User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch61

Talk page stalker alert[edit]

Can an admin please fix the image at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 1, 2009? Thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fix in what way? Pedro : Chat 22:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I've no permissions on commons so may not be able to do anything. Pedro : Chat 22:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only problem is the space between the [[ and file, which is causing the image not to show. Thanks, Pedro !SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, Maxim fixed it already ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would explain why I couldn't see it! Cool, glad it's all done. getting needed tools is this way ..... Pedro : Chat 22:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<sigh> ... I am finding some rather trivial needs for the tools ... that was literally only a space ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One could argue that the tools are trivial, and that this is the point of WP:DEAL. Bluntly - stop pestering people to do stuff when your RFA would easily pass and then you can stop using "help me TPS" alerts and just fix the damn stuff :) Adminship, contrary to popular opinion, is simply a technical thing on this website. There is no need to actually use all the buttons - as we won't debundle (sadly) that doesn't mean you have to use all the bits to justify having them. Hell, as I pointed out on WT:RFA the other day I've never edited the media wiki interface even tough I can- however I still find delete and block handy. Pedro : Chat 22:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what Pedro said. By the way, if you used the tools, once, positively, then you'd be a top admin. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree (though not wanting to pester). It seems strange that someone can become an admin after just four months and a load of vandal reverting (describing myself there!), but someone who is entrusted to promote featured articles isn't entrusted to say, fix a typo on a protected page. I'm pretty sure that if you did run and pass, you wouldn't be the wiki's biggest blocker, but you clearly could use admin rights. And I can't see why you wouldn't pass. Regards, Majorly talk 22:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The danger at RfA, as you well know, is that a valuable editor like SandyG might get so discouraged by the inevitable opposes that anyone would get if they've been around for a few years that she might decide the game wasn't worth the candle; Wikipedia couldn't afford that. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raul is such a clever one; maybe he left that space just to see what I'd do LOL !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belated response to Pedro[edit]

For the first time ever, I've actually considered whether I should pursue adminship, for three reasons. First, I do have needs for the tools, albeit very trivial ones (fixing TFA blurbs, editing protected pages, moving FACs and FARs over redirects, housekeeping deletions of FACs, etc.) Second, the problems at ANI demonstrate that our admin corp is dominated by childish and immature editors, and we need for more of our best editors to submit to RFA. This leads to my third, and more siginficant concern: the number of truly fine editors who have decided not to pursue adminship based on my example; that alone was enough to make me consider the possibility.

However, considering recent events and the possibility of real life stalking should I become an admin, I still believe that I can be more effective without becoming an admin. I'm also troubled by a recent RFA, where one editor has furthered personal issues against one candidate, and my candidacy would see plenty of that. I do hope that my personal decision won't influence others, I'd like to see more of our good editors pursue RFA, and I sure hope that other admins will continue to bear with me when I need an admin for help on a trivial issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair observations, and of course every admin should respond positively to any requests for help - wether they be from an IP, our newest accounts or seasoned and experienced writers such as you. Best Wishes. Pedro : Chat 16:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"...we need for more of our best editors to submit to RFA..." Well, better not blow your own trumpet! Majorly talk 16:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Author's Farce FAC[edit]

I hope you don't hold the comment at the bottom of the Author's Farce FAC against it and close the page, seeing as how it is getting to that point. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the Gurchisms :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed you were, but I wanted to broadcast it to your talk page stalkers because it amused me. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good use of my talk page (I should charge rent :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another TPS alert[edit]

It's going to be really slow going here for the next few days, on a dinosaur computer per this and this, while I hopefully come out on the other side of the two-year Windows Vista nightmare with a functioning computer. (The prognosis, according to the media reports, is not good.) In the meantime, I appreciate any and all help with my routine tasks (such as the missing line break in the section just above this) and will advise if/when I'm back up to speed. Thank you, as always, to Dabomb87 for following me around to fix and check things !!! Felice tutti i santi nel mondo. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might as well let you know that I'm currently up for approval as an SPI clerk, and if I do get approved, I'll be learning the ropes over the next few weeks. Expect one or two less reviews from me. :( ceranthor 16:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, if we campaign against you over there, we can keep a FAC reviewer :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<grrrrr ... >. As anticipated, problems: no computer yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It works, it works! Yea. Now I just have to reinstall a bunch of stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seton Hall[edit]

I had exams last 2 weeks, can you give me your opinion as to what needs to be done here. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Seton Hall University/archive3 149.150.237.59 (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC) rankun[reply]

Consult Mystache (talk · contribs) about the article's preparedness for FAC; consult Mm40 (talk · contribs) as to whether those concerns have been addressed; consider a peer review and independent copy editing as suggested by Mm40. Suggestions for an effective Peer review can be found at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOUR template[edit]

Sandy, I would like WT:FOUR to be notified if any of our articles are at WP:FAR. WP:FOUR is not considered to be a project. Is it O.K. to create a talk page template for this purpose that fits in {{WPB}} or {{WPBS}}?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a hard time understanding your question. I don't know why we would add FAR notifications to banners, and most of the WikiProjects have notification templates of FACs, FARs, GANs, PRs, etc. (see WT:MED for an example). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On re-reading, I think I understand the question now. You're asking if a WikiProject in user space can be added to banners and considered a valid Project. I'm unsure on that, and don't know where to direct you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I think what he means to do is create a WikiProject-like article talk template and add it to the article talk of 'their' articles, so that an editor nominating one of those articles for FAR would notify WT:FOUR along with the editors and projects associated with the article. I am having a hard time seeing any value in this, since the purpose of FAR notifications is to draw collaboration to improve articles, and the articles listed at Four Awards share no theme or topic. A talkpage banner that has no correlation to the article topic, and links to a userspace award program, does not seem to be of any use in organization or collaboration, either. Am I missing something here? Maralia (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A template would serve two purposes. 1) It would serve as notification of an editorial "crisis" that has resulted in a reevaluation of the article; 2) It would enable WP:FOUR to keep current with article demotions without requiring man-hour use. With a template, we could have a bot notify us of demotions rather than troll the archives. Every hour I spend trolling the archives today will be an hour I could have spent on the Qwest Field FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Maralia; I'm just not seeing why yet another incarnation of another award center should be treated like a WikiProject, or what benefit there is in doing so. At any rate, I'm not sure where the question would be asked, but I'm sure there's a page somewhere that governs WikiProjects over all. I suggest that the person-hours spent in garnering awards might be a bigger issue than trolling archives :) I also don't see any added benefit in terms of FAR, since most of the editors on that page are active and presumably monitoring the FAs for which they garnered the award, so if the articles are nommed at FAR, they would already know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Neither of your stated purposes seems to be for the benefit of the article. The body you propose notifying shares no connection to the article (other than a single participant, who would automatically be notified anyway). It seems that the award program's design leads to this perceived need, with the strange requirement that an article 'still retains' FA status. What are you going to do, rescind an award if someone's FA is demoted? Even so, what relevance does that have to the article? Maralia (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Four Award, is that something new? Apparently, I qualify for a lot of those like the Crown thingies. But regardless, I read the above as them wanting to know what is listed at FAR so they can keep up with trying to save the Four pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be sensible, except there is apparently no 'they'. The four award is for individual contributions, like the triple crowns; they're not collaborating on articles. Maralia (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of few things that make my day like seeing my orange bar go off over award-based programs. :) But carry on: it increases my ad revenues :) I'll accept payment in chocolate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, you could have a section "transcluded" on your talk page for non-emergency related discussions and the new edits register on another page so the orange bar does not ping. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava, CHOCOLATE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of whether there is a they, there seem to be a lot of watchers which would mean that the notifications would be noticed and people would consider getting involved, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FFA log[edit]

Is there a log of articles that have been demoted to FFA since March?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the FAR archives, linked on the WP:FAR page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The specific link is Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Fix needed[edit]

Hey SandyGeorgia. I'm a little confused, but I think I already moved the page to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-11-02/Election report. Of course, there is a redirect at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-11-02/Dispatches but not being an admin, I cannot delete this page. — Pretzels^Hii! 22:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'm not an admin either, so someone will have to delete that page so the Dispatch can be moved in. Thanks, Pretzel. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy - I replied at my page, but in summary, I had nothing to do with anything at the Signpost. I just wrote a draft in my user space and then the Signpost people took over from there. I can delete the offending page if you want me to though. Manning (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! Now Pretzels can move in the Dispatch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion page now very public[edit]

I guess we should wipe the comments before it goes public. They appear at the bottom of the page. Tony (talk) 00:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I didn't know about that new feature; I'll go do it now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RESTRICT[edit]

Just noting that the restrictions page is a mere log; the defunct CSN is like where the ANI discussion would have taken place for community sanctions. See also the bottom of my talk. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relieved to hear that. The problem with CSN was that it didn't receive wide readership, so individual and involved admins (one now desysopped) were able to hold court. It sounds like the new method could be more successful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been in place for a couple of years? Something like that; I agree, it's a better system than what I read of the CSN archives. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get around, but I miss a lot, since I try to avoid ANI as much as possible. I only saw this case because I have Ottava's page watchlisted. Thanks, Ncm! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved editors[edit]

For what it's worth, a consensus of uninvolved editors was a cornerstone of the original disruptive editing guideline. When a proposal arose to remove the clause I was the staunchest supporter of retaining it, but got overruled. Here's an example of how hard I endeavored to keep the the uninvolvement clause.

IMO, the editors who removed that wording gutted the guideline and opened a wide avenue for gaming the system. Those people were not active at CSN; I wish they had been there to take responsibility for the effects of the change. It was not pleasant to file arbitration cases about disputes such as Scientology just to manage the pile-ons from disputing partisans which occurred after the guideline was changed. It was a thankless task in all possible ways, the most disheartening part of which was the thoroughly off-base memes which later arose that somehow the board's regulars encouraged or tolerated that abuse.

The only reason I regret never using IRC is because, if I had gone there, I might have seen and rebutted those memes before they took root. The problem was not the board; the problem was the flawed guideline. And that problem continued at AN and ANI where there was less attention paid to halting its ill effects. Durova³⁵⁵ 20:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall saying anything about "board regulars". The place was a cesspool of admin corruption: read my Sep 2007 evidence in the C68 ArbCom. And I don't know why this distraction is introduced at ANI. IRC, Skype, off-Wiki communication: what's the difference ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect "Re"?[edit]

Just a quick nudge towards this comment as i fear it may be snowed under because of all the indents and the length of the discussion. I kind of want to know if we simply had a misunderstanding, or if i misread your critic - in which case i am kind of interested in what i did do wrong. (To prevent it from occurring again :-) ) Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an old dinosaur laptop and dashing out the door now to get my supposedly repaired computer ... posting from this thing is horrible, not to mention the edit conflicts, which caused incorrect indenting on all of my posts. Feel free to reindent if you want, I should be back in about two hours and will try to address, just can't do it now from this dinosaur computer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back with a functioning computer: I'll get over there and straighten out the threading or misunderstanding as soon as I catch up and re-install some things. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My lack of decorum[edit]

Hi SandyGeorgia, I just saw your comment here. It sounds as if you were assuming I am an admin, and since several people got this wrong recently I wanted to set that right. (A natural assumption, since I often behave like an admin and am very obviously not working towards passing an RfA.) On the other hand, I am doing a lot of admin work that doesn't need buttons, such as working towards NPOV in the CAM and Ireland areas, where I don't have strong interests. Ottava Rima has been in a state of denial concerning his behaviour and the community's reaction to his behaviour. The silly section was part of my attempt to fix this problem.

Wherever in this ANI thread I saw a particularly atrocious denial of any problems I confronted OR with a literal quotation of a clear example proving him wrong. I don't know if there will be any longterm effects, and I don't claim it as my success, but towards the end there was a totally different OR. As if he had asked his secretary to take over. I think the silly section has served its purpose: Procedurally I clearly stepped over the line in my criticism of him in a way that nobody could miss, yet nobody sanctioned me in any way. And look at the reactions: Excirial agreed with the gist of my criticism, and three editors criticised me for the way I pushed it. Nobody said the criticism wasn't justified. I felt that something drastic like this was needed to make OR understand that the community supports his articles, not his behaviour, and that in fact one can get away with attacks on him that really hurt him. Hans Adler 09:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hans, thank you for commenting and clarifying. I should know better than to assume you're an admin, since I'm not either :) I'm sorry for appearing to single you out; there were many issues on that thread I could have chosen to highlight, but I picked yours because it was a single section. My thoughts on the problems at ANI are recorded here; it was not my intent to single you out-- rather to provide one example, and yours was the easiest because it was in its own section. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have clarified that I didn't feel attacked or anything. I now see that my choice of title was potentially misleading. Actually I agree that my behaviour lacked decorum, and since it was so crass I thought it a good idea to explain why I felt it was justified. Hans Adler 16:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good on you to say that; if you ever do appear at RFA, I'd probably support :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts about AN/I[edit]

About your comment here: my comment really related to trying to handle discussions about conduct at AN/I. That particular board is designed for "emergency" situations - consequently the response is normally one where people seem to believe that something must be done with a certain amount of haste. This works fine with most of the stuff that crops up - reports of blatant faults, sockpuppetry, waves of vandalism, etc.

Unfortunately, it is not good with ban/sanction discussions. The reason is that we need editors who are uninvolved to comment, since editors somehow involved in the underlying dispute will clearly skew or polarise the discussion. That is fine in a venue such as WP:AE, where a) there is not the same sense of "emergency", and b) the discussions are structured to identify the problem, and separate involve from uninvolved editors. This doesn't happen at ANI, and so the time of contributors is wasted pointlessly on various proposals at break-neck speed, the editor under threat of sanction must devote their time to assessing quickly each and every response lest a sanction be imposed without comment, etc. etc. And that is why I referred to it as more heat than light. If we had a dedicated process for this kind of discussion, great - but administrators cannot unilaterally create them. Arbitrators, perhaps, but being an administrator confers no extraordinary power on us - just look at the fuss when we try to wield such power!

In the case of long-term content contributors such as Ottava, RfC/U is the way to go - the community do need the chance to comment and be heard, but that will never happen at AN/I, because things move too fast there.

Felt I should clarify my position given your subsequent comment. My position is all about efficiency as opposed to haste. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still catching up on my watchlist-- will get to you and Hans as soon as I can. I've recorded some of my thoughts here. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fritzpoll, thanks for commenting and clarifying; I hope my posts linked above explain my concerns. RFC/Us frequently languish with no input from uninvolved editors, or feedback dominated by a corp group of advocates who surround some editors, so I don't think it helpful. Also, because RFC/U is poorly monitored by uninvolved parties, they frequently go off the rails and become unintelligible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, broadly speaking - an indeed, RFC/U can actually amplify the "ganging up" effect that I allude to, since editors with extreme opinions on either side are more likely than uninvolved editors to comment. That said, I also agree with Jehochman's position that ANI, at least as presently constructed, is a poor venue for this kind of thing. The issue is that we need to get through this kind of thing faster - but I emphasise efficiency, such that a slightly slower result with a more sustainable outcome is preferable - so that we can all get back to our actual job around here. If the issue is one of admin control of the noticeboard, then that's all very well and good, but administrators have no special authority to control discussion - it would be handy to have, since structured argument is more efficient in many ways (I found this refereeing the Macedonia dispute recently), but ultimately the first time one of us tries it, we will be slapped down from all sides. I don't know what the solution is, but we may need to be radical about this kind of thing - the important point is to efficiently get to an appropriate outcome following commentary by uninvolved members of the community: jury duty? :) Fritzpoll (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the optimal solution is, but I do think that aiming for efficiency-- speeding up discussions-- is counterproductive. My opinion is that the premature closing of threads is the problem, and I wonder what would happen if more admins put an end to that, while simultaneously taking a more aggressive stance against the unhelpful and unnecessary STFU responses there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Efficiency doesn't mean speeding up discussions, necessarily. Take Ottava's case: many discussions, all to little or no effect, full of a lot of noise, shouting, pointless comments as you highlight. But no resolution of any kind - not even an acknowledgement that nothing need be done. Then days or weeks later, round we go again. That is the efficiency problem - again, I agree that archiving and behavioral issues are a problem, although some of them are likely borne out of frustration in this particular case due to the eternal lack of resolution.

Premature closing of threads results from the lack of structure and the explosive nature of these conversations, and so is a symptom of the problem, and not, I believe, a cause of it. As it is, inappropriate archiving is undone pretty rapidly by admins and non-admins alike. I think we are talking about different projections of the same solution - you favour more control over such conversations and so do I. Our differences lie in the methodology - I have watched loads of these conversations and all efforts to control or contain them are fruitless: it is that reason, I suspect, rather than laziness or a lack of will on the part of admins, that means no controls are made. It is an uncoordinated maelstrom - lots of shouting, no result. The optimal solution is not to try to contain the uncontainable, but to bind it to a controllable form a la WP:AE. How and where that happens are the only considerations. I'm sure you disagree, but I'll happily discuss further (I too can be persuaded! :) ) if you don't mind the amount of text I appear to have dropped on your talkpage! Fritzpoll (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with the amount of text :) I am likely influenced/biased by two events: an AN/I thread that was prematurely archived by involved parties after I had announced I would be busy, and while proposed solutions were being discussed; and 2) the issues that occurred at WP:CSN. I firmly believe that shuffling editing restrictions off to another board will yield worse results, as involved editors only will go there and get the outcome they want. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The latter point I can certainly empathise with. I think we might just need to impose some structure on the discussions at ANI itself - forcing that will be....interesting. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, do you have a link for the ANI thread that you are referring to? Fritzpoll (talk) 10:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See 28 Dec 2007 here: my viewpoint was that the situation should have been solved at ANI, without the need to kick it up to ArbCom, and Je was working on solutions. I thought sanctions would work in that case; instead, it was kicked up to Arb in my absence, and the editor ended up banned. The problems at the old CSN board are also covered there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few ideas that might help:

We should be able to implement a community sanction via an RFC/U. This may even be the preferred method because the discussion can last longer and involve more people than the typical ANI discussion.
If there must be a discussion on a noticeboard, such as if a user has already been blocked 15 times, and there will be little dispute over the sanction, we should have the discussion at WP:AN, not WP:ANI. WP:AN is less drama prone and slower moving.
When people attempt to do an end run around RFC certification requirements by posting their grievances at ANI, we should firmly tell them to use the correct process. WP:ANI is not part of WP:DR. WP:RFC is. WP:ANI should be for situations that require prompt administrator intervention. "Editor X has been behaving like a jackass for months, lets sanction him" is not the kind of think that should appear on ANI. That's RFC material. Jehochman ^Talk 13:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except for one very big problem, Je; RFC/U isn't working! No one goes there, and only involved parties comment. I even asked for help from uninvolved parties on a currently languishing RFC/U at the RFC talk page, and only one editor responded. I am relieved to see that this problem is now being well discussed in many places. Je, the big picture here is really problematic. Dispute resolution is broken on too many levels, particularly when it comes to how to best deal with editors who make otherwise good contributions. RFC/Us aren't well monitored, and quickly turn unintelligible. Corp advocates dominate discussions of problematic editors, wherever they occur. ArbCom has taken to experimenting with "novel" solutions to editors who make otherwise good contrubitions in ways that didn't address the issues and are going to encumber other similar cases "in the dispute resolution pipeline" unless they vacate that decision and impose concrete, measurable sanctions. When a core group of advocates dominate discussions of otherwise good editors, even the Arb case can become so muddled that it's unclear that the arbs actually understood the issues enough to deal with them effectively; it's the community who deals with the problems in day-to-day editing and has a better sense of what might work. The community needs to get its act together. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, a solution just occured to me. An important step in DR is logjammed because it gets little feedback from uninvolved parties. It is the community who is most in touch with the problems of disruptive editors who make otherwise good contributions; to break this logjam, we need more uninvolved feedback, yet RFC/Us languish. RFC/Us can't be announced anywhere because that would be canvassing, so it's left to chance as to who happens to weigh in-- usually the advocates for the problematic editor. So. Why don't we institute a policy of announcing all RFC/Us at AN or ANI? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. All RFC/U should be announced widely to encourage participation. It is not canvassing to post them to a neutral location. I've just made a series of edits to WP:BAN and WP:RFC. Please stalk me and see if you agree. Jehochman ^Talk 14:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already done that :) OK, is there anything that stops us from routinely listing all RFC/Us at AN or ANI (and which is best)? And then there's another problem; there are no "RFC/U regulars" who monitor them for compliance with the instructions; they're too free-wheeling, and become unintelligible. These would be two steps towards breaking the current logjam, but still won't solve the problem of the ANI cesspool. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AN is best. That's where ArbCom posts case results. AN does not get archived as swiftly as ANI, and it is less cluttered. The solution to ANI is to shunt off complaints about persistent user conduct issues to RFC. If there's a one time issue, ANI is the right place for a quick response. If a user is persistently obnoxious|disruptive|destructive that's a matter for RFC. By fixing RFC, we can drain the ANI swamp of those issues. Jehochman ^Talk 14:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By George, I think we've got it :) From my experience in two of the three current similar cases, it is RFC/U that is the broken step in DR, and we need to fix that. But, pushing more cases over to RFC/U is not going to work unless uninvolved parties monitor those pages and keep them on track; they much too quickly become unintelligible and dominated by advocates. Those problems need to be solved as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In time, that problem would become self-fixing: as RFC/U becomes more useful, more people will be willing to devote the time to keeping on top of things - at present, there's no real purpose. All we need, in the interim, is to gather some volunteers to monitor it until that critical mass of participation is achieved. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When RfC/Us start at AN I think it won't be a big problem. Hans Adler 14:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree informally incubating (using my terminology to make me feel more important) RfC/U at AN seems to be the solution. Hans Adler 14:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Je, would you have time to look over all of the current RFC/Us and post a neutral summary-request for feedback on each one at AN? I've got a COI in one of them, or I'd offer to help, and I don't think my prose is up to the task anyway :) By doing that, you could announce the problem of too little feedback by uninvolved parties and the lack of monitoring, and show how RFC/Us should be announced at AN. (Guys, my eyesight stinks; please leave spaces between your posts here :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec with Jehochman, reformatting for logic) I was about to make a related suggestion when I found you have made this one: How about incubating all RFC/Us on a single page. When an RFC/U reaches a certain size, or 24 hours after successful certification, it moves to a separate page. In this way everybody who has once certified an RfC/U or commented in an early stage will have the central RfC/U page on their watchlist. And the traffic on that page will ensure that no RfC/U gets neglected completely. By fine-tuning the exact rules for promoting an RfC/U to a separate page we can fine-tune the number of responses. Hans Adler 14:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, among others, has been calling the system broken quite a few times as it is. But I think something is being overlooked again. The JzG RfC/U and the A Nobody RfC/U weren't really announced at AN, yet the amount of uninvolved input they received compared to other RfC/Us listed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Archive is starkly different. To be honest, I think the bigger problem is that users don't have the time or are not interested in commenting in RfC/Us they don't know much about. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I'm looking at a specific subset of RFC/Us: disruptive editors who make otherwise good contributions and with whom the community has had a lot of contact and grown frustrated. In all of those cases, involved editors often give up and move on, but are well aware of the problems. They don't watchlist RFC, but if the RFCs were announced, they probably would weigh in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Through the magic of transclusion, current RFCs are announced at both WP:AN and WP:ANI. Hopefully this will be a big improvement. Jehochman ^Talk 14:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, could you provide some examples? I've been under the impression that editors who engage in problematic conduct, yet otherwise make good contributions, are the type that receive an endless amount of input, wherever the venue is - the matter is with doing something with that input. Jehochman, admin and bot RfC/Us are separate from general user conduct RfC/Us. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd not like to highlight a particular case, lest it create a conflict or introduce bias. I've called attention elsewhere to a languishing RFC/U. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This RFC, however, was a massive trainwreck, dominated by advocates, with important issues obscured. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That became a trainwreck due to the lack of enforcement of rules and guidelines - there is no doubt that better input would have been received had this been remedied. As for why I didn't personally insist on it as I have in nearly all RfC/Us for the past couple of years, I think referring to it as "clerking issues" would sum it up. Perhaps the community will be more open to having them more formally monitored now though. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hence, one of my points: RFC/U won't be effective unless it is much more actively monitored by uninvolved parties. (I also think that particular RFC/U tried to do too much, and could have been more effectively presented.) I do think we need RFC/U clerks. I'm going to join the "ladies who lunch" today; I'm glad to see progress being made on these issues, but hope y'all don't burn the place down in my absence :) You all are moving so fast, I may not be able to catch up when I get back ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist this page Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/List. Jehochman ^Talk 15:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, most comments on anything are by involved people, or their recruited friends and allies. Unfortunately I think if random selection was used, we might have to wait forever for a reply. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 02:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inner German border TFA query[edit]

Hi Sandy, I've left a query about the choice of blurb and picture for November 9th on Raul's talk page. I'd be grateful for any additional advice you could provide. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at User talk:Raul654. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAC for withdraw[edit]

Sandy, could you please close this FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Yarmouk/archive1, the nominator has acknowledged that the nom was premature and has instead opened an A-Class review at MILHIST. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, MBK004; could you put a link to the nom withdrawal statement (wherever it is) on the FAC? Then I'll archive it, but remember, the template will still be on the page until Gimmebot goes through, which may not be 'til Saturday. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an overt withdrawal statement in the opening statement of the ACR: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Yarmouk. If you need him to explicitly state it, then I can ask, but you are probably aware that we at MILHIST actively discourage having multiple reviews for the same article open at once. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, MBK; I've archived it, but the template will show on the talk page until the bot goes through. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with that, I know GimmeBot doesn't run every minute. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump[edit]

What's this "one nom at a time" thing? Also, I think 2C is a valid concern. There are significant unsourced portions, and the writing quality isn't all that great. Taking it to the talk page won't do a damn thing since nobody's touched that in ages. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:FAR instructions say: "Nominators typically assist in the process of improvement; they may post only one nomination at a time, ... ". How do you know no one would touch it? There hasn't been a talk page post since mid-2008, and you haven't inquired on article talk about your concerns. "Significant unsources portions"? Did you inquire if the article is sourced by paragraphs, or are you assuming every sentence needs a ref? Did you check the version that passed FA? If you think the "writing isn't all that great", examples are needed, and if you think the sourcing is inferior, examples of sources that are lacking are needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(2x EC) Oh, I see now. I think that's a terribly stupid rule, but what else can we do? Just let the article rot in its undersourced, clearly-not-FA state for a few more months while FAR continues to move at a glacial pace? Wait forever and a day until the major editors decide to unretire and explain their sources? Whoever added the sources hasn't edited since 2007; I don't think they're gonna suddenly pop back and say what's backed up with what. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a post to the talk page might have resolved your concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the same talk page that nobody's talked on since early 2008? I'd be better off talking to a brick wall. Watch. Nobody's gonna respond for months and months. Just like almost every other time I post on an article talk page. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a post to the talk page might have resolved your concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, okay… I did post, and someone did respond. Imagine that. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine that :) There's a whole corp of active art editors on Wiki, and all you had to do was ask :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After that trick failed so many times with country music and shopping malls, I honestly didn't think it would work. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When Yomangani retired, because his work was of such unusual high quality, editors made a deliberate effort to add his articles to their watchlists so that they could be preserved. There's little need to have running conversations about such good articles -- it doesn't mean that nobody is watching. You would, of course, expect the best articles to need the least discussion and editing. --JayHenry (talk) 04:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not banned in two days, I'll touch the article. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what to say, so here's an idiot in a bat suit[edit]

I forgot I posted this, so you bring it up to refresh me.

So here's something else you can remind me of some day in the future. Proof the French have too much time on their hands. Srs, I laugh so hard at this vid every time I see it I end up coughing for 30 mins afterwards...--Moni3 (talk) 13:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moni, that was the best 2 minutes of my life. ceranthor 13:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

uh, oh. I think I'll go get my coffee and come back to this. It was all I could do last night to prevent myself from posting some choice Texts from last night to your talk, Moni, but you seemed to be in a "waxing poetic" mood, so I sat on my fingers :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You sit on your fingers too much, Sandy. Post them anyway. Sleep cures me of any waxing. Ceranthor, I live to please. Glad you liked it. --Moni3 (talk) 13:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What else can I sit on? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Sandy, are there promotions today? I don't remember seeing Tues promos. ceranthor 13:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ceranthor, if you interrupt a Moni thread with a "business" question, you have to come bearing gifts. Moni prefers rubber duckies, but chocolate still works.[1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine then. I win. ceranthor 13:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aw. How peaceful. I serene and one with nature...and shit. --Moni3 (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[2] Kablammo (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At last; something for both Moni and me! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saving your youtube for after lunch; maybe I'll even have a beer :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moni, perhaps, you prefer legions of duckies? ceranthor 16:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Moni, you are so naughty. Glad I had lunch before coughing for 30 minutes afterwards. Got a hammer vid for Malleus? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAR[edit]

Can you G7 the Xanadu Houses FAR then? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you agree, I will db-g6 it. TPH, you can add another nom after the status on your first is more clear. In the meantime, we really could use more reviewers at FAR, to keep the queue moving. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

If you had looked at the talk page post above mine, you would see that I'm not the only one questioning the range of the sources. The few secondary sources that do exist seem to be incidental coverage in the wake of his houses' being built, nearly nothing afterward. Most of it merely seems to be "short burst[s] of news reports about a single event or topic." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why I'm getting so sloppy lately. I always seem to have short bursts of erratic behavior. Per your suggestion, I have taken it to AFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at RFAR[edit]

Sandy, I'm coming here to respond to what you said at RFAR. I presume you meant my comments appear partial (your initial comment said impartial). I do strive to be as impartial as possible, so I'm happy to discuss this further if you have time, either here or by e-mail. One of the things I try to do at the requests page is give advice. It's not always well received, but any 'warning' element is generally only meant to remind those participating at arbitration that cases look at the behaviour of all parties (this is a standard formulation, used by many arbs). It is rare for fault to be entirely on one side in any case, and looking at all sides of a case is what I have always tried to do. Anyway, if you want to discuss this more, here or by e-mail, I'll be very happy to do so. Carcharoth (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming here to clarify, Carcharoth. I would rather keep this discussion here on Wiki, since we've seen two cases now where arb feedback (not only yours) inflammed the situation, and others may want to join the discussion. I'll get back to this once I've processed through my watchlist and other IRL morning tasks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* If this request to have a case opened, I decline. It is not onerous to be required to avoid edits which are uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. It is what everyone should be doing. Ottava has merely been put on notice. I would accept an appeal after a month or so of peaceful editing. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Accept to review all aspects of the matter, including the standards and procedures for imposing community sanctions as well as Ottava Rima's underlying conduct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Change to hold temporarily in light of Ottava Rima's apparent wikibreak announcement. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Accept per Newyorkbrad. I don't think that declining the request will fix the situation in a way that provides long term resolution. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 15:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Accept. As NYB and FloNight allude to, I don't think giving it to the community will move this any further than it has. Gotta be nipped in the bud. Wizardman 21:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Accept - the community handle this sort of thing poorly. ArbCom don't have a great record either (there are several other editors who make good content contributions but are abrasive when interacting with certain others, and are famed for so-called "special treatment"). However, it looks like it falls to us to try and resolve this. I would make an appeal to Ottava Rima to take a long hard look at your conduct and why it upsets people, and how that sits with your content contributions. I would also urge those who may have unnecessarily escalated some of these issues to ask themselves why they did so, as that may be noted in the case, and if a consistent pattern emerges over several cases of editors who feud with other editors, that will be just as damning. Carcharoth (talk) 01:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Ottava, the point I was making is that LessHeard vanU's statement that he intended to block indefinitely swayed me to accept. Part of arbitration is deciding what course of action may be best for the encyclopedia. I don't think highly productive content contributors should be indefinitely blocked without other options being explored first. If an admin says they intend to block indefinitely and urge the case be accepted on that basis, then the situation has, in my opinion, escalated to the stage where ArbCom need to step in and resolve the dispute, to (as the phrase goes) "examine the conduct of all parties". My reference to unnecessary escalation was directed at LessHeard vanU's statement about indefinite blocks (since we obviously don't want a situation to develop where admins state their intention to indefinitely block in order to get cases accepted), and also some other comments made here, such as Moreschi's failure to take this seriously. Sandy, I will respond to your point on your talk page, if you don't mind me moving that point there. Carcharoth (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for the delay, Carcharoth. Considering two instances now, that affected several editors, I'd like to keep the discussion here. If you have other concerns, please do feel free to e-mail me, but I consider other concerns resolved and behind us because I clarified them.

I have always felt that you act in good faith and from good intentions, but that sometimes your verbosity (I don't say that with any negative intent, because I suffer from same :) leads to problems.

In the earlier case, the possibility existed that some of us were sensitized by other unfortunate comments that another arb made before yours-- since struck. But we're seeing a similar thing happen in this case, so it's worth considering that something in the way you word your feedback isn't well received by the participants at ArbCom.

Reviewing the comments from the other arbs above, surely you can see there is a difference between their response and yours? I don't know how to give voice to that difference. Perhaps other editors, more familiar with the legal field, can explain it, but it comes across as a blurring between the lines of judge, jury, prosecutor, defending attorney, advocate, mediator, and bailiff. I don't know how to explain it better, but I hope someone can, so you can find a way to adjust your feedback on arb cases. Your wording makes participants feel "pre-judged" and may stifle feedback. A number of us were disturbed by the first case, and it appears this case prompted Ottava's departure, as he didn't seem to feel he would get a fair hearing. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, if this is inappropriate, please revert me. Carcharoth, I agree with what you wrote, and I think if those comments had come from any "ordinary" editor no one would have thought twice about them. I agree that there is often a need for arbitrators in particular to point out that bad behavior is not one-sided. I also think it is impossible for arbitrators to "forget" everything they've read on-wiki, nor does impartiality require that. However, there can be a potential issue if an arbitrator's comments at this particular stage of the process are viewed as too pointed towards one individual. That can give the impression (hopefully mistaken) that the arbitrator is already leaning towards one particular opinion. This comment in particular Ottava Rima to take a long hard look at your conduct and why it upsets people, and how that sits with your content contributions seems to have already judged Ottava guilty of something ("where there's smoke there's fire"). Your follow-up assured me that wasn't what you meant; I think the detail in that follow-up was probably necessary for the original statement to be read properly. Tempers are already frayed when cases reach Arbcom, and it is very easy for an already upset individual (especially one who feels persecuted) to misinterpret comments. There's not enough chocolate on the wiki to make me do your job.... Karanacs (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No revert needed: please do chime in! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) It appears in the quoted portion above that all the arbs except for Carcharoth merely expressed the need to explore the issues further, acknowledging that behavior has begun to affect content and it is a matter appropriate for arbitration. Carcharoth's, however, in his statements "Ottava Rima to take a long hard look at your conduct" and "unnecessarily escalated some of these issues to ask themselves why they did so" and "that will be just as damning" make predictions about the outcome of the case. While these issues may be true, it is my impression that arbitration takes place when all other avenues have been exhausted and editors are fed up and frustrated, yet still willing to work within a structure on Wikipedia to find a solution where everyone can continue editing to some extent. These statements incorporate a judgment about the actions of editors, but more importantly, the legitimacy of their frustrations as if you have invalidated their points before looking at the evidence. I'm not really following this ArbCom case, but it seems Carcharoth's comments necessitated his clarification of who they were directed at, per his followup about LessHeardvanU. This kind of clarification would be unnecessary if no statements were made about the motivations and actions of editors bringing matters to ArbCom's attention. --Moni3 (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're all trying to say, Carcharoth, that arbs have to make a transition from editors to "judges". It's not an easy transition: Karanacs and I have to walk that fine line every day at FAC, and sometimes sitting on your fingers is hard. But our input can prejudice a FAC, so we have to be very judicial in what feedback we give. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through the above, and the opinions and feedback really are appreciated. Many thanks for that - it is all too rare to get this kind of constructive criticism (usually brickbats are thrown). I sometimes wish this sort of advice had been given earlier in the year as well, as to get a real feel for arbitration as a whole, you have to follow several cases at the same time (but normally the only ones with time or inclination to do that are the arbs). Reading through all the comments made at RFAR by arbs throughout the year would swiftly get boring, but would give a feel for the typical sort of comments (and I agree, my comments were outside the normal range). As for the motivations and actions of editors bringing matters to ArbCom's attention (Moni's point), after months of requests, you do start to realise that things are not always what they seem, and looking carefully at the background of a request is often needed. But while looking into the background to help decide on a request is correct, the kind of picking out of detail that I've been tending towards should wait until a case is accepted, and is not appropriate for the request stage. Part of the reason for saying what I do is a desire to explain why I'm accepting, holding or rejecting a request. It can be frustrating to have terse "accept" or "reject" comments with no reason given. It's a balance, and I will try to err back towards the less verbose and less explicit side of that balance in future. And Sandy, many thanks for saying that you consider the other concerns resolved. If you, or anyone, have concerns in future, I hope a discussion like this can help resolve them. I do keep a record of discussions like this, so I can look back at them and learn from them, and I'll add this one to that record. Carcharoth (talk) 06:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this seems to be the growing trend amongst administrators and arbitrators; judge first, look at the evidence later, as evidenced by your colleague Vassyana in another recent case: "However, if the mentorship fails, I will be seeking sanctions against those who have engaged in the baiting and incivility that contributed to the poisonous atmosphere and failure." Hardly the words of an impartial observer. Respect has to be earned, it can't be demanded, and right now the respect for all of wikpedia's governance structures and those who participate in them is in terminal decline. Something more than empty words is needed now. --Malleus Fatuorum 07:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent and growing trend? It's been like that for as long as I can remember. I've always been aware of the tendency for some to judge first and look later. It was a particular bone of contention of mine back when I used to contribute at AN and ANI. The key is to examine evidence in its context - what led to the incident being described - and the timelines - how long did it take for a particular incident to unfold and what was going on elsewhere. That takes an inordinate amount of time to do properly, and it is rarely done that way at AN or ANI, and sometimes only slightly better by parties at an arbitration case. What I would love to see is more uninvolved people helping with the evidence layout and presentation at arbitration (and at the various noticeboards). The task of arbitration is made more difficult when you only have partisan sides presenting evidence. Carcharoth (talk) 13:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad the thread has been helpful, Carcharoth; let's hope it doesn't degenerate like some at ANI :) To a lesser extent, Karanacs and I have been on the receiving end of some of those "batbricks"-- it goes with the "job"-- so I hope we have some shared understanding of what you arbs go through. I do think it used to be somewhat better at AN and ANI than it is today (I base that on some of the 2006 discussions of an editor with whom I eventually ended up in arbitration, compared to the 2007 discussions of the same editor, and in contrast to the even worse threads today), but I don't know what can be done about that, other than some of the recent changes introduced by Jehochman to encourage better use of RFC/U (so far, that doesn't seem to be helping much, though). One concern that I have about arb cases-- in an "anyone can edit" environment, and based on my own experience when a dispute I was in was kicked up to ArbCom-- is that anyone can say the most outrageous things about you in an arb, and you are forced to spend inordinate amounts of time defending yourself. When they drag on, an arb case can take over your time and prevent any other productive editing. In my case, I simply would not have been able to do it, and might have left, if so many others hadn't come to my aid, supplied diffs, responded to key points or asked key questions, etc. It really "takes a village" to defend yourself in an arb case, and in his absence, I doubt that anyone can do that for Ottava. One ex-arb told me that the evidence I presented in the C68 case was most helpful because it was formatted to a timeline, but that evidence was extremely lengthy and took me weeks to prepare. If I had to do similar in another case, it would probably take three weeks. Giving effective feedback in an arb case is daunting! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm[edit]

Hi. Not sure I really understand this [3]? Please elaborate further. I think Ottava's constant smears against me for the past few months have been pretty inflammatory. Cheers. (I'm not looking to pick a fight with you I just want to understand). --Folantin (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't intend to elaborate further, because the claims made against Ottava don't warrant further exposure. They're enough to assure me that "paranoid fantasies" isn't an accurate description, considering some factors that led some editors to pursue issues with him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. So you won't explain what you mean. OK. I'll simply continue with my "inflammatory" defence of myself. --Folantin (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained. My page isn't the place for childish responses; that place would be over there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After what Ottava did to John Kenney he'll get no sympathy from me for people calling him out over his identity. --Folantin (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My page isn't the place for furthering vendettas or exacting revenge; that place would be over there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistaken assumptions[edit]

At Arbcom you said to Folantin: "Having recently become aware of some of the mistaken assumptions surrounding Ottava's real-life identity, and how those mistaken assumptions contributed to the hounding of Ottava, I don't find your use of the word "paranoid" accurate." I am not sure what you are referring to. The only thing that I can think of is my mistaken assumption. As far as I know I am the only one who ever had that suspicion, and I am sure it did not contribute to the hounding of Ottava. (Actually I think it's more likely that the hounding of Ottava was the natural consequence of Ottava's hounding of Chillum.) Hans Adler 15:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hans, you don't strike me as one of the dramamongers who frequent WP:ANI. If you had that impression, it's likely others did too; it was not my intent to single you out. As to whether Chillum deserved to be "hounded", that's a bigger question. I've already pointed out to Ottava that he should pick and defend his causes more carefully, and I believe he would have heeded that advice from an editor he respects. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAR 2[edit]

Is this a better approach to an FA that's obviously not FA class anymore? (Also, I've been told that FAs shouldn't be listed until after they're off "Recently featured.") Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, TPH, that's a very good approach! Also, yes, the WP:FAR instructions state not to list an article at FAR until about four days after mainpage, because often improvement results from the article being on the mainpage. Also, remember to wait until your previous nom has moved further along, at least to FARC. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Talk:Raney nickel and Talk:Dime (United States coin). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications on talk of problems are good; if they don't get the ball rolling, then someone else may FAR the article. Mass taggings of articles at FAR is less good, unless they are likely to lead to improvement because someone is working on the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ACE2009, uContribs &c.[edit]

Hi Sandy, rather than wandering around the house muttering darkly to myself, kicking the family pets, and sketching out various incendiary devices, I was thinking of more productive uses for my time. ;) (And thanks so much for your particicpation BTW)

Presumably you might find my uContribs analyses useful on this go-round also? If so, I would like to make some tweaks to the software. Specifically, edit-count at an article has no relation to actually achieving the quality rating for the article. I can definitively state that I was not more than occasionally involved with any rated content listed here, though I did help out with advancing a few of them. OTOH, Cas's listing is pretty much all his own efforts, though not necessarily all of them.

My question to you, or anyone else who watches VP:SandyG, is threefold:

Is there any reliable reference to pick up who was / when they were awarded a feature award? When I looked at this last, awards on upages were opt-out (the DYK ones anyway) and there were several different templates used over time, with parameters varied enough that even through the tedious process of checking upages I couldn't reliably pick up these specific achievements.
Alternatively, is there a centralized listing of who was given credit for what, when? I never could find such a thing, but if it exists, it would be gold!
Or yet again, are the various talk:articlehist templates stable and widespread enough that I could parse them to extract dates when articles were promoted? I'm already hitting the talk pages, so I would just need to know the reliable text patterns to grab on the way.

I realize the technical details of this are outside your scope (ya think? :) but any general guidance you could piece together on how these awards are tied to specific editor identities would help. The disconnect between edit counts/edit content and specific promotions, that's a different issue, but one I'm maybe better suited to make analysis of, since it's my software that counts edits. I have some ideas on that, but just now I'm asking about how to spot who exactly made the edits before the article or DYK was promoted.

Can I be any more confusing on this? :) Anyone other than Sandy is welcome to chime in here. :) Franamax (talk) 03:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been muttering quite a bit myself :) I hope I was more help there than harm. This year, depending on who runs, I'm unlikely to be looking so much at contributions at the FA/GA level, and more likely to be looking for other qualities. See the beginnings of User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes2009, still in development. Still not sure. To see FA noms and dates, you have to go to each year's archives, kept by Rick Block, used to generate WP:WBFAN; for example, Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2009. Articlehistory is absolutely reliable and accurate on every FA and FFA (thanks to Maralia, Gimmetrow and yours truly); I can't vouch for DYK or GA. But I'm just not sure that's what I'll be looking at this year, as you can see from the beginnings of my page. Hang in there :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case you don't know it, there is Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs, which is self-certified, though you do get a notice from one of the DYK team, which some people copy to a sub-page etc. Not everyone bothers, but many who update it link to some kind of list. No dates at all, just a running total. Johnbod (talk) 03:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Celeste DiNucci[edit]

What's your take on Celeste DiNucci? I think this is a WP:BLP1E since the only sources I can find tie directly to her Jeopardy! win. There are only 139 unique hits on Google, and the only Google News hits tie directly to her Jeopardy! win as well, with nothing after the fact. The only sources are J! Archive, a fan-made site which I'm not certain should even be linked from here. Given my high rate of epic fail lately, I thought I'd get another opinion on the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding the red links on Music of Minnesota: I'm aware of WP:RED and I sometimes leave a red link behind because I plan to go back and turn it blue sometime soon (see Shenandoah (band), which has two). That's why I put the "relevant?" tag on each red link, because I wanted there to be some kind of flag as to whether or not those red links should even be included. (Also, DiNicci — thoughts?) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- TPH, whether or not you leave a redlink in the text is not related to whether they should be included, but to whether a potential article would meet WP:NN. If you haven't checked that, you shouldn't remove red links. From your concerns about Xanadu Houses, I'm not sure you know how to access notability, so it might be best to leave red links alone when you encounter them; assessing the notability of each can be time-consuming. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't remove very many redlinks at all. I think just one or two from the Music of Minnesota article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian Revolution of 1956 FAR[edit]

Hi SandyGeorgia - Thank you immensely for your interest and observations on this FAR on the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. I agree with your observations and kindly request to keep it on your radar until it closes - I believe this process needs the oversight of someone of your experience to ensure the article gets improved constructively and is not simply "mugged" out of its FA status. István (talk) 05:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some comments there, asking for specifics to help refocus the rambling discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAC reading[edit]

I'm available if you need any help. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much as always, Dabomb. I'm going to get started as soon as I've eaten something; I took a lot of time off from FAC yesterday to try to pitch in at FAR, which is suffering from a worse lack of reviews than FAC. For now, if you're interested, you might look through All Hell, Not One Less and Author's Farce (don't have the exact links handy, as I'm just reviewing my notes). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabomb, I've recused Nikita Khrushchev to Karanacs, but you might also peruse it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabomb, in case you're still bored <smile>, the John Waddy article is close. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more, The Historian. How do you feel about your place on the Wiki pay-scale :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still there ? Boeing 777. I look aircraft articles over very closely, as they are often missing nbsps and have MOS errors, and layout issues. Boeing 777 should be joined with an nbsp, for example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1997 Qayen earthquake could probably use a looksie, too. ceranthor 18:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but did you see my note at the bottom of that fac? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, just saw that. I pinged both of them. ceranthor 18:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabomb could still go through, but only if he has time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, at a quick glance, only images are holding up Upper and Lower Table Rock. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had to take a break. Will return to reading in about 15 minutes. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought The Bomb never took breaks !! I'm still reading: no hurry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Pending Boeing 777's fixes, I think things look good from a preliminary sweep. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much again, Bomb ... I'm keeping an eye on the plane. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denton, Texas FAC[edit]

Hello SandyGeorgia. I know that you are extremely busy, but I'd just like to ask you about Denton, Texas, which you recently archived. I think I have resolved each reviewer's concerns, although I think I may not have directly responded to a couple of them (which is my mistake). Since the initial FAC, I've added more references throughout the article and especially to the Geography section that Juliancolton commented on. Alt text was added to the one image that didn't have it. I think I've fixed all issues Ealdgyth discovered.

I'd like to get this to featured article status, but I'm not sure what issues need resolving before re-nominating again. I just don't see any issues in the now failed FAC that are unresolved.

Relevant links

Regards, Mahanga^Talk 23:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you corrected the image issues raised by Awadewit? If so, considering there were no specific opposes, I'm fine with you bringing it back to FAC as soon as you're ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had responded to the two images that have not been struck out. I think Awadewit just hasn't looked at my responses yet to strike them.

File:Denton County Flag.jpg - I requested SVG conversion but a graphics person there said it doesn't seem necessary for a fair-use image.
File:Denton Arts and Jazz - Celtic Dancers II.jpg - I replaced the description, as Awadeit suggested.

I assume I need to start a new nomination? Thanks, Mahanga^Talk 00:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can initiate a new nomination. Be sure to include the diff to this response in your nom, indicating I've given you the go-ahead, or someone may remove the nom as premature. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for the heads-up about the article. I'll check that out. Gingermint (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Minnesota[edit]

I reined in the tag-spam a great deal. I agree that I went overboard with the {{fact}} tags. I have no idea why my edits are so sloppy of late; I'm also making huge mistakes on other forums. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you rethought that: thanks for the note! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

For interring the unproductive evidence of my frustration. Regards, DocKino (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We aim to please :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Training Fifelfoo to be a better and more civil reviewer[edit]

Could you please check my approach: here and here and give me an idea if this is a productive way forward? Fifelfoo (talk) 04:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know we're in different time zones, but I'm wiped out after two full days of FAC and FAR, and need some sleep. I'll have a look tomorrow. Thank you for your ongoing efforts !! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the facts regarding the Hungarian revolution are quite clear and there is no point/disruption by Fifelfoo. Sometimes, things regarding national liberation/oppression and whatnot can be overtaken by what one thinks of the subject matter YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 04:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear what you're suggesting, YM? I've never seen or stated there was any disruption there, or elsewhere, from Fifelfoo ??? We are working to make his FAC reviews a bit more decipherable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying that the comments made by the folks involved in production of the article that this is a POINT, or Fifelfoo is a Stalinist are irrelevant or unfounded. Teh citations are still flagrantly in multiple formats YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 05:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ... well, Fifelfoo and I were talking about something entirely unrelated to FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry YellowMonkey, there's a general issue with my FAC/FAR reviewing separate to any H56 issues. A sufficient number of editors, including SandyGeorgia, have informed me that I'm using Jargon that's dense, unreadable, and clogging the review process. Also that its undeciferable to the level of incivility to the extent it puts other editors, reviewers, and new FAC candidate presenters off. SandyGeorgia is working with me to improve my quality of reviewing! (But obviously within our time zone constraints) Fifelfoo (talk) 05:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, Fifelfoo. Since it doesn't start out as a lengthy oppose, it will be less offputting to new nominators. Some points:

1c grade citation issue: I think your shorthand there means that, it's a 2c issue, but if it's not fixed, it's a 1c concern. Is that correct? If so, I'm confused, because supplying author and date on periodicals shouldn't affect 1c ... so perhaps I'm not following your shorthand (and nominators might not be either :)
- Clarify: I see why date affects 1c in these cases (if you don't have a date, you can't find the article to verify it, but why author? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell what "closely spaced" and "loosely spaced" mean, or why that's a concern?
Your example on inconsistent date formatting is fine; that should be enough to get them to fix them all (and there are scripts to do that, so it should never be a big concern. If a FAC gets to the stage that it's promotable, and dates are inconsistent, a script can be run to fix them).
I'm not sure your feedback on fn50 is correct; WP:MOSCAPS tells us to reduce all caps to lower case.
On your "Bibliography versus Short cite consistency issues", I'm not sure those changes are necessary. Specific citation styles aren't prescribed, as long as there is consistency. I've rarely seen "Lewis; Scott" formatting at FAC, while the "Lewis & Scott" formatting is quite common.

But overall, a very good approach. Actually, in the case of Lewis, the list of concerns is so short that it probably wasn't necessary to place it on talk; it would have been fine in the main FAC page. I only suggest placing formatting concerns on talk if the list will overwhelm the rest of the review. Perhaps other FAC reviewers will chime in here if I've missed or understood anything here. Thanks again for making such an effort, Fifelfoo! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009[edit]

Wikipedia is no place for humour
Everything is very, very serious here and we are all terrifically important.
This edit introduced unnecessary levels of sexual tension and will distract other editors from their tasks. Please read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Current" article at FAC[edit]

Hi Sandy, how's it going? Would it be okay to nominate Already Gone (Kelly Clarkson song) at FAC? It's still in the charts in some countries. Matthewedwards : Chat 23:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Matthew; I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. Are you asking if it meets 1e, stable? That would be best decided by reviewers. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, basically that. It's still in the charts so some information could still change, although it's only going to be a couple of lines. I'll consider nomming it and see what comments I get back. Thanks! Matthewedwards : Chat 23:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to reopen ArbCom case "Mattisse"[edit]

ArbCom courtesy notice: You have received this notice because you particpated in some way on the Mattisse case or the associated clarification discussion.

A motion has recently been proposed to reopen the ArbCom case concerning Mattisse. ArbCom is inviting editor comment on this proposed motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 03:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The message has been misspelt "Matisse" [sic] YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 08:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, yeah, I know. 33 damn individual editor messages and it was only after I'd finished them all that Carch pointed out I'd spelt "Mattisse" wrong. Manning (talk) 11:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - FAC[edit]

Hi Sandy. Just so you know, I've left a declaration at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rhode Island Route 4/archive1 so am recused from closing it. I'll be promoting in a little bit. I'm a little disappointed that there are still so many articles at the bottom that are close to the support line but lack an adequate number of reviews, so I am protesting by not leaving them open another few days. Time permitting, I will try to review a few of these myself before the weekend. Karanacs (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sly & the Family Stone[edit]

Re your suggestion to revert to that particular edit: I wasn't sure if that would be acceptable, since so many editors have worked on it since that revision. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So should I be bold and revert to that version? There doesn't seem to be any objection after about a week. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure; I haven't taken the time to see if it's any better. You would need to compare diffs. I also recommend leaving a note that you intend to so do, and wait a few days to see if anyone objects. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I looked over that revision and it looks fine to me; it'd need a couple tweaks to remove some redlinked categories and sound files, but otherwise I don't see any problem with reverting to that diff and then closing the FAR. (Then I can get to filing a FAR on Dime (United States coin).) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The FAR wouldn't close immediately, because other reviewers would still need to look over the old version: standards have changed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of that reunion stuff looks important, and I was able to dig up a source for some of it. Should the unsourced stuff in that section just be snipped outright? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- TPH, I'm following the FAR page; you don't need to also post here to me. Yes, I agree that unsourced additions that were made after mainpage day should be removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

I'm sorry. :( I hope the best possible outcome for you and him/her. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, MRG; that is very kind of you. I just hope his passing will be as easy as possible. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. My current dog is almost ten and in poor health, and sometimes it's the best you can hope for. :( I'll send my good thoughts his way. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you need me to take over FAC this weekend, just let me know. At our house, the dog is part of the family (he's the stereotypical oldest child who resents his siblings) and in your shoes I'd probably be taking more time off to cry. Best wishes to you, and I hope your sweetie is as comfortable as possible. Karanacs (talk) 14:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Karanacs. I should be fine by this weekend, but if I strangely disappear and an RIP goes up, you'll all know why. Now, everyone, please don't post on this topic, lest I start crying again, when I've got a lot of catching up to do :) :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My poor cat, who is not only part of the family but the nucleus of it (you should know this cat), has been ill for a couple weeks. We're still force-feeding her and giving her drugs she seems to hate, and she can't do the things she needs and wants to do. We don't know if she's getting better or not. She was so sick a couple weeks ago, all I wanted her to do was be happy even if that meant she had to leave us. I'm glad she's still here, but now there are more difficult quality of life questions. So...I'm sorry for you Sandy. I know it's rough. --Moni3 (talk) 14:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just had to let her go tonight. She was too sick. Sucks balls. --Moni3 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear about your dog. Animals offer us sped-up versions of our own life cycles. That they display more grace than we do, at all stages, has never ceased to astound me. Living in a family that has more pets than humans, I know that the loss of a family member is deeply felt by all survivors. I wish you strength in this difficult time. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry Moni3. One of the worst days of my life was the day I had to take my beloved black cat for that last trip to the vet. I was blubbering like a girl, not very manly at all, so I know something of how you feel. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop[edit]

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

I hadn't been paying close attention, and hadn't realized that IP had posted the same link 4 times. I only saw the two times that I reverted. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sly[edit]

I don't know if you're watching my sandbox or not. Can you think of anything else needs to be fixed before this revision goes "live"? I removed all the "19xx in music" links and did some spot-checks. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Castle/archive1[edit]

To Sandy or any TPS that no what's going on: I've just started the FAC nomination for the castle article, but the page is listing previous FACs related to Castlevanis (presumably because the article title starts the same). How do I get rid of them? I've not listed the nomination yet. Nev1 (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bug. Don't worry - that won't affect the FAC. Karanacs (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't think it would but just wanted to make sure. I've listed the nomination. Nev1 (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections[edit]

I was curious if you'd given any thought to these. I'm concerned, based on early results, that the number of qualified candidates will be less than the number of open seats. So I suppose I was curious as to whether you'd thought of encouraging anyone to run, and secondly whether you'd given some thought to a list of general questions as you put forward last year. MastCell ^Talk 22:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to know I wasn't the only one looking at the candidates list and going "Uh, oh." Ealdgyth - Talk 22:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support SandyGeorgia for ArbCom. ;/ Ottava Rima (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That wasn't the hidden subtext, but yeah, definitely... as a practical matter, I've started drafting something here. I don't think I've necessarily encapsulated the hypothetical very well, but perhaps you see what I'm getting at. In the end, I think it will tell me all I need to know in order to cast my votes. MastCell ^Talk 22:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've started User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes2009, but haven't decided which way to go with it yet. But the number of questions the candidates already have to answer is daunting: Template:ACEQuestions. MastCell, you know darn well that you should be on ArbCom. The other best candidates I can think of (Tim Vickers, Karanacs and Slp1) are not people I would suggest, since losing them to other areas would be the equivalent of shooting myself in the foot. Again (as with Roger Davies, Rlevse, Risker, Casliber ... other FA regulars). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell would make a good Arbitrator. Would he probably vote to ban me? Sure. But still, I can't hold that against him. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hah. I'd have to take a leave of absence from my job just to answer the slate of candidate questions. I agree that it's out of control - that's why I'm hesitant to add mine on. In a way, I don't like the question-and-answer process. It's begun to seem like a way of making people jump through hoops and do tricks at your bidding, and God forbid you don't answer all 300 questions... "Oppose: Don't like the candidate's superior attitude as evidenced by their failure to respond to all my questions."

I have started to lean in the direction of "specific" questions, or at least questions which pose a clear hypothetical scenario. I've seen too much hand-waving in response to general questions about philosophy, and it's too easy to take a middle-of-the-road crowd-pleasing cop-out. I'd rather see how candidates answer a Kobayashi Maru-type scenario without a clear "right" answer, where they have to take a clear stand on the sorts of issues that they will, after all, be called upon to arbitrate. I think one of the most instructive exercises is to analyze the candidacies of people who were successfully elected, but who turned out to be poor or disastrous Arbs. The point is to identify red flags.

I don't have the time or the effort to commit to being a decent Arbitrator. I'm involved in basically all of the areas I care about already - so I'd have to recuse on any issue that actually mattered to me, and would be left arbitrating disputes between the mdash lobby and the ndash lobby. I don't really want to be the focus of the concerted "outing" that tends to dog pseudonymous Arbs. There's no way I can sort through several hundred mailing-list posts a day. Besides which I suspect I'm probably unelectable. Most importantly: the longer I stay here, the more carefully I have to nurture the part of me that actually derives enjoyment from this place. I think being on ArbCom would crush that part, and I'd end up bitter and out of touch. I mean, more bitter and out of touch than I am already. MastCell ^Talk 23:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you are not up for running in the Arbitration Committee election, you can run in the super sekret Awesome Committee election. I'm sure you'd win. Sandy has been a member there for three years running and gets elected each term. ;/ Ottava Rima (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MC, run on the platform that you refuse to answer the questions, and you'll get elected for cojones :) (I never read any of the questions last year; I know the good people, and I don't expect to agree with them on everything.) But of course I read The Fat Man's responses :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A friend of mine, when he saw that I had declared that I was going to run for ArbCom again this year, "A) You're nuts, and/or a glutton for punishment. B) Now if you can get MastCell, Alison and GRBerry to run..." I told him that I could be Saint Patrick and kiss the blarney stone and I'd still have an uphill task ahead of me. *grins* SirFozzie (talk) 03:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, you about gave me a heart attack when I saw my name in your list. There aren't enough shoes/chocolate/books in the world to make me take on that job. On a purely selfish note, I don't think you should run either - I don't want to do FAC by myself! Karanacs (talk) 14:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you still haven't gotten to mine? User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes#Wizardman Granted I'm not sure if I'd want it as a hindsight deal :P Wizardman 03:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed it; better late than never? :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm going to base my vote on whose usernames would sound the least ridiculous when being made fun of by Stephen Colbert. --Moni3 (talk) 03:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good thing I've since learned that it's smart not to run... considering how inventive my school classmates were in grade school, I'm sure Colbert's writers could easily find the cheap laughs in my name :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know an editor who can sum up every case in 40 words of less, including findings and remedies, that are spot-on and effective, fair and no-fuss: now that's an arb :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sly and the Family Stone[edit]

Ug, we've got a huge edit conflict on our hands!!! Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope I didn't wipe out anything you did. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Not to worry-- your work is more important. I'll recheck mine tomorrow (I was only adding periods at the end of citations). Sorry :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a moment[edit]

Mrathel and I were a little bothered when we found out about this. She provided some strong copyediting help so we are not concerned. However, I just wanted to bring it to your attention in case anyone says anything at WT:FAC or whatever. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ottava; that sock drawer is too big for me to sort at this hour of the night. Is there anything else I need to know? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing, just a heads up. People are going through her articles and G5ing some of them. I just wanted to make sure you were warned in case someone wanted to zealfully go after any connection. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if anyone is going to go after a connection, I hope they'll do it zealfully :) With that list, they'll need a lot of time and energy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TFA requests[edit]

Ahh, I was hoping to slightly cheat the system to prevent the November 22 request from being dropped. But the rules are the rules. :) I am hoping you can restore that nomination once William III runs. Thanks! Reso lute 05:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bigger problem there is the two sports articles. By leaving six on the page, the problem doesn't get solved. By keeping five, people will have to decide which sports article to oppose, so it can be removed, then the other article can come back. That's how it works :) If we leave six on the page, we have two back-to-back sports articles; people need to "vote". If they vote one of them off the island, then the removed article can come back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sly and the Family Stone 2[edit]

Alternate text is grossly missing. That is needed immediately. File:Sly-autumnrecords.jpg should be positioned right per MOS:IMAGES as left profile images are kept at right. Book references need {{harvnb}} Harvard citation template. Most of these album covers don't have a fair-use for usage on this article and fails WP:NFCC#8. These are all I could find at a basic glance. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um :) Alt text is a new requirement; older FAs don't have it. IF someone can add it great: I can't :) Harvard citation templates are never required; I'm wondering where you got that idea? Thanks for letting me know it needs an image review; I'll ask one of the image reviewers to look in. I was hoping some of you music people could help locate a source to replace the one non-reliable source? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as I get a list of the "dubious" sources, I'd be happy to surf proquest for reliable ones. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bookkeeper; so far, I've only located one, and I've tagged it, so you can see that text in the article. I've also asked Ealdgyth to run through, but if you see anything strange before you get there, please pop a note on the FAR page. Thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just saw that. Ealdgyth is very good with checking sources. If he finds more unreliable ones, I'll change them as he finds them. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. I've pinged Fuchs to see if he'll do an image check. Can anyone write alt text? I'm dismal at it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can give it a shot, alt text is also a new concept to me. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Ealdgyth's a she. See Ealdgyth. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Ealdgyth! As a raging feminist you'd think I would have stopped using androcentric language by now. :) Sandy! I just remembered my extensive use of Proquest is useless for this article since it only has archives dating back to 1982. There might be some useful info on google books, but other than that I won't be much help. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it happens all the time .. it's the "th" ending on the name, I think. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Midshipman FAC[edit]

Would you mind looking over Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Midshipman/archive2? Here's the situation with the alleged copyright problems

I fixed the two instances specified.
I reviewed most of the article manually yesterday and found one more problem with a dictionary definition from the OED which I deleted.
The editor (LingNut) is not responding to my request for specific violations
The article isn't tagged with any of the copyright problem templates
He's not satisfied unless I tell you to close the FAC

I'll leave the details of either closing or leaving this FAC open to you. If you do close it, let me know what you want me to do before re-nominating. Thanks! Kirk (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When plagiarism or copyvio problems are found, they often run deeper than meets the eye (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches) and can be hard to fix during the course of a FAC. Ling.nut's resistance to engaging further may be because he found enough that he feels it would be an unfair burden on reviewers to have to check every single sentence, so he may be suggesting withdrawing so you can carefully review and rewrite the entire article, with the Dispatch and WP:COPYVIO in mind. Re-wording isn't always enough to avoid plagiarism, and the article may need a substantial rewrite. It's a huge burden on reviewers to have to analyze sentence by sentence to identify plagiarism, and withdrawal is a better option in this case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk, I ran into this problem with Jackie Robinson, where plagiarism introduced by various editors over the years was not identified as such until the article was at FAC. It's unfortunate, and can happen to the most well-intentioned nominators, but it one of the handful of issues that will (rightfully and inevitably) sink a FAC nomination. A full (100%) review of article text against source text is in order, to ensure that no inadvertent plagiarism remains. I would suggest withdrawing the nomination of your own volition, both as a clear acknowledgement of the seriousness of the concern and to avoid taking up reviewers' time until the concern is fully resolved. With all due respect to your efforts already, an 80% review is just not sufficient in this situation. Following the completion of your review, the article could be renominated immediately. Withdrawal could be initiated by a post here or on the FAC. Maralia (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put the notice out there for withdrawl, thanks guys. Kirk (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have archived it; the bot should complete the archiving tomorrow night. FWIW, I am doing a little cleanup work (copyediting etc) on the article. Maralia (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a separate note, I saw your (Kirk's) question to Ling.Nut about tools to identify plagiarism, as well as Ling.Nut's dismissive (but understandable) response. There are, of course, tools available to assist in the detection of plagiarism (see our article on plagiarism detection). The most robust and full-featured are generally commercial software, but there are a few free options which I can't vouch for, but which may be worth checking out. The simplest plagiarism-detection algorithms can be implemented by anyone with a rudimentary computer-science background, but more sophisticated (and accurate) algorithms are typically commercial, at least the domain of people with formal training in computer parsing of natural languages. In the end, these are just assists - there is no substitute for hand-checking by an alert human being - but they can help sort and prioritize when scanning large documents. I wonder if it's worth formally looking into some of the freely available plagiarism-detection software on behalf of Wikipedia, or on behalf of people active at FA? As a separate question, perhaps it's worth approaching the Foundation about investing in commercial plagiarism-detection software, with the goal of keeping the project more plagiarism-free? MastCell ^Talk 19:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have some tools to suggest, that would be helpful. Kirk (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course all these only help with plagiarism from online stuff, & presumably only that directly accessible by a Google search, ie not not in pdfs & dynamic databases etc available online. Johnbod (talk) 11:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikichecker[edit]

I was posting to Karanacs page on a completely unrelated topic and saw you discussing an analysis of Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. Not sure if you are still interested, but here's a link you might find useful: Wikichecker. The page takes about a minute to load. Cheers Manning (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Manning: yes, I have that tool, but in this particular case, I was looking only a particular time period when the FAC talk page was troubled. I'm not sure the checker can identify specific time periods, can it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't think so. I build high volume data analysis systems for a living and I'm actually building something like that for myself to use for Arb stuff. When it's finished I'll let you know. Unfortunately I have *no* idea how to build web interfaces for such things, so when I'm done it will be only useful to me and to people who know I have it. Manning (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long FAC[edit]

Regarding your comment on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cologne War/archive1 on the length of the page, would it be a good idea to move long lines of resolved comments (like mine there) to the talk page? Ucucha 02:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can do that with your own comments if you like, as long as you leave a link to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Cologne War/archive1 on the main FAC page, where you delete your commentary, so others can get to it. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was what I intended to do. It's been moved now. Ucucha 03:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Line on the Horizon FAC[edit]

I have to ask; why did you close the FAC nomination for No Line on the Horizon? Every issue that was brought up by the reviewers was addressed almost immediately, and they all responded after I left messages on their talk pages requesting them to check if their concerns had been properly rectified. Granted there were no supports on the nomination, but neither were there any opposes. I do not think it is fair or right to close a nomination when every response save one regarded a technical issue, and the single oppose was struck after I responded to the concern. All actionable objections were resolved, sufficient information was provided on the FAC criteria, and while it is true there was no consensus for promotion, neither was there any indication that the article should not be promoted. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MelicansMatkin, it is very frustrating when that happens, so I understand how you feel. However, the FAC instructions say that "a nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director or his delegate ... insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met." (see also the edit intro on this talk page) While the reviewers may not have been opposing, that doesn't necessarily mean that they believe the article met the criteria. Also, out of the four substantial reviews, three focused on very narrow issues: source reliability and formatting; technical details; and media. The only thing you can do is just re-submit in a week or two and agressively recruit music editors to review your FAC (there's a Signpost Dispatch about this, but I can never remember which one it is) when you start again. Good luck. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dabomb87; you might be referrng to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-17/Dispatches? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the one. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, cheers; it's just frustrating since this is the second time in a row that this has happened. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 23:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question (admin TPS alert)[edit]

Why does Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brooks–Baxter War/archive3 have no archive1 link? I see archive2 and archive3, but but archive1 is simply a redirect. How did that happen? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's related to the hyphen to endash change in the first one (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brooks-Baxter War/archive1), ~~but to fix all that, I think admin tools are needed.~~ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I fixed it by correcting the redirect to the old hyphen FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

York Park FAC[edit]

I am opposing this FAC on prose grounds - see here. The prose has improved during the FAC but in my view is still way short of criterion 1(a), and there are other minor issues about relevance. My problem is that I shall be away for five days from Sunday, and unable to coax the nominator through the steps required to bring the article up to standard. The article has several supports and mine is the sole oppose. I have offered to do a full copyedit when I get back, if you are happy to leave the nom open until then. Could you take a quick look and see if you think my suggestion is reasonable? Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, Brian; I wouldn't worry about five days. If improvements occur, and if another "prose guru" (like Tony) weighs in before you're back, and looks at those issues, could I consider yours resolved in your absence? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Tony or similar goes through the prose and his/her concern are satisfied, consider mine resolved by proxy. Brianboulton (talk) 01:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I should probably recheck that FAC. Sandy, btw, I think I resolved Ealgyth's comments. I contacted EyeSerene about going through the prose of Qayen earthquake. ceranthor 18:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How are you doing there with Fowler's oppose? Have you pinged him? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He strikes me as the type of person who won't list more concerns, but will just ask for a copyeditor, so I contacted one after resolving those comments. Ottava said not to worry... IDK about that though. :/ ceranthor 18:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Qustion[edit]

why did you remove lisa simpson from fac if it has been 2 days sceince i nominated it and it had a support and an oppose.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Scorpion0422, stated he didn't think it was ready. He's written multiple FAs and FAC isn't a place to improve articles to FA status, it's a place to finalize articles for FA. ceranthor 18:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. A significant contributor, knowledgeable in FA standards, stated it wasn't ready. FAC is not peer review. This page has helpful tips for bringing an article to standard before a FAC submission. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado FAR[edit]

I believe many of your first round of problems have been resolved. To let us know if they have been, can you strike out the ones which have been resolved to your satisfaction? Thank you for the help you've provided so far. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alamanth is User:Zeraeph[edit]

I dont think you will be amused to learn that you have just been conversing with User:Zeraeph here - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Please_help_improve_the_Psychopathy_article. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zeraeph --Penbat (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAC stuff[edit]

I sent you an email about the above. Mostly, I just wanted to point out that there is some minor work that will happen on the two FACs, so if it seems like there isn't any current work don't be deceived. I've been working directly with my co-noms when they have a chance to make some of the appropriate changes. :) Also, if you are bored. Sorry about the orange bar. You should create a subpage for just my annoying messages so they wont ping you. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[4] If you plan to say anything on my behalf, I would prefer that you did not. I wanted your advice when trying to craft things before, but I would rather you devote your time to the work you have everywhere else. I have put up enough that if people look, they will see the extent for good and for bad. My actions are my own, and they are the only there here that I can own around here. I have wasted plenty of your time on Wiki, so let me make the first amend to being a timesink by prohibiting you from wasting anymore. :) Go! Enjoy your houseguests. Be happy in real life and I'll be happy. That is enough for me. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will put up something sometime this week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]