User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch79

Nirvana FAR

Hi Sandy, you told me to hit you up when I completed work on Nirvana (band) as part of its FAR so you could do a MOS check. Thanks. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Maria Afiuni

A couple of points. First, user JRSP removed an external link you inserted back in April of 2010: "* Bolivarian Rule of Lawlessness, a report by the law firm that defends Eligio Cedeno" I'm not sure of the purpose of having it in the article so I won't put it back in myself, but I thought I'd make you aware of it. Second, see the talk page Talk:Arrest_of_Maria_Lourdes_Afiuni and the arguments for making it a bio article instead of an article about an arrest. Lindorm (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Leaning on my favorite MoS expert

On removing bold-face formatting from lists: Good, bad, indifferent? I thought that once we used italics, and then it seemed bold was the answer, and now I confess ignorance. I strongly doubt that this article is headed to FAC, but I thought I'd ask. If the answer isn't quick and simple, then please ignore. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry!

Didn't mean to make unnecessary work for you, or induce a sigh. Regards, MartinPoulter (talk) 10:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Johnstown Inclined Plane

You left a comment on the Johnstown Inclined Plane about WP:NBSP. I tried running AWB 5 on this page, but it did not find any changes to be made. Is there an automated way to fix what you see, or can you point to a specific place in the article that needs changing? --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

OMG

You're back! Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 17:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Were you alarmed :) ? I wasn't really gone, just playing in the winter and taking a break from the abundance of utter and total idiocy that prevails here. Ever since The Fat Man was shown the door, and then some POV editors were allowed to dominate a discussion about a new noticeboard, I have really begun to question the viability of Wikipedia. So, I shall keep my nose clean and focus now only on that which interests me, and ignore the drahmaz. Well, sounds good-- at least I'll try! Saludos, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

If you get bored, there are always a lot of hurricane articles that need work… :P Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 17:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of hurricane articles that need work… who would you recommend as a copyeditor for Numerical weather prediction's FAC? Or would you like to give it a look? ;) Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

PP for FAs

Hi Sandy. Can you tell me whether anyone has discussed permanently protecting all articles once they reach FA? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't recall where or when such discussions have occurred, but yes, they have, and it's a non-starter (for reasons I agree with-- FAs are not "perfect" as passed at FAC). What does apply, however, is WP:OWN#Featured articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole, you can always get the promoted version by going to the article history on the talk page and clicking on the date.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to discuss this but are you okay with continuing this discussion here, Sandy, or should I take it elsewhere? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

My talk page has been pretty quiet of late-- you might get a wider audience at WT:FAC, although it's also fine with me if you post here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. I think a good number of FAs go weird, with dubious content, poor expression, poor structure and poor citation over time (e.g., Schizophrenia, despite that article having nominally 786 watchers and a number of active editors concerned about the topic). If such pages were permanently protected, it would not prevent the article from being edited, but would oblige potential edits to be scrutinised, and maybe improved by or justified to other editors before being inserted. I reckon that might minimise the quality decline after FA, and might encourage more people to write masterpieces, knowing that at least their work won't be butchered without scrutiny. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure schizophrenia "went weird" -- it was never in good shape, and folks kept hoping Cas would fix it, but he was dealing with a lot of POVers. Most of the watchers there are of little help. Also, "Pending changes" was supposed to accomplish what you suggest, and I suspect it was quite a failed experiment. I'm not sure permanent protection would help our problematic articles, but it would prevent some poor FAs from being improved. I think quality declines post-FA mostly when the main editors go AWOL, and I suspect Schizophrenia isn't a typical example. Consider the differences between SZ and, for example, autism, Asperger syndrome, and Tourette syndrome, which are kept in shape by relatively few editors no matter how many others introduce dubious content. When an article doesn't have involved watchers, I don't think any policy change will prevent it from deteriorating. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I take your point about articles that have active stewards. But we don't know if page protection would protect unstewarded FAs from deterioration. I wouldn't recommend protecting poor FAs, just those that would pass today. And pending changes was too complicated. Mooting changes on the talk page is much more straightforward. My memory of Autism is that virtually nothing goes straight onto the article without being milled a bit on the talk page. Don't know about Tourette's and Asperger's. But I get the impression those three examples are de facto protected by their stewards. Anyway, thanks for the explanation. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

But many could still warrant improvement even when recently passed (note rhodocene), and often IPs improve articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Pending changes was is a crock of shit, and not just because of its software implementation. Malleus Fatuorum 00:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a brief summary of previous discussions about protecting FAs at Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Protect_featured_articles. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 02:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Ahh. Thanks Adrian. Point 3 (covered by Sandy above too) "While some featured articles deteriorate in quality, this is not a widespread problem" addressees my concern. I thought deterioration was a problem with FAs. Sorry for the trouble. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The problems with FAs tend to be with the older ones anyway, before the citation requirements were toughened up. GAs had the same problem, and for the same reason. Malleus Fatuorum 03:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This is all quite comforting. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

FAC comments on talk page

Hi! My comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Herbie Hewett/archive1‎ have become a little more involved than planned, so I've moved some of the resolved comments to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Herbie Hewett/archive1. I know this has come up at WT:FAC before, but I'd just like to check I haven't done anything wrong. If I have, I'll put it back. Thanks, --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It's generally fine to remove your own commentary to talk as long as you leave a link so the delegates don't miss it (when reading the whole FAC page, we don't see the talk page): as far as I can see, you've done it correctly. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

PANDAS Awareness Ribbon

Hello,

I noticed that you removed the PANDAS Awareness Ribbon that I posted on the PANDAS page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.A.N.D.A.S. I was wondering why. Please advise.

Thank you, Denisegrubbs (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Denise Grubbs

This is the edit you made; if you can see a ribbon in there, your eyesight is better than mine. Since I can't locate the ribbon, I can't determine if it complies with our image use policy. See also WP:NOT; PANDAS is not a recognized medical condition, so it's hard to see how an "awareness" ribbon helps our readers. Also we don't add image galleries to article leads. Also, since you designed and have promoted the ribbon on the internet, please read WP:COI and WP:ACTIVIST: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia-- not Facebook and not latitudes, where non-reliable medical sources are acceptable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look at the references. Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not have the clearest instructions for uploading material... it's a rather involved and confusing process. I'm well aware of your position on this condition, which I hope you won't allow to interfere with reporting of accurate medical research. Unfortunately, the studies in which it is disputed had problems in their methodology. Please keep a watch on the NIMH study underway on the use of IVIG for this auto-immune condition and review Dr. Madeline Cunningham's work in this area as well. Denisegrubbs (talk) 14:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC) DeniseGrubbs Denisegrubbs

I'm afraid I can't help you with images: I'm equally befuddled in that area, and have never uploaded one. The studies supporting the PANDAS concept are the ones with the serious methodological flaws, btw, and as long as we stick to journal review articles, we should have no problem. You might want to read up on WP:MEDRS if you plan to work in that area-- the NIMH study would be a primary source, and not used until secondary sources analyze and report on it-- particularly important in this case, since the NIMH has a pony in the race (Swedo). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

12 Gauge FAC

Hi SandyGeorgia, as I'm pretty new at the whole FAC thing, I had some questions. "12 Gauge" was recently closed by you, so I'm presuming this means the article will not be promoted.

1. Only two users looked at it and left critical comments. Tony only read the lead, but I made his suggested edits, not just for the lead, but for the entire article. Was I supposed to notify him that I'd responded and would have liked more comments from him?
2. I'm also wondering if a single oppose by Tony means other FAC reviewers simply skip over my article?
3. And—forgive me, but I have to know—are FAC articles somewhat biased toward certain topics? I can understand how an independent heavy metal album might not be "suitable" or "interesting" for reviewers to look at. I have read at least once on a Help board that album-related articles are considered by some to be somewhat "lesser" than other topics on Wikipedia, something that hasn't left me since reading those comments. Should I therefore consider nominating articles that are a little more broad in their interests?
4. Also, I didn't realize we could request people to look at articles, but just now, in writing to you, I see that I could have asked for you to look at the article. Is it too late to make this request? Who else should I contact about looking at my article, Laser brain, et al.?
5. And finally: On WP:FAC/ar, I read, "Articles that are not promoted can be resubmitted after Opposers agree that the issues raised during the FAC process have been addressed." On your Page Notice, I read, "If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating—typically at least a few weeks." In both cases, I resolved the issues made by the (two) readers quickly, with detailed comments of what I'd done to better the article. I only received responses from Chzz, and we seemed to have settled most issues.

So, again, being new to this process, how can I be more proactive in getting my article read by reviewers? I think the biggest reason for my confusion is that no one really said that this is still an oppose after the changes I'd made. I apologize for the long message and myriad questions! But I'm definitely curious about all this. Thank you so much, – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/12 Gauge (album)/archive1

The FAC had been up for almost two weeks, with no Support; generally, when that occurs, the nomination will have a better chance at success if it comes back clean in a few weeks (partly because of a lack of reviewers at FAC). On your specific questions:

1. Pinging reviewers for a new look after you've made changes, if they haven't returned, is always good advice. But in Tony1's case, he tends to provide only samples of changes needed throughout, and his opposes carry a lot of weight with other reviewers because he has a good command of prose.
2. That could be the case (see above), which is another reason that coming back fresh in a few weeks may be the fastest route to promotion.
3. I disagree that album-related articles can't or won't receive review at FAC, but it can be helpful to know which well-regarded reviewers are active at those articles, and ping them for review (while avoiding WP:CANVASS. Watching FAC for some time will help you learn who those reviewers are, and how FAC works. The shortage of reviewers is affecting many nominations, so I wouldn't take it personally or as an indication that there is a specific problem with albums.
4. It is OK to request review as long as you don't canvass. Laser may look at albums, David Fuchs may, and many other editors might as well. Yes, you can ping them next time, if you're not getting review, but it may be best to wait at first-- again, Tony1's prose issues may have put off some other reviewers.
5. You might ping Tony1 to ask how he sees the article now, but he is a very busy editor, and he might not be able to get back to you. If he does, and is satisfied that the prose is corrected, you could come back sooner than the two weeks.

No need to apologize! (But if you provide the link to the FAC, I'm more likely to respond quickly :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia, thank you so very much for your detailed reply! I meant to put the link to the FAC in my message (it's the first thing you request on your page notice!) and obviously in editing my own message I ended up completely forgetting, so thanks for hunting that down. Your answers were honest and extremely helpful, and they cleared up any follow-up questions I may have had. I look forward to re-submitting the article sometime in the future, but I'll definitely take your advice and watch the FAC for a while. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable

What a great start to my day. Hope yours is better. Colin°^Talk 08:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope we're not headed for yet another of Wikipedia's LAMEST arbcom cases involving edit warriors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Be aware that I've been watching the MOS mainstayers "circling the wagons" so to speak on those pages; this seems like a continuation of that. Nothing that can be actionable by any means now, but if this keeps up, we'll need the equivalent of an intervention. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I try to remain blissfully unaware of such ... the history at ArbCom is not encouraging. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sandy (or TPS), I seem to recal someone did some analysis of the reading level of some of our FAs. Do you remember this. It would be an interesting exercise to do. Colin°^Talk 08:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Joe Baugher pages from External Links sections

I know you've been concerned in the past about aircraft articles which use Joe Baugher's pages as citation sources, and I understand that doing this violates policy and is frowned upon, since his is clearly a self-published site. However, I noticed you recently removed links to his pages from the External Links section of several aircraft articles. I don't understand why. To my knowledge, Wikipedia's policy restriction against self-published sites only applies to sources, not External Links. And for many types of aircraft, Baugher is the best or one of the best sources of information available on the web; the only better sources are in print. Removing him from the External Links section cuts readers off from easy access to a potentially useful source of further information. Certainly his pages are more useful and more reliable as information sources on their subjects than many other External Links are.

--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

There are two problems here (and a discussion at the Aviation WikiProject); first, many Aviation editors are seeing that link in many places and believing it to be a reliable source. We now have at least two GAs sourced to it, and several regular aviation editors attempting to defend a self-published hobby site as a reliable source. Second, I don't know of any reason to include it as an External link; external links are to provide information beyond what can be included in an article from reliable sources, and I know of no reason to include Baugher. It's confusing editors, who think he's reliable and are sourcing articles to him, which adds nothing to the articles. Why should we be promoting one hobby website via external links? I'm unconvinved by the frequent assertions that he's such a high quality source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I just copied the above to WT:AV; I had hoped to get the whole thing, but it appears I was too slow. :( --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem, the discussion is just going in circles now, as some editors are determined to avoid a library and real sources. And that is the bottom line to why I despise the trend of WikiCup, DYK points fueling RFAs. Article sourcing deteriorates, and is now extended to the GA level, when long ago, the Aviation Project had addressed this issue, which has now re-emerged. I don't think there's much more I can add, since the participants there are just repeating points without addressing WP:SPS. Bah. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, it might be more productive to just tag the links with {{unreliable source?}} tags while it is under discussion, rather than removing them wholesale from so many articles. - BilCat (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, but that was also just reverted. This place gets more out of control by the day, when GAs are cited to self-published personal hobby sites. I suspect that mere laziness is driving this, as editors seeking Wikicup awards can't be bothered to go to a real library. I 'spose I've done all I can, and should be thankful I don't spend my time at DYK, where this kind of stuff is fed. I've unwatched the entire lot of articles I tried to fix, and should stop caring until/unless someone tries to get Baugher through FAC, where he most certainly will not be accepted as a reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Shift the comments to the appropriate forum (annnnnnd knock off the laziness innuendos, I know most if not all the respondents and they are anything but...). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

You seem disturbed: shift what comments to what forum? I'm participating at that forum, I believe I'm allowed to respond to a post that was started earlier on my talk, and I believe it fair to say that relying on inferior websites over real sources available in a library that meet core policies isn't a reflection of editorial sourcing expected at the GA level. Perhaps I'm not parsing your post correctly, but it certainly comes across as vaguely threatening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Calling nonsense right here, you are the only editor making strange comments about laziness, and painting individuals with a broad brush, and I am not the only editor who has already noted the disparaging asides. Bzuk (talk) 01:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

There's plenty of nonsense to go around, and I'm not easily intimidated. Preferring inferior websources over superior published sources is laziness. What about the Baugher matter is it that seems to be making you upset? It's a policy discussion, nothing more. You might find the discussion will advance more productively if you answer direct queries I've made there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Wickywakiness also does not impress me and recognize we are both experienced editors with the same modus operandi. I simply do not adhere to the premise that MOS is solid stone, it and all other wiki tenets are challenged on a daily basis. Is Baugher an expert? I believe he is. Is he the most reliable source, maybe not, but good enough for many editors, perhaps not as a source for FA/GA articles. Does he fit into the SPS framework, not all that well, but more discussion is needed. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

Where did MOS (which is a massive mess) come into this discussion: I'm discussing a long-standing, core policy, WP:V and WP:SPS. The problem is, Baugher is being used to source GAs! And I do hope you'll agree the discussion is only beginning; first editors had to calm down before they would look at the issue, and jumping to defend one website won't help the rest of the Project if we open those floodgates without careful thought. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

To allay your fears of a flood, many websites being proposed as credible have come and gone, and editors have been especially vigilant to monitor the obvious fanboy sites. Aviation articles are often difficult to cite, and any and all references are often used, with a proliferation of electronic sites, rather than the traditional print resources. Some of the news articles are as poor as the run-of-the-mill museum and fan sites. Baugher and Goebel stand out compared to this lot. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

Perhaps, but I still see weak arguments for poor sources presented all the time at FAC, and worry about fueling them if we weaken policy. Anyway, long discussion, and I'm wiki tired now ... tomorrow's a new day. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Just so we don't have the MicMac mind trick here, this is not resolved yet. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

Yep, don't know what a "MicMac mind trick" is, but I've just run out of steam for the day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You probably do, just check it out; he never let's anyone get the last word, that's his MO. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

Having read all the discussion overnight, I raised the issue at WP:RSN#Joe Baugher in the hope of getting editors independent of WP:AVIATION and WP:MILHIST to look at the issue. I've asked that members of those two project disclose the fact should they comment. Your views are also welcome too. Mjroots (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, Bzuk, now I'm calling nonsense. Although the rest of the discussion now seems to be moving into a more productive realm (as usually happens once editors set in for the long haul work), through the various links posted at RSN and elsewhere, I've now discoverd that BilCat is disparaging my character on talk pages, and you were accusing me of being part of a "tag team" way back in 2008. And yet you all come here to make accusations about me because I think changing a policy to promote the preference for online hobby sites over more reliable published sources reflects laziness? Please, let's stick to the policy issues. If I were The Bushranger, I'd not be proud to host such commentary on my talk page, and I'm pleased to see that Ed17 addressed that there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh pshaw, nothing of the case, the issue of Baugher vs other sources is a minor one. Many others consider him useful and that the characterized "hobby site" is anything but, as it constitutes a serious effort to document aviation history. Most experienced editors long ago (2008, if you are correct) have not relied on this source for FA or GA articles, but there are numerous instances where the cites are still in place. What was a "red flag" to me and others was the summary removal of material that necessitated a BRD so that a discussion could ensue. The Northrop F-5 Freedom Fighter article in question was not an FA or GA article, has had many problems in referencing sources in the past and if someone finds a better source, as one that was recently substituted, then, c'est la vie. I still have to take umbrage at your continual snipes, as you have alluded that anyone not having your iron-clad beliefs must be lazy, unproductive (that's a new one) and uncaring. Nothing like that is occurring, the combined edit counts/contributions of the editors that were involved in the discourse would be astounding. These are often experts in their own right, counting museum directors, research scientists, authors and researchers among the group. A continual, monthly effort is now taking place to elevate selected aviation-themed articles to GA status and if you check the progress of this small group, you will note that their work rarely relies on questionable sources. All of us who can be considered serious editors are willing to abide by consensus and if the consensus is against using Baugher in any way, mais, c'est dommage. FWiW, as to MickMac's mind trick, take the comments as is, they are AGF and need no response. Bzuk (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of MicMac, and per WP:BEANS, don't intend to comment, lest my talk be involved in something unsavory, that I wouldn't want to host. By the way, I identified on the RFA at least three Aviation GAs with problematic sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

PS, per the Essjay factor, I don't pay much attention to who editors claim to be IRL on Wiki unless that can be verified; we can only be judged here by our work, and I hope the decline in Aviation articles is not a result of that unfortunate Resources list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

PPS, slow down. Tagging non-reliable sources is NOT "summary removal of material". Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Since you do seem to want to continue the discourse, so be it. You note a decline in "quality", however, I consider the efforts of a small group of dedicated and experienced editors in the WikiAviation group as making a distinct improvement in propelling a number of articles to GA status and doing it on a regular basis. I do note that there are no aspersions in your last commentary which is the minimum in what I construe as civil discourse. The crux of our back-and-forth is what constitutes a reliable source or an authority. In the case of your reversion of edits on the Northrop F-5 article, it unfortunately coincided with some clean-up and your reversion took the article back a step or two. Contrary to what you may think, I have no great cause here, Baugher is fine as far as he goes, maybe not the best but certainly not the worst source. I don't consider him a mere hobbyist, as others have used him as a reliable authority. If he had been hosting a fansite, that would be different, but there is a multitude of articles, all sourced, well written, and frequently updated and that goes far beyond the norm for a fansite. Bye the bye, what articles do you see as having poorly sourced or inadequately referenced material? FWiW, when the comments here are exploring personal issues I have tried to keep them on this page, when they revolve around technical issues, I have used another forum. Bzuk (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

I, on the other hand, have just come across yet another disparaging comment from you on an article talk page, but am not going to replay it here. Time to let it go. I will recopy for you here portions from the RFA of discussion of one Aviation GA, not to mention the two cited to Baugher (Douglas XCG-17 and Grumman XSBF) :

For example, he has a GA, FMA IAe 33 Pulqui II, which is replete with marginal, non-reliable sources. (I'm unware if those were used at the time it passed GA or added later). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This was the article at promotion. I see no source concerns with it. SG, there is a proper procedure to follow if you think a GA doesn't now meet GA criteria. Looking at the article history, it is still substantially as it was when passed, so IMHO, such a request for review would not be in order. Mjroots (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you (or the nominee) could explain how these are reliable sources for this article:

• http://www.luft46.com/
• http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-10654904/Evita-in-wonderland-Pulqui-and.html
• http://www.swannysmodels.com/
• http://www.avalanchepress.com/
• http://www.arcair.com/
• http://www.lucheyvuelve.com.ar/index.htm
• http://www.machtres.com/pulquix2.htm

I speak Spanish and I see dead links, press releases, movie reviews, and personal websites, including several commercial, for an aircraft article. But I appreciate the education about GA processes-- how have I ever gotten by on Wikipedia for so long!?!? Perhaps MilHist has changed its sourcing requirements or I'm just too busy these days. The use of non-reliable sources has long been a problem at DYK, so if the nominee works there, I'd like to know his views on these sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That's enough to show me that some Aviation editors might not understand sourcing, particularly for the GA level. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I'm done; no mater what I say to moderate things, it's obviously not going to work. Have a good day. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm, the Sandy strategy of maintaining good faith and repeating sound policies seems rather effective. I will have to remember this for my future interactions.AerobicFox (talk) 07:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

SPS

Hi Sandy, could you take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#Proposal to put forth at WT:V and comment? I'd love to get your opinion on its suitability and possible changes we can make to it. I ask that you don't dismiss it out-of-hand, though – I'd like to propose it as a change at WT:V, so constructive suggestions would be much more helpful. :-) Thanks as always, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I see some potential pitfalls, but I'm pooped ... mañana! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hiya, one more thing... I am really trying to avoid badgering you. I don't want to ruin Bushranger's RfA over that or responding too much, so if you feel like I am, please tell me. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You're doing fine :) PS, if you want to ask me anything, shoot it here if you want! I've been known to change my mind mid-stream, and actually wondering now how much of the debacle has been fueled by the interficious intermeddling of others, and whether that swayed my Oppose. Certainly, I wasn't happy when I found the post to the Aviation Project (I just Never Do That) at the same time I realized the error in the blurb at the same time they were hitting me all over the place with dubious claims about sourcing, and the vehement defence there of inferior sourcing and off-topic disparaging of editors who disagree with them haven't helped. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I also just checked MilHist for the coordinator list, and saw this: "They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers." I was thinking of inquiring what is going on over at that Project, but some seems to be out of the remit of the coordinators, and I'm wondering where all the experienced Aviation editors (besides Nimbus) went? How was that Resources page created with no oversight, and so little feedback? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That makes me feel much better. :-) My thought is that while a large amount of your oppose is built around unreliable sources, but the source list you gave was (if I read it right) added by someone else to the article, and there is considerable debate as to whether Baugher is a reliable source. Bushranger and I may disagree with you on the site, but he was using what he believed was a reliable source under the SPS guidelines, and under your interpretation (correct me if I'm wrong in my assessment!), the source is borderline, albeit leaning unreliable. So, I think you can agree that him using it isn't as much of a clear-cut issue as you first thought, and perhaps you could reconsider your oppose in that context? Obviously he cares about reliable sourcing as much as you do and tries to uphold that at DYK – you two just see the policy through slightly different glasses.

What do you think is wrong with Milhist? The only aviation editors I know of are Nick-D, Mjroots, and Bushranger, and all of those are because they don't write exclusively in aviation. I may be sheltered though. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Things tend to go much more smoothly when bad faith allegations and disparaging of fellow editors aren't being thrown all over the Wikipedia :)

Baugher is not the kind of source we should be using for anything other than stubs started by inexperienced editors; I'm willing to accept that he thought it was when he used it, that it was an honest mistake (even though I expect editors working at DYK to know better), and to revisit if/when I see acknowledgement that he understands the importance of good sourcing. Others can google all the fan books they want who laud him, but for good reason, we use better sources by highly regarded Military Historians over hobby sites, and why on Earth should we be setting up a situation where articles have to be re-cited to go to GA or FA?

I'm not buying the sourcing issues on the other GA; I suspect Bzuk, who has made some strange commentary thoughout this, may have held sway over Bushranger on that, so he let those sources slide. GAs should be passed and maintained to the level expected, and there has been a rather absurd amount of resistance on this, indicating that Baugher is some sort of Sacred Cow on the Aviation project (maybe he's a nice guy or something, but we are not lacking in real sources in Aviation).

I have been encouraged that The Bushranger hasn't disparaged me or made strange allegations about other editors as other Aviation members have, so that speaks well of him.

I'm not sure anything is wrong with MilHist specifically, since we've seen a decline in editorship across so many areas of the Wikipedia; it could just be another reflection of our general loss of good editors everywhere. I didn't remember that Nick-D focuses on aviation? I should have known that; I thought he was more of a generalist. But several of the more reasonable members who were around whenever I interacted with Aviation in the past seem to be gone, or at least, less present in this matter. And I'm still curious what kind of oversight and participation decline may have led to the creation of that Resources page; I typically expect anything in the MilHist realm to have better processes in place to make sure pages aren't put up without better oversight.

Did I answer everything? After Franamax posted, I realized that the Archtransit issue was figuring prominently at the top of the Oppose section, so it could be predisposing other voters, who sometimes don't read the entire page, and may have thought I was implying he was a sock: Mlm could benefit by speaking more clearly without insinuations of bad faith. And Mjroots did The Bushranger no favors there. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but Baugher is a great source for writing multiple articles on obscure aircraft, and I don't believe Bushranger is looking to bring them to GA – he just wants the 'pedia to have an article on them. Technically speaking, the information should be easily reference-able with the 'real' sources should someone want to do that! DYK isn't GA/FA, and most of the articles going through there are not destined for either.

You have a point on maintaining GAs, although I don't actively maintain my oldest articles and need to rewrite/fix up at least a FA and GA of my own.

Nick-D doesn't focus there, but he has done articles in the area – sorry, should have specified! We don't normally keep an eye on other projects, so please don't associate anything outside of Milhist with Milhist. :P

If you want my personal opinion, I think the whole conversation between you two was bungled by not understanding the other. Mlm wanted an explanation as to why that factored in your argument, but may have not stated it well, and then it got sidetracked, and then both of you got a tad heated, and then you stopped trying to give answers, and then ..., and then ... . Just a chain reaction. Still, it worked out in the end, so that's what counts! :-) Still though, even if you think the Aviation project is screwed up, I'd counter that Bushranger has his head on screwed on straight (heh, unintentional pun) and would be a helluva lot better civility-wise than some of our other admins. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hint: since I'm an avowed Pollyanna, who AGFs sometimes to the point of absurdity (to wit, Pollyanna got me involved in two ArbCom cases!), nothing will get my back up as fast as allegations of bad faith :) That's when he lost me (not to mention Pedro's questioning my motives because he thought I had tangled with Archtransit-- Archtransit was, if anything, unfailingly polite). I do believe a little bit of AGF goes a long way, but in my case, I usually take it too far! I really won't go out of my way to object to non-audited content using Baugher, but he does have errors, and my bigger concern is the amount of resistance in the matter, and that the Resources page was listig him as reliable, which would encourage new editors to use him, rather than teach them to seek out better sources. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi; I'm sorry things got a little heated there. I tend to be very terse when I speak (I'd like to think of it as speaking "concisely, and efficiently", but actually in internetland, it can be misinterpreted). I really don't want any hard feelings here. It seems my terse speaking style left room for my words to be interpreted as "insinuations of bad faith", which I find unfortunate. I honestly think you do great work here, and I am deeply thankful for anyone who upholds the integrity of Wikipedia - especially those who insist on high-quality references! After all, we're nothing without our sources. And I understand that the Aviation WikiProject has a history, and there may be reasons to keep an eye on them (I've also encountered problems with Aviation members applying their own "guidelines" as if they were law - this prompted me push for the creation of {{WikiProject style advice}} and {{WikiProject content advice}}, via this Village pump discussion). Nevertheless, I found your (apparent?) oppose rationale involving WikiProject membership concerning (as did several other people, based on the comments). So I questioned you about it, and frankly I was surprised when you stood by your statement. More than anything, I was trying to get you to realize that this oppose rationale appeared unfair. But granted, I probably could have done this in a less confrontational way; so for that I'm sorry. Mlm42 (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

There are no hard feelings whatsoever, Mlm; once I finally saw what you were getting at, it made perfect sense-- just took a while to get there, helped along because Franamax knows me a bit and probably could see that I wasn't getting it.  :) And I was certainly predisposed negatively because of Pedro's opening post, so I apologize for not trying hard enough to understand what you were getting at. I appreciate your kind words and reaching out, and now that I understand your communication style better, things should go smoothly. That is, if you can put up with all my typos, sloppy prose, and adding to posts after I make them :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Sandy's custom order internet meme

Pickup line Panda. --Moni3 (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

How am I supposed to come up with retorts for those? Look how easy these are (askmen.com)

Line

You won't have to wait for my call tomorrow if you sleep over.

Retort

I won't miss other calls for the din of your snoring if I don't.

Line

You know how some men buy really expensive cars to make up for certain shortages? Well, I don't even own a car.

Retort

Thanks for sharing; I guess I won't be riding home with you.

Line

I sacrificed my dignity to come talk to you. The least you could do is say yes.

Retort

No.

Enough? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Baugher - a specific case

1947 BOAC Douglas C-47 crash is a recent DYK of mine. It uses Baugher to reference the history of the aircraft involved in the accident. This is what I've been using Baugher for, and hence the scope of the discussion I've raised at RSN. Other info given by Baugher is corroborated by The Times, the Accidents Investigation Board ad Flight magazine, all of which are reliable sources. Mjroots (talk) 07:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Responded at RSN (confused). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Help needed, spam filter list

In case any TPS can help, I'm trying to post this to Talk:Tourette syndrome, and getting a spam filter notice? WTH? Is associatedcontent spam blocked?

American Idol

I noticed a spike in the page views on February 10, 2011, and found http: // www.associatedcontent.com/article/7743390/american_idol_programs_of_february.html?cat=39 this report that an American Idol contestant, James Durbin, has TS-- heads up in case he gets an article eventually. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

WTH, http:/ /www.examiner.com/tv-in-national/american-idol-2011-james-durbin-battles-tourettes-and-aspergers-to-win-dream references Wikipedia, which may also explain the spike in views. But it's also spam blocked! What gives? Did someone spam block the word "Tourette's"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

And, I can't find the spamblock page to ask-- must be because I slept in my "Dork" t-shirt last night. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Examiner dotcom is listed as spam on wiki.[5] Personally, I think it's BS. The rationale is that Examiner pays its writers by page hits, and links to the article might generate some revenue for the writer. I've been writing for Examiner for about a year, I cover the local Boxing and MMA events in Northern Nevada as a sportswriter and have columns on traditional martial arts and firearms. I could see if it was an "opinion" piece or something of that nature, but I cover events (Pro-boxing, for example) and because I have an "in" with promoters based on my past as a fighter; I get better access than some other local news outlets. I'll go toe-to-toe with things I have written against some of the "approved sources" on fighters like Kassim Ouma [6], Archi Solis [7]and Brandon Gonzales[8]. OK rant off.  :)--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

oh, for gosh sakes, how silly. Well, at least I know where to find the spamlist now, and can take off my "Dork" t-shirt -- thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You have to change "dot" to "." to see what I mean.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Will look at them next; irritated now right along with you that examinerdotcom was the best account, and I'm not going to fight a spamlist to try to simply leave an informative heads up on a talk page. <grrrrr ... > SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

What if you formatted it as a news citation and left off the link? You would have the sourcing correct, but not an evil link that might give the writer $0.006 whenever someone clicks the link.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Heck, I'm not going to worry about it unless he wins and becomes notable, in which case other sources will report it any way. Besides, I'm offended that a California kid I know didn't win, so there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice stuff, Mike, but your bio doesn't mention all the critters! I went to http ://www.examiner.com/mma-in-reno/mike-searson for a quicker link to all of them. Someday, I'm going to get to a ski trip and come see you! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That would be cool! We'll roll out the red carpet for you!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I have access to a Tahoe timeshare that expires next December, but it's very hard to get (on exchange) during ski season, so I may have to use it for a non-skiing visit, or lose it. And I still think the Reno airport is the scariest in the world-- I'm not a dive-bomber, and those crosswinds are awful. Hope I can work it out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Those winds are terrible, I've had my truck literally blown into the next lane driving through the Washoe Valley.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I spent 10 days skiing in Tahoe a few years ago, but we flew into LA and drove up from there. The skiing was pretty good I thought, and the casinos just across the border in Nevada were handy for a late meal, but it didn't have the style of a French resort like Val-d'Isère, which is perhaps my favourite. Malleus Fatuorum 20:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Mal, that can be a cool drive up, did you take 395 or I-5 to 50?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure, both probably. We took the coastal route on the way up, but we decided to detour to take in Yosemite and Death Valley on the way back. Sadly Yosemite was closed because of the snow, but Death Valley was certainly worth the visit. Malleus Fatuorum 20:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, I was just waiting for you to show up with California comments-- careful, I'll find some bad Western music or MT for you!! Tahoe skiing is certainly not luxury, not even on par with most of Colorado or Utah, particularly with respect to lodging, but Squaw has improved. And then there was my ski trip in Italy where the snow was so bad the resort should have been closed, and we got to ski across rocks and streams ... The last time I drove from Northern to Southern California, my butt hurt for days, and I vowed never to do it again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It still has to be better than the ski resort in this movieFrozen (2010 American film), we don't have wolves here, just bears and mountain lions!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll take wolves over mountain lions-- the mountain lions pick people off and eat them quickly and efficiently. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I had a pet Mountain Lion years ago when I lived in Florida. She used to love eating chicken.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

And I bet you're not kidding! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I like California, I just think that Californians are crazy. I learned to ski in Italy, and as you say, sometimes it was skiing across rocks. That's partly why I never bought a pair of skis. Malleus Fatuorum 20:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

... and speaking of sore butts, one of the reasons we now have a Jeep Cherokee is that's the car we hired to drive from LA to Tahoe. It was a really comfortable drive, and we did it easily in a day. Malleus Fatuorum 20:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yea? That's only because you weren't in the back seat to experience the vibration, and nausea-inducing limited vision, with seats so short that they don't accomodate the length of my thighs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean one of these, I meant one of these. TBH I've never sat in the back though, so you could be right. Malleus Fatuorum 00:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep. There was a time that everyone in Caracas drove Grand Cherokees; I passed up on that after I sat in the back seat, which was seriously too short for me, and drove a Landcruiser. And when I was in Caracas two years ago, my comadre's driving made me sick in the back set of her Cherokee (they're all Grand there, but everyone just calls 'em Cherokee). Of course now, they all drive armored cars (non-Chavistas, who get shot at) and Hummers (chavista Boliburguesía)! Or get to an airport and seek exile. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like Guatemala in the 90's. I drove a Nissan Patrol there, love to find one of those here.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, probably had a lot of potholes, too! Ha, when I lived in Argentina in the 80s, they were still making 1962 Ford Falcons-- probably still are, too! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I was going to drive to LA this weekend to see some friends, but the snow killed that idea! Last time I drove from LA to Reno was the day I completed a Close-Combat-Course. I got hit in the yarbles twice that day (once with an escrima stick the other by the country's top pro-MMA trainer) it was the most painful drive I ever made. Had to stop in the Bay Area that night! I'm glad I didn't fly down there that weekend, because flying back would have been worse!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I once asked Malleus, "What's a Willy", and have never lived it down. I Will Not Ask What Yarbles Are. Do y'all always have to publicly humiliate me ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Everything I need to know in life, I learned on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

TFA

Hi SandyGeorgia,

I noticed that you removed "Voyage: Inspired by Jules Verne" from the Main page request page. In removing it, your edit summary read "scheduled". I had nominated the article for February 25. However, I cannot see the article in the Feature article queue. Does this mean that my article was rejected? Because it had 9 supports to 8 opposes, and I admit this is close, but still the majority supported. Thanks if you can clarify what has happened to "Voyage: Inspired by Jules Verne".--Paaerduag (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Raul654 does the TFA scheduling, and once he has scheduled the TFA for a date, then other editors remove the requests for the dates already scheduled. Your nomination was up against a date that impacted three other important anniversaries; see here. While Raul sometimes schedules TFAs even with Opposes, the 300th anniversary for an opera was chosen for that date (opera articles are underrepresented on the main page, and this was an important one), probably partly because many editors found problems with that article. You can always try again! You can follow TFA scheduling at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/2011; what I do is to watchlist the next open date so that I will know when Raul schedules and remove old requests from WP:TFA/R. His job is not easy, but he tries his hardest to keep everyone happy. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

RS question

Hi Sandy. I have seen you active at a number of places discussing self-published sources recently. Do you think you (or your talk page watchers) could take a look at a related issue for me if you have the time? It is located at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Autobiographical essay in a reliable journal. Best, NW (Talk) 05:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Full link of the article (from a reliable journal) is here (PDF).

WP:ABOUTSELF says we can use the source to talk about the man (himself) as long as 1.the material is not unduly self-serving; 2.it does not involve claims about third parties; and 3.it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source. I'll read it tomorrow (pooped), but are you concerned it involves any of those three? If not, there shouldn't be a problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Oliver H. Lowry.

Starting through it-- this is out of my usual realm. In the first few pages, I see a lot of material about third parties (distant relatives) that may not be usable under ABOUTSELF. Not sure to what extent we're allowed to use what he says about his parents, since we assume he has first-hand knowledge? Up to page 5, I haven't found anything "unduly self-serving", but not sure if you can use claims about third parties like, "During the second year at the University of Chicago, the Dean asked if I would be interested in working for an M.D. ... " or like page 8, "One of the reasons why Otto Bessey, who was a nutrition expert, wanted me to join him in New York was his belief that the studies he envisaged of the biochemical effects of nutritional deficiencies would require new microchemical methods." Page 10, not sure if this is "self-serving" since I don't know the field: "A more famous method that also came out of the PHRI days was our proteirt procedure, which employs the Folin phenol reagent (14) and is merely a modification of the original 1922 method of Wu ( 15)." Through page 11, I'm not finding much that seems problematic as long as you use it correctly and attribute as needed, but you might need a biochemist to look into it for evaluation of "unduly self-serving". Skipping ahead to page 22, "And then the trouble began. It was ruled (as I was told) that before funding, the application "had to go through the Ethics Committee." It was later revealed that there was no Ethics Committee and had been none for eight years !" (claims about third parties).

I'd suggest Tim Vickers, but he's hardly ever around anymore. Who else is a biochemist? I'd think it would not be judged "unduly self-serving" since it was an invited essay for the review, but I'm out of my realm here. Maybe ping Tim Vickers anyway, or e-mail him, since he's also at Washington in St. Louis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well, ignore me! TCO uncovered better info at RSN; perhaps WP:ABOUTSELF doesn't apply and you can use it more broadly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you even read?

1 - This is in the Donnor article already:

"William Foster, believing the flesh of the Indians was the group's last hope of avoiding imminent death from starvation, shot the pair. Writer Joseph A. King, however, disagrees that Salvador and Luis were already close to death when Foster shot them: "...as Captain Sutter heard the story from other survivors, his 'good boys' [Salvador and Luis] were murdered while gathering acorns.""

Now, try to use some twisted logic to explain how my edits are POV.

2 - "damn article" is not cursing at anyone. "Damn" is used as an adjective for "article". Grammar, please look into it.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jswap (talk • contribs) 07:07, February 19, 2011

I think you're looking for Talk:Donner Party, or perhaps our policy page on neutral editing or the guideline on how we write the leads of articles, or the policy that discusses editing of Featured articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• If you believe that Sandy cannot read, then it seems misguided to post a written missive on her talk page. Ironically, the sentence "Grammar, please look into it" is ungrammatical, unless you are addressing an exhortation to someone named "Grammar". MastCell ^Talk 07:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I read much better than I type :) And I'm pretty sure that "read the damn article", aimed at Courcelles' revert, is cursing at Courcelles. Where's Malleus when you need him? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

What is the name of this syndrome, where a random editor (preferably one who has never edited either the article or Wikipedia before) comes into an FA and insists on a change that should not be made, engages in an edit war, then insults the editors who maintain the article with references to their incompetence, lack of intelligence, or the failure of Wikipedia itself ("now I understand why people complain about the "Dark Lords of Denny's" here on Wikipedia"). --Moni3 (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Stupidity. Malleus Fatuorum 18:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia. More on that after I recover from days of dealing with same everywhere I go. I'm removing more and more articles from my watchlist, because trying to keep up with it is no longer productive. And promoting more admins who know nothing of content won't solve the problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of ... must I next spend 20 minutes filing the 3RR report on Jswap, or are there any admins on board who can deal with it? He just edit warred the change in yet again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

He's at five reverts now, and it takes 20 minutes to file a 3RR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I love that man :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Autism

Thanks for pointing that out, I've taken your advice!--Hontogaichiban (talk) 03:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Wife selling

Wife selling has been moved to Wife selling (English custom); I assume the FAC archive will need moving too? Nev1 (talk)

Nope, the way Article history is set up, name changes are no problem. If the new name sticks, GimmeBot eventually corrects them at WP:FA, but I wouldn't rush to do that without having checked on why the name changed, considering ... all that and that. Nothing needs to be done. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Read the talk, and went ahead and changed the name at WP:FA, rather than waiting for Gimme, so FA wouldn't be pointing to a dab page; thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

FL on mainpage

Hi Sandy. Thanks for your note at WT:FLC regarding our proposal. I'm a bit confused by some of it, have you opposed the inclusion of featured sounds on the mainpage? I don't think I saw your opposition in the proposal. Also, as you noted, since the mainpage contains DYK, ITN, FPs, and OTDs, none of which are governed by Raul, I didn't really see why TFLs had to fit straight into the structure of TFAs. The FS proposal has almost unilateral support, so suggesting we'd need to go via Raul's route to get "better luck" seems a little anomalous to me. Admittedly I am tired and this has all come on a little quickly, and I'm bound to have missed something important (so forgive me) and I sure haven't had enough time in my "cellar gym", but please do help me understand that which I may have misunderstood! Hope you're well, The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

My post there specifically said why I hadn't opposed featured sounds or pictures, but I'll go add to my post there to clear this up. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

So sorry. It's very clear to me now. Our FL proposal has never ever ever ever (not even for a micro/nanosecond) suggested we take a slot in the FA part of main page! Heaven forbid. But, one day (muhahaha) we will...! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see the draft proposal, that may make our (initial, pre-take over the world) intentions clearer! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

First the children, now the feminists

The kiddie admins was bad enough, but now we're expected to put up with militant feminists making a bid for power, taking courage from comments made by the increasingly out of touch Jimmy Wales. Where will it end? Only females or teenagers allowed to edit wikipedia? I rather resent finding myself yet again a target of the feminist movement, as I am just about the most even-handed person you're ever likely to meet when it comes to race, gender, or creed. It's true though that I do draw the line at idiocy and corruption. Malleus Fatuorum 00:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

PS. Should I start an alternate account pretending to be a female teenager do you think? Might as well cover all bases. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 00:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Whenever someone starts throwing around the words "patriarchy" and similar stuff, especially as regards historical subjects, I know they are approaching the subject with an axe to grind. It's like when I read an archaelogist write that something as "ceremonial purpose" ... i know they have no clue what the purpose of whatever it was they dug up, and are just reaching for something that sounds good to fill the space. And I say this as a female editor. Why doesn't everyone worry about .. the content and quit grinding axes. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

As I read bourgeois national history, I read it with a coffin in my ear, ready for the corpse in the author's mouth. Article authors ought to be aware of patriarchy theory when dealing with gender history. But they ought to also be aware of other theories of the position of women in social history, and observe and locate the use of theory in secondary sources, and comment on notable elements derived only from secondary sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I approach this as every other subject from a scientific perspective, therefore I take issue with your description of "patriarchy theory". It is in no sense a theory, as theories are required to produce testable hypotheses. It is as absurd to consider patriarchy a theory as it is to consider Freud's idea of latent homosexuality a theory. Malleus Fatuorum 00:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Ha. Y'all are gay. All this fuss for categories imbued with judgments. These crappy categories allow editors too lazy to crack a book to simplify a person or an event into a loaded category. If the energy behind having to defend these crap categories was put into article work, the result would make much clearer why misogyny, racism, and homophobia is a big deal. --Moni3 (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

According to Freud we are all gay, just that in most of us it's latent. Categories do have the advantage over tagging though, the other tool used by those too lazy to visit a library, in that they are at least less in your face. Malleus Fatuorum 01:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm operating on the 50-50 principle, mentioned earlier on your page. They chased off The Fat Man (and a few others who left in disgust as a result of the way he was treated); as long as Moni entertains me with the notion that I'm gay, and gives me a daily chuckle, I'll keep working. Moni and The Fat Man: 50-50. After all, I have to give you-know-who something to obsess about over on WikiReview. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You do seem to have some "fans" there, but then anyone who tries to make wikipedia work, despite the overwhelming odds, is an enemy there. Malleus Fatuorum 01:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Darn, I shouldn't have told them to lock down that Facebook page! We can all get a chuckle out of what you-know-who says about me on WR (isn't it better to shut your mouth and let people think you're stupid then to open your mouth and prove it?), but now we can't keep track of The Progress of Women on Wikipedia Doing the Valuable Work of Adding Categories and Pushing POV ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I looked for that Facebook page but couldn't find it. I've never really got my head around Facebook for some reason. Malleus Fatuorum 01:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You can't find it anymore, since I reminded them on Karanacs' page that the whole thing was wide open. :) With the exception of our illustrious FAC women, not much to see in the 31 total membership. But then, most women working seriously on content eventually show up at FAC. Category and WikiProject Taggers Unite ! Of course, now that it's (more sanely) private, it's no better than IRC :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I know of at least one very good female editor I've had to drag kicking and screaming to GAN more than once, with promises of cake and wine, cake mainly. Do you have any idea what the male:female ratio of regular FAC contributors is? My suspicion is that it might be higher than the 13% reported for the rest of wikipedia, which if true might be very significant. Malleus Fatuorum 02:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Well of course it's higher than 13 percent! Which is (part of) why the whole thing is absurd! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you think that might have anything to do with the fact that you're seen as the major player at FAC, and therefore encouraging other females to take part? I don't, I just wondered what you view was. For myself I always preferred to work with a female project manager; they seemed to have a better grasp of the details and less distracted by the willy waving. Malleus Fatuorum 02:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I had anything to do with it. I didn't bring in Karanacs, or Moni, or Ealdgyth, or Maralia, or Fainites, or Truthkeeper, or Awadewit, or Slp1, or Bish, or Risker, or Dana boomer, or Montanabw, or ... or ... or ... I just *met* them all at FAC! And I should add that, even before Wikipedia, and still on Wikipedia, my worst stalkers and attracted nutcases have all been women. FWIW. The idea that we need to somehow make the Internet safer for women sucks: the Internet Is What It Is, and I've been ignoring trolls attacking my character since way before Wikipedia! Or we make it safer for everyone (right), or warn them to go play cribbage instead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

And while I'm on the topic, who's our best Copyvio person? Moonriddengirl. Who's our best CU? Alison. Where is the shortage of competent females? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I posted here but it's gone. Anyway, something about being focused - and oh, yeah, look at how many women post on Malleus' page. Should tell you something. Doh - I guess I forgot to hit save after previewing - so much for being focused! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I've sometimes wondered about that myself. Do you think I ought to be more macho, less effete? Malleus Fatuorum 03:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Ask Ceoil-- he seems to attract his fair share as well! For me, I think Wiki's problem is simple: content creators vs. everyone else. See that 1% of FAs? We know who's building them. Probably about 1% of us-- so we happen to hang together on talk pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You're not effete. You're good at what you do. You help, nicely. No need to be macho. I'm reading a piece about The Mayor of Casterbridge, Thomas Hardy, immoral women, drunken husbands and wife-selling on Jstor at the moment. If I think it's useful I'll send it to you. But, honestly am very busy for the rest of the week and won't get back here until the weekend. Sandy- I agree that it's all about content creators vs. everyone else. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

There's no rush TK. I'm probably going to have to avert my eyes from whatever happens to wife selling in any case. Malleus Fatuorum 03:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I've downloaded and scanned the first few pages - it supports your article, completely. Will read on the weekend and then send it your way. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Parrot of Doom and I took a lot of trouble over this article, and to be accused of deliberately ignoring sources that didn't fit with our account is well beyond incivil. Yet the civility police have nothing to say. Malleus Fatuorum 04:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Crap. Now you made me go and look. Well, that editor ... and then, one necessary noticeboard proposal was shut down, over ... I digress. Have fun with that. I mark The Day The Music Died as the day they chased out The Fat Man, and now what you're seeing there is what we'll deal with increasingly. Back full circle: first empower the kiddie admins, next empower women and any other fringe fanatics who fancy themselves disenfranchised, finally, chase off anyone with a sense of balance. It's a matter of time. NPOV was never a strong point of Wikipedia. Now I do regret having advised them to put privacy settings on that Facebook group, but perhaps someone will remind them what became of the last group of women who operated a private maillist to allegedly protect them from stalking, culminating in the loss of several of our FA writers. Cabalism at its finest, brought to bear on a perfectly fine FA that somehow managed to generate record-breaking page views at TFA without problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

There's very little that PoD and I can do now with that article now, as we're both male and therefore obviously have a sexist agenda. Malleus Fatuorum 04:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't take it too personally, or as being all or only about the alleged but non-existent, but desperately trying to find a source to prove sexism: there's more than one ism at work in there. Difference being that the Powers to Be, and one FB group (and who knows how many other private lists), are behind this particular ism. Throw some consumerism into the mix, and we can guess how this will end, and article quality will have nothing to do with it. Back to: content creators vs. the rest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, now we know why you hang out on the wiki. To pick up babes!--Wehwalt (talk) 03:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

My first laugh of the day, thanks. But to answer SandyG's point, there's no shortage of competent females here or anywhere else, but what there might be is a growing body of resentful males, accused of sexism every time they have the impudence not to toe the feminist line. Malleus Fatuorum 03:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Bingo. Something like, you live by the sword, you die by the sword. The whole thing has taken on an absurd level of importance so that, now we not only have to deal with male disruptive editors-- the female of similar ilk are untouchable. Well, they were before, too-- we only have to compare a couple of arb cases to look at how the sympathy factor played out. So let's go pander to women and lose the good male editors along the way. Let's certainly not sanction women who are disruptive-- we need them! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking back with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight I think you're right. What I'd really like to see is some kind of analysis explaining how it is that the gender ratio of editors is affecting the content. Not enough knitting or cooking articles for instance? Nobody would dare say that of course, so what exactly is the problem? Malleus Fatuorum 03:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Gee, I haven't noticed any of the women I know here writing about knitting and cooking. Cooking I get enough of in real life. Seriously, the problem is that lack of female editors was reported in the media. That's really the only problem. Well, the second problem is that there are editors like that guy who reviewed Olivia Shakespear who was truly rude. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

He just happened to be a guy, but another guy sorted it out. Malleus Fatuorum 04:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I love that one-- all of the cooking editors I've come across have been male. I may be prejudiced, since I Don't Do Food. There is no gender problem; there's a declining editorship problem, and now that we've tapped into grammar and high schoolers, and that hasn't generated content but has generated drama, we need a PR push to tap a new market. Make it women-- guaranteed to get play in the press. Certainly plays better than begging for more 12-yos to come read our porn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You're right of course. For years I never cooked a thing, but recently I've quite got into it. Ever since I realised that I could produce a far better curry than I could buy at my local take-away and at a fraction of the price. Before, I used to think that cooking was "girly".</joke> Malleus Fatuorum 04:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The only worse thing is Wikiproject tags. The kiss of death.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I often find project tags slightly ironic. Apparently I've written about 12% of the feminism project's FACs, yet I have to put up with this crap. Malleus Fatuorum 02:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Between Fainites and me, apparently we've got about 100% of Psychology covered (although I don't know where to check that) -- not bad for an engineer, huh? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have a good portion of California's, and all of Musical Theatre's! Not that they are grateful. But only 1/3 of Saskatchewan's ...--Wehwalt (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I keep looking at the odd psychology article from time to time, and computing articles, which are just as bad, and end up shaking my head and walking away. They are almost uniformly dreadful. Malleus Fatuorum 02:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Below FA, when you look at Wikipedia's Psych articles, repeat after me: "The sum of all human knowledge ... the sum of all human knowledge ... the sum of ..." where was I? Oh, right. Just why are we trying to recruit editors by gender instead of by profession? Or language? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Because Jimbo says so and the drones dance to his ever-changing tune. Malleus Fatuorum 03:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Aren't we more the remainder of all human knowledge divided by the lowest uncommon denominator? Fifelfoo (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure the equation for two female editors who wreaked havoc on Psych articles. My calculator doens't want to cough up the answer: I'll get back to you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, this sort of thing is claptrap that furthers WP:BATTLEGROUND unnecessarily. We have no way of knowing if this happens to women more than men, but the notion seems to be catching hold. I see a lot wrong in her latest post on article talk, but if she's really unwatching, I suggest you leave it alone and hope that's the case. An RFC/U is probably long overdue, but considering the infamous Signpost now wants to highlight the work of the Feminism WikiProject (why am I not surprised since this is trendy now?), you can probably expect the usual pile-on at RFC. So now, thanks to the recent push to find female editors, we can expect women to argue sexism whenever it's convenient: that sort of thing is exactly why I stopped working in the US years ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

And another freshly minted WikiProject is tagging articles I watchlist where it has NO use or relevance at all: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History/Participants. Gee, I wonder why we don't have Latin American History. Well, this is the latest fad. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I wrote a cooking article (not that I can cook)...does that make me a stereotypical woman? Will the feminists like me or run me off? I think there's nothing wrong with outreach efforts to recruit other editors, and it might be more effective to target those efforts at specific demographics. However, bringing those biases into articlespace Is Not A Good Thing. This is going to be highly amusing. Karanacs (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Karanacs! We thought you had vanished into the jungles of Texas.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt, I'm back but on limited time. RL pretty much is nuts. Karanacs (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm already way past unamused, but certainly relieved that our "FAC women" are represented on that FB group, so hopefully y'all will bring some content-building experience and sanity to the group, at least with respect to featured articles. Beyond that, not much hope. You all share FB space with her and are competent to follow all of the links to her various websites and watch for WP:ACTIVIST edits, but my amusement stopped when the Venezuelan editors joined with the forces supporting Carolmoorebc to defeat a proposed noticeboard to deal with Activism-- a problem in Venezuela articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I joined the FB group mainly to have a link to it on my page so that others may be curious. Right now they are just posting news articles about women on the internet. If it gets into anything WP-policy/content specific, I drop out. WP matters belong on-wiki. I've never heard of carolmoorebc before this...will have to look into her history. Karanacs (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I had a mild run in with her two or three years ago, can't remember what article, before my FAC days. Difficult but not totally unreasonable.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I have always been and remain confident that none of the esteemed Wikipedia "FAC women" will engage in discussions related to Wikipedia editing off-Wiki-- that's one of the (many) reasons I consider you all friends (and hate IRC, et al)! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I have extensive experience of Carol in the field of social / political science core terms. Carol is best dealt with in the same way that all editors are: with dense secondary sourcing, and argument from policy and principles. She responds very well to these because in my experience she's here to help build an encyclopaedia. I wasn't impressed with the process or quality of writing around ACTIVIST. I also couldn't see how it would resolve IDHT daisy chains of politically motivated editors I've seen in social science terms, or central and eastern European history. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm one of the founding members of the above-mentioned FB group! I joined because I know the real purpose of that group: to organize to overthrow the male-controlled, sexist, totalitarian regime that is Wikipedia! Hey, it happened in Egypt; why not here? ;) Christine (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I know-- don't forget, I saw the page before it shut down :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, this puts the pigeon among the cats!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, for gosh sakes-- this gender thing has gone completely nonsensical-- that's the same project I removed from Eva Golinger, and if'n I were you, I'd remove it there, too. Exactly what is the defined scope of that Project? How the heck are Natalee Holloway or Eva Golinger significant in the History of Women? Have I mentioned that I hate reverse discrimination? Do we have a Men's History WP? If so, will they tag Brad Cohen? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

They also tagged Beth Holloway and Natalee Holloway (film), both of which KimChee started. As he hasn't made them into POV forks, I've left him alone for the most part.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry, next they'll decide they've killed no American men in Aruba, and tag it with a Sexism category. We really needed another invitation for advocates to run wild on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I can handle them.  :) --Wehwalt (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Dispatches...

I like this idea. The page is more then 2 years outdated, of course, but I still like the idea. Methinks we (you?) can get together a few inter-babel people and they can write up what's happening with Featured content on the other wikis. Comments? ResMar 03:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Know any active interbabel writers? ResMar 15:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

All of the info that we gathered then is so outdated that it may not be useful now, writing that piece turned out to be quite difficult because of the need to engage people with experience in other languages, and most of the multilingual editors I know who might be able to help are now much too busy in today's environment of declining editorship. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

FACs involving journal citations

Re the FAC for Myotis alcathoe that I commented on, do we not request that FAs have DOI or PMID links for the journal papers they cite when available? I thought this would have been obvious, but I was told not. If I'm wrong then FAC is clearly not a place where I can contribute. I'd value your opinion. Thanks Rjwilmsi 07:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I typically work on medical articles, where they are expected and are the norm. Here is the wording at the relevant guideline: Wikipedia:CITE#Journal articles. It says: "Citations for journal articles typically include:" DOIs and other identifiers when available. I think it's good practice to provide a link to our readers when available so they can more easily find the information. How to interpret "typically include" is interesting. Everyone is welcome and needed at FAC, but the distinction between guideline and policy is always a tough one. I wasn't aware that bio articles weren't always using them when available, and this hasn't come up before as far as I know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd see them as completely voluntary for Humanities and Social Sciences articles. However, if one appeared I'd ask politely on consistency grounds why others don't have them (unless the rest of the articles were pre 1950 / 1970 type matter). Fifelfoo (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not used to them, since I'm used to journal writing in real journals. But sure, we can included more information online, and I'm also happy following generally any citation format (and wish we had a standard so I could just learn that). All that said, I find it bizarre that the OP can only contribute to the FAC process via recommendations of using DOI, or that if this is not a requirement, he will withdraw any other contribution. Seems like there is a lot more that can be done to help content, other than that one little issue.TCO (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's not go there, please; we have good faith nominators and a good faith reviewer, and we need all of them. I personally think they should be included, since I'm accustomed to using them and think they benefit our readers, but with such vague wording in the guideline, I bow to consensus. I think good faith editors will work this out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks ...

... for your support at ANI. The editor who suggested that I enjoy that place and the nonsense that surrounds just doesn't know me at all. Malleus Fatuorum 15:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I know. Should an RFAR or RFC/U still be necessary by mid-March, I'll go forward, but I'm thinking it's best now to avoid the ugly drahmaz. By the way, Spanish lesson of the day: if the username suggests that MarnetteD is female, she would be a comadre, not a compadre. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I've learned something, so it's a good day. My school considered Spanish to be what they called a "recreational subject", a bit of light relief after some heavy grafting in the physics or chemistry labs. My French is much better. Malleus Fatuorum 15:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we can tag Spanish (language) with Category:Sexism. Next Spanish lesson of the day: you were a galan to suggest reduction of Rodullandemu's block. Maybe now, more editors will get to know the real Malleus-- who is a sap (like me) underneath all the bluster :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

BINGO; I knew it was just a matter of time before we saw that argument.[9] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was pretty gob-smacked myself. I don't know how to answer this "guff" without being patronizing (hence, obviously, sexist by "inheritance"!) Geometry guy 22:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Misogynist! This too shall pass. It's the latest fad. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You'll have explain galan I'm afraid. I only did one year of Spanish, one hour a week, and it was a long time ago. I hate the way that established editors are blocked here, don't care who it is, although I accept that it might occasionally be necessary. Malleus Fatuorum 16:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

From gallant: brave-spirited, noble-minded. Also used to refer to a ladies man, but more commonly used to refer to noble character. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

A ladies man I am not, trust me. Far too English stiff upper-lipped. Malleus Fatuorum 16:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Dork. You better not be a ladies' man, except with your wife, or I'll come after you to whack you with a wet noodle! No comment here on the differences between English, Italian, Hispanics, and Irish men and which of those I avoid. I believe I left off an apostrophe, and you repeated the error; am I having a bad influence on you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Alan Rickman's portrayal of the Sheriff of Nottingham in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves is somewhat how I'd describe myself. I have a similarly sneering English accent. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 16:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

"Because it's dull, you twit—it'll hurt more." --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there any rational explanation, do you think, for why wikipedia has to be run like a 1960's experiment in social engineering rather than a collaborative venture to build a free encyclopedia? Malleus Fatuorum 17:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that was built in to the design. I'd suggest it was a way of factoring out the dorks, but that doesn't seem to be working. And we can thank Raul for having the wisdom to keep FAC out of that mold. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Ayn Rand. Apparantly Jimbo's a devotee of her philosophical musings. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

[marxism][workerism]Because dilettante student moments capture the imagination of the politically unaligned who've not stood picket to maintain their wages at survival level in their respective society[/workerism][/marxism] or veto-consensus is for people who like not doing things; as opposed to "the chair ignores comrade-off-his-pills" consensus. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Reviews

I have an article on the Manhattan Project. It recently failed promotion to A-class on MILHIST through lack of consensus. I can re-nominate it but it would be nicer to be able to take it to a wider audience for review. However the other projects do not seem to have an A-class review mechanism. Is there another way short of taking it to FAC? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Another way to what? A-class review isn't required for FAC. The concern would be if there were unresolved issues at the A-class reivew that might impact the FAC; from my read of the A-class review, there were unresolved issues, so those editors might Oppose-- have they been addressed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• There were no unresolved issues. There was some concern about length, about whether that may or may not be important at FAC (but it's still smaller than John, King of England). It would be nice to get reviews from HPS types though. Maybe Robert Oppenheimer will flush them out. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Revert at Template:Centralized discussion

I thought it best not to just leave the revert without explaining. You do have a point about the drawbacks to a piecemeal approach. Problem is, now that some pieces have consensus, I believe that the way forward now is to wait for the remaining piece of the jigsaw, and then ensure that an integrated approach is taken when it comes to main page redesign. As I said to TRM last night, you guys are right in principle, but are tackling the problem in a different way. The end result will probably be similar regardless of which way this proposal goes, so in my view it makes more sense to check that there is consensus for FLs on the main page, and then go on to the implementation phase. I therefore believe that presenting the FL proposal as what it is: a proposal to put Featured Lists on the main page, is appropriate for that template at this stage. Regards, —WFC— 07:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Understood, except that is not how it is framed, and it is unlikely that others coming to the page will understand the full history-- we already see biased reading of what the support is for. It's framed as being implemented in a specific way, which several of us think is not optimal, but newcomers to the second discussion won't necessarily see the first discussion, and how principle has been confused with implementation. The discussion and proposals were poorly focused from the outset, and yet some are interpreting the results as support for the implementation, not the principle-- which will mean we'll be right back at square one when implementation stalls and we have to revisit the whole thing. It seems to me more helpful to get it all cleared up now rather than have to deal with it after the fact with misunderstandings such as we've already seen. Somewhere in that mess of discussion at top, things need to made more clear than they were last time, where more than a few of us missed it. Thanks for all your efforts in this; I've been dismayed to see how it has been misinterpreted and turned into FA bashing, when no one in the FA process has opposed Lists going on the main page. I certainly would have opposed two pictures if I had read closely or followed: Lists are far more mainpage worthy, and ready than Sounds, and if we are to have two Pictures and Sounds, we certainly should have a daily List, and newcomers to that discussion will not realize all the nuance. A flawed RFC will yield a flawed conclusion, but I won't revert the Centralized template; considering the ingratitude shown so far, I'm not sure why I should even care if they get their space or not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

And the reason I've left my Oppose is that I'm not likely to be around when it gets to the implementation discussion, so want it to be clear that my design concerns are the same as Raul's, so others will know how to interpret my !vote in my absence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. For what it's worth, I do feel that the comments aimed in yours and Raul's direction were over-the-top. We'll have to agree to disagree on the mechanics of this process, but I want to distance myself from all of that. There is an understandable feeling of injustice, which I share, but that certainly does not condone the degree of hostility.

Hopefully the worst of the steam has now been let off, and "tomorrow" (I'm a little ahead of the times) will be a calmer day. —WFC— 08:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Good thought. It's just unfair that Raul is the one who made this happen, via the tenth anniversary, and yet FA gets bashed. Oh, well, tomorrow's a new day. Lists will make it on to the mainpage (it would be nonsense to add Sounds and not Lists), and hopefully everyone will begin to focus on the most optimal implementation of the whole package, and accord Raul the respect he has earned when it comes to mainpage design. Thanks for dropping in here! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

PS, good move; those comments were under my skin. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Friends of the Five Creeks

Hello SandyGeorgia. You probably don't remember me, but your were extremely helpful to me during my FAC for the John Mayer article, and I've really come to respect your opinion. That said, I nominated a local organization for deletion (wih a suggestion to merge) not too long after it's creation, not our of some personal vandetta, but because it is really not notable. It only gets 18 google hits and 71 news hits (75% of both the ghits and news hits come a local periodical in Berkely) and the article says that the organization's main contibution has been saving part of creek alongside a mall parking lot. The article is well formatted, and I have nothing against the authors, but I am baffled as to how this has gotten so far out of control. I would just like you to take a look at it and let me know if organizations of this size acutally are notable and if perhaps I'm mistaken.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the delay: I've been terribly busy and seem to have missed lots of posts from February. Yes I remember you :) This appears resolved? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Templates

Dispenser posted a link on WT:CITE to this wikitech thread. Perhaps something will be done. The thread mentions a way to generate a profile of how much different parts of the page take to process. The example is Rod Blagojevich. The profile appears at the end of the html source (use "view source" after the page loads). When I tried, that page took 20.7s to parse, with 18.3s spent on Parser::recursiveTagParse, including 17.0s from Cite::referencesFormat-parse. For comparison, Harvey Milk took 7.8s to parse, with 2.0 spent on Parser::recursiveTagParse including 0.5s from Cite::referencesFormat-parse. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Gimme, I'm sorry I missed this ... have been so busy, and missed many February posts. This is over my head-- what do I need to know/do? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)