Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) →RfA: definitely think that you're right. |
→RfA: so many questions, none of which matter |
||
Line 362: | Line 362: | ||
:::I definitely think that you're right in surmising that the RfA checklist has contributed to a significant number of very poor GA reviews by admin wannabees. --[[User:Malleus Fatuarum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuarum|talk]]) 15:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC) |
:::I definitely think that you're right in surmising that the RfA checklist has contributed to a significant number of very poor GA reviews by admin wannabees. --[[User:Malleus Fatuarum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuarum|talk]]) 15:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
::::I have a new hobby: lurking on SandyGeorgia's talk page, and discovering new things I never knew existed. For instance, yesterday I linked through a bunch of comments to get to the [[Essjay controversy]] that I never knew happened, but did not surprise me. One of the criticisms in that article is that the administrators' lack of oversight, of questioning the way things are. Wikipedia is fascinating as a study of group dynamics and how people behave. And as someone who detests politic of any sort, yet recognizes they are inevitable once more than two people communicate, it's becoming clear just by reading this talk page that admins are an insular group that have created their own sub-culture (the t-shirts and mops as symbols, for example), that separates them from normal users like li'l ol' me. The admin process, as I understand it (that's dubious, you know), requires users to work for the reward of number of votes whenver the opportunity arises for RfA. On one hand, that imposes civility, but on the other, it silences questioning of why things are the way they are. Once people are accepted into an exclusive group, they become cheerleaders for its maintenance and are less inclined to upset the people who have accepted them into the group. Why do people spend so much time writing these articles when they get no reward other than the self-knowledge that they wrote a damn good article and thousands of people are reading it? Should admin come with any different reward? What if there were non-admins who had access and input into the process, people who just asked, "Why are you doing this?" Or what if admins where required to do that? --[[User:Moni3|Moni3]] ([[User talk:Moni3|talk]]) 15:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Zinta FAC == |
== Zinta FAC == |
Revision as of 15:55, 7 May 2008
If you want me to look at an article or a FAC, please provide the link.
I usually respond on my talk page, so watch the page for my reply.
To leave me a message, click
Template:FixBunching
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– |
You rock
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
To SandyGeorgia, I award this Barnstar of Diligence for going above and beyond the call of FAC duty. Thanks to your efforts, the FAC process is running smoothly without a large backlog. Your attention to detail and willingness to spend large amounts of time analyzing FAC comments are a testament to your desire to improve the process, and as a reviewer I am very grateful for all that you do. Karanacs (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC) |
You tend to get all the &*%# comments, and we forget to thank you often enough. I'm amazed at how much more smoothly FAC is running now and I can't tell you how grateful I am to see the active nomination count hover around 40 instead of 60 or more! Thank you, thank you, thank you. Karanacs (talk)`
Thank you ...
... for the gong. It's my first for FAC, so I shall treasure it :) Anyhow, I'm off to France for a meeting shortly: catch you later! --ROGER DAVIES talk 04:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- ..and for mine. Did I really review 27 articles!? That's nearly one a day. It's a great birthday present, thanks Sandy. Graham. GrahamColmTalk 06:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I concur. Many WikiProjects languish, and sometimes it's just one person who picks it up and carries it. You go above and beyond the call. Your work is appreciated, and you make me want to help out. I rarely know what I'm doing outside my articles, but let me know if there's something I can do to take off the weight of what seems to be one of the most stressful projects on the site. --Moni3 (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Sandy! But you deserve one as well! :) BuddingJournalist 18:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I was going to renominate this for FAC, but I take it you still have problems with one or two sources on there. What are the ones (so I know what to remove, or to explain how they are reliable) you think are very unreliable? Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sandy, I really don't like the fact that (despite the fact that we have disagreements and that they are evident) you are continuing to ignore my comments yet comment on other comments below. It's like you have no interest in continuing to discuss this matter. D.M.N. (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- First, D.M.N., I am a very busy editor, and I just saw this message. Second, I have already answered this query as many times and ways as I know how to answer it. Third, I am not a one-person judge and jury at FAC. If you still think those sources are reliable, after all of the dialogue, and if you can defend them per WP:V policy, then you should go forward with them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
FA split
About 70% of Able Archer 83 was moved to 1983 nuclear war scare. Original featured in 2006. Gimmetrow 15:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- What a wreck: the hat on the new article isn't even grammatical. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- You must be the luckiest editer here; as this will be my last login before finals (last of class requires me to use wikipedia to answer a few questions). I have filed a requested move for the article asking that the fork be put back into the original article; you can comment on my proposed move on the talk page at 1983 nuclear war scare. Thanks for the heads up. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- The thanks go to Gimmetrow ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- You must be the luckiest editer here; as this will be my last login before finals (last of class requires me to use wikipedia to answer a few questions). I have filed a requested move for the article asking that the fork be put back into the original article; you can comment on my proposed move on the talk page at 1983 nuclear war scare. Thanks for the heads up. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Allright, we've got a real mess now. I can't find a featured article or a featured article history; need an admin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
1983 War Scare
All I did right now is move the history with the new article. If the consensus is to move it back then they can by just editing here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esemono (talk • contribs) 22:45, May 1, 2008 (UTC)
- Please stop and let an admin experienced with FAs sort this out. We need to get back to some semblance of the featured article and recover the articlehistory, and the article is now incorrectly named. Please wait for someone else to fix it correctly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- The article history is still there look. -- Esemono (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm talking about {{articlehistory}}; please use the article talk pages to try to contain this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- The article history is still there look. -- Esemono (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
FAR
Stuck my toes in with Gangtok. Let me know if I'm on the right track. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's a good start; as you read more and follow more there, you'll gain more confidence :-) Thanks for the help ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I plonked a message on User_talk:Anonymous_Dissident#AK-47_FAR asking him/her to contact several users about the AK-47 FAR. (Still feeling my way!) --RegentsPark (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Xzibit FAC
Is this actually back to stay or should I not bother to engage? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not willing to edit war over it. A conversation with the nominator might work; hard to tell. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
try minerva
...look again Ling.Nut (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- LOL ... like I told G guy, you have to speak to me in short clear sentences when I'm busy :-) Will do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Crap. A scribe. Ling.Nut (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's pretty, but what's with the Joan of Arc-ness ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Crap. A scribe. Ling.Nut (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
(undent)you mean the image name? That's just 'cause the first image was joan... and i didn't change the name.. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Is it possible for that to go away? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- And then it all needs a pretty box and name? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- An admin can delete images,. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'll ask Gimmetrow? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- An admin can delete images,. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- And then it all needs a pretty box and name? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Sure. I may need to template it... I dunno. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- {{db-author}}? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
(undent) try try see. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Gimme is one of those "never misses a thing" types :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- you've got mail, again. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- You are such a busy body :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
J. R. Richard FAC
Alright, I've addressed all of the oustanding concerns at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/J. R. Richard. Thanks for being patient. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 02:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, how would you plan to close the FAC in its current state? It has a lot of commentary, but only two votes (both support). There's nothing yet from TonyTheTiger, but I suspect he might offer his support or oppose after his review is complete . Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 02:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, Nish, I will look tomorrow, but it would be unusual for me to comment beforehand on how I plan to close :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
"Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar"
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar | ||
I'd like to award you this barnstar. I hope that receiving this barnstar from me is a big surprise to you, since every time we converse you always seem to be telling me what not to do on Wikipedia, or what I'm doing wrong ;) I had a minor epiphany today after meeting some people that I hadn't seen in a while, and realizing how much Wikipedia has improved myself, especially the encounters that I have had with you and your work on Wikipedia. Everything you do is a major plus for this project, and I hope you continue doing it for as long as you can and for as long as you are loving it. Thanks for everything you do for Wikipedia! I hope you keep disciplining me when I get out of line, because I'm sure it will happen a few more times (it's my personality! I'm trying the best to cope with it myself :p) Also, I chose this barnstar since I'm sure (or, I hope) that no one has given it to you yet. Cheers! Gary King (talk) 06:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC) |
Hi Sandy, most, (if not all), of the strike-outs here are by the nominator, who has continued to do so despite Indopug's protest. Graham. GrahamColmTalk 13:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
NYB
Hello SG. How are you? Why did you removed this? Piotrus is right: the public has the right to know why one of the top editors retired and the details of the wikipolitics behind this event. NYB was not just an admin, he was probably the most respected admin on Wikipedia. We have a right to know what happened. I think there should be an article in the signpost about this. What's your view? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- My view is that 1) some people have a remarkable capacity for selfishness and attention seeking, and 2) some people should read what's on the page, not what they imagine in their minds: nowhere has the Signpost said they won't be covering the story, they only said posts about it shouldn't be added there (no need to spread the fire). And third, I answered this post only because it asked about a specific deletion I made: in general terms, please don't post to my talk page about this situation anymore. If there's at least one thing we can give back to NYB, it's respect for his wishes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh! You got angry! Ok, I will not post anything about this on your talk page. You are right: we should respect his wishes. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you think it's worth promoting the poll again? --Dweller (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it got prematurely archived at the Village Pump: I will do that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- I notice you were active in the nominations. I would have nominated User:Sephiroth BCR who has the second most WP:FLs and User:Circeus. Is it too late?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Of course it's not too late, but at this stage, perhaps you should ask Sephiroth if there's an interest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- I notice you were active in the nominations. I would have nominated User:Sephiroth BCR who has the second most WP:FLs and User:Circeus. Is it too late?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the tags on the savant syndrome article, I am not sure how I feel about the removal of the famous and speculated savant sections, but it looks a lot better. --Aetoss (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- The IP you are on has been vandalizing the article and the talk page even after several stern admin warnings: I've submitted a checkuser at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Aetoss. The article is still an unsourced essay, and the editors working on it don't seem to understand that Wiki is not a free webhost. Edits need to be cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Parallel Computing FAC nom
I'm going to be traveling until Sunday and I'll have limited internet connectivity. So I won't be responsive to any FAC comments for the time being. Treat the parallel computing FAC nom like you would any other. I consider all the objections responded to except Laserbrain's, which I haven't not had time to address completely. (I've addressed them partially; regardless, they are fairly minor points) Raul654 (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK, thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:FAL
It is pretty difficult to find failed FAC and removed FAs in logs. Should their be a summary similar to WP:FLL?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't understand the question or the confusion, but if it's the featured log and the FAC archives you're looking for, they are both prominently linked in all the FA pages, for example, WP:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
nomination question
I've never done a nomination before, and I was wondering about some things. How long do nominations tend to last? And how long do you think the Hillary Clinton one will take before it's accepted or rejected? QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please have a look at the instructions at the top of WP:FAC; sometimes consensus is determine in two days, sometimes two months. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
...but it's okay if you do it? Unbelievable! Pardon me for following the example you said was acceptable... — BQZip01 — talk 03:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Replies at User_talk:BQZip01#FAC input and Wikipedia talk:FAC#Restarts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
checked it twice
Your name is on a list. Yeah, I think you need to have more people asking you questions. –Outriggr § 04:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not any more :-) Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Overhaul of FL criteria
I've re-started the process here and am notifying the four candidates for director as well as advertising at FLC talk and FAC talk. Your input would be valued. TONY (talk) 05:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Preity Zinta
Your thoughts on the Preity Zinta article would be much appreciated in the discussion particularly in response to Tony's comments. Thanks ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 11:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- You will get a quicker response if you supply me with a direct link to the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I looked: I don't see any process problems, so I'm not sure what you want me to respond to? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to join in the discussion and identify any flaws or suggestions that could be made to make it FA standard. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 17:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear SandyGeorgia,
I made a comment on the talk page.
I was wondering if you could answer my question.
Thanx! AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Annie, I replied there and will follow there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Tutelage Requested
Hi, I'm interested in becoming much more involved in WP:FAC and WP:FAR, which I know you help coordinate. The thing is I feel like I need someone to help me with the details, and perhaps some pointers to who process; in short I want to help but don't think that I'm capable of doing as much as I should. Its just that I truly believe that these processes are some of the most important and would like contribute as best I'm able.
If you are too busy for this, I'd be most apprecitive if you could forward me to someone who might be willing. Thank you. Zidel333 (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, Zidel, thanks for the interest ! You could start with what is already written at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches and Wikipedia talk:FAR#Wake-up call, thoroughly read the instructions at the top of WP:FAC and WP:FAR, observe a number of FAC and FAR pages for a while, eventually begin to weigh in with some comments, and perhaps make a post at WT:FAC if you still have questions. Thanks for the offer to help !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The article's top contributor hasn't been active for about a year. It has gone through 2 peer reviews, and is currently a GA. I took care of just about everything in the last peer review. Would you permit me to nominate it for FA? Thanks, Milk’s Favorite Cookie (Talk) 17:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Did you inquire on the article talk page, per WP:FAC instructions, to see if anyone says the article is or isn't ready? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- The peer reviewer(s) think it is... Milk’s Favorite Cookie (Talk) 17:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- The question (per WP:FAC instructions) is, did you make a post on the article talk page? (How sad that Quadzilla is gone.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- You have one responder on the peer review, btw. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- The question (per WP:FAC instructions) is, did you make a post on the article talk page? (How sad that Quadzilla is gone.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- The peer reviewer(s) think it is... Milk’s Favorite Cookie (Talk) 17:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Gilberto Gil
A quick look shows me a very short article and a rather glaring mistake (Gil was a Salvador alderman in the late 80s, but never mayor). I'll see about a more in-depth review later :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- If you don't mind me barging in.. :) I'm from Salvador (Gil's hometown) myself and I have to agree with vasconcellos, its pretty short for a man of his cultural and political significance. I couldnt find where its mentioned that he was mayor in the article though. Acer (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, Acer. Too short isn't part of WP:WIAFA; comprehensiveness was my question to Fv (is there anything significant from Portuguese sources missing?). I have a hard time imagining writing a comprehensive article on an equivalent Venezuelan figure without going to the Spanish-language sources, but it's possible that Gil's life is well covered by English-language sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- PS, Fv already fixed the mayor error, which wasn't sourced by the way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- As the nominator, I have a question: if the article is not found to be comprehensive, taking into account reliable information from Portuguese references, what should I do? I can't speak Portuguese, so I couldn't be the one attending to issues raised by reviewers. Would it simply default to fail? --Kakofonous (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Don't get nervous on me, now K :-) Fv is the kind of editor who will help, and so is Acer :-) I wouldn't have asked Fv to look if I didn't think his input would improve the article :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- (:. All this weekend free time gives me more time to worry... --Kakofonous (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wait and see what Fv finds, but in the meantime, maybe you can get Acer on board. But please don't worry: my goal is not to fail articles :-) If Fv finds glaring deficiencies, you can decide then what to do next, but don't worry now :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm more of a jazz man than an MPB nut, and (shamefully) know fairly little of Gil's life. What struck me as odd was the article's condensed, almost excessively straightforward tone; I haven't found any other major inaccuracies (i.e. major enough to jump at me without my having to do any research), but to me this article cries out for expansion. I'm sorry I couldn't be more specific yet :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wait and see what Fv finds, but in the meantime, maybe you can get Acer on board. But please don't worry: my goal is not to fail articles :-) If Fv finds glaring deficiencies, you can decide then what to do next, but don't worry now :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- (:. All this weekend free time gives me more time to worry... --Kakofonous (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Don't get nervous on me, now K :-) Fv is the kind of editor who will help, and so is Acer :-) I wouldn't have asked Fv to look if I didn't think his input would improve the article :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- As the nominator, I have a question: if the article is not found to be comprehensive, taking into account reliable information from Portuguese references, what should I do? I can't speak Portuguese, so I couldn't be the one attending to issues raised by reviewers. Would it simply default to fail? --Kakofonous (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- PS, Fv already fixed the mayor error, which wasn't sourced by the way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, Acer. Too short isn't part of WP:WIAFA; comprehensiveness was my question to Fv (is there anything significant from Portuguese sources missing?). I have a hard time imagining writing a comprehensive article on an equivalent Venezuelan figure without going to the Spanish-language sources, but it's possible that Gil's life is well covered by English-language sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I've added my two cents. There's plenty missing from English-language sources, let alone Portuguese! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Small note on FA list
I was roaming around thinking about our FA list (after debating on GA talk) and noticed your sandbox proposing splitting Biology. I think the split is inevitable, as the section continues to grow. But I think it should be Tree of Life, not Flora and Fauna. "Vegetables and animals" is actually archaic, even if people still think of "two kingdoms". Tree of Life is more inclusive.
Just a note, in case I miss you or Raul splitting it. Marskell (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Given my recent editing habits, I'll probably miss the discussion if it comes up again. So do ping me.
- "Flora and fauna", strictly speaking, excludes Fungi, and clearly excludes Archaea and Bacteria. Tree of Life is both appropriately vague (all life) and appropriately specific (all life). Viruses would be one difficult issue (AIDS?), as would bio's of people focused on taxonomy. I would suggest leaving both viruses and bio's in Biology, and having a Tree of Life that only lists existing categories in current alpha taxonomy. (Of course, the semantics involved are impossible for anybody to follow :) Marskell (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I think a split is probably inevitable, but not necessary right now. I think the natural way to split it would be medicine from biology (which includes all forms of life, your so-called "Tree of Life", as well as viruses, prions, and other quasi-life forms). Raul654 (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- But Scientific classification isn't a sub-discipline of medicine. And I don't think it's my so-called Tree of Life. It's a fairly widespread umbrella term, including here: Wikipedia:Wikiproject Tree of Life. Anyway, we can wait if you both want to. Marskell (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think you might have misread what I said. Under the way I described, life forms (and viruses and alike) would go in biology, not medicine/health. Raul654 (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, that makes more sense. (I should've taken "which" for the last noun :). Part of me wants to reward the wonderful folks on the Dino and Mammal projects with a dedicated section. But it would be strange to remove the TOL from Biology proper, so splitting medicine as you suggest is possibly better. Marskell (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think you might have misread what I said. Under the way I described, life forms (and viruses and alike) would go in biology, not medicine/health. Raul654 (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Help Request
I just created the page on Operation Killer and was wondering if you could help out expanding it. I was looking for a reliable Wikipedian with a history of article building and I thought you might be willing to help out for this article. If you could take a look at it, I would be most appreciative. Thanks! --SharkfaceT/C 02:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
OK
Re this, can you point me in the direction of your previous bad experience? Also, what'd be the page on which the article would be written... I'd probably write directly into the article, rather than sandboxing. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I added the temp work page over at the workshop, but perhaps wait for a few more to weigh in. The previous experience would be very hard to find, simply because I have so many edits and I don't even remember which month to look in. It's no longer needed, since the AN/I thread gives us a current experience, which exactly mirrors the problems I had. Will that work? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- See here for a start. Tell me what you think. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think you've successfully made the connection to Dispatch goals (I also forgot how appropriate the timing is, considering Mr. President will have just run on the main page). Still catching up on morning work, will review in greater detail in the evening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ya see, cinco de mayo proved a marvellous choice! ;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ha ! We'll see :-) If we get a lot of complaints, it could mean we have an educated, multi-culturally aware reading audience. If we get no complaints, I'd worry about the systemic bias in our readership :-)) Oops. WP:BEANS !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ya see, cinco de mayo proved a marvellous choice! ;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think you've successfully made the connection to Dispatch goals (I also forgot how appropriate the timing is, considering Mr. President will have just run on the main page). Still catching up on morning work, will review in greater detail in the evening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- See here for a start. Tell me what you think. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
And Ha!. Does this mean I'm now an old hand?! :o --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, let's see. Three FAs, a reviewer award (which is what I really care about, the "gift taht keeps on giving" :-) and a couple of Dispatches. Whatdya think? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Heh. I have to say, I must be easily pleased, but the little reviewer's reward did give me a warm glow. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Good gosh, man, I just looked at FAR and was on my way to leave Marskell a note about what good work you've done. FAR has really been neglected lately, and without Tony looking at prose, we're in a deep hole :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Heh. I have to say, I must be easily pleased, but the little reviewer's reward did give me a warm glow. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Miss Hogg
Thanks for revering the article - I noticed the additions earlier and was going to revert them myself, but I got distracted and forgot about it. Cheers! —Travistalk 20:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I revere the article also. :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Now, y'all stop revering on my page :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Sig
(Nighttemptation (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)) Marskell (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, will ping Collectonian. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, I'm sure you've noticed that the FAC has grown incredibly bloated what with the nominator's bolded replies, extensive discussion and an argument between conflicting WP:LOGO and NFCC criteria all happening within my review. Fact is not even I know what's going on now, which of my concerns have been addressed and how much progress has been made. I was wondering if I could move my entire gargantuan review to the talk page, and then once again list the concerns, but this time more succinct and brief? (For eg: I won't list out all the prose/MoS defects, but rather just a "prose needs tightening from independent copy-editor") I'll make sure to tell the nominator to not interrupt my comments. indopug (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I was having quite a hard time negotiating it myself, but I didn't say anything because I 'spose I'm more sensitive than most to talk page order :-) I'm not sure though, that, moving it all to talk will solve anything. Perhaps just start over below all of that? I used to do that ... I would just say, I can no longer make sense of where things stand on my review, so I'm starting over here ... with a continued oppose. Would that work? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I was suggesting a talk page move (or even a capped comment with "Remaining issues listed below") so that the clutter wouldn't scare off potential reviewers. But this is fine, indopug (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- You can always cap resolved issues, if you can figure out what they are :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I was suggesting a talk page move (or even a capped comment with "Remaining issues listed below") so that the clutter wouldn't scare off potential reviewers. But this is fine, indopug (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Jack Kemp
You are among those with over 100 edits at Ronald Reagan who has edited it this year. You may want to comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Jack Kemp/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Israel-Venezuela relations
Hi Sandy
Regarding the Israel-Venezuela relations#Accusations of anti-Semitism section, wouldn't it make more sense if it were in the History of the Jews in Venezuela article? Also, shouldn't the History of the Jews in Venezuela discuss this? I'm interested in your thoughts. Jayjg (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- hmmm, first I've heard of the History of Jews in V article, I didn't realize it had been created. April Fools Day took a lot of my time yesterday, and I'm behind today, will need a day or two to look at all of that after I catch up. As I last recall the I-V relations article, I was left very unsatisfied at its unfinished state, and realized long after the fact that I had been enticed to help there by someone who later turned out to be blocked for sockpuppetry ... anyway, perhaps the unfinished state of the I-V article can be solved by a better rationaliation between the two articles. The police raid had been covered once in the I-V article, and should still be there unless it's been removed since I unwatched. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it's a new raid; the previous one was at the Jewish school, this was at the main Jewish club. I'm going to move the material to the proper article for now, and perhaps I'll be able to work on content in the next few days. Jayjg (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ah. I missed that; then I really need to catch up. I should get there by tomorrow latest, but I've got to read the Venezuelan press first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I read that now; sorry, I completely missed that when it happened. It probably got swallowed in all the other news out of Venezuela in December. I need to do some digging, but yes, the two articles need better rationalization. The problem is, this is not Venezuela and not Venezuelans, who are as un-anti-semitic as any of several cultures I've lived in; it's Chavez and his foreign policy. It's hard to do business anymore in Caracas if you're not Arab or Russian or Libyan or ... and so on. I have a lot to do today before I can look at those articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've sorted out the articles in terms of material and fixed the broken refs for now; the stuff about Israel is in the Israel-Venezuela relations article, and the stuff about the Jewish community is in the History of the Jews in Venezuela article. Both still need work. Jayjg (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I read that now; sorry, I completely missed that when it happened. It probably got swallowed in all the other news out of Venezuela in December. I need to do some digging, but yes, the two articles need better rationalization. The problem is, this is not Venezuela and not Venezuelans, who are as un-anti-semitic as any of several cultures I've lived in; it's Chavez and his foreign policy. It's hard to do business anymore in Caracas if you're not Arab or Russian or Libyan or ... and so on. I have a lot to do today before I can look at those articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ah. I missed that; then I really need to catch up. I should get there by tomorrow latest, but I've got to read the Venezuelan press first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it's a new raid; the previous one was at the Jewish school, this was at the main Jewish club. I'm going to move the material to the proper article for now, and perhaps I'll be able to work on content in the next few days. Jayjg (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I went through the I-V relations article and did some basic cleanup. It's still a lousy article, parrots some biased unreliable sources, but with all of the text related specifically to Chavez moved to the other article, it should satisfy those who called it POV, so I removed that tag. It will probably come back, but since the Chavez articles are owned, I don't have much interest in trying to do any more work there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Media
- http://noticias.eluniversal.com/2007/12/04/pol_ava_denuncian-allanamien_04A1244481.shtml
- http://www.noticierodigital.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4013051&sid=a8643185bad77fef61d5e632053904d9
- http://www.infobae.com/contenidos/352436-100799-0-La-Polic
- http://www.diariolavoz.net/seccion.asp?pid=18&sid=1755¬id=244987&fecha=12/05/2007
- http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2007/12/02/internacional/1196632686.html SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'll get through the History article in a day or two, after I've had time to look for more sources. I suspect that raid got overlooked because 1) it was announced to the press a few days after it happened and 2) the news of the Chavez defeat overshadowed it. The international press doesn't seem to have picked up the news. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Here are some English sources that discuss it:
- http://jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/105647.html
- http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1204213985343
- http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/908072.html
- http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/world/americas/05briefs-jewish.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin
- http://www.cjnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13691&Itemid=86
- http://jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/20071203120307venez.html
- Regarding the copyvio, I see what you mean, but I'd have a hard time re-wording it myself - it's difficult when the text is in front of you. Perhaps most of that section should just be deleted for now, aside from a couple of summary sentences. Jayjg (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Here are some English sources that discuss it:
- I'm not hugely interested in dealing with that copyvio issue, created by an IP, because any work I do on Chavez articles is likely to be reverted and it just leads to headaches. I try to stick to cleanup. The broader story is covered in the haaretz article at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/908072.html ; I've not seen much mention in the press of the school curriculum issue. If you can make any copyvio cleanup stick and if the articles remain stable, I'll try to work on them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh
Oh Its a formatting thing. I thought you were telling me to read the FAC guidelines for policy reasons. --Lemmey talk 02:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Jack Kemp FAC close
Just for the record, would you mind correcting your five oppose summary to four opposes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I can look again next time I'm in archives, but I distinctly recall five; how do you come up with four? (As the instructions at the top of my talk page say, you'd get a faster response if I didn't have to go dig up the link myself :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
entering the dark ages...
Also known as ... going out to some ranches, so internet access may or may not be happening. May be able to deal with the dialup (if some of the ranches have it), may not. May have access next weekend, may not. It may be early next week before I can pick up the pieces. I'll be on in the morning, but if I don't come online, I give you permission to hide/cap any resolved issues left hanging. I will TRY, I just would rather you have warning than leave you hanging. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, yeah. My horsie scored a 62+ today in his first show back after two years layoff. First time showing dressage too! Good boy! Ealdgyth - Talk 04:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
CU
Blnguyen, I submitted Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Aetoss last night, but nothing is moving on it; did I submit it correctly? That silly article and those IPs are occupying tons of my time, and just preparing the CU took me an hour. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry I didn't see this last week. How did I miss it? Yes, they seem to be the same guy. Do you want a block? Duration preference? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- All the same, so it appears. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, Blnguyen; I'm not sure if they should be blocked now, as they have recently subsided, or if it's best to wait and see if they continue to vandalize? I'm not that sure on blocking policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- SS is the same person. I've blocked Aetoss for 14 days and the rest indefinitely. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, the article has been through another peer review, and a copyediting pass by Ealdgyth, and I think it's ready for another run at FA. Do you agree, or is there anything big that you think we may have missed? --Elonka 13:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't recall who the principle opposers were before, but you should doublecheck with them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I contacted most of them when I went back to Peer Review, but got no reply. :/ --Elonka 13:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, if you provided a link to the FAC so I didn't have to go dig it up myself, I could give you a faster answer :-) At this point, I don't remember who the opposers were or what the issues were. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've contacted the opposers again, but right now I'm asking you, not about how the FAC went, nor the peer review, but for your opinion on the article. :) Last time you had a lot of concerns about sourcing, and said the article needed "extensive cleanup".[1][2] Do you still think this, or have your concerns been addressed? --Elonka 13:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, if you provided a link to the FAC so I didn't have to go dig it up myself, I could give you a faster answer :-) At this point, I don't remember who the opposers were or what the issues were. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I contacted most of them when I went back to Peer Review, but got no reply. :/ --Elonka 13:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I am comfortable commenting on what reviewers found after there is already consensus to close a FAC or when a FAC has already been closed; opining on an article about to come to FAC would compromise my position as a closer. Checking with the previous opposers is the way to go; try to imagine how my time would be spent or how I could maintain neutrality if I pre-screened every FAC, and became a one-person judge and jury. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I understand that, and agree. The reason I asked you, is because you did offer comments about "extensive cleanup" being needed, so that's what I was checking on, as to whether your concerns had been addressed or not.[3] Frankly, I just don't want to go up for FA again if it's going to be "Oppose/oppose/oppose/oppose, nom finished", where the nom gets closed within minutes of an oppose, before I even had a chance to fix things. I found that experience enormously frustrating and demoralizing. Some people might find that kind of experience motivating, but for me it makes me not want to try to get any articles up to FA status. For me, what is more motivating is to get feedback about what I'm already doing right, and how I can do it even better. Specific comments such as "Fix this sentence" or "don't use past tense" are also good, because they are concrete things that I can fix. But vague comments such as "not good enough", "flab in the prose", or "needs sprucing up" just make me want to throw the computer through the window. --Elonka 15:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- When a nominator challenges a FAC archival that was based on (I think?) four solid opposes, I don't mind providing examples that illustrate the concerns, after the FAC is closed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
exploding whale
Exploding whale has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Translation: I've notified a couple relevant parties. The editor who made the most edits to Exploding whale has retired, and you were second in line. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Re:Glitter
What exactly would you like me to do, friend? (Reply on my talk page, if possible, so I have it all in one place) Thank you. ScarianCall me Pat! 16:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sure thing! :-) (If anything does appear you can e-mail me, it'd be a lot quicker as I'm not as active anymore) ScarianCall me Pat! 16:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
RfA
Hey Sandy, I just saw your !vote over on Peter's RfA, and it reminded me of how much I value your input over there. When I see your support, I know that the candidate has won the respect of a person I highly respect. I know that you have absolutely zero interest in becoming an admin, but I was wondering if you knew of any qualified people who might be interested in becoming an admin? I don't think nominating people for RfA's are your thing so if you have any ideas, let me know and I'll vet them.Balloonman (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I always have a ton of ideas, but the folks I usually think of usually aren't interested (for all the right reasons :-) ... while the folks who are engaged in aggressive admin coaching and engaging the GAN and FAC processes on their climb towards RfA always seem to appear there a bit too soon. I'll give you a list later tonight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds good, thanks.Balloonman (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Allright, I will surely forget someone, but that's the risk you take. I previously suggested a long list (months ago) to TimVickers, but most of them declined: Colin, Qp10qp, Dr pda, Ling.nut, Outriggr, lots of others, so I won't suggest them again. I believe Epbr123 should be an admin, but he was mauled in his last RfA, so it's probably too soon and I wouldn't blame him if he never went anywhere near the place again. Others include Elcobbola, Laser brain, GrahamColm (should be a co-nom with TimVickers), Karanacs, Kablammo, Mike Searson, RelHistBuff, Ealdgyth, Maralia, BuddingJournalist, and Jbmurray. I would co-nom any of these people, but most of them are likely to decline. Any one of them would be superior candidates to the rush of admin-coached and prepped RfAs that have been cropping up lately, and which frankly give me great pause for the future viability of this Project. Forgot Happyme22, Tvoz and Wasted Time R, will think of more. BrianBoulton (not sure how long he's been on board though). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- As an admin coach, I agree with your comment about many coachees being rushed... I hope you don't feel that way about mine... most of them take at least 2-3 months of coaching before I'll nominate them! I want to get them exposure to several areas of the project.Balloonman (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Also, it would be interesting to get your input on WT:RFA... a lot of people who frequent the RfA process are clamoring for more candidates.Balloonman (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- ah, if I knew you were an admin coach, I'd have held my tongue :-) But now that I have your audience ... I'm not sure which are yours, since I didn't know you were a coach, but I absolutely cringe at what is going on at RfA, as do most of the editors I most respect. No point in opposing, since they mostly come with enough fan support to pass anyway (often the same buddies passing each other's GAs). And why exactly are they clamoring for more candidates? The more unprepared candidates they rush through, the more problems Wiki has to deal with, the more new admins we need to deal with the problems created by abusive, power-hungry, immature and unknowledgeable admins. Vicious cycle. Wouldn't more problems be solved by having a higher proportion of mature editors who don't crave adminship and actually <gasp> contribute content rather than playing social power games on a website? There's one up now who's been on Wiki for four months, and it will go through. I've been on Wiki for more than two years, and I'm astonished daily at how much I don't know; I'd really like to know how someone who's been here for four months can use the tools wisely. Interestingly, I see the same crowd supporting most of these candidates, and it doesn't bode well for Wiki's future, IMO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- On that point at least we are agreed Sandy. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps what they are looking for is a different type of candidate, Sandy. Perhaps the RfA regulars are starting to notice the same thing that others of us have spotted. The RfA trend changes from time to time; perhaps the pendulum is swinging back? Risker (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I hope it's swinging back, I hope this entire notion of admin coaching will STOP (you either have the qualities or you don't, and being told to accumulate a bunch of GAs, DYKs, push through a FAC, dabble a bit here and there in vandal fighting and XfD, doesn't confer admin character) and I hope we aren't going to be dealing with the problems from the recent crops of admins for a very long time. <Red-faced> Add Risker to my list; darn, I knew I'd forget some! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- You know, someone went through last month who blatantly dissed and attacked Yomangani once on my talk page, and since I couldn't find the post, I didn't oppose. <shudder> I am certain that person doesn't have the right character even if he has a gazillion GAs, DYKs and an FA. Now, when someone disses a respected editor, I'm saving the diff to my hard drive, unless they apologize, so I can find it when I need it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ooohhh, who was that? I must add them to my enemies list. Yomanganitalk 01:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- If I told 'ya I'd have to kill 'ya :-)) It was during your absence. Let me put it this way: not worth losing a minute of sleep over :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ooohhh, who was that? I must add them to my enemies list. Yomanganitalk 01:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- No worries, Sandy, and thank you very much for the compliment! :-) I have to say, I look at the "qualifications" some people set up and just shudder. What ever happened to good old common sense? Risker (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Risker, if you are interested, I would be happy to take a look at your contributions. A recommendation from Sandy carries a lot of weight in my book.Balloonman (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Seconded Risker; I would very much like to see you take the plunge...we need more content people getting the tools, and using them for the purposes of content (rather than the professional cops seen all too often at RfA). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- You know, someone went through last month who blatantly dissed and attacked Yomangani once on my talk page, and since I couldn't find the post, I didn't oppose. <shudder> I am certain that person doesn't have the right character even if he has a gazillion GAs, DYKs and an FA. Now, when someone disses a respected editor, I'm saving the diff to my hard drive, unless they apologize, so I can find it when I need it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I hope it's swinging back, I hope this entire notion of admin coaching will STOP (you either have the qualities or you don't, and being told to accumulate a bunch of GAs, DYKs, push through a FAC, dabble a bit here and there in vandal fighting and XfD, doesn't confer admin character) and I hope we aren't going to be dealing with the problems from the recent crops of admins for a very long time. <Red-faced> Add Risker to my list; darn, I knew I'd forget some! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- ah, if I knew you were an admin coach, I'd have held my tongue :-) But now that I have your audience ... I'm not sure which are yours, since I didn't know you were a coach, but I absolutely cringe at what is going on at RfA, as do most of the editors I most respect. No point in opposing, since they mostly come with enough fan support to pass anyway (often the same buddies passing each other's GAs). And why exactly are they clamoring for more candidates? The more unprepared candidates they rush through, the more problems Wiki has to deal with, the more new admins we need to deal with the problems created by abusive, power-hungry, immature and unknowledgeable admins. Vicious cycle. Wouldn't more problems be solved by having a higher proportion of mature editors who don't crave adminship and actually <gasp> contribute content rather than playing social power games on a website? There's one up now who's been on Wiki for four months, and it will go through. I've been on Wiki for more than two years, and I'm astonished daily at how much I don't know; I'd really like to know how someone who's been here for four months can use the tools wisely. Interestingly, I see the same crowd supporting most of these candidates, and it doesn't bode well for Wiki's future, IMO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Also, it would be interesting to get your input on WT:RFA... a lot of people who frequent the RfA process are clamoring for more candidates.Balloonman (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Sandy; for your watchlist: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Risker. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
See below for an example of one of our fine new crop of admins leaving a personal attack on a talk page over a GA review (within months of gaining the tools). Honestly, something needs to be done about what is going on over at RfA; more eyes are certainly needed on that page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wow... I can only say that was before I became active in the RfA process (January/February are my busy seasons at work, and I was uninvolved then.) I do, however, think your input into the process would be interesting, because the talk on WT:RFA is that the process has become too difficult. I'm of the opinion, that the bar has been lowered and those who should be admin's aren't running because they don't participate in "the right areas." I want to see more candidates like Risker/Peter/CapitalR. People who have gained the trust of the communities where they work, regardless of how many XfD's/CSD's they have. Balloonman (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sandy, I'm with you here. Admin coaching stinks of mandarin careerism. And it's function smells more like social networking of the patron-client variety than anything else. I would prefer if the good "coaches" hunted down and nominated highly experienced users who have built their experience in content contributing rather than user talk pages, private emailing and ircing, whose main qualification is their ambition to gain the mop. Promotions of the latter have had a detrimental effect on wikipedia. I really wish some of those guys understood this, as they wouldn't do it so much and they'd think beyond "hey my mandarin mate is voting for/opposing this guy....support/oppose". It's frankly appalling some of the users who get through this (and some of those in line too...so tempted to mention names here), while great users like Malleus who offer their service don't, and a bunch of the rest are so estranged and contemptful of it that they don't even bother. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- And the detrimental effect has trickled down to GA and FAC, as these "admin coached" types are encouraged to engage those processes, are passing and reviewing GAs with little qualification, digging up someone else's work and putting in a few edits to bring an unprepared article to FAC, causing work for reviewers where we're already stretched thin ... when they have little experience or reason to be engaging those processes ... and the mentality over at RfA these days seems to be, support everyone so they'll support me when it's my turn. Very very bad for the Project. Balloonman, one thing you (and others) could do is take down those checklists; I found those yesterday, and admin character can't be created via checklist. I have no clue about XfD or a whole lot of things on those lists, but I'm fairly certain few people think I would abuse the tools if I had them. Now I understand why the path from GA to FAC to RfA is so easily predicted ... pass a bunch of buddies' GAs to accumulate goodwill, do a trial run through FAC (leaving a lot of Supports to garner good will and a wake that has to be corrected by other serious reviewers), and then head for RfA ... they're going down the checklists. Much more alarming is that, whenever I read some of these recent RfAs, I'm not seeing the names of many of the editors I respect; have people given up and left the page ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- I definitely think that you're right in surmising that the RfA checklist has contributed to a significant number of very poor GA reviews by admin wannabees. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have a new hobby: lurking on SandyGeorgia's talk page, and discovering new things I never knew existed. For instance, yesterday I linked through a bunch of comments to get to the Essjay controversy that I never knew happened, but did not surprise me. One of the criticisms in that article is that the administrators' lack of oversight, of questioning the way things are. Wikipedia is fascinating as a study of group dynamics and how people behave. And as someone who detests politic of any sort, yet recognizes they are inevitable once more than two people communicate, it's becoming clear just by reading this talk page that admins are an insular group that have created their own sub-culture (the t-shirts and mops as symbols, for example), that separates them from normal users like li'l ol' me. The admin process, as I understand it (that's dubious, you know), requires users to work for the reward of number of votes whenver the opportunity arises for RfA. On one hand, that imposes civility, but on the other, it silences questioning of why things are the way they are. Once people are accepted into an exclusive group, they become cheerleaders for its maintenance and are less inclined to upset the people who have accepted them into the group. Why do people spend so much time writing these articles when they get no reward other than the self-knowledge that they wrote a damn good article and thousands of people are reading it? Should admin come with any different reward? What if there were non-admins who had access and input into the process, people who just asked, "Why are you doing this?" Or what if admins where required to do that? --Moni3 (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Zinta FAC
Hey!
I must say I'm tired. I have absolutely no problem with editors opposing the article's promotion, it's fine by me. But I believed the purpose of this FAC was to improve the article, and help make it a better article, not just try hard to make it fail again. I thought there would be collaborative work, with editors commenting, giving opinions and suggestions in order to make it a FA. One editor gave only four examples, very critically. I tried my best to address them. Another editor has since copyedited the article. I turned to the reviewer and asked him to come and check whether his comments have been addressed, but my message was not responded.
Now, another editor comes and opposes. IMO, this oppose is not actionable. Many other FAs do the same, so how can an article become an FA if there are no rules? Again, I don't mind people opposing, but seeing people who don't want it to get promoted from the very outset, saddens me a lot. I'm not sure I want this article to get featured. Comments? Shahid • Talk2me 19:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- What you described is more like peer review, although FAC often becomes peer review. The purpose of FAC is not to improve articles, rather to determine if they meet criteria, although it usually does improve articles as well. There are at least 15 FACs that need input: there are only two FACs I can close right now, so it's not worth it for me to fire up six open tabs and promote/archive. How many FACs have you reviewed? See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches. When FAC is stalled because reviewers are busy, the people who want reviews might think about how hard reviewers have to work, and engage in some payback on other articles. As to Tony1 not revisiting Preity, he is one of Wiki's hardest working and busiest editors; he'll get there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you tend to flit over the FACs before Raul (could be wrong) so I'll bring this to your attention. --Dweller (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know, Dweller. It would be great if some folks could run through the Urgents list and give me something to work with :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm off to bed and then my morning routine. I'll be back in about 10 hours. Will take a look after I've dealt with Trumble. --Dweller (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Btw I'm done with that. I've started reviewing Blnguyen's article about the Vietnamese chappy. --Dweller (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Glad you're back in the saddle ! I always notice a drop in reviews over the weekend, and FAC seems to get stalled. I hope I can close some tonight ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Btw I'm done with that. I've started reviewing Blnguyen's article about the Vietnamese chappy. --Dweller (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm off to bed and then my morning routine. I'll be back in about 10 hours. Will take a look after I've dealt with Trumble. --Dweller (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
GA
What's this about? Someone put a GA template on the talk page, it had a review, and it got on WP:GA. Then someone else disputed it. These scenarios typically resolve in a week or so. If it were a cat, it would be one of the easier cats to herd. Gimmetrow 23:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Someone has since fixed it, but it showed up in the error category because someone put "on hold" in the articlehistory, then I couldn't determine if it was supposed to be GA or not (since it was listed on the GA page), so I reverted it all and left notes everywhere ... and as usual, no one responded (there's no "them" there at GA), so I finally removed the article from the GA page myself. Never sure what to do in those cases. Not going to do it anymore. But if someone removed it, they didn't really remove it, and they left an error in ah. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know where you asked. Without a very different system, there's no way to stop people editing templates. And some people put their article on WP:GA the same time they put it on WP:GAN! Gimmetrow 23:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- On one of the many GA pages (maybe the talk page at GAN, maybe GA, I dunno) and on the article talk page as well. Anyway, I'm done worrying about them. If I can't solve an error, I'll just leave it or revert it and not lose sleep over following up on it. They don't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- WT:GAN#Can.27t_figure_it_out. Yeah, they created the "topic" parameter, which even caused someone to edit AH to make it "grammatically correct", and nobody seems very concerned about keeping it up to date. I have heuristics to fill some in - if it starts with "Battle" it's probably milhist, it it contains "film" or "band" it's probably arts, and if it has "hurricane" it's probably meteorology. Gimmetrow 00:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think the point that GA is crap has already been made quite comprehensively elsewhere. So what do you expect? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say "GA is crap", but for a non-bureaucratic process it has developed a lot of details which distract from the primary goal: articles. Gimmetrow 01:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think the point that GA is crap has already been made quite comprehensively elsewhere. So what do you expect? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- WT:GAN#Can.27t_figure_it_out. Yeah, they created the "topic" parameter, which even caused someone to edit AH to make it "grammatically correct", and nobody seems very concerned about keeping it up to date. I have heuristics to fill some in - if it starts with "Battle" it's probably milhist, it it contains "film" or "band" it's probably arts, and if it has "hurricane" it's probably meteorology. Gimmetrow 00:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- On one of the many GA pages (maybe the talk page at GAN, maybe GA, I dunno) and on the article talk page as well. Anyway, I'm done worrying about them. If I can't solve an error, I'll just leave it or revert it and not lose sleep over following up on it. They don't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know where you asked. Without a very different system, there's no way to stop people editing templates. And some people put their article on WP:GA the same time they put it on WP:GAN! Gimmetrow 23:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
For your consideration
[4] Please don't feel obliged; I'm just following up on your comments above, and Balloonman's suggestion on my talk page. I won't be starting the clock until tomorrow evening EDT, as I am working late tonight. Risker (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
ABA EL
Hiya Sandy,
Regards this link, I've not reviewd the whole set of articles, but I'm inclined to leave it in per Wikipedia:External_links#Links_to_be_considered #4. It's not journal articles, but the information looks kosher (in the popular, not dietary sense, in case you were wondering if I had started printing and eating web pages. I have not) and there's references in some, which suggests some degee of expertise. It's also a good 'practitioner' perspective I think. But I leave it up to you, if you think it should be removed then I'm fine with that. I do realize that they're spamming it, but even stopped clocks are right twice per day. Unless they're digital and it's just displaying EPL|, in which case it's gibberish. WLU (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not going to fret much over it, but 1) they're spamlinking it, and 2) it's no different than hundreds of others which will follow if it is allowed. ELs should add something to the article that would not be there if the article became featured. I guess I'd just keep an eye on where else they add it, and not fret over one article, but you know how the ABA links will mushroom if you lower the inclusion threshold :-) Everybody's got something to promote in that field. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- True, but I'm feeling fickle today. Maybe one of the mushrooms will be superior to the rest and we can keep that. Or I may cull it in a fit of jealous rage two days from now. There's a lot of short essays on a lot of topics in the sidebar which look interesting from a practitioner's perspective, so I'm willing to let it stand for now. Unusual for me, I'm usually extremely deadly on spam. Perhaps it's a tumour. WLU (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- ah, well, glad you can be relaxed about it :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- But I did reserve the right to be fickle later. I'm tricky that way, I've got an out.
- I noticed you didn't substitute your spamwarning to the editor - is there a reason? Normally I thought templates gave you a big nasty warning if they were subst-able and you didn't do so. Educate me! WLU (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- um ... um ... well ... you'll have to educate me, since I don't know what you mean :-) I just grab the text that's shown on the template messages page. (This is the point at which Gimmetrow usually shows up to educate me :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- ah, well, glad you can be relaxed about it :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- True, but I'm feeling fickle today. Maybe one of the mushrooms will be superior to the rest and we can keep that. Or I may cull it in a fit of jealous rage two days from now. There's a lot of short essays on a lot of topics in the sidebar which look interesting from a practitioner's perspective, so I'm willing to let it stand for now. Unusual for me, I'm usually extremely deadly on spam. Perhaps it's a tumour. WLU (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
A template like {{uw-vand1}} appears as text on the usual screen, but as the template on the edit pane. Using {{subst:uw-vand1}} shows up as text in both. The subst: gives you a permanent version, while the template version will change if someone edits the original template. If you add subst: to the beginning of the warning tempalates the only real advantage is permanence. I had thought the subst: was mandatory, but apparently not. I know it is for some of the deletion templates (I think prod). I'll be giving EL-spammer a warning for his/her work on Temple Grandin, look at the difference between the two on the edit pane. I'll be using subst:spam2. WLU (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Done. My original paste was:
{{subst:uw-spam2|Temple Grandin|The link to the ABA page is ''arguably'' acceptable as an exception, but simply adding a link to one website on a variety of pages is considered [[WP:SPAM|spamming]] and is not acceptable. In this case, your addition to ABA was akin to a case of doing good by accident rather than design, as the design appears to be the promotion of a website.}}
and as you can see the software automagically filled in the full block of the standard warning. I can see the subst being more useful because it gives a standard warning that's adjusted to the extant policies and guidelines, while a non-substituted warning would change as the template changes (meaning a warning would no longer apply if the template changes sufficiently to indicate the edit was actually allowed when at the time of the original warning, it was not). I feel so special - I got to explain something to SandyGeorgia (SandyGeorgia!) today! I think I'll take the rest of the day off and bask in my own sense of smug self-satisfaction. Do I deserve a huzzah? I think I do! Huzzah!! WLU (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know what you deserve, but I'll tell you just as soon as I find time to read it all :-) I've been known to tell others they have to speak to me in very short sentences when I'm still getting through my morning watchlist LOL !! Evening (my time) is a better time of day to try to get me to learn new tricks :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Mary Seacole FAC
I'm withdrawing the nomination, there's too many corrections needed and I just don't have the time. However, I do see myself working on the article in the future (probably in co-operation with Giano), and I would like to thank you and the others for the invaluable comments they made which have potentially helped the article even more. If you could make sure that the correct archival procedures are followed, I'd be grateful. Sincerely, Rudget (Help?) 15:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'll do that Rudget, and I commend you for taking the wisest action in this case. It ia a very fine article, but with better use of the superior sources that are out there, you can turn it into something much better and you'll probably be much prouder of the result. Looking forward to seeing you back soon ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Kannada literature in Vijayanagara empire
Thanks for fixing the PR archive link.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about all the trouble ...
Not too sure what I did on Gimmetrow talk page, but thanks for fixing it for me ... -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Question on FAC restart
I am curious/would like some clarity on the way FAC restarts generally work. At Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Getting It: The psychology of est -- How does this impact the 5 Supports previously given in comments from editors Roger Davies (talk · contribs), Ottava Rima (talk · contribs), Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs), Moni3 (talk · contribs), and Laser brain (talk · contribs) ? Cirt (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- A restart is a clean slate; it's OK to ask previous supporters (and opposers) if they want to carry their !votes or comments forward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply - it appears that these editors listed are the only ones unaware of the restart. I will leave a brief notice on their talk pages. Cirt (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- As long as you stay within WP:CANVASS, no problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- How is this sort of message, in that case? Cirt (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's fine. Also, they don't necessarily have to carry forward the same comment; you could just ask if they want to enter a new comment. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- How is this sort of message, in that case? Cirt (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- As long as you stay within WP:CANVASS, no problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply - it appears that these editors listed are the only ones unaware of the restart. I will leave a brief notice on their talk pages. Cirt (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
FAC statistics
What happened to the readbility, edit count and link checker toolbox? Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, nevermind. The toolbox is not automatically generated in the case of starting a new nomination for a failed FAC. –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Correct; on the old previous FAC files, we have to add the tools in manually. Someone has probably already done that by now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Able Archer 83 is back
I believe you wanted to know? Melchoir (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank, Melchoir ! Will have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
What was wrong with my renomination of this article for WP:GA? You wait two months for a review, then no fewer than three editors come along and get the whole thing glaringly wrong, you fix everything and renominate, then someone comes along and undoes it all. Does this project not want my input or what? --Rodhullandemu 12:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know anything about the GA nomination for that article; I only corrected the error in articlehistory, causing it to populate the articlehistory error category, left by the person who passed the GA. You might want to ask that person, but then, the personal attack you left on the article talk page might come under scrutiny. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Accepted apology - and submit one by return post
Thank you for your message. I was feeling somewhat low, and I over-reacted: it is quite obvious your edit summary must have been a mistake, and I regret reading anything more into it. Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 13:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)