Please reconsider your revert |
|||
Line 197: | Line 197: | ||
—-Thanks much. I have taken your suggestion regarding Colin. Have a great move![[Special:Contributions/199.191.108.18|199.191.108.18]] ([[User talk:199.191.108.18|talk]]) 19:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC) |
—-Thanks much. I have taken your suggestion regarding Colin. Have a great move![[Special:Contributions/199.191.108.18|199.191.108.18]] ([[User talk:199.191.108.18|talk]]) 19:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC) |
||
==Revert== |
|||
Sandy, aside from the fact that I think it's a bad idea for you to be reverting me in the first place,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Centralized_discussion&diff=prev&oldid=438050222] considering your dislike of me, I think if you look at the actual page, you'll see that [[Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(use_English)/Diacritics_RfC#Votes|voting]] is exactly what is taking place. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 13:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:40, 6 July 2011
About me | Talk to me | To do list | Tools and other useful things | Some of my work | Nice things | Yukky things | Archives |
2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · 2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013–2015 · 2016–2017 · 2018 · 2019 · 2020 · FA archive sorting · 2021 · 2022 · 2023 Jan–Mar (DCGAR) · 2023 Apr–Aug · 2023 Aug–Dec · 2023 Seasons greetings · 2024 Jan– |
If you want me to look at an article or a FAC, please provide the link (and have a look at User:Steve/Oppose rationale for some helpful info).
If you are unsure if a FAC is closed, see WP:FAC/ar.
Otherwise, .
Why POV?
Hello, could you please specify what you mean in saying that Mozart and scatology is POV? I'm fully aware that this topic is a very loaded one, and for this reason I've stuck very close to what scholarly reference sources say. Yours sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
A bit more
Good grief, I really think you are going overboard in your work on Mozart and scatology. Could you please just calm down a bit, wait for a while, and then read the article and check the reference sources before editing further? I am an experienced WP editor and the article was sourced as carefully as I possibly could. In particular, if you read it before editing, you will see that Simkin published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, and that he is not the only one to set forth the Tourette's syndrome hypothesis. I personally feel it is not a good hypothesis, but it is part of the literature on Mozart (see the cited articles on Tourette's syndrome) and readers want to know how professionals have assessed it. Sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- I hope you've caught up now ... see the article talk. Simkin's views simply do not enjoy widespread or respected medical consensus, the article has multiple issues requiring cleanup, and is POV until other sources are included. And I am perfectly calm; I do work fast when I see an article that needs work, and I have long ago read everything there is to read on Mozart and TS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
The Fat Man
At the moment, he's blocked but not banned, so he could actually log in and use his account to edit his talkpage. Editing my talkpage is technically socking, but I'm not given to making a fuss about people socking just to tell me something. I was never involved in the discussions about blocking/banning the Fat Man. Do you want to explain to me why he's not disruptive/whatever it was he's been blocked for, or point me to a good summary of why. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Er... Elen, no he can't. See the "cannot edit own talkpage" in his block log? – iridescent 12:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- You're right. There's that many on-again off-again entries in the block log I lost track of it. I do feel I'm missing something here - I never followed the guy's career, so I am interested in why Sandy values him so highly. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think because Sandy values those who write stuff, as opposed to those who police stuff. Malleus Fatuorum 14:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- I too tend to be more tolerant in people who "write stuff"; it was surprising to me, then, to discover that TFM's last 200 article contributions go all the way back to November 2008. The skew toward articles related to the Howard Stern Show may well be a hint as to his current priorities. Or not. But it's been a long time since TFM has really been in the "content contributor" category in any meaningful way. Perhaps this helps to explain the dissonance between those who have not known him for years and thus do not share the "content" memories with Sandy. Risker (talk) 14:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think because Sandy values those who write stuff, as opposed to those who police stuff. Malleus Fatuorum 14:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- You're right. There's that many on-again off-again entries in the block log I lost track of it. I do feel I'm missing something here - I never followed the guy's career, so I am interested in why Sandy values him so highly. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- EotR, it will take me some time to write the reply this deserves, so I'll get to it after I find the time to pr/ar FAC ... hopefully by today! Glad you asked ... what has happened here is wrong, wrong, wrong, and a disturbing Sign of the Times about the direction Wiki is heading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sandy, I've been a bit curious about this as well, so thanks for taking the time to explain. Hope you're well, by the way, and surviving the holiday. Best, Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Did you ever get the time to put together some info about TFM? Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not yet, but I think about it every day (and feel guilty and negligent :) (If the conversation on Jimbo's talk jogged your memory, yes, I'm talking about The Fat Man in some of my references. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Hallmark
Thanks for helping out with Hallmark of Hall of Fame movie Front of the Classs. I couldn't get the image to work for me, but it's there now and that's what counts. Also thanks for finding more sources and filling the blanks, such as summaries and plots. That's not my kind of thing. I was surprised no other user took the time to make a movie link, when Front of the Class was first announced. Especially since there's so much information out there now for Hallmark movies.
Your help is really appriciated. GiantTiger001 (talk) 07:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ack! Thanks for the reminder that I was interrupted by Wikidrahmaz just as I was intending to expand that article from the sources. And thanks for getting the ball rolling. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Part apology over Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome
I offer a part apology over Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome. I had edited the article thinking that it already had 7 uses of {{cite journal}}, so increased use of citation templates was reasonable, whereas it actually only had one (I must have seen the count post- initial reformatting rather than pre-). I assume you'll now remove that existing cite journal too? I'll then see about manually re-adding the extra available DOI and PMC links, since it will be worthwhile to have them. However, to say cite templates are not used in the article is not exactly right when there seem to be about half a dozen uses of {{cite book}} also. Had there been strictly no citation templates in use I would not have picked up the article in the first place. Rjwilmsi 23:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, Rj, I've been meaning to get back over there and fix any stragglers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Airbus
In your most recent comment at the FAC for Airbus A330, by "Nikkimaria's points" do you mean the rechecks in the source review? If so, those are pretty much irrelevant now, as the citation format has since been changed to Vancouver. I'll probably be doing another source review once Sp33dyphil confirms that it's going to stay Vancouver. For spotchecks, Fnlayson checked one source earlier, but if more are needed I can do that too once the formatting issue is dealt with. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- thanks for the explanation-- there's so much going on with the citation format change, it's hard to keep track-- I was referring to the format change, which left a mess, and an RS check is needed as well. Yes, on new nominators we need to check more than one source for close paraphrasing and accurate representation of sources. Thanks for all you do, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- PS, any editor for whom previous close paraphrasing issues have been raised needs ongoing checks-- there are several of those up now, and I won't promote those until closer scrutiny has been applied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Brief thanks
Passing/failing an FAC is one thing, but your minute attention on top of that to date ranges etc is above and beyond the call of duty (in the English National Opera article in this case), and I am truly grateful. I bet countless other Wikipedians are too. Thank you so much. Tim riley (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey Sandy, I've sent you an email. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Got your email, Ed, thanks for writing, and I'm glad there are still some solid heads over there ... in fact, were it not for you and J Milburn, I'd have submitted the CUP to XFD long ago-- you seem to have more solid heads on your shoulders than some of the participants. :) The conclusions drawn by other participants in that thread, who grandly missed the point, were astoundingly pig-headed and short-sighted. Working together in this case has meant quite a bit of extra effort for reviewers, but we do have to do our homework when a competing editor instates a CITEHOW breach not once, but twice, with no consensus, not reflected on the FAC, and going over the nominator to a secondary contributor with no discussion on talk, resulting in boatloads of extra effort for Nikkimaria and a very lengthy and convoluted FAC. Perhaps some of the non-AGFers would prefer in the future that I just close any/all CUP nominations without doing any homework, since it results in misinterpretations and unsavory allegations against me? It was only inept editing rather than a CUP issue, but it highlights the issues that need to be investigated when there is a competition ... and I'm not sure if the result that it was merely inept editing rather than a CUP issue is good news or not :) :) Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- I hope we would – we wouldn't be great judges without having experience in some kind of featured content process! That's compared to some of the competitors who may be newer and have never submitted a GAN, much less a FAC. The Cup is an attempt to motivate these kinds of editors to give it a shot. Maybe their first FAC fails, perhaps even with a bit of drama, but chances are they will learn from their mistake(s). Just as I've come a long way from the failures of The Sword of Shannara and the initial success of USS Nevada (BB-36), maybe the next time they submit a FAC it'll pass, and the net benefit to Wikipedia is positive. Maybe I'm a bit idealistic, but I certainly hope it is true. ;-)
- It wasn't too inept (he did contact one of the page's contributors beforehand, after all), but it was [unintentional] disruption. On the positive side, he's learned and hopefully he'll review a few other FACs from time to time.
- Anyway, I hope Cup-related disruptions don't occur often, but again, feel free to contact me or J Milburn via email or our talk pages if they do. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Analysis
Hi Sandy. Thank you very much for your comment. I'm not the strongest copyeditor, and I do know that I make mistakes. I did check my nomination statement 3 times, but I just don't have that eye for copyediting. Anyway, I would certainly appreciate you reviewing my work, I've seen the quality of the articles you put together and feel the risk of your oppose is well worth the information I could learn from your critique. I understand if you don't have time, and hope that your comment will actually ensure that someone else does so if you do not. WormTT · (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- I share the copyediting weakness, often don't see typos until days after I make them, and often take three posts to make one. Anyway, our posts crossed, and I mentioned the typo on your RFA. Should I find time, I'll have a look at some of your content, but I'm not sure I will-- which DYKs should I look at? I'm more interested in hearing who some of your best mentees are, since there are practically no editors on Wiki who are good at/enjoy mentoring others, and I'm most interested in knowing more about your work in that area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'd say my most improved mentee would be User:Jenova20, who was quite hotheaded when I met him, getting upset on Talk:Daily Mail over homophobia. He was diligent and attentive at my adoption school User:Worm That Turned/Adopt/Jenova20, and even handled a situation at the adoption school talk page without my help. I can't tell you how proud I was when he let the other user have the last word. Other than that, I've helped 3 editors who were looking at the business end of a block for disruption, all young editors, User:Porchcorpter who kept requesting adminship, User:Adam mugliston who was getting annoyed over bus articles being deleted and User:Rcsprinter123 - another editor who reviewed GA without due diligence. All three are plodding along in the community now, but I do keep looking over their shoulder just in case. I've also had a few exceptional mentees who really didn't need my help, User:Adwiii, User:Bennydigital and User:Ryan Vesey, all of whom were just using me as a safety net, they would have coped very well on their own.
- Many of my DYKs are also my GAs, as I would take them step by step. I would suggest BLT as a GA that was also DYK or Jacques-Barthélemy Micheli du Crest as a DYK which I did not expand to GA. I keep all my DYKs at User:Worm That Turned/DYK, which I linked from my nomination, so you would rather look at a different one, please do. I do intend to take a week off some time later in the year and get Doom Bar ready for Featured status (look out for me!). Having said that, I haven't worked on the article for a while, so it's not in it's best state at the moment. WormTT · (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm swamped over the weekend, but hope to look into your mentoring soon, and find time to look at your article work and catch up on your RFA-- may not be til next week though-- excited to find someone who is good at and enjoys mentoring young hotheads !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Lede, citations, bacon, high-end and Worms
Prompted by your comments at Worm's RfA, I checked into something I thought I knew. (I intended to simply ask, but decided I should do some homework first.)
Here's what I thought I knew:
Factual statements in the lead do not need a separate citation if the lead is simply summarizing a point in the main article which itself is adequately cited.
I vaguely recall how I came to "know" this. During one of the times that DYK issues were being actively discussed, I glanced at a TFA, and was surprised to see no citations, I checked, not sure where, and was informed that it doesn't look nice to have the TFA entry cluttered up with footnotes, and as it is ok to omit them if properly referenced in the main article... Huh, I hadn't known that, and thought I leaned something new. However, I checked the guideline and find wonderfully waffling words of wisdom. I'll summarize "Yes, material MUST be cited, except maybe it doesn't have to be, it depends, and maybe not. Use consensus" Consensus? Fine, but based upon what?
I believe your concern about OR in the bacon article was the "well received" description, which is now gone. However, the lede refers to "It now appears on dessert menus in other high-end restaurants.", which, if my "rule" applied, would be OK, ans it is a summary of the notable uses section, which is cited. Now that I've reread the actual guideline, I'm not so sure. I'd be interested in your thoughts.
On a related but different issue, the use of "high-end high-end restaurants" strikes me as OR. I bet that is an accurate description of Espai Sucre, but I'm not sure we can use it without a little more foundation.
It looks to me like Worm is doing wonderful work with adoption, so on the chance that s/he sees this, I am supportive of the editor in general, but, I also want to maintain our standards, if I can figure out what they are :)--SPhilbrickT 15:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Your summary of the LEAD situation is correct :) I would cite that particular statement in the lead, since it's surprising to the reader, but when I saw it uncited in the lead, I looked for a citation in the body of the article, where I found what appears to be original research. In general, writing food articles is hard, and knowing what to cite in the lead is iffy, so I'm not coming down hard on this, particularly with his good work with mentoring .. but you are correct that it requires some judgment to know what to cite in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- "since it's surprising to the reader," this sounds like a useful rule of thumb. I realize it s a recapitulation of "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged,", but it is clearer.--SPhilbrickT 16:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Cheers for that, I'll certainly be keeping it in mind in future. I'd been trying to keep the lead free of sources, but that's a sensible rule of thumb to follow. WormTT · (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- That "rule of thumb" used to be part of MOS-- it sounds like it got edited away? MOS used to be somewhat intelligible and logical-- no longer is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Cheers for that, I'll certainly be keeping it in mind in future. I'd been trying to keep the lead free of sources, but that's a sensible rule of thumb to follow. WormTT · (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- "since it's surprising to the reader," this sounds like a useful rule of thumb. I realize it s a recapitulation of "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged,", but it is clearer.--SPhilbrickT 16:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
A330 FAC
Hallo Sandy, I was wondering what the tense problem with the sentence "It was offered to a number of airlines, including Singapore Airlines, who were looking to replace its Airbus A310-300s." is. I had a chat to a few IRC guys/gals on the apparent mistake – they themselves were aguing what the problem was. They recommended me to go straight to you and ask for the tense mistake. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 06:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Moved from user page to user talk page. Matthewedwards : Chat 07:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- "looking to replace its" should be "looking to replace their", or "Singapore Airlines, who were" should be "Singapore Airlines, which was". Parrot of Doom 07:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yep. Were ... its --> were their or was its ... do you refer to companies in the article in the singular or plural? Need to be consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- "looking to replace its" should be "looking to replace their", or "Singapore Airlines, who were" should be "Singapore Airlines, which was". Parrot of Doom 07:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
FYI re close paraphrasing
Hi Sandy, CaroleHenson is proposing a rewrite of Close paraphrasing. See her discussions with MRG [1]. Her sandbox draft is here. I link to the page often and want to be certain people are aware of proposed changes. I have some thoughts but am in a dispute (somewhat) with the editor, so will wait for others to weigh in. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Crap, that's a lot to wade through, and I'm at my quota for the day, need to get on to some unpacking and spent a lot of time on that other issue. I hope someone will give me the nutshell of what CaroleHenson is up to, and will have a look over the weekend. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ceoil asked me to help to work on Vincent van Gogh and in the process of some edits I made I linked into a Vincent van Gogh subpage she wrote (she's written a lot them) and found copyvio, having just been reading the source and then finding myself reading the same thing again. I pointed it out to her, she asked for examples, I found many, she became upset with me, and with Ceoil, I punted to MRG, and Carole volunteered to rewrite the close paraphrasing page because it's hard to understand for new editors in her view. That may be the case, but needs eyes, I think before it goes live. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Is her rewrite weakening the page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)In addition to a number of formatting and organizational changes, CH has added a "How to write acceptable content?" section, which outlines how to avoid unintentional close paraphrasing (take notes, rephrase, double-check for yourself, etc). She has also turned the See also section into a table, with a sentence explaining the content of each of the linked pages, and added a few extra links. In general, her approach seems to be making the page more accessible to newer and less experienced editors. Most of the important sections have been retained, but the phrasing may need to be looked at. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Is her rewrite weakening the page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't looked at it, but am going over it now. Only noticed the post to the close paraphrasing talk page this morning. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Robin Friday
Hey Sandy, just noticed that the FAC for Robin Friday was opened only one week after the previous FAC was closed. Unfortunately I didn't check before reviewing the article, and someone else has also reviewed in the meantime, so I don't know what you'll want to do with it. Also, you've probably been following Tony1's recent comments, but in case you haven't he's requested your recusal on the FAC for Indian Head eagle and the FAC for Missouri River, and that I've moved an exchange between him and Wehwalt to talk on the former. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'll have a look in a few hours, once I'm done with my Daily Dailies ... thanks for the update, Nikkimaria! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Nikkimaria, I had a chance to look at Robin Friday, and I think I'll let it stand. It was closed the first time for lack of review, with no substantive opposes and some commentary indicating it was in good shape, so if the nominator had asked, I would have allowed it to be re-nommed in one week. Should have asked, but didn't, already has two reviews, nothing productive comes from closing it now, since the last closure was for lack of review. Thanks for watching that! I haven't followed the Tony saga, will check in periodically to see if the disruption has ceased, hope there will be no need for me to further engage to stop disruption, otherwise it sounds like you're handling the situation, which is most appreciated! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello Sandy. I was wondering if you could do something about the above nomination? Its nominator has not contributed much to the article and they have not transcluded the nomination to WP:FAC too. Thanks, Novice7 (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Sandy,
Please forgive me for poking my nose in but I think consensus has been reached on Dengue fever. Is there any chance of a decision on this FAC soon, or is 17 days there too short? Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- I was hoping Karanacs would make an appearance soon, since there are multiple FACs at the bottom of the page that I've weighed in on, but I will try to get through today in spite of the holiday. Thanks for letting me know! (Do you 'spose I must recuse from Dengue Fever since I actually had the blasted illness, and I wanted to die?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, sorry, I caught it too, in India in 2006. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
A330 update
Grrr. Don't you dare generalize this finding, but I re-read that article and found a BUNCH of what was ailing you. So...eh...you were right (once). Anyhow, I had already tried getting four (4!) different superstars to engage but the combination of the article dullness and their own wikidramas (could be me too) led to no-go. Since, it was obvious the issues you were seeing, I went ahead and did what I could. [2]
In no way do I want some fluffy lowered standards affirmative action FAC pass. That said, it would be win-win (the hackneyed phrase, but srsly) if we got Aviation doing FA work and FA (and Wiki) covering planes better.
TCO (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Advice on working an article to FA.
I have created a sandbox version of the article "Bleeding Kansas" that I hope to work up to FA at some point. I've seen your name mentioned in and around FA discussions, and thought you might be able to either give me some advice as I embark on this task, or point me in the direction of someone who could do so. Best, LHM 06:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not Sandy, but WP:GAN and WP:PR are both good steps along the way to FAC. You can also go through the FA criteria one by one and check to make sure that the article meets all of them. I've taken a look at your article - good start, but needs many many more citations. Hope that helps! Nikkimaria (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look at it! As of now, I haven't modified it at all. What you see in my sandbox is simply a cut and paste from Bleeding Kansas. I will take a look at those criteria you link, and start there, as I move forward on rewriting the article. Best, LHM 16:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Comments at WT:FAC
Sandy, I've brought this part of what you said here (at WT:FAC) to your user talk page:
"You seem to be operating on the principle that if you proclaim something vociferously enough and often enough it will become true (and in the case of Carcharoth-- who incidentally has a history on this very page of weighing in on issues of which he knows little-- does seem to have become true, because he is mimicing and supporting the factually inaccurate portions of your posts here)."
Could I ask you to clarify two points? (1) Which bits am I mimicking and supporting? Are you referring to what I said here? ("I do think Tony has a point about the Signpost work he does and Sandy's reaction to that.") If you were, then providing a diff (as you've asked others to do) would have helped. Incidentally, I should have looked for and provided diffs myself (apologies for not doing that). Possibly my memory was at fault there. It seems I was remembering the interactions between you and Tony during the last ArbCom elections (though that did involve some of Tony's writing for the Signpost), see here and here. (2) You say I have a history of weighing in at WT:FAC on issues of which I know little. Again, it is hard to respond to something like that unless there are specific diffs (or at least enough of a description that I can remember what you are referring to by that comment). So what history are you talking about here? I hope you commented at the time if anything I said misled anyone, as that is the last thing I would have wanted. And please, if in future I say anything that appears or is misinformed, please tell me. Carcharoth (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry for the delay, Carcharoth-- I do wish Tony's latest would not have occurred over a US holiday weekend, when some of us have better things to do than follow the latest saga, and I need to carve out time to pr/ar in spite of the holiday. 1) I was referring to "I do think Tony has a point about the Signpost work he does and Sandy's reaction to that." By the time of the ArbCom elections and the incidents you may have tuned in to, Tony was already all on one of his tantrums and had long been attacking and misinterpreting anything I said anywhere, and it all started over repeat instances of "One Must Never Disagree With Tony Anywhere On Anything No Matter How Minor Or One Will Be Villified and Berated for Eternity". He berated and belittled me one time too many over a minor disagreement, and by the time you may have tuned it, you most certainly did not get a complete picture of what happened, and I'm disinclined to spend a single minute replaying it or worrying about it as long as and until Tony does same to someone else in a way that affects FAC, which is precisely what he did to Wehwalt. Tony mischaracterizes his writing for The Signpost as being an issue between us, probably because that's more expedient that acknowledging the way he treats any fellow editor who happens to have any collegial, professional difference of opinion with him over any trivial Wikipedia matter, as happened with Wehwalt. When Tony decides Something Must Be Done A Certain Way on Wikipedia, stand aside or stand down or be prepared. He did that to me one time too many, to where I grew tired of being his punching bag, but I would have let that stand as the status quo if he didn't also let it affect his work at FAC, as it did in the Wehwalt and ResMar cases. 2) We already discussed at length and resolved, via e-mail, the previous matter at WT:FAC where you weighed in with an incompletely formed opinion based on partial facts, and I consider that resolved (thought we both did), so I was surprised to see you do it again. Your impressions about what occurred between Tony and me are partially formed at best, and any attempts to discuss those issues with Tony only result in additional vituperative and vociferous personal attacks from him: in summary, one is not allowed to ever take a different stance on any issue from Tony on the Wiki and escape without a beratement, but turning FAC into a battleground over his personal whims is beyond the pale. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. It is difficult sometimes to be aware of all the differences of opinion, but these ones had been noticeable for a while. Hope it all works out. About the previous comment at WT:FAC that prompted an e-mail, I think I've located that one, but I'm not sure we did actually discuss it. You are right that your e-mail did resolve the concerns, but there was no way at the time that I could have known what you later mentioned there. I suppose I will just have to remember that sometimes there is more going on than meets the eye. I'm still not 100% sure I have tracked down the right WT:FAC incident that you are referring to above, though, so if you want to remind me again by e-mail about that one, please feel free. Carcharoth (talk) 05:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
It looks like this FAC needs to go—it is a near drive-by nomination, and the primary contributor is opposing. I'm not sure whether it would be allowable for me to remove it myself, so I'm just alerting you.
I think there's a broader problem here, since TGilmour (talk · contribs) appears to have a pattern of starting poorly prepared FACs on articles other people have primarily worked on: see also Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/OK Computer/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pink Floyd/archive1, the deleted Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Wall/archive1 and at FLC (not directly relevant to you, but the pattern is the same), Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of best-selling music artists/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Radiohead discography/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tennis stadiums by capacity/archive1 (where he did do a little more work himself). I also just warned him about making unwarranted changes in citation style—something you and Truthkeeper88 mentioned to him a few days ago.
Not sure what's to be done here; I'll inform him of this thread and make it clear that his behavior is not acceptable. Ucucha 23:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- See my sandbox-- that smells like either an ItsLassieTime sock or a Hardrianos sock-- classic behavior so far as an exact match for Hadrianos, Tara Gabunia sock, but curiously also going after TK articles, as in ItsLassieTime. Will look at that FAC, and catch up on FAC as soon as I can, but was hoping Karanacs would put in an appearance this weekend. PS, we really need for a FAC regular admin type to regularly watch for and block the Hadrianos, TGabunia socks ... they are blatant, and waste boatloads of FAC time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- You are almost certainly right—I've blocked the account as a sock of Taro-Gabunia.
- By the way, are you saying that Hadrianos1990 (talk · contribs) is also the same as Taro-Gabunia? That account is not currently blocked. Ucucha 00:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oh my, I didn't realize that had never happened ... yes, it was always my impression that the TGabunia socks took up where Hadrianos left off, with Real Madrid, Federer, Messi and repeat ill-prepared FAC noms, and that TGabunia plagues FAC because of the Real Madrid record number of archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
WP:BEANS: [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Easy way out. I'm unconvinced that Hadrianos is another sock of the Taros. Ucucha 17:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I think the next Taro sock may have arrived: Claptonn (talk · contribs). I'll monitor a little longer. Ucucha 11:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- On review, this one was pretty clear, so I've blocked again. Ucucha 12:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Goings on
Hey Sandy, I guess we (lists) missed your requests about keeping Goings On updated properly. Apologies for that, I'll do better in the future if I see it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, TRM-- It has been a source of frustration since 2006, that only FA maintains the page, when everyone uses it, and it's irritating as heck to come along in the middle of promoting to find you have to archive and correct the page-- it would certainly be nice if other processes would participate, and if someone besides me would add dates to the archive template-- it's boring and tedious work, and I'll wager no other process except you will even pay attention! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I'll do my best. The problem (I think) has come from the fact that we (FLC) promote as and when we see fit rather than on a specific day, so now when Goings On is updated, we've all assumed it's the right one. That's my mistake, definitely tonight, so sorry for boiling you over. Will remember to improve. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
[4] Other people do take care of the page moves at GO. Also, there appears to be a failed FAC page that's choking the script again. I hope someone can take care of that one. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
So I was editing it, got to the point where I said...this is a load of horse manure. Wrote a summary to delete almost everything that was a lot less nice than yours, and I had an edit conflict with you. LOL. BTW, BoSox need to get their butts kicked.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Found a previous AFD while we were mutually messing around in there-- what a load of crock. Anyway, who do you propose is going to do this butt-kicking, ha ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Do have to provide a reliable source for the butt-kicking proposal? Ha! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Dr. Arthur K. Shapiro
Regarding Dr. Arthur K. Shapiro, I wanted to know if you could answer a question for me, please. I found online the results of a study regarding Tourette’s in which Dr. Shapiro was the lead author. It was published in Psychosomatic Medicine, Vol. 35, No. 5 (Sept.-Oct. 1973). My question is: Is this a reprint of the study that Dr. Shapiro originally published in the British Journal of Psychiatry in 1968 or is it a later study conducted by him? (I have been unable to find the 1968 study online thus far.) Here is the link (PDF) to the study I found:
http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/content/35/5/419.full.pdf
One other question I have is that the Wikipedia article states that his 1968 paper had been first rejected by American publications before it was accepted by the British one. Would you happen to know why?HistoryBuff14 (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- I could probably answer those questions eventually, but all of my TS books are packed away in boxes for a move, and probably won't be unpacked for at least another month. It's possible that Colin (talk · contribs) has the resources to answer sooner. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
—-Thanks much. I have taken your suggestion regarding Colin. Have a great move!199.191.108.18 (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Revert
Sandy, aside from the fact that I think it's a bad idea for you to be reverting me in the first place,[5] considering your dislike of me, I think if you look at the actual page, you'll see that voting is exactly what is taking place. --Elonka 13:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)