 page research assignment so I can't do much. Thanks Secret ^account 02:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Can I use this source [8] for the discussion about Krichell being among the greatest of all time, I remember the baseball wikiproject discussed this source a while back and it's been declared reliable by them, and it's used in plenty of baseball articles. I don't like using websites, but all the other sources that declared Krichell among the best of all time are Yankee related, with the exception of The Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract, which is super reliable. I have the book but it's back home and it's a bit out of the way to go back home, as I live in the dorm and don't have a car. Secret ^account 23:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sarastro1 just reworked the entire article prose wise, have a second look, also please reply to my source comment. Thanks Secret ^account 22:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

On the source query, you didn't specify what the source was on the FAC earlier. I'll get over there sometime tonight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sandy Georgia!!!!

Mrs Moni loves speghetti yayyyyyy!!!

Moni loves Bailey's and Beringer.

Protein gels look better right side up. Mrs Moni wears the sexy bras for Sandy. Unless that creeps you out, then that's for me. That's all I have to say abotu that. --Moni3 (talk) 03:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Tequila, anyone? Have you been in my lingerie drawer? <going off now to check it for almonds ... after I find the salt and pepper>. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

1962 National League tie-breaker series

Thanks so much for the trimming/cleanup! Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Just wondering if you might consider a revisit, I believe your issues are all dealt with! Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

A statement from the department of morbid curiosity

We have our eye on a few food and drink articles, and one in particular, but the story of the children who accidentally arrived in 12th-century England when a matter transporter on their home planet malfunctioned needs to be told first. Then of course there's the case of the 13th-century man who was resurrected after the intercession of a saint ... so much important stuff to do. Malleus Fatuorum 18:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you're just looking for rewards so you can stand at RFA. Besides, that one's already been TFA; why not work on something within your Department, and earn brownie points with me at the same time? Also within your Department, this one will earn you Raul's first-born. Who needs money when we've got virtual chocolate? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's since been demoted. Leck mich im Arsch is very tempting (might make a good April 1 TFA?), but those poor children who were transported across the universe surely deserve a decent memorial. Malleus Fatuorum 19:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

PS. I will never, repeat never go to RfA again, no matter what baubles are brought out to try and dazzle me. Malleus Fatuorum 19:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

PPS. Actually I like Casu marzu. Well not the food obviously, but the article; maybe we could do something with that. It reminds me a little of a visit I made to the Roquefort caves some years ago; I've never eaten Roquefort cheese since. To be fair though, I'd never eaten it before. Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

PPPS. I'm thinking that maybe User:Aldux might help, as he's Italian and he owes me a favour. Malleus Fatuorum 20:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Would this be the right moment to point out that neither of you speak Italian, the only language in which anything other than "hey, look at what these weird foreigners eat!" is likely to be found? (Hint.) There are far more disgusting foodstuffs floating about; look at Caterpillar fungus, Hákarl, Balut or staid-and-sensible England's very own Stargazy pie. – iridescent 20:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahem. Who told you I don't speak Italian? Not nearly on the same level as my Spanish, but I did live there, and I get by :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Roadkill cuisine, anyone? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Didn't you look above? I have an Italian editor who owes me a favour. :-) I was looking through some lamprey stuff earlier; I've always been fascinated by King Henry I's autopsy report: "died from a surfeit of lampreys". Malleus Fatuorum 20:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I asked Giano years ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd be interested in working with you on absinthe when you are ready. I have a bottle of the modern stuff that I bought in Luxembourg in the spring, I can't say I cared much for the taste.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Look on the bright side; at least you're not dead. Malleus Fatuorum 20:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Absinthe is vile stuff. Although it sounds apocryphal, the story that it remains legal in England because when it was banned across Europe and the US nobody believed anyone in Britain would touch the stuff so they never bothered, is completely true. – iridescent 20:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Look at the featured version; 2006 was a whole 'nother world. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

MF, you'll need PMID 16891209; there is more at PubMed, but that seems to be the most recent good review article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, it looks like the article has become mostly a commercial advertising vehicle-- needs a ton of work and a lot of commerical content has crept in. Anyway, the review above is the most reliable source for bio/med statements, (WP:MEDRS), and I added all of these listed here. I did a wee bit of cleanup, but probably a waste of time since so much rewriting is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

There's some history at PMID 19831287 (see the Diberri template filler on my user page to easily convert a PMID to cite journal). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

PMID 17982755 is history, and has free full-text available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

PMID 16722551 has free full text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

PMID 11925286 on Van Gogh, free full text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

A note of caution: biographical articles in medical journals, and articles that attempt retrospective diagnosis of historical figures, can be extremely variable in quality. I don't think the editors of those journals apply the same standard to such articles as they do to typical research or review papers, and they must by their nature consist mostly of educated speculation. Some are scholarly works that do the best one can with the subject, but others appear to be published to provide a bit of entertainment within an otherwise dry journal. Colin°^Talk 07:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ha, ha ... now you have officially joined the collaboration ... could be as much fun as Ima Hogg. (At least those articles are better than the lay press, which is used now to source the article.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Amazon shows several recent books.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Page views. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty high. My usual leader is Khrushchev, except if a certain TV movie about a certain case happens to be on ... I'm game if he is, though I am out of town until Tuesday.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Page views that high make it a worthy collaboration; I'm going to put something forward at WT:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

yes delete it

delete my featured article nomination. -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You're not the village idiot

$43.00 Feel better now? :) ResMar 02:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well done, Sandy, you're a published author! :) Somebody should add it to this list... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:FAC#Another kind of reward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

A serious question for once

How do you manage to keep your motivation? I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that trying to do anything here is more trouble than it's worth, yet you seem to sail serenely on. What's the secret? Malleus Fatuorum 21:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I like the people. And when the place gets to me, I can always go to a friendly talk page for a pick-me-up. And worse things can happen to you in life than the things that happen on Wiki; just keep it in perspective :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I like some of the people, others I would quite happily kick into Hell. Malleus Fatuorum 21:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That's true IRL as well. Malleus, judge the quality of those who value you here, not the quantity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Come the day, it's only numbers that count. Malleus Fatuorum 21:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do you say that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess I've been forever embittered by my RfAs, and that's not going to change. I just wondered how you dealt with all the crap that you get when I can't even come to terms with being told what a toss pot I am after what, two years? Malleus Fatuorum 21:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Know thyself.

La plus grande chose du monde, c'est de savoir être à soi. -Montaigne.

This is just a website, and most of the people I work with here are real gems. Don't judge yourself by the other fools. And bitterness has no good end; remember the link I gave you once of the things that were said/done to me here in 2007? No hay mal que por bien no venga (sorta kinda like, "all's well that ends well"). Isn't it better to just be who you are and show them wrong then to let them own you and embitter you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't usually bear grudges, and I've got rather a short memory for them anyway, but there are some significant exceptions that I will never forgive nor forget. AGF is for children. Malleus Fatuorum 22:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I've got things I'll never forgive or forget, too, but mine are in IRL, and significantly more important than anything that happens on the internet. Maybe that helps me keep perspective here, and only do what I enjoy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Mal, I'm trying to write a mind fuck of an article. It's at once depressing and relieving. It's rather freeing of the things we build into cultures, even this one on Wikipedia. It's just a theory, but it's been a millstone around my neck for years, so I can see a lot of sense in it. It addresses conflict and how we get angry and defensive when our values are challenged, even by facing someone who fundamentally disagrees with you. I'm trying to catch up with it, so it's, as ever, an uphill slog. Still...interesting. You might find it a relief. Let me know if you're interested. --Moni3 (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a curious thing Moni3, but my first degree was in psychology, and I've pretty much avoided that crap game ever since. Everyone thinks they know about psychology, which is why pretty much all of the psychology articles are crap. Having become interested in artificial intelligence I decided to move into computing after I graduated, but even there wikipedia's coverage would struggle to be assessed as even reaching the level of moderately pathetic. I'm almost certainly not the best person to ask about psychological stuff though, as my response to most "clients" would be "for Christ's sake, this is getting boring, pull yourself together". Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I can work with that :) Turn it around on yourself: why belabor when "shit happens"? It won't get you anywhere but miserable. Why not just be you, ignore it, do what you like to do, and recognize that all the good guys appreciate you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a good question, and I'll have to think of a good answer. Off the top of my head it's the kiddie admin structure that's always bugged me that's bugging me even more now. The Village Pump is now discussing how or whether to hand out another useless "right", once again in the hands of administrators. Giano and and I may not agree about everything, but we sure as Hell agree that the present system is corrupt. Malleus Fatuorum 22:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The kiddies on Wiki are taking disproportionately more and more time away from productive editors, and are a supreme PITA. We're clear on that. Why should that make any of us miserable? We do what we do, and if it doesn't work, we go do something else. It's only a website. I'm far more troubled by the immature, vindictive, disruptive, POV-pushing adults. As to the kids, I figure I already raised mine, and a damn good job I did, and I'm not going to raise someone else's just because their parents don't care if they're wasting their lives on a computer and won't get them on a hockey rink, baseball diamond, or something. When they are rude and childish, I just want to ask them if their parents know how they behave or if they behave that way IRL, but ... Not My Problem. My response to that whole mess is "for Christ's sake, this is getting boring, pull yourself together". And then move on. There is plenty to do here, and at FAC, we have the pleasure of rubbing elbows with some really fine people. Forget the rest ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That's true. I've learned a lot here that's improved my (sometimes paid for) writing elsewhere, so it's not all bad news. Malleus Fatuorum 23:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

We all know my writing and Gisms will never improve, but I've learned things about life and myself here that I value more :) I do AGF, to the point of Pollyanna, and sometimes you can't do that IRL. Too much AGF is just plain 'ole denial. We aren't typically, usually or often forced to deal with bad, evil, childish or sick people IRL-- we have the option to "cross the street" to avoid them, even if the "street" happens to be a freeway. But here, we have to rub elbows with all types-- it can teach you a lot about yourself IRL. It's how you react that matters :) You're in charge of your life and your happiness. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I am, you're quite right, but I keep stumbling over the same old admin vs. plebian editor problem. That's not going to go away. Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No, but they'll eventually hang themselves. And even if they don't, why give them the power to make you miserable? Just go somewhere else and write ten more FAs ! Or, if you feel like popping someone, go here; it's very calming. Let me know when you beat me at 5 mins on a random hard. Now, if no one does something with that last sentence ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Admins think they're so amazing sometimes...peves me to death >:| ResMar 01:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Everyone thinks they're amazing. Everyone wants to be amazing. No one wants to be honest about it. Unfortunately, to consider oneself amazing, it's like a pie. I'm so fucking amazing there's no more pie for others to be amazing. My being amazing defines how you are not amazing. Which is how you get problems between admins and editors. And everyone else who has ever fought in the world. Could we not only be honest but original in why we have conflict? No. --Moni3 (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I am amazing-- all $12.73 worth! I defy anyone to top that; my entire being has been validated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible Signpost dispatches

• Writing FA: advice from the delagates
• An updated version of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-02-08/Dispatches, progress on Wikipedia over the recent period, perhaps?
• User:Ruhrfisch/Dispatch.

Just throwing a few ideas around. Would post this on the talk page (prob will), but wanted to see your reaction first. ResMar 02:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Two reactions: 1) the Dispatches Workshop has been killed off by The Signpost, after producing some really fine work; and 2) you don't have to go very far afield of the FAC and FAR and FAS talk pages and stats to find worthy topics to write about. FAR saves are decreasing (rather alarmingly);[9] FA promotions are increasing (WP:FAS); some FA categories have grown substantially, while others are stalled;[10] core and vital topics are difficult to bring to featured status;[11] FA reviews are becoming more strenuous in some categories, while stalled in others by lack of reviewers; changes in WP:WIAFA resulted in more strenous sourcing requirements for featured articles;[12] changes in nomination process attempts to address the backlog;[13] a handful of reviewers continue to do the lion's share of work at FAC; FA "rot" over time vs. claims of ownership as nominators (who know standards and guidelines) strive to preserve featured status;[14][15] Ships and MilHist continue to dominate FAC, while getting limited independent review;[16] some reviews are stalled because of lack of image reviewers or reviewers who don't check sourcing;[17] how the "Reward culture" affects FAC;[18] and on and on and on. Interviewing some of the prolific FAC reviewers and nominators is another idea. Interviewing Ship and MilHist coordinators about the issues with those FACs is another. Another work in progress is here. I was chock full of ideas, and herding cats to bring these topics to the Dispatches was a lot of work. But since the Dispatch Workshop was my pride and joy, and is now dead, you're on your own :) If The Signpost wants to write about the FA process without collaborative input from those most involved, I worry about the quality of the content produced. Perhaps someone at The Signpost will write an editorial about The Signpost; a collaborative workshop that strove to bring all editors involved in a topic together to produce accurate, factual and well written pieces is now dead, replaced by pieces written by one or two editors. It was a lot of hard work. How are Wiki editors served by this trend? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI: AJona1992

Hi, I've made a proposal (and comments) on AJona1992's ANI. If you have time and wish to revisit the ANI to help with it, I'd appreciate it; regardless of whether you support my proposal or not (your feedback is greatly appreciated either way). Best, Robert (ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 00:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC))

Repercussions

Thank you for the well thought out and well reasoned response. I'm hoping that perhaps you can come up with some proposed repercussion for each appropriate type of violation. And you ca nhave my promise, like I promised to AJona1992, that violations of the rules I've laid out for him (not being civil, 3RR, copyvio) may indeed make me be the first one to activate the agreed upon sanctions/repercussions. Thanks again, and thank you for even considering the mentorship approach as an alternative to stricter sanctions as an immediate solution. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 01:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the very valid suggestion. I've asked SarekOfVulcan, Xeno and Arbitrarily0 if we can count on them to impose the accelerated sanctions if the need arises (and noted such on the ANI). Also, I'm hoping that when Airplaneman and Explicit come back to review it, they will also agree to impose the accelerated sanctions if needed. So, hopefully, that will provide a large enough pool of active admins to turn to. My thanks again for you willing to entertain this solution and hope we dont let you down. Best, Rob /ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 03:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Dancing mania

Very quick note re my comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dancing mania/archive1, as it's reaching the pr/ar zone; can I explicitly make it clear that my comments followed by non-support aren't a coded oppose, so don't treat it as such—I know that in the past this kind of comment has been treated as a de facto unresolved oppose. I'm not actively going to support it, for reasons given there—I have some 1a and 1b concerns—but they're mild concerns, and if others are supporting it then go with them. – iridescent 18:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked yet, but I hope it's clear there and you're not counting on Karanacs and me to remember this weeks or months from now ... well, maybe her memory is better than mine :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hee hee hee...my memory good...hee hee hee...Sandy you are funny! Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a well-developed selective memory :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to contact people who might be interested in reviewing it? Aiken (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you placed neutral (avoid WP:CANVASS) requests for review on the talk pages of the relevant WikiProjects? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't, no. How about "Dancing mania is at FAC. I'd appreciate any reviews of it here. Thanks."? Aiken (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

That works. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it appears this is not ready now. Can you please withdraw it? Thanks, Aiken (talk) 23:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Tourettes? None of the sources I used mentioned that, but they do seem to share similar characteristics. Unfortunately they don't know if it really was uncontrollable, or just religious dancing, strange and unfamiliar to those who recorded it. Aiken (talk) 23:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I suspect then that you are not using high-quality peer reviewed secondary sources, because St Vitus Dance is all over the Tourette syndrome literature, particularly the history of TS and specifically wrt how the St Vitus Dance diagnoses changed over time. I haven't had a chance to look at your sourcing-- I'm really sorry I didn't look at your article, as I thought it was a dancing article, not a medical article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You will need a much more thorough literature search: see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches. I also suggest you get hold of a copy of Kushner's Cursing Brain (you can find it at the bottom of the Tourette Syndrome article). It's the History of TS, which covers St Vitus Dance. I don't know where my copy is at the moment, as I recently moved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, St Vitus Dance and dancing mania are not the same thing. They are similar, but there are clear differences. This is discussed in the article. Aiken (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware-- I've read extensive histories of Tourette syndrome. At any rate, there is a problem with article naming, as we don't have an article on St. Vitus Dance, and the scope of this article has to be defined. You can't do that without understanding the history of all of these conditions, and how they developed over time and came to be better distinguished. You will need medical sources to sort this article. Like Nasty Housecat on his FAC, you happened to run into my topic area :) Had you not withdrawn the article, I would have had to recuse from closing it once I realized what the article was about. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with the article name. Justus Hecker, who researched this extensively in the 19th century, called it dancing mania, and its Latin name was choreomania. There is a difference between this and choreia, which is what I assume you are referring to. Aiken (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

But in the lead you're referring to it as St Vitus Dance, and we have no separate article on that. And research in the 19th century does not constitute a thorough search of the relevant literature, which you will need to adequately name, discuss, and sort the issues there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I certainly do - it's a misnomer :) One of the sources, Bartholomew I think, discusses how dancing mania and choreia were considered the same thing at the time, and only later on were they distinguished. Even now though, they are still referred to synonymously. Unfortunately, I'm no expert in that area, and have no interest in digging up yet more sources which (I don't believe) have anything to do with the topic. There's plenty more stuff to work on instead. Aiken (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

(TPS comment) Hi Sandy, the main issue here may simply be the lack of a qualifier in the lead noting that St Vitus's dance was used historically to refer to this condition. True, we have no separate article on St Vitus's dance, because it is now considered synonymous with Sydenham's chorea. A little bit of content on the historical concept of St Vitus's dance should probably be mentioned in several articles instead of creating a standalone article. (And, for the record, I really don't think anything but a passing mention of TS, if that much, is warranted in Dancing mania.) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Fv-- it does need some level of sorting. I've got my head in about four different conversations right now, and am trying to do a literature search for a FAC, but I will dig through my boxes for the Kushner book later, to see if it can be more helpful. It is the definitive history of TS, and I'm almost certain it goes into the confusion that existed historically between chorea, Sydenham's, St Vitus, Jumping Maine whatever, TS, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Kushner is not in my house-- that means it's in a box in storage. But I did find a number of journal articles, posted them to the article. Still need to find Kushner. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I've got Kushner to hand and have spent a short while scanning portions and consulting the index. I can't find anything in it on "dancing mania", I'm afraid. The chapter "A Disputed Illness" considers (in historical context) whether TS is a hysteria or a chorea. I am happy to scan those pages and email anyone who wants them. I've quickly read the Dancing mania article along with the two journal articles (the lancet and the psychologist). It seems fairly clear that dancing mania was a "mass psychogenic illness", and both journal papers quickly discard the old theory of mass ergot poisoning. What links this mania with the Tourette's story is the term "St Vitus Dance" and the dancing mania article doesn't make it at all clear what has happened to the meaning of that term. For example, it says "Dancing mania... was therefore known as St Vitus' Dance...St Vitus' Dance has been diagnosed as Sydenham chorea, a condition that displays similar signs to those shown by the dancers." This is very confusing and the words "St Vitus' Dance has been diagnosed as Sydenham chorea" aren't how I'd put it, nor are the "signs" (of dancing mania) particularly "similar" (to Sydenham 's). BTW, the NINDS Sydenham Chorea Information Page doesn't support the text it is cited for, nor is it an FA-quality source. What appears to be the case is that dancing mania was known as St Vitus' Dance but once dancing mania died out, "in the late 17th century the term “St Vitus' Dance” was appropriated to describe a quite different medical condition"[the Lancet]. Kushner (p33) says

"Modern textbooks delineate the symptoms of chorea's most common form, Sydenham's, as including facial movements such as frowning, raising the eyebrows, pursing the lips, smiling, and bizarre, generally bilateral, movements of the mouth and tongue. Long called "Saint Vitus's dance," chorea first was fully described in 1686 by British physician Thomas Sydenham (1624-1689), who selected the term Khoreia (for dance), and labelled St. Vitus's dance as "chorea minor". By the end of the nineteenth century the designation "Sydenham's chorea" was adopted for the most common manifestation of choreic movement disorders. However, throughout the nineteenth century the term "chorea" was widely rather than narrowly proscribed. It was used by physicians to describe a number of highly variable movement disorders that included Sydenham's chorea, tics, dystonia (muscle tone impairment), myoclonus (muscle spasms), as well as those behaviors called "convulsive tics" that Charcot labeled as "the tic disease of Gilles de la Tourette." Although medical commentators throughout the nineteenth century observed clusters of symptomatic differences that might justify separating each form of chorea as a distinct disorder, they were reluctant to do so because of a widespread belief that most, if not all, choreas were connected with a prior attack of rheumatic fever."

So, I think "dancing mania", a form of mass hysteria, was once known as "St Vitus' Dance", and "St Vitus' Dance" later became the term used for an illness now classified as "Sydenham's chorea", and Tourette's was classified as a chorea, of which Sydenham's is a common form. Sandy is right that TS literature discusses "St Vitus' Dance" but it is the latter (Sydenham's chorea) use of the term. I agree with Fvasconcellos that this article shouldn't mention Tourettes and that we need to ensure the confusing two meanings of "St Vitus' Dance" are made clear. Colin°^Talk 09:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The NINDS page isn't an "FA-quality source"? (whatever that is). It's published by the US government, particularly the US department of health. Aiken (talk) 11:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:WIAFA requires "professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing", which is higher than merely WP:V. The NINDS Information Page is a lay summary text. A sort of patient information leaflet for neurological diseases. The NINDS information pages are very useful because they give us an idea of how to write about a complex topic in a way that can be understood by the "general reader" Wikipedia is aimed at. I'm OK with using them as a source for basic medical facts if that is the best an editor has access to, but I don't think a "professional" would use those pages of their website as a source. Anyway, the page in question only states that "Saint Vitus Dance" is a synonym for Sydenham Chorea, which isn't enough to support the text between citations [5] and [6] in the article. The article needs to say that "St Vitus' Dance" has referred to two quite separate illnesses at different points in history. Colin°^Talk 13:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much, as always, Colin, for taking the time to sort this. Aiken, the NINDS is sometimes, simply, wrong. They have long said that GTS was the first to describe TS. That is quite simply wrong. Earlier (although I can't locate a link), they were characterizing TS as a rare disorder, although it had long ceased to be classified as such. They mention coprollia, without mentioning that it is rare. Their info under "associated disorders" fails to specify *clinical* as opposed to broader populations, and makes recommendations that don't apply universally. They imply that all students with TS have "special needs". Most of their info is correct, but knowing where they are wrong requires a thorough knowledge of the topic. They should be used sparingly as a source. If you want a real problem with NINDS, PANDAS offers up an ugly example of COI, and since many researchers depend on the NIH for funding, the problem extends beyond the NIH, as leading researchers must tread carefully when criticizing the highly controversial PANDAS theory, advanced by the NIH. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Mauna Kea

Apologies - I won't be able to finish reviewing on this; I'll be travelling from tomorrow, and I'm tired of trying to push water uphill. I can see that the article's Observatory section still needs work, but at least the Geology section is in shape now. Iridia (talk) 02:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know: safe travels. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, this FAC nom is having an interestingly negative effect on all parties involved—except me. I am highly opposed to my "hill" status, I should at least be a mountain. =) ResMar 21:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Observatory section needs work does not give me much to work on. I'm not sure if you saw this (or for the matter if I am even skilled enough to write such a summarization), but it is there and some people seem to be looking at it. Cheers, ResMar 21:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't be discussing this with SandyG; you should be getting your nose to the grindstone and sorting this objection out by working on that Observatory section. Malleus Fatuorum 01:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I've started to bother WP:ASTRONOMY people, yes. ResMar 02:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Nergaal/sandboxFA

In case you missed it. Nergaal (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that! I don't want to implement anything until Raul weighs in, since too many divisions on the page could be an issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I would like to say that I am so thankful that you have come to the AN/I and decided to keep me around. I won't let any of you guys down, I want to keep reaching my goals which is to transform stub articles into GA and FA's which I have almost successfully have done. Thank you, your such a kind person who I am so happy to have meet in my life. Thank you. AJona1992 (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Anotre?

I believe Giants was teh fourth on Lindwall :) YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look soon, probably today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

PS, you didn't leave a link-- if all is well there, you can add another nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I had a look (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ray Lindwall with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948/archive1); Tony1's support was buried after a comment, so I didn't see it on my pass. (It would help my eyesight if nominators noted and fixed declarations that don't follow the instructions at FAC, added unsigned templates, things like that.) I'll read the article later today, but you can add another nom, since sources and image review are in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

FAC page adding wrong archives?

Hi Sandy. I just raised Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lat/archive1 and the system added Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Latter Days to the page. I am pretty sure that is a mistake (no relation to the subject). Jappalang (talk) 06:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It picks up everything that starts with the same characters; that can be fixed by adding a slash (/) after the "Lat" in the tools (but that causes some of the other tools to need manual intervention). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

So that's why everything went wrong when I checked the links for that article. Ucucha 11:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you figure it out? Since I added the slash, it will try to check the article Lat/, so you have to manually alter it. It's a catch-22 :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Ucucha 12:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

A possible solution to the catch-22 on these cases is that we leave the slash off until you've checked the tools, and you add the slash when done, to remove the extra FACs and FARs? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry; I can find the tools if needed. It'll probably be possible to tweak {{Featured article tools}} to avoid this problem; I'll try. Ucucha 12:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone tried once, but I can't recall who it was-- most likely Dispenser, Gimmetrow or Dr pda (the FAC tools brainiacs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I found a partial solution, though there will still be problems with articles that have previous FACs that haven't been moved to /archive1. Ucucha 12:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Since I don't understand the technicals, could you run it by Gimmetrow, Dispenser and Dr pda? Perhaps point them to this discussion? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I asked Dispenser. I don't see it as very necessary, though, since people who are interested in the template will presumably be watching it; and since I look at all new FACs, I'd notice it if there is a problem. Ucucha 23:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Gimmetrow would actually be the best person to ask, since he runs the FAC archiving bot. I'm not sure how much he has migrated to the new naming scheme, but if he's completed it then we wouldn't need a 'switch' for the two systems. Moreover, due to article moves the system is only a best effort attempt.

Hints: The {{PAGESIZE:}} function may provide a useful heuristic for determining redirect. Consider WP:Featured article candidates/Doom in the test set. — Dispenser 18:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

There are many left that aren't at /archive1; see Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Ucucha 20:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

There a total of 3,274 that at the base name and 56 that have been moved (30 of which to /archive1). Wouldn't be too hard for a bot to move them all and I could generate the list. However, we'll still have the problem with articles being moved. — Dispenser 22:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Schizophrenia

Hello Sandy Georgia

You edited back a change on the item Schizophrenia I made and gave a comment on my talk page. I have a question about the situation, because I am not sure what the reason was. Could yo take a look at my talk page and explain yourself a little further? I was under the impression that I had quoted the original article and referred to the original source. And since this article was most valueable on the recent research of DNA deletions and duplications being related to autism and schizophrenia it seemed to me like a useful addition. The Dutch version on the item of Schizophrenia mentions the same item and it has been accepted without any comment.

Thanks in advance.SpelgroepPhoenix (talk) 10:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Responded on your talk-- I will follow there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Renominations and WikiCup

Would you like to comment here at all, either you or Karanacs? --Moni3 (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiCup

I get that you don't like the reward culture, but I honestly value your opinion- has the WikiCup caused any problems? The problem people always talk about is poor articles being pushed through- have you seen that? J Milburn (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow DYK and GAN closely, so I don't know if it's happening there (my hunch is that it's highly likely that it is). It's hard to game FAC; I'm not aware of that happening. If a deficient article gets support and no critical review, Karanacs or I will dig in and review it ourselves. Unlike some other content review processes, the buck stops with us. The problem is that many good reviewers work at both FAC and GAN, so if reviewer time is stretched, FAC may be affected. We've also had to put a provision in place that allows delegates to close nominations faster (for which we get regularly beaten up, see my talk page :), but I can't say what percentage of those may be due to reward programs. We've certainly had an intractible backlog at FAC, but I can't say that's because of reward programs. I can say they (reward programs) increase my workload, but that should not be a concern: maintaining the integrity of FAC is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just interested in your opinion of the situation at FAC. To be fair, you are in a good position because if there are substandard nominations, you can just archive them. You say you would not support points being awarded for reviews at FAC- do you feel there are enough reviewers at FAC at the moment? Or are you just concerned that that would encourage substandard reviewing? The idea was very much that they were token points- certainly not something that could be "farmed" (as in, one or two- a DYK currently gets 10, a FA currently gets 100). I have been doing my best to encourage people to take part in the review processes without incentive, but I worry that has not worked. J Milburn (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned that giving points for reviews would encourage substandard reviewing, and uninformed Support declarations actually increase the backlog, by forcing us to carry noms longer, until they get critical review with Oppose declarations. I can't "just" archive them; a reviewer has to give me reason. My "job" is to gauge consensus, not act unilaterally. Also, remember the PR part of the equation. How much are Ruhrfisch & Co being overwhelmed, and are they being prevented from doing more indepth reviews by the reward culture? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I appreciate that- I guess, the bottom line is, is there a problem here that needs to be remedied? J Milburn (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

There's clearly been a problem at DYK, and a similar one has resulted in the GAN backlog now being well over 300. My "solution" so far as GAN is concerned has been to ignore all WikiCup nominations. Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply to both-- it's likely that the bigger problems are at PR, DYK and GAN, but to the extent that saps reviewer time, it bleeds over into FAC. But DYK and GAN have their place in the grand scheme of things, so who is FAC to say? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course. Thanks for your thoughts. J Milburn (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

My memory is just kicking in :) I did have a big problem with a past WikiCup winner doing what many considered to be "Original research" in recoloring old photographs. And that did bleed over into FAC, specifically, The Donner Party, where a recolored image was added. I haven't kept up with where our most knowledgeable image policy people stand on this issue, but I found it most troubling, and when I remember, I watch for OR images at FAC. If I have any strong feelings about WikiCup, it's more related to that than to whether content review processes are being overwhelmed. Looking over the WikiCup finalists, though, is suggestive that some of the lesser prepared noms (not all) are a result of WikiCup, and we did have to put provisions in place to contain that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fair enough- we delisted one of Durova's pictures a few weeks ago over at FPC for just that reason. I don't think that was in any way, shape or form a WikiCup issue, to be fair- I've seen a few people critical of Durova's work. I think, inevitably, high content contributors are gonna have issues with some of their content, and the WikiCup attracts high content contributors. People seem very quick to blame the Cup for any problems. J Milburn (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes; I'd like to see the data that actually show WikiCup nominations are typically ill-prepared. The two finalists I know best certainly aren't bringing up ill-prepared nominations, though some others may be. Ucucha 23:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ucucha, but as has already been raised by others on talk there, the abuse of a few can bring the entire program into disrepute. We have many nominators who are more than capable of shepharding multiple articles at a time, yet we were forced to stem the tide of ill-prepared noms due to a few nominators. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're actually talking about on the WikiCup talk page. I think you're trying to hint at something, but I just don't understand. It's late where I am, and I've had a stressful day. Could you speak in plain English please? I do value your thoughts, I just don't know what they are at the moment. J Milburn (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

And, sorry, I appreciate I'm probably coming across as a moron... J Milburn (talk) 23:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's try it this way then :) Pointing fingers at individual editors is less helpful than solving problems identified on talk. Sleep on it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I notice on the WikiCup talk page that you noted that "the problem pre-dates WikiCup", that "most Wikicup participants are not abusive", "similar abuse has (sporadically) occurred from non-Wikicup participants" and especially that "singling it out, rather than individual abuses, didn't seem to make sense". I appreciate that you do not like the project, but I think this all adds up to point out that the problems are with users (and, as I pointed out there, the WikiCup will be prone to attract "trophy hunters", who would be more likely to cause you these kind of problems anyways) rather than with the project. Honestly, I hope we (we as in Wikipedia) are able to use the WikiCup to the advantage of the FAC project, and all the other projects, by encouraging high-quality nominations. J Milburn (talk) 10:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

We generally agree, but it is increasingly apparent that WikiCup furthers very ugly reward-seeking behavior, that impacts upon all content review processes. To gain a better reputation, y'all need to do something about that, whether it's individual behaviors or more. Last year's Cup promoted OR images, and this year's cup has rather obvious problems, affecting far too many content review processes. Can you say that WikiCup should be proud of the behaviors and OR of all its leaders and winners? Based on some results (which I agree doesn't apply to all or even perhaps most participants), it's looking to be less than an award, rather acknowledgement of an ability to game the system and harm the Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It was FPC which promoted the images, not the WikiCup. J Milburn (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point! But WikiCup could still become more respected if it found a way to discourage disruption of content review processes by reward-seeking editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't "reward-seeking editors" is a problem, and would be insoluble if it were - some editors like having lists of achievements on their pages. The problem with the WikiCup is that it creates a peak-load ("rush hour") problem. I agree with Malleus' ignore all WikiCup nominations. --Philcha (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring all isn't the most optimal solution. Quickly sinking the bad ones is the better option as it sends them to the back of the queue YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Psychology

"The Awakening Conscience", or perhaps not.

With Johnbod's exhortation to work on "vital" articles ringing in my ears I took a look at psychology, a subject I know something about, although you probably wouldn't have guessed that from my block log. Anyway, I gave up on the idea after reading the first paragraph of the lead, and it didn't get any better after that. I always find it much more difficult to try and rework something written by someone else rather than write it from scratch, and I suspect that's the problem with these so-called "vital" articles; they just can't be written by committee. Discuss. Malleus Fatuorum 00:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The embarrassment that is Information technology is still there, if you want a Vital Article to play with… – iridescent 01:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been asked several times to rewrite Homosexuality, and a quicker, more forceful "NO" I can't give. On many levels, for many reasons. It isn't even a vital article; Human sexuality should be I think. If you go by page hits, Lady Gaga is the most vital article in the English language. Somewhat farther down are the articles for genitals and positions. You should give the people what they want. --Moni3 (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Not even in the top 50; the most vital article by page views is, of course, Inception (film). – iridescent 01:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

What? No effing way. Lady Gaga gets upwards of 40,000 hits a day, down from 60,000 two months ago. Inception (film) gets 4,000 hits a day. Doops, 30,000 hits. (Helps when you change the damn month on Henrik's tool) What a difference between Henrik's tool and that page. --Moni3 (talk) 01:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I keep looking at that information technology article and shaking my head. Hard to know where to start with it. Malleus Fatuorum 01:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I know it goes against the Spirit of Wikipedia, but I generally find it easier to write the article from scratch, and then work in the content of the original line-by-line. Nothing gets lost, but it means you're not constantly trying to second-guess the thought processes of the original author. For that IT one, to be quite honest I'd wipe it out completely and write it from scratch as if it were a brand new article. – iridescent 01:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

These folks have something figured out (Medicine isn't doing badly). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think the vital articles list is an absolute crock. Who are these people to tell me that Pasteurization had more of an impact than Locomotive, that Elizabeth I of England (whose reign was characterised by, well, not much) was more important than George Washington, or that Combinatorics is more important than, well, List of Family Guy guest stars? – iridescent 01:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

How did I manage a math degree without ever hearing of Combinatorics? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

As for vital articles, to be quite honest, I'd wipe it out completely and write it from scratch as if it were a brand new list... wait... have I heard that somewhere before... • Ling.Nut 07:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

"Combinatorics" would be a great name for an evil robot, though. – iridescent 16:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is often best to rewrite a article being significantly upgraded from scratch, in fact something you often see, & which I've done myself, is people improving and adding loads to lower sections but leaving an inadequate lead largely unchanged. I also agree that huge "vital" (not a word I introduced to the discussion) subject articles are intimidating - Art is a complete mess I once added a few lines to but otherwise leave alone. But there are always (or certainly in my areas) plenty of articles a level or two down in vitalness that are pretty poor (British art, Spanish art ha ha), and get vast numbers of hits, which is indeed one of the best indicators of real "importance" for the project. Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with all here; it's so much easier writing from scratch than having to weed through an already-written article and fix up everything. It's why I write on ballplayers no one cares about. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for transparency

Sandy, I can not debate with you on your talk page because I get eced to death. If you want to talk with me about an issue I can be reached by email. You can respond on my talk. I would end up debating with you and a dozen others who would be ecing me on your page. If you wish to go one on one let me know. I have no interest in a debate with twenty people.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

What transparency are you asking for, after sending me an unsolicited email in which you continued what you started at DYK, for which you should have been blocked, yet no one said a word? I'm not your punching bag. The conversation is already on your talk; my inbox is not open for you to continue abusing me, so don't e-mail me again. "Go one on one"; do you think you get to conduct a private cage match after attacking disparaging another editor and questioning the integrity of the FAC process? "Debate with twenty people"? You get to discuss your behavior on Wiki with anyone who wants to participate; that's what transparency means, and that's why you don't get to continue the behavior in private. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Slipknot FAC

You recently closed the FAC for Slipknot (band) and decided it shouldn't be promoted and I'm a bit unsure on what grounds the article failed the process. I responded to all of the comments that were brought up in the nomination and there just wasn't people who offered an opinion on wether they supported or opposed. I don't understand why it appears (to me) like there was a consensus that the article should not be promoted. --REZTER ^TALK ø 10:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Simple; because there was no consensus that it should. Malleus Fatuorum 17:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I have rather prominent notes at the top of my page and in my edit intro, requesting FAC links when posting a query here re a closed FAC. I have added another link to an editor page that explains closes. I invoke the right to ignore future queries from editors who can't take the time to read the info at the top of my page or do me the courtesy of providing a link, so I can respond easier and faster. Thanka, Malleus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez, again

Sandy, here goes a very interesting article published by the The Economist on Hugo Chavez and the coming elections (Here: [19]) I won't dare to show it in his article, because we both know very well what will happen. --Lecen (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Comprehensive and accurate, with the exception of Chavez targeting anyone remotely affiliated with Maria Corina Machado in order to defeat her. The elections are already a done deal, per business as usual (abuse the state media to violate campaign laws, use state resources and lack of independence in the judiciary to persecute opposition candidates, use consolidation in the executive power to ram changes through that guarantee electoral wins). While the average Venezuelan gets poorer, and the wealthy Venezuelan continues to do nothing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The times of the old fashioned coup d'État or Pronunciamiento are long gone. They devour the democracy from inside, until they leave it completely rotten. The same is happening right here in Brazil. --Lecen (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Guaranteed win: Change the rules,[20] [21] abuse the election laws, strip any municipality or state who elects an opposition politician of any funding, throw the opposition in jail or force them into exile with political persecution, and then threaten the opposition "with arms" if there are protests afterwards of election fixing.[22] Facing all that, no doubt who will win the elections today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Exelon Pavilion thanks

	<font=3> Thanks for your helpful comments about Exelon Pavilions, which, as you know, is now a Featured article, and for all you do on Wikipedia! .--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) and Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe we have now responded to all of the remaining issues from the FAC at Talk:Exelon Pavilions. I removed two of the bolded names in the lead, removed some overlinks, and we tweaked the captions Brian commented on. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Visual thinking

I was looking at the Visual thinking article and i noticed that you have tried to improve this article in the past. this topic is one which can explain how many who have cognitive disabilities such as auditory processing disorder develop alternative cognitive skill to become cognitive strengths to work around their cognitive deficits. And there are also some who have cognitive skill preferences for a wide range of reasons some which we still do not have the technology to fully understand. Would you be interested in re-visiting this article dolfrog (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger

I started a thread on him Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#TonyTheTiger. ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 23:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

what

I don't know what the discussion they have of Tony that you brought me in. But I read alittle. I'm cutting down nominations beacuse we have a huge backlog(most of them by Tony) so I closed alot of his nominations. Spongie555 (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Considering the number of image copyright tags on your talk page, do you think you're in a position to evalute whether those images meet image policy? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

When I first started wikipedia I didn't understand the image copyright so got alot but now I have improved and know now. Spongie555 (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Turn down the heat

I would love to turn down the heat; we've already managed it to get the story posted on ITN, why can't we do it to improve the article?

PC

Television

I notice you removed television from the autism page earlier today. Do you believe that Causes_of_autism#Television should also be removed? I left it in because it's almost the same as the section above it, and I'm familiar with the hypothesis so I know it's been around for a while (which says nothing about whether it's true). I would appreciate your opinion. —Soap— 16:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Venezuelan parliamentary election, 2010

Your edits at Venezuelan parliamentary election, 2010 and [Talk:Venezuelan parliamentary election, 2010|its talk page]] are not merely unhelpful but are positively disruptive. Please refrain from using Wikipedia to try to promote your own political viewpoints, and respect the fact that this is a cooperative project where other contributors do not necessarily agree with you and where their views have as much validity as your own. As for the {{POV}} tag, I removed it because the editor who placed it had declined to enter into discussion as to which parts of the article he or she objected to: this is standard practice, especially for an article which is linked from the Main Page, as it discourages "drive along" tagging without any attempt to address the perceived problems. If you cannot constructively edit at Venezuelan parliamentary election, 2010 and [Talk:Venezuelan parliamentary election, 2010|its talk page]], you should refrain from editong at those pages at all. Physchim62 (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Please let's all take several deep breaths. Prominent articles (like ITN articles) can raise temperatures, but this is certainly overheating. Rd232 ^talk 20:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

PC, who make my page the attack-free zone? Apparently it's a cagematch here, where folks can launch whatver attacks they want on me, and never get blocked. Curious-- what would happen if Malleus came to a talk page and lobbed a bunch of false accusations, said half of what you've said to me on article talk, badgering me for days, disrupting the page, and then told someone to Shut The Fuck Up? He'd be blocked in a second. But Wiki has a stellar history of Anyone Can Disparage Sandy Because She'll Take It and Keep On Ticking. Amazing place this is. Apparently I'm everyone's punching bag lately. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You're quite right Sandy, but you've risen above it in the past and you'll rise above it again. I feel rather like you, anyone can say anything they like to or about me, but so what, they can think whatever they like as I couldn't care less what most of them think. When was the last time you saw someone reported for 3RR twice on TFA day? Coincidence? I don't think so. Malleus Fatuorum 20:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Your turn, Malleus; I seriously want to know what gives. I have no f'ing idea why Wiki allows every uncivil editor on the project to attack me at will, and why I'm supposed to just keep on taking it because I always have. Why do they get away with it? Why does no one block? Is it because everyone who follows my page can be considered "involved" with me because of FAC? When did I become Wiki's second punching bag, after MF? Physchim has been going at it hard on article talk, and no one has put an end to it-- it's outrageous, and I really wonder when I became chopped liver here and Wiki became Attack Sandy For Free Zone. I put up with this all the time, and no one says anything. And to make it better, PC is edit warring all over that article, and no one says a thing there either. Has Wiki become so uncivil that this is normal discourse, and no one bats an eye? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought really hard about issuing a warning, but I'm a little too COI when it comes to you (and given Physchim's FAC issues, probably too COI for him too). From what I saw of the talk page and the ITN page, the attacks were unjustified. If you haven't already, file 3RR reports and see if a truly uninvolved admin comes along. Surely there are a few you don't know, right? Karanacs (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That's why I asked, Karanacs-- I often wonder if so many editors are worried about COI because of FAC, that we just have to take the beatings because no one will step in. Since when can editors disparage me all day long all over Wiki, make statements about me that are *never* backed by diffs (because they can't be), and nothing is done? Is it assumed that a busy editor has to open RFC/Us on every one of the folks disparaging me? Not a soul even mentioned what TTT did, and I happened across it days later, and that affected FAC more than me, but I'm getting tired of hosting the Punch Sandy With False Allegations and Hope It Will Stick If I Say It Long Enough and Loud Enough Cagematch. When editors make charges about other editors, they should be accompanied by a diff, or they should be considered a personal attack. Maybe because we've all seen how unfair admins have been to Malleus, we've gone too far in the other direction on the attack culture. Psychim has turned the article talk page into more attacks on me than discussion of the article! I can't put up a single point or source without being attacked-- and no one says a word. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahahha, dude, did you title this section Shut the Fuck Up? Your testicles seem to be tiny, but with this section title, you appear to be trying to enhance them. Well done. --Moni3 (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, and as an uninvolved- and doesn't want to be involved admin, I did leave a warning a short while ago. I got this response. Courcelles 21:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

All that's happening here is that Physchim62 is flaming out. They're really boggling my mind: their good, reasonable comments at that talk page are interspersed with pure [redacted] that (were they not replied to) I would remove per WP:TALK. Physchim62: if you read this, probably best to take time away from the computer and go outside; come back and show us your better side. Sandy: you can certainly file reports, as Physchim62's behavior is well across the line. Awickert (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Courcelles. Awickert, it's a bit more complex. PC has a history of this, and he additionally hates FAC. This is old behavior from him, yet curiously, he has a clean block log in spite of the arb case against him. How is he continuing this behavior? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm ignorant of history, but I don't see why that should stop you from being able to do something. This is inappropriate use of rollback, and I have seen users lose that privilege for less. Personally I usually ignore those who would insult others online via a pseudonym, but if this is a continuing issue, then maybe something should be done. Awickert (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Considering his history, I doubt that he cares about inappropriate use of rollback. What's irritating about how he disrupted that article is that we were finally at a point to work together, and yet another disruptive editor shows up. We might have made progress for once on a Ven/Chavez article, but as soon as work started, he started reverting well sourced text (with no indication that he knows the relevance or history of anything in Venezuela). I'm not filing reports-- I'm traveling. Because I'm traveling, I put sections of work needed on the article talk, and that seems to have prompted this. Honestly, has civility gone so far down the tubes on Wiki, or can people just attack me because too many admins have a COI with me? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

PS, Ok, he used rollback to edit war and revert me and label it vandalism-- where do I get that dealt with? He should lose rollback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it was Twinkle, not rollback. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Dabomb. I was confused by the syntax (didn't look like Twinke or Rollback), but it seemed like one of those auto-vandalism-reverter-things. But the point stands: he used a vandalism tool to revert not-vandalism in an edit-war, so should lose it. I will not be on much, but will watch the page when I am on. Awickert (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Right. As a former admin, he should know better. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Some advice, Sandy: the best way to deal with attacks is to ignore them (and frankly, Physchim did flame you). I spent 2 years working in a telephone at the bank job where I got to field the calls from angry customers; not only were the attacks personal, but the people lobbing the attacks were breathtakingly stupid and know-it-all-sy. Your best but is to not give a fuck (pardon the poor language). Mentally disassociate yourself. You got attacked: so damned what? People get attacked verbally millions of times per day, who cares about this one? And continue on... Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"With all due respect" you're missing the point. I for one have been blocked for far less than PC's nonsense, and SandyG has had to put with nonsense like this for far too long, with very little support. If the intention is to drive away every unpopular non-administrator then it seems to be working pretty well. Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not missing the point; I am simply giving advice as someone who had to deal with unwarranted abuse for 40-50 hours a week for years. I am commenting only to SG about the way SG can internally handle it; I am making no comment on the merits of what PC did or what the consequences should be. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC) PS. Not to mention that walking around with such a thick skin is an invaluable life skill. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I will be happy to block should this behavior be repeated. I also took the liberty of retitling the offensive talk page section. Magog's advice is good, but there is no reason anyone should have to put up with this sort of treatment. I say this without having looked into the antecedents, but really, there is no excuse for this. --John (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Krichell

Like I expected it, Krichell got archived, can I go though you for your approval, and extra criticism before sending the article to FA again. Thanks Secret ^account 19:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Exciting times

Did you see? Did you see? We are down to 25 nominations at FAC!!!!! How long will this last? A day? A week? Woohoo!!! Karanacs (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You know what that means, dontcha? You and I are going to have to keep reviewing :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Razer FAC and article ownership

I am very concerned by your recent comments on the FAC of Razer (robot). That is because you are demanding "clearance" from editors before something is done. This flies directly in the face of the Wikipedia ownership of articles policy. I believe that any editor is entitled to list any article for FAC, as long as they believe the article meets the criteria and do anything they please to the article (with the exception of vandalism). No "clearance" of any kind is required from any editor, regardless of their history in relation to any article. I strongly believe that your comments are ill judged and detrimental to the FAC process and as such should be withdrawn.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Lucy, see the FAC rules, in particular the big notice at the top where it says "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination". That's there for a reason—the FAC process was being flooded with nominations by people who didn't understand the topic well enough to fix issues—and Sandy can't ignore it even if she wanted to. Don't blame her for (neutrally) enforcing the rules on which other people agreed (in a truly enormous RFC, not a couple of people meeting in a smoke-filled room). – iridescent 11:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Content experts are content experts. Their supports are worth 2 supports, their opposes three opposes. They know the topic at hand well, and can make sure that it does not omit or misrepresent anything that is not immediately apparent to the nominator, much of the time. Being the writer of an article tends to cloud your judgment of what's right and what's to add. Call it one of the unspoken rules of FAC. Really, someone should make a page about it =) ResMar 01:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with what's already been said. If you want to work with Crispy to make the article an FA, list it at Peer Review and take all their suggestions. Communicate with Crispy and the other editors who are adding to the article and participating on the talk page. Decide as a group when the best time is to nominate it. This isn't SandyGeorgia's fault. It's in the best interest of the article. She had to make a decision to close the FAC because of the FAC community, such as it is, who wishes that articles should be ready to be passed when they're nominated. --Moni3 (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Footnotes

Very quick note per your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dreaming of You (album)/archive1—"footnotes come after punctuation" isn't actually in the MOS. Either "footnotes after punctuation" (standard US practice) or "footnotes before punctuation" (standard UK practice, particularly in scientific journals) is permitted; all the MOS mandates is that the article be consistent in where they're placed. – iridescent 15:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to go see when that changed and who changed it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I looked-- it hasn't changed(??). The album had a mix, not one style, so was just a mish-mash of errors. The wording at the guideline still expresses a preference for footnotes after punc, unless an article evolved with a different style, and then consensus is needed to change it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) "If an article has evolved using predominantly one style of ref tag placement, the whole article should conform to that style unless there is a consensus to change it" was added by someone called "SandyGeorgia". Note that I'm not talking about this particular article—I don't know if it uses one style, both styles, or a mix—but in more general terms; your comment there read (to me) as saying "footnotes after punctuation is the only right way". (This is something of a hobby-horse of mine; the assumption that the Chicago Manual of Style is "right", regardless of what British style guides say, always annoys me. It's called the English language, not the Illinois language, after all.) – iridescent 16:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

We're in agreement-- before adjusting footnotes, I make sure it's a case of a mish-mash of errors, rather than one predominant and deliberate style ... I thought you were saying the guideline had changed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOS does say that refs should always come after punctuation, on the other hand: see WP:PAIC. Too many style guide pages... Ucucha 16:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I pressed years ago for a WP MOS to consolidate and rectify all those pages-- since it never happened, I've found it impossible to keep up with the nitpicky MOS wards, and stopped trying. I appreciate when reviewers keep me apprised-- there was once a monthly Dispatch to keep up with all MOS changes, but that stopped happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)