User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch86

Dermatillomania

I am still slowly working to get Dermatillomania up to GA and then FA status. If you have any thoughts on how the article is coming along, let me know because I am a glutton for constructive criticism. Remember (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The last time I looked (which was not today, I'm trying to catch up here, working from the bottom of my talk), the writing was still quite choppy. I don't have access to the full text of the sources, so can't be of much help in making it more comprehensive, but I'm not sure it's there yet on comprehensiveness. Can you get hold of the other sources listed in "Further reading", particularly Singer, who is a research leader in that area, IMO ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I am sure its still very choppy (but I am slowly working it out). As for Singer, I don't have that source. I only have the sources that were emailed to me. The rest are locked up behind paywalls. I will work on getting them after I incorporate all the information I currently have. Thanks for the comments. Remember (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

If it can't be good, it better be funny

Presumably that comment refers to The Big Book of Charts and Fables and not to my erudite and entertaining discourses. I shall have to report you to an administrator for your breach of WP:CIVET: it is customary to inform somebody when you are extracting coffee beans from their dung. Hold on, it's not that one. WP:CIVIC? Yomangani^talk 03:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Still trying to catch up-- I pooped out early last night! I've dunged you again over at WT:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way, how come some of the other "hidden treasures of Wikipedia" didn't protest when I dunged them?

• "Or people will turn you into the mother of the whole process and nag you to distraction."
• Words to remember: This site persistently hosts a small number of people with frank personality disorders.

Huh? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately qp10qp is more than hidden. Yomangani^talk 00:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Please help my poor language skills

I'm looking at [1] ... what does "time is not a luxury" generally mean? Gerardw (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I know what it usually means, but I'm having a hard time parsing the usage there-- can't decipher the intent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I would read it as "there's no hurry" -- I think the following comment about quality indicates that he wants to see improvements in quality and is willing to spend as much time as necessary to achieve that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

ANI and requesting blocks

I don't want to modify a closed discussion, so I'm coming here. Have you looked at WP:BLOCKME?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

thanks so much, Bbb, that answers the question. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Disappearance of the Wikipedia Review

This will no doubt make many at Wikipedia extremely happy. When does the dancing in the streets begin? Malleus Fatuorum 21:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Any idea why it's gone down? Nev1 (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Because too many indeff'd editors were talking to themselves on the Annex, obsessing about me? Just a shot in the dark :) :) Because Eagles247 launched an attack so The Fat Man would be silenced? Nah ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so Sandy. Apart from the obsessive Mattisse you were hardly mentioned, as the review tended to go after administrators, not peasants like us. Obviously I don't know why it's been taken down, but I suspect it may have something to do with a challenge that was being mounted to the charitable status of the WikiMedia UK chapter. Of course I could be completely wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is always that possibility! Johnbod (talk) 11:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I was just being silly, Malleus-- a reflection on how some officious intermeddlers make the internet suck more because of the need to show power via the block button, and for a while, we could at least enjoy Obesity over on the Review. He was as insightful there as here (which is a far sight more interesting than watching someone obsess on my every word. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a shame. I've long been a proponent of WR as a vehicle to review Wikipedia in a harsh light, as we're crap at doing it ourselves. Yep, for sure there were some real nutters on the site (La Rouche activists, self publicising wierdos and right wing theists etc.) but on the whole it wasn't that bad a place. Not that I ever signed up for an account despite the freak show assuming I did of course. Unpaid bills maybe? Pedro :  Chat  22:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes well that was always the challenge...sifting through all the amusing and not so amusing invective to read useful bits, bit like going to garage sales or junk stores looking for a bargain. Can be sorta fun when one is in the right mood.Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. It was an online car boot sale. Mostly filled with crap but the odd really handy thing could be found. Pedro :  Chat  22:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It may not be gone for good of course. Often these things are triggered by flooding the ISP with complaints it eventually gets fed up dealing with, whether or not they have any merit. If you're not paying much for the server space ISP's tend not to be very forgiving. I speak from bitter experience. Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Could it be something as mundane as forgetting to renew the domain registration? Much as I was dismayed by the two-facedness of some individuals who contributed both there and here, WR clearly served a useful purpose. I would go so far as to say that WR's existence was on the whole beneficial to Wikipedia. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but your registrar does send reminders. Regularly :) . More likely as mundane as not having the money, or not caring, rather than forgetting. Pedro :  Chat  22:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The domain name doesn't need to be renewed until 16 January next year anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It may not be gone for good of course. Often these things are triggered by flooding the ISP with complaints it eventually gets fed up dealing with, whether or not they have any merit. If you're not paying much for the server space ISP's tend not to be very forgiving. I speak from bitter experience. Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

True, but I for one use a robust provider that lets individual sites sit at over 100Mb disk space with unlimited download (and I have some heavy sites that pull many GB's a day). 30 quid a year - and the contract specifies no removal over usage, unless extreme (and extreme is very extrene). Isn't it some bloke going by the username of Sommey that runs it? Surely Peter Damian and Greg Kohs (?) can afford a few dollars to keep it going? That Greg bloke keeps on offering up that his online work won't feed his family but earns him some decentish money. A little silly to let his major mouthpiece go for the sake of a few bucks I'd say..... It's hardly likely to have been pulled for any other reason than cash TBH. Pedro :  Chat  22:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone knows who runs it, bit of a mystery. That deal with your ISP sounds good, better than mine anyway. Who is it? (Email if you prefer.) Malleus Fatuorum 22:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

streamline.net - you need a bulk user account (10 domains) to make it worthwhile - there are faults, but on balance they're pretty darn good - particularly for not moaning about bandwidth (in comparison to the shysters at 123-reg!). Pedro :  Chat  22:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting; I use Streamline myself, but I'm paying more than that. I don't have a bulk user account though. Malleus Fatuorum 23:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I did have an argument with them a few months ago. They'd had loads of issues with their POP3. Finally they shifted it to another provider (outsourcing ones email as a rackspace company....gee) to make it more robust and then upped the bulk user accounts something like 30-40% (I forget) in cost. I have several bulk users however and managed to renegotiate the rate back to near where it was. I can dig out the details but they are good value if you want a number of domains registered in one hit with individual ftp --> hosting --> mail. Pedro :  Chat  23:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

"Webmaster please contact support" is usually a sign of an unpaid bill, but wasn't someone trying to get a takedown for something or other.... (I mean seriously trying to get a takedown, not just whinging about it)? I only ever look at it if someone sent me a link, so this would probably have been weeks ago. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

In any event, it seems to have recovered now. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

USS Arizona FAC

Sandy, I'd be grateful if you could take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Arizona (BB-39)/archive1 as I believe that that all comments have been dealt with and it has the necessary supports. Nikkimaria seems to have hidden the image review as the first entry in her usual source review. I'd like to put this up for TFA on 7 December so I'd appreciate a note about whatever still needs to be lacking, if anything.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sturm, I didn't check images, just noticed that that caption appeared to be unsourced. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Since you're working with a deadline, I'll get it to today (unless Ucucha already has) ... haven't looked yet, but pls try to ping in Jappalang or someone to look at images ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, sorry, I'd misunderstood what your comment was about. It is sourced if you drill down a bit further into the Navy's website at [2]. All images are US Navy or US Military so it should be just be a quick check to confirm that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sturm, I've reviewed the article and will add comments to the FAC soon ... stand by! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment

SandyGeorgia, again, I really must ask you to stop making negative comments about me on various pages around the project.[3] The attempted recall request on me occurred years ago, and has since been clearly identified as a frivolous request brought only for political purposes. It is not helping the project in any way for you to continue to complain about it, so please, stop. --Elonka 03:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

As "Bob" gave us the words from his wholly pipe, "Pull the wool over your own eyes and relax in the safety of your own delusions!" Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 07:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Elonka, I believe I supported that recall request although it's possible I neglected to actually weigh-in on the recall petition (and I don't feel like searching around for the original thread). Nevertheless, my support for the recall was not for "political purposes." You did make a mockery of the recall mechanism. Cla68 (talk) 07:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The successful recall attempt against you was brought years ago for whatever reasons, but your refusal to accept it was one of the major contributors to the failure of "recall" as a process, and the reason why borderline RFA candidates must be opposed. If you were to resign the tools and re-run for RFA, that might help the project, and would certainly help restore legitimacy to "recall" - badgering people who note that the failure of recall is substantially your fault, however, does not. Should I gather the six editors in good standing to ask you to stand down again? Hipocrite (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't active in Wikipedia at the time, so have no preconceived notions of the incident. I reviewed the RfA and both recall attempts. As an aside, my view is that we need a better recall mechanism for admins; the voluntary recall approach is well-intentioned, but very flawed, and I'm happy it did not come up in my RfA. That said, if candidates agree to a recall provision, they should honor it. If one ends up having to step down due tot he technical requirements of the provisions, even though the community remains broadly supportive, a reconfirmation RfA will remedy the situation. SGs negative comments were primarily directed at the "Recall notion". There's a statement that "Elonka evade[d]" it, which I believe is supported by the evidence. I don't feel it is appropriate to be complaining about SG's feelings, or the cause of those feelings.--SPhilbrickT 14:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Proof. --Elonka 18:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

All you've provided proof for there is that User:Jehochman isn't fit to be an administrator. But I doubt that would be altogether a surprise to some. Malleus Fatuorum 18:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The failures of one person are nice and all, but you said "My standards will be pretty straightforward. If six editors in good standing post to my talkpage and ask me to step down, I will immediately resign my adminship." Here's a historical talk page [4]. Here are the editors who endorsed your recall: Friday, Verbal, Bishonen, Arthur Rubin, Alun, PhilKnight, Ramdrake, Bedford, RMHED, Nishidani, DreamGuy, Mathsci, Fyslee, ChronieGall, Sarah777, Durova and Huldra. Of those, Friday, Bishonen, Arthur Rubin, and PhilKnight are currently admins. Certainly they were in good standing then. None of the others qualified as in good standing? I mean, at this point, it's academic, I guess, but don't pretend you didn't abdicate your recall pledge. Unless, of course, you're still amenable to 6 users in good standing requesting your tools? Hipocrite (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Elonka, when I was a consultant, I was trying to persuade a company that I could do some consulting for them relating to a particular type of business. The potential client was concerned that the information learned from the assignment could be used to help their competitors. To sweeten the deal, I promised that our firm would do no work in that area for some number of years. I was awarded the contract, but lived to regret it, as my partners were understandably miffed that I restricted their ability to do work in this area. I made a promise that, in retrospect, I should not have made. However, my response was not to refuse to honor it, on the assumption that I didn't really understand the ramifications at the time. Which is true, I did not, but I made my bed, so I had to lie in it. The decision cost me tens of thousands, but it was my error, and I never considered arguing that the spirit of the promise meant it should apply to me, not to my partners. The decision to promise to stand down based upon the request of six editors, was in retrospect, not a good decision, but it should be honored. It is late, but it isn't too late. --SPhilbrickT 18:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

My recall standards (unchanged since September 2008) are here. --Elonka 18:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Why should anyone believe you would stick to them now, when you didn't then? Malleus Fatuorum 18:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The difference would be whether or not the request was made in good faith or bad faith. As I said at my RfA, the recall had to be related to misuse of tools,[5] but there was no such misuse at the time of the recall, it was just a lynch mob instigated for personal reasons.[6] Further, the community discussion showed a consensus that I should ignore the recall request and keep my administrator access. Please look at the names and rationales opposing the recall, not just those supporting it.[7] --Elonka 19:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense, Elonka - you made that "clarification" when the voting was everything but over (150/46, final result was 176/61, so after your "clarification" you ran only 63% - which would fail RFA). You said back then if six people asked you to hand in the tools, you would - as a result, you irreparably damaged recall by failing to do so. That you now are mad that people point at you for your past deeds? Get over it. Hipocrite (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

More importantly, given that your current standards are so lax as to be a joke, why would anyone go about the trouble of all that rigmarole when it's easier and more effective to just go to Arbcom. You passed RFA on your pledge to be open to recall with specific standards. Those standards were met. You failed to stand down. That forever damaged the whole concept of recall. Now you don't want people to mention that you are the proximate cause of the lack of trust in recall? You want people to look at your brand new, completely unreachable standards and say "oh, well that's ok, it's a lot like the old standard?" Naah, pull the other one. Hipocrite (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Why on earth would I have any interest in your current recall standards? The issue is the standards you ran on, which you failed to follow. I have a growing concern based upon repeated references to later postings, that you have convinced yourself that you ran on rules which referred to tool misuse. If so, that is even more troubling than "simply" refusing to honor your promises.--SPhilbrickT 19:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

A cautionary proverb from Yoda: "Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

And suffering leads to fear. I sometimes share these wise words with my math class. Geometry guy 19:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, GG that makes a circle :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Or a polygon. MastCell ^Talk 20:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

A quadrilateral even. Unfortunately, for some students, it proves to be a downward spiral (or should that be a "helix"?) Geometry guy 20:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Elonka, I think our point has been clearly made, but to hammer it home, please review what I said in my vote in support of your RfA. Cla68 (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/S&M (song)/archive4

No, I don't. I know of another FAC which has been going on longer and people are still finding issues with it. And I had just got someone to c/e S&M. Now I can't nominate until mid January because I won't be here. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 12:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It's been running for longer than an FAC with multiple actionable opposes would normally be. There's nothing wrong with a few months of waiting; you can use that time to improve the article. Ucucha (talk) 12:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

There is also another which has been going for a month and hadn't been touched for 9days. Why should that one get to stay? Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 13:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

If you have a question about why any specific FAC is still open, it would help if you posted a link to that FAC. The overriding question is whether it is likely that the article can be improved to standards while on the FAC page, or if work will better proceed off-FAC. How much work needs to be done, is there an indication that it's more than FAC reviewers should have to do, would it be better served at peer review, has the nominator been given enough information to know what needs to be done, have delegates been given enough information to determine if the FAC should be closed-- are all some questions you could ask yourself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel like I should say which ones so openly here. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 21:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not a problem-- FAC operates transparently, and I'm happy to answer whatever concern you have-- it may help you understand FAC better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but I know the nominators of the FACs personally on here. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 11:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism versus civility

Badger Drink growled upon finding plagiarism, and so it has come to pass that he has been indefinitely blocked.

At least one "Barnstar of the defender of Wikipedia" has been awarded to the complainant, who must be very proud.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Psych class

The prof in question is very interested in making this work and interested in feedback. Have send you some documents from him. Could you point us in the direction of any automated tools that exist for plagiarism detection? This appears to be an unexpected issue and we are looking at people to address it in full.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The basic tool is http://toolserver.org/~dcoetzee/duplicationdetector/ - disadvantages include the fact you have to know which document you believe content was plagiarised from (so in other words, not especially automated). It's also worth running a few tests with it to see the sort of false positives that can be thrown up.

At the risk of unnecessarily belabouring a point I've hinted at elsewhere, it's extremely surprising that this issue was in any way unexpected. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the docs, Jmh-- I've only had a chance to scan them, but in fact, they concern me quite bit. The emphasis on "research" is problematic: have they reviewed WP:MEDRS and do they understand that we primarily report what secondary reviews say? Do they understand WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS? The focus seems to me to be quite off relative to an encyclopedia. "harnessing the power of students to disseminate research findings ... " do they understand that we don't rely on or report recent findings in primary studies? I'm afraid there'e a lot of reverting and rewriting in store for all of us if 1,500 students start chunking in the latest junk finding they see in the newspaper. If the politics of this place don't convince me to finally give up, it will be that in the midst of the craziness I see everywhere I go, I'm also seeing articles killed by student editing (the latest is the plagiarism and text that doesn't even belong at Pervasive developmental disorder-- at one point it may have been little more than start class, but at least it was accurate and free of copyvio-- how much time do I have to dedicate to keeping them at least that way, and when do I give up and just unwatch?) Statements like "... keeping experts or other highly motivated “information seekers” abreast about research" is not what encyclopedic articles do-- we are NOTNEWS and we don't report the latest junk science until it is vetted by secondary reviews. I am most discouraged by that document, as it shows we've made no progress on the India and US education program problems, and there aren't enough editors here to keep the junk out.

I can see why research professors would lap this up ... why should they care if Wikipedia articles are newsy, inaccurate, and mislead the public when they can use us to supervise their students, detect copyvio, and at the same time further their own research findings before they are replicated, validated, subjected to secondary review, etc-- win, win for them; lose-lose for readers and editors. Is this document available publicly or can we post some excerpts to WT:MED so that others can see the extent of work that is ahead of us to keep the encyclopedia encyclopedic if this project isn't curtailed and better directed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for intruding without knowing all the back story, but seeing the word "prof" and "plagiarism" I have to note that while we have some tools, many schools have access to tools, some of which we do not have (or do not have free access). For example: http://www.dustball.com/cs/plagiarism.checker/ It may be as simple as reminding the prof to check within their school for such tools.--SPhilbrickT 18:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes will provide this feedback and attempt to redirect the effort. Will make know the need to use secondary sources rather than primary ones. Will also bring forwards the commercial tools that they might have available and see if we can get access to it. Do not give up yet. I think this is manageable. And if not he will stop.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

In very recent news, CorenSearchBot rises from the dead, so you could use User:CorenSearchBot/manual.--SPhilbrickT 13:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

To save you a little trouble ...

I went through your notes today on Arizona and have been thinking about several things that I need to do a better job checking. I should be able to re-check all the FACs I've covered by noon tomorrow, maybe by midnight tonight. (Mainly ... I need to remember to go back and re-check FACs that I covered when I was sick or stressed, I always find things I missed).

I want to bring up one thing that you just commented on at RAF Uxbridge, because we often disagree on this ... and feel free to disagree again, of course. You've heard the joke that you can tell from a distance when Germans are speaking, because they spend most of their time staring in blank incomprehension, waiting for the verb at the end of the sentence? (I'm a Germanophile, so I can tell that joke :). When someone reads "The Sick Quarters, the Officers' Mess, the gymnasium, the carpenters' block in the grounds of Hillingdon House and a building near the Battle of Britain Bunker are not listed", they have to read 29 words before they have any idea what the sentence is trying to tell them. I believe that this is more digestible because you're given the point of the sentence right from the start: "While not listed, several other buildings on the site were identified within the plans for possible retention: the Sick Quarters, the Officers' Mess, the gymnasium, the carpenters' block in the grounds of Hillingdon House and a building near the Battle of Britain Bunker." - Dank (push to talk) 20:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Got it-- but it was convoluted, and your new rephrasing is better. I had a hard time-- the prose was tough. My concern is that MilHist folks don't realize to what extent non-military folks have to struggle to get through the text (we have to watch for same on medical articles). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, if you put "needs non-Milhist input" on every one of our FACs, I'd send you flowers :) We could really use it. I just despair of getting it. In my weekly FAC update at WT:MHC, I suggested people offer co-nomships when they need help with meeting FAC standards ... I'll go add that they should consider non-Milhist conoms as well. - Dank (push to talk) 21:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, they *all* need independent review-- not just MilHist ... the difference is that MilHist FACs get support, and then sit there for days to weeks waiting for someone else to look at them. And then, when I look at them myself, someone is likely to claim "COI" ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It does seem to me though that MilHist articles do get premature support. I've just been looking at the article that prompted this discussion (RAF Uxbridge), and there's no way it's ready for FA. I'm not blaming Dank or anyone else, just saying. Malleus Fatuorum 01:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I was just dropping by to thank Sandy for promoting my Kaiapit article. I realise that the delegates are only doing their job, but it has been a rough month at FAC, and they do their job conscientiously and well. Wish I could buy them all a beer or something. I don't know if MilHist articles are harder to get reviewers that others... I had the same difficulty with Robert Oppenheimer. Cheers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Why thank you, Hawkeye-- most kind of you. Beer for all the FAC reviewers and nominators, too! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I was about to say that's been a rough month pretty much everywhere, and a sign of Wikipedia's ongoing decline. Malleus Fatuorum 02:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let me see what I can do on Uxbridge, and tell me if it's getting better. I'll go through all our other FACs again today, too. - Dank (push to talk) 13:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help and comments with RAF Uxbridge. I'm not a fully fledged 'MilHist person', but I try my best. Harrison49 (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

By the authority invested in me as a MilHist coordinator, I declare you to be a fully fledged MilHist person. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to think of a good response ... that was perfect, Hawkeye :) Btw Sandy, I've been busy with family who dropped in unexpectedly ... I should be able to review all our FACs by noon tomorrow. Sorry, this batch was not up to snuff. - Dank (push to talk) 16:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm watching too.

Will be on all day, likely, on and off.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think that blurb is ready to go now, in case no one shows up ... but some of the other blurbs on the page are dreadful. If someone doesn't show soon, I'll ping Raul's talk, and if still no one shows, will you put it in at 23 UTC? Some of those blurbs are so poorly written that I wouldn't want to be Raul or Dabomb for all the tea in China-- we need someone at FAC to be much tougher on prose in the leads, since they are used to construct TFA blurbs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Will do. I will look more closely at leads from here on in. Yes, the idea of being the one to decide TFAs sounds attractive but would rapidly become the chore that it is.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixing prose, juggling topics for mainpage representation, dealing with editors who want their slot, not to mention being shot at over on WP:ERRORS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Harold Pinter

Thanks for spotting the en dash in the wrong place, I'm not sure when that crept in. I have been through the article and I can't find any more except in page ranges and year ranges. I have rewritten the clumsy sentence in the lead and also the blurb. I hope that you find it is better. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm sure it probably is since you're an able copyeditor-- my real point was to call more attention to the fact that folks support WP:TFARs without even a cursory check. Pet peeve :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought the conclusion of the recent discussion after I opposed one TFAR because of the quality of its prose was that we should not be considering the quality of the article? Only its suitability for a particular date? Malleus Fatuorum 19:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess I missed that conclusion :) :) At any rate, one would think Supporters would at least look at the blurb. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:School and university projects

Hi Sandy, I just now replied back on my talk page about our course assignment at Boston College. Thank you for the links, I was unaware of the USEP page! We have been listing our work here, as many others have been doing as well working on similar projects. Maybe the two should be merged? NeuroJoe (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

grist for your mill: "ranking" on Canada Education Program

I left a comment, but still. I was alerted to this page by an email from the WMF that included the following item:

"Psychology class tops Canada leaderboard

"The Leaderboard for the Canada Education Program is in action, documenting the work of more than 600 students enrolled in five participating courses this term. The Leaderboard was recently updated to show the activity among the different courses. All told, students have already contributed more than 1.1 million characters to the English Wikipedia -- that's the equivalent of 725 printed pages. See which class is on top."

Ugh. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

See also here. Plus it seems that the idea is endorsed at the highest levels. Double ugh. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Just wonderful. Well, let them have their bazillion bytes of editcountitis, while they exhaust and alienate experienced editors, who have to revert copyvio and clean up articles. I've three times reverted outright cut-and-paste plagiarism at Pervasive developmental disorder, along with text that doesn't belong in that article (diagnostic criteria belong in each of the five individual articles), so editcount away. I've got real life to tend to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Add your weight to the discussion here regarding the leader board being changed to quality based from quantity based.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I will if I get time to properly document the problems I've encountered without ranting, but the WMF doesn't care and isn't listening-- they brought this upon our heads. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Sandy they are listening. We have altered the class format for next semester for the 1500 psyc students as per here [8] and I am in discussion with Frank regarding metrics used. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will try to get to it tomorrow or soonish, but real life matters are pressing, and I need to do it right to do it justice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Frank has removed the "leader board" and I have impressed upon him that students/classes contributions need to be judged by quality similar to the WP:WikiCup or not at all. Please do not under estimate the impact you can have :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hurricane Gert (1993)

Dear Sandy, please note my support for Hurricane Gert (1993) as all citation problems have been fixed, typos checked, and sourcing quality approved. Many thanks for kicking this one my way, it was a doozy. Meteorologists publish in very different ways to everyone else, thank goodness I'm a historian and was raised strictly on Turabian! Fifelfoo (talk) 01:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Auree was great to work with, huh? I'm sure they'll (we'll) all appreciate what they (we) learned from you on this one! Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It was a great working experience; I love the fact that meteorologists keep archives of useful stuff, and that there are scholarly reliable sources other than the usual book, chapter, journal article and conference paper! The templates are a bit of a pain, but so is manually typesetting references. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Win-win all around-- will hopefully build some prestige for the hurricane folks, who are unnecessarily bashed every time someone wants to make an issue of a non-issue at FAC :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It is important to have great hurricane articles :) Fifelfoo (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Again

Okay, No Problem

Thank you --Editor2205 (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

John M. Smith (Wisconsin politician)

Hi I took care of it by changing the article to John M. Smith (Wisconsin politician). However, I relunctant to start a dab page because the editors are discouraging creating dab pages that are short in nature. I added his name to to the John Smith dab page instead. With only 5 John M. Smiths in Wikipedia it would not worth it. I hope this will help. Thank you-RFD (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Citing refs

I would like to know if the footnotes system currently employed at Malvern, Worcestershire will be accepted at an FA review. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The system for web sources seems fundamentally sound, though individual citations could be improved. In terms of print-based sources, there are enough inconsistencies that I can't actually tell what the system is. If you outline your ideal system in the abstract, I can give you a yes/no answer, but as it stands that article would be opposed not because the system is necessarily bad, but simply because it's uneven. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

As Nikkimaria; I can't see a system in place for books and similar works? It seems to be a mash of various date-comes-late styles like Chicago or Turabian plus solid doses of wikipedia's Citation Style 1 from the Cite xxx series of citation templates? Fifelfoo (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no 'ideal' system and I did not introduce the one that is in use. It's based on inline 'ref name' tags with the body of the citations directly in the 'references' section. The inconsistency is caused by later refs added that are still inline. That's the reason for my asking - I would not want to clean up the 200 refs just to be informed that it needs to be done all over again. Criticisms apart, can we have some helpful suggestions? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

So you would clean up by moving the citations into the references section? That would be fine, so long as a) in the case of multi-page sources it is clear what page(s) is/are being cited where, and b) the formatting is in general more consistent. Beyond that, what sort of suggestions are you looking for? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

None. Although it took a long time to get there, it appears that my question question has been addressed, and I will attempt to improve the references, untangle the mess, and continue to use the current system. Thank you for your help. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Page move?

Dear SandyGeorgia,

I want to teach my students to be able to modify errors in page title text, and I'm not finding an easily comprehensible explanation surfing in Wikipedia. For example (maybe this is called by another term?), your page title above is: User talk:SandyGeorgia

Please post on my talk page or here, I'll check back. Thank you kindly, KSRolph (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you asking how to alter a page's title? That's called a page move in Wikispeak. In simple cases you can just do it yourself, but sometimes you have to ask an administrator to do it at WP:Requested moves. Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

A quick guide for this can be found at Wikipedia:Moving a page. NW (Talk) 22:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure we want students doing this, though ... I'm imagining a lot of WP:MSH issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

hello

You know you said you would explain something to me if I didn't understand, can you explain why this is still open, when basic elementary mistakes are still being found, people who were heavily involved in improving it are supporting it and that no reviewers commented between Nov 24th and Dec 4th? Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 12:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, could you comment back please? Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 16:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

<grrr ... > In case you're not following my contribs, I am working through a two-week backlog on y talk as quickly as I can, after being absent for more than two weeks due to a funeral, and pinging me twice isn't going to help me work faster. Now, to your question: this is what the FAC looked like the last time I went through FAC before real life called me away. There were two supports, and one struck oppose. Unless a FAC has been open for quite a while without garnering consensus to promote, or unless the page is significantly backlogged, we don't typically close a FAC that has no Opposes. Neither do we necessarily promote a FAC that has only gotten support from involved reviewers. Hope that helps clarify, if not, please feel free to ask further. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay sorry I didn't know. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 16:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Feedback on election coordinators

Since you're involved in User_talk:Tony1#My_ArbCom_election_endorsements:_AGK.2C_Courcelles.2C_Hersfold.2C_Kirill_Lokshin.2C_Roger_Davies, perhaps you would like to share your opinion concerning coordinators' endorsements at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2011/Feedback#Coordinators.2FVolunteers. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Replied there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Tiruchirappalli

I intend to submit this article at the WP:FAC. The article is presently undergoing a peer review. Can you copy-edit this article for prose?-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 15:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, I'm not a very good copyeditor to begin with, and I'm considerably behind because of real life events and the holidays. I wish you luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Two part question on footnotes in infoboxes, and how to find GAN and FAN discussions

I have a two-part question. I'm not sure the best place to ask this, but I thought I'd start with my favorite content expert :) I'm having a discussion with an editor about a number of issues, two of which are whether there should be footnotes in infoboxes, and whether material can be in infoboxes, that is not in the article. I asked at the obvious place: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes#References_in_infoboxes.3F, and got largely the answer I expected, but was informed of some exceptions. It was noted that Albert Einstein does have two entries in the infobox with footnotes. I don't agree with that convention, but thought I would look at the GAN or FAN to see if the issue was discussed. So my two part-question:

1. Do you have an opinion on the inclusion of the footnote in Albert Einstein? I was going to give my argument my the footnote on citizenship belonged in the main text, but I see someone has already moved it. However, I do see "Raziuddin Siddiqui" in the infobox with a footnote, but not mentioned in the main text, so this neatly covers both issues.
2. Can you help me find the FA or GA discussion? I think it is usually in an article talk subpage, but I'm not sure how to find it.

(Is there a better person to ask? I have User:Malleus Fatuorum in mind, but you may well know someone else who can help me find the discussion, and/or provide guidance on the conventions.) --SPhilbrickT 13:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)•

Question 2 has now been answered; I'd still be interested in your thoughts or the thoughts of talk page stalkers on whether references in infoboxes are: A fine, B discouraged, but OK in certain classes of cases, C discouraged, but OK if there's no better alternative or D something else. It also occurs to me that there may be a orthogonal answer- they are OK for B and C class articles , less so for GA and not allowed for FA.--SPhilbrickT 21:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The real issue is whether the information in the userbox is contained and referenced in the article. If it is neither, then the article will not receive a B rating. If it only appears in the infobox, then it will need to be cited there in order to get a B; but now there is something that is not covered in the article. It is therefore like the lead; the infobox should be purely a summary of the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I think Hawkeye covers it, but your concerns and questions pretty much sums up why I Hate Infoboxes-- they clunk up the tops of articles with too much information, sometimes summarized incorrectly from the article, sometimes not conducive to short summary, sometimes uncited. I hate them, and don't find it helpful for the FA process to take a stand on how they should be done, since they are just generally awful anyway, and have to be approached on a case-by-case basis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, and welcome back. I confess I like infoboxes, but strongly share you concerns about incorrect summarization, and particularly "sometimes not conducive to short summary". That helps crystallize some specific concerns I've had in a recent incident.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Black mamba

Hi Sandy--

I noticed you commented at Talk:Black mamba/GA1 early on in the GAN process, and marked on the language. I came by the article because I saw some talk page comments go by: see Talk:Black_mamba#first_paragraph_is_poorly_written.3F. To my surprise, the IP who commented is spot on (and reiterates some of your criticism): the first paragraph is indeed poorly written, with needless intensifiers, non-formal language (the contractions are the least of it), and a generally inappropriate tone--yet the article was passed. Can you have a look, please? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry Sandy--I didn't see the note on top of the page until just now. All the best, Drmies (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Drmies. I just glanced at the talk page, and agree that the prose is not optimal, but unless an unworthy GA appears at FAC, I try not to get involved in second-guessing GA reviewers. Other than filing them away in my memory banks of GA reviewers :) :) I happened across that article because I saw it mentioned on someone's talk page (can't recall whose), and it seems the author is some sort of expert, so yea ... it's unfortunate the prose is so rough. Not an issue I want to take on though ... I guess just add your voice to the talk page concerns, unless you're prepared to open a GAR (or ask Malleus to have a look) ... if the author is planning to write more on Wikipedia, it would be nice to bring him or her up to snuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks Sandy. At least it's nice to know that it's not just my old-fashioned way of judging prose--perhaps we have the same, equally old-fashioned ways... I'm not going to bother MF; he said "lol" on this very talk page, below, and I think that's the first time I saw him say that: I wonder if he's alright. I'll bring it up on the talk page, some day. BTW, I think there was a condom called the Black Mamba, years ago, overseas, or perhaps I just invented that cause it sounded like a cool name for a rubber. Also, great work on G-Spot amplification--I decided against the surgery, though. All the best to you and yours, and thanks again for all the good work you do here and for the time you take to advise the rest of us. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

A question

Hi Sandy. How are you feeling now? I present you my sincere condolences. May your relative rest in peace. I just dropped by as I had to ask you... How will I know if the FAC will fail or pass? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

FACs are, from my observation, generally promoted in batches once or twice a week. I've never seen a fixed timeline, and I doubt you'd get a specific date out of the delegates, that's not how this process works. When one of the delegates decides that this is ready for a decision, they will close it as unsuccessful or promote it; I've never seen any attempt to fast-track the process end successfully. Also, don't you think it would have been better to ask a separate delegate, or wait a few days? This seems kinda insensitive to me. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if my post sounded insensitive to you. With all the respect I owe to you, I am 18 years old and like everyone else, I learn through my experiences. For instance, I have now known that leaving such a message to someone who is currently going through a bad phase in her life, is not a good deed. We do not learn everything in our mother's womb itself. Anyway, I am sincerely regretful for my above message. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

My condolences, Sandy.

Jivesh, your article still needs both an image review and a spotcheck of the sources; I also mentioned that on WT:FAC, but apparently not on the FAC itself. I'm unfortunately the only active FAC delegate at the moment, and I've also been fairly busy over the last few weeks, so I don't know when I'll get around to looking at it again. Ucucha (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it has already been done by user THR. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 19:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the condolences: my better half appreciates the kind thoughts. Jivesh, the short answer is that you know if a FAC is promoted or archived when it is ... promoted or archived. As explained at WP:FAC:

The FA director, Raul654—or one of his delegates, SandyGeorgia, Karanacs, and Ucucha—determines the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the director or his delegate determines whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director or his delegate:

• actionable objections have not been resolved;
• consensus for promotion has not been reached;
• insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
• a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

The real question is timing; during the holidays, if the page is not too backlogged, I try to let them run longer as editors tend to be busy. On the other hand, when the page is backlogged or when we are not in a holiday season, a FAC without consensus to promote may be more quickly archived. I see this FAC has several opposes and several supports, and the opposes are older. Have you pinged all of the previous opposers asking them to revisit the FAC? Because I was busy with the funeral for over two weeks, and because Ucucha was holding down the fort alone, it will help if you do all you can to make sure the FAC is clean and legible, all items addressed, before one of us sits down to read through it carefully to see if all actionable opposes have been addressed and all necessary items have been reviewed. Best of luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for replying Sandy. Yes, everything has been addressed and I did not contact the editors who opposed only one time; I did that several times. And they are active... I wonder why they do not want to come back so that we can reach a consensus. Actually there are two opposes and around 11 or 12 supports. The media review was done today while the spotchecks were done around a week (or more) ago. Thanks for wishing me luck Sandy. I really appreciate your courage (I know you just went through a difficult phase) and especially your devotion to Wikipedia. Sandy, I hope the FAC will not suffer if they do not comment back? I cannot force them to come if (it seems that) they do not want to. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Working on a note to the WMF regarding the Global Education Program

And wondering if you could comment / add further ideas here. Thanks --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Added one there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiWomenCamp

Hi. You do a lot of fantastic work with Wikipedia and the Featured Article process. Given that, I wanted to personally invite you to attend WikiWomenCamp being held in Buenos Aires, Argentina in May 2012. This is a women's only conference, followed by a two day gender gap conference open to every one. Your experiences and knowledge base would be a great thing to add to the event. :) --LauraHale (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

What do I do here? Let this go so folks trying to improve Wikipedia can get on with it or point out the confusing incongruity of trying to achieve gender equality by having a 2-day women's-only conference? --Moni3 (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Fostering gender equality in one domain - editing wikipedia - by an unequal gender initiative in another, does not seem that strange. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, there are plenty of opportunities for men to be distracted by (apparently) self-contradictory activities that (allegedly) have nothing to do with improving the encyclopedia: similar opportunities should be available for women, should they not? Geometry guy 00:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It's quite strange. But I can't figure out which part. The women's only part or the conference to discuss gender equality for editors? I work in an environment dominated by women. I mean--seeing a man is a rare occasion. It's a very strange place I tell you, and not like any other experience I've known. I'm a woman, too...who really likes other women. But it's quite unrealistic in comparison with other places (and I confuse myself by writing that sentence). And I've also been to workshops and conferences where the agendas are accompanied by horrible clip art and people write lists and draw pictures on large easels and tape their lists to the walls. I've particularly been to conferences where the central discussion is What It Means to Be a Part of This Minority. In the end, all it does is reinforce the attendees' perception that they're a minority, and shore up a useless identity while offering nothing in the way of solving any real problems. I'll put it right out there: I'm a horrible student in every way so no doubt this is coloring my assumptions of what's going to take place. --Moni3 (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I found the Argentina part far stranger. I would've thought the US is where the money's at. I saw the meta page for the conference and was interested for a few seconds until I saw the Argentina part. I'm pretty certain I'm not the only one either. ^OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 00:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, that too. I'm nearly eating cardboard. I don't understand the concept of folks flying to Argentina to discuss gender equality. --Moni3 (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I am all for doing something about the gender gap, but so far the attempts have been laughable. I recently saw a geonotice saying something along the lines of "Teach women how to edit Wikipedia and help narrow the gender gap" or something, implying that the reason we don't have many women is that they don't know how to edit, rather than they can't find reason to edit...and now they're holding a conference about it in a part of the world where the editor demographic is so low it's part of the strategic outreach plans. Baffling. ^OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 01:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I see the spoor of a conference aimed at Wiki-interested academics, with research budgets for travel, rather than at editors. Iridia (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

"We wanted an opportunity for women (by gender or sex) to get together, learn from each other's experience, network with other women who can assist us in meeting our goals, feel like we are part of the Wiki Ohana, discuss issues related to being women involved in the wider wiki community, and share our passions with similar, like minded women. Unlike a conventional conference, where everything's pre-planned and structured, WikiWomenCamp is a gathering where we decide for ourselves what we're going to get out of it by offering sessions each morning on whatever we want (and of course ad hoc sessions can form at any time). There's no agenda until we make it up!" [9] That does not seem like you say it does. --Moni3 (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Eh; having an unconference/barcamp format just makes it friendly. If it was in Oz, I might even have thought about going. Iridia (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless its happening in your own backyard, academics tend not to touch unconferences. Publish and perish. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

As quoted by a true expert, this sounds like the kind of woolly-headed liberal thinking that leads to being eaten. --Moni3 (talk) 03:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Can we give each other manicures and drink peach bellinis? Kafka Liz (talk) 03:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll come and provide pedicures for everyone if someone picks up my airfare. Woohoo! I'll be all y'all's soul mate, but don't tell Mrs. Drmies--trips to Argentina have been the undoing of less powerful men. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't be interested in attending such a "conference", but unlike others, am intrigued that it's being held in Argentina, where women (Jews, and basically anyone who is not a Roman Catholic male) have to struggle more for equality than in other Latin American countries. I've always wanted to return there to see if I'll dislike Buenos Aires as much as I did when I lived there, if the food etc has improved, and to visit friends. And to visit my beloved jacaranda in my backyard. Really weird premise for a conference, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm a Roman Catholic male (well a lapsed Catholic anyway, I could soon look out my rosary and pick up the traces again), but sadly I'm not a Nazi war criminal, so I doubt I'd fit in. Malleus Fatuorum 16:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I hope at least one of you goes, so the en:wp quality content view is represented, not to say presented. Johnbod (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

@ Malleus -- one found among my neighbors, but here's what went on in Argentina when I lived there. If a company had to let people go, first went the Jewish women, next went the Jewish men, next went the Catholic women, last went the Catholic men. Some exceedingly competent Jewish women had a hard time holding their jobs-- which I have to say is decidely different from the situation when I lived in Venezuela, where if you were competent, your demographics weren't a factor. Of course, that has changed-- now it's all about whether you're a chavista. Yes, gender et al are issues in Argentina, but what ails Wikipedia ain't gonna be solved there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Re Johnbod et al, I agree with this. Within my quite limited experience, the women involved in writing quality articles generally don't seem to think gender disparity is a prominent issue to be tackled. I'm not quite sure why that is. Different venue? Women writing articles don't care? People generally editing in high quality articles are more respectful? HA! Har! Roflcopter. --Moni3 (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That's often struck me as well, as has the number of females writing quality content. From my perspective it seems that there's hardly any gender inequality at all among the editors I come across, and certainly nothing even approaching the 12 or 13% claimed by the WMF. Malleus Fatuorum 17:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Argentina is a hell of a lot closer than the US. Cheaper too. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It is useful to compare this initiative with the women friendly and racial-minority friendly orientations that have been held at many colleges in the U.S. Writing poetry to the clitoris or discussing Afrocentrism for a week have failed to improve academic performance; the impact on that useless U.S.-obsession, "self-esteem", is irrelevant, given self-esteem being non-predictive of anything interesting.

What has been effective in improving academic performance are activities to improve human capital, e.g. by providing challenging college-level enrichment before college. Georgia Tech's program to improve African American performance was particularly hot, some years ago.

These examples suggest that a womens' only camp organized by leading writers---e.g., organized by the ten or so women named by SG on this page a month or so ago---that focuses on improving research and writing skills would be valuable, while a "sisterhood is powerful" discussion of experiences would not. (However, regardless of its efficacy, a weekend of airing grievances would provide a public display of moralism, by Sue Gardner and the WMF, as similar public displays of moralism and elite needs for conformity have kept DARE to keep kids off drugs running for years.)

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't cry for me Argentina. K.W. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 16:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm yet to be convinced that females face different problems here than the rest of us do. If the argument, for instance, is that females are less able to deal with conflict, that goes against all logic and reason and is certainly contrary to my own experience. They may tend to deal with it differently, but mothers have been fearlessly defending their children for tens of thousands of years. I'm really inclined towards the view that many women are just more interested in other stuff than grafting away here to create, say, a corpus of work on medieval English bishops. Malleus Fatuorum 19:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you implying that I might be a bit "bent"?? (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 20:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. I think you're probably a real fox. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 20:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how that translates to American, so I just wanted to explain that "fox" is a term we use here in dear old blighty for a sexy lady ... I kind of think I'm probably making things worse so I'll say no more. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 20:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You are quite right Malleus. There is no reason to believe that the reasons for a lack of feminine participation are different from those for males. The idea behind improving female participation is, as you say, that instead of creating articles on obscure medieval bishops, they would craft articles on topics of more interest to women, like obscure diseases. :) Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

What's obscure about me improving the sum of all human knowledge from this to this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That article hit the spot! With belated thanks and deep (but not too deep) sincerity,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yea, well, put that in TCO's pipe and smoke it; for a few hours' work after the request appeared at WT:MED, who's generating true value for readers here, huh? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that the observation that there are roughly equal numbers of males and females, yet very different proportions editing Wikipedia (a larger difference than can arise by chance), suggests that it is worth exploring the reasons for not editing by gender. I further suggest that inviting female editors to a conference may not be the best way to uncover these differences. Are you familiar with the famous WWII Operations Research study involving armour locations on aircraft (mentioned in the article)? If you want to know why females do not edit, it would be better to ask females who do not edit, rather than those that do.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Why, I do declare, this must be the first mention of Operations Research on my talk page, but one doesn't have to be an OR analyst to acknowledge that revelation :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh I totally agree, I just mentioned OR because I first came across it in an OR class, and whenever I think about OR, it is the first thing I think of. (OK, second, but simplex algorithm is not something to bring up in cocktail party conversations.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The first thing I think of is Curtis Eaves suspenders are too tight (showoff), and Veinott chasing me around the faculty sofa. YMMV. You must be attending the wrong cocktail parties! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Malaysia FAC3

Sorry if these FAC questions are a bother, but I question (no doubt with bias) as to whether a FAC should be closed as no consensus if for two weeks of the three (basically the past 14 days) the FAC was open the article in question was under full protection due to one errant editor. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Considering the circumstances, and the holidays, I think it will have a much better chance coming back when everyone is fresh in the New Year. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright, cheers. Happy holidays! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

giraffe

Why are you closing it so early? Some members may not be done with the reviews. LittleJerry (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

One to ten days might be considered early: more than three weeks is not at all early by any definition. Also, with the way reviews are lagging and some ill-prepared FACs are sapping resoures, you'll have a better shot after the holidays. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

There are others that have the same problem. LittleJerry (talk) 07:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Jonathan_Agnew/archive1

Hi Sandy. Two different comments about this. I'm aware that the FAC attracted no supports, but it's been open a good bit less than your usual month. The one opposer is actively engaged in dialogue at the FAC and the article talk. And there's tons of work just been completed that reviewers had requested at the article talk. Feels a bit premature to me, but that's your decision and I'll live with it. More seriously, your closing edit would be rather bemusing to non FAC regulars. Including the edit summary, which should be in the message itself really. Would you like help composing something more explanatory and encouraging? --Dweller (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

There are many notions circulating around FAC whose origin is always a mystery to me-- the idea that three supports is a promote, for example, and where is the idea of "(my) usual month" coming from? Once upon a time, FACs were promoted in four days, and archived in ten-- now we routinely see FACs running up to three weeks. I'm inclined to let them run when the page isn't backlogged, but not during the holidays when nothing is moving. That particular article, according to the commentary, came to FAC ill-prepared, and I let it run longer than usual in the hopes we'd see it turn around in a few weeks-- it didn't, and a fresh start after the holidays will probably be the fastest route to the star. Why does an edit summary of more than three weeks, no support concern you? In the future I could just say "closed", since the FAC instructions and the closed template already say everything that needs to be said ... confused here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikibreak

{{wikibreak}}

Here's hoping this is not serious, and short.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Me too.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back. "Disgusted", I can live with. Absent, not so much.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is really just a small core of people that actually keeps this place running. I think we need to make sure the foundation knows this... I am not convinced of the long tail and wish to see evidence of its importance. Happy holidays BTW.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I am convinced of the long tail phenomenon, but like many things, the pendulum can swing too far. Has the long tail been under-appreciated? Yes, I think it has. Is the long tail what solely matters? No, not even close. We needs IP edits, and we need editors like SG.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The WMF spends much of its time and effort promoting the long tail yet it is the long time editors that generate most of the high quality content and make the content consistent across articles. I am not suggesting that they should be ignored just that they are currently being paid too much attention relative to long time editors. We need to develop methods to attract serious editors. Will let people know if I discover any of these methods :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I have just a few things to say

Thanks to all who wished me well over the holiday, and for the encouraging words above. Happy holidays and best wishes for a joyous New Year to all!!

After spending seven months moving and under construction, living for a long while without a kitchen even and with most of my life in boxes, things finally settled down for me in November, and by mid-November, I had gotten my hands on four new medical journal reviews to begin a long-needed update of sources on Tourette syndrome.

Then, instead of turning my attention finally to article work, TCO launched his "manic manifesto", The Signpost fed it (when it would have died an early death if ignored), time was wasted in addressing those issues, and just as was ready to begin the update to TS I had long planned, I had a funeral to deal with. In the interim, TCO adherents decided to make Tourette syndrome (an FA written by me) the object of their affections, so I've had to deal with a number of unnecessarily uninformed comments on the TS talk page, not curiously also including IP edits (the IRC factor). Some folks-- who know nothing of the topic or FA writing-- have decided that only articles that get high page views (as TS does) should be eligible to be Featured articles, and they want them run on the mainpage when they want them, and that they are going to make prose changes to their liking even when wrong, even if the only editor who knows the sources well says, not now. Now, that we have these officious intermeddlers making content contributors chase their tails is bad enough, but that was not the final straw for me ...

The final straw, leading me take some time off, was the "friendly fire"-- another FA writer touting his own FAs[10] and taunting a fellow FA writer while blocking him.[11] One of the great joys of being involved at FAC has been working with some of Wikipedia's best editors, and it is working with such people that encourages me to stay here. When FA writers are already under fire from the uninformed, it's most discouraging to see someone with numerous FAs to their credit touting them like this-- it disgusted me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome Sandy. :) I am quite sad for Malleus. He helped me a lot and I appreciate his way of stating things directly as they are, without beating around the bush. It's better to be honest than to be a hypocrite. Well, we will see what happens next. And I wish you more beautiful opportunities in your career. We all love you here. Take care. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

hi

Can you cast your eyes over S&M (song) and tell me if it is FA worthy? Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 03:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you see this? Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 16:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but haven't gotten to it, because I've been determined to finally overhaul an FA I wrote six years ago after recently getting my hands on four new review, that task requires my full concentration, and I need to look at FAC. I was hoping a Talk Page Stalker would do the task :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, well I saw you had replied to everyone else apart from me below so I just wanted to check. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 16:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization in citations

I take issue with a comment you made at User talk:Fconaway. You wrote "We don't use capital case in article titles on Wikipedia-- we use sentence case (which means we don't capitalize the words in the article titles)." That would be true for the title of articles published in Wikipedia, but in that context, it seems to refer to the capitalization of the title of works cited in Wikipedia. As it says in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles "There is no standard for formatting citations on Wikipedia, but the format should be consistent within any one article." So the only standard for capitalization of source titles is the style manual adopted for a particular Wikipedia article, or the established practice in a particular Wikipedia article. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with you, but it's moot, since the bot is altering citation style on articles I wrote and I use sentence case in medical articles and all articles, as does the Diberri script which is widely used across medical articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Compatibility mode

See Compatibility mode. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks-- that was all Greek to me, but I just clicked around, found I'm on IE9, clicked on Tools, and see I have a checkmark next to Compatibility ... so I suppose I just uncheck it? Is doing that going to mess up anything beyond all repair. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't; but it'll be reversible in any case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Unchecked compatability mode, haven't noticed what effect that has, WP:FA still slow to load with flatlist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

24 FAC

Sorry about the mess-up with the templates. FAC is an area I am completely new to. I'll fix up my errors on the FAC page tomorrow concurrently with addressing issues to the article (as I am editing from an iPhone at present). Sorry again :) Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 11:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem, but templates are avoided at FAC because they cause template limits to be exceeded in the archives, and if you respond to every point as you work on it, the FAC will grow enormously long-- possibly discouraging other reviews. It can sometimes to be more effective to address as many changes as you can, and just add a diff to the bottom, to avoid a lengthy FAC. ALso, don't add your commentary to the same line as the reviewer, or we can't tell who said what. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Understood on the templates. With regards to responding to each point as I go, that somewhat makes sense, but say some things I can fix on the spot while others need clarification (Nick posted a lot of points to be addressed). How would you do it? Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 12:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry-- no wrong or right way-- just be aware if you chunk up the page with a lot of updating, the FAC grows too long, subsequent reviewers think there may be problems and may not engage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, so fix lots then note they've been fixed all in one edit (though noting what was fixed?) Gotcha. (P.S. - I knew there was bound to be issues with the article I just couldnt see them. I guess that's partly what FAC is for. Bear with the noob here). Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 12:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Mentor

Sure, I would be up for it, I will see if he is interested in being mentored. Sorry for your loss, hope you have a better new year.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Good luck there! Heck, what's up with the weather out there? We deferred the ski trip til January, to combine it with a Very Important Birthday, but now I see that there is still no snow, so a big dilemma about whether to cancel again and miss the big birthday. Bad bad bad news for the economy, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Dunno, it is weird..we've had no snow yet, but it's still cold. Although we hit the 60s the past 2 days, and had a little rain there is no sign of snow in the near future.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Grrr ... just watch, it will start snowing the minute I cave and cancel my flights :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Tiger FAC nomination

So the nomination is not going to stand? I didn't do much work on the article, but I'm well versed in the subject. However, I understand what you mean and the policies surrounding it. The Tiger article is an incredibly substantial article about one of the most well-known, easily recognized, and universally loved animals on this planet. All subspecies are highly endangered. It is the largest feline on earth - two tiger subspecies, the Bengal tiger (current research puts average male at 235 kilograms (518 lb) (Sunquist et al.) and the Siberian tiger (which can grow to sizes over 340 kilograms (750 lb), but current research shows an average male between 500-550 lb (Mazak et al), outweigh the second largest cat (the African lion, which is a FA) by over 45.5 kilograms (100 lb), as the male African lion averages 181 kilograms (399 lb) (Packer, West, and Sunquist et al). A third subspecies, the Indochinese tiger is the same size as the African lion. The tiger is the largest land carnivore in the world, if you consider the polar bear to be a marine mammal (which some scientists do) and the brown bear's (Kodiak's and Grizzly's) diets consist mostly of vegetation and fruits (over 90%, with the majority of the rest being fish and only about 2% consists of real meat). It is a travesty that the article of the Tiger isn't a FA article yet, it's isn't even a GA article. I think those that have helped develop the article should be nudged and perhaps even told to begin trying to take this article to a status it deserves. Bastian (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

All of that information is interesting, but as Casliber can tell you, a highly experienced group of editors worked for months, if not years, to bring lion to FA, it was quite a task even for highly experienced FA writers, and it subsequently deteriorated and was brought to WP:FAR since it's so hard to keep these popular articles up to snuff (everyone thinks they know something). Since you have little experience with either FAs or GAs (or the kind of sourcing and writing required) I would think you'd want to bring in some collaborators for such a difficult article and broad topic, to better prepare the article, but if you want to nominate it, I can't prevent it (although I can warn you it's likely to be slapped down fast)-- I removed the template from article talk because it was never trancluded at FAC and because you didn't respond on the FAC for two days, even though you were editing, which is never a good sign. You might want to consult some of the folks who worked on lion to understand just how much more work is needed, particularly since it's not even a GA yet. But I can't tell you not to nominate it-- if you want to, it's your choice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

No I'm not stubborn or stupid so I'm going to take your advice and not nominate it. The problem with these kinds of articles (tiger, lion, elephants, or any other very popular animal, etc) is that you got a lot of people that think they know something or think they have something to add, but it really isn't something they can cite a source for, or it's original research or just plain mythical claims (mostly IP editors do this kind of stuff). I had a terrible time with the black mamba article with this kind of stuff, however I eventually prevailed and got it to GA status and I can honestly claim that I did it on my own. I really don't know who the main tiger editors are. To begin working on the tiger article to bring it up to FA status, we are going to need a team. Not just any editors, but editors who know what they are doing and know the subject well. I know this particular cat and its subspecies relatively well and I can bring something to the table, but like you said this requires a team of editors. So no, I am not going to nominate it but I am going to try to assemble a team and get that article to FA status. Key word is try. Bastian (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's debatable whether black mamba should be a GA, there are significant prose issues and it doesn't appear that the reviewer was up to snuff; that prose and sourcing wouldn't make it at FAC. I hope you can work with editors like Casliber and Mike Searson to improve those articles-- you can learn a lot from them. There is a good core of biology editors, and it will take all of them to get tiger to FA standards. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Bastian I worked up lion years ago and intended to follow up one day with tiger but found the extinction issue with them too depressing. Big articles require alot of work. Have a look at the GAN and FAC pages for American White Ibis and White Stork - both of these ended up being a major work, some of which was due to me not being as thorough as I would before nominating. Tiger needs alot of work. Also see LittleJerry's experience with giraffe. I agree these should all be improved. Have a think about which one you'd like to prioritise and then go from there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Bastion I know nothing about Tigers but I'm fairly experienced at copyediting. I'm also a dab hand at tidying articles up so that visually they're free of clutter and are easy to understand. If you'd like my help (I've done the FAC thing many times now) drop me a line on my talk page. Parrot of Doom 00:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all for the advice. I'm a relatively new editor, so I still have a lot of catching up to do. In regards to the black mamba article, I just asked a GA mentor to help me with the prose. I agree it's not great, but the article is neutral, no original research, sources are good, etc. Bastian (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Cool beans, looks like you're on the right path, and plenty of people are willing to dig in! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

TFA alert

Yes, we have no bananas.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm on it. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess that means it must be New Year's Eve ... doesn't feel like with a cold in the nose in the house. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Re edit break, that's fine. Sorry about the choppiness, I was looking at it and deciding whether to move it but you got there first.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It got weird, IMO, because of My76's off-topic misstatement of anything I said or believe, which led to me presenting an example, which led to unnecessary warning ... <groan> ... I think the breaks now separate out the off-topic stuff from the discussion I intended when I started the section. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

2012

This seems somewhat inappropriate under the current circumstances, but wanted to stop by to wish you a Happy New Year! I hope that 2012 is less stressful than last year. Take care, Truthkeeper (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Last year was very good to me. December was the problem :) Happy New Year to you, too! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about the toaster oven and all. That hasn't sounded like it was much fun. But anyway, yeah, December has not been a great month. I'm looking forward to January! Truthkeeper (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

My Sincere Wishes For This Festive Season

		★*★*★*★*★*★*★*★* Merry Christmas And Happy New Year 2012 *★*★*★*★*★*★*★*★
		I Wish You And Your Family A Merry Christmas And A Happy New Year 2012. May The New Year Bring Much Happiness, Prosperity, Peace, And Success In Your Life. I Am Very Happy To be Part of Wikipedia And To Have Great Friends Like You. Cheers. - From A Big Fan of ----> Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Holiday wishes...

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Christmas cheese

	Seasonal greetings and much happiness for 2012!
	Your work is much appreciated even if the word is not always spoken. Brianboulton (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC) (This historic image shows Brian, on the right, requesting a peer review from Malleus Fatuorum, on the left). The spirit of SandyGeorgia hovers between them.

Happy holidays

Sandy, I'll be thinking of you this holiday season. You've been a great inspiration to many many editors on Wikipedia; you should feel proud of your accomplishments here and that so often you are right (though sometimes it takes a while for people to get the message!). I'm sorry to find this message on your page but fully understand the reasons. The frustrations are huge and all to often overwhelming. Be well and best. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree this isn't worth fuzzing about, we need to protect our most valuable article writers, and all this drama right or wrong is causing too much damage. Take a short break and come back refreshed. Secret ^account 04:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas, Sandy! - Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

	Season's greetings and best wishes for 2012!
	Thanks for all you do here, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Merry Christmas. I hope that the holiday season is going well, and that the coming year is a good one for you. Cheers. :) MastCell ^Talk 23:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

	Season's greetings!
	I hope the holiday season is relaxing and fulfilling, and that 2012 will be fruitful for you. --John (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

	Merry Christmas
	And from me, a happy NSW Xmas bush Xmas from us all down here in Oz (damn, should have 5x expanded that for this Xmas...is there still time I wonder....) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

	Love
	from Graham Colm (talk) 00:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

	Happy Holidays!
	Hope you and your family have an enjoyable holiday season. Keep in mind that no matter what frustrates you here, there will always be a dedicated core of congenial editors and writers that you can fall back on, eg. everyone above. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Happy holidays

		Happy holidays.
		Best wishes for joy and happiness. Hope you have a great one! Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 00:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

O How can I forget you?? Sorry for that may you have a wonderful holiday. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 06:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Health related articles

Hi SandyGeorgia, I appreciate your concerns about the health related citations in the remarriage article, but I'm having trouble addressing them. Interestingly, much of the research on mental and physical health consequences of remarriage has been done by sociologists, so many of the secondary sources/reviews on health and remarriage are published in journals like The Journal of Marriage and Family, which are peer reviewed but not always included in PubMed, so they do not fit that criteria for wikipedia medical sources. Conversely, the primary sources that you tagged as potentially unreliable medical sources are in PubMed and have been cited 52, 94, and 143 times respectively. Also, given that this isn't a super popular, prolific area of research, a 10 year old source is old, but not necessarily outdated, because often there is not funding or motivation to replicate a meta-analysis when the original findings continue to be supported and cited relatively widely. In sum, I understand that the sources that I used are not ideal (I would of course prefer more recent articles, more reviews, etc) but I think they are among the best of what's out there on the topic and the citation counts indicate that the articles are accepted by the scientific community. I have been looking through the articles that cite these sources hoping to find secondary and more recent sources that fit the wiki medical source criteria but keep coming up dry, so I'm not sure what else I can do to show that the findings reported in the remarriage article are representative and accepted (I have additional primary sources I could cite that have similar, supporting findings, but that's about it...). To reiterate, I completely understand where you are coming from and think it's great that wikipedia holds itself to such high standards, but I'm finding it difficult to impossible to meet the standards that were written for biomedical research when I'm reporting research related to overall health and emotional wellbeing conducted though population surveys. Thoughts, suggestions? Thanks! Jmenkin (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Note to self: catch up on this one after Christmas, help Jmenkin understand how to use sources for health-related articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)