User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch93

Pre-GA second round

Hi Sandy, hope you're having a good holiday season. At circ, I finally got through suggestions you gave, and also a general walk-through of the article, looking for more and fixing. Fortunately (?) for your first pre-GA look-through, you happened to go through the section that I thought had the worst prose in the article. Would you mind giving it another spin? Note: One thing that is NOT done is cleaning up wikilinks, that will be the last thing I do before submitting, so don't worry about that. I'm not expecting that it is FA quality now or even will pass GA as-is, but I just need to get the GA process started. Sometimes I need some external pressure to make me get things done! I'm hoping it's now close to "good enough to start GA" and will get to GA as part of the GA process. I just don't want a quick-fail. Appreciate it! Zad68 21:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

It's on my list ... hope to get there soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks... any time urgency that there might have been is now attenuated due to an active RFC, but of course your input is always appreciated. Zad68 16:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, my ... you do have your hands full there, and I'm impressed that you've been able to make so much progress. OK, so pls ping me when you think I should tackle the article again ... honestly, free time isn't something I've got a lot of, so I'd rather do this work once the "issues" subside. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, hands full... I blame you--you see what happens when you leave even for 24 hours? This whole place goes to hell. For those of you who like mixed metaphors: Actually it's par for the course for that topic area, it waxes and wanes, so I'll ping again when the "issues" activity is at ebb tide, which it will be, one way or another. Zad68 18:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I was encouraged to go ahead and start a Peer Review, so I've done that. Zad68 21:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Peer review/Circumcision/archive1. Biosthmors (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Improving Otis Redding

Hello,

I am sorry for my harsh responses on the article's nomination page. I tend to be sometimes a poison dwarf if something does not function correctly. I would like to work with you to improve Otis Redding. Since you have much better English skills, I have difficulties in detecting errors. I and our readers would be glad if you help bring it on the main page. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I will try to get over there in the next week or so ... no promises, but it's on my list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Citation question

Hi Sandy, hope your holiday season isn't too hectic.

I have a citation question. It involves sports, which may not be your forte, so if you cannot answer it, I hope you can point me in the right direction.

I cite ESPN quite often. I'm now building a "template" to help make the citation faster. Most of the parameters are quite straightforward, although I confess some weakness when it comes to "work" and "publisher". I decided to look at some FA, on the assumption that these citations have been checked thoroughly.

I have been working on the assumption that I should use {{cite news}} for newspapers, even if on the web, while I should use {{Cite web}} for other web based sources.

However, when I checked Yao Ming, I see that refs to ESPN use {{cite news}}. So question number one is if you agree with this. Again, I presume that because it has gone through FA, it is the right approach, but I'd hate to start using it and find I grabbed the wrong article. (I also glanced at Tim Duncan, but that one isn't using the cite templates). I checked Derek Jeter, which also uses {{cite news}}.

The second question relates to the ideal parameters for Work and Publisher.

The Yao Ming article uses "publisher=ESPN" and no entry for work

Derek Jeter uses "work=ESPN New York" or "work=ESPN Classic" but nothing for publisher.

I do recognize, (I think) that citations styles do not have to be uniform across all of Wikipedia, but it is desired to use a consistent style within an article, so that may explain why I'm seeing differences between articles, even if there is consistency within an article, but I would like to set up the canonical style for my future use.

My tentative conclusions:

• Use of {{cite news}} for ESPN is acceptable
• Use of "publisher=ESPN" and no entry for work is acceptable--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hea there! Hectic would be an understatement :) :) I hope yours was grand!

On the first, I disagree that cite news should be used; ESPN is not a hard print source to my knowledge. I distinguish between what is in hard print and what is web-based when it comes to work and publisher (journals, newspapers, etc are italicized).

I also disagree on the second; since ESPN is not a hard print source, I would use publisher, not work. It should not be italicized. I would say Jeter is wrong. On the other hand, it's less important which template you use as it is to get italics correct. We do not italicize websites; we do italicize books, journals, and newspapers. Perhaps folks are using cite news for ESPN because it is media news-- as long as the italics are correct, that's probably OK>

It would be good to hear from others, but that's my take. For example, I use cite web and publisher for the BBC, but using cite news would probably be OK as long as BBC isn't italicized with "work".

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I have been using {{Cite web}} for ESPN, so I can continue doing so - I was surprised to see {{cite news}} instead on some FAs, so I decided to ask.

I'm discombobulated by your disagreement with the second point - I suggested using the Publisher parameter, and I think you are saying the same.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

OK :) Reading too fast :) Maybe someone can remind me of the name of that Australian editor who was the citation guru ... I was absent for most of 2012 and memory fails me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you're referring to User:Fifelfoo. Ucucha (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thx Ucucha ... Sphilbrick, you might ping Fifelfoo to this discussion-- he's the best at citation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to both, I've posted there.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

As long as you use the publisher= parameter for ESPN, it doesn't really matter which template you use because the output to the readers is usually the same. The only difference I can think of is when an article is by the Associated Press or another news agency; there is an agency= parameter for cite news, but not for cite web. From that standpoint, there is an advantage to using the cite news template, even though I'd prefer to use cite web for a non-print publication myself. Also, bear in mind that ESPN does publish a magazine, and sometimes runs the articles online. In those cases, cite journal is probably your best bet, in the absence of a cite magazine template. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The most important thing is consistency in a single article. I would be greatly helped if you could link to an example page that you cite from ESPN? Fifelfoo (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Good luck

All the best in your retirement, take care, and have a good 2013 onwards. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed. Good luck Sandy. I hope you find peace and happyness. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

  Dipstick administrators and familiars going hog wild, indeed. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what spurred this, probably not hard to imagine, but best wishes for the future and maybe someday you'll see something more positive in the project to make you want to return. Someday the site may improve!!... Saludos.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

You will be sorely missed. I don't think FAC will be the same without you. ceranthor 19:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for your hard work on FAC and just making Wikipedia better. Good luck with what the future brings. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• Hey Sandy, we're going to miss you around FAC. You were an excellent delegate for FAC and really the vocal point. Going to miss having someone strong at reviewing and capable of the best. Like I say to everyone in real life who has left an important place (courtesy of G.B. Shaw): "I want to be thoroughly used up when I die, for the harder I work the more I live. I rejoice in life for its own sake. Life is no "brief candle" for me. It is a sort of splendid torch which I have got hold of for the moment, and I want to make it burn as brightly as possible before handing it on to future generations." - Hopefully it burns brightly after you've left. ;) Thanks for the memories! Mitch32^{(The man most unlikely to drive 25 before 24.)} 19:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• :( Parrot of Doom 19:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Sandy, we've had our fair share of differences. Hell, we've had more than our fair share. That doesn't mean I'm not sorry to see you go. Best of luck to you in the future. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• Hope you come back. There's been a lot of experienced folks getting run off here lately. Its a shame for you to be one of them too over this. Kumioko (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• Bah. Come back immediately! Rich Farmbrough, 21:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC).
  
• I hope you come back after a break, Sandy. Without you around, much of the project will be empty and lifeless. Gimmetoo (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• Best wishes. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• :( indeed WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• Hope your desire for good content will eventually overwhelm your frustration with the current state of things. Happy new year and all the very best, Jacob. JFW | T@lk 23:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, damn :( What bought this on??? You hurry up now and get yo'self back on here when you is well rested :) You're gonna be missed till you do. Fish^Barking? 23:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• I understand your frustration, but you will be sorely missed by many, including me. I hope you will change your mind. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Nobody has earned a break more than you, Sandy, but I hope it will only be temporary and that we see you back after you rest and regroup. Happy New Year to you and yours (he says, somewhat bleary eyed -- it's the morning after the party in this neck of the woods...!) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• I hope you're well and 2013 is happy and fulfilling for you. I'll miss your comforting presence. This project will be significantly diminished by your departure. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• This is terrible news for the project as we enter 2013. If you're still watching here, know that you influenced me more than any other editor, and that I hope you return some day when things become calmer here (if that ever happens). Enjoy yourself in whatever you do in the future. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• So disappointing, losing such a valuable, knowledgable contributor! Best wishes, Hordaland (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• This is a big loss for wikipedia and I am very sorry to see you go Sandy. I wish you all the very best in life and I thank you for all of the hard work you have done for the encyclopaedia. You did a good job. Maybe you will come back. That would be nice. All the best. Bye. Take care.--MrADHD | T@1k? 02:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Thank you for all you've done at FAC. And then some... Buggie111 (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• You were one of the very first people I ever found on Wikipedia when I was reading and editing autism articles. I'm very sorry to see you go but I know we all have to make choices like this eventually. ☮Soap☮ 03:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Your excellent contributions will be missed. Best wishes, hope to see you back in the future. Yobol (talk) 03:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• I do hope you will reconsider, Sandy; but I will certainly understand if you do not. Incompetent or otherwise wayward admin actions are a serious threat to good order on Wikipedia. Something needs to be done, but in the nature of the case it is hard to get any coordinated effort at reform. Best wishes to you, anyway. Noetica^Tea? 03:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Hope a bit of rest returns your spirits. Much of Wikipedia is free of drama. It is in fact free of nearly any one editing. All the best and you will be missed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• :( per Doc James. Soon the only people editing here will be students and admins, neither of whom have any passion for or understanding of their subject or for article writing. You had both in spades and damn those fools who put that passion out. -- Colin°^Talk 08:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Weak. You are one of the strongest voices here. You leave us who respect that voice to carry on your legacy. But you abandon that legacy. Thanks for giving up on us. Doc talk 08:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Sorry to see you go, and hope you return. You've done great work here. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• While I tend to hang around the female hogs ears area of this website, that doesn't mean I'm not aware of its Silk Purses contributors. I can only echo your content-writing peers' sincere regret on your retirement.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Thanks for keeping us all honest - take care. Sad if you are gone for good, but make sure you prioritise your own wellbeing before getting worn out here. I'll keep my fingers crossed that you come back envigorated sometime. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• I'll believe it when I see it - will check back, around June or so. I hope you and yours are well, best wishes, Postpostmod (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oh dear! I hope you will be back after a break. We need you. All the best. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• The project is diminished by your absence, but I hope that it will draw attention to the reasons for your departure. I have blanked my userpage as JFW suggested. -- Scray (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• This really bites. I've also blanked my user page in protest, not that it will do any good. That does it for me; I was reconsidering putting myself through another RFA, but I refuse to be part of any group that will do this kind of thing to content editors like Sandy. Please come back, we need you! In the meantime, good luck and the best to you and your family, and thanks for all that you've done here. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• You are a great loss Sandy; hope you will be back soon. --John (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• This sucks. I understand it, but I don't have to like it. Thanks for all of your work over the years. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Will miss you, until you return.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• I had only ever gotten to interact with you once, and only briefly, on one article. I add my voice to the general wailing in asking for your Wikibreak to be brief and for you to come back refreshed after realizing the good here outweighs the bad. I ask this for purely selfish reasons: 1) because I found your assistance really helpful, and 2) I need a chance to redeem myself after that penis joke misfired horribly. Besides, getting your attention focused on something I was working made me feel like I was breaking into the "big time," and yes that is a naked appeal to your ego. In sum, I hope you just scan down this big list of "me too" bullet points and this comment takes up enough vertical space that it tips the balance in your mind so that you conclude, "Yeah OK I'll come back." Zad68 21:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Thank you for your hard work at FAC. And good wishes for the future. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

All the best in the coming year. Happy New Year and thank you for all you have done here, You will always be welcomed to return....Modernist (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your service to the project, and best wishes in 2013 where ever you go and what ever you do! Jusdafax 02:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

What should be said about admins chasing away good contributors?

The issue has been raised in two threads related to Sandy's departure at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention. Please comment there. Biosthmors (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Back

So, the sock is blocked now, and Mark Arsten has a years' worth of enabling to answer for. In answer to Bio above, here's what can be said about admins like Mark Arsten (talk · contribs), who blocked a valued content editor with no warning, who made false statements during Kiefer's last block, and who enabled a prolific sock for almost a year: User:MathewTownsend (Mattisse). While he was running around blocking content editors for minor infractions, he was supporting a prolific sock who was once again going after FAC, TFAR, the FA process, Malleus, and anyone on her plague list. WTF do we have admins for if all they do is make work here impossible?? Risker, you were wrong here. WRONG. You set up a situation where all of the rest of us had to deal with her again. I have brought back the page so others will recognize her next reincarnation (since we know the arbs don't care about watching for same, and we know there will be another one, and we know the usual cast of characters will defend and enable). WHY oh why have the arbs made this year all about socks, sockmasters, and those who enable them? We all know who enabled and continues to enable both of them, and you, Mark Arsten, are among those. So you just block me all you want, because you have made it a badge of honor to be blocked for speaking the truth and for defending content contributors against the socks, vandals, disrupters and other unsavory types that so many of our admins now find it convenient to enable. Will we content contributors ever be able to take back the Wiki, or will the arbs and the admin corp continue to defend sockmasters as if their big egos depended on it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Speaking of big egos and lack of apologies: [1] There's a class act in that head. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I had a feeling you would be back. :-) Welcome back!--MrADHD | T@1k? 23:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

In all fairness, Sandy, did you know that MatthewTownsend was a sock? --Rschen7754 23:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Kiss my ass, Rschen, with your false statements everywhere I look. I was gone almost all year; where were you when you weren't spreading stories about me and FAC? You see that link above to Laser's sandbox? You see that conversation after her last dozen or so socks were found, where Risker told us all to shut up, then the sandbox was blanked? Was Risker watching out for socks? We weren't supposed to. This is no different than the way we were shut down when Merridew was running amok through FAC. It seems that between the arbs and the admin corp, and the socks and the socks enablers, FAC is fair game. And you've been part of that, so bug off. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Sandy, I can see why you're upset; I would be too. But in some instances, I think you're lashing out at the wrong people. I was one of the editors trying to hold TFA together while Raul was gone, and who repeatedly told a certain editor to stop scheduling TFAs inappropriately, and who emailed Dabomb87 repeatedly as the end of the TFA queue grew closer and closer. I can't say that I've always been perfect or gotten it right, but I've tried to be fair. I think ArbCom screwed up the Jack Merridew thing horribly, but there wasn't much I could do about that. I don't think it's fair to assume that Mark knew about the Mattisse socking; it was only within the last week or two that people started making the connection and contacting CheckUsers. I thought his position on the Brer Rabbit community ban was particularly bad, and I called him on it, but still I don't think the Mattisse issue is a fair assumption. Again, I have a lot of respect for you even though we've had our differences, but I don't think that attacking everyone in sight is going to be helpful. --Rschen7754 00:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yea, I know you did some of that, but that's not all I've seen you doing and saying. In the interest of putting the past behind, I'm not calling you on it, but you don't know the history, you haven't got the storyline right, and sometimes you make wrong statements because you just don't know. But you do it again, I will call you on it-- I have NO INTENTION to ever put up with this admin bullshit again, and I no longer care if you all block me a gazillion times, because one thing that is proven over and over from the last year and a half is that FAC and the FA process cannot count on either the arbs or the admin corp to stop the disruption. If you can block Drmies and Nikkimaria, you can sure as hell block me, too. The Mattisse thing is by NO MEANS the only thing Mark Arsten has to explain for; he's up to his eyeballs in denial or something, but the Mattisse footprints are clear as sunlight. Just because I was absent most of the year-- no reason for plenty of others to have turned their backs and let it happen again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It's been open discussion since October - see here. Particularly interesting thread re Malleus, the thread re MT, and the hatted section - "some thoughts" - at the bottom of the page. I've not been around much because of all of this, and I've been grieving which is really hard to do when being attacked - without an admin lifting a finger!. (btw - Sandy meant to get by to say hi months ago, but stuff kept happening. Nice to see you back and nice to see you not retired). Truthkeeper (talk) 00:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, TK. What is Rschen's role in this? I wasn't around at all in October; by the time I came around, the Moppet thing was over. Specifically, what does this mean?

SilkTork, I would take a look at Iridescent's talk page before mentioning Matthew Townsend - there's some context you may not be aware of. --Rschen7754 19:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

What was on Iri's talk? And since/if Iri knew, why was nothing done? And since SilkTork was a former mentor of Mattisse, he would have most surely recognized the clear footprint; what did he do, or why did he do nothing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Catching up more, I see SilkTork seems to have known, although he was being circumspect. So, there we have it; again, the arbs knew the FA process was under assault by socks, again, and nothing was done. That is classic Mattisse victimization; why did no one submit an SPI then? What did the arbs know and when? WTF are we content contributors, chopped liver ???? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

User_talk:Iridescent/Archive_16#Thank_you and User_talk:PumpkinSky#MathewTownsend are the threads. --Rschen7754 01:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't make anything of that gibberish, except that all the usual folks are in there, yet no one seems to have recognized the clear footprint. I don't see any relationship with the first thread. Specific question is: What was your role, Rschen? I don't recall you being around when Mattisse was ripping up FAC, so I wouldn't expect you to recognize her. I would expect you to stop making statements about FAC which I find generally wrong and insulting. That several users have consistently and for years been allowed to rip through FAC should not be an indictment against FAC, rather against all the admin enablers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

My role? I got annoyed by MatthewTownsend's comments, and told him it was a bad idea to keep making them. That's it. And I'll bite: what statements about FAC have I made that are "generally wrong and insulting"? --Rschen7754 01:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

If I bring them up again, I'll be accused of continuing old disputes. So let's leave it at, next time you make a statement about me or FAC, there had better be a diff attached. And pardon my bad manners (i'm in a wee bit of a foul mood after more than a year of this BS) ... thank you for the explanation of your role-- I appreciate it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm still not really thinking very clearly to be honest. I posted to show that at least I'd noticed as early as October that it was being discussed. Didn't know Silktork was a Mattisse mentor, never interacted with Mattisse as Mattisse (before my time) but she has been around the Hemingway suite of articles as other socks. Haven't a clue why nothing was done. I don't want to go into detail, but truly have been through hell in RL since September and wiki wasn't a priority so I didn't bother to follow up. Just wanted to make the case that this shouldn't be a surprise. I always thought the "Miss Moppet situation" was way beyond the pale. But whatever. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear things have been very rough on you, TK, and I appreciate you weighing in to the extent you could. Yes, it is not at all unexpected that Mattisse would turn to SilkTork, and SilkTork was in a position to recognize the footprint, even if I wasn't on Wikipedia. Do the folks in positions of authoritah anywhere on Wikipedia even care about the disruption that they have allowed to be visited upon so many pages and so many editors at the hands of sockmasters? I say it's time to stop the enablers. Oh, and by the way, why the hell didn't someone ping me way back in October? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

At the moment, Sandy, it seems that people are more concerned with civility than sockpuppetry. I have returned to a Wikipedia that I no longer recognize, and the worst part is that I thought it was bad before I took a break. Glad to see that you're back, by the way. ceranthor 01:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

No f'ing shit, Ceranthor. This place is horrificly unrecognizable, where enabling and supporting socks has become the norm, while admins wanting to flex their muscles run around blocking editors like Nikkimaria or Drmies. That's why I put up my first ever retirement tag yesterday ... I have given up hoping that either the arbs or the admin corp gives a flying f about content contributors trying to build articles. I don't know this place anymore, but if I'm going to go, it's going to be with a long block log, because I'm not taking this any more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

To be fair - some of us are just dense and wouldn't recognize any sockpuppets if they bit us. I totally missed Pumpkin Sky, Alarbus, Matthew Townsend... all of them, and I should have been in a perfect position to recognize most of them. Mea culpa. It's possible that some folks just are oblivious like I am. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

NB: For next time, I moved Laser Brain's page to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Mattisse. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, "we" aren't high enough on the pay scale. Let's look at some facts about the arbs. Casliber was an old mentor of Merridew, he told us he didn't know Alarbus was Merridew, he could have seen the repeat pattern of hounding and taunting; Kirill told us something different (I'd have to look that up, got it bookmarked somewhere, but neither Cas nor Kirill are known to shade the truth), EotR stalled and never answered or gave incomprehensible answers while she was coming on strong to make me shut up, but many times several arbs told us that Merridew declared all of his accounts, so they knew it was him. Well, which is it? They've still never told us, but he taunted and hounded openly and often. So, no answers, but does that mean the arbs saw the taunting, hounding and disruption every bit as much as we did and did nothing? Or what does it mean? Why did Cas not know Alarbus was Merridew, and why did Cas not do something? So, now we have a repeat here. Risker told us years ago to stop focusing on Mattisse, laser's page was blanked, everyone went complacent, and now we find that SilkTork, an arb, should have known. What the heck is going on in here? Do they not care that FAC has been under permenant assault since Mattisse started in 2009? Cas, glad you're here ... since I was mentioning you before ec. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I had no idea about Alarbus, and had limited interaction with MathewTownsend, who had seemed level-headed in what I'd seen. But I've clicked on links above which I hadn't been aware of. I've had a pretty busy few months IRL so have just focussed on content-work and reviewing to wind down/relax. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Cas, then how do you explain some of the arbs claiming that all of Merridew's accounts were disclosed? I have that stuff bookmarked somewhere, but gave up on the idea we would ever get an answer. But now we have another (repeat) situation. Were his accounts disclosed or not? Did SilkTork look into Mattisse or not? Was Risker watching or not (since the rest of us were pretty much told to stand down)? More importantly, what the heck do we have to do to get FA disruption to stop? There *will* be a next time, with these committed sockmasters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hehe, you clearly did not spend enough time around MathewTownsend then. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Ed, I can't tell if that's directed at Cas or me? My main interaction with MT was on Stephen Hawking, where she was right (and I recall she had a family interest in physics), but where another party was behaving worse than even Matisse at her highpoint (the other person was engaging in outrageous personal attacks and personalization), so I tried to take the high road and get the two of them separated. Other than that, I wasn't paying attention because I was sick already of a year of disruption. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

That was 100% a reply to Casliber; my apologies. Mathew was a pain and a half. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You got that right ... but don't even think of telling that to the supporters and enablers, who *will* come around in due time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Bit hard for me to speak about the committee mailing list without permission. I certainly would have known if the identity of Alarbus was disclosed on the list as obviously I was on the mailing list. I think maybe the best thing for the community as a whole is to update various pages on WP:LTA as now more than ever we are developing a portfolio of work worth defending. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

yea, I know you can't say much, but you really don't have to ... you see, I know that neither you nor Kirill are inclined towards shading the truth, so when you say you didn't know Alarbus was Merridew, I have to conclude that some other arbs were lying when they said his accounts were all disclosed. Point now is, how can we get the arbs on the side of content, to stop preventing us from speaking up (as EotR did in the Alarbus situation), and to help content contributors rather than enable socks? We've had consistent disruption visited on FAC since 2009, and going all the way back to the Mattisse mentorship, we've had little help, and nothing but sustained persistent disruption from returning users and socks. How hard is it to recognize that there are less than a handful of people with complaints about FAC, so when a new user shows up with issues, how hard is it to tell? Why is FAC left hanging out to dry every time? Cas, why did some arbs insist that Merridew's accounts were disclosed? If you had known Alarbus was Merridew, you would have put a finger on the issues at FAC, which were hounding and taunting of Raul. Why can't the arbs be honest, or at least do something to help stop the disruption? Did SilkTork look into whether MathewTownsend was mattisse? If not, why not? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak for Silktork (so will let him answer for that) and only now just saw the GA reviews linked to on TK88's talkpage, hence to a casual observer it may have seemed that there was nothing amiss. WRT the Alarbus afair, I guess it was true to say that all his known socks at the time were disclosed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You know, I can't help but think that when you ask "how can we get the arbs on the side of content ... and to help content contributors rather than enable socks", I think the problem is that both 'sides' (if you prefer to think of them that way; I wouldn't, because I don't see them as two distinct, coherent schools of thought) think that they are acting in the best interest of the 'pedia. You might find that logically framing your arguments to rebut that mindset could help you more than, well, the current status quo. Just my two cents Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yea, starting here, I was just reading over a piece of the baiting history that happened while I was away (noticed Mark Arsten in there again, too), and I fail to see how anyone can think this is helping anything. Put it together with Mattisse's entire history, and it is as intentional as disruption can be. You do know she knew darn well the whole ILT history, and what she was putting TK through, no? Maybe the next time we get one of these innocent, "I don't know nothin' bout birthin' babies" newbies claiming problems at FA, we should apply some sanctions, because so far, they bat about 1.000 for being returning socks. Maybe I could frame my mind differently, but curiously, while I was gone for almost a year, things got worse, not better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Side show

Take this how you will (hopefully as the friends we ... used to be, I suppose), but you are part of the problem too. The level of discourse from everyone has declined since I started editing. You used to be a pillar of everything that was Right® about Wikipedia. Now you have peppered many of your interactions with personal, vitriolic comments—i.e. not content. This is why you found me commenting on your comments over the last several months (not well, I'll grant). While I fully appreciate some of the personal comments are necessary, like this and all the other Mattisse debacles, I would beg you to tone down the rhetoric wherever you can. Wikipedia will be the better for it, I promise you. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I take it the way it's delivered ... as always, without diffs. Usually or probably because that would show what you overlook in others while you claim I am "vitriolific". Same thing I said to Rschen ... next time you want to make a claim about me, diff it ... then others can see what you DIDN'T object to that was said to me or about me or about FAC. I would suggest that as soon as you apply the same standard to me that you apply to others, you'll have either nothing left to say on my talk, or plenty to say on others' talk. Deal? 'Cuz I can diff PLENTY of conversations where you decided to take difference with my tsk tsk while overlooking rather egregious attacks from others. Double standard-- sorry Ed, I'm not taking that any more, and I never base my decisions in here on whether we are, will be, or used to be friends ... I forget the past, and I base every conversation on diffable facts. So, got diffs? Let's see those conversations where you took me on for a tsk, tsk while you ignored something truly offensive that was said to me or about me or about others or about FAC. What have you done about that decline in the level of discourse besides consistently a) add to it, or b) overlook the source(s) of same? I think the diffs answer that. And if you somehow think saying "tsk, tsk" is part of a problem when Wikipedia is faced with massive disruptive socks, well, Ceranthor is right ... people in here have gone bonkers over some alleged civility issues, while overlooking the true and massive sources of disruption-- almost always users hiding behind socks, returning users with grudges, or editors enabling those two groups. Sure, I expended my one vulgarity on you ... maybe a year ago ... and you know as well as I do how hard you worked to provoke that out of me ... nevertheless, I shouldn't have let you provoke me so. That's history ... but I suspect your issue is that you are still smarting from that. You should let it go; life's too short, and I don't think you really want to revisit the facts there, no? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Jeez Sandy, it's not meant as a submission to an Arbcom case, replete with diffs, a chronological summary, and an ordered list of quotes. You know how you've changed over the last three years better than me. You didn't take this post in the spirit it was intended; you instead took it suspiciously, as I was afraid you would. Such is life. Vulgarity? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You may demean my suggestion that you treat me with the same standard you accord routinely to others when overlooking significant personalization on talk pages as "a submission to an Arbcom case"; all I'm asking is that any future statements that malign my integrity and character are accompanied by diffs (same thing I suggested to Rschen after seeing some of what he's spread around the 'pedia, without notifying me either by the way when he's talking about me). I can't answer your vague charges about what you claim to be my behavior when you don't provide a diff, you mislead others when you make these claims here without diffs so they can see what is really going on, and I can't take you seriously when you reprimand me for a "tsk, tsk" after the kinds of posts that are dished in my direction. Honestly, I sometimes do wonder if this place isn't just horribly misogynistic, especially after some of the discussion I observed last week ... that for some reason you folks think it's OK for men to say the most horrid things to women, but when women give it back and don't take it sitting down anymore, we get reprimanded and told "we've changed". You betcha ... this place hardens even a good ole AGFer like me. The assault on FAC has lasted at least since 2009 now, always socks, always users returning with a grudge ... what has been your part, as an admin, in stopping that? How many times did you go to an offender's talk page with the same concerns you come to my talk with? I did not take it "suspiciously"; I am asking you when you level these unfounded claims at me in the future, to include a diff and to apply the same standard to the offenders. Sure, I never woulda told someone to "kiss my ass" six months ago or a year ago or two years ago ... but then I never thought I'd put up a retirement tag over admin abuse or see the day where socks and sock enablers were valued over content contributors, where the arbs won't help us, where admins block good contributors while rushing to defend socks and their enablers, and admins would be rushing to my talk to reprimand me for a "tak, tsk", while all the FA pages are systematically assaulted by a cadre of socks and enablers. Vulgarity? You may recall that the only time I ever pointed one in anyone's direction involved you ... and not even a very good one at that ... if one is going to hurl a vulgarity, it should at least be memorable :) :) ... history now, I think and hope, but thought that was what you were referring to. By the way, please take "Jesus" out of this, thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Sample

Here's where you can find some diffs to pieces of the facts, Ed ... and here's where you can find some more. Now, I can come up with about a dozen more samples, while you (most likely) have narry a diff to back the disparaging things you claim. That incident followed on you ignoring an attack on me, going off-topic on a project space talk page, dredging up old business that had nothing to do with the conversation where the attack occurred, and then you followed that up by referring to "trolling posts" from me (curious that). So, I'd appreciate that you 1) provide a diff in the future when you make such disparaging statements about me, 2) stay on topic, and 3) not fall over yourself to come here and wag your finger at me for a "tsk, tsk" while overlooking a significant attack that was launched at me that led to the "tsk, tsk". I've got a good dozen or so where you have done same, so if you want me to talk in a nice ladylike voice to you from now on, well, be nice from now on. I most assuredly agree with you that the level of discourse on wikipedia is quite horrific-- and most of the abuse is aimed at women, and I've given you the example above not to dredge up old business, but to ask you what you've done about it and why you were part of it and why you didn't stop it when you saw it happening ? You were one of the agressors in that situation, in which I did nothing to warrant the attack or you going off-topic to bring up old history or the reprimand on my talk. So start being part of the solution if you're so worried about the discourse here, and stop overlooking attacks on the women. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

This isn't about me, this is about you. And now you think I'm misogynistic? Please. The remarks are far from 'disparaging', they are collegial, calm, and constructive criticism. They're not about any specific 'tsk, tsk' you typed, they're aimed at a pattern of behavior you have exhibited over the past year. You've changed, Sandy, and not for the best. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for adjusting your prior post. I know you want it to be about me and not about you, but if you want to make it about "I've changed", then you will have to take a look at how I've been treated by admins like you, what has been done to FAC, and how admin behavior has led to the toxicity everywhere on Wikipedia. Yes, it is a misogynistic culture, if you (the general you, not the specific you) can sit by and let the attacks hurl my direction and then come after me for responding to same with a mild "tsk, tsk". It's time we started calling it what it is, and I'm not going to roll over and play dead anymore when my name is smeared all over Wikipedia, important processes are disrupted, and false things are said about me on talk pages, at ANI, and I'm not even noticed. I'm still the same Sandy to the people who treat me with the same respect they accord the men, mostly admins, and don't apply a double standard to behaviors they're willing to overlook while rushing to wag a finger at me for a "tsk, tsk". Try it ... you might like it. I'd be *thrilled* to join you and anyone else who wants to make the FA pages like they were before all the various socks tore it down and chased everyone off, and to return the collegiality and comradarie that existed there. YOU had a chance to help that along in the conversation I diffed above. YOU could have asked the offender to tone it down. YOU could have stayed on topic instead of bringing in old irrelevant business. YOU could have reprimanded the offender instead of wagging your finger at me. But you didn't. You let the toxicity continue, and you added to it by even calling me a troll. Now you want me to roll over and let you claim the change in discourse is my fault or because I've changed? OK, you got the chicken and the egg wrong, but more importantly, what are you willing to do now to help change it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

@Ed, two things I've learnt in the past few years - (a) how often tertiary sources can be inaccurate, and (b) how important it is to examine the thread of interaction and comments in some of these conflicts. It is very easy to miss some of the nuances that someone participating in the thread(s) as it/they evolve can see. Thankfully I've only really been in one series of exchanges with another editor who got me annoyed and cast (in my view false) aspersions on my integrity (for the watchers, not that these "good natured" and "civil" observations I found far more aggravating than any levelling of anglo-saxon profanities at me). Problem was, anyone who read the exchanges just got lost in them and viewed them as two editors butting heads/locking horns. I've seen this in arb cases as well, where it is really easy to fall into the trap of glossing over some details and labelling the whole lot of warring editors as battling and be done with it. The way wikipedia is set up, it gives us a golden opportunity to be thorough and examine exchanges to work out who is baiting or trolling rather than just jump on whoever loses their temper the most obviously. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Enjoy the sock hunting, Sandy.

Cas, my remark wasn't well thought-out. It wasn't meant as an insult or anything similar to that. I do agree that you would have had to participate in multiple discussions with MT before a consistent pattern would have emerged, and expecting you to know that (as I did above) probably did not make for my best post. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

What sock hunting, Ed?

Ed, it appears that you've missed the point, so at the risk of TLDR, I'll give an analogy. When I was about 12, my sister 13, we were home alone and for whatever reason I can no longer remember, she got mad and beat the crap outta me. She was older, but I was bigger, so I never fought back, wasn't fair; I was sweeping the family room when she went after me, so I put the broom up to fend off the blows, she got it between the eyes, and by the time my parents got home, all they saw was my "littler" big sister with two black eyes. I got grounded naturally for a very long time, since it looked to my absent parents as if the bigger little sister had been the aggressor, and that grounding resulted in me missing several key events of my childhood. Fast forward several decades, and my sister cried through her apology as she recalled how unfairly I had missed something so important when we both knew she was the aggressor, I had only tried to defend myself accidentally giving her the black eyes, and she had borne the guilt of my unfair punishment for several decades.

Did you not read Cas's words, or do you not understand them? Do you not understand the opportunity the Wikipedia set up gives us to examine facts?

You, Rschen7754, Ched, and of late also SilkTork see what looks like a battle and accuse all parties of essentially "going after each other". Now, we can't blame my parents: they weren't home, there was no way for them to reconstruct evidence or know who was telling the truth, they did their best with what they had to work with. But, as Cas points out, one benefit of Wikipedia is that we can reconstruct, and we don't need to unjustly tar everyone with the same brush. Rschen7754 does that when he levels accusations about me without diffs-- probably because there are no diffs that back his version of the story. You do that when you overlook a blatant attack on me, go off-topic to introduce old business that had zero to do with anything I was saying, and then come over here to wag your finger at me. Perhaps neither of you has been a parent, but the advantage of Wikipedia is that the history is there, and if you are an admin, you should be applying your finger wagging judiciously-- based on observable facts and diffs. The diffs clearly show that the only aggressors in the exchange above were you and Wehwalt, either attacking or creating BATTLEGROUND, and both of you admins-- so why am I tarred by the brush, and why do you come over here to reprimand me, while not one word was said to either you or Wehwalt for the BATTLEGROUND caused and furthered in that exchange only by the two of you? Same with SilkTork, claiming whatever it was he said about the effect Mattisse had on me, when I had a history of trying to accommodate her while I was almost the exclusive object of her obsessions and aggression.

So, if you think I've changed, do you think that admin neglect might not have been part of that? WHY did you all sit by and let half a dozen editors pick apart FAC, while coming over here to wag fingers at me for nothing? As I said to Rschen, if you're going to make statements about me in the future, do it with diffs, do it based on a mature examination of facts even if you aren't old enough to apply judicious discipline as my parents couldn't in my example, because rest assured that I can show both you and Rschen oodles of exchanges just like the one above. If you're going to claim I'm going at someone or part of the problem, do it with a diff so we can discuss facts and not your biased opinions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I fully understand what you are saying. All I meant is that you are seemingly looking for socks at any random corner, and I really don't think driving away useful contributors like Status is helpful for, well, anyone. Do you really think I was standing by doing nothing? There was no love lost between Jack and I (I supported his community ban by saying "the frequent trolling by Jack/Brer/whatever we should call him has gone on for far too long", and kicked him out of several of my articles), and as for MathewTownsend/Matisse, see [2].

Aside from that, do you know why I come here to comment of your comments? Because you are a very visible figure. You're a role model. For you to let these sockpuppets, along with perceived 'admin neglect', change you in such dramatic fashion is to let them win.

Do you see why it's hard to use diffs here? I'm not looking for them, because I believe your general attitude to WP is what has changed, not where you edit. Having 2009 Sandy back would be more beneficial to FAC, and the 'pedia, than 2012 Sandy.

I'm sorry that I can't be clearer above; it's a general feeling I have as a human being, not as a Wikipedia editor. Thanks for the New Year's card; I have the same hopes. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, with that background, I'm ok with a diffless conversation, based on impressions. Who was this "Sandy of 2009"? Someone who spent up to eight hours a day reading FACs for ... whom? You? Wehwalt? What benefit accrued to me, other than long hours of work to promote quality on wikipedia? And what did I get in return? From, for example, you? The only reason that all the socks and enablers were able to damage FAC is because people stood by and let them do it. That included admins and arbs and the regular complacent editor who took for granted all the work I did. And then took shots at me and Raul whenever they could. And today, we have prose at the level of DYK passing FAC regularly, because most quality reviewers have left. But when I came back and tried to re-energize the place, more pot shots were taken at me. Of course, I could diff all that, but I'm ok with having a conversation based on what it feels like to this "Sandy the human being" who was shat on by the very people she worked for. By the way, thanks for the diffs ... since I mostly wasn't around then, and didn't participate in the Merridew ban discussion, and only crossed paths with Mattisse in her Mathew reincarnation very recently, I have limited knowledge of who did what when. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The link to the community ban is here. Again, all I'm talking about is temperament. People could disagree with you in 2009, like in the RfA section linked above, and not be thought of poorly. Or as a sockpuppet. With regards to enablers, everyone has the best interest of the 'pedia at heart, and there will always be supporters for disruptive editors that do good content work (Ottava Rima and Malleus come to mind, though the latter is nowhere near the former's territory). Like I said before, freaking out at the 'enablers' won't change their mind. You're going to have to convince them... and even then, there will still be supporters. Last, pot shots were taken at you. No one can deny that. Did you take pot shots at people too? I'd say so, and I think you'd agree (if not, I'll go diff hunting). You're both culpable in my eyes. Is one more than the other? Probably, but that's subjective, and mostly unimportant at this point.

Why not make a peace offering to Wehwalt? Why don't you set out an explicit agreement, together, so you can civilly interact and co-exist? That's something I feel 2009 Sandy would do. Can 2013 Sandy? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yea, on pot shots taken by me, you'd have to go diff hunting to convince me of that one, but I'm not suggesting you should now. I suggest you point out it out with a diff if you ever believe it happens again, and refrain from wagging fingers at me when I've been attacked with no reason or provocation. Wehwalt and I are mostly not the ones continuing this now ... as an example, see my discussion with Rschen7754 on his talk, where he spread stories on various pages with no notification and no diffs. And when I do try to get clarity with Wehwalt, he rarely responds: reference the allegations at WT:TFAR as an example where I started a discussion and got no answer.[3] I'd say the tentative status quo is that we are both trying, but others are continuing it, and he sometimes can't help himself ... I made an innocent query to Newyorkbrad yesterday as to whether he had made a typo on Richard Nixon, which had zero to do with Wehwalt,[4] who nonetheless got his nose out of joint. [5] In general, on peace offerings, I've made about ten times more of them to everyone (mattisse included) than have ever come my way, so yea ... maybe the Sandy2009 was killed off by admin neglect and abuse. Nice ideas and thoughts, Ed, but let's see some of you put something into practice and start calling the folks out who attack me for a change. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Apology

I owe you an apology. It wasn't intentional and was a brain spasm, but my wording came across as degrading to the FA process. I don't feel that way, and I'm saddened that I communicated so poorly. I do think that content creators are the only reason we are here. Most people know that I hold the content creators at Wikipedia in the highest esteem. I'm not a strong content creator, so I try to instead be supportive of those that are. In this case, the wording was just stupid on my part. I'm sorry. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Dennis Brown ... your kind apology is must humbly accepted, and I, too, apologize for any harsh or sloppy words on my part. You sound like a good man. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Good people will bump heads from time to time. It is because they actually care about the place and really want to make Wikipedia a better place. Thank you for your understanding. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Dennis is a good man, I believe, and you're a good man too, Sandy, though that is one scary cat on your user page. I saw a note somewhere about your retirement, and I haven't been feeling the WP spirit myself either. I'm still evaluating my own participation; there are lots of things I have no interest in right now; acting like an administrator is one of those things. (Yet I chose to do some RfC closures by way of return, but they don't actually require the use of tools.) It is hard not to get disillusioned here, especially for content creators, since (it seems to me) the deck is sometimes stacked against them. I'll leave it at that. Anyways, happy new year, and I hope Santa brought you everything you wanted. I got a North Face jacket and a new countertop for the kitchen island, so I'm pleased with him. See you around, Drmies (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Santa was very good to me ... new computer, and I've finally joined this century with iTunes, listening to the best soothing soulful music in the world right now, and Santa brought my long-lost "adoptive" daughter back in to my life from Colombia, so I am just about as happy as a clam.

I let poor Dennis have it yesterday in email before someone finally blocked the sock, but I hope my apologies have been accepted and I've been forgiven. Cheer up, Drmies ... things will get better, they usually do, but sometimes when you're up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to drain the swamp, and sometimes things have to get worse before they get better.

Here's to a New Year, and hoping all those involved will finally just drop the stick and let the FA process get back to doing what it's supposed to do. Best to you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Sandy. I wish I had the time (and the knowledge) to be more involved with the FA process; I have neither right now. I saw sporadic comments on that sock of yours and I'll read up on it soon. "Up to my ass in alligators"--well, let's get it on with the alligator haters, as the RHCPeppers say. But I'm joining the new millennium also, having just started a blog (gasp!) for a class I'm teaching this spring semester. (I'm already a bit hip since I have an iPhone.) Mrs. Drmies may be interested in your soulful singer. All the best to you and your family, with or without quotation marks. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You can youtube Eva Cassidy to get an idea of the voice ... and read her article here, which is quite good. Van Morrison is soothing, too. I think I've had enough conflict for the year already, and I hope to just ignore the inevitable continued provocations. Happy 2013 ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I play along with Somewhere over the Rainbow on my guitar note for note and I've also adapted a jazz version. Capo on the 1st fret. G, E minor, B minor 7, G7, C, C minor 7. G, E minor, A minor 7, D7, something like that but it is in A flat as its on the first fret. Didn't have you down as a Cassidy fan Sandy!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

RfAs

Hi Sandy, I noticed you've struck the votes of User:MathewTownsend, while I understand why you're doing it, I don't think it's the appropriate thing to do, the RfAs have already been closed and reflect the state of the RfA back whenever the 'crat closed; as the closing 'crat likely took into consideration that vote, I think striking it is a bit misleading :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

So, what's the usual in similar cases? Maybe indicate it's a sock without striking? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what's the normal practice I'm afraid :D Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, well ... Thanks anyway! I would think that noting below, without striking, wouldn't bother anyone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe normal practice would be to leave the votes alone, unless they would have affected the outcome (in which case they're handled on a case by case basis). That's typically how it's worked in the past, if I recall. (X! · talk)  · @159  ·  02:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, X ... now I know ... and I'm sorry for the trouble. Mattisse posted so many unhelpful things in so many places, that trying to go back and strike all of them isn't worthwhile anyway. Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow

Man I am glad you are back. Welcome back - you're a straight shooter Sandy and you almost make this place worthwhile...Modernist (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year, and Welcome back! -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 01:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

With a great sigh...may I just say :) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

That was my first, and hopefully my last, retirement ... I am sorry for the worry, and thankful for the kind words. I won't go again with a retirement ... if something isn't done about admin abuse, sock enabling, and the sustained disruption at FAC, I'll go via block, not retirement, next time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, welcome back and the best for the new year. It looks as though some admins have dealt with the Mattisse problem very poorly; talk about scattergun solutions, where good people get injured. Huh??? There needs to be better coordination among those with the tools to root out this sociopath, who will continue to hoodwink us and cause mayhem if we let her. Why aren't there more forensic-style analysts on the job??? Tony (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, no matter the destruction she causes, because of the attention-craving, there are always a few who support, encourage, and enable ... so she continues. And while the other cast changes, people forget just how much harm she caused. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Frankly Sandy, you either were totally fooled and missed the Mat sock or else you are also one of the people covering for this user and are in denial. You added your mean-spirited snark while she viciously attacked and baited me, and threw fat on the fire by, essentially calling me stupid and ignorant (though worded in more neutral terms I'm sure you thought were clever). You might keep in mind that EVERY SINGLE TIME I've had trouble with another user, if there are blocks handed down, it's been the other user and never me. I do have a hard time not feeding trolls, but if someone is going after me, it's usually because they ARE a troll, and this is a case in point. So I don't appreciate your little aside about me above regarding the Hawking article, where I was simply pointing out the truth; I've seldom had to deal with a more angry and destructive user than Mat, and you do need to look real hard at how you quickly resort to being snide and nasty to people like me; this time you picked the wrong horse. You have been absolutely obsessed about the non-blocked Rlvese/PumpkinSky situation, yet you aided and abetted a notorious sock in attacking a never-blocked and highly productive editor. I hope you've learned your lesson, but I doubt you have. (I shall await your WP:LAST snarky reply, which I am certain will be vicious). Montanabw^(talk) 19:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

First, Montana, I was absent from Wikipedia for most of the year, so take your accusations elsewhere. Second, do not ever post on my talk page again. You were as bad to her as she was to you, and two wrongs don't make a right. FWIW, your vicious attacks all over Wikipedia need to be dealt with, it wasn't only Mattisse, and I'd appreciate it if you stay off my talk-- I see no good coming from engaging your attacks anywhere. Good-bye; any further interaction from you will be removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Check-User surveillance of sockmasters with repeated, severe disruption?

Your behavioral study of Mattisse (MathewTownsend) reminded me of User:AutomaticStrikeout: The claims to be new, the statements about being confused, the quick statement about "whoever controls the main page", as well as recent behavior at AN/I. Do you get a lot of false positives? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope. I'm not interested in checking out AutomaticStrikeout, since a CU was just run, but those who know Mattisse's history easily recognize her. I'd be most interested in having No More Conversations on These Topics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I would recognize Mattisse a mile off, SandyGeorgia - I had plenty of run-ins with them when I was an admin at English Wikinews, and one or two which if my memory serves me correctly, had me setting interaction bans and also making a rather open allegation that Mattisse was a sock of someone else. I would be very interested to read this "behavioral study", I may even be able to help with it. Fish^Barking? 01:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it came to be called "my behavioral study"; it was a page in laser brain's user space where he documented a few of Mattisse's socks, and recently Casliber moved it to WP:LTA, so it's now at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Mattisse. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I interacted with MT and it didn't cross my mind this was Matisse. In particular, MT tag bombed when MT didn't get MT's way on one article. That sort of behaviour was going to lead to a block eventually, but it seemed to me MT was just being used, something of a "useful idiot". Gimmetoo (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

If you have an example of the tag-bombing, it should be added to the LTA page, as that is another frequent behavior. Unfortunate that "useful idiot" concept; socks will continue as long as they are enabled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking of [6] and some later edits. There was a lot of copyediting I'll need to cheek eventually. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That is classic Mattisse ... my excuse is that I was inactive most of the year, but I still find it rather implausible that some folks didn't recognize the footprint. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

But it's not distinctly Mattisse, as other editors do similar. The growth of automatic tools makes it more difficult to identify socks, I think. Note, for example, Risker's comment near the end of this one. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yea, ok, but the entire pattern was there. Had Laser brain or Karanacs or Moni3 or I been active, it would not have been missed. And considering it was known since mid-October (per threads pointed out on SilkTork's page), I don't know why someone didn't inquire. The frustration is that the FA process continues to take hits, and now we have again an involved editor at The Signpost inaccurately dissing the FA pages just as we are all hoping to re-energize the pages. Some very poor FAs passed this fall because of poor quality of reviews, and just as we're trying to recover from a year of sock assaults, one of the aggressors on the FA pages uses The Signpost to dis the FA process, making it once again an uphill struggle to get things going there. The Never-Ending Saga has to stop, and it might have stopped sooner if this obvious sock had been dealt with.

On a complete aside, Gimme, we need to discuss somewhere else (not here!) subpages at TFAR ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone else got there before me, but at least one Arb was aware that MT was a probable Mattisse sock on 20 October (I have a reply dated 20 Oct so the email was definitely read). The keyword is "probable"—anyone who remembers Durova's sleuthing back in 2007 will remember why "edits in a similar way" is really bad grounds for blocking. – iridescent 19:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, given the Durova stuff, yea ... but ... well, iri, since no one else has answered repeated requests encompassing now three socks/returning users and their impact on FAC, could you possibly explain what might be done differently in the future? We have no reason to believe any of these users will move along, it is still unclear why the arbs allowed three users to so badly undermine FA processes, we can't get answers, and I really don't know what we either did wrong or could do differently in the future. If someone had asked one of us in the know, the tracks are clear here. Did they (the arbs) not watch the destruction, once they had been noticed mid-October? Did they not watch the taunting of Merridew, even on arb pages? Do they really not care about FA, as others have told me? What the heck is up, and what can we do better next time-- because there will be a next time. And by the way, did they not do a CU in October? Because I've got mutliple credible inbox suggestions of other Mattisse socks, but I assume a CU was run. If not, why not? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

At least one check-user investigation was done, according to the account on my page. Regarding Laser brain's profile, I thought of Jack Handy's unfrozen caveman lawyer, who always began his closing argument with a MT-worthy, "I've only just been unfrozen, and I don't understand your ways...." ;) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Nothing new there. I don't think Diannaa's in a position to know, and I'm referring to CUs back in October, not now in January. And the ability to find older sleepers decreases with time, hence the query about October. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

If as Iri says it was considered a "probable sock" in October, then surely that was more than enough to run a CU at the time. Speaking of which, I'm currently engaging with a user who is behaving remarkably boldly, to say the least. Seems a bit like JM. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I also encountered problems with that editor, can't say for sure, but copycatism is always a problem with socks. That's one reason the arbs don't like Laser's profile page, but the benefits outweigh the disadvantages if folks are duped again and again because they either forget the history, or don't care. But yes, there is no reason to think Merridew will easily move along, and that one fits the profile. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I think/hope the best that can be done in a case like this is to try to get the ANI peanut gallery to stay focused, so we don't end up on the short end of the stick again, with no help from admins and little help from arbs. I know soooo many editors who don't have to deal with having been hounded their entire wiki careers, and envy them the editing freedom they enjoy. It's awful to be wrong, but it's equally awful to be right and get no attention from ANI, and then no help from the arbs when we bump it up. On my way to apologize next to the cat ... I had come across some of his/her edits in suspicious cirumstances, but that can happen! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't check-users be done at least every 2.8 months for Mattisse, given the years of serious disruption? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding "Did they (the arbs) not watch the destruction, once they had been noticed mid-October?", I obviously can't speak for the current Arbs but I'd guess probably not. You need to bear in mind (a) just how insanely busy it is as an arb (it's not unusual to come home to find over a thousand emails in your inbox); (b) it's not in the Arbcom remit to monitor this kind of thing, and if they did there'd be screams of protest from the Checkusers and the WP:SPI folks (look at how quickly the usual suspects started protesting when Elen blocked User:Penyulap for socking); and more significantly (c) Mattisse is nowhere near as important as she thinks she is. You notice her because she frequents the same areas as you and because a lot of people you know are on the plague list, but as sockmasters go she's nowhere near the big leagues. If I were a checkuser with very limited time on my hands—as is true of all of them—would it be a sensible use of my time constantly monitoring newcomers for signs of Mattisse, Merridew or the like—whose edits were mostly unproblematic and are fairly easily spotted if and when they flare up—as the risk of taking my eye off the ball and letting another Poetsock or pedophile through? – iridescent 14:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it's probably not, but then isn't that an argument for systemic change? Gimmetoo (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I posted my question about regular checkups for Mattisse socks on Nuclear Warfare's page, where it has received some responses.

Iridescent has the experience to judge benefit-benefit ratios of regular checks for Mattisse clones stalking Sandy versus other banned users. IMHO, we have enough annoying little shits already colonizing GA reviews (and passing lists of spark plugs of Czech armored personnel carriers as GAs) that we don't need adults impersonating annoying little shits colonizing GA reviews. Why not have more check users? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Iri ... agree with all you wrote, besides that the idea of routine CUs makes me uncomfortable on a number of levels. My irritation, frustration, and disgust resulted from the community being told to stand down repeatedly (not only during the arb case, but later in terms of tracking and detecting the socks). Well, it's fine to tell the regulars to stand down if the arbs are taking care of it. Arbs knew, and they didn't. So telling the community to stand down makes no sense in retrospect ... twice ... has been the hallmark of this case.

Kiefer, I don't know anything about Automatic Strikeout, and am uncomfortable with this mention on my talk. Would you mind redacting the subject line? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Done.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Thanks very much for the well wishes for the New Year. I of course wish you and your family the same for 2013. :-) BTW, your message should say 'last year' as we are in the New Year and it was 2012 that you retired as a delegate. :-P Now ya gotta go and correct all of those messages you sent! lol. :=P--MrADHD | T@1k? 22:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Lovely ... now that I'm at "S" alphabetically!!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of "s", I join in thanking you for your lovely note of New Year's cheer! Have a wonderful 2013! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

ditto. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Me too. Have a wonderful New Year. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year from me (and the "R" section) as well. ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year from V ;) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

From me as well - always happy to hear from you (and provide PDFs when needed). -- Scray (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy new year. Kind of surprised you gave one to my talk page, but thanks kindly! Mitch32^{(The man most unlikely to drive 25 before 24.)} 23:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

And thanks from me, too. Keep going with the "Brain" stuff, that always raises my spirits. Have a great and fruitful year. Whatever else you do, WP will forever be indebted to you for your wonderful stint as FAC delegate, an example of dedication and effectiveness that will always be hard to equal. Brianboulton (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

A pleasant surprise to be greeted in my obscurity by the orange bar, and an unpleasant one to learn of your two (!) retirements – I apparently have some catching up to do. Kind regards and happy new year to you, Sandy! Эlcobbola _talk 02:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Goodness, I would happily be blocked or retire a gazillion times in exchange for the one-and-only elcobbola coming back to us !!!!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Support, (on ElC's return, that is). The Great One has bestirred himself? The New Year is off to a good start. Kablammo (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy new years from me as well. Hopefully this is the year that we can finally focus on producing high-quality content on key topics while preventing the drama that drove so many valuable contributors away over the years. Good job catching these disruptive socks btw. Thanks Secret ^account 02:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Oops ... I was NOT the one who caught the socks ... my involvement is that I had retired in disgust, and decided to come back when I saw that there had been socking ... again ... affecting the FA pages and process, enabled by others. Combined, it's been going on for over a year, and FA has paid a price ... when I saw there were socks again, I decided I wasn't going to be chased off by socks and enablers. It's time for the content people to take back the content review processes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Opps, from me as well, hey at least those socks are gone and now we have to repair the damage. I will be getting more involved in content work and reviewing this year and I got my eyes on two core articles in particular. Hopefully we can bring some of these old, sadly disgruntled content contributors and experts back and bring new quality editors to the project (not from the education program). Secret ^account 03:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Prolific socks are rarely gone ... they are just routinely undetected for long periods of time, particularly when folks become complacent and accepting of disruption. If we intend to bring folks back, everyone will have to do their part to make sure that the FA pages are not assaulted again. Here's an FAQ for anyone wanting to begin reviewing: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Me too It was the highlight of my day to find I had made your holiday card list! Best wishes to you and yours for a happy and productive new year. Zad68 02:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Me three – As unpleasant as the surprise of pre-New Year's was, this makes up for it. You coming back, that is, not the sock part. :-) Of course, I wish you a happy New Year as well. Let's make this the best year ever for the FA process. If it's not, I fear for its future as a whole. It's not in the shape it was when I started, and even then we were struggling to get reviewers. Now we're struggling to get FAs from nominators who aren't regulars, in addition to the declining reviewer base. None of this is good from a long-term perspective. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Me four - Always glad to have good people continue their dedication to wikipedia. Keep up the good work! Remember (talk) 13:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Sandy! Happy New Year to you too, and all the best! I'm glad that you have decided not to retire, and hope that Wikipedia can stay fun for you. Moisejp (talk) 07:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your New Year's greetings. I hope 2013 is a great one for you and welcome back from your thankfully short retirement! Slp1 (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Glad to see you back

No, seriously! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Seconded, Bzuk. I couldn't be happier right now - thank (insert respected deity here) that you came back, Sandy - we'd have been beat like a hall carpet here without you. Fish^Barking?

Sincerely very happy to have you back. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Amazing to see you back

An admin with a properly-equipped toolbox can support content developers and protect good content.

• Sandy, firstly, thanks for your wonderful wishes. Secondly, it is wonderful news that you're back. You have no idea how advantaged the project would be/is because of you - and perhaps none happier than I that you're back. If there's any day you might wish to be nominated for an RfA, it would be a privilege to be able to nominate you. This is a copy of my reply on my talk page. Again, thanks for your wonderful wishes. Great to see you around. Wifione ^Message 17:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd love to watch that RfA. But do you need any of the tools, Sandy? The only one I'd use would be the block button, and then almost never. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It's very hard to maintain articles at a high level without the tools. You usually find yourself requesting a lot of admin assistance, which is embarrassing. A lot of people don't think that content producers require the tools; we do. I would be happy to co-nom Sandy as well should she ever decide to RfA. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

What admin tools do you have in mind, Hawkeye7? I'm not very familiar with their toolbox, actually. Are you thinking of technical page moves and protection? Others? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

To facilitate discussion, I have provided an image of the sort of toolbox I think we're talking about here... Zad68 20:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, primarily technical page moves and protection. When working with portals, I had to move large numbers of pages at a time. It would also be nice to be able to pitch in at DYK. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Coming in a little late, I make a lot of use of the delete button because I usually write articles in user space and then move / histmerge them into main space when they're done. So I had to learn how to do a histmerge within a month of getting the mop — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Wifione ... good to see you in here! My perennial answer to RFA hasn't changed ... well, actually, it has ... it has gotten stronger! But, as an aside, yes there are times when content builders could use the tools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Fortress of Mimoyecques FA nomination

Thank you for your help with the featured article nomination of Blockhaus d'Éperlecques. I thought you might like to know that I've nominated a related article, Fortress of Mimoyecques, for consideration as a featured article. If you have any comments on the nomination, please leave them on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fortress of Mimoyecques/archive1. Prioryman (talk) 09:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Rule 2?

What is "Rule 2 of Adding Requests"? [7] Prioryman (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey ... see the instructions at WP:TFAR, the section titled "Adding requests", second point:

2. If item 1 doesn't apply, then if there are two requests for the same date, the request within that date with the lowest number of points may be removed, regardless of how many points articles outside that date may have.

That is, two requests for same date, remove the one with lower points.

The intent of the instructions is to free up space for additional requests when a request has little support, but for reasons unknown, regulars there had stopped maintaining the page per established instructions, so folks seem to be forgetting that the intent of the page is to help delegates with scheduling, while providing space for new requests by removing failing requests. Perhaps because the page is so rarely full these days, people have forgotten ... you could still add your request in a non-specific slot, since it doesn't have a date relevance anyway, and the non-specific date slots are almost never used of late. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll try that - but I have to say it's rather obvious that the "alternative" February 14th proposal was made expressly to bump mine off the nomination page. I'm not at all happy about that kind of apparent manipulation of the rules. Prioryman (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I can understand your frustration, although I disagree that it was "apparent manipulation": several points. We have four TFAR delegates; that allows each of them to act as a "regular" editor (non-delegate) at times, which is only fair. Same as FAC delegate: because there are multiple delegates, a FAC delegate is not unable to Support or Oppose a FAC. The point system at TFAR has always been an effort in negotiating a minefield, and it's there for a reason, and is the best we can do ... And, you have an alternative, which is to nominate the article on a non-specific date slot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Which I will do, though I will take some steps first to ensure that it will have a higher score and not be so vulnerable to being bumped... Prioryman (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Would you consider leaving it for December 28? It has always troubled me that we have an anglocentric view on April Fools, when other parts of the world celebrate 28 December as "Day of the Innocents", and it would be funny then, and allow us to recognize a non-US holiday with a non-US article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't - that's nearly a year away. I already postponed it after PumpkinSky nominated it last September. A further year's delay is unconscionable. I'm reluctant to feature it on April Fools', as I don't want to treat it as a joke, but I suppose that might be a possibility if all else fails. My other anxiety about that date is that it might be vulnerable, again, to someone playing with the rules to bump the article. Prioryman (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

My understanding of the rules was that nominations were only bumped for having fewer points than another for the same day / having high levels of opposes after 48 hours etc if (a) the page was full, i.e. 10 date nominations when you had a date-related nomination or 2 non-specific nominations when you had a general nomination. I didn't think those rules were to be used when the page was not full and when new nominations were not being added. My intention in adding the Beyonce song was to allow a discussion to continue about the competing merits of all the possibilitys for St Valentine's Day. Dweller suggested Romances and I encouraged him to put that up as well, saying "But I suspect that points won't be the decisive factor in the decision for St Valentine's Day, so go ahead and add another alternative so we can see what everyone prefers." My intention wasn't to bump off the Icelandic Museum, rather to have everything discussed and see what the general consensus was, particularly as there is still plenty of time until Feb 14 will be scheduled. After all, at the time when I suggested Single Ladies, the Icelandic Museum had as many opposes as it did supports (at least for Feb 14) and something has to run on Feb 14 - we couldn't just leave it blank! For the record, I think the Icelandic Museum will make an excellent TFA and I will be happy to schedule it at any time other than Feb 14, for reasons that others were expressing in the discussion.

So, Prioryman, I wasn't being "dickish" (as you so charmingly called me) at all - it has never been the case that nominating an article for a particular date means that no-one else can nominate anything else for that same date. You would have had cause to complain if I had scheduled the museum for another date while it was under discussion... As for what should happen now, I think that Sandy should reinstate the nominations she removed and then we can all have a discussion on WT:TFAR about when nominations should be removed at times when the page is not full. Regards to all, but I'm off out with the family now so won't be joining in until later if at all. Bencherlite^Talk 08:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Oopsie, OK, we have a different understanding of the rules and their intent, but I will reinstate the noms pending further discussion on TFAR talk of how to (again) clarify the complex rules on the page. I'm sorry for the extra work (to both Prioryman and Bencherlite) ... give me a moment to catch up and reinstate and initiate discussion. (Unless someone else has already done ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Mu wave

Thanks for the New Year's wishes. My eyes glazed over just scrolling your talk page, but it looks like you quit and came back? Hope things are going well; I'm not sorry I missed whatever drama it was, but I hope all the good editors stayed and all the bad editors left in a huff.

I seem to recall you had some negative experiences with Lisa Lu's class. (Was that the class responsible for klazomania?) I noticed that Tryptofish recommended one of the articles from that class as a good outcome; since it's a bio/medical subject, would you be willing to take a look and give another opinion on it? I am also thinking of asking Doc James for feedback, and maybe posting at WP:MED. I'm still trying to get a handle on the variability in quality that the students can provide, and I haven't seen much in the way of praise for the medical/bio/psych topics; I'm interested to know if this would qualify. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike ... that was the course that gave Colin fits on myoclonic epilepsy ... I can't recall my interaction with them, but I can't figure out how to locate old class terms to see what they had last spring. Looking at mu wave, I think Colin would be a good one to ask for a review. I'm sorry I've been unable to keep up over there ... I owe you so many responses ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I promised Mike a review on some other student edits, ages ago. So I'm not very good at keeping up with what I intend to do. Must fix that. Hmm. New Years resolution perhaps? Happy New Year to you both! -- Colin°^Talk 09:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

If you get a chance, I'd be very interested in your opinion. Thanks -- and Happy New Year! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

On Hyderabad FAC

Gee... I don't know how to voice my thoughts. I am typing this to both stfg and SandyGeorgia.

First, thanks to both of you for the immense help in this article. Stfg brought this article from a damaged state (quick fails in FAC) to a great one. Without him, I cannot even imagine this article to be in the FAC. Sandy, the FAC-pro, is helping shape up it further. As an editor whose English knowledge is far inferior to both of you, I do not have the audacity to comment on several issues that you guys have different opinion on. When two knowledgeable persons are debating on intellectual issues, the by-standers gain by imbibing new knowledge, and I am doing the same. However, what makes me tense is the degree of conflict (rather,the manifestation of the conflict) in some of the issues.

If you allow, may I suggest a working way? There are some issues in the FAC where we are able to work our way out towards an agreeable solution. No problem with that. On the other hand, there are some issues where clearly both of you will stick to your points of view (which is natural). We are gradually working on the easier issues, and we will continue that. In the difficult instances, can we expect/invite other esteemed opinions? (For example, Hamltonston opined in the "skilled" use of spices issues.)

I do want both of you to please continue your contribution to the article and the FAC. Omer, the principal contributor, and I will feel like orphans if stfg pauses his support. On the other hand, we will ever remain indebted to Sandy if her detailed critique eventually lifts the article to FA status. So, please, we want you both. That's my plea...--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey! Since you wrote to both of us, I'll respond at his gtalk to keep it all together. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

"The Sixth Extinction II: Amor Fati" FAN

Hello! Sorry to bother you again, but I recently re-nominated "The Sixth Extinction II: Amor Fati" for FA. Sarastro1 seriously gave it a thorough copy-edit and peer-review and I've been working on the prose for the last couple of weeks. I was wondering if you could drop by and take a look and/or offer any suggestions. I feel a lot better about the page now. Thanks!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

FAC reviews

I've answered your post on my talk page. What FACs were you referring to in particular? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Further detail

Hi SandyGeorgia. This is a courtesy notification that I reproduced a recent conversation of yours for illustrative purposes at User talk:Stfg#Further detail --Senra (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Elephant FAC

Sasta has finished his review and how supports it. LittleJerry (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

FA Review of Jainism

Hello. Thanks for your review on Jainism. I have copyedited the section on meditation as you advised in the article. I would like to know what further improvements could be done to gain your support for the FA. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Best user page contest

1. Serious contender: "From Sept. 2005 until Jan. 2008 I was an admin here. I resigned to spend more time being an asshole. ... So it goes." If only more of the assholes would follow suit! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
2. Always a contender: User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back. Oh, gee, why do Merridew and Mattisse get User pages, while The Fat Man (who never harmed a soul and was a far sight funnier than those two) doesn't??? Will some smart admin please restore his pages? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Do I get an honourable [sic] mention? He he. The quip, which works on many levels for me, was once voted as the funniest film one-liner --Senra (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not only funny, but topical! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Hey SandyGeorgia, I wanted to see if you would be willing to help out with a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 138#Primicias 24 to dispute other sources. I've noticed that you are very familiar with topics related to Venezuela and the Venezuelan government, so your input would be appreciated. Thanks for any assistance you can provide! Justiciero1811 (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I brought that back from archive for my belated response ... I suspect BLP vios there as well, but don't have time to get involved. Primicias24 is not the only non-reliable source used there, and claims about corruption are made. I responded at the RS/N but also posted to the BLP board. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help! I had no idea that there were so many non-RS in use, and will use that information in the future. Your advice is invaluable! Justiciero1811 (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

In other news . . .

It seems that MOS disputes are spilling over into the world at large: [8]

Who would have thought that life could imitate Wikipedia?

Happy New Year to you too.

Kablammo (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It has been pointed out that the link I posted above, also appeared at WT:MOS a day earlier.

(As Odgen Nash once said: "Pooh.")

Kablammo (talk)

Oh, my, that is funny! Perhaps Wikipedia is humor-challenged of late ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Help?

Hello, SandyGeorgia. I'm can't remember if I have interacted with you before, but I do know that you closed a WP:FA discussion with regard to an article I have significantly worked on, stamping it as "not promoted," in August 2010 (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Titanic (1997 film)/archive2), and I have heard great things about you (such as all the comments left on your talk page when it was believed that you had permanently retired). It's because of all of this that I'm coming to you about two different matters. There are classes who intermittently edit the the Adolescence and Emerging adulthood and early adulthood. Via email, in September 2012, when I stated, "I wonder if there is a page about how to handle classes that show up to drastically change articles for a class or school project," I was told that the Wikipedia:Online Ambassadors link has information that will take me to American and Canadian education programs, and that using it to figure out who the online ambassador is could be an option. I was also told that there have been a lot of complaints about the effects of online education programs on certain articles, especially medical articles, and that you have also expressed such objections. I was already aware of some complaints expressed at WP:MED about it, however.

Basically, I have concerns about classes coming in and drastically changes articles without prior discussion. Although the classes I have been guiding have done good at these articles, I feel that there should probably be more than just myself and the classes' teacher guiding them on their editing.

My second reason for approaching you is this section I started at the talk page of WP:MED, but no one from WP:MED has yet weighed in on it and I really need some outside opinions on this matter from that project. So I am wondering if you wouldn't mind weighing in on it. Flyer22 (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22-- thank you for the kind words. On the WT:MED post, you've now gotten some feedback-- there are problems there. On the education programs, in the earlier years problems were being ignored by staff, but there have been so many complaints in so many different topic areas that there are now folks taking the problems seriously. I don't think you can expect much help via the Ambassador route since a) there aren't enough of them, and b) there aren't enough of them who know what they are doing. The good few are quite overworked. The good news is that there is now a working noticeboard where you can get some additional attention to the matter. I suggest a concise summary to that board of the kinds of problems you're encountering, with a list of the courses, professors or universities involved. I haven't had time lately to keep up with that noticeboard, but there are competent folks paying attention to these matters now -- if you don't get a satisfactory response from that noticeboard, please feel free to ping me again! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Sandy, for weighing in at WP:MED on the aforementioned discussion and for insight about/advice on what to do about the classes topic. The classes' editing of the Adolescence article has calmed down, but it is very likely to start up again at some point because the teacher isn't yet done with the article (as noted on the talk page). I'm not sure about what else, if anything else, these classes will do to the Emerging adulthood and early adulthood article, but I have expressed concerns about that article on its talk page.

Thanks again. Flyer22 (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

COMPLIMENTS.

HAPPY NEW YEAR. I'M TALKING THAT SOME EVENT HAVE NO DEBATE WHY SHOULD THOSE ARTICLE A REFERENCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SHEIKH MOHAMMAD MOHABBAT HOSSEIN (talk • contribs) 02:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Lutoslawski TFA

Thanks for your comment on TFAR, it is the only response I have had in the 10 days since my original suggestion-- at least the only one that has even acknowledged my original question. I will do nothing more about it. Sorry, but I found your "no means no" comment somewhat patronising: I feel that some response earlier from someone on the team would have been more courteous. Every time I engage with the FA process in any form other than straightforward reversion of vandalism, I feel less and less valued here. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help if you knew that Raul typically waits to here more from the community before opining-- which I think is A Good Thing. Silence from the community may or may not mean something, but the instructions on the page are nonetheless clear. If every article that has already appeared TFA engaged IAR as a reason for a double appearance, the page wouldn't be useful for those that haven't appeared. In this case, the undercitation is a larger concern-- I agree with Crisco's assessment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

PS, I just saw that you did withdraw the request from the page ... thanks for doing that ... it helps the page be more useful to all articles. Hopefully more of the community will weigh in on your talk page request now, but my suspicion is that Crisco already summarized the situation well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Banners

Hey Sandy, there's a short discussion here about talk-page banners associated with the Education Program. I know this was something you'd commented about previously, so thought I'd ping you in. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, use of talk page banners would resolve many of the problems I've encountered ... will look in there once I've gotten through my morning stuff. Thanks, Nikki! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing question

As I can't read Spanish, could you check "Vamos a Celebrar" for close paraphrasing? The writing style is rather journalistic, so I'm not willing to AGF the DYK nom — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Will do once I'm sufficiently caffeinated and through my morning stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• That explains the style. Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

  Good instincts, Crisco. The article should probably be blanked with a copyvio tag, but I've had bad luck suggesting/doing same at DYK, so will leave that to you :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

And there's another sample of the age old ... there are serial issues going back well over a year, including mutliple DYKs, with problems at every click. I wish you all would ask me to look in sooner, when editors can learn and be less offended, or not ask me at all, because by the time they're uncovered, it's a big problem, and I'm the one who ends up getting shot at. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey. Thanks for the notice Sandy. I was aware of the issue last night when I recommended Diva to copyedit the article because most sentences were written very awkwardly. I agree that I may have approved the article too fast and well, extra pair of eyes always fix the problem. I did some retouches to it last night but wasn't able to take more (it was late and I had to go to bed). I didn't check the sources, as well, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Diva, not unsurprisingly, seems put out by the revelations, so perhaps you can talk him/her down and encourage him/her to revisit and correct older articles? I dislike getting stuck in these DYK messes ... but the best outcome for all would be for him/her to go back and address older articles. And move forward ... we all make mistakes, and s/he just seems to have misunderstood ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me take care of it. I will call him when I reach home and follow this with him. I suggest that the DYK nom be speedily closed and all this mess finished once. I can further proceed from here. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

TFAR instructions "one per nominator"

In case it gets buried, I've suggested at WT:TFAR that we try the idea of removing the "one per nominator" rule for 3 months to see how it goes. Any thoughts? Bencherlite^Talk 15:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep :) I think that would be a huge mistake at this point, but would be happy to support it a few months down the road if things stabilize/mature at that page. On that page, we have a very recent history of a) an accusation of POV leveled at an admin in very good standing because she tagged an extremely deficient FA which was correctly tagged and abandoned by the original editor, b) which, considering the severity of the problems (still being fixed, but lots more to do, with a FAR still needed) should have been removed by the nominator; c) a troubled FA that had a very hard time on the mainpage, with most of its lead and blurb being eliminated (Imagine (song); d) accusations leveled at an experienced editor (that would be moi) for pointing out an incorrect/wrong image caption and the need for review of overuse of "however"; e) should I go on? There are many recent examples indicating that the page hasn't matured to the point of allowing individual nominators to dominate, which would also have the effect of keeping other nominators out.

Of course, you're the boss (meaning if you go ahead and do it, I won't object), but I suggest that allowing the page to attract new nominators, while expecting current nominators to recognize the importance of quality on the mainpage, before eliminating a long-standing convention that works would be a better path forward. Removing something and then trying to put it back if there are problems is a heck of a lot harder and will create more friction than saying "We'll remove this if the page matures", which gives folks a chance to show they can manage the page responsibly, without the kinds of issues that have occurred too recently.

Alternately, if you feel the page needs more requests (not sure why? because delegates are overworked?), one thing you could do temporarily is tell the folks who want to nom more than one at a time to suggest their second nom on talk, where you will grant an exception if no significant objections are raised within 24 hours ... doing something like that would allow you discretion without altering the instructions, and would prevent, for example, another Stephen Hawking occupying a slot much longer than it should, since the issues would have been pointed out immediately, while giving a trial run for the suggested three months, at which time you could expand the instructions to allow for two noms if all goes well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm flattered that you think I'm the boss, but perhaps I'm more like Mini-Me... It's not all about load on delegates - though, since you ask, Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) has been essentially inactive since late Novemeber, Gimmetrow has yet to schedule any TFAs (no doubt because of pressure of other duties, I'm not complaining) and I imagine that Raul will take a back seat at TFA now that he has three assistants to spare him the daily chores. So every article that someone else can find, summarise and stick up saves me time! Nominations also allow community input into the TFA slot and prevent it becoming / being seen as too much based on my choices and biases. I'm quite happy to share the credit for selections when there is also a process that can share the blame with me for unpopular choices (and not just poo-related TV episodes: see the kicking that Adelaide leak is getting at T:MP and Talk:Adelaide leak today, for instance). I'll have a think about the "1 plus 1 if permitted" idea. Bencherlite^Talk 16:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

But if you needed a break, Dabomb, Raul or Gimme would be there ... that's a huge difference! Considering you (may?) want more noms, how about trying out my alternate suggestions? For example, Gerda said she wanted to nom another article-- ask her to put her suggestion on talk, and unless it has gross deficiencies (ala Hawking), or other significant issues that would cause you not to schedule it, you could grant the exception. That allows you discretion, takes some load off of you, and allows her to make some noms while the page matures. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we (the delegates and community) need a discussion great! another discussion topic! on how far in advance TFAs should be selected. I probably lean towards the "plenty of warning" end of the scale, as my history shows, but if other delegates wouldn't consider it an emergency until we were down to e.g. 3 days of blurbs, the chances are that they would end up leaving most of the scheduling to me because I would have the most sensitive knee-jerk reaction to a diminishing queue! I like your idea as a temporary measure, but also don't want the nominations page to become too high-maintenance for delegates or too dependent on delegates to function properly. Still, perhaps time will tell... Bencherlite^Talk 17:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, on the maintenance chores there, I would enjoy checking the page once or twice and not finding errors :) That would be another sign of maturity indicating "regulars" are willing to take some of the load off of you ... the recent incorrect point assignment, for example, isn't something that should still be happening. We all make mistakes, so do I, points are difficult, but ... if folks want to nom more than one, they should be willing to put in the effort so that you or others don't have to later correct it. I'm not sure those points are correct yet, relative to what has been scheduled recently, but the 1-point for more than a year since promotion isn't a hard one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

God of War FAC

Unfortunately, the nomination was clased as per no consensus. I was hoping you could take a look over the article and post any other concerns that you may have on the article's Talk page so we can work on them for the article's next nomination. --JDC808 ♫ 00:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

With permission, the article has been renominated. --JDC808 ♫ 23:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Hair-brushing syndrome

Hi Sandy, could I have some feedback about sourcing here? The article seems to be one which should follow MEDRS, which I have little knowledge about. Thanks. I'll cross post to the Wikiproject. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The King and I

Hi, Sandy! We are moving towards FAC with this article. If you have time, we'd be grateful for any comments at the Peer Review. Don't worry about checking the refs at this point, as we need to update a couple of out-of-date links. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Ssilvers! I'd like to look in there, but haven't had time yet ... it's on my list! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Fort Dobbs FAC

Sandy, thank you very much for your review at FAC. I took all of your comments to heart, and between Dank and I, I believe most of your concerns have been addressed. If you wouldn't mind revisiting your review, I would be even more appreciative. Cdtew (talk) 04:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll get there today, I think. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for your constructive critique; I am already seeing the effects, as I've now stopped myself from using "however" almost entirely, and have really tried to watch out for repetitive descriptors. Take care! Cdtew (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome! I'm sorry I'm unable to support, but I just don't have time for a more thorough review. Good luck there, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Carolina Herrera (fashion designer)

Hi Sandy, thanks for your good edits here. I've been tangling with a disruptive editor for many days, who was finally blocked, allowing me to implement much needed improvements. Regarding the "acquired US citizenship" in the lede. I agree that technically your extended version is correct. However, for a concise lede, which is used by Google etc, I feel that the short prior version, simply listing her as Venezualian and American would be better. The article body cites that she became a citizen, and when. Open to your opinion.--Nixie9 (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

yes, I saw the issue at EdJohnston's talk page. The problem with the earlier lead is that it was misleading ... Venezuela allows dual citizenship. If you can suggest a way to revise to make it still accurate, I'm on board ... we don't just make her no longer Venezuelan unless we have a source saying she renounced her citizenship, which isn't allowed by the new Venezuelan constitution as far as I know. She is Venezuela's best known designer-- it's POV to deprive her of that. She's not an American fashion designer; she's a Venezuelan-American fashion designer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed - so what if we put just that: "Carolina Herrera is a Venezuelan-American fashion designer."?--Nixie9 (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• That probably works, and is (I believe?) what is done in other articles, but I'm unsure then how we solve the Easter egg link issue of American= naturalized citizen? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You could set the lead link to the standard Americans article, and use the naturalized one in the body...?--Nixie9 (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

OK ... I'll go do it now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The King and I is at FAC

The King and I has been nominated for FAC. It would be great if you could take a look at the article and give comments at the FAC. Thanks for any time you could spare! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll review FAC later today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

No reply

Hi SandyGeorgia,
I received no reply at either Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology about merging the ABA and Behavior mod articles.
Also User:Casliber is checking at his office.
One psychologist said he thought ABA was a form of Behavior mod.
He said he wants to ask others in order to get a more a global view on ABA.
In addition, it is quite confusing because Cognitive-Behavior Modification is the old term for, what is now known as, Cognitive behavioral therapy.
Nonetheless, a website said CBT and ABA are two different forms of behavior therapy.
CBT is a form of psychotherapy and ABA is a form of behavior analysis that utilizes the application of operant conditioning to reinforce behavior.
ATC ^{. Talk} 05:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I just spoke to someone I know who has a Ph.D. in Behavior Analysis and Clinical Psychology. He is also an author and works with autistic children as well as people with sexual disorders and helps people organize themselves in business (See here: Organizational behavior management (OBM), a form of ABA), and has spoken at various press conferences. He said anyone who still uses the term "behavior modification" is using "outdated termonoligy" and that no one has called ABA "behavior modification" in years if they kept up with the literature. In addition, he said Cognitive behavior therapy commonly used ABA in the old days which is why they use to call it "Cognitive-Behavior Modification". He said some forms of CBT still incorporate ABA which is known as Functional analytic psychotherapy and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. But it is primarily two different forms of Behavior therapy. So what should I do about not receiving a reply? I can't just merge the articles on my own right? So what should I do? ATC ^{. Talk} 08:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Reference management software

Hi Sandy. SPhilbrick(Talk) asked me to speak with you regarding this question. Do you happen to know of a reference management tool that is currently being used by the community to share secondary references with; some of these tools allow for people to pool and share secondary resources related to certain topics (e.g. think of them being a bookmarklet tool that anyone can see)? Thanks. GT67 (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

GT67, I'm not sure what you're asking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

DivaKnockouts

I understand your concerns about the copyvio issues in general, but I may believe that the way you approach Diva's work as copyvio is a bit inflated. Some days ago, Blue asked me to verify another DYK article from Diva and it was completely clean from copyvios. This gives me a sign that this is not recurrent. Also, I did review a good article nomination of him some weeks ago, and I was unable to find copyvios either. Anyways, I promised I will check his contribs and I will, but I need time. I am currently very busy with my studies, my job as leading mediator on the Spanish Wikipedia and now that I was accepted as a clerk, I have a lot to read and learn. As I have followed Diva's article development, I would not recommend a CCI to be opened. It would be a waste of time, and I would finally be the one checking his articles there. I would like to take control of this and handle this situation my way. And also, there is no process in DYK restricting users nominating articles if they had issues before. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK is in a unique position to educate editors on copyvio early on in their Wiki editing career, before multiple articles with copyvio are created. In this instance, DYK failed (again). Multiple problems here:

1. Diva has indicated several times that the copyvios are all addressed, and they are not, so Diva isn't getting the message. That's what is most important here.
2. Diva has said you would do the work, but you're not doing it either, so that means we're left with copyvio. There's the additional concern that you approved the hook, which was cut-and-paste plagiarism.
3. A CCI should be opened, the copyvio was serious and has occurred on multiple articles and the original editor isn't cleaning them up. In ordinary circumstances, a CCI would be opened, but since CCI is backed up and there are few Spanish-speaking editors who can deal with this, MoonRiddenGirl, Calliopejen1 and myself will deal with it via MRG's userspace so we don't have to open a CCI. Leaving it as is, and leaving Diva the impression it has been adquately addressed, is a problem, and we need to have some place where a cleanup list is generated and checked.
4. Since Crisco got on this issue at DYK, Diva's editing has improved. That's the good news. But we still have to clean up the articles. And we still have to wonder why DYK lets so much copyvio through.

I've been thinking on the idea of a proposal restricting new DYK noms until previous issues are addressed (every one of Diva's DYKs needs to be checked), but 1) if DYK were to institute something like that, in fairness, it would have to equally apply to other content review processes, but 2) CCI is so backed up that could result in editors being stalled on submitting new content until other editors were available to clear the CCI. So, that probably won't work ... but in this case, something still needs to be done to make sure Diva understands copyvio, plagiarism, and reliable sourcing (since one of the plagiarized articles was based on a non-reliable source). And all of Diva's articles still need to be checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Every edit at User:Moonriddengirl/DivaKnockouts needs to be checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

And, starting through there, second article I checked had copyvio in English and a likely BLP vio as well. Admins needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I havent checked this before. I completely overlooked this response. I have been patiently working with this issue from the outside. I have not much time to dedicate to the project right now and the scarce time I got, I have to use it for all the things I have moving forward (3 RFCs upcoming, my training as clerk, also, I am a sitting mediator on es-wiki, etc). I have been taking care of the main problem rather than cleaning up the mess that is left behind, because if we don't do that, then we will have more copyvios to come. I have successfully taken care of most issues regarding the knowledge of copyvio (which, surprisingly, only around 5% of all active editors know about) and how to deal with it. When I have time, I will do an en masse copyedit with the help of some friends on all articles edited by Diva to get rid of all the issues, but that will have to wait a bit. I am truly sorry that I cannot completely dedicate to this at the moment, but RL is keeping me far from it. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Some help with acridine orange would be appreciated

Hi Sandy... I was looking at the acridine orange page, particularly the reactions section, and it seems to me to be obviously lifted from somewhere. I think it is a badly done paraphrase / copyvio of this product insert. Most of the material was added in December 2011 by an editor (Happysmilesmile (talk · contribs)) who hasn't edited since. Should I just revert back to this pre-addition stub? Talking to the editor seems pointless and the current article can't be allowed to stand, in my view. Somew help or advice (or both) would be appreciated. Thanks, Sandy - I hope you don't mind my asking here, it seemed to me more likely to lead to good advice in a timely way. EdChem (talk) 02:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the editor history, it does seem that reverting is the fastest way forward, with a message on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Homework FAC

I think I have addressed all yout concerns here. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll review FAC later today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Elephant

Hi, Sandy. Do you think that "Elephant" is approaching FA standard? If not, I shall ask LittleJerry to withdraw the FAC. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It is a tough one as I'm not seeing gross prose clangers but reasonably I am making frequent minor tweaks that just give it a tighter, nicer flow....and I have read the article once through and gone back to bits here and there (and there's more to find). I am juggling a few things myself currently and free time is patchy. I think we're getting there, and I think this is one of those core articles we really should be trying to polish well. Long/broad articles are tricky in that exponentially more issues crop up (which is natural but damn hard when you've got your shoulder to the FAC wheel). Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked yet today (been busy for a few days), but my sense is that it could make it if more reviewers would pay attention to the prose and insist on FA-level prose ... a trend has taken hold at FAC where tedious, plodding, unorganized prose has been passed over by reviewers ... we can do better than chunk in a bunch of facts without regard to professional, flowing, smooth prose. I know articles like these are tough to take on, but we shouldn't lower standards. I'll look in again today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hurricane Debbie 1961 FAC

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner on this FAC. I've been a bit distracted, as JasonRees mentioned, by my works at school and haven't had the time to sit down and focus on fine-tuning Debbie's article. I have some time today to address issues with the remainder of the article, namely regarding the potential redundancy issues you mentioned. I'll give you another message once I've finished combing through the article more thoroughly. Thanks for your review! Best regards, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I've gone through the article a few times and got others off-wiki to go through it as well. There wasn't too much to go through but I made a handful of changes. Hopefully now it's up to par with FAC standards. Best regards, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll review FAC later today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Journal

How about being on the editorial board? Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#JMIR_Wiki_Medical_Reviews. Best! Biosthmors (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

George Harrison

Hi Sandy, I've mentioned you here as I wondered if you could advise; are the trims and tucks we have done sufficient to address your concerns abut wordiness, or do we need more reorganisation? I only ask you because I value your opinion. Incidentally, I am sorry; I think I was a bit rude to you one of the last times we interacted. --John (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll review FAC later today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

We would appreciate a follow-up at the Harrison FAC, as we feel that your concerns have now been addressed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

saw your name at FAR

• if you wanna look, this one might have the dubious honor of being FAR-worthy: Panic of 1907. With Ucucha's link-checking tool, it has more red than Santa's suit. Not a good sign. if you don't wanna look, then just let it lay there, quivering. Tks. • Serviceable†Villain 09:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Renomination of Jainism

Hello, I am going to renominate the article on Jainism. Therefore, I would like to know whether the concerns that you raised in the previous nomination of this article have been addressed or not. Thanks. Rahul Jain (talk) 08:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

(tps) I'd at least let the GA review go through first before trying FAC. That could take a long time though, so if that doesn't work for you try WP:PR. Wizardman 22:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

New noticeboard

WP:WMFN. Best! Biosthmors (talk) 04:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Bismarck Sea

You recently suggested that I too easily supported articles on FAC so I have held off for a while. However, I have recently commented on the Battle of Bismarck Sea FAC, mostly suggesting improvements to the prose but also expressing concerns about the maps which I think are pretty inferior. Hawkeye7 is not bothered about my concerns. What do you think about the adequacy of the maps? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:FAS

Hi Sandy, I just updated WP:FAS - if you get a chance could you please double check my work? Hope all is well with you, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Vamos A Celebrar

SandyGeorgia, can I ask you to do the close paraphrasing check on this one? Hahc21 says that he's fixed all the potential problems in that area, and there's a call for a new reviewer: since you're the one who found the problems originally, you're the best candidate to see whether they're still there. (If you don't have time at the moment and know someone else who could do it, that's also fine. But since it's a Spanish to English issue, it needs someone with those skills and who knows about identifying cross-language direct translation. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm checking back to see whether you're willing to review this or if I should find another reviewer. I noticed in another DYK review on a DivaKnockouts article you asked whether DYK has a mechanism where all other nominations of a submitter/creator are held up while copyvio issues are being addressed. There aren't any that I know of: all reviewers can do are to make sure that (in this case) the Spanish-sourced articles get more complete checks rather than the usual AGF, and that an extra eye is cast on other submissions. Which is what I'm trying to do here. Thanks for the help you've given so far on this issue. (I imagine that something could be brought to WT:DYK, such as has been done at WT:GAN, to gain consensus to prevent someone from submitting or reviewing for a while. It may even have happened in the past, before I started becoming active at DYK. But no formal process that I've ever seen.) BlueMoonset (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Computers in Biology and Medicine

Sandy, (and tps) the Wikimedia Foundation received an email from someone associated with the Journal Computers in Biology and Medicine

I probably took more words than necessary to explain why he should not be editing the article, but I also went on to surmise why Wikipedia's coverage of scholarly journals is likely to be a challenge. I'll drop my comments in a collapsed box below.

I know you have more to do on your plate than you can handle, but I thought if anyone were familiar with the journal, it would be you, and if not you, then you might suggest someone who could help get it beyond a stub.

My thoughts regarding articles on scholarly journals
padding
As a former editor of a professional journal, I can sympathize with your concerns. I agree with your observation that "scholarly assistance is something sorely needed at wikipedia". On the one hand we do have some success stories, on the other hand, there are major gaps. If I may ramble a moment, the interaction between Wikipedia and scholars is an uneasy one. Within scholarly communities, expertise is highly valued. While ultimately, science triumphs, whether done by a Nobel Laureate or a high school student, one generally know who one is more likely to believe if one of them makes an interesting claim and the other disagrees. Wikipedia, deliberately, and somewhat proudly, takes a different approach, believing that the cv of the person making the statement is irrelevant. That approach can be taken to absurd extremes. However, the nature of the landscapes are different. Scholars, almost by definition, are pushing boundaries, trying to find new ideas, new relationships, new concepts, new theories of explanation. Wikipedia, in contrast, deliberately eschews the cutting edge, not ashamedly, but deliberately. Almost every day, someone wants to use the high profile of Wikipedia to announce some new discovery. Such attempts are universally removed. Our goal is to be a repository of the body of knowledge that is known, not to push the boundaries. While no serious researcher would ever contemplate using Wikipedia to announce a new finding, this isn't something we miss, it is something we want to avoid. We believe new ideas should be posted in established journals, where experts can review the claims, and accept the paper only if it meets their rigorous standards. Wikipedia relies heavily on the existence of scholarly journals. If someone wants to add a relatively new concept to an article, we want to see that the concept has been through the fire of peer-review. While many of our editors would not be qualified to sit on a peer-review panel, that expertise isn't needed. We need the ability to read a scholarly paper, and determine whether a statement in an article is supported by the paper, but that level of expertise doesn't require a doctorate in the subject matter. (Of course, for some subjects, familiarity with the subject matter is helpful. I do know which editor to contact when there is a medical question, for example.) Sorry, that was more of a ramble than I intended, but it provides a backdrop for what otherwise might be a puzzling position of Wikipedia. One of the five pillars of Wikiepdia is Neutrality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars That strong guiding principle means we do not want editors working on an article when they are "too close" to the subject, because we believe they will, even if not deliberately, unconsciously write in a way that is more positive about a subject than we feel is appropriate for an encyclopedia. This creates a challenge in a number of areas, and scholarly journals is one such area. Obviously, the managing editor of a journal is highly knowledgeable about the journal, almost certainly more knowledgeable than anyone else. However, because of our Conflict of interest guideline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Coi We would prefer that the managing editor of a journal not directly edit the article. We believe the publisher is in a similar position. When it comes to an article about Apple Computers, we don't want the CEO to edit the article, but there is no shortage of editors interested in the company. With a scholarly journal, there are fewer editors who are independent of the journal, yet have an interest in writing about the journal. Second, we want independent references to support claims in the article. Peer-reviewed Journals don't often write about their competition, and the New York Times doesn't often find a professional journal to be a likely subject for an article (except when there are problems), so we have the dual problems of not enough editors independent of the journal, and not enough references for editors to use. I'll also make a specific point about the content you added. When you use a phrase such as "revolutionary advances being made in the application of the computer to..." it raises a red flag to a reviewer. We would never permit such a phrase by an editor, and can only use such phrasing if it can be found in independent references. Even then, if there is a simple reference with such a characterization, it would probably be reverted. While you are no doubt proud of the journal, and certain that the phrasing is accurate, it isn't the type of phrasing we like to use. I haven't spoken to the editor who cut back the article to a bare stub, but I feel fairly certain that this and some other phrases triggered the decision. Finally, I will reach out to an editor who does a lot of work related to medical articles to see is she would be willing to help. I can't promise anything, as she is overworked, but I can ask.

This isn't getting a lot of responses - can anyone suggest a better venue to ask?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi SPhilbrick, I have noticed that SandyGeorgia has been absent since january 30th. I would recommend you to ask either on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience or on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science depending on which part of Computers in Biology and Medicine is the most important one. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 18:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm trying at the first of the two. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Gimmebot

Gimmebot is currently missing in action and I started a thread at WT:FAC. Doing a little digging, I saw that you once had the "manual instructions" in your sandbox. I went snooping through the history (sorry!) to find this version, but I'm not sure it is up-to-date or not. Just thought it was worth letting you know (as well as polite, after I was rooting around your sandbox!), as you may know if anything else needs doing if the bot is down for a while. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Kareena Kapoor FAC

Hi Sandy! Would you mind to take a re-look at the article Kareena Kapoor which is in FAC ? You did have a quick look earlier, and was disappointed due to poor prose.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Seeking input

Your input would be greatly appreciated here. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi!

Just saying Hi, I hope you are okay and on a nice (wiki)holiday! Lova Falk talk 10:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Question on a Featured Article Criteria proposal

I started a proposal at WT:GAN to require that all online sources be archived using WebCite or a similar archiving service before being passed. One of the comments mentioned that it wouldn't make much sense for that to be a GA requirement when FA doesn't require it. I just archived a couple of my own links and it's a relatively simple process so I don't think it is a burden. There are also a large number of editors (mostly seen over at Meta:CiteWeb who would be willing to perform the archiving). What would be the appropriate venue to suggest this for the featured article criteria? Ryan Vesey 20:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

FAC

Hello sir, we would like your suggestions on the fac. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Priyanka Chopra/archive1. Please , review it and represent your thoughts. Thank You.Prashant  ✉  18:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Stalled DYK nom of Vamos A Celebra

Hi. I am not fully certain of all the DYK rules. I have just finished a full review of a stalled DYK nomination which I believe your reviewed too. I have proposed an alternate hook and I understand I cannot approve my own hook proposals. Are you allowed to approve my hook? If so, after such approval, the article is good to go --Senra (talk) 12:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Barbara McClintock FAR

Hi Sandy - You commented a while ago at WP:Featured article review/Barbara McClintock/archive1. The article has undergone quite a bit of work, and the review now needs additional comments. If you have the time and interest, would you mind returning to the article to expand or revise your existing comments? Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

You're missed

I hope you're doing well! Best wishes. Biosthmors (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• I miss you too. I hope you are having a good break. --John (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with above, hopefully everything is ok Secret ^account 03:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Need you help in FAC

Hi Sandy, do you have time to help for making HIV/AIDS FA? The article's content is complete and it just needs a review to modify per MoS or some other minor copyedit changes. Thanks in advance ●Mehran ^Debate● 04:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mehran, I have noticed that SandyGeorgia has been absent since january 30th. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 16:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh so bad! Thanks for informing. Can you introduce me someone who could help me with this issue or I should wait for Sandy? I restate that the article just needs to a brief glance and apply some changes per MoS, maybe you could help too! ●Mehran ^Debate● 16:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, she is badly missed. I suggest asking on the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. As for me, I'm sorry, way too many things on my to-do list as it is... Lova Falk talk 17:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I hope she comes back soon. Thank you very much Lova. ●Mehran ^Debate● 18:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Jainism: Peer review request

Hello,

The article has been improved significantly since its first and second nomination which you reviewed. I have listed the article for a peer review. If possible, I would like your review in it. The link to the peer review is: Wikipedia:Peer_review/Jainism/archive2.

Thanks

Rahul Jain (talk) 11:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I've learned a lot from this article. Good luck! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

George Harrison

Hi, Sandy. Since you commented at the original FAC for George Harrison, I wonder if you wouldn't mind giving it a second look for the current FAC when you get a chance. As always, any input you can provide will be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)