User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch84

Apologies for lighting up your orange bar again today

Back in the days you and I sometimes didn't agree about the way GA was run, but you were right, and changes were made. My view, having arrived at Wikipedia later than you, was that GA could offer a reasonable staging post between complete rubbish and what was even then beginning to seem like the Mount Olympus of FA. DYK on the other hand seems to have no plausible role at all. Maybe there's a place for a project that checks new stubs for all the obvious errors, and in particular copyright violations, as once embedded in an article they tend to propagate, as we've all seen. But DYK with its reward culture certainly isn't that project. It would be nice to have an independently certified level beneath GA, but I can't see that ever happening. Malleus Fatuorum 00:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You could start a page for "C-class Review" or "B-class Review"...but I do think GA is going at a steady pace so that a good population of articles is getting reviewed there..Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The chances of me doing that are as close to zero as make no difference. I've long been a supporter of GA, and I do what I can at FA. Time for someone else to step up. If DYK isn't even doing basic checks, which it isn't, then it has no place. Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Some projects use some form of formal peer-group A-Class review, I am mainly thinking of the MilHist project though, effectively peer reviewing it. To me C, B, A, GA, FA seems a much more logical progression than the current C, B, GA, A, FA. I appreciate that B and A are awarded by the projects, their members, and editors in general while GA and FA are peer reviewed, but from recent conversations it seems that some projects do not conform to B class with any modicum of sense.

One article had been classed as B, I reduced it for the Robotics project as it was in dire shape and was clearly at C or even Start level but, when I approached the other interested project, they told me to eff off and mind my own business! They left it at B and even recently, six months later I was told to go f myself again lol. Maybe something between B and GA or GA and FA is the right way to go.

Perhaps having cross-project assessments would be a good idea, where someone from each/most of the interested projects off the article talk page is to be involved? Chaosdruid (talk) 01:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the need is greater earlier on in an article's development as a good GA review can often shove an article into near-FA territory. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right. The gap between GA and FA has been (in general) closing, whereas the gap between them and the rest has been widening. Malleus Fatuorum 01:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It's worth an RfC really, and let folks comment, I guess in the meantime we can recommend Peer Review (plus duck in from time to time to offer suggestions....) (groan) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, several editors, including Hassocks and ThelmaDatter and Mjroots in particular produce DYKs which can immediately be taken to GA or have already been promoted before they hit the page. Similarly I have a fair few articles which I DYKd and when I decided to develop to GA required only minor edits. So in that respect the gap between DYK and GA is much less than that between GA and FA. But those are few and far between and the average DYK needs a lot of work before reaching GA. You say "DYK on the other hand seems to have no plausible role at all". I disagree. DYK should really be the first step between stub and GA, it has a very clear role to me as an initial step to get articles sourced and beyond stub class. The problem is that many play ed it as a game so would produce the bare minimum, often with plagiarism and bad sources and not bother to take it further. This why I think we should a] Raise the level of DYK to GA b] Offer a reward scheme at the same time to give editors an incentive to produce more GA quality articles. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know what benefit they are hoping to get from DYK in the cases where they are submitting an article on (or over) the cusp of GA. Yomangani^talk 10:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Let me make myself clear: In theory, I love DYK. I honestly love the idea of it. Everybody and their grandmother loves trivia bits, so why shouldn't we offer them some (not inside articles, thank you!!!!). At the very least, DYK is a place for the trivia to be corralled, But it could be much, much more. It is attractive. It is appealing. I love the idea of what it could be: a place for newcomers to start; a place below GA and above typing "JustIn is GAY lulz!" on random articles. I love that it could be an incentive to create or expand articles. In every possible way, from every angle, in every imaginable corner of its existence, I love the IDEA of it. But the implementation seems to suck oil rags. I have personally seen people promoting their own crap (and once again, I lost one or two !votes on my RfA because I pointed it out). So... don't kill it. Fix it. Now. Why doesn't DYK develop a synergistic relationship with Wikipedia:Ambassadors? I emailed seven or eight folks about this, but only two people who know me personally replied so far. I think I was too damned blunt again. Sigh.  – Ling.Nut (talk) 11:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Featured writer

Hello Sandy. I am wondering if you can write a Feature for WikiProject Video games' Newsletter? We would like to get someone with an outside perspective to write about their area of expertise and what VG project members should consider when navigating the process. GamerPro64 15:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I'd be the right person to do that, and am too busy at any rate (in the midst of a move and construction). Perhaps a TPS will suggest someone who can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Killebrew

Hey. Just checking to see how looking over this is coming along. I know you're really busy especially with the whole DYK debacle right now, so I can try searching for another prose reviewer if necessary if you're not sure you can get to it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I should have done it, Wizardman, and I'm sorry to have misspent so much time at the hopeless DYK instead of helping to improve a worthy article. I will try, but no promises ... very busy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

WT:DYK#Admins moving hooks from prep to queue: should they have to do this?

Since you are I think the main editor who wanted this, you may want to comment at WT:DYK#Admins moving hooks from prep to queue: should they have to do this? before too long. I asked for feedback there and a couple other editors have presented some good reasons not to do it, so unless there is more feedback there that changes my mind I might disable it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw the latest summaries there, and appreciate all that you've done, but I think DYK is hopeless. QPQ reviewing has not been eliminated, no one is accountable (still), and a useless template has been added that will amount to garbage in/garbage out. Nothing beyond your attempts has been done to address the issues. I don't plan to spend what limited time I have this week banging my head against that wall any longer. In contrast to last October, I think there's a whole ton of DONTGIVEAFUCKISM surrounding copyvio these days, so let DYK maintain its place in the status quo, at least until the next time I have a chance to peek in, which won't be for a while now. I appreciate all that you've done, but no, experienced editors should not have to dig through diffs on multiple pages to figure out who is accountable-- on each FAC page, it's right there, plain and clear, for any novice. The lack of accountability is part of what feeds the problem (but by no means the only problem). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK suggestion

Did you know... that with Mitt Romney's square jaw, handsome face, white teeth, and full head of dark hair graying slightly at the temples, he looks Presidential? MastCell ^Talk 03:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK that Ferrylodge agreed with MastCell today?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Schoolboy crushes and schoolgirl gushiness-- I can respond to two threads at once !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I give up ...

... on DYK. On some level I agree with Yomangani, but changes are needed. Stupidly I thought, in my Pollyanna fashion, I could offer to help. Obviously not. I'm quickly coming around to the view you and Malleus have. It's a pity though, because I do think it has the potential of being a training ground for creating and incubating articles, but obviously that's not really what's happening over there. Just thought I'd let you know. It's a huge time sink too. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a dump, and it will always be a dump. Malleus Fatuorum 22:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Canary in a coalmine. Last time we had a DYK plagiarism discussion, it was with experienced, knowledgeable, well-informed editors. It's the same problem as everywhere else: Wikipedia has become a kiddie playground. Hence, full circle-- DYK feeds RFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem is even more embedded than that. Take my discussion with Casliber over this abortion for instance. Malleus Fatuorum 02:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That's why they protect it so desperately and ignore the substantive issues. I'm having more problems with another harassing sock, and become more and more discouraged daily. I can't get to actual writing which is the only thing that really brings me joy here, and the writing I've beem doing sucks, so am on a downward spiral. It's very depressing. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK archiving

Please read WT:DYK#Record of promotion from prep to queue for a description of what the DYK archiving system is going to be. I have shown you links to this several times, but I feel like you keep asking questions about archiving that I already answered there.

Also, please be aware that DYK is still in the middle of a transition from the old nomination system to the new nomination system, and the archiving I have set up only applies to the new system, as I explained here in a comment that apparently you didn't notice. It's easy to tell which are old nominations and which are new ones, as old nominations are written directly on T:TDYK and new ones are in subpages transcluded on T:TDYK. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if you've already answered, but I can't keep up with that page, and checking diffs on that page where hooks are developed is a royal pain. I can't find subpages, and that page has ALWAYS been a nightmare and a mess to me. When you see a diff to a certain nom, you can't even go to that nom in a TOC, since they are by date. If I thought anything about DYK was intelligible, I wouldn't be asking so many repetitive annoying questions. The only question is, will there be an archive of all noms, and where will it be? I do appreciate your improvements, but the morass of pages and preps and queues at DYK are just an unnecessary complication-- I'm told it wasn't always that way, and hope it will someday be simplified, as it seems intended to obfuscate responsibility by design. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Oopsie, never mind, I see The Adorable One quite simply answered my question over at DYK (it takes a while to trawl through that page for the good stuff :). Besos :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, when you ask a question on a page, you can check back later to see if your question was answered. If you can't keep up with your own questions, then my answers to them won't do much good.

Some of that is due to the volume on the page, some is because I'm still moving and busy, and some is because those pages are Just Too Hard to Understand. But your point is correct, and I'll try harder to understand what I think is an awful system before asking more questions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

As for the TOC issue, the decision not to show level-4 headers (individual noms) in the TOC was intentional. There are usually over 200 noms on that page and having such a large TOC would be a pain; furthermore, it's usually not necessary because if you want to look at the discussion for "Some article" you can just search the page (Ctrl+F) for "Some article". If you really want every nom to appear in the TOC, you can view Template talk:Did you know/Full TOC instead of T:TDYK.

I do use ctrl-f, but negotiating all of those pages is just awful. Why four queues? Why prep? Why the whole complicated system? It's so awful that my brain probably shuts off when confronted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

As for whether there will be "an archive of all noms": WT:DYK#Record of promotion from prep to queue. Every day will be archived when it's done; these daily archives can be organized in a bigger archive. This is exactly what is done with monthly archives at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log.

Will that be done, then? I'm not following if you're saying it is or isn't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It will be done when there is something to archive. Currently all the days that will be archived eventually still have active discussions. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Now created at Template talk:Did you know/Archive. Obviously, it will be all redlinks until there is something to archive. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm a dork ... I didn't realize that the only thing holding it up was completed pages to archive :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The "morass of pages and preps and queues" was not designed to obfuscate responsibility. Once upon a time, there were no queues, only the nomination page (T:TDYK) and the template (T:DYK). This meant that, every 6 or 8 hours when the template needed to be updated, some administrator had to sit down and manually do it, and thus it meant that every 6 hours someone had to be online. The queue system was set up so that, instead of that, administrators could "queue up" several updates at once, and thus an update wouldn't be missed if we happened to have a few hours where no one was online. This is similar to TFA, where Raul is able to queue up several days' worth of TFAs at once. The addition of multiple prep pages was so that anyone can help put together updates (the queues are protected pages and can only be edited by admins, but one main principle of DYK is that any editor in good standing can promote an article that has consensus to be promoted). rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

A lot of this could be/probably would be solved if DYK would recognize that they are trying to push through too much volume, and being on the mainpage is not a right, but a responsibility. I understand the multiple queues were to make it easier for admins to keep the mainpapge updated on time, but it has resulted in a system with no accountability. I appreciate all you're doing, but I don't see how we are fixig the long-term problems, which all stem from a lack of accountability. Thanks for helping me understand, but it is irritating as all heck to think of how many poor stubs were created by one editor (and that there are several DYKers like him), enabled by DYK, and that those will never be cleaned up, and are a drain on the time of scores of other productive editors. I think I may have misspent about an hour this morning looking at his latest, and it's just a shame that DYK enabled him and let it go on so long. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

"They are trying to push through too much volume" is clearly a matter of opinion that some editors share and some don't. The numerous discussions at WT:DYK have made it clear that not everyone agrees what DYK should be and how many or what sort of articles it should be showing. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK's fundamental problem is that it doesn't match what's on the tin. It's absolutely nothing to do with enticing readers or potential editors with interesting facts, just about rewarding serial plagiarists. Malleus Fatuorum 02:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Rjanag, where did the idea that all new or expanded gets to be highlighted on the mainpage come from? It's not a right. Perhaps it worked to generate content in a different era, but with declinging editorship and limited reviewers, it's now generating crap stubs and extra work for otherwise productive editors. Has the idea of limiting DYKs to two per month per nominator ever come up? Something needs to be done to slow down the pace, and this checklist business is moving the wrong direction, because all it does is slow down the reviews. Why do we feel we must reward every new or expanded article, to the point of not having enough people for quality control? Can't the DYKers get their fixes with a couple per month? These articles are NOT improved as a result of being on the mainpage, so why are we misspending so many resources ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I never said I believe every new article is entitled to main page exposure. I only said there's disagreement. See WT:DYK#DYK archiving and Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 48#What is DYK for? (long, sry), where I also questioned the entitlement idea.

As for the monthly limit thing, yes, that has been proposed (as Johnbod mentions below; I think it has also been proposed this month). I venture to guess that pretty much anything you can think of has been proposed, and even some things too crazy for any of us to think of (this time someone suggested that WMF pay people--in Amazon vouchers--for DYK reviewing). rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

And I never said you said it ... I asked where the idea came from :) It has seriously taken hold, and I find it a most curious sense of entitement. Re: JohnBod, I'm wondering if the (old) statistical analysis showed, then, that the bulk of noms come from once-a-month nominators, and if that is still true, and if the Billy Hathorn's are far from the norm? But that would take a new statistical analysis, which should be much easier now that DYK has archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Billy Hathorn is far from being the only perennial nominator. There are lots (Alansohn, Cbl62, Nvvchar, Casliber, and Rosiestep are a few I can think of off the top of my head; as you can see, the list of perennial nominators includes both editors known for quality content work and editors not so much known for it). See Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, there were also claims that it is already slowing down the rate of nominations. Which I am sure is a good thing, although not everyone agreed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a monthly limit has been proposed - it was one of the ideas last October was it, I think more like 4-6 per month. As I recall, I was one of the few who supported it (but then I only do 1-2 pcm these days). There were also reasonably pursuasive statistical analyses that showed it would not make all that much difference to overall volume. Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Asking nominators to quote from sources

Sandy, I was a bit surprised by the request at the Robin Friday FAC to have the nominator quote the supporting text of the sources for a paragraph selected by a reviewer looking for close paraphrasing. Is this a new process? I haven't run into it before. The nominator is happy with it, so I will go ahead, but I was wondering if this is something that is now requested for cases like this where the source or sources are not easily checkable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a new approach, yes, and one I used myself recently during a GA review. Malleus Fatuorum 02:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Glad "you all" are learning from DYK ;) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

What I've learned from DYK is that the only thing to be learned from DYK is to guard against other similar projects being used as springboards to RfA. Malleus Fatuorum 02:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've been saying that about DYK since autumn 2010. Let's just see how much of a problem the other projects have, shall we? Checking how much copyvio the other projects are putting on the main page, didn't go so well. Are you feeling more optimistic now? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

In a word no, completely demotivated. Malleus Fatuorum 02:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Really? I shall have to provide you with more WikiLove-automated tea, then!

... ok perhaps not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not aware that FAC is "learning from DYK"; what did I miss? I have suggested this before-- IIRC, it was on a Hunter Kahn nomination that used almost all offline sources, but I could be wrong about excactly where I asked for it before. I think when a new nominator is using almost all offline sources, the ItsLassieTime case dictates that we must ask for *something*-- at least try to do our best to avoid an ILT scenario. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry. Sometimes an idea has to be suggested over, and over, and over again... before people start listening. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Methinks I'm missing some humor in this thread 'cuz I'm bone tired. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Your assistance is requested

Please help involved parties make the September 11 attacks article the best it can be! It is now at Peer review, here...--MONGO 02:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Robin Friday FAC

Ping, as requested. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 12:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Using related changes to follow transcluded subpages

Not sure if you know this already (and apologies if you do), but I recently pointed out to someone at DYK that it is possible to follow all changes at a particular page even if it is based on transcluded subpages (i.e. you don't need to watchlist the individual pages). For DYK, the link is this one. For WP:FAC, the equivalent link is this one. The same sort of links can be used in other areas of Wikipedia as well (related changes for good article nominations is approximately this, somewhat polluted by article talk page discussions because of the location of the GA discussions). I had thought everyone knew this trick, but based on one of the editors at DYK not being familiar with this, I thought it worth mentioning around a bit, also for your talk page watchers if not you. The other links involve using "Special:Prefix index" (or whatever it is called now) to list all subpages, but as DYK is using an archive system that is not needed so much. For completeness, the links are this (for FAC) and this (for DYK). Again, apologies if you knew all this, but hopefully it is of some help to someone (please feel free to mention it elsewhere if it helps). Carcharoth (talk) 12:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Phil Preis

Thank you for listing the possible copyright issue on that article at WP:Copyright problems. Although it was quite hard I have noticed which of the six paragraphs included copyrighted material from the source you mentioned. Apart from re-adding the infoboxes and categories and stuff like that I have restored the first, second and last paragraphs, but left the others in question. The third one I can restore only the unsourced statement, (I don't think we should restore that anyway, as that would be a violation of WP:BLP too) as the other sentences were closely paraphrased facts. The fourth one I have partially restored, as there is a non-copyrighted statement accompanied by a reference. The fifth one is definitely an infringement. I still haven't removed the copyvio template though, and I would like to check to see if it's OK to remove the copyright tag. Minima© (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in with me: I actually have no idea when/how the CCI people decide to remove tags-- I'm unclear when revdel of the article history is needed. I do know that the editor in question is still editing, so the investigation should continue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Cut-and-pasting and ANI

Hi Sandy!

Would you look at the cut-and-pasting at Freedom_in_the_World#Criticism please?

The referencing and quotation do not change the problem that the section is based entirely on Gionnone with no independent thought or writing.

At ANI, I am being criticized for tagging this article, and have been accused by Demiurge1000 and RD232 of being politically motivated.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. RD232 objected to my tagging and accused me of bad-faith, politically motivated tagging on my talk page, earlier.

Sandy is only just due back today, and may well be catching up on other things, but maybe talk page stalkers can help. There also seems to be a copyvio in userspace here, taken wholesale and pretty much uncredited from here inter alia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"Pretty much uncredited"? The was to allow the observation of the copyright violation, following several complaints that editors lacked access to the journal. I removed it.

Demiurge, please delete the history of the page.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

A helpful administrator deleted the history.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Uh??? "to allow the observation of the copyright violation" is not a reason for copyvio in userspace. We don't deal with copyvios (real or imagined) by creating more copyvios. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI and close paraphrasing

I was horrified by a POV/Unreliable/Fringe "history" that used to appear in the Socialist Party of America article. When I discovered that it was a close and extensive paraphrase of a "history" from the Socialist Party USA, I listed parallel passages between the SPUSA "history" and the WP paraphrase.

Further, I rather roughly templated the editor who introduced the material, listed about 13 points where his "history" contradicted the other "source" he cited, I should like to think, in good faith as suggested further reading about related matters.

There is discussion of blocking me for uncivility, etc., at ANI, and I think that your perspective on paraphrasing and citations would be helpful, if you would look at talk page of SPA (I mention your recent statements at RfAs, both on my talk page (humorously) and at the current ANI.)

From my experience, there seems zero concern about falsehoods and lies at ANI, at least among the "regulars". I would not advise anybody to try to clean up articles, based on my experiences.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Kiefer; I'm sorry for the delay. I'm under construction and moving as well, and I've been traveling for four days of R&R. I've only had time to skim those discussions, and I see some names there that are "teflon", so I've not waded in. Generally speaking, if you spend your time co-editing with some Wikipedia editors, you are going to have a miserable experience, and if you want to enjoy Wikipedia, you might want to find areas that such editors don't frequent. The apathy level on Wikipedia is so great these days that POV editors can effectively own some areas. On the specific copyvio/close paraphrasing concerns, I am not an expert, I have seen descriptions of plagiarism and copyvio that are far more restrictive than anything I've seen on Wikipedia, and when I'm unsure, I leave it to MoonRiddenGirl and others who work in that area. I only tag articles when the violation is so clear that any fool (like me :) can see it. If you're uncertain, you can always check with MRG, as I see has been done in this case. On a final note, your complaints about POV or copyvio-ing editors will be more effective if you remain strictly unemotional, and that brings us back to my first point: some editors on Wikipedia have the ability to push anyone's buttons, so stay away from them unless you can be strictly detached. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sandy, I'd always be grateful for such good advice, and for your time spent on my behalf, but I'm especially grateful today, given your tight schedule. My very best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

RfC

Hi Sandy--given your concerns over Hathorn's editing (and some of them I share, but I have not looked as closely as you have, I think), isn't an RfC a better way to go than discussion of a topic ban on the DYK talk page? I noted the CCI, which is huge, and the recent discussion on ANI, where the suggestion of an RfC was also made. But the ANI discussion didn't lead to administrative action, and while the CCI leads to lots of editorial action, it takes a lot of time and does not necessarily end with something like what you're thinking of--a block (right?) or even a ban. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh great goddess of image copyrights...

A civil conversation going on about the copyright status of an image here: here and here. I honestly don't know the answer and the other person makes a compelling case, but I wonder what would happen at FA if this arose. Feel free to offer your thoughts, but no obligation to do so. (And the discourse IS very civil) Montanabw^(talk) 22:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hope you enjoyed your break. --John (talk) 02:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

On vacation with open FAC

Sandy, I'm going on vacation for two and a half weeks tomorrow; I have an open FAC. It looks in good shape at the moment, and may promote soon. If not, I will have some access to the web but little access to sources so if new issues are raised it may take me till early September to deal with them. Would it be OK to leave it up in that case? I'll deal with anything raised as soon as I get back. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Not to worry, Mike; it looks good. I was expecting Karanacs back by the 8th, and am still moving/building, so if she doesn't surface soon, I'll go through. Have a great vacation! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

What is going on with WP:Goings-on?

Hey Sandy. I just went to add a newly promoted list to the Goings-on page when I discovered that it was never archived last week. The most notable issue is that there are now featured pictures listed from multiple weeks; also, I'm holding off on placing the new FL since it seems like only one week of material is to be there. Not sure who normally does this, but I figured you'd be the best person to mention this to. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Went ahead and fixed that. Used to GimmeBot moving it, I use that page so rarely for FTs I don't think to look at it weekly. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

FAC question

Hey, have an FAC question that's hopefully not too annoying. Would I be able to nominate another article? I ask since I'm sure Killebrew's just waiting for a free day from you or Karanacs for closing it. I've got one ready to go that I've been holding off on adding, hence why I ask (another HoFer who may be Killebrew's opposite). If you'd rather I wait given that there's 50 up right now, that's fine. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible sock

Hey Sandy, since you guys are much aware of him, is ItsAlwaysLupus (talk · contribs) a possible sock of ItsLassieTime (talk · contribs)? The behavioral tendencies seems so but I'm not 100% familiar with the master. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Billy Hathorn concerns

I've been slowly moving things along at the ANI thread about the Billy Hathorn concerns. Moonriddengirl posted there, and I replied to her here. I also posted again to Billy Hathorn's talk page here. What I'm hoping is that you will have time to document your concerns on the talk page of the articles you pointed out problems with in the same way that MRG did at Talk:Bill Noël (you edited Phil Preis to address concerns, but Billy Hathorn appears to be re-adding text to that article). Those four locations mentioned on his talk page will then be where Billy Hathorn should respond, to see if he can show whether he understands the problems or not (he is contesting some of the claims made, see his response which I posted in the ANI thread). If he doesn't understand what the problems are, then it will be back to the ANI thread to see what can be done at that point. If you don't have time for this, then Talk:Bill Noël will have to do, but I was hoping for examples of Billy Hathorn discussing concerns on more than one article. Anyway, have a read of what's been said and please comment where necessary if you have time. Carcharoth (talk) 03:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Carcharoth ... I *may* have some free time this weekend, but I've got to prioritize time for FAC. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Rings of Saturn

What I don't get is why this isn't automatically a featured article. The rings are the most complex of it's kind in our Solar System. How come the Artciles Rings of Jupiter,Uranus and Neptune are all featured yet. THERE rings are FAR less complex than the ones found on Saturn. Rackshea (talk) 12:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Being featured is about the quality of the article, not the importance of the subject. Presumably, the article Rings of Saturn is simply not as good as the articles Rings of Jupiter, Rings of Uranus, and Rings of Neptune. Ucucha (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, since Saturn has the largest ring system and it has been studied the longest, a good article on it will need to incorporate more material than the articles on the rings of other planets. Jonathunder (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The scientific literature post-Cassini is huge. I'm sure WP:Solar System will get to it eventually...but it might need a group effort. Iridia (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

MOS advice

Hi, I know of WP:ORDINAL. Can you let me know which would be correct for Alexandrovsky District, Stavropol Krai, Twenty-six districts or 26. I would be inclined to go with 26. Which would you find most acceptable Sandy?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

As a general rule, use figures for numbers greater than nine, and words for single-digit numbers, but use common sense. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:ORDINAL says that "sixteen", "eighty-four", and "two hundred" are all correct when written in words in that manner, which fits better with the approach taken by many serious publishers outside Wikipedia. The same part of the MOS says that 16, 84, and 200 would be correct too, and many editors seem to take that approach (to the point where it can become annoying when they're changing an article that has already been written consistently using the former approach.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

2nd FAC

Hiya Sandy. My current FAC is sort of stalled at the moment (1991 Atlantic hurricane season), and I think/hope that it's in line to be promoted. Given that, I was wondering if I could add another article to FAC? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It helps if you give me a link :) I only see two supports, and I've never given permission for a second nom without three. Perhaps if you reviewed some other nominations? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I have, and it hasn't worked. :/ But it's good to know what you are waiting for on 1991, thanks. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Admittedly, my FAC gripe is just that I've had a FAC up for over a month without enough supports. Here's a dumb question though. Would you mind reviewing my FAC - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1991 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1? :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I would, Hink, but I took a bad spill last night because of my construction issues, have bruises and abrasions everywhere, not in shape to do so. If it's still up when I'm feeling better, I'll do that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

IP sock for Taro-Gabunia

50.17.45.35 (talk · contribs) - Pushing on music articles if they are ready for FAC [1] and same with Portal 2 [2]. Two other named socked had done the same behavior. --MASEM (t) 12:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Dabomb87 already blocked it. I agree that it looks like Taro. Interestingly, the IP appears to belong to Amazon. Ucucha (talk) 12:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

TClapton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox#Real_Madrid, and familiar pattern of calling attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking the same. Indef'ed. Ucucha (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Pepper v Hart

Mind chipping in vis a vis this? Ironholds (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hurricane FACs

Hi Sandy. Just to let you know, Hurricanehink (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1991 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1) and Cyclonebiskit (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Igor/archive1) will be offline for a while, as they are under an imminent threat from Hurricane Irene. Other members of WP:WPTC will be keeping an eye on the FACs while they prepare for the storm (or in Hink's case, evacuate farther inland). Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know ... just checked the news, doesn't look good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, in CB's and in my case, I think mother nature is telling us to get a new hobby. But I'll be defiant and keep on hurricaneing! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Karma--Wehwalt (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

TCM FAC

Hey Sandy, I was wondering if you could check over the current FAC. I'm feeling quite positive about this one, but I'm not too sure yet. Thanks, --Tærkast (Discuss) 16:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you know when the next batch of checking FACs will happen? Thanks.--Tærkast (Discuss) 15:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm planning to do that today. Got hung up over the weekend and couldn't. Karanacs (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you were active at FAC yesterday Sandy. Still need me to run through? Karanacs (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks! I went through over the weekend and there wasn't much I could do except update the Urgents list-- hopefully that will have changed while I was over doing my broken record at WT:CUP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Quick Q

Hey Sandy. I remember we weren't supposed to minimize resolved comments, but then I see several pending FACs that have them. So can we?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Best not to ... I only saw one, and those comments were sooooooo long that I decided to leave well enough alone, simply because I'm too busy to do anything else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha! Thanks :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yikes-- dealt with both of them now. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for that Sandy. I was carried away. Can I possibly transfer them to the talk page? --Efe (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Give me a link and I'll do it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Its here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Emancipation of Mimi/archive1. The nominator did not give a point-by-point response, so perhaps my comments can be transferred in toto to the nom's talk page. --Efe (talk) 11:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy. That'll be big relief for you and for other reviewers. --Efe (talk) 11:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Cup, etc

Do you want me to just comment on any open FACs where the nominator is a WikiCup participant? I lurk FAC enough, as you know. Is that what you mean by "enforcing" the rule? I'm happy to do so if that will resolve the problem, but I fear that you will find new concerns. J Milburn (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

yes, that is all I'm asking, it's just not that hard, so that I don't have to get involved in COI on those matters (periodically, when I note an ill prepared FAC is getting Support, I browse the CUP to see if that is the issue, and am perenially frustrated to realize that no one notifies). Resolute's personal attacks need to be addressed as well; I don't know what bug crawled up his shorts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll keep my eyes open. With respect, you do have a habit of polarising the issue- the "Cup people" versus the "FAC people"- which could serve to irritate. I know that you have no interest in the Cup beyond its effect on FAC, but this has the unfortunate consequence that it could appear that you just turn up on the talk page on a whim, have a moan and cause some drama. Apart from this issue, the Cup has gone very smoothly this year, so it really does stick out like a sore thumb. I am not meaning to excuse any actions that may or may not have been taken, I'm just trying to offer a vision of how you may come across to some. J Milburn (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that was part of the problem; based on previous comments left by you at the cup page I was led to believe that I could not comment on current CUP noms. Would've gladly helped out a bit more there otherwise, especially since I've gotten back in the FAC game of late. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Sandy, but when you waltz in making demands and uttering threats to shut down good faith nominations because of a trivial concern, while also making serious allegations against good faith editors, I tend not to react with sunshine and lollipops. Instead of being so dramatic, why didn't you just go to Sp33dyphil's talk page and politely request that he remember to add that note? As I said, I forgot to add such a note to my nomination for over a week because I simply didn't think of it. When I did remember, I made the note as a courtesy to you. Not to FAC in general, because I can't recall Raul, Karanacs or Laser Brain ever expressing the kind of issues you complain about.

You will get no argument for me that last year's WikiCup turned into a bit of a clusterfuck at times. But this year's has been fairly low key, and the remaining participants all appear to be in it for the right reasons: Friendly competition while seeking to build high quality articles. I would appreciate it if you left the past behind and judged this year's competition against this year's competitors. If you actually do think there is any abuse of FAC going on, then bring specific examples. Unspecified complaints involving what might potentially happen is not productive. Resolute 16:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Coursening of the culture: I'm not entirely a Pollyanna, but when I see the Charlie Foxtrot word used anywhere, my brain shuts down. Not in my world, sorry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I felt an almost overwhelming urge to fix your spelling there (coarsening), but managed to resist. Malleus Fatuorum 13:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Darn you! Earn your TPS keep! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Moving the marker

I think it'll be easy to write a bot to do the daily marker-moving on FAC that you do now. Would you mind me doing that? Ucucha (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You are totally awesome, U. Karanacs (talk) 14:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:Bots/Requests for approval/UcuchaBot 3. Ucucha (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, U .... are you still stuck at the beach ? I've just returned home, see lots of kerfuffles, but won't be able to catch up for several more days. I'm not sure how a bot can do that, since I move it depending on the number in each section, whether there's a backlog, etc ... it may appear that I do it by formula, but I don't actually. On the other hand, I don't mind if you do it by bot, either .. not a big deal either way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, still in Miami until tomorrow. It's a nice place, though I haven't spent much time on the beach; if I wanted to be cooked I'd go sit in an oven.

I'm sorry for jumping the gun a little then. I can implement it to make sure say half or 60% of the FACs are in Older nominations, or that all FACs older than x days are in Older nominations. What I can't (easily) do is make it depend on how many FACs aren't receiving many reviews. Ucucha (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It is perfectly fine with me if you implement whatever algorithm you'd like to use ... I have generally tried to keep the Older list down to the most urgent, if I was able to exercise some discretion. But it's really not a big deal ... I just read over the discussion at the bot and am glad to see the bot will take on the other necessary tasks (cleanup of issues that affect GimmeBot for example). Go to Versailles restaurant for a fantastic Cuban meal in Little Havana !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh for gosh sakes; one can't even offer a casual recommendation for a fantastic meal with encountering POV warriors on Wikipedia-- I see that article has taken a tangent since I last visited it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I'll have it place the marker before the 1st FAC that is >14 days old. Is there any other clean-up the bot could do? I now have it kill whitespace at the end of lines and all underscores. That restaurant sounds interesting, whether it's really the seat of the Cuban government in exile or not; I might go there tonight. Ucucha (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

UcuchaBot 3 just made its first edit. It actually moved the marker down because of the algorithm used. I got back from Miami, by the way, so I'm all settled in at my college now. Versailles was a great tip. Ucucha (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Glad you liked Versailles (<mouth watering>); thanks for making our "job" easier! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

 Thumbs up! We ate at Versailles about two years ago ... couldn't pass up Little Havana on a Miami stopover! - Dank (push to talk) 12:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Me again

Hope all is well. This process [[3]] seems out of whack to me.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFA2011

I used to have a huge amount of respect for your work. Lately you have started breezing in on all sorts of projects, taking a superficial look, making cutting remarks that fall just short of PA, and breezing out again without offering any objective criticism. Before talking about train wrecks, try reading the projects first and looking at the bloody hard work that's gone into them and gathering the stats, and then consider doing something better yourself. Please. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

What exactly have you achieved with your incessant chatter about RfA reform Kudpung, which seems essentially just to boil down to a proposal that nobody must say anything you don't like? The answer, of course, is nothing. Malleus Fatuorum 14:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Could I suggest a look at this proposal which looks like it might be the first to go live, with 4 seperate areas of detailed research? Worm^TT · (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Worm: I tried. I still see a jumble that doesn't address any of the crucial issues, too many links, TMI, and by the way, I seriously doubt that I have voted in only 24 RFAs. I don't encounter any of the crucial points of RFA reform, just a maze of data and a jumble of links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Sandy. I'll have a look at the data pages, see if I can make them more readable, it's certainly something I've been thinking about. The problem is that I'd like to keep the data available to those who would want to crunch it themselves, whilst making the page more readable for those less inclined to. Can't say I'm 100% certain where the 24 RfA comment came from, which goes to show how spread out the data is. However, I'm trying to steer the community away from emotive voting based on hearsay and unfounded opinion, and towards making a choice based on actual hard and fast information.

You might be interested to know that I'm also hoping to do some analysis of DYK when I get a chance - I'm currently planning to sample all the DYKs for one day each month, check for plagiarism/copyvios, check the views and number of changes made on that day, see if the article has been improved further and so on and so forth. I'd like to know quite how bad the problem is at DYK. Any suggestions for metrics I should be looking would be much appreciated. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I would hope to be able to help you with both if my construction is ever completed and my life ever settles down ... I haven't been able to find that page that analyzes editor RFA votes for a long time (it seems to have gone missing), but I'm pretty sure I've nominated more than 11 successful admin candidates. The most useful metric for DYK that I know of is that there has never been a single queue that I've checked that doesn't have either of 1) plagiarism or copyvio; 2) non-notable articles; or 3) an expansion or minimum character count that is based on non-reliable sources. That the DYK "regulars" don't want to address this, don't recognize that DYK's own criteria is invalidated when articles are padded with non-reliable sources, or that they shouldn't be rewarding copyvio is most alarming, and that it has been going on unabated for more than several years is the real concern. RFA, the biggest problem is unqualified, pile-on supports (and what led me to realize the extent of the problem at DYK was finding RFA candidates touting DYKs that were fully plagiarized, hence, the two issues are related). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding RFA counter - Snottywong had recreated one after X!'s went down. You've voted 126 times (assuming you trust such tools!) Worm^TT · (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Malleus, Kudpung has probably done more for RfA reform than most of the users who incessantly chatter about it. He has founded, kick-started, coordinated and put a hell of a lot of work into an RfA reform project that has implemented some changes, developed multiple to-be-proposed ones, put an absolutely immense amount of suggestions (that we haven't even begun to develop into proposals) on the table, and gathered an obscene amount of data. Of course, you don't have to agree with him (or any of us) in the least, and you don't have to expect us to succeed, but please don't suggest that Kudpung endlessly talks about RfA reform and accomplishes nothing.

Sandy— sure, there's an insane amount of links at WP:RFA2011. I think it's reasonably organized, but if you have a suggestion we would be happy to hear it. Swarm ^{u | t} 19:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Restricting comments at RfAs?

Tosh. The only thing Kudpung wants is to ban all comments and questions he doesn't like at RfA. That's not reform, its evisceration. True reform would begin with the fundamental question of why we need RfA at all. Malleus Fatuorum 20:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Incessant chatter:

Incessant chatter

1398 (1195/203) Malleus Fatuorum 1007 (1007/0) Balloonman 877 (805/72) Durin 844 (802/42) Pedro 768 (666/102) Dank 759 (710/49) Majorly 735 (686/49) EVula 719 (625/94) Kim Bruning 548 (533/15) WereSpielChequers 541 (322/219) Useight 485 (463/22) Keeper76 467 (0/467) MiszaBot II (bot) 466 (409/57) NoSeptember 461 (440/21) Wisdom89 447 (444/3) Chillum 430 (333/97) Xeno 429 (388/41) Dlohcierekim 408 (385/23) Anonymous Dissident 382 (370/12) Juliancolton 336 (294/42) Kurykh 330 (325/5) Wehwalt 312 (301/11) Deskana 307 (302/5) Amarkov 303 (279/24) SoWhy 299 (287/12) Friday 270 (268/2) MBisanz 270 (266/4) Tango 269 (237/32) Retired username 267 (256/11) Mailer diablo 264 (253/11) Splash 263 (231/32) Oleg Alexandrov 261 (245/16) Cecropia 255 (229/26) Iridescent 253 (226/27) Avraham 249 (247/2) Radiant! 249 (248/1) Nathan 247 (241/6) Giggy 243 (221/22) Carcharoth 238 (229/9) Bibliomaniac15 229 (228/1) Ottava Rima 227 (194/33) Davidwr 225 (223/2) Hammersoft 225 (213/12) Titoxd 222 (222/0) Hiberniantears 220 (195/25) Skomorokh 217 (206/11) Nae'blis 214 (208/6) Ironholds 213 (203/10) Aiken drum 210 (15/195) BD2412 209 (201/8) Dragons flight 208 (194/14) Kudpung

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that easier than addressing the charge that all you're concerned with is to eliminate all opposition at RfA. Malleus Fatuorum 17:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm only concerned with eliminating drama and incivility from RfA, and the votes made by regular participants who simply use RfA to protest at adminship as a necessary evil. But of course, I suppose it's easier for you to make up your own reasons why people do things. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Malleus is rightly concerned about efforts to eliminate criticism at RfAs. Look at the threats and then edit-warring deletions of a short question by User:Keepscases. I suggest that readers examine the "gag order" in the proposed summary of my RfC.

I embolden and add italics for emphasis:

Demiurge1000 suggested this, which I quickly rejected:

• Kiefer.Wolfowitz agrees to limit himself to a simple statement about his views, rather than engaging in an prolonged argument, when someone under the age of minority applies to be a Wikipedia administrator.

WormThatTurned suggested this:

• DRAFT: "It is recommended that Kiefer.Wolfowitz discusses future issues with a neutral third party he trusts before they escalate, especially in areas he holds strong opinions."

• Thank you for the clarification. Under the circumstances, that seems rather weak to me... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• I feel strongly that 1+1=2, but I shall not consult with anybody. Also the sentence's syntax is convoluted, I'm sorry to say, and "neutral" is redundant. I suggested the following  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

  Before he strongly criticizes sources or edits, Kiefer.Wolfowitz should reflect on past experiences and consider discussing such criticism with any competent third-party.

• KW, there's a large difference between feeling strongly that 1+1=2 - which is a fact (for the majority of situations, I'm sure we can come up with a few where it isn't) - and you feeling strongly that say, that minors shouldn't be admins. All the above is recommending (and you don't have to follow the recommendation, but it is good practice), is you keep an eye on a situation and discuss it with someone you trust before letting things get too far. I'd not be happy with comments like "competent third party", as it is hard to quantify... I know there are people you'd regard as incompetent who I wouldn't. Also it's not just criticizing sources or edits, it's also commenting on editors. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Gosh, this discussion thread is certainly nicely matured now. I'm disappointed to see that neither Worm nor myself seem to have managed a spot on the "Incessant chatter" list above, and Kudpung only rolls in at 51st place. Not much of a qualification for being part of the "clique of editors devoted to RfAs" whose existence Kiefer posits at the RfC/U.

Now Kiefer, your comments here seem just a trifle misleading. What you list as "Demiurge1000 suggested this" was in fact only one of four suggestions listed under "Desired outcome" for the RfC/U, the basis for which (as a whole) was endorsed by Elen of the Roads, Worm That Turned, The Four Deuces, Peter G. Werner, and myself. Only one of the other three suggestions addressed your problematic interactions with younger editors, and none of them mentioned RfA at all. (I doubt Peter has much interest in RfAs other than the fact that you used someone else's RfA as a place to make accusations about him, for example.)

Now, Worm's suggested closing summary attempts to summarise the recommendations for all of the problematic issues, not any single one of them. I don't have any problem with his using "minors as administrators" as an example (in discussion) of one area where you have strong views, but he could equally well have used your political views as an example. Both have contributed to situations that caused concern. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The Four Deuces? Well, you're certainly in excellent company. I still don't know why this is on my page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brunette Coleman/archive1

Unfortunately, a RL situation has arisen which will take me away from WP for a couple of weeks or so. This means I won't be able to respond to any comments made on the Coleman FAC after today. At present the nom looks in good shape (6 supports, no opposes, no outstanding issues). Should something significant arise, which you feel needs attending to before the article is eligible for promotion, could I ask that you leave the nom open until I am able to attend to it? Many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

PS. I will try and clear up any outstanding comments/opposes that I have registered on current FACs Brianboulton (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Based on the latest edit there it looks like you don't have to worry about that :) Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Good luck in RL, Brian. I hadn't actually seen this message before I went through FAC today, but your nomination was in great shape and the article has been promoted. Karanacs (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Example used

Noting here that I made the following comment in a fairly public place, using an example of a recent post you made to someone's talk page to illustrate the point I was making. In fairness to you and Daniel, I thought it best to let you both know that I used you two as an example. I was rather dismayed at the tone you both took, and I suspect that I may take some heat from either or both of you for pointing this out, but I think it needs to be aired. While I agree with you that Daniel has and was still overly personalizing the issue (and I said this on his talk page), I also disagree with the attitude encapsulated by 'conduct unbecoming of an admin'. That is too often used to beat admins over the head with by non-admins (who know it can't be said to them). If there is any future friction, can you please try a different approach and treat it as editor misconduct rather than admin misconduct (unless it actually involves misuse of the tools)? And to forestall some predictable comments, I've long supported the admin tools being given to long-term editors such as you, Malleus and Tony (to name just three). I'm aware that some wouldn't touch the tools with a barge-pole, but I do think that if non-admins are going to use the 'conduct unbecoming of an admin' warning, they should hold themselves to the same standard. Or to put that another way, what do you think should happen when a non-admin engages in conduct unbecoming of an admin? Nothing? Carcharoth (talk) 23:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

There's so much wrong with that post that I won't take it on, since I simply don't have time. I did browse enough of WT:DYK and the Malleus issue, though, to realize that not only admins, but also trusted oversighters, are able to attack and personalize issues there, which I still think is quite shocking. Since the arbs have typically agreed that admins shouldn't conduct themselves like that, I don't know where your ideas come from, but I sure hope something will be done to stop the unbecoming conduct towards anyone who stands up for Wikipedia policies from admins, denialists, oversighters, and vested contributors at DYK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That hypothetical situation (long-time editors like me, Tony, and SandyG being given the admin tools) would clearly be sensible, and for that reason has no chance of achieving anything near consensus. As a point of order though, speaking only for myself, I would not accept the admin tools for exactly the same reason that I've refused every other of Wikipedia's baubles: I don't even have rollback, and never will, and if anything like the abortion that was pending changes is re-introduced I will leave rather than apply for that "right". Malleus Fatuorum 16:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, find handing out admin tools to long-time trusted users to be a completely nonsensical idea altogether. Nor do I think non-admins should be held to the same standards as admins: why set the bar so low? The point apparently missed is that admins are rarely blocked, or even taken to task at ANI, for behaviors that would result in a block for non-admins. Case in point: the example you provided, and the recent attacks on Malleus at WT:DYK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

On the subject of blocks, have I ever told you that I was once blocked for using the word "sycophantic"? It was only today that the blocking admin admitted she had made a mistake, but the block still sits there in my log for administrators like User:Rjanag to point at as some kind of justification for their own misdemeanours. I'd like to see Rjanag's ears pinned to the telephone pole across the road from my house, but I can't find any forum focused on the crimes of the administrators. Malleus Fatuorum 19:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

On your more general question about the editorial misconduct of administrators, one thing I think you're failing to recognise is the increasing frustration with the view that abuse from administrators isn't really a problem unless it involves some misuse of the administrator utility belt. But even when it does, as in the case of bad blocks, of which I have several even by the admission of the blocking administrators, nothing much happens. Therefore any administrator who is prepared to block for incivility must be equally prepared to be blocked when they themselves are incivil, with the same threshold for judging incivility applied to them, and ultimately desysopped if they persist. Any chance of that happening before the heat death of the Universe? Malleus Fatuorum 16:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

And in this case, it's even worse-- the admin in question is an oversighter, meaning he has access to extraordinarily sensitive information. If I have long been worried about admin conduct, I'm now even more worried (and my concerns are not lessened by observing the conduct of another admin at WT:DYK). But then I'm also concerned that Carcharoth isn't aware of the stand reinforced repeatedly about admin conduct by the arbs involving more than abuse of tools-- it's about abuse of community trust. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

To put it bluntly, it's about admins (and oversighters) taking the piss, and being held to lower standards than they're supposed to be policing. Doesn't seem like a difficult idea to get your head round to me Carcharoth. I think we see with relatively inexperienced editors like User:Sharktopus and his recent ill-considered foray into ANI how some can be misled by a blind faith in the righteousness of the administrators. Malleus Fatuorum 18:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, what I see is little communities which operate largely independently of each other misunderstanding each other when they interact. I noticed the ANI thread Sharktopus started today, and it was fascinating to observe the social dynamics at work there. And to reply to Sandy's point, the point I was making is that the 'community trust' thing is often overdone. When people use it they often mean "I don't trust this person because of what they've just done, therefore they have obviously lost or are abusing the trust of the community". It's a logical leap that makes little sense. There is no real single community on Wikipedia, just lots of localised communities of varying sizes that mix and mingle (plus some types that skit around on the surface, like wikignomes or occasional editors).

I still think that part of the wikidrama that erupts periodically is because different people see different things to what others are seeing, quite literally. Different people watch different pages and see different aspects of other editors. Rather than upset anyone else by using them as an example, I'll use myself as an example. Someone who only ever saw the edits I made years ago will have one impression of me. Another person who only saw the edits I made to arbitration pages as an arbitrator will have another impression of me. Those who gave me barnstars will have other impressions of me. Those who saw what I posted above will have other impressions of me. And so on. The same applies to all editors. Think of editors as multi-faceted crystals and how most editors only see one or two sides of the other editors they interact with. I said I wasn't going to use examples, but Malleus and Sandy, imagine the impressions others have of you if they only ever see you in one mood or posting to a particular location?

The best approach is probably not to judge someone until you've seen and/or encountered and/or interacted with them in several different settings. The absolute best setting to see what someone is made of is to edit an article with them. But would anyone really bother to do that? Much easier to judge someone from one or two comments they make on drama noticeboards. Sadly, that's human nature. Carcharoth (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That's just wacky. I don't judge editors at all (and I quite often go on to get on famously with editors in spite of disagreements over content or policy). I discuss content and how to improve it. Some at DYK don't want to do that. And yes, when people behave abusively in discussions, they do lose community trust. I am very uneasy that someone who has treated me the way Daniel Case has also has access to extremely sensitive information, because some of my emails have been forwarded to the oversight list, and those folks should be very trustworthy, not prone to fly off the handle and say inappropriate things to or about other editors, or further drama, or personalize issues. The best I can say is that I don't understand your point at all, since I don't judge editors based on one encounter. I did, however, check out some of Daniel Case's articles, and found that helped me understand why we aren't getting the message through at DYK; could anyone please explain to me how on Earth Anna Wintour could be a GA with the amount of uncited text and apparent POV assertions, and a BLP no less ?? We need experienced editors commenting on the problems at DYK-- not deflection, not shooting the messenger, not refusing to engage the issues from editors who don't know Wikipedia policies because they have never built content. So, because they don't know better, they attack and shoot knowledgeable editors who have a problem with the process, personalizing it to the editors because they simply don't understand content building. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Judge was maybe the wrong word there, and I'm talking about all editors and what they do with the 'first impressions' they gain about other editors they interact with (i.e. about what some may think of you based on what they see of you). When someone turns up at a place like WT:DYK and says something forthright that needs to be said (and has been said many times before), this may be the first time some editors at that page will have encountered that person. They may be a bit taken aback, they may correctly work out what is going on, but some will mentally pigeon-hole someone on the basis of a single or few encounters and that can colour all subsequent discussions. This is one way in which disputes arise and escalate. Disputes are sometimes resolved and sorted out by a more conciliatory approach, and sometimes a more forthright approach is needed. As for "when people behave abusively in discussions, they do lose community trust" - that applies to lots of people all over the place, with later comments regaining some of the trust. Moving on, is it possible that what you said about Anna Wintour comes across as judgmental? You would (correctly) describe it as "discuss[ing] content and how to improve it", but where is the line crossed from doing that to judging an editor, as opposed to working with them? Anyway, enough for today. Carcharoth (talk) 02:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I just found a missing piece of my argument (I came across it several days ago and couldn't remember where): Wikipedia:Did you know/Hall of Fame#T:TDYK editing milestones. (Side note: seriously-- would any other process keep track of how many edits participants have to talk ????) I haven't located yet another crucial diff from a week or so ago, where Gatoclass honestly made the argument at WT:DYK that DYKs padded with content from non-reliable sources were not a problem since non-reliable sources were found all over Wikipedia (I could hardly believe I was reading that, but didn't bookmark it). So, I don't think there is ever or ever should be any problem with judging content on Wikipedia (as opposed to editors). While I agree with your general points about initial impressions of editors who are not known outside of their own area, the problem at DYK is that you only have to look at that Hall of Fame page to understand why certain participants aren't willing to see, absorb, recognize, or discuss the problems, but are quick to shoot the messengers. If you compound that with a general lack of content building experience, it's not hard to see why some of them have had to resort to personalizing the arguments, when the criticism is sound. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I want to ask your advice on improving DYK reviews

This idea was somewhat inspired by your criticisms of QpQ reviewing, so I was hoping you would advise on a practical plan for improvement. We could get rid of QpQ reviewing if we could attract more competent people to do some reviews. I'm thinking about how to do that and I hope others are too.

Until that happens, we can work on nominators' reviewing skills, instead of giving new people a free pass on their first four articles and then demanding they start doing QpQ. I built a short "review substitute," which would take less time than doing one thorough review, but I am sure others could improve it. Any nominator too new to review should instead:

• Explain how the hook's reference meets the criteria at WP:RS
• Review Wikipedia:Copy-paste and assert that the article complies (or fix the article if it did violate it.)
• Review the three rules at WP:Plagiarism ("Incite, intext, integrity") and assert that the article complies (or fix the article if it did violate it.)

Thanks again for your civil visit to my talk page, and for the overdue education I got on CPP/Plag thanks to your efforts in the past. There is a lot more general interest in such issues at DYK now, and in addition to the AfD-style archiving of past reviews there is now a better checklist transcluded in the nomination template. So we are making real progress toward improving DYK and I hope we will continue to do so. Like any big volunteer project, it takes lots of work. Sharktopus ^talk 19:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I've already given, I think, all the advice I can to the point of repeating myself endlessly for several years, so at the risk of redundancy:

1. Until/unless there is accountability from the admin who puts the content on the mainpage, I believe we will continue to see DYK as a forum to further plagiarism, cut-and-paste, copyvio, and non-reliable sources rather than a place for educating new (or experienced editors) or encouraging new content that complies with policy.
2. See No. 1: if the admins putting the content on the mainpage can't doublecheck that the articles meet their own criteria, then the volume should be reduced, by whatever means that can be done. It has somehow become a conclusion that it is a right to have a DYK on the mainpage. That Is Just Wrong.
3. Here is one fundamental problem, and by the way, one furthered recently in a most disturbing post from Gatoclass, who according to some stat somewhere on some DYK page, is one of the two most frequent contributors to WT:DYK (the other being, of course, Daniel Case): Explain how the hook's reference meets the criteria at WP:RS. I am completely befuddled at why DYK regulars do not understand their own criteria. Articles must meet a minimum character count or minimum expansion. If those character counts or expansions are based on irrelevant text padding from non-reliable sources, blogs, etc. and about non-notable topics, how can the article meet the DYK crit? You can't JUST verify the hook; how are reviewers verifying that minimum character count or expansion are met if they aren't doing some review of sources and don't even know Wiki's core policies on sourcing?
4. People who plagiarize and violate copyright don't realize they're doing it all the time, so asking them to sign off will accomplish nothing. Even some of the most prolific regulars at DYK don't acknowledge the importance of not putting law-breaking content on the mainpage; how can we expect the newbie reviewer or writer to understand that? See No. 1: we need experienced, knowledgeable editors accountable for the final step (and that would include only editors who respect the importance of not violating copyright-- those are in short supply at DYK right now).
5. QPQ was a serious step in the wrong direction: abolish it. Cut volume until you get enough reviewers to maintain minimum standards. BOATLOADS of Wiki's best editors have left DYK in disgust-- they may come back if it cleans up its act. The reviewing template is another step in the wrong direction: people who aren't knowledgeable can just check the boxes, there is no accountability and no institutional memory.
6. The only step in the right direction recently has been that subpages are created, but to my knowledge, they aren't archived anywhere (unless that has changed).
7. There is a serious lack of knowledge of notability at DYK. You had one recent prolific copyviolator who put up hundreds of non-notable bios, based entirely on information provided from sources not independent of the article (legacy.com obits of info submitted by family members, law sources submitted by the lawyer's themselves, etc.). DYK is NOT educating new or old editors on Wiki policies: it is encouraging the creation of thousands of articles that violate core policies and will never be cleaned up and rewarding the editors who do same.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure I've said all this before, so doubt it's helpful. When/if my life ever settles down, I'll wade back in with a check of the daily DYK queue, and I'm pretty sure I know what I'll find. This is not to say some exceptional editors don't use DYK-- but those editors also go on to create vetted content like GAs and FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

PS, I have just refigured out (for the second time) that Rjanag is/was User:Politizer, whom I welcomed to Wikipedia and attempted to educate on core content policies as he was trying to learn to edit-- he was a nice enough fellow, but he has never been a content editor. I believe he moved on rather quickly from content creation, after having a distinctly difficult time understanding our content policies. Yomangani, on the other hand, knows content. Of the other two defenders of the status quo at DYK, I know Gatoclass has supported copy-paste from public domain sources in the past, and I'm not aware if Daniel Case has ever created vetted content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, I don't really appreciate your (like Malleus') insinuating that I've never been a content editor just because I participate at DYK. I have written (with input from others here and there, as is always the case), several FAs, as you should know since you passed them. You keep on accusing me and people at DYK of "deflecting" issues because we don't like you, but you are doing the same thing by insinuating that my arguments are worthless because I apparently don't know how to edit content--an accusation which is, quite frankly, untrue.

Regarding the lack of daily archiving, a consensus was made weeks ago to remove it: Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 72#Are daily archives needed?. Don't pretend to be surprised by this, because I clearly explained all these issues to you in a thread here, which I even came to your talk page and gave you a link to multiple times, and you repeatedly ignored and never commented on or even bothered to read. To be perfectly honest, I have no concern whatsoever anymore for your opinion in matters which I have repeatedly given you the opportunity to discuss and which instead of commenting on when asked, you just ignore the discussion and then make snide remarks like this behind my back at other forums. If you had an opinion about whether the daily archiving should have been kept, you had multiple opportunities before this to speak up, so unless you're ready to start a discussion about bringing it back you might as well just keep this opinion to yourself. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

1. insinuating that I've never been a content editor just because I participate at DYK. I didn't intend to insinuate any such thing. I said that you've never been a content editor based on 1) my experience of actively editing with you, where you didn't understand content policies, and 2) that you went from there to being an active participant in mediation and at DYK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

   To the best of my knowledge, your only experience actively editing with me was an admittedly poor edit I made to the Tourette syndrome article during my first week or two as a Wikipedia editor. If I remember correctly, I thanked you for educating me on the external link policy (the problem was that I had unwittingly posted a link to a website that violated copyright); I don't think it's fair to judge someone as an editor based on one of his/her first edits to the encyclopedia, as we all know this project has a steep learning curve. I have also never, to the best of my knowledge, been an active participant at WP:M. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

   Then it appears I may be confusing you with another editor, as none of this is familiar to me-- I will investigate and get back to you on this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

   The edit I was referring to is this. We discussed it here. Like I said, this was within my first two weeks or so of editing. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks-- that helps, but not a concern at all! I'm still trying to track down the name of the editor I may have confused you with, so I can understand if and how it happened. Working on it ... can't find the article or editor yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

   Found! My sincerest apologies, Rjanag-- I most certainly did mix you up with another editor. I have struck my mistaken commentary here (if you know of any that I missed, pls let me know). I'm unable to decipher why I confused the two of you, and that would be very hard to find, but I am most sincerely sorry for the serious mistake. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

   Accepted. I would prefer to just focus on substantive issues from now on, but as you and I have both seen from the past few months' discussions at WT:DYK that is unlikely to happen (at least not at that forum). rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

2. I did notice after my post that you had an FA. Have you ever had Ling.Nut look at the Chinese FA? It didn't have a particularly strong FAC, since the Nutty Ling was absent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

   I have more than one FA. Regardless of whether or not you like any of them, they did pass, so I don't think it's fair for you to suggest that I don't know how to edit content. The fact that I haven't edited much of it recently has nothing to do with my ability to write content, and everything to do with my interests and the way I choose to volunteer my spare time. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

   Again, if I am confusing you with another editor, I will redact and correct after I investigate. This was prompted because I came across my comment at your RFA, and I may have mixed up two cases. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

3. " ... because we don't like you,... " That's a very interesting thing to say on Wikipedia. In other words, you are acknowledging that you are personalizing the issue rather than looking at the substance of the problem. Not good, Rjanag. And an editor's worth at Wikipedia is, IMO at least, highly based on their knowledge of content policies, so no, I don't consider it the same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

   I wasn't saying "we don't like you"; I was saying "you accuse us of [deflecting issues because we don't like you]". rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

   Ah, that's a bit better, but still not optimal, since I have not done any such thing (hence my misread of what you wrote). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

4. I'm not surprised by anything anymore at DYK-- the lack of a daily archive is just a continuation of the whole "no accountability" problem. Anyone can review FAC and FAR archives at any time-- FAC and FAR delegates are accountable and their work is on display for anyone to peruse. Not so at DYK. I have spoken up ad nauseum about issues at DYK, and have been ignored, so why should I keep restating the same thing over and over there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

   When I raised those points (which I linked above) about the need, or lack thereof, for daily archiving, you never responded. If you think a daily archive is necessary, you should have said something. As I explained very clearly to you, the nominations are archived and they are already organized in many ways, and no one other than you saw a need for them to be organized by date. If you have a clear reason why the archived nominations should be organized by date, you should have stated it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

   Do you think it surprising that anyone trying to improve the serious issues at DYK would stop trying to keep up with that page? Shooting the messenger isn't the best way to conduct business. I believe I've said as many times and as many ways as I can that 1) accountability in general, aided by 2) an archive system might go a ways towards solving the problems at DYK (at least it would make analysis of issues possible). Without an archive, it is difficult to demonstrate that the issues occur regularly, frequently, and unabated. We're left in a position of "taking my word for it" that I have never checked a daily queue and not found issues, we're left with no institutional memory, and no way of deciphering who are the less-than-good reviewers and who are the serial offenders and who are the admins putting copyvio and blog sources on the mainpage,so that we can educate them. Once again, I find your refusal to consider options for solving the problems to be somewhat intransigent.

   Please give me an hour or so to investigate whether I've confused you with another editor and get back to you on that; if I have done so, I will strike and, of course, apologize. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

   I don't think I have ever refused to consider options. In fact, I'm the editor there who's been bending over backwards trying to implement a bunch of demands (first nomination subpages, then a daily log, then removing the daily log when everyone else objected to it and you never responded to my message about it, then Tony's checklist, which I am now reconsidering and putting together an RfC for getting rid of it once this "trial period" has passed). If by "shooting the messenger" you're referring to my interaction with Malleus there recently, if you actually look at the discussion you will see that my first comment there (the second message in the discussion, replying to Malleus) was a civil and honest answer to his question, and only after he started his usual game of calling people stupid did I react in turn (which, in retrospect, I should not have). Anyway, my point is, if you want to criticize someone for ignoring feedback and being unwilling to make changes, you should probably not choose the one person who actually is volunteering a lot of his time to try and make changes (and going out of his way to solicit feedback, in an environment where most people are more interested in participating in drama than discussing any substantive issues--if you look through WT:DYK you will see that I have started multiple threads asking for comments about various versions of this checklist thing, and almost none have gotten any response). rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

   Your continual belligerence is tiresome and unbecoming Rjanag. I suggest that you refresh your memory of your recent comments at WT:DYK to see who was (repeatedly) throwing around accusations of stupidity. And, then, if you have any shred of honesty or integrity, come back here with an apology. Malleus Fatuorum 18:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

   The Malleus issue aside, I agree that your subpage has been the only improvement since the recent discussions started (and as you know, I think the checklist is a big mistake, but I need not repeat that lest Daniel Case go off). I do NOT have time in the midst of my construction and move to keep up there any longer, and unfortunately, the environment at DYK is unnecessarily hostile. Part of the reason I stopped spending my (very limited) time there was some of your snippiness (along with outright hostility from others), and I don't think your recent attack on Malleus helped or was the conduct expected from an admin (that is what led me to check your RFA, see that I supported you, and that led to the confusion with another editor).

   In terms of letting bygones be bygones, I think it would be stupendous if the environment at DYK would improve to the point of being able to rationally discuss the issues, which are quite serious, without the denialists shooting the messengers. Next time I weigh in there, I'm going to be triple, quadruple and extra careful to start fresh; we'll see if the usual suspects go on a defensive rampage. Even better, wouldn't it be nice if I didn't have to revisit there, because DYK stops being a training ground for non-notable, non-reliably-sourced copyvio  ??? Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe you have confirmed my points. You don't get to just ignore a large group of editors raising legitimate concerns about DYK because "you don't like them"; collaborating to improve matters is the way things should be done on Wikipedia. If the DYK regulars are a group who largely don't understand Wikipedia content policies, they should not be putting content on the mainpage that includes plagiarism, copyvio, and furthers rewards of editors who put up hundreds of non-compliant articles that will never be fixed. Now would it be possible for any of the defenders of the status quo at DYK (which is not a good one) to focus on the issues and stop shooting the messengers? Alternatively, would it be possible for them all to just leave me alone until I finish my construction and move, at which time I will weigh back in at DYK, and most likely find ongoing copyvio? Why don't you surprise me and prove me wrong: go do something to fix it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your thoughtful reply itemizing improvements that include ending QpQ, re-enlisting good editors to review, requiring admins to be accountable for each item they promote, affirming WP:RS for article text as well as for the hook, affirming WP:N for articles, and reducing flow. (The flow is now down to 3 runs of 6 each per day, by the way.)

You can find past reviews using a link from the article talk page, now placed there by the DYKbot when giving credit for a DYK. Or at least you can if you look at the article talk page history, I was just checking Talk:Typhula_quisquiliaris to show you the link to my review but apparently the GimmeBot removed the DYK talk, so you have to find it in talk page history here. The review flags the name of the person promoting it to Prep but not the name of the admin making up Queue. I would prefer to have the "extra-accountability step" of promotion be with the person moving items to Prep if only because non-admins (including me) can do that, so we have a bigger potential workforce to carry the load.

I admit my QpQ-idea is a bit like nailing a board across the hole in the front steps, but without prejudice to the idea that preventing people people from breaking a leg at the front door will not reduce my interest in nailing some boards across the hole in the living room floor as well. I know you can envision how much better the living room would look with an actual wood floor and some better furniture -- I don't disagree, but some things have to be fixed first and other things second. In my opinion.

I will make up a table to show how the "review substitute" would look, taking more of your suggestions into account, but I am not very good at wikitables so that is probably not something you want to watch while I'm doing, unless you want a good laugh and a rather long one. Sharktopus ^talk 21:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Incorporating your suggestions into the hypothetical "review substitute," and feel free to hat this if it is taking too much space on your talk page. Sharktopus ^talk 01:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Requirement	Signature
# I have reviewed notability criteria at WP:N.
# My topic meets those criteria.
# I have reviewed source criteria at WP:RS.
# My article is based on sources that meet those criteria.
# I have read the restrictions at WP:COPYPASTE
# My article does not violate those restrictions.
# I have reviewed the three rules at WP:PLAGIARISM ("Incite, intext, integrity").
# My article follows those rules.

Counterexample: Billy Hathorn would have (and did) make all of those claims. Same ole, same ole ... unless editors knowledgeable of content policies are accountable for overseeing what goes on the mainpage, DYK will not likely be fixed. Anyone can and will check anything on a checklist; no one is accountable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• OK, well let's leave the front step unpatched for now and work instead on the hole in the living room floor? I have some ideas about what might help get started there. Sharktopus ^talk 03:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Good grief, is DYK really still worth it? I admire you Sharkotpus for sticking with it. I've long tired of it I'm afraid. Is it really worth the hassle. Your front page credit must really mean a lot to you huh?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I enjoy working hard on varied group projects, such as (for example) Wikipedia. I have never seen credit to "Sharktopus" on our front page, nor is my name likely to be there unless Anna Frodesiak's flattering portrait becomes Featured Picture. But let me stop messing up Sandy's talk page when I know she is busy, I will draft something elsewhere once I get finished drafting the three different talks I'm supposed to deliver tomorrow, yes, I should have done them last week but I didn't. Sandy, thanks for the hospitality! Sharktopus ^talk 20:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Archiving

I still don't think you've given me a clear answer as to what exactly you want out of a DYK archive that isn't already available in the present system, but I just threw together Template:Did you know nominations/Log. As you can see, this is almost the same format as the archives at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log; the only difference is that it links to category pages rather than pages with transcluded nominations. This page is not in any way a new archive or anything; all the information in this page was already available in the existing archives that I explained at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 69#Record of promotion from prep to queue, all I did was organize it into a table. So as you can see, we already have a system that keeps an archive of all passed and failed nominations for a given month, which is what you have at FAC (except that the numbers at FAC are more manageable). Anyone who wants to do the sort of investigation you seem to have in mind can use that (although, as I explained above, I'm not really sure how this archiving system or the one at FAC would help such an investigation). If you had something else in mind, e.g. checking all reviews by a particular reviewer or all noominations by a particular nominator, then no, that is not built into this archive, but I don't think it's built into the FAC archive either; nevertheless, Wikipedia has tools for analyzing a given user's contributions that can probably help with that. Anyway, my point is, I'm not really sure what more you want. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for not responding sooner-- I missed this post apparently while I was trying to sort the editor mixup. The categories allow one to analyze trends only if one separately clicks on every single subpage in the category to gather data, whereas one can read through an entire FAC monthly archive to gather data. I'm glad something is now in place, and it is much better than the nothing that existed before, but I'm of the opinion that a hard archive (such as FAC and FAR, which includes every subpage transcluded and can be read top to bottom) would be easier to use for data gathering purposes. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, this is not really "now in place"; I only just now put it into a nice table, but the records themselves have been around since the beginning. It's maybe true that a hard archive would be a bit easier to use, but even that would be of a volume that is not comparable to FAC and FAR (an archive for every given day rather than every month), and anyway there was unanimous consensus at the discussion I mentioned above that whatever benefit this brought was not worth the trouble it was causing. Anyway, the records are all still there for anyone who wants to look at them. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Question for you, Rjanag - as well as a log of passed FACs, there also exists records of articles being delisted via FAR. The analogous situation for DYK would be an article removed from prep, queue or the Main Page - as I've recently done for several which I found to contain extensive or egregious close paraphrasing/copyvio/plagiarism. Are articles "de-passed", so to speak, kept track of in any way? If not, is there a way to implement this? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

No, there is no such record. I personally don't see much point in that (except maybe to identify problematic reviewers, although I think people get a good idea who those are anyway), but anyone is welcome to keep a record of that. I guess it would just be a matter of creating a list somewhere and adding a blurb to the instructions on "how to remove a hook from the queue" asking people to list the hook in that place. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

... I think people get a good idea who those are anyway ... That speaks to my second concern (accountability and institutional memory). Editors now active at DYK may have a good sense of who knows best how to review and who isn't up to snuff, but the problem at DYK is the frequently changing crop of editors, plus new editors required to review per QPQ, so that what is "known" today may be lost because there is no institutional memory. An outsider wonders how the Hathorn's (and many others like him) can go on for so long: I suspect it's because of the frequently changing editors at DYK and the lack of institutional memory. That can be contrasted with FAC and FAR where, because there are few delegates, we know and remember each reviewer's and nominator's strengths and weaknesses, and know what needs doublechecking before we pass or archive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the availability of a hard archive would have changed the Hathorn situation at least; regardless of whether or not there are archives, unless certain nominators are "branded" in some way newbie reviewers just aren't going to know who's trustworthy and who's not. I think that's just unavoidable. Of course, the Hathorn problem went on far longer than it should have, but I think it was more due to poor reviewing practices than to the lack of an archive. With or without an archive, a good review will catch these problems and a bad review won't. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thinking about who uses FAC and FAR archives and for what purpose, I suspect you're right. Most likely, the only folks who ever analyzie FAC and FAR archives for trends are FAC and FAR delegates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Search engine optimization

Hi Sandy. Could you (and any helpful lurkers) pop in at Talk:Search engine optimization? There is an editor who has been lobbying to plaster that featured article with unnecessary maintenance tags. Apparently he doesn't like the idea of using online sources that know what they are talking about. He seems to have gotten the mistaken idea that mainstream media are better sources for this highly technical topic. In any case, it is a shame to see a featured article get deteriorated by mistaken editing. I do not say the article is perfect, for it may need updating and quality control. Heavily spammed and reverted, many times, there may have been accidental removals of good content or accidental allowance of garbage. Thank you! Jehochman ^Talk 23:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for your kind words. It was refreshing to see some sanity on here for a change.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

My pet hate - image issues in FAs - link

Currently being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Use_of_movie-still_when_discussing_actress. I'm being my usual grumpy self, but it's probably something that needs looking at, at some point. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 00:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The Emancipation of Mimi

Hi Sandy. I'm leaving Wikipedia tonight for a full month, so I will not be able to monitor the FAC. I would like to withdraw, and start over fresh when I return. Thanks :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. Ucucha (talk) 01:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dragon Warrior/archive2

So that FAC is going to be speedy-closed, while others have been sitting in wait for over a month? And if so, and I or someone else bring it up for a third FAC, it's going to even less likely to pass because someone will find more excuses to oppose it? This is not very consistent, and I'm getting rather frustrated in the entire FAC process in general as of late. –MuZemike 03:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry it's been frustrating for you, but I disagree that a subsequent FAC is more likely to be archived because reviewers will "find more excuses to oppose"-- reviewers are generally receptive to a FAC that has been carefully prepared. You did mention that you would be getting the recommended book, so a clean start after you get the book is probably the fastest way forward. Also, to my knowledge (and please correct me if I've missed anything), there are no FACs open longer than a month with two opposes and no supports, except a law FAC that has an (as yet unsubstantiated) oppose on comprehensiveness that NewYorkBrad has said he will check. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Footnotes and punctuation

Regarding [4], the reason I had standardized the footnotes inside the punctuation was to make it clear the footnotes applied only to the single username. In this version, footnotes "3,4" after John Vandenberg might be misunderstood to apply to every preceding name and the footnote following the terminal punctuation after Iridescent might be seen as referring to the whole line (no?). I've undone your edit for now - if you revert back, please give the same treatment at WP:CheckUser. –xeno^talk 13:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Encyclopædia Britannica for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Snowman (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Autism

Hi SandyGeorgia, I notice you deleted my update to the autism entry. I can see understand why the link to our website might not be appropriate in the context, but cannot understand how the study I included qualifies as recentism - this is an important paper, was published in Nature, and has been replicated. I don't want to undo your edit, but maybe we can agree a way to best include the citation. Joconnol (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Autism again

Hi, If the primary source I added is too recent, a few others should probably also be deleted - particularly the ones regarding the mirror neuron system? The theory has not been supported - see Jojanneke et al. (2011). Should I start a discussion on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joconnol (talk • contribs) 18:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:MEDRS-- WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS is not the only issue-- Wikipedia medical articles rely on secondary reviews, not primary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

So we should delete references 94, 96, 97, 98?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.14.243.253 (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I checked 94 for starters, and it is a meta-analysis, hence fine (so I didn't check the others yet). If you haven't yet read or don't yet understand WP:MEDRS, you might pose your queries at Talk:Autism (for a broader audience), but I suggest you first familiarize yourself with MEDRS, and then provide exact text cited and links to the sources explaining why you find they don't meet MEDRS (talking about "Ref 94" for example in a dynamic environment-- where numbers can change as text changes-- isn't very useful). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Feedback requested

Hello SandyGeorgia, I would like you to provide feedback at this peer review. I'm planning on taking the article, Silver Reef, Utah, to FAC, and seeing as how you have experience in this area, your feedback would be much appreciated. Thanks, The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 21:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I am barely keeping up with my watchlist because of construction on my house-- kitchen installation began tody-- it's unlikely I'll be able to help out, sorry ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem Sandy, good luck with the house construction! :) The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 21:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Association of Kannada Kootas of America

Hi Sandy, thanks for the copyvio tagging on Association of Kannada Kootas of America, turns out I was too busy concentrating on the DYK article, I forgot that I had wikilinked this article too. I had planned to clean it up actually, so if it is OK, could I rewrite the article as a short stub? Thanks, Lynch7 12:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I saw it was written by a number of IPs, and you only had one edit-- but I wasn't sure who all those IPs are. I'm not actually sure how one goes about fixing such things ... some of my Talk Page Stalkers (TPS) may weigh in, or you may have to search around on those copyvio pages to figure out what you're able to do. It caught my eye because the capitalization in the article was so strange that it was a quick-and-easy copyvio find. Some of my TPS may know how to clean it up quickly so it doesn't have to be delinked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I just found the instructions in the template-- you rewrite it in a subpage. If you do that quickly, an admin can probably plop it in there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, will stir up a quick stub. Thanks, Lynch7 12:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

And thank you to you for getting on it so quickly with no fuss !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that's no problem :) . Anyway, I've rewritten the article here, and I will make a note on the Main page errors page. Lynch7 13:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Something for you

		The WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves
		By the order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of your continued contributions to the effectiveness of the featured article process. In your tireless efforts to maintain exacting standards and to foster diligent review practices, you have been a role model to our project, and we are deeply grateful for your example. This award marks the first time that the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves have been awarded twice to a single recipient; we are pleased to have the opportunity to recognize your work once again. For the Military history WikiProject coordinators, Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Politeness

Hey Sandy. Hope you're well. I'm going to do my best in due course to come back to reviewing a few FAs now and again, and I looked at Agnes Obel (recently nominated) and it absolutely must be archived post-haste to prevent it wasting anyone's time. What is the due process at FAC for quick failing a nomination? Is it up to you, Dabomb87 etc to do that or can we non-delegates just carpe diem? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

hey there ... two strong well reasoned opposes recommending withdrawal and explaining why we can't get there from here will usually result in archival by a delegate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Mother Teresa

Hello SandyGeorgia, it looks like this article could use some very basic, simple, improvement by the inclusion of a criticism section. I'm not interested in researching it a great deal, I'm just going to cut'n'paste what is there to comply with the MOS. Perhaps you can help so you'll have a nice rollback point that also addresses the recent concerns of a few editors. Penyulap _talk 14:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Criticism sections are discouraged on Wikipedia-- notable criticism (not wacky undue criticism sourced to marginal sources) should be integrated into the text. See WP:CRITICISM, which although only an essay, is all we've got, AFAIK. You seem to be misunderstanding or misinterpreting one sentence in WP:LEAD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Wakefield

I removed no cited information, the wording of the article was highly biased and this was corrected. It doesn't matter what topic is being discussed, Wikipedia articles need to be as objective as possible. Text should never be worded to take a particular stance on a controversial issue.

I'm curious as to why you felt the need to warn me as clearly Colin was already dealing with me on the issue. I know that there are certain people who get a power rush from bullying others with the anonymity of the internet as their little cloak, and I hope you're not one of those people.--Cyrrk (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I do feel the need to warn people who are removing strongly cited words from well-sourced articles, and bullying has nothing to do with that; you might notice my long involvement on that article, and that I keep an eye on efforts to introduce POV to articles I watch. There is simply no controversial use of the word "fraudulent" on Andrew Wakefield's article; consult all the sources, and note discussion on article talk, which is where you should be engaging. The issue for your talk page is that you seem to have repeat warnings of same stretching back a long period of time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your careful and consistent protection of the Andrew Wakefield article from various types of poorly sourced POV. Brangifer (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive?

Look, you have a focus on trying to clean up plagiarism and copy violations, and I have a focus on trying to facilitate a less demeaning working environment for editors. I applaud what you are doing, but you don't need to dismiss my concerns as "petty".[5] I take your point about not including user names in talk page headings; I should have known that. But how is it "disruptive" for me to point out that Rjanag added closely paraphrased text from an easily accessible source to a featured article? It is entirely relevant when he accuses someone else of "plagiarism" for doing the same thing to a DYK. I only went to that extreme because Rjanag won't listen. Are you getting defensive because you promoted the article? I'm not accusing you or Rjanag, I was just trying to get Rjanag to recognise he overreacted to the Grutness article. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I was not dismissing *your* concerns as "petty"; that comment was about the ANI thread and the typical ANI non-response to the real issues. Bringing a personal issue with Rjanag to an unrelated article talk page was not a good idea, and didn't help the situation, and brought the discourse to a newer low (although I realize it's harder to go much lower after one party has been called a "liar"). And now you're going to a whole new level of interpersonal dispute with a silly accusation that "I'm getting defensive"; if you want to have a dialogue with me, try again, start over, improve your tone, and we can talk about the issues. I know Rjanag could stand to improve his listening skills, but if you're going to jump into the middle of something and play mediator, you might also improve your dispute resolution skills and not further inflame situations. As to what article I may or may not have promoted, I don't know because I haven't looked; if you have a problem with an FA, take it to FAR, but quid pro quo accusations on article talk pages don't address the issues in *that* article. I also recognize that you weren't the only one using that article talk page inappropriately; Grutness also started an entire section that contained three out of five personal combative points, but that doesn't make what you did any more correct. Rjanag found a problem at DYK, and as is typical for DYK (and I'm glad s/he has now learned that), the messenger was shot. Calling another editor a "liar" should be a blockable offense IMO, but then so should repeat instances of plagiarism as we usually find at DYK, and whether anyone wants to believe Grutness' account isn't relevant since we must AGF and since saving face and working to correct the issues is helpful in resolving copyvio problems. I'm glad at least someone is now looking into copyvio at DYK, but wish they'd stop relying on those stupid tools to do it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I have now looked at the examples from which you accuse Rjanag of plagiarism; methinks you should stop throwing around accusations willy nilly (and a good number of people weighing in on that discussion across multiple pages don't seem to know what copyvio is, which is a concern in and of itself). First stop on your educational tour-- look at article structure rather than common phrases. I looked at some of Grutness' older, uncited article-- that might be a starting place for you. And please stop trying to further your defense of Grutness by spreading your dispute and accustions to others; it's all most unbecoming, and doesn't strengthen your argument. Neither does starting an ANI with the subheading "Attempted character assassination" help matters; please stop inflaming an already tense matter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a clarification: I never used the "duplication detector" in reviewing this or any article. I raised my concern after reading chunks of the article and the source and noticing that some sentences were nearly word-for-word, and where the sentences weren't then at least many paragraphs in the article mirrored the structure of those in the source. Other people have repeatedly given links to the duplication tool, but I haven't (as I think it gives a misleading picture of the "close paraphrasing" in the article, as it misses chunks where a whole sentence or paragraph has been pasted in and then a couple words shuffled around). rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that, since overreliance on those tools is goofy, as they don't detect when article structure is copied. I'm dismayed that anyone may be clearing a DYK of copyvio based on that DDR (I came across that recently in an issue with MaterialScientist at DYK). Glad you're on to the task now-- but don't be calling people "liars" or you may lose the forest for the trees, or whatever ... :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

FAC withdraw

Hello, I was wondering how to withdraw a FAC nomination or if you could help me? It can be found here. I want to withdraw the nomination because a copyvio issue was discovered during the review. Thanks. DrNegative (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm taking care of this. Good luck fixing the issues in the article, and hopefully the next run at FAC will be better. Ucucha (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Featured Sounds and FAs

Before an RfC or some other unnecessary process is started between Featured Sounds and Featured Articles, I wanted to get your impression on this. Karanacs and Ucucha or any TPS are welcome to chime in as well.

FS delegate M.O.X. (James) told me that Featured Sounds may be placed in any article and "not all sound has to be relevant to the article" and "material doesn't necessarily need to tie-in with the article" [6]. This seems at odds with Criteria 3 at WP:WIAFA, and may open the article to placing undue weight on specific media files. It also does not apply to image files. At least, I can't see how it could. What would an FA look like with images that are not relevant to the article?

Is this a disconnect between FA and FS and should it be clarified? How? Through Featured Article Criteria? Featured Sounds? --Moni3 (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that articles should only have images, sounds, and videos that are relevant to it; we are an encyclopedia, not a picture book. And indeed, FA criterion 3 says that media should be used "where appropriate". Ucucha (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

My impression of featured sounds is that it's a leaderless process where anyone can do or say anything, and obviously, they do. What would you like to see happen? That argument is stunning and editors can't be just plopping sounds into articles based on ILIKEIT. I wonder how one becomes an FS delegate? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

What does FS stand for? Full of Shit? Malleus Fatuorum 02:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Apparently. Well, I just typed a big long response explaining pretty much that on article talk, hit the wrong button, and lost it all. Probably for the better. Maybe someone else can clue in the writer of that gibberish before I re-attempt tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Could James have miswritten "relevant" when he intended "mentioned in the text"?

He gives only examples of sound recordings that are relevant to their articles, but that are not mentioned in the text. (quoted from talk page)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what James meant, but he doesn't seem to have a clue of the numerous problems with his response, or in fact, the problems with Featured Sounds criteria, where folks in search of baubles feel empowered to screw up Featured Articles. I think it probably will need an RFC, because the problem stems not only from the nonsensical Features Sounds criteria, but from the lack of any common sense in the governance of that project. I'll weigh in tomorrow-- discouraging to type and lose a whole post, but battling this kind of nonsense piecemeal, article by article, makes no sense-- an RFC would be better, and it should start with the obvious flaw in the FS criteria, followed by the flawed logic of those applying these sounds willy nilly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Do the Featured Article Criteria need to be amended to state that relevant media files should be placed where appropriate? This now begs why I have to argue against 3 irrelevant files being added to an FA. Do the words "in moderation" or some such also need to be added?

Images don't need to be in articles to be featured, do they? Why must sound files be in an article as a prerequisite for being featured? Does that not promote the placement of marginal or tangential media files into articles such as what has occurred here? --Moni3 (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't have a chance yesterday to catch up with this, Moni. Yes, Featured Pictures has the same senseless crit. but it doesn't seem to be as randomly applied (which is why I think this is not only a problem in the crieria but also in the isses at that Project). I also note that "both" Featured Pictures and Featured Sounds are votes-- this content (in spite of being highly subjective) passes with a minimm number of votes, which include the nominator. Not good processes, and they shouldn't be foisting their stuff on Featured Articles, and we shouldn't be putting editors of FAs in the position of constantly having to deal with this-- those projects need to change. I don't think changing the crit. as you propose above will help any, since there seems to be an absence of common sense over there, and since it is a vote, changing the wording isn't likely to fix the problems. If anyone has time, I haven't been able to investigate another concern: TonyTheTiger was banned from Featured Sounds-- is this FS delegate now proxying for him? It sure appears that way at a quick glance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I saw the potential of the meat puppet action and thought to myself, "Self, how would one caution another user against meat puppeting without sounding like one of those frothing lunatic Wikipedians who have no argument other than accusing other editors of being meat puppets?" I couldn't come up with a suitable reply so I stuck to the issues in the argument. I'm weak. I know.

According to James, FS is going through some reworkings. I don't know how earnest an attempt that is to improve content or what. I don't have a lot of time to devote to trying to talk sense into FS or FP. Maybe James' mistype was embarrassing enough for him to see that the intellectual conclusion of his line of thinking leads to an attitude that can be summarized as "improving the article is not my concern. Rather, placing marginal and tangential files in the article rewards me and Wikipedia in far greater ways."

To clarify: I was proposing making the wording at WIAFA tighter, which will close these nonexistent loopholes at least for FAs. I don't know if it would do any good at all. Even the Featured Sound Criteria insist the file or the artist should be notable, and in this case neither are, and add to the understanding of the topic, which they don't. But these files aren't FS yet (I think). They were just placed in the article to set them up to be FS. So in the interim, again, I would have no argument to fall back on at FS, just the "where appropriate" wording at WIAFA #3 and my critically endangered common sense. I'm home sick today. Maybe I could muster up the energy to post something at some forum somewhere. See how motivated I am? Seriously though. If you have suggestions, please fire away. --Moni3 (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think trying to fix those processes is worth a minute of time (and I say that after having wasted BOATLOADS of time trying to deal with the DYK mess). As long as we are short on editors (and we are dramatically short of good editors now), we will see the birth of marginal means of attracting new editors and rewarding them with baubles that have little to do with article quality, and I don't see any chance of that trend being reversed, since so few editors care any more or believe the trend can be reversed. So, you're right in a sense that we may need to do something to strengthen FA's defenses against these new trends. I'm not sure what that would be, though ... and I do think someone needs to start some sort of action about what looks like proxying for a banned user in the face of the pursuit of baubles and the senseless FS and FP processes; I've long thought those processes weaken the value of other featured content processes-- they are too subjective, they are based on votes, they attract those seeking baubles. and the delegates don't seem to exercise discretion. 14:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Found: [7] Since TonyTheTiger is banned from Featured Sounds, I think the representatives there should stop proxying for him to badger Moni3. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There is very little if any honesty here on Wikipedia.[8] Malleus Fatuorum 01:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Just when I was going to commend you for the most entertaining ever thread at ANI ... but ... that's how bad articles stay bad (sanction anyone who speaks up ... is it still a Good Article ???). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No it isn't, and not likely to ever be a good article in its present state so long as I'm still alive. Malleus Fatuorum 02:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You fight very strongly for the integrity of FA, and I feel just as strongly about the integrity of GA. Malleus Fatuorum 02:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't fight strongly for anything until I get done moving <grrrr> ... hope you (and everyone who works so hard at FAC) don't feel forgotten by me, but I'm doing all I can ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Henry Edwards on the Main Page

I just noticed the Henry Edwards (entomologist) article on the Main Page (FA of the day). It appears that no one ever told the Theatre Project about this article (I just added the project's tag to the article's talk page). It's a little boggling that an article about an actor and theatre manager could get to FA without the Theatre Project knowing anything about it and (as far as I know) having an opportunity to comment at FAC. I've left a note at the project talk page. Do you think that the article is named sensibly? -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for all your help so far on the Dermatilomania article. My long term goal is to get this up to FA status. So any help you can provide is always appreciated! Remember (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I left a few samples of how to cite medical articles, did a wee bit of work on the article, but that's all I've time for today ... enough to get you going! Hope you can get those sources-- Singer should be a good one (he's a TS/OCD very well respected expert). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Advice requested

Sandy, a couple of weeks ago I submitted Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Vukovar/archive1. After Dank suggested doing a WP:MILHIST A-class review first I agreed and temporarily removed the nomination from the FAC page on the same day that I nominated it. This wasn't intended to be a withdrawal of the nomination but a temporary suspension while Dank's issues were being dealt with. The intention was always to resume the FAC nomination as soon as the A-class review had been resolved, and frankly I wouldn't have agreed to the A-class review if I had thought that someone would close the FAC nomination in the meantime, as you did on September 19th. The reason is that the 20th anniversary of the Battle of Vukovar is coming up on November 18th - it will receive, and is already receiving, significant international media coverage and I would like to be in a position to nominate it for inclusion on the Main Page on that day. The problem is that if I now have to wait another two weeks to create a fresh nomination for the article I can't see any possibility that the FAC review will be completed by that time.

Would it be possible to reopen the nomination that you closed and restore it to the FAC page, as was my original intention, so that the article can be reviewed in time for the anniversary? I'm sorry if that intention wasn't clear at the time but I hadn't expected that anyone would close the nomination as it was only supposed to be on hold for a short time. A great deal of work has gone into the article with the intention of marking the anniversary, so it would be a real shame for that goal to fail because of a procedural misunderstanding. Prioryman (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of tidiness if nothing else, we don't reopen FACs that have already been closed. Instead, just open a new FAC, so that the FAC opens with a fresh slate.

According to FAC rules, you have to wait for two weeks before re-nominating the article, which would mean that you have to wait for four days. However, I'd be happy to give you permission to re-nominate the article a few days early, since clearly you've worked hard at fixing the issues mentioned in the first FAC. Ucucha (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks very much. I was under the impression that I would have to wait another two weeks so I'm relieved that's not the case. In that case, I'll re-nominate it this weekend. Prioryman (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ucucha, that's very helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 11:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

I was sorry to see the way the Red Sox season ended. Despite sportswriters' frequent use of the term "unlikeable" to describe the 2011 Sox, I was sort of pulling for them. But then, as a true Red Sox fan, I'm sure you didn't expect things to play out any differently. Substitute Carl Crawford's glove for Bill Buckner's and it's got a certain familiarity to it. :) MastCell ^Talk 20:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/29/bill-buckner-strikes-again/?hp SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)