User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch78

I'm dithering

More importantly I'm not au fait with how to present an RFC about an administrator. I know it's probably the equivalent of death by chocolate, and collecting any evidence on wiki is seen as a personal attack, but that's all I know. Help! Malleus Fatuorum 05:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I went out for the evening and missed all the dramahz ... just finished reading through all the pages, looks to be a good thing that I missed it, but those kinds of attacks can't be coming from an admin, period. But ... I know of at least three RFC/Us that failed because they were presented bad, Bad, Badly! Getting it right is much more important than getting it out soon. And trying to do too much is the death knell-- they won't read it, just like an arbcase. Expect pile-on from all sides: his detractors will pile-on, so will yours, few will read critically or even care to digest the evidence. It has to be VERY focused, brief, and as well written as an FA, with very clear goals. Going for the jugular isn't useful; that's for the arbs to decide if the RFC/U doesn't result in a change in behavior or clear consensus. Figuring out the instructions for how to do it was a nightmare for me. I'll go off and find the page for you, and then I suggest rather than creating the RFC, you grab a copy of the template, put it in sandbox, and let others (um, friends that is) edit it mercilessly before you launch it. I'll be back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Start at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Creation; read that whole page.
• Grab a copy of the template from Template:RfC3 (that's for admins, not the rest of us)
• Put the template in sandbox and fill it in. BREVITY!
• When you're ready to launch it, go back to the creation page, move the sandbox into the correct name, transclude it, add the time, make sure you have a co-certifier, and list it at the template that shows at AN.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think a very key thing is to make sure discussion threads don't get started on the RFC page, so I put a copy of the Discussion instructions in bold at the top, and make sure someone will police it to keep threaded discussions on talk. You can keep evidence for an RFC/U around for about 30 days before you need to "sh.. or get off the pot", so don't be in a hurry to launch it until you're ready, but don't be sidetracked by blathering on talk. KISS principle; know what you want, and that if it doesn't happen, you want a page that will be digestible for the arbs. You must have a co-certifier, and that person must have also tried to resolve the dispute with the admin-- otherwise, it's delisted, so make sure you meet the conditions. Looks like you and BB may become best friends :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, you needn't worry that I'll see the collection of evidence on Wiki as a personal attack, as you allude above. Quite the contrary, if anyone tries to say it is an attack, I'm at your defense. I don't report people for personal attacks anyway, and I won't start now. Besides, collecting evidence is entirely reasonable and responsible. I'm glad you're doing this. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was just coming back to add that you have to have really tried to resolve the dispute before launching the RFC (that's somewhere in the instructions); Malleus, recall how many times I, and many others, tried to engage Nyttend, and he just wouldn't hear it, wouldn't respond, DIDNTHEARTHAT. Your strongest defense is a good offense, so a cooling-off period, with the possibility that "men will be boys" and can talk about it tomorrow, is something to consider. I didn't necessarily achieve anything with Nyttend, but if he acts up again, the evidence is there on the RFC/U for the arbs, so at least he hopefully won't do to some clueless nobody what he did to me. I'm concerned that you two got so overheated that you can't really say you tried to resolve this; GTB, you went over the top with some things you said to MF-- looks like a reaction to his "reputation" (which I think is rubbish-- I think he's really a softie, but don't tell anyone :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no reputation I'm reacting to other than what I've observed. I'm glad that there will be some scrutiny of my actions; I always welcome that. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I can be a softie, that's true. But this is of course part of the effort to resolve the dispute with GTB pre-RFC. I don't want to rush into anything, but I'm equally not prepared to put up with any more of GTB's rubbish; that's got to stop. Malleus Fatuorum 06:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You'll find that leaving me alone will result in my leaving you alone. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

@MF, OK, maybe not so much a softie, as someone who's heart is in the right place (it's the principle with you). If I were facing something really awful IRL (who, me? :), I'd want someone like you with me, over any of the wannabes, immature, power-mongering idiots who populate ANI and don't get the principle of the thing (double standards for admins). But MF, bad cases make bad law-- is this a tight case? I had a tight case in that I tried to resolve the dispute, quite tactfully, and more than half a dozen admins did, too. I had clear admin misuse of tools, and intransigent responses from the admin. I had multiple attempts to resolve the dispute. Anyone who didn't see that was only piling on either against me because they don't like me, or for him, because they like him-- that will happen. But I'd wager that my case, put before the arbs, if he again misuses admin tools, would have a clear outcome. Do you have the case that you want to possibly end up before the arbs, to once and for all finally deal with the double standard that exists for admin behavior? Because if you don't, your cause won't be realized, and your goal (I hope) is to create equal standards for admins and others, or even better, upholding of expected standards of admin conduct. Just sayin' ... and I don't think I followed all the pieces. I'm not really sure where it started, but GTB, expecting MF to turn the other cheek when he's been down this road so many times, and stay away from you when so many admins are gunning for him, isn't going to resolve this. MF has taken too many unfair lumps. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Then I think he should file his case against me. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you should both go have a pint and think about it tomorrow (or the next day). RFC is not pretty, because people pile on without even reading-- it's a broken system, and not the ideal way to go. Plenty of admins will gun for MF in an RFC/U, and he knows that, but GTB, you must realize that the kinds of things you said to MF won't get past the arbs, either. Admins just Can't Do That. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You make a fair point. This isn't really about one admin it's about the whole corrupt mess, so a carefully prepared RFC is what's needed, Malleus Fatuorum 07:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, I appreciate your conciliatory words, but I'm willing to take my chance before the Arbitrators. I, like Malleus, see a systemic problem here, and I'm willing to take a knock or two to get these problems aired. It's important for the project, and the project is more important than I am. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, "the project" is lacking in enough admins to keep up with basics and has too many admins who don't and too much evidence of recent admin burnout and abuse, maybe related to the overload and some of them working too hard (Prodego comes to mind); personally, I suspect if this goes before the arbs, you could be desysopped. Is that a desirable outcome or good for the project? Wouldn't it be better for you and Malleus to work this out? I don't see anything good coming from an RFC or an arbcase, for either of you, but you've got more to lose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I don't think I'll be desysopped. I've certainly never used my admin buttons in connection with Malleus, or any similar case. If they ban me from WQA and from interactions with Mal, I'll take it. If there's a reason that this kerfluffle makes me less able to close move requests, then pigs fly.

Secondly, how on Earth do you see me and Malleus "working this out"? He's been very clear that he can treat people however he wants to, and he's above reproach no matter who he insults nor how abusively. What's there to work out? Do you see where I'm coming from? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's foolish of me or anyone to second guess the arbs, 'cuz they do dumb things, too, but I don't think personal attacks from an admin will fly with them. Maybe you wouldn't end up desysopped, but sanctioned for sure. And no, I don't agree with you on Malleus; I think when he's treated with respect, he responds in kind. I once observed a huge kerfuffle between Ceoil and Malleus-- two editors I consider friends-- and they had a pint and worked it out the next day. That's my advice. All Malleus wants is respect for the principle; he is capable of backing off if he gets that. And for you, we don't need to lose any more admins; we need them to understand the principle. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there something more substantial at the center of this conflict than an admin who lost some patience with an editor and made turkey noises at him? That was the initial complaint Malleus made an ANI. I thought it quite silly indeed to complain about such a thing. Clearly I think Malleus can take a sniping; he ought to be if most of us agree that one should be able to take what one dishes out. It was not clear to me that GTB was acting as an admin in sniping at Malleus. Everyone loses their temper. I've called Malleus a douche nozzle before, but not as an admin, just as a petty observer. Using one's bad temper or poor attitude to justify an action taken against an editor that the admin himself thinks he needs not follow is certainly problematic and it should be addressed. That is not clear in this situation, however. Can either of you clarify this? --Moni3 (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't expect anything to come of the ANI report, but one is expected to go through the motions before escalating a dispute. The incident was part of the collateral damage caused by my question at Ironhold's RfA. I just feel that it's about time that administrators like GTB start eating their own dog food, and I'm determined to see to it that they do. Malleus Fatuorum 18:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

And what good will that do if we lose your writing in the process, because a bunch of your detractors pile on in an RFC/U? Let's see; Ironholds becomes an admin, admin double standards aren't addressed adequately unless you have a really tight case with a clean RFC/U, we lose you adding exceptional mainpage content, and we lose the chance for an admin to understand and respect the principle you've tried so long to address. Isn't it better for GTB to recognize the principle, that you've been unfairly dumped on for years and that's no fun for a good editor, and for you to have an ally and continue contributing FAs? Come on, guys-- extend a hand to each other-- try acting like women every now and then :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't doubt that there will be a great many baying for my blood, inevitably, but I haven't really written much here anyway of late. What good will it do? It'll make me feel like I'm doing something instead of accepting the ongoing and unaddressed abuse from admins like a lapdog. Malleus Fatuorum 18:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I have no problem with Ironholds being promoted, in fact I voted in support. Which is the stupidity of this whole situation, started because some clot took exception to my question and decided to start issuing threats and warnings. Malleus Fatuorum 18:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

If I ever knew anything about Ironholds, I've forgotten it ... I just meant to say that he was clearly passing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You see? Malleus agrees that he's doing this to make himself feel better (totally irresponsible use of our servers), and that I "need to be served my own dog food". I can understand perfectly well that MF has been dumped on for years, and I can understand that being dumped on is not an excuse for chronically abusing other editors, nor for the ridiculous posturing we saw yesterday at AN/I. ("You can't threaten me", "Bring it on, if you're hard enough." That's baby shit.)

I hope to hell he files an RFC, as he said he would, because then we'll get a more complete picture of what's going on. I have never come close to denying his positive contributions; I was clear to acknowledge them from the start. Where has he done anything in kind? To him, I'm a dog, apparently, and that makes him the "unfairly dumped on" party? Do good contributors get complete carte blanche to insult whomever they want, whenever they want? Are my contributions to the project worthless? Sandy, this question (the former, in particular, about whether he gets carte blanche) is to you. You haven't addressed it yet. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No, he doesn't, but if I had my way on Wiki, no one would. As things stand, admins do have carte blanche, others don't, so admins aren't in a position to complain. And Malleus is constantly baited and taunted, and false things are said about him.

Now I've got to catch up around the house, and then turn my attention to FAC; I sure wish y'all could settle this. Take some time off from each other and think about where an RFC is likely to end, and how much of your time it's going to take. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

If admins have carte blanche, then why are you concerned that I may be desysopped? Who got a block last night, the admin, or your pet victim? Consistency? An RFC is likely to end precisely where I want it to end, and it will take no more of my time than I want it to. You don't seem to understand that my eyes are wide open. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

My oversight; I should have said that admins have carte blanche, until/unless the case comes before the arbs, in which case my experience has been that they are not very forgiving. But cases rarely come before the arbs, because editors don't make good use of RFC/U first, and the arbs will often tell folks to go away and try to resolve the dispute first via an RFC/U. OK, so both of you have your eyes wide open, but I'd rather see both of you working on the wiki instead of spending your time going at each other in the timesink of an RFC. Maybe you're each as stubborn as the other :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No. It's not "until/unless the case comes before the arbs". There was no Arbitrator involved in blocking me last night! I do not have carte blanche and that is clear to see.

An RfC is no timesink for me, and if it leads to Malleus learning that he can't be a rampant dick to people, then it's worth it. If it doesn't lead to that, and he continues his patterns of abuse, then it's a brick in the wall of an eventual ban, which is not an ideal outcome.

I have continued to work on the Wiki throughout this, except for the few minutes when I was blocked. I will continue to do the work I do at WP:RM whether or not MF pursues his promised - and welcome - action.

I love this project, and that's the only thing motivating me here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I write articles to make myself feel better, so not everything in that vein is a waste of the servers. This seems rather ridiculous on both sides unless either of you can pinpoint a more significant part of this dispute. If you were both chicks, I'd suggest getting ice cream and Steel Magnolias and getting over it. I saw that episode with Malleus and Ceoil. It was the equivalent of a fistfight and over very quickly. What would make you both feel better, without it dragging in the entire Wikipedia community in a process that seems wholly unnecessary? If we all left you alone and you just called each other names for 24 hours and got over it would it do the trick? Malleus, GTB is acknowledging your points here. That's a step in your direction. GTB does not embody all the injustice of all the admins who have wronged you and you are likely to create someone just as unhappy with Wikipedia as you are when it seems much more productive to communicate about what you both find wrong about it and see what you can do to improve it. --Moni3 (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Genius on board, so I'll go concentrate on FAC now! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Moni3, writing articles to make yourself feel better helps the project. Gunning for an admin who, as you say, does not embody all the injustice of the Wiki, to make yourself feel better, is entirely different. Do you agree?

I fully acknowledge Malleus' points, right up to the line where he claims that abusing others is justified. That is never true, no matter who does it, whether it's me, Malleus, Jimbo Wales, or Yaweh. This must be made clear, because letting it slide damages the project. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, two points: I often want to strangle other editors with whom I come into conflict, but it's very easy for me to see what others' problems are in their conflicts and if they're open to it, talk them down. It's much more difficult to resolve something when you're a part of the conflict. And secondly, there are honest to God communication difficulties that are made much worse by the atmosphere here, perpetuated by the Internet's limitations and the approach many admins and editors take to quashing dissent when a healthy conversation is warranted and necessary. While Malleus often has genuine valid concerns over admins overreaching their duties and coming down too hard on him, he also (and he knows I think this because I tell him) personalizes his displeasure and lashes out. I often wonder if I'm not just as or more unhappy about some of this stuff as Malleus. I just shut up and go away. While the episode yesterday between you and Malleus was, IMO, blown out of proportion, the fuel for it being blown is created by the status quo. There's much room for both of you to have beer and discuss what that is and how you both can change it. --Moni3 (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Moni3, I truly like and appreciate what you're doing. I'm open to being "talked down", but it's not likely to get much traction with me if it starts from the premise that chronic abuse is not a problem. I'm no one to defend administrators; I'm a black sheep in that bunch. I've bucked the admin status quo so damn many times it got boring, and lumping me in with the abusive ones is insane. I've never used my tools to get my way, and I champion the underdog over and over and over again. My record is public, and the reason I like the idea of an RFC so much is that people will point to it, and I will be vindicated. If you're pissed off about admin abuse, then I'm your closest ally, unless you insist on your right to treat people like shit. That's the only thing that will get under my skin.

Malleus insists that "fuck off" is a proper and reasonable thing to say to people, and he's wrong. This is not negotiable. Telling actual trolls to "fuck off" feeds them and makes them bigger trolls. Telling non-trolls to "fuck off" is incredibly stupid and counter-productive. There is no excuse for it, ever. Adults need not treat each other this way. We coddle it in editors who are productive enough and make the right friends, and that hurts the project. The project is all that I care about here, and if Malleus will stop hurting it, then I don't give a shit what he thinks about me.

Now, did you read the beginning of my talk page thread with Malleus? He challenged me regarding what I was "getting at" with a comment I left on someone else's talk page, and when I answered his question, he said: "Just as I thought. I doubt you and I will ever agree about anything. Bring on your RFC/U." I have never expressed any interest in filing an RFC/U against Malleus, and I never will, nor against anyone. It's not how I roll. Before that, was I being provocative? I was trying to be straight with him without compromising my principles. How could I have played that hand better. Please tell me; I'm ready to learn. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree entirely with the first two paragraphs, and welcome wholeheartedly the statement by Malleus that he has in the past dealt with criticism in the wrong way. Civil interactions are something to be encouraged between all editors, irrespective of flags set on the servers: all editors are human and fallible. Geometry guy 00:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Among reasonable people, who all get angry from time to time, a period of venting frustration following a misunderstanding often can be offensive to anyone, even themselves when they go back and read it. I don't condone Malleus telling people to fuck off, but I understand the sentiment way too much for me to be preaching to anyone about not telling others to fuck off. The best I can say is that two people in a conflict should acknowledge that they are or were frustrated with something (possibly not the person their ire is directed at), find what they have in common, and try to work from there. So, whenever you get to the right point, look back on what you both said, realize what phase of the conflict you are in and get to the right place. --Moni3 (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Just as a matter of fact, I didn't tell GTBacchus to "fuck off". I said that to some kiddie who was put up to placing a warning on my talk page for the question I asked at Ironhold's RfA by his mates on IRC. Malleus Fatuorum 00:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought we settled this, Malleus, or at least that's what happened on your talk page anyhow. I have explained that I was not put up to anything by anyone on IRC. I posted the warning of my own free will, and was only told what I'd let myself in for after telling people on IRC what i'd done. I'm not a kiddie, I've admitted I fucked up, now can we please just put it behind us as we agreed to do. Oh, and just as a note on politeness, you didn't tell me to fuck off, you asked me to go away, for which I thank you :) BarkingFish 02:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I was talking about Dreadstar, not you BarkingFish. Malleus Fatuorum 02:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Understood, and struck. I saw the comment about the "kiddie" who was put up to the warning by his mates on IRC, and assumed (wrongly) that you meant it was me whom you'd told to fuck off. I apologise. BarkingFish 02:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably my fault-- I didn't follow the whole thing as it was unfolding, so my comment on MF's talk page was probably off. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record

I do not let the Brazilians anywhere near my upper lip, which is just fine, thank you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm older and I have more insurance, and I'd still look better than that child in that pink skirt ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

revert

Sorry about the revert on your talk page just now Sandy. I accidentally hit rollback on my watchlist. Somebody else already fixed it. Happy new year, by the way. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Missed it, but it happens to me all the time! Thanks to whomever fixed it. Happy New Year! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Caught up now, thanks to Aiken Drum. And JR, somewhere back in my talk archives is a thread explaining something you can do to stop this from happening-- I don't recall what it was, but I'm glad it was pointed out! Maybe someone recalls where to find that in my talk page archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Add .page-Special_Watchlist .mw-rollback-link {display:none;} to Special:Mypage/skin.css to hide the rollback link from your watchlist. Ucucha 15:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ucucha, and Happy New Year to you, too! I thought I was going to send New Year's greetings to all of my TPS and FAC folks this year, but, alas ... never got to it! Maybe I'll send King's Day or Valentine's greetings instead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Excellent -- thanks! -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Journal cites on School violence

If I am permitted to reformat the journal cites on School violence I think I can add 32 DOIs, 18 more PMIDs, 2 JSTOR links, 2 PMCs and fill in 18 more |issue=. It would be to {{cite journal}}, I can keep the authors separated by comma rather than semicolon default, but the format of journal name and volume together in italics would have to go in favour of the cite journal standard of volume in bold, no italics. What do you think? Rjwilmsi 16:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think there is some sensitivity there with the main contributor to the article-- I WISH it had PMIDs, but you might want to check on talk there, since he seems to have a very specific style, and reverted me once. He doesn't use cite templates, so you can't introduce those, but it would sure be nice to have the PMIDs, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought consistency in citation style versus other articles would be useful too, but I'm tired of such debates for today. I've cross posted at User_talk:Iss246#Journal_cites_on_School_violence to see what the main contributor wants to do. Rjwilmsi 17:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It is (and the lack of PMIDs so our readers can access the sources is a bigger concern), but you still have to gain consensus to alter his style. It's too bad the bot can't only add the missing info, without altering style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Example where extra info added without any reformatting! Rjwilmsi 18:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Perfect! Can it do the same for PMIDs? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

All I can do with untemplated cites is add a DOI next to a PMID, or a PMID next to a DOI. Very limited scope when untemplated, this is one of the reasons I think citation templates are great. Rjwilmsi 18:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess I'll go add PMIDs at School violence, some day when I'm bored :) The other nice thing about Diberri is that it gives PMC links to full text when they're available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I will not use the templates in the future

Thanks for fixing my rookie boner. Trying to follow the protocol and just missed it. Never happen again. I reread the instructions also.TCO (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Not a big deal, happens all the time, but I don't nip 'em in the bud, others start doing same! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Cap! I gotta toe the line. Don't want to ge repermabanned.  :) TCO (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a graduate student researching crowdsourcing

Hi SandyGeorgia, I am a graduate student at Pratt Institute in NYC. My thesis topic is crowdsourcing and therefore interested in asking Wikipedia contributors questions regarding their involvement and experience with the site. I would greatly appreciate your help! my email is [email protected]

many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.163.67 (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Favor?

Hi Sandy and sorry to bother you. Could you possibly take a look at User talk:Laser brain#Evelyn Waugh and at Talk:Evelyn Waugh#Retrograde progress? My faith in the FAC process is looking likely to take a further bashing and I know you are an expert in this area. Please give it what time you can and let me know what you think. Thanks for anything you can manage. --John (talk) 07:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Responded on User talk:Laser brain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. --John (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

FAC notifications

The invitations were sent to editors who are divided in three different types: 1) The ones who reviewed Featured Articles which are related to Brazilian 19th century history (Pedro II of Brazil, Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná and José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco ); 2) The ones who are active members Wikipedia:WikiProject Former countries and that have successfully promoted their articles to FA status; and 3) The ones who appeared in Empire of Brazil talk page.

I did not randomly send invitations.

My goal is not to influence the outcome of the nomination. On the contrary: is to have more and more comments from different editors so that the article can be improved. If I wanted to influence something, I would have picked 10 selected editors, not 62 (were that many?!). Lastly, I don't need that kind of dirty move to get an article promoted: the articles I write are good enough to be able to pass solely by their own merits. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: Unless, of course, you consider editors such as YellowMonkey, Laser brain, Wizardman, Brianboulton, The ed17, PericlesofAthens, Tony1, Casliber, Fvasconcellos and others as not reliable. If that's the case, I'll remove the invitations. --Lecen (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

See User talk:Laser brain; 62 talk page notifications is too many, and will only irritate potential reviewers. Many of those editors are FAC regulars anyway and have the page watchlisted; imagine if they all received notifications of every FAC and how quickly they would tire of that. Since you say the others follow the article talk or are members of the WikiProject, then the FAC template on article talk will alert some, while a post to the WikiProject will get the rest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't understand why someone yould be offended by being invited to review a Featured article nomination. If that's the case, I won't do that again. --Lecen (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Because if one FAC nominator notifies most of the FAC regulars, then they're all entitled to do it, it's unnecessary, and there's no need for FAC, article, or WikiProject regulars to get all of those notifications. And, from your point of view, if it irritates them, they're less likely to review. From my point of view, if it irritates them and they stop reviewing your articles, I'm less likely to get good reviewers on your articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Another problem with your logic above is that you did not notify Fasach Nua, who did review and oppose a previous FAC, nor did you notify Skinny87 or Parsecboy, so your notifications were selective=canvassing. I don't see Jappalang notified, either, so you didn't hit everyone, but you did hit some FAC regulars. And you have another FAC up that has not gotten any independent review, so the canvassing is affecting your FACs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

School violence

Thank you for the note about inserting the DOIs, etc. in the school violence entry. Rjwilmsi created a sandbox model of the changes. The model looks very good. I told him that in an earlier post. I think he insert the DOIs, etc. from that model into the appropriate places in the entry. Best wishes for the new year.Iss246 (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Rjwilmsi did a fine job updating the school violence entry.Iss246 (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Francisco Rodríguez (economist)

Hello. You asked for an explanation of my removal of the hatnote at Francisco Rodríguez (economist). My edit was based on WP:NAMB. The rationale is that if a reader is already at a disambiguated title (e.g., "(economist)") and there are no other economists on WP with a similar name, there is no need for a hatnote to direct them to some other article. If you want to leave it, it doesn't really hurt; it's just unnecessary. Hope this helps. Station1 (talk) 06:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know ... that page is a bit ambiguous about a situation like this (there is a Venezuelan baseball player by the same name, and there's also a Venezuelan boxer). So, readers could end up not knowing how to find their way back to the right article if they end up at the wrong Venezuelan Francisco Rodriguez ... I hope it's ok to leave the hatnote in a siutation like that, but I won't be fussed if it's not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure. If you think it might help someone, no harm in leaving it. Station1 (talk) 07:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Your archiving at Talk:Asperger Syndrome.

I was intrigued by your commit comment at Talk:Asperger Syndrome:

archive withdrawn request for mediation and threads fueled by blocked sockpuppet

I have no objection to your edit - but I'm confused. Who was the sock puppet? User:MikeNicho231 doesn't have any sock block notifications on his user page...who were you talking about? I like to keep an eye out for known socks who cross my path in order to have a better chance of spotting them when they (inevitably) re-sock! SteveBaker (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I noted the blocked sockpuppet on those threads days before archiving them, and it wasn't MikeNicho. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Wakefield

I just realized that we were editing the article at the same time! I was more focused on the content; I planned to clean up the citations afterwards. Would you like me to hold off for an hour or two while you go ahead and edit? NW (Talk) 19:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No, you're right, content is more important, and the ciation style is screwed now (but citations are accurate), so you go ahead, and I'll fix formatting when you're done. The formatting is important because they are pubmed-indexed articles, so we want them to be cite journals, but let me know when you're done and I'll repair. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought you guys meant Tim Wakefield an got excited. Got my hopes up :P Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Wizard, you should know better than to distract me like that when I'm dealing with edit conflicts, ITN, and citation style-- what up with the real Wakefield? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I actually have to head out now, so feel free to make any changes you wish. NW (Talk) 20:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Damn. Tearing my hair out trying to recover the cite journals amid so many ecs, but will keep at it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sandy. You have my sympathies! It is frustrating when edit conflicts screw things up like that. You're doing good work and this article just might be a candidate for GA status with a little work. Then on to FA. That would be great. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have a serious character flaw when it comes to dealing with lost work via edit conflicts ... I can't fix my work now 'cuz I got so flustered and lost track of what was done and what was lost ... no wonder I don't try to work at ITN !!!! Anyway, the citations are accurate, just not perfect, so I'm going to stick my head in the sand :) And I don't get credit for that article-- I've only watched it for vandalism and done cleanup, never added much content, not sure who really wrote it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you use Magnus' less edit clutter which is a godsend for ref-heavy articles, or ProveIt, or RefTools?

According to User:SandyGeorgia/monobook.js, I seem to use Dr pda's edit refs. But it's Greek to me, and old dog, new tricks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't knock yourself. Your efforts are very appreciated. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to Dr. Jenny McCarthy's article. Now I have to go and bleach my eyeballs!JoelWhy (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

She can probably give you some medical advice on how to do that :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

What goes down at DYK

Thought you'd enjoy this. [1] --Mkativerata (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hear it all the time on Hugo Chavez, et al, where partisan sources are preferred to mainstream sources. I can never sort the queues over there, what is the article? Since WhatAmI weighed in, and she edits medical articles, I hope we're not running a medical DYK based on a partisan source. Or putting up a hook about a Dr in a hospital who said one should drink to induce labor :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is Zénon Bernard. Has some classic sources. I wonder: what are the odds of it hitting the main page in an hour or so if I don't pull it myself? The sound of silence from those who watch WT:DYK is deafening. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Mkativerata: go ahead and pull it for further discussion if you like, or ask Materialscientist to, he's online now, I think. 28bytes (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll wait until just before it hits the main page. Last time I pulled something unilaterally for sourcing concerns I got flamed. The view then was that "the claims appear factual so it's ok to use a partisan source". I'm waiting for someone to reply with that gem again (as if partisan sources don't distort, misrepresent, and imbalance the presentation of "facts"). --Mkativerata (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Well, partisan sources do get used all the time, and they predominate the entire suite of Chavez-related articles (which are all POV), but I would think that at DYK, because articles there are typically underdeveloped, the use of partisan sources would indicate a POV tag is needed on the article, unless the bias has been balanced-- in short articles, it seeems to me that partisan sources= undue weight. Weird stuff over there at DYK :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Mkativerata, I promise to defend you against any flaming. You've explained your concerns quite reasonably on the talk page, I think; I'm sure a more agreeable hook can be found and sourcing improved. No one wants an item to go while there are reasonable concerns about it. (Well, maybe not no one, but I certainly don't.) 28bytes (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, apologies for barging into your talk page uninvited. I shall follow up with Mkativerata elsewhere. :) 28bytes (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem-- I used to be the host of regular and nasty cagematches between Ottava and Fowler-- I like nice orange bars :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI

[2] See ARWU. And happy new year. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy new year

Hey Sandy -- I've been away for little while, and I'm probably going to be away for about another week. Just wanted to wish you a happy new year :) Raul654 (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You too! All is well (well, all is normal :) at FAC ... I just saw your response to Dana on your talk and realized I had forgotten to add my Delist on that FAR, when she made the post, and then edit conflicted as you were closing. Happy New Year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Civility

Your comments at Lear's Fool's RfA were inappropriate and served no real purpose I could see other than to attack two other users. RfA is not a good place for such discussions. I know you are aware of that, and I assume you were just caught in a bad moment... Hobit (talk) 06:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I know you are probably aware of what "they say" about assuming; I think my comments served their purpose. Thanks for stopping by. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Longest articles

At Wikipedia:Help_desk#Longest_articles_list I have sought information on a list of the longest articles as it relates to concerns at Talk:Clint Eastwood/GA1. The only list offered was a list of the longest articles in terms of total characters. I am looking for a list based on readable prose.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You could try User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics, which has the ten longest FAs by readable prose size. Don't think I've ever seen a list for all articles, though... Dana boomer (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Pyramid head

Hey Sandy. Just letting you know that the FAC nomination for Pyramid head was withdrawn by its nominator. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Happy New Year, Sandy! Dabomb87 (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

RfA

Why have you never RfA? CTJF83 chat 04:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd try to think of a witty answer for that, but I have a cold, and don't feel at all witty. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

She'll run when Hell freezes over, but sadly at the moment it is 14 °F (−10 °C) in Hell, Michigan, so it must be another reason. Imzadi 1979 → 05:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Is that all? I see a −22 °F (−30 °C) on this map. <sneeze> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL, ok, a few days latter, I want a witty answer now! :) CTJF83 chat 01:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I still have a cold ... short, non-witty answer is I've never wanted to be an admin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I can live with that response...although I'm sure you'd sail right through...feel better! CTJF83 chat 01:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I like to think it's because SandyG has more sense than I did. Malleus Fatuorum 03:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, you did better than me CTJF83 chat 03:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

MMR

Were you aware of this series of edits? I wasn't sure, I haven't been keeping up on it in detail.--Tznkai (talk) 08:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that editor introduced same at Andrew Wakefield; I cleaned it up and sourced what I could there, and s/he seems to have understood the 3RR issue and reverted it at the MMR article (some of the text at the MMR article is better placed at the Wakefield article). I think that's under control now. We've also had IPs adding that Wakefield is a scientologist; I find lots of blog info on that, but no reliable sources, and the article is now semi-protected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Auto

How can I tell wht percent of my edits are automated or normal? Someone65 (talk) 07:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You can run this tool, which will tell you that 13.16% of your edits are automated. Malleus Fatuorum 14:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Crat chat comments

I just want to apologise for my tone in my comment to you at the above. Although the basic message is accurate, the tone was a bit overly critical of you, which is not how I meant it to be! As I'm on my mobile phone, the section is too large for me to edit - I would strike some of it and re-word - so I'm leaving a message here instead! I am glad that Deskana has looked at some of those !votes, and understand your concerns. Regards, -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 21:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry-- no problem! It was an unusual situation, which made the whole thing tense. And I've never figured out how to edit from my BB, so you're ahead of me :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to stop bothering with voting at RfA after this most recent debacle; it's very clear how the wind is blowing, and it's not in a direction that I like. Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Patience, cricket, grasshopper, whatever ... as long as folks are paying attention, things will eventually work out, the pendelum swings, and then we'll see who's responsible for not paying attention. The community gets what it wants until something big happens, then it's clear who's responsible. The 'crats should be paying attention now-- if they're not, they pay. Either way-- whose problem is it? Don't be discouraged by things you can't change; it all works out in the wash eventually. And now, back to my vaporizer and cold medicine ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your cold. Touch wood I've been lucky this winter so far; most Christmases I'm laid low by something or other, but not this one so far. Other than an attack of ennui that is of course. I've taken RfA off my watchlist, as I prefer not to watch the insanity that's developing there. Wikipedia gets the administrators it deserves, not my problem until they come hounding me ... then you ... then ... Malleus Fatuorum 03:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It's one of those stinky colds that hangs on and gives you cotton brain, bah, can't do anything useful except cough. Anyway, the moment for serious concern about what's going on at RFA and on IRC and how it's turning Wiki into a high school playground came and went months ago, when the kids scored a notch in their belts by chasing out The Fat Man (as you said, who's next, taking an editor of stature gives them a sense of power), so I don't know why you let these bumps in the road affect you so much; eventually, when it gets bad enough, people wake up. The pendelum swings, and comes back to center. And if it doesn't, I will in hindsight mark the moment that the kids took over and articles became secondary and hope was lost as the moment when they got away with blocking The Fat Man-- an editor whom a great number of active editors today know tiddley-squat about-- not as the moment when the community promoted an admin who had essentially no involvement in the Project and about whom we have more questions than answers. Either folks will wake up, or they won't-- in the meantime, why do anything differently than you would usually do it? Of course it's irritating that more folks don't pay attention to what's going on at RFA, but sooner or later, we all get bitten. And then when they ask, what happened, you can answer. Patience. In the meantime, have fun, write a great article that will endure long after the playground closes, and don't take it too seriously! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't affect me at all really, I just prefer to spend time and effort somewhere I can maybe make a difference rather than somewhere I clearly can't. And at RfA I can't. And given that I'm currently being hounded by one of the kiddie admins that NYB is so keen on I'm not so sanguine that anything is likely to change there any time soon. Malleus Fatuorum 03:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's not going to change now, but keep the long-term view. When it gets bad enough, either people will notice and it will change, or Wiki will go its merry way and be replaced by something else. Either way, why let the road bumps affect your actions? Malleus, you all too often focus on the tree, not the forest, focus on the battle, not the war. Yes, a candidate about whom we know nothing was promoted to admin; if he behaves and turns out to be a great admin, we all win. If something was amiss, many eyes will hopefully be watching now. You win. If he doesn't pan out, the point is made, and you still win. Win-win; why let it bother you? The real issue is whether Wiki is going to continue to slide into a playground run by children, and that is not something either you or I will fix, change or affect. We work on articles, and do what we can to change the governance or at least raise red flags, but ultimately, this place will be what the folks who run it want it to be, and we won't change that. But thank heavens that Raul had the good sense to set up FAC the way he did-- imagine what trash we'd be putting on the main page if FAC were a drive-by, because-I-like-it-support place like RFA? No, FAC has criteria and you gotta meet 'em and 20 driveby IRC supporters won't offset one well-placed oppose. How unfortunate that the 'crats don't see that opposes are treated inferiorly at RFA, while they carry weight at FAC, which is why FAC works and RFA doesn't. Oh, well! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You make a very good point. Most jobs have some sort of associated job description, with at least an outline of the experience and qualifications required. And I've never seen one say "must be civil". There's a very well-known and successful businessman here in the UK, Alan Sugar, who has a popular TV programme. I doubt that anyone would ever accuse him of being backwards in coming forwards where speaking his mind was concerned. The bureaucrats have shown their true colours, nothing else to say really. RfA is for the children, let them enjoy it while they may. Malleus Fatuorum 04:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(I'd never looked at The Apprentice (UK TV series) article before, and I wish I hadn't now. A dodgey 2007 FA that would struggle at FAC today). Malleus Fatuorum 04:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Which RFA sparked this conversion? Feels like I missed something. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 04:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lear's Fool and its crat chat (more the talk page actually). Shubinator (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we can blame the 'crats for 1) the way RFA is set up, and 2) what goes on back-channel at Wiki. And I don't think it's within their remit to change the way RFA works. Had RFA been set up correctly, with criteria, as FAC was from the beginning, I think we'd see a very different picture today, where 'crats would be empowered to exercise discretion as we have at FAC. But no, RFA was set up as a vote, so we can't blame the crats. (I saw only one 'crat continuing to sing the "content contributor" line that is surely getting hot press on IRC once all the evidence was presented-- I don't know that the others swallowed it after it was all laid out but that "meme" has certainly taken hold.) If I want to "blame" anyone, I'd be more inclined towards those that let socks run loose and have access to e-mail. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You may well be right, but to continue with the analogy you introduced above you can't win a war without winning at least one battle. Is there a precedent for extending RfAs? Why this one? What additional arguments were presented during the extension period? That was of course a rhetorical question, as there were none; all that happened was that additional votes were cast. Is that really fair to other borderline candidates? That is of course another rhetorical question. I think this affair stinks. Malleus Fatuorum 04:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The extension doesn't matter-- they would have passed it before the extension anyway. I liked the extension because it allowed more potential socks to come out of the woodworks without changing anything. Remember the bar at RFA is very low (and as previously noted, the only place on Wiki where it's lower is ArbCom elections). Again, the problem is that consensus there is nothing like FAC: opposes aren't given weight at RFA unless they are damning and vitriolic. "I like it" counts at RFA-- it would have passed before the extension. And proving the off-Wiki portion, even as clear as it is, is difficult; I knew CU couldn't do it, and you can't prove canvassing unless an IRC kiddie speaks up. What I think really is wrong about this affair? WereSpellChequers needs to scrutinize his candidates more carefully to be sure they're ready. I think his only goal is to get more admins-- I don't think he screens, checks or mentors them in any way, and yet for some reason, his noms garner votes at RFA. Does he even know the candidates he noms, or is he just trying to fill out the admin corp? I've never nommed a candidate at RFA that I didn't know very well for a very long time; maybe that's why I've never had a problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll not comment on WSC, except to say that I broadly agree with your assessment but would probably have framed it a little more robustly. I've made no secret of the fact that I'm very unhappy about the second-class status of ordinary (by which I mean non-admin) editors on wikipedia, and have been for some considerable time now. Writing stuff is far less valued than whacking a few vandals, and having whacked them you're then awarded the right to whack any other editors you take a dislike to after your inevitably successful RfA. But I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that I can do nothing to change that mindset, so I don't intend to keep trying. What will be, will be. Malleus Fatuorum 05:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I've got to put on the funny hat and get you to laugh more! Let me ask you something (that you don't have to answer)-- have you raised teenagers and twenty-somethings? Having done so makes some Wiki interactions more understandable, and makes it easier to let some things slide. Since I can name more than one "child editor" who has matured into a fine adult editor, I'm not going to let the IRC antics get under my skin. Now, if they could affect FAs that go on the main page, I wouldn't stay around here complaining about it-- I'd be gone. If the most they can do is block 'ya and that makes them feel powerful, well, look around-- some really good editors have block logs, doesn't mean a thing anymore. Stop taking it so seriously ... the real thing is writing articles, and those who can't, take it out on Malleus-- consider it flattery. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no children, luckily for them, as I would have been a very demanding parent. What we do here has to be enjoyable, and it increasingly rarely is these days. I'm frankly rather tired of kids like GTBacchus getting away with murder while I get 10-second blocks for God knows what. I guess I lost my sense of humour where wikipedia is concerned some time ago, and I really don't see it coming back any time soon. Malleus Fatuorum 06:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Surviving the raising of teenagers leaves one with a sense of humor :) Yes, Wiki is supposed to be enjoyable, and when I get flustered, I find myself muttering, "I already raised my children, and I don't come to Wiki to raise someone else's!" But remember that they grow up in spite of themselves-- at least there's a chance the kids will mature into better adults than some of our more troublesome editors, who are adults even senior citizens. MF, you've got to take a longer term view and have more fun here! Even when you "win one", you don't recognize it! One of the most interesting aspects of Wiki is that idiots and idiocy are inescapable-- we can't cross the street to avoid people we'd rather not interact with-- it's a challenge to your character that you won't find anywhere else in your life. Enjoy it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You're very prescient SandyG, but I'm not sure it's a challenge I'm up to. I have never in my life been able to tolerate fools. It's like a switch in my head; "OK, that's enough of your nonsense, you're now officially a fool". In truth I'm enjoying it less and less here, and I really doubt whether wikipedia is big enough to accommodate me and the hundreds of other lowly content-oriented editors who may perhaps sometimes be a little feisty. But I recognise that's my problem, not wikipedia's; the project will march on regardless of me, you, or anyone else. Malleus Fatuorum 06:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I won't try addressing all the issues raised in this thread, but I was struck by your comment that you are "currently being hounded by one of those kiddie admins that NYB is so keen on." I stand by my view that chronological age should not be a selection factor for administrators (as long as candidates show good judgment about what types of issues they will work on). But I don't know that this issue is especially relevant to the RfAs that have been controversial in recent weeks. And as far as I can see, it surely is not relevant to your current dispute with GTBacchus. I suppose I will have to dwell upon the disagreeable details of that bickering if it comes to arbitration, so I won't comment on them now beyond shaking my head, but GTBacchus self-identifies as a graduate student, and he has edited Wikipedia for 8 years. Whatever his merits or demerits, he's not a "kiddie" under any recognized definition of the term. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Then he might like to consider not behaving like one. Malleus Fatuorum 16:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree with most of your points, NYB, although I don't believe Wiki (or any venture) should allow minors to hold positions like admins. I recognize there's nothing we can do about that, considering we're an internet venture with anonymity. But I'll add that I've always been more concerned about the IRC effect than the kiddie admin issue. Too much of what goes on here is cooked up on IRC, and I continue to believe that crats should have more discretion at RFA, which should work more like FAC, where rules and guidelines apply and delegates don't have to promote unless it's clearly demonstrated that the article complies. As at FAC, the default should be archive unless promotion is proven to be warranted, and "ILIKEIT" should not be a reason to grant someone the tools. Adminship is NOT "no big deal"; conferring it is a much bigger deal than promoting an article to FA, with farther reaching effects, and it continues to trouble me that we don't take it at least as seriously as we take FAC. But that's off-topic from your commentary, I 'spose. As far as my feeble memory can recall, GTBacchus has always been fair to me, but I do wish he'd back off of Malleus (and Malleus of him-- ya'll just let it go). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I continue to be mildly amused by the number of editors – including GTBacchus and apparently NYB – who think it's inevitable that one day I'll be hauled kicking and screaming before ArbCom and banned, but they're so wrong; I certainly won't be kicking and screaming.</joke> So far as GTBacchus and an RfC is concerned, well if he backs off and keeps his nose clean then there will be no need of it. But I do intend to prepare an RfC on the general issue of differntial treatment of admins and non-admins where alleged incivility is concerned, and of course he would feature in that. Other than that I just wish he would leave me alone. Malleus Fatuorum 23:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe NYB thinks you'll be banned by ArbCom. Shubinator (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

banker or barker?

It says barker. You wrote "banker" in the edit summary.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure out what a "barker" is ... I think it's a "What's a willy" moment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Umm, it is linked in the third sentence of the article. It's a guy who does like a spiel to get people to ride the carousel. I've never understood how there could be enough money to make a living doing that, actually.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I know-- I finally found it. That'll teach me to read the Synopsis first :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind linking it again in the synopsis? Good idea or no? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Depends on whether you think most readers are as dumb as I am :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, that does stretch credulity ;-) and it is already linked twice, but I do think a lot of people might click down to the synopsis first.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me ... I always read musical synopses first! And I guess it's obvious now that Carousel is not in my MT repertoire. But Wehwalt got my attention by singing in his edit summary. And I always think swindlers are bankers! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It worked. The edit summary is supposed to attract attention, in my view. That's why also the link! At least rent the movie, it isn't as good as the play but it is far more convenient.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh noes-- now everyone will sing in their edit summaries, and we'll all have songs stuck in our heads! Would this be when I mention that I hate the musical, Oklahoma! ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

So do I, actually, and if I wind up doing all nine shows (I'm working on The King and I (musical) now), I will hate doing Oklahoma! She shudda gone with Jud!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Switch to Sondheim or Schwartz! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll think about it. The R & H articles are in shocking condition though, and they need doing.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Maya stelae FAC

Thanks for the comments on the review page of Maya stelae - I've dropped in a lot more links and sorted the hyphens etc. Please let me know if anything else needs sorting out. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

History of Sesame Street FAC

Hiya Sandy, I'm a little concerned about the History of Sesame Street FAC. Would you mind giving me some direction? Mostly, my concern is that there's been no movement/discussion/recommendations for weeks, not since I reported back about some image issues. Should I go ahead and follow my own idea about removing all images from this article? Or should I simply wait for more support and/or opposition? Thanks for the help, and for your service to this venerable institution. ;) Christine (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Most of the older FACs are stalled (see my post at WT:FAC; perhaps putting a FAC up over the holidays doesn't work :) Truth is, every time I read through that image discussion, I come away confused ... perhaps it's putting off other reviewers, and removing them (and moving that discussion to the talk page of the FAC), will get things moving. And review some of the FACs on the Urgents list :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

That couldn't be *my* fault; I'm always clear in my writing. I think I understand what you're asking, so I went ahead and done it. ;) Good point about the timing; my reason for doing that was similar to some of the lame-duck legislation in Congress, but it didn't work out as well for me. ;) Sandy, I have no guilt about how few reviews I do. I figure that I contribute enough to this project as it is. But I'll think about your suggestion, anyway. Christine (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

What goes around, comes around. Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:DAW

Would you consider reading Wikipedia:Don't abbreviate Wikipedia as Wiki, please? --Yair rand (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time to read it, but I think I get the point anyway :) Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Japanese aircraft carrier Hōshō

This is just an update because you indicated you wanted to close this one, like, now. Everyone has switched to support except Cryptic and Nikki, and hopefully we've dealt with their concerns. I just wanted to point out that, contrary to the timestamp on Cryptic's last requests, they were actually posted today, and some of Nikki's requests are also recent. I don't generally like to leave pings on reviewer's talk page until it's been a while, but if you'd really like to close this one way or the other, I'll happily ping away. - Dank (push to talk) 20:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll get there, just starting through FAC, found socks; could you add an unsigned template to solve the date issue ? I'd appreciate it so I don't have to track back. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Ugh socks. The weird thing was, he had a time stamp ... from December! I'll strike through. - Dank (push to talk) 20:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to mention ... the wanky timestamp was on the article's talk page, which which Cryptic linked from his review. - Dank (push to talk) 20:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, you had some questions in this FAC but it's already been promoted (thanks for that), so please see my reply at Talk:Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Hōshō#Post-promotion_notes. - Dank (push to talk) 03:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Editor unilaterally declaring WikiProject advice pages to be part of the Manual of Style

See changes like these: [3][4], which give you a reason to look at the discussion on my user talk page at User talk:WhatamIdoing#I_Am_Trying_To_Cleanup_The_Category. I've already provided background information, e.g., links to WP:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice_pages.

The "new" editor is also deleting appropriate uses of Category:Style guidelines of WikiProjects, e.g., [5][6], but that shouldn't screw up FAC work. I've left at note at WP:MOSCO as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, goodness-- how much of it has he done? If a lot, maybe this needs to go to ANI to get him to stop and to begin the cleanup. Are you the only one dealing with it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

He or she has only done one today (WikiProject Poker) and has been asked to stop(User_talk:WhatamIdoing). I don't think there is much issue here other then a misunderstanding. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, no one is coordinating a response, but the editor isn't highly active, and I think that at least most of it has been reverted so far. Recent actions that concern me include this proposed name change to a "Manual of Style (subject)" format. It indicates that we're just not getting it.

Category:Style guidelines of WikiProjects is at CFD now, which I'm unhappy about. Yes, the name is technically 'wrong'. Most of them are essays or infopages, rather than "official" style guidelines. But there are so many bigger problems to deal with.

(I wonder whether the hints about socking on the user's talk page will actually end up at SPI.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

In addition to Poker, look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Water supply and sanitation by country: Manual of Style , Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines . 65.93.14.196 (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems I'm not reliable

I'm obliged to confess that after some time the usual mistrust devoted to my person is starting to bother me a little bit. Just noticed your request to "someone" review Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies FAC nomination. If I did not know you, I'd think that you were trying to help me out with more reviews to be sure that the article is good to go. But I know, and you know, that your request is simply because you mistrust me.

I invited Mike Christie and Dana boomer to review the article, since you're very selective of the people whom you trust, but they opted to ignore it. Everytime someone reviews any of the articles I always tell them that the books can be easily found online at google books or that they have English-written editions. I'm not here for self-promotion or because I want somekind of position here at Wikipedia. Or for any political, social or personal agenda. I'm here simply because I like writing about Brazilian history.

Sincerely? I really don't care if people say "that's nice" or "great work" but it wouldn't hurt getting a little bit of respect here. Everytime I had somekind of issue you stood against me. When an editor wrote "oppose" in an article I wrote simply because he disliked an external infobox that had nothing to do with the article itself and even after other editors complained about his behavior (including ignoring requests to explain better his position) you stood against me. When another editor had his own particular ways of intepreting Commons' rules you stood against me. Even after I told you that 2 editors who were both administrators here and at Commons told me that he was wrong. In Hugo Chavez that also happened. I'm seeing 2-3 editors with a political agenda writing pieces of political propaganda disguised as "articles" moving freely and doing whatever they want. For... what? 6 months? Or more? I've been warning about that and you keep staying against me. In all these cases the other editors were considered by you as reliable editors or something similar. I have no idea how could I get my credentials to be considered part of this select and small group but I prefer to stick with my principles.

If I invite editors whom are considered "reliable" by you to review my articles, you complain about it. If I don't or if the ones who review them aren't the editors you consider as reliable you always leave the impression that I might be doing something wrong, such as picking selected editors who would certainly support me. Sandy, you have no idea how frustrating and unmotivating it is to write here. --Lecen (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I asked for more reviews because you canvassed: it's not in the article's best interest to merely close reviews where there is canvassing, so be happy it's continuing and getting reviews-- a better article will result. Yes, there are editors in Chavez with a political agenda who violate every Wiki policy in the book, but your talk page tone doesn't help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not against aditional reviews. In fact, if I was, I wouldn't have requested 58 different editors to review my article. What I do not like is the always-present feeling of mistrust towards me. And about Chávez: see my remarks there from the beginning to nowadays. At the start I thought I was dealing simply with unexperienced editors or people who had different views on how to improve the article. For months I tried to be reasonable. Now it's more than clear that there is, in fact, a small group of editors who have turned not only Chavez' article into a piece of propaganda, but also others related to it (Castro, Che Guevara, etc...). Not only that, they have a very powerful strategy of fooling well-intentioned editors by "discussing" over and over in the talk page with the clear goal of going nowhere. That's not the point of going over here to talk with you. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, wrt FAC, you canvassed. As you may (or may not) know, I'm recused from closing your FACs because we interact on Chavez. If you want to talk further about the serious problems at Chavez, could that wait until I finish reading FAC? I check my talk page when I'm reading FAC in case the orange bar is FAC-related, and when it's not, it delays my FAC reading. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not in the mood to discuss Chavez at all! That's a huge headache. And I don't mind if my article stays for a month or more open. I like when people review it. More they do, better the article becomes. You don't need to worry about this discussion anymore. Thank you for listening. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Lecen, I'm finally done with FAC, and recovered (two hard weeks of closing FAC, first server errors one week, and today, two different sock situations that had to be dealt with); when I'm trying to focus on reading FAC, I can't give proper attention to other issues.

First, and most importantly, you are doing excellent work with Brazilian history articles—an underrepresented area of Wiki, and an example of what other countries (like Venezuela) should be aspiring to. I don't mistrust your work at FAC.

Next, Hugo Chavez, so I can get that out of the way and answer your FAC-related questions. Changing the situation at Chavez is not within my power any more than it's within yours: I am just another editor there, just like you. I'm not an admin, and even if I were, I couldn't use admin tools there as I'm involved. I can do no more and no less to fix that situation than you can. Yes, we have all manner of policy violations and disruptive and tendentious editing there, removal of text sourced to highly reliable sources to replace it with text sourced to partisan sources, whitewashing of issues according to due weight of reliable sources, tag-teaming, ownership, edit-warring, you name it-- that article has it all. The situation will not be resolved until/unless it goes to ArbCom, and if that happens, here's how it will end. They will all be topic-banned. But so will you, because of the tone you adopt on the talk page; your rants there are not helping the situation, and I try to address all editors equally, even if (like you) they are right about the policy issues and frustrated at the ownership and policy violations. ArbCom doesn't look at content-- they look at editor behavior-- and as long as you are contributing to the talk page toxicity, you won't escape sanction if it ever comes to that, and you don't advance the article. What that article needs is editors who know and respect policy, and that includes behavioral policy. If you want to try to do something productive there, you need to lower the rants and focus on policy and sourcing-- exactly as you do when writing a Brazilian featured article. Being combative with editors who won't even listen to reason will get the article nowhere, and you topic-banned along with the rest of them.

Now, to FAC. Similarly, being combative with reviewers can only end one place: reviewers will stop engaging your articles, and they'll end up archived for lack of review. We're all volunteers here, and no one has to review any article. I asked other reviewers to look at the FAC because you canvassed; that's plain and simple, and it's to your advantage that the FAC wasn't just shut down. You don't seem to have digested this. Reviewers don't like being canvassed, and that will also keep them away. If you canvass on subsequent FACs, they likely will be shut down-- just for you to know. The four editors who weighed in on your current FAC gave nothing to indicate they know FAC standards, and considering the canvassing, a lookover from experienced reviewers was needed.

I'm not sure why you raise the google books issue, so not sure how to answer? I don't know what the issue is there.

On the image issues, being an admin on Commons does not guarantee the level of knowledge we are accustomed to working with at FAC, just as being an admin on en.wiki doesn't assure us of anything about that editor's competence. RFA is a Vote, not a test of competence or knowledge. When there is disagreement about image policy among reviewers, I always ask for a second opinion, and I typically ask editors who have a track record of being moderate, thorough and accurate. I find that such editors usually give enough information that the nominator can understand the problem, and the issues are resolved.

I think that's everything; hope I didn't miss anything, because I'm tired. The take-home message is that being combative at either the Chavez talk page or FAC isn't the best approach for getting what you're after-- well-written, neutral articles that conform to policy. I don't mistrust you at all, but you might give your approach another thought. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

History of Sesame Street

Sandy, just checking if you did what you meant to here; your closing note seems to imply archiving, but you put "promoted". Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Crap. That's what comes of dealing with socks when I'm trying to read FAC. Now Christine will be upset. The trolls win. I 'spose I won't check my talk page anymore when reading FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, fixed, thanks Mike. On the bigger picture. Those templates were added as a courtesy, and create extra work for delegates, but I try to do them because the "community" keeps demanding it. But the real indicator of status is whether a FAC is moved to the archives or the featured log. Hope this helps reduce general confusion-- I don't believe I've made that mistake before. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I always understood that the real marker is the edit to add the articles to WP:FA, actually, but it comes to the same thing. I was sure it was a typo, but best to catch it before Christine misinterprets it, since then you have a disappointed nominator. Glad I saw it. Thanks for promoting Fantastic (magazine), by the way; I thought that one probably had a little longer to wait! Off to put together the next nom ... Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Faith

I appreciate your faith. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

CSI effect FAC

Hey mate, you left some comments at the FAC for CSI effect. You also requested that I ping you when I was through with them, which I now am. Here is the relevant diff. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Antivax fraud links

Hey Sandy. Here's a great list of the latest news. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Another quoting Brian Deer: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/03/brian_deer_responds_to_andrew_wakefield.php -- Brangifer (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we would use blogs in the article, when we have so many highly reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Your behaviour

I didn't like your behaviour towards me on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Walden–Wallkill Rail Trail/archive1 at all. You commented that I had edited a smiley template before I voted in favour of the article. Why is that relevant to the FA nomination? And for instance, the prose quality and the citations of an article constitute together the criterias 1a, 1c, 2b, 2c and 4 of WP:WIAFA. I actually spend much time reviewing the article, and my account is more than one year old. Please read WP:CIVILITY and stop being so rude at FAC. Thank you. --Eisfbnore ^talk 17:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't like my behavior, and appreciate the review (as always) but yours could be enhanced by reading the instructions at WP:FAC. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

On a quasi-related matter, could you please do something about Fasach Nua on the rail trail FAC? He/she keeps insisting that a portal image fails WP:V, or some such patently wrong assertion. I understand that doing image reviews is thankless and voluntary, but this user is basically misrepresenting official policy and making me nervous.
--Gyrobo (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want me to "do about Fasach Nua", since as far as I can tell, his request is correct. He asked for an OTRS on an image uploaded about five years ago that can't be verified as free and "looks" on the surface like professional work, meaning it could be copied. Asking for an OTRS, considering the editor who uploaded it is still active, is not unreasonable-- if the editor were not still active, it would likely need to be removed from any article aspiring to FA. I don't see anyone requesting the uploader to submit an OTRS, and more importantly, I don't see that particular portal listed on any of the many train FAs written by Iridescent. If an editor chooses to add the portal to the article, the status of the image needs to be clarified if it's to be an FA; that is, mainpage eligible. Fasach Nua isn't often wrong, so if you disagree, you could ask Jappalang for a second opinion, but it is not without merit that Iri didn't use that portal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's entirely unreasonable. The same argument about professional quality could be said of the article's other portal images, File:Cycling (road) pictogram.svg and File:Hudson river from bear mountain bridge.jpg. It's possible that any editor could pass off someone else's work as their own under any license; having them submit an OTRS won't prove anything. Do I have to submit an OTRS for all the photos I've taken? This seems like a precedent for arbitrarily forcing editors to redundantly confirm licenses on uploaded images based on subjective criteria. I don't see how it's connected to WP:V, and I'm not going to humor Fasach Nua or anyone else by making a request I believe is pointless and based on the assumption that editors here are incapable of producing high-quality work. I was kind of hoping you'd tell him/her the exact same thing.
--Gyrobo (talk) 03:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a reason for me to get involved in a good faith review involving a simple request for an OTRS. As I see it, you have three options: 1) do nothing and take your chances; 2) ping Jappalang for a second opinion; or 3) query Iridescent, who has written boatloads of train FAs and may have some insight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for responding as much as you have, I'll look into option 3. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been thinking this over, and really, I've decided I'm not okay with this – especially given the original nature of this section. You were perfectly willing to take the time to caution another editor on the use of smiley templates, and imply that they were somehow lacking in their assessment of the article, but you aren't willing to point out when a different editor is misrepresenting image policy? I don't know what your personal history is with Fasach Nua, and I understand that image review is a job that nobody wants to do, but from my experience, Fasach Nua tends to derail nominations based on patently wrong assertions (see South Park (season 13)). The whole process is lengthy and demoralizing and could be completely avoided if a delegate would just involve themselves and say, "hey, that's wrong. Let's move past this." That's my opinion, and I just wanted to express it.
--Gyrobo (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If I thought it a clear misapplication of policy, I'd state that. Have you requested a second opinion from Jappalang? Have you queried Iridescent, considering that portal is not in his train FAs? Have you considered removing the portal and asking the train folks to sort their image issue and re-add the portal when it's sorted? You have many options; asking me to opine against a good-faith reviewer is not one of them. Getting more feedback is. Holding up a FAC over a portal link strikes me as intransigent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The reasons you don't see the Portal:Trains link on mine are (a) I dislike garish portal links (and fail to see the point of portals, which nobody ever seems to pay attention to), and (b) because of the UK's unique status as the birthplace of heavy industry, and London's unique status within it as both the birthplace of urban mass transit and home of the world's largest public transport network, WikiProject UK Railways and WikiProject London Transport are effectively independent of WP:RAIL, as the issues are so different to those affecting the rest of the world. (India and Japan also have independent railway projects, for similar reasons.)

If I were nominating this, I'd remove the portal-links box altogether; it adds nothing to the article, and is of no use to anyone (people looking for articles on trains or cycling are going to search on their area of interest; they don't want a generic list of every train, cycling etc related article). I include portal links only if they're part of an infobox or navbox that would be included anyway; to my mind, Portal-space is a failed experiment that should be MFD'd, since they never got the expected numbers of viewers and most are moribund. (Portal:Trains is actually something of a rare success story, but that's only because Slambo has dedicated so much time to stopping it deteriorating.)

Regarding this particular image, I can't see any issue that would affect FAC; this just looks like another piece of Fasach Nua obstructionism. Yes, FN is often right, but it's the stopped-clock principle at work; assuming 2⁄3 of FAC nominations aren't ready for whatever reason, by serial-opposing everything he's going to be "right" 2⁄3 of the time. I can't take any of the arguments against this image seriously; it's clearly a crude home-made drawing comprised of the standard MS Paint objects, not a piece of professional work; I (or anyone) could recreate it in ten minutes. It also not only appears on the talkpage of every railway-related article on English Wikipedia, but is included on the main navigation page (under "Technik") of the notoriously image-copyright-paranoid de-wikipedia. Since changing the image would affect (literally) tens of thousands of pages, I'd be opposed to replacing it. – iridescent 12:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Iri-- that's helpful! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there some way to integrate this conversation, or at least Iridescent's reply (and my original query), on the FAC page? I can't think of how or where to clearly insert it into the discussion there.
--Gyrobo (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't like to quote other people at FAC without their permission, so you could ask Iri, but since I'm aware of his opinion, I don't need to also see it on the FAC. More to the point, why not just remove the portal as Iri suggests and eliminate the issue altogether? Your choice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to quote me if you want, if you think it will avoid people raising the same issue over and over. I agree with Sandy, that the sensible solution is to remove the portal links altogether, as they add no value to the article. As I say above, somebody with an interest in long-distance cycle routes in the Hudson Valley will search on "Cycling in the Hudson Valley"—they don't want to be taken to a definition of "cycling" and a bunch of "notable cycling quotations". For some narrowly-defined topics portal links make sense, but nobody is ever going to want to see a list of every Hudson Valley related article on Wikipedia. – iridescent 17:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I happen to disagree with you on the importance and value of portals, I think they're an excellent way to get casual readers to learn more about a topic; and proportionally, a larger percentage of portals are of featured quality than articles (~14.2% to ~0.09%), so I don't think it's fair to say portals are a failed experiment (perhaps they would be more heavily trafficked if they were better promoted in articles?). As you've said, the trains portal in particular is very comprehensive and well-maintained, and I've been working over the last few days to get the Hudson Valley portal up to FP quality. And given the fact that there is no issue over the trains portal image, I see no reason to remove a resource readers might find useful.
--Gyrobo (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, ...

1. That a higher percentage of portals are featured tells you something about the featured portal process, nothing about their value.
2. For a view of failure on a rather massive scale, here:

   http://stats.grok.se/en/201101/Portal:Hudson_Valley

   http://stats.grok.se/en/201101/Portal:Cycling

   http://stats.grok.se/en/201101/Portal:Trains

3. They are heavily promoted-- on virtually every article. Which puts the massive failure in perspective. That they are so heavily linked and no one looks at them shows the extent of the failure.

In conclusion, there is no rationale reason to keep a portal link in an article if that link is impeding FA status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, I don't usually have your talk page on my watchlist (it's way too active!) but I happened to notice this discussion. I hope you don't mind if I ask a related question; does your comment above imply that you believe Fasach Nua's oppose is valid? Or are just suggesting that the portal link is not useful? I assume it's the latter, since you were careful above to avoid giving a personal opinion on the validity of the oppose (and I can understand why), but it sounds a bit like the former. Mike Christie (talk – library) 22:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

In general, I would need a policy or guideline reason for declaring whether any given oppose is invalid-- for example, objecting to redlinks is invalid. This is a matter of opinion, and when it comes to opinion, I have to weigh consensus. Fasach nua has one view, Iri has another, I respect both opinions. Others could weigh in with entirely different opinions-- it's up to Gyrobo if he thinks a portal link is worth holding up a FAC over. I'm just pointing out the facts as they roll in :) I have no opinion one way or another on the value of the portal link (the stats tell us that) or whether the image meets policy, other than I do think holding up a FAC over a portal links shows some unnecessary intransigence, and I am not about to be declaring good faith reviews or reviewers "invalid" unless they clearly breach policy or guideline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Gyrobo is not seeing clearly because of his investment in the portal. I have no opinion on portals, I never look at them, but it seems to me that fighting on two fronts simultaneously is rarely a good idea. Gyrobo, just dump the portal link and get the FAC over with. What you choose to do after that is up to you. Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, I think it's completely unfair to make it seem as though my view on portals is some sort of obstacle to this article being promoted, since the consensus seems to be that there is no copyright issue here. Whatever your or my opinion is on portals in general, and these portals in particular (all of which have higher daily views than the article itself), there is no policy reason to exclude them. Throughout this discussion, you've called me intransigent and basically told me the only way to ensure a smooth process was to just ignore consensus and remove the portals to placate one editor. You've been unnecessarily antagonistic toward me; after requesting your input on this issue, your first response was for me to "do nothing and take your chances", and your statement about portals views, while perfectly logical, was prefaced by a condescending and unnecessary "Um, ...". And throughout this discussion you still hold Fasach Nua's opinion sacrosanct, and treat the issue as though I'm some sort of firebrand zealot with an axe to grind; I'm just a guy writing about rail trails in his spare time. I honestly don't understand this. But I intend to continue nominating FACs for a very long time, and I completely refuse to endure such behavior. The next time I ask you for assistance, please show a little more compassion. And to respond to Malleus, I did not perform extensive work on the Hudson Valley portal until after Iridescent pointed out the low quality most portals suffer. I'm not insisting on including this portal because I've worked on it, and it isn't even the portal Fasach Nua is complaining about.
--Gyrobo (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Gyrobo, I don't know what's going on in your thought processes, but your persistent misrepresentions or miunderstandings are not ingratiating. First, what consensus? We have to two opinions as of the last time I checked. Not enough for me to hold up a FAC over, but certainly not enough for you to declare consensus, either. Second, the intransigence was because you continued to ask me to take a stand on a good-faith reviewer without having done the many other steps available to you to resolve the matter (which you finally did after I had to prod you several times). Third, the antagonism has been yours: I've answered your questions. I think you'll find you'll have a much easier time at FAC if you are less combative-- I have a very thick skin and am highly unlikely to be bothered by your statements here or to even remember them a few weeks from now, but not all reviewers do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of record, I immediately queried Iridescent the first time you recommended that I do so. You did not "prod" me. Regarding your comments on consensus, two editors on the FAC said the image wasn't a problem, and Iridescent said the same thing; I assumed that since you didn't point out a policy issue on the matter, that you also agreed that the portal image doesn't suffer any kind of copyright issue. That's the consensus I'm referring to; removing the portals because you think they aren't useful is another issue, and suggesting that the FAC may be held up because of something unrelated to policy or the article's content is what I'd consider intransigent. It has not been my goal to be antagonistic, and I've tried very hard to express my thought process: I came here because the image review was not conducted in good faith (asking that an editor fill out an OTRS on their own work strikes me as the definition of bad faith), and since you had already partially reviewed the article, and are a delegate, I thought you could point to a specific policy as a justification for whether the image was okay. Instead, the only advice I received from you was to involve more people or to just do whatever the reviewer suggested, lest it derail the process. At no point did you explicitly state your opinion on whether the image, as it currently is, constitutes a policy issue. If I appear combative, it's because the sole reason I entered this conversation – to obtain that opinion – has been met with evasiveness and condescension.
--Gyrobo (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Another way

Has anyone emailed Bart the creator? He's an admin on .nl and .en with email contact on User:RexNL and nl:Gebruiker:Rex page. I see no sign anymore has asked for his input - no request on his talk page for example, he does have 63K of contributions on the English Wikipedia alone. Despite no recent activity on Wikipedia it would not seem difficult to track him down, he has a Twitter and Facebook account for example. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 17:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think a querry is reasonable and is low barrier. If there is old submitted content and it didn't require an OTRS and the user is unreachable, then would support overuling an FN object. But if FN is getting a bad feeling and it is easy to queery the creator, might as well do so. Heck, might find something useful. TCO (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

"Oh, Hi Bart! A user on Wikipedia thinks you're a liar/thief. Can you just send an email to OTRS declaring otherwise? Thanks." As I mentioned in the FAC, don't waste your time on this. If someone wants to assume bad faith on commons uploads, then there is nothing OTRS can solve. Choose option 1 and just throw out the review, it's not like one user's image review is the gospel truth, given that everyone disagrees. - hahnchen 20:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. We have to assume good faith. On images, that is a pretty short assumption; we all know how many commons pages shouldn't be there, but there doesn't seem much reason to doubt the uploader's word here. I don't think an OTRS should be needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Given the circumstances. I think it's quite reasonable to ask Bart where the train image came from. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

What are the circumstances? How does this image differ from every other image placed under a free license by their uploaders? Asking this Bart fellow to fill out an OTRS is akin to me walking up to my mailman tomorrow without any evidence of wrongdoing, and asking him to confirm in writing that he hasn't rifled through my letters. It's easy to do, but completely unnecessary and insulting.
--Gyrobo (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Well these circumstances

1. I am assuming good faith about User:Fasach Nua who knows more about these things then I do. It's a thankless task bringing bad news that images may not be usable and it is hardly going to be meet with a happy response. So if he/she does bring bad news I don't think it can simply be dismissed without some further insight.
2. The date of the image is 2005, when public domain was acceptable. PD is no longer acceptable(?). I think from that time if something was widely used some felt it was public domain.
3. A check on Commons:User_talk:Rex#Image_Tagging_Image:Pharos_of_Alexandria.jpg shows pages of deleted images that Bart uploaded. Different reasons no doubt, but not a good sign a user has so much deleted.
4. Bart's own description said "This icon is made for trains/public transport/locomotives.", note, he doesn't actually say he made it - opening the possibility that he merged the background and a train icon he found.
5. The upload time(15:09, 9 November 2005) on Commons:File:LogoOV.png is 49 minutes after the original(14:20, 9 November 2005) with a different train was created. This time is key to consideration I think. It certainly made me think twice because the image is to good to be made in 49 minutes and suggests it was one that was already available.

Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Gyrobo, this mountain from a molehill is intriguing. You don't seem to mind accusing Fasach Nua of bad faith, but don't want to simply ask an active contributor for info about the image. Very strange contradiction. At any rate, I don't make or decide policy-- I weigh consensus-- and I'm not in the business of doubting good faith reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

In response to SunCreator, the image in use here is P train.svg. While LogoOV.png may appear very similar, and is listed as a raster version of P train.svg, the latter was created almost a year later and if the images are examined at high magnification, very different designs are visible. As Iridescent pointed out, the design uses basic geometric shapes; given the creator's other vector uploads, I see no reason to doubt that this isn't an original work. The status of LogoOV.png isn't at issue. And Sandy, if someone was making what I believed to be unfounded accusations against you, I would defend you as well – but that doesn't mean I won't point out when I think you're wrong. You say that you won't doubt good faith reviewers, but by encouraging me to get an OTRS for this image, you're basically doubting a good faith uploader. I find that hypocritical. Fasach Nua made an assertion that I thought maligned another editor's good name, and I sought remediation. That's why it's important to me.
--Gyrobo (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, if you're assuming that the original image is a bad faith upload, then an OTRS message would mean nothing. Instead of bending over backwards to accommodate one users obtuse opinion, your time would be better spent reviewing Walden–Wallkill Rail Trail at FAC. - hahnchen 22:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, the images(P train.svg and LogoOV.png) are not created independently. I hadn't noticed that detail so I've stricked my above request to contact Bart. Bart isn't the creator. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Gyrobo, please try to read critically and stop putting words at the tips of people's fingers that they didn't type. It's time for you to let this go and stop alleging bad faith of a good faith reviewer. This mole hill is a big enough mountain now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Can't we just drop whoever is the uploader/creator a note and ask for some info? Maybe we don't even need an ORTS and the fellow just says I did that when I was younger and less copyright educated. Not sure why we think we have to ask in an abrupt or demeaning manner.

I may not be a characteristic example of Wiki misbehavior (worse than normal), but I confess to loading a bad image up (I hope I don't get repermabanned. It was an old crime.) I even successfully blathered that the image for Stover at Yale was off copyright (since the book is). But of course that does not mean the photo is. And I snagged it off a website. But if someone said, "hey man, I'm taking Owen Johnson to FA, is that image really cool, I would just say...naw...it's not. Go to the city library and get an old edition and make a legit image."TCO (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but there's a broader meta-issue here which isn't the case with Stover at Yale. The image in question is (literally) possibly the most-used image on the Wikipedia project other than the Wikipedia Globe itself—we're talking about perhaps 100,000 uses across almost every language and project the WMF operate. Changing or replacing this image will result in a mass change in appearance across the entire project (as well as frying the servers while the caches try to keep up); we're not talking about a minor tweak. – iridescent 14:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Presented to SandyGeorgia on January 7, 2011 for your tireless persistence in editing with precision and style and defending the difficult articles while encouraging others to do the same. I note especially your thorough work across numerous related articles in dealing with the subject of Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent research. A true wikipedian! -- Brangifer (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Texas Chainsaw Massacre

User is requesting a Guild ce of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. It has been up for FA several times and you were reviewer of last splat against the wall. I think that to make the article an enjoyable read, it needs a re-org/rewrite more than nitpicking on sentences. See here: [7] Comments? TCO (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		Saints Star Award
		For the thought, clarity of argument and patience you recently showed at Jimbo's talk page, which deftly moved a discussion about gender from ignorant to sensible discussion... thank you. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Susanne2009NYC & Potter articles

Hi Sandy - I've been using your sandbox User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox/Susanne2009NYC to update this situation that I'm still, slowly, working on. I hope you don't mind & wondered if I should just copy it over to my own subpage, or keep it all in one place? Found two more articles last night that I need to add to the list. Hope your January is going well and not too snowy - very cold where I am. Btw - love the saints barnstar above. It's well deserved. Take care. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

RE, not too snowy, LOL !!! Do whatever is easiest for you with my sandbox ... move, copy, whatever works, I no longer have time to keep up with that. And I owe you an e-mail from months ago-- it's still flagged in my inbox! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

We had a heavy snowfall last night and school cancelation today. If you don't mind I'll leave the info in your subpage and continue to update and will get around to copying at some point. I've been traveling and have a cold that's knocked me flat, so am using this indoor day to try to catch up a bit. I've changed my email since months ago so will send you a new one with the new address. Probably fine to unflag and delete the old email ... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Travel, cold, heavy snowfall-- are you living in my life? :) In spite of my neglect, I hope your health is looking up! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for asking - yes, I think finally getting better. I'll put the health details in an email when I get to it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Elimination Chamber

Made a comment about your comment at its FAC. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

TPS question on MOS for images

I know there's a statement somewhere in the bowels of the MoS that images can't be left-aligned at the top of certain article section levels, but I can't find the damn thing. Could some kind TPS please point me at it? I promise to put a link on my user page pointing at it so I don't lose it again. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

There used to be, but I think it may have gone now. Malleus Fatuorum 01:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Correct, it was removed-- it was based on WP:ACCESS, and it turned out not to be an issue after all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

Hi, I recently reviewed a GA for the first time and posted some comments on the review page here. I felt that since I have written a GA and nommed a second that I should probably start helping review too. Did I do a decent review on Hurricane Able (1952), or is it a poor-quality review? I will return and revisit the article and make more comments after these issues are fixed, but, in the meantime, is that a good start? Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a good review. Sandy generally handles FA stuff rather than GA, so any of the latter you can refer to me; she has enough on her plate. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Wizardman! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks guys & gals! Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Empire of Brazil

Sandy, could you be kind and tell me which one of the FA delegates are in charge of the Empire of Brazil FAC nomination? Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Lecen, you can assume I will be handling your nominations for the time being. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Andy, I was going to ask Sandy to have her request someone to review the article. With only one real review, I believe it should be reviewed by other editors. Unfortunately, other 2 editors who took out time there at the end simply disappeared. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's something Sandy is in the business of doing. As you are learning, reviewers are a scarce resource and the delegates may feel that it is the nominator's responsibility to seek them out.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, now that's confuse. I tried to do exactly that and Sandy complained about it. She argued that by inviting editors I could be accused of trying to canvass as per Wikipedia:Canvassing. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's true too. It was too broad. Certainly there was nothing wrong with notifying editors who have shown an interest in Brazilian history, or who you have built a relationship with, or advertising at the relevant Wikiprojects. Even so it can be rough. However, bread cast upon the water gets returned around here, if perhaps not sevenfold. Go review some articles. It is quite possible that the grateful nominators will reciprocate, though quid pro quos are frowned upon.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I do plan to review your article, btw, but it is a long article and I need to spend some uninterrupted time, which I have not had, and probably will not have until next week.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I do review articles which have been nominated at FAC. I'll wait for your review, then. It is not that I'm in a hurry, I just want to be sure that the article is fine. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

FAC is about patience and playing defense.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Lecen, I'll agree with what Wehwalt said above about your request being far too broad. A better approach would be to post a note at a couple of relevant WikiProjects asking for reviews. You might also target 2 or 3 individual editors who are interested in the subject matter (check WP:PRV for a start) or who might have experience writing FAs in that subject matter. You have to strike a balance between sitting on your laurels waiting for reviews and sending mass notices. Delegates definitely won't seek reviewers for you aside from placing your nomination in the FAC urgents box, where you can see it already is. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that you take a certain risk of an unsympathetic review, Lecen.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that both Brazil wikiproject and Former countries wikiproject are dead and buried. Asking help there is useless. I might be wrong, but the impresion I have is that we have fewer and fewer editors around. --Lecen (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a problem! You came up with an inventive solution, but it was not one which was best repeated. I think we're just throwing ideas to you, hopeful that some will be useful.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Latter Days FAR

I have nominated Latter Days for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (I am notifying you because you are the article's second highest contributor.) - Kollision (talk) 03:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

CSI effect (again)

Hi! A while back, you left some comments on the FAC for CSI effect and asked that I drop a note when I had addressed them. I attempted to do this twice earlier, though it seems the messages quickly drowned in the deluge of activity that often occurs on your talk page. In any case, the FAC is near its end (I hope), so would you mind having another look? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Differences between novel and film

There is a request for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Differences between novel and film. We would like an experienced FAC review to clarify the discussion that is questioning how FAC would treat sections such as this? Would experienced FAC reviewers accept a mention from a change of a plot point from novel to film if the only reference was primary? I would expect that reviewers would demand a secondary source to determine the importance of a difference? I would be shocked if you would advocate an entire section of unreferenced trivia. It would be helpful if one or more experienced FAC reviewers could provide their perspective here, please, as you, and other experienced FAC reviewers, have the greatest knowledge WP:RS and WP:NOR. Your input will inform a significant number of articles. Thanks, The JPS^{talk to me} 23:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

JPS, I'm sorry for the delay; I've been terribly busy and didn't realize I had completely missed this. Where does it stand? I usually defer to Erik (talk · contribs) and Steve (talk · contribs) on film issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 3 April 2011 (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)

You may well be right. Even the best of us can become jaded, no matter how much we believe in the idea of wikipedia rather than its current implementation. Malleus Fatuorum 14:53, 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)

Saw your comment on YF-23 review and I recalled your "association" with TFM: write it! We miss his wit! Farawayman (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that if I ever start writing it, I will become so disgusted at seeing it in print that it will turn in to my "good-bye to Wikipedia" screed: better editors than myself left Wikipedia over what was done to TFM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)