Jump to content

User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch102

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Celebrate[edit]

Clownscloudsblahblah Yoor Know Phool
Have a humorous day filled with lots of PHUN on this April Fools Day 2015. Any annoyance is purely coincidental.   Bfpage |leave a message  21:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the talk page of Parent Management Training[edit]

Sandy,I would like some input from you, thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tadamsmar (talk • contribs) 17:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2007 RCTV protests[edit]

I was wondering if the title "May 2007 RCTV protests" should be changed simply to "2007 RCTV protests". What do you think?--ZiaLater (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FAR[edit]

Hi, are there any actors or films currently up? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld, Jay Chou is up, and Tenebrae (film) needs to be submitted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

terrortrap.com, hollywoodgothique.com. (shudders) The thought of an article passing today with sources like that! I think I can try to salvage Tenebrae. Aside from the obvious sourcing issues any pointers to avoid it getting the chop on the talk page would be appreciated!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tenebrae needs a lot of work. It's not as if it just needs a few sources. The whole thing just doesn't read like a good article let alone a featured one. Can't promise anything but I've begun improving the sourcing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm[edit]

Yet another chance to play Cassandra. I should really keep a running tally of these. – iridescent 17:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quack, quack !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enthiran FAC 2.0[edit]

I have opened the 2nd FAC for the article. Please do let me know if you would like to make any comments. Thanks. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 02:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enthiran promoted to FA[edit]

Happy to inform you that Enthiran is promoted. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help with the article. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thankyou for taking the time to look at it, RHM22 too. Your input was invaluable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all ... and now maybe you all can return the favor, help FAC, and help the @FAC coordinators: ? When experienced FA writers and reviewers (who should know better) implicitly or explicitly endorse work that is not to standard, call 'em on it!!! The Coords have to base their decisions on what is put before them, and that is not always adequate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, hi, Sandy?[edit]

Sorry to post here but you linked me to an un-editable page. Yes I am still actively monitoring and editing my FAs. Titan (moon) is the only one I'm particularly worried about, though Planet is a bit rough round the edges these days and User:JorisvS has raised concerns about Uranus, though he has yet to explain what those concerns are. Serendipodous 21:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Serendipodous ... although I'm not sure what you mean by "uneditable"? It's Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/sandbox, and lots of folks are weighing in there, with no one mentioning any problem with editing. Should I leave either Titan or Planet on the list (potentially needing review), or are you comfortable that you can address any concerns there? Good to hear from you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The version you linked me to was a previous edit. Yeah, maybe those two should be added to the list. Sigh. Serendipodous 21:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks! Don't worry ... since this list is huge, I doubt that someone will rush off to FAR them :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ping[edit]

User talk:Alanyst/sandbox/reliability disclaimer#Proposal

Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tenebrae (film)[edit]

Hi, I've perked this up a bit and have added a fair few book sources. I've found all I could on it in google books, but most of the sources repeat the same thing. I've asked the original author to add page numbers for McDonagh 1994 in the citations. You might spot some minor glitches still or some issues which I'd be grateful if you could help fix. Some of the quotes might be paraphrased more I think to improve readability in parts but it doesn't now look like a glaring problem as an FA. It could still be improved though, I've asked Cavarone if he can find any Italian material from the time of release or anything else. Perhaps Eric Corbett or RHM22 could also give it a read and copyedit.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld, I was away for several days and have fallen behind. I will try to have a look in the next few days ...hopefully Eric has been there! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Nope, Eric's been busy I think, I don't think films interest him much! I'll ask RHM22. It's comprehensive enough now based on book coverage but the prose is still not exactly "brilliant". I think with a bit of polish we can keep it there though. I've seen the film now. My only major criticism though would be that it implies that it is something of a masterpiece in the themes section, but it was pretty trashy, not a spot on Suspiria. That's just my humble opinion of course..♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, how is Shah Rukh Khan looking to you now? I think it's ready, I think RHM22 does too. It still didn't get the peer review input I was hoping for though. People just seem turned off by him, right Bollyjeff? If you think it's ready, we'll renominate. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I looked at it, I didn't see anything serious enough to indicate it wasn't FAC worthy ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If people are turned off by him, it's only because they haven't seen any of his films yet, haha. Anyway, thanks Sandy. BollyJeff | talk 22:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Hello. I used to be Ling.Nut. I don't remember whether I've ever apologized for anything I may have said or done that was uncalled for. If not, then I am now. Good luck with your Wikipedia editing. • Serviceable†Villain 01:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, dear Nutty.Ling, it is wonderful to hear from you again ... your ears must have been ringing, because just the other day I was thinking of and missing you !!! I frequently forget and have to request a new password to my old email account, so please email me through the interface to get my new email address. I hope all is well, best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tutor Me[edit]

163,495 edits?! That's mind-blowing. I don't have the gut to edit any articles except I'll be taught how to, especially from an expert like you. Please, teach me the the Language. Please, teach me the art!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.190.45.161 (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: FAR audit[edit]

Heh, it's been nearly 4 years since I've had an FAC period, which is hard to believe, and I have 9 on that list. I will make sure there is check on both the road and hurricane articles. Mitch32(The created world is but a small parenthesis in eternity.) 23:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had other members of WPTC look over articles of mine, and they should be fine. Same for the road articles. Mitch32(The created world is but a small parenthesis in eternity.) 03:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RJHall's FAs[edit]

Only three of his FAs are on my watchlist: Earth, Neptune and Jupiter. Serendipodous 16:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of the ones that are still featured, I monitor Sun, Venus and Mercury (planet). Serendipodous 16:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes more stuff to check. Just starting to go through mine and even simple ones with low traffic have new research to incorporate and stuff to do. I'll have a look. The planet ones are going to be a worry as there is loads of new research form the last few years. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber, it's a bit daunting to see how far behind FAR has fallen, but on the other hand, it's SO invigorating to see editors returning to spruce up their FAs !! Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The astronomy ones will be tricky - just making my way through some straightforward ones first. There are some others I've been keeping an eye on over the years, and I am getting a firmer idea as to which ones are straightforward and which ones are going to need some work...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NB: I have no idea why those three stray letters keep turning up. Will see what happens after I check and remove another. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YellowMonkey[edit]

I'm a little out of the loop, and may take a day or two to catch up. Is there anything I should read, and what is the best way to handle YM's cricket articles? Just let me know what I can do, or if there's anything else I can help with! Sarastro1 (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1, first off, and most importantly, welcome back!!! We've taken a deliberately slow start on that page, approaching first only the most frequent nominators, so there isn't much you can read anywhere, other than the {{URFA notice}} I put on your talk. Basically, there are now SO many unreviewed featured articles (FAR fell off the map in 2010, and many frequent nominators are now gone), that we want to get that list down to the truly deplorable and abandoned. Most nominators have been forthright in their appraisals, indicating what articles have fallen deficient, and which can be pruned from the list. You might look over commentary from others, beginning here. Really, though, what we need from you is to know a) if you will watchlist any of his articles to prevent deterioration, and b) if any of them have already deteriorated to the point of needing to remain on the list of FAs needing review. THAT will take a ton of work, so if you are game to help on YM's articles, that is much appreciated! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great work...[edit]

Just to say "great work!" on the reviewing of the quality of the older FAs that you've been leading. It's an important part of quality control and retaining trust in Wikipedia's FA standard, so many thanks for all the effort you've put into it so far! Hchc2009 (talk) 12:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about possible editing conflicts/Messing up of editation![edit]

Sorry about possible editing conflicts on Obesophobia. I misread "We don't rewrite legit articles here" as "We don't write legit articles here" and saw weird formatting and thought it was vandalism. I'm getting pretty tired and probably should sleep before I continue patrolling recent changes. But anyway, sorry about anything I may have messed up due to that, keep making Wikipedia great! — Félix Wolf (talk | contribs) 13:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note ... actually I got no edit conflict, and didn't even notice it had happened. What a junk article! One that it looks like we've been trying, unsucessfully, to deal with for years. A search on PubMed makes it pretty clear that all we have is a dictionary definition there, but the article was aiming for legitimacy by rewriting and citing sources on real diagnoses. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation[edit]

Hi, re this comment - the {{Inflation}} template is dynamic, it calculates relative to the current year. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks, but we should still find a way to reword to avoid use of the word "today" ... I noted that one instance because I saw other WP:REALTIME issues in several of David's articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Shackleton[edit]

Have you asked anyone to look at this elderly FA? I apparently have the most edits on it, but all took place after it became a FA and I have not looked at it recently. I think most of the other principal editors are more or less inactive – do you want me to add this one to my list? It looks to need some work. Brianboulton (talk) 15:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Brianboulton. I hadn't gotten to that yet, but if you are willing to take it on, that would be stupendous ... should I leave it on the list and add a note that you will look into it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'll look at it. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sacks[edit]

Thanks so much for your help on my Oliver Sacks edit. I appreciate your good work.Bwaddle (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought that article was "actively undergoing a major edit for a short while"? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I always have the intent, but then I look at the mess in there, and decide not to ... bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I admire your intent. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Stranger on The Bridge[edit]

Hiya, how are you? On Monday 4th May I watched The Stranger on The Bridge it is a very interesting and emotional story I hope you watched it on Channel 4 (104/135) it's about this man called Johnny Benjamin. He was going to jump off the bridge in Waterloo and this guy called 'Mike' helped him and talked him out off it.Johnny had schizophrenia.So yeah..😊 Bye 🙋 Thanks for reading — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.73.29 (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parkinson's Disease[edit]

This is a featured article. Okay i got; but it looks crapy and messed up. I justified the text so that it looks better; i dont know from where you seem to get mark up errors as it looks fine from my side. Reverting back the justification makes it messy. Dr.Ash (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.Ashlesh.P Perhaps you can make a post to WP:VPT where someone can explain to you why we don't do this; that issue is beyond the problem of editing a Featured article without discussing on talk, after many of your edits have been reverted. Please stop doing that; Featured articles need to be stable. Also, please keep article discussion on article talk in the future, where other editors are more likely to chime in to help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and an apology[edit]

Thanks for your comment, which was much more gracious than I deserved. I have to say that I do get frustrated, because sometimes I feel you are pretty quick to push away what I would consider technical improvements because of the bad experiences with Merridew and the stuff he was peddling. On the other hand, if I got this situation as wrong as I did, maybe I've been misjudging and misinterpreting that for years. Regardless, I agree with 95%+ of what you do and say, and you're a huge force for good here on Wikipedia. I know you're feeling kind of burned out, and I was sitting here feeling guilty and hoping I hadn't pushed you further away.

I think trying to make references more structured is a good idea in the general case, and more productive than infoboxes. (I've been reading Iridescent's talk page over the past month or so with interest.) When I look at this list, I feel like we're frustratingly close to being able to do some really useful things with references—but I know Jack and his friends were always promising fairy gold if they could be allowed to redo every article according to their notions.

However, I think you hit just the right note on AN/I just now. I wouldn't interpret CITEVAR as forbidding the changes Monkbot's been making, but if the template markup makes articles significantly more painful to work with, it's screwing up an obvious, actual good (having reliable medical articles) for a rather more nebulous and hypothetical one (having metadata for building cool tools), and that's not right. I've dropped a proposal at Module talk:Citation/CS1 which I hope will leave both parties happy, if it's technically feasible.

I agree with you and Iridescent on quite a lot of things, disagree strongly on a few. I'm sorry to have reflected offensively on both of you; notwithstanding my pissiness on that one point, I respect both of you and your commentary a great deal, and always find it worth reading, whether or not I agree. Sort of related—ping me in a week or so, when finals are over, and I'll try to draft a proposal on alternative student assignments. I've been thinking for a while about the common anti-patterns that crop up every semester; if we had some patterns for constructive student editing for the Education people to publicize, maybe some of the damage could be mitigated. (e.g., instead of the "insert a fact with a source into an article" anti-pattern, why not have a student team pick an article and make a bibliography of potentially relevant literature on the talk page, where it could be evaluated for MEDRS compliance?) Choess (talk) 03:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Choess, disagreements (even unpleasant ones :) with respectful, reasonable, and respectable editors never bother me, and this one certainly didn't. I was not offended-- I guess even after all these years in here (which can be soul crushing), I still am a basic AGFer at heart, so I felt something was just missed, which turned out to be the case. History-- done, but thank you so much for the kind note.

I'm going to very busy after next week, so it's unlikely I will remember to ping you about the student thing (where you have been among the most sane voices), but I am interested. I may not chime in until mid-summer (USA), though. I have floated several ideas at the ENB that never fly or get any traction, because the profs seem to want to do what they do, even if it never works, and what you suggest would work better, so ... maybe coming from your calm voice (rather than my eternal voice of frustration there), ideas will get some traction. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Choess, sorry for snapping at you, but given how vocal an opponent I was of LDR, which was forced through because a developer was "in the mood to patch something" (yes, there was a vote, but looking at the comments of the "support" voters it's clear they didn't understand what they were voting for and thought they were just supporting "have a bibliography at the end"), to be accused of having been a supporter of it was surprising to say the least. When Monkbot (and Merridew, and Mabbett, and Mattisse…) talk about "changing articles to list-defined references" they explicitly mean the system detailed here in which every reference is given a unique name and defined in a single section, and then invoked throughout the article using <refname=> tags. I stand by my comment that LDR is the de facto introduction of permanent flagged revisions through the back door. Because no editor not intimately familar with the system is going to understand that one needs to edit two separate sections when adding or removing anything (removing a statement from an LDR page without also removing its corresponding reference from the reference section will create a bunch of cite errors), and there's no way for said new user to guess where the instructions are, it makes LDR pages effectively uneditable by anyone except those intimately familiar with this particular little-used system. (This is, of course, exactly what the "everything I write is perfect and shouldn't be improved" tendency wants, which I imagine explains why the only place in which the LDR system has gained any kind of traction is among a few people near the top of the WP:WBFAN list.) – iridescent 10:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting (I had to add citations to an LDR article yesterday, and it was unnecessarily difficult, as you mention). But my reasons for opposing this and other kinds of template fiddling by those who don't write articles predates anything related to Merridew, List defined references, and his attempts to impose his personal preferences on all articles, starting with FAs. Contrary to Choess's impression that I've shown "antipathy" for LDR and other template fiddling because of what Merridew et al did at FAC, I'm on record for hating the "vagaries of citation templates" since my earliest days of editing. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Iridescent, no need to apologize to me—it's clear I've been operating in a completely false frame of reference for some time in my interpretation of both your comments and Sandy's on references. If someone came up with some bizarre interpretation of my behavior based on a completely false premise, I wouldn't handle them with kid gloves myself. "I was mistook in my jedgments," as Uncle Dan said. I have some thoughts on references systems, but I'll take that to your talk page to avoid cluttering Sandy's. Choess (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per other discussion(s)[edit]

You are probably aware of this already, but I wanted to alert you that I took Victoriaearle's template and created Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/ItsLassieTime. I believe that's a topic where we are in agreement. That's all. Montanabw(talk) 01:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Montanabw, I'm glad you did that, as it may help take the burden off of Victoria and make more editors familiar with the Lassie profile. (And that reminds me ! I didn't care at the time to go to the effort of correcting it, but somewhere I saw several discussions of the matter where EChastain completely misquoted me on that very matter ... what I said was "Why do we have, for example, Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Mattisse but no Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/ItsLassieTime?" Which is not at all the same as the claims I saw EChastain making about what I said, somewhere or another on a page I didn't want to get involved with.

By the way, on the downside of profiling disruptive sockmasters, we've seen over time that putting too much detail on the Mattisse page has allowed her to understand what is known about her socks and their behavioral patterns, which in turn allows her to alter her MO to (in her mind) avoid detection, so I'd advise you not to put too much info about ILT on that page ... :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Catch-22, isn't it? Too much info and they alter their MO, too little and no one knows what to look for. Feel free to edit that LTA, no one owns it! :) Also, if the LTA focuses on the behavior that caused the blocking, that's the part that they aren't apt to change if they return. The problems were the reason the socking was an issue ... evading scrutiny while messing up 700+ articles... someone quietly doing good work with multiple personas is not apt to even be noticed... sigh. Montanabw(talk) 08:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I once sort of understood ILT, but that knowledge has faded in memory, partly because I relied on Victoria's knowledge of the behaviors (meaning there's little I can add by editing the page). The real reason I asked that question when I did was because one of the CUs mentioned (somewhere) something about ILT not having been active since (whenever), but do we know if ColonelHenry was ILT -- which was in that time frame? For your objectives on that page, there needs to be just enough info to get some of the pressure off of Victoria. For example, on the Mattisse situation, there are quite a few editors who can recognize her (with or without the info on her page), but with ILT, Victoria is it. What we need is a better history, but I think the behavioral patterns will and do change as the sockmaster follows the page (Mattisse certainly does).

I'm not too fond of that infobox vandal, and if anyone adds one on Mattisse, we'll have an infobox war. I think the worst thing we can do is add to the sense of importance these long-time disruptive editors thrive on by glorifying their feats article-style with an infobox.

Another thing: right now, the chart of accounts can't be sorted by date (when sorting on it, it is sorting by the first number, which doesn't give a chrono list ... which would be helpful.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, butting in. Well, I wrote a long message and then blanked it. Probably the least said, the better. But I am grateful to Montanabw for taking the lead there. Yep, it's still messy, but the issue was forced, and in the end probably better for more people to know than only a few. Victoria (tk) 15:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ColonelHenry is almost certainly different from ILT. I'm pretty sure User:Ruhrfisch can confirm this...he's more familiar with ILT than I was. Choess (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty much certain of that, Choess; CH was identified by a real life identity somewhere (maybe here, maybe wikipediocracy, but anyway) and as male, and on the other hand, most behavioral evidence suggests that ILT is probably female and older than CH. They also behave very differently. I frankly don't care who either one of them are IRL, I just don't want the disruption they cause.
Thanks for letting me know; there are so many sockmasters running around in here, one forgets who knows what about whom. Well, I'm out of editing time for today, having just finished Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mattisse. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Found; that I said we should be keeping track of ILT is in no way the same as maintaining a page to connect another editor to ILT. I saw this statement about me in more place than one, but there's one ... just for the record. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Several people liked the LTA idea and VE did up a nice chart on her sandbox that kick-started the effort. I'm quite grateful to all who helped. Montanabw(talk) 20:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Authors[edit]

Hi Sandy, thank you for the long needed work at Alzheimer's disease. Just wondering, when you did this was there a reason for deleting authors viceas opposed to using |display-authors=5? LeadSongDog come howl! 03:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, LeadSongDog-- have you seen the big discussion about FA maintenance (and the issue with citation templates) at WT:MED? Your question may be answered there ... but not sure what you mean by "vice"? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that discussion doesn't answer the question. There's a difference between standardizing on one template or format (whichever is chosen matters little) and deleting the remaining author names. That's why the display-authors parameter was created. Vcite2 (which the template filler currently generates) has a default of display-authors=6. That doesn't mean truncating the list of authors in the wiki text or the metadata. I haven't seen any argument for doing so. LeadSongDog come howl! 06:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the strike ... I was afraid there was some hidden meaning of vice that I wasn't getting :)

I guess the WT:MED discussion is already long, but that answer is there. As Boghog explains, CITEVAR does cover some of not only how a citation renders, but also how a citation is written in wikitext. Another discussion that might answer your question is here; notice the difference in what we have to edit around when all the extra info is added to the template. One of the long-standing points of the Diberri format is that we not have a bunch of template clutter, forcing us to edit around chunks of what one editor called there "wikisnot". If it's all about some advocates of metadata wanting to have access to all of that extra info chunking up our edit, they can get that meta data from PubMed. By getting our FAs back to the original Diberri format they were written in, notice the reduction in byte size, the cleaner rendering of the citation, and the reduction of template clutter in edit mode. The original Diberri format-- used for years on medical articles and used in most of our FAs-- intentionally avoided all of that clutter that was later invented by bot operators for the alleged purpose of gathering metadata.

I hope that answers it ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link, that helps understand, though it doesn't seem to reveal much of a consensus. An ANB behavioural discussion on a bot is hardly the place to expect broad participation :/) The wikisnot/clutter term I take it is in regards the repeated lastn, firstn or authorn entries, not regarding the unfortunately named display-authors. Whether that form of clutter should be attributed to bot operators or to template crafters is perhaps moot, but I believe the latter created it while the former spread it. We are most of us frustrated by the years of lack of progress on a unified citation system. Smith609 for instance seems to have given up on maintaining citation bot, cite pmid, cite doi etc. While they have their problems he at least tried to respect existing CITESTYLE choices in articles. I am in any case far from sanguine about removing attributed authors entirely, as your edit did. When problem authors are identified, e.g. Wakefield, it is important to be able to find where we have cited their works. If they should be replaced entirely by et al that is markedly more difficult. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LSD, I'll get back to you (out of editing time for today, see section above for how I spent my day). Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LeadSongDog, the whole matter seems to be still in limbo, per the discussion at WT:MED. Do you need more answers here, or is this good to go to archive? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with continuing it there, thanks for checking. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vénus de Quinipily[edit]

Hello. Whenever you get some time, could you please take a look at the article and let me know if its ready for FAC? This is my first time with FAC so would like to know if there are any issues with the article. I would plan for PR if required. Thanks in advance. - Vivvt (Talk) 06:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Vivvt! I would suggest that you go ahead and open up a PR, and ping in the "Wikipedia Art Cabal" (Ceoil, Kafka Liz, Modernist, Johnbod); you will stand a much better chance at FAC if you have their feedback in advance. I do see some things right off the bat that will need attention:
  • In the lead, "It is believed that the statue ... " Opinions should be attributed (who believes that), and having that in the lead gets you off to a rocky start. The source (later in the article) is in French, so I can't determine who believes this, and per WP:NONENG, you might translate that in a footnote.
  • I am not an elegant copyeditor, but some of the prose is a bit choppy and the sentences could flow together better.
  • Clean up spaced WP:EMDASHes (we use either unspaced EMDASHES, or spaced WP:ENDASHes on WIkipedia).
  • The seven foot tall "Venus" statue ... is missing hyphens.
  • I can't opine on the article's comprehensiveness, since art isn't my area.

Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your feedback. I would definitely open up a PR before FAC. - Vivvt (Talk) 19:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperthymesia[edit]

Hi Sandy. I wonder, do you agree with this edit? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should pose that one to Winkelvi, who is arguing the opposite right now over at Talk:Autism. One gives up. After ten years in here, I have seen self-professed autism advocates go at each other over that simple issue, with one group arguing one way, another group the other way, both of them claiming to speak for individuals with autism.

I know where I stand on the word tourettic, but who am I to say?

Maybe we need to codify some language in WP:MEDMOS just to save time :)

And did you really have to show me that article? Do we really need an article to promote the theories of that fellow in Wisconsin, considering that PubMed coughs up exactly two primary sources using the word, one of them discussing one case? <groan> ... I'm going to rewind my clock ten minutes, and forget I saw that. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could just delete my post. I guess it depends how good your memory is. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that also goes back to the discussion at Talk:Autism ... I've read that negative memories imprint more than positive ones, but my Wiki-experience is the opposite. The bad people and bad experiences all run together (heck, I can't sort all the bad guys anymore!), but I remember all the good people and good deeds :) I'm ignoring that article ... we will see if it fades in my memory! Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to traumatize you. I'll try sending monthly reminders. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

SR - ECh[edit]

Having studied both of these editors habits extensively I've notice at least two targets in addition to myself: EvergreenFir and TParis. I have lots of info, if you're ever interested or if it will be useful in future investigations. Lightbreather (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ILT / CH[edit]

Sorry I missed the thread before it was archived, but I agree with Choess: ColonelHenry is definitely not ItsLassieTime. Email me if you have questions. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ruhrfisch, but I'm really not an ILT expert ... Montanabw may appreciate any help on that long-term abuse page, though. Again, take care not to put too much info out there ... Mattisse has altered her style in every sock iteration based on what is at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Mattisse, so I no longer provide the exhaustive list of evidence I gather on SPIs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the comment ending with this addition and for similar ones you have made in that thread. What happens on those CS1 etc talk pages comes to us content creators out of nowhere and invariably causes a shedload of problems for what seems to be very little gain (often, no apparent gain at all).

I've had a few run-ins with the aficionados and I just get hit with "it was agreed" every time. I wish more of them actually spent a prolonged period with the edit window open and so gained a better understanding of how this affects the core purpose of this project. - Sitush (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sitush; aficionados is a generous word :) At WT:MED, we are most fortunate to have Boghog, who not only speaks English and bot, but respects content work, and is apparently able to "intercede on our behalf", resulting (sometimes) in reason and logic being able to prevail. But honestly, can these aficionados do anything else to make content work harder and harder? And must we always end up with a big brouhaha to get them to pay attention? <rhetorical, I know> Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are very wise as always[edit]

[1] Bishonen | talk 14:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Some day, I may grow up to be like that wise old Bishzilla. Thinking of you, bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SandyGeorgia[edit]

You might like to know about this. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for letting me know ... it could have been really funny on April Fools! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Personally, I wish you would run, but the RfA has been taken down as you clearly didn't authorize it. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the vote of confidence, and from HiDrNick! Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm thinking that the potential for a really good April Fools prank is gone, but chuckling that the page has 34 watchers. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support before retiring again (for the nth time). You should run now, before everyone you know retires. • Arch♦Reader 00:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Nooooooooo ArchReader !!! I am finally done with my days' work, and am going to email you after dinner. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support just think of all the copyvios you could delete! :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously Sandy - if you ever change your mind, or just want text from that - let me know, and I'll gladly restore or put it in your userspace. It really was quite a compliment. — Ched :  ?  02:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the offer ... and thanks for getting to it so quickly! Now about washing my hair ... :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LOL ... you're on your own for that one. :) — Ched :  ?  02:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ping[edit]

Hello, SandyGeorgia. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

JNW (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cannabis[edit]

Hi Sandy,

I just now noticed your comment on the ANI page. No I had no criticism of your edits.

The issue that User:Petrarchan47 was referring to was my complaint that a Lancet review, which had listed out a very lengthy list of possible adverse effects of chronic cannabis use, had been selectively quoted by what I characterized as an unidentified "cannabis advocate" as merely indicating that the LD50 of THC was very low. As you are aware, this is the sort of glossing over of adverse health effects and exaggeration of therapeutic potential that we see so commonly on articles about recreational drugs.

Petra was upset about this and left a note on my user page noting that this statement had been left unmodified after you and Doc James had edited the article, and seemed to believe that your failure to change this sentence represented some sort of endorsement of this summary. She further stated "That "pro-cannabis" or biased editors are to blame for this section (as was insinuated at Jytdog's page) is based on evidence I have not seen." By the time this reached the ANI page, this had morphed into "a section in the Cannabis (drug) article that was created by Alexbrn/SandyGeorgia/DocJames."

Ironically, the Lancet summary I criticized appears to have been penned by Petra herself.

Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement 16:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not ironic at all ... there are some competence issues there, which is what led me to give up on that whole suite of articles. Petra never misses a chance to advance the notion that "the Medicine Project" went through everything in those articles and left them in some sort of satisfactory, or endorsable, state-- not so-- it was hit and miss, with several editors with different interests doing what they could, and it was an uphill struggle to get any sort of respect for sourcing. I left Wikipedia for a very long time after this promotional piece of advocacy was advanced, so I dropped the ball entirely on cannibis and don't ever want to go back to it again (partly because I don't want to edit around either Petra or Viriditas if I can avoid it).

I don't know why Wikipedia did away with RFC/U-- we are well past the time when one is needed on Petra for BATTLEGROUND, but I don't know how we handle these kinds of behaviors without RFC/U. Dragging through the slog of ANI isn't worth it, and isn't productive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint about my work[edit]

Original

Sandy, you made a complaint about my work on another page. Would you mind saying what you object to? Most people seem to appreciate it. I would really like an explanation. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for the fractured conversation ... I was just responding on your talk as you were responding here: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking, Philafrenzy. Do you see that "Most people seem to appreciate" followed by the query "what is wrong with DYK" might be a reflection that you have become immersed in a page where the predominant culture is one where not only is Wikipedia policy and guideline not well understood or promoted, but that basic decency is frequently ignored and attack bios are run on the main page? That you do not recognize that what you initially put up was a thinly disguised attack bio says something about your Wikipedia experience ... your subsequent editing turned it into a slightly lesser attack bio, but that's still what it is. Would you like it if someone did something like that to someone in your life or family? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have misunderstood Sandy. It's true it started with the tax matter, but that was because that was what drew him to my attention. It's since been gradually expanded and that now forms a short and neutrally worded section at the bottom of the page. That section could be a lot larger but I didn't think it warranted. In order to create a balanced article we need to include the positive and the negative and there is plenty of positive in the article, including the charity work and a distinguished career. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Tager was not the subject of a DYK - I rarely nominate living people for DYKs in fact so where does DYK come into the discussion of Tager? Philafrenzy (talk) 12:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Philafrenzy, you did not answer my query:

Would you like it if someone did something like that to someone in your life or family?
If someone wrote a neutral, factual, balanced biography I would have no cause for complaint would I? Philafrenzy (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The connection between this attack bio and DYK is that you are apparently so immersed in the DYK culture that you do not even recognize that you created an attack bio. [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your theory does not stand up Sandy because there is no connection between my DYK work and that bio. If you review my DYKs, which you can easily do, you will see that I rarely nominate BLPs for DYK and didn't nominate this one. It also isn't a attack bio just because it started with a newsworthy event. You are letting your concerns about other articles by other users skew your judgement in this case I think. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

review with lots of authors[edit]

Hi, can you help me cite this review: http://www.initrogen.org/sites/default/files/documents/files/ONW.pdf - their "recommended citation" has 40+ authors and I can't find a help/template on how to use et al. on wikipedia. Thanks. JMWt (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of a controversial matter just now :) If you can tell me what article you want to cite it in, I can look at and follow the format used there (per WP:CITEVAR), but the issue of et al is currently undergoing ... some changes ... and some controversy. @Boghog:. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to update Peak_phosphorus as this seems like a recent and reliable secondary source. But the refs on that page are a bit of a mess, it might need a lot of work. JMWt (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
hmmm ... yes, I see you have no consistent previously established citation style to work with, particularly wrt et al. So, a general observation is that you don't need to follow an outside source's "recommended citation" format. I personally hate clunking up articles with more than three authors in cases like this, and the convention in medical articles is to add et al into the author field, avoiding last1 first1 last2 first2 and all that garbage. But Boghog has been helping out with resolving some ongoing controversy on the matter, and I'm not sure what the current status of et al is. Because this is undergoing change right now, and Boghog is on top of the issues, I'm afraid I can't give you advice without first hearing from him. (I guess if you need to keep working, you could just use the author= parameter for now, adding on the et al to that parameter as we do in medical content, and then adjust it later depending on what Boghog tells you ... ) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I'll wait to hear what Boghog thinks. JMWt (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping Sandy. In answer to JMWt's question, a long established consistent style in Peak_phosphorus does appear to exist. I am not particularly fond of this style, but per WP:CITEVAR, I need to respect it. With this style, there are two recommended options. If you would like to store all the author names but only display the first n names, adding |display-authors=n to the template will do that. However with 40 authors, storing all the author names, especially when using "first1, last1, first2, last2, ..." parameters becomes a bit ridiculous. So alternatively you can store only the first n authors and add |. There are far more compact ways of storing multiple author names (see for example |vauthors= in {{vcite2 journal}} and soon {{cite journal}}, see discussion), but use of this template in Peak_phosphorus would violate CITEVAR. Boghog (talk) 03:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Err, not sure if I understand that or all the discussions cite above, but I will try to use the style in use already on the page for the references, with the first 3 references and et al. It is a new style for me, so I'm not sure how easily it will be to follow. JMWt (talk) 09:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to ask another question, but am I justified in removing primary and old sources already on the page if the most recent secondary source has cited/considered them? JMWt (talk) 09:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Boghog! JMWt, how many authors do you want to list? Putthe basics of what you would like to see here, on my talk, and I will show you how to do what Boghog suggests.

On primary sources, I would suggest removing/replacing them whenever they are a) contradicted by or b) covered in secondary sources. If you are worried that any removal of primary sources may be controversial, then you could first tag each primary source with {{primary-source inline}}, and remove them later if no (relevant) concerns are raised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'mADork ... I see you already said three. I will put some samples here momentarily. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samples:

With cite web:

  • Sutton, M.A.; Bleeker, A.; Howard, C.M.; et al. (2013). "Our Nutrient World: The challenge to produce more food and energy with less pollution" (PDF). Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Edinburgh on behalf of the Partnership on Nutrient Management and the International Nitrogen Initiative. pp. add your page range here. ISBN 978-1-906698-40-9. Retrieved May 12, 2015. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

With cite book:

With cite journal:

So, Boghog, as you can see, I don't know how to use that display-authors stuff ... what next ? JMWt, in an article I edit (medical), I would do it like this:

Boghog is easy to work with, but some of his colleagues don't understand why issues like this make article writing so difficult. Then there is the separate matter of using cite journal when it's not a journal. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to come back again, I tried to do this on Peak_phosphorus but as you see from the style, the 'reference' section is a second jump from the 'notes' section. I can get the inline reference to appear in the notes and manually added the reference to the reference section using {{cite book|ref=harv|..}} tag, but I can't get the reference in the note to link to the reference in the 'reference'. Really, this whole thing feels like pulling teeth..JMWt (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize, and yes it is. I wish I could help, but I don't speak harv refs, and hate them (and other ridiculous template machinations), don't use them, and can't help beyond what I've offered. Boghog is the man. But it should be instructive for fans of these citation methods to understand that they impede article development. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the confusion. There should be an equal sign and not a "|" between "display-authors" and "etal". Fixed in this edit. Boghog (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh ... I should have noticed that! Thanks, Boghog. JMWt, that doesn't solve your problem about Harv refs. You could just add the citation template, ditching the harv ref, and if someone is so concerned about CITEVAR and preserving harv refs in the article, they can convert it themselves. If you want, just add something, and I'll go over there and see if I can help you fix it. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer[edit]

Thank you for that offer at ANI - I would have been willing to consider that, however, an Admin has already stepped in before I even had a chance to read it. It seemed well reasoned.DrChrissy (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that. I'm sorry you missed that chance. I do (always) hold out hope that all factors there will eventually be dealt with. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your bent for word turning[edit]

The usual idiom is "to try the patience of a saint" but your version is much better. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk)

hi[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ozzie, I think you left someone out (that is, Axl; that's not very nice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And now you've also left out Timtrent. [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

to ANI fine we'll close however if I notice myself or anyone else on the talk page get what I consider harassment from this individual ill come back nere, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ani[edit]

a word of advise SandyGeorgia do not go to my talk you are not welcome--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stable wikipedia[edit]

Here. You have done stellar work on peer review processes here. I would be interested in your view. Peter Damian (talk) 08:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words, Peter Damian, but I'm not sure I want to get involved in a back-and-forth at Talk Jimbo. With declining resources in here, I would suggest focusing discussion of a stable Wikipedia on BLPs ... one example that came to light in this week's review of the (probably half) of FAs currently on the books that are deficient is Mariah Carey. That article passed FAR in 2007 at 5418 words, and is now at 11976; in other words, it has more unreviewed than vetted content. I haven't glanced at it yet to see how dismal it might be, but can assume the typical Wikipedia quality of content about a living person is now wearing a bronze star. Scan down the list on that page and some of the other data on the page, and you will get a sense of how many potential and identified problems we have with the FA pool; in as many as half of the FAs, there may not be a place to "freeze". Also, FA has become a one-way street (once an FA, always an FA) since 2010, when FAR fell off the map. How many fingers do we have to plug all of these holes ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think (given that my proposal is not meant to be invasive, and would leave the current 'anyone can edit' version highly visible) that a different approach would be needed for BLP, namely identification, perhaps privately to the WMF. Peter Damian (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By 'one way street', you mean numbers going down, yes? Wouldn't that be an ideal opportunity to showcase the demoted ones? Note that an FA would not be the same as my proposed SA, which would have a different editorial process. Peter Damian (talk) 11:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Kardashian's butt[edit]

Thank you for sharing that with us. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement 20:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Kim Kardashian ever comes up at FAC, I'll have to oppose on 1b, comprehensive; there's no image of her butt. I am relying on the the great one to remedy that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could add it. We'll need to craft some accompanying text though. Level I or II heading for the section? Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement 21:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can entice back User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back or User:Moni3 to craft the text: they rule in this content area. Or maybe DMacks will view my user page and contribute to the effort; he demonstrated quite the facility with words over at Drmies talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a 750 mm telephoto lens and will work on getting a copyright-free image. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement 21:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not so fast, Sandy. Medical issues are your domain; I can only envision a liberal use of phrases like "severe spinal deformity" and "extensive gluteal protrusion." Just make sure to make Kim Kardashian's cocktail table a redirect. [4] Эlcobbola talk 21:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone can have a bad day[edit]

This kitten will curl up in your lap and make any bad day a good one

Fiddle Faddle 08:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Walker[edit]

You were patient on Robert Walker's talk page and tried to be sympathetic to an editor whom you thought was still learning how to use talk pages. Patience and sympathy are virtues, but he isn't an inexperienced editor who is learning. He is an editor with a history of excessively long posts to talk pages, who has in the past been taken to ANI for his talk page behavior. I don't think that he is interested in working on a non-controversial article to learn. He decides what he wants to work on; he isn't working to learn because he is working to express his views. I have tried to help him learn in the past, and he hasn't benefited from learning. Thank you for trying. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have to strive for patience regardless. Sorry I can't follow up further, but I will be traveling. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) @Robert McClenon: I have found that relentless and persistent (tautology?) politeness achieves one of two outcomes, compliance or WP:ROPE. There is a time when one may express the fact that one's patience is exhausted, and do so with clarity and continued politeness. I tried hard with DMRRT on their talk page, and, if I recall, on mine, and elsewhere, too. They, too, were long winded. Eventually other people determined that indeffing them was the right approach, but way after I expressed my expiry of patience. Fiddle Faddle 16:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick request[edit]

Hi there, Sandy, per WP:POLEMIC would you please remove mention of me? Many thanks, and enjoy, petrarchan47คุก 03:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I totally understand[edit]

I read through Ozzie11aaaa's recent edits to understand why you were (reasonably) upset with him. Even I, with no involvement in the project, am a little irked by his, to say bluntly, useless comments. He usually writes "good information" or "agreed", what is the point? I tried telling him that he should think if his comment is truly helpful, but he just banned me from his talk page. Oh well, I guess you'll have to put up with it, since I don't believe there is a policy for those kind of edits. Best of luck.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How much content experience should an admin have?[edit]

SandyGeorgia, this is about citing something you said five years ago. I'm in some sort of debate with WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs) about whether a technical copyright expert could be an admin regardless of content experience. You can read the discussion by scrolling up from How much content experience should an admin have? on the Administrators' noticeboard. I'm contacting you because five years ago I curated something you said...

  • "adminship is a big deal and does create a semi-permanent class of superusers, so candidates should take this process with the importance it deserves.... Yes, I disagree with NOBIGDEAL" – SandyGeorgia (here)

...and I might want to reference it to support my point of view in the current discussion. However, I'd like to check you still have this sentiment, and if so whether I'm citing it in the best way. Any feedback would be helpful, thanks - Pointillist (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pointillist, I don't think you need to bother. I understand your position; I don't agree with it. It's okay. You're not required to agree with me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy's on holiday (contribs). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PR request[edit]

Hello. I noticed your name at the archeology project, and I was hoping that you might be interested and willing to take a look at Wikipedia:Peer review/Chetro Ketl/archive1. I've put lots of work into this article during the last three months, but I still feel it could use more feedback. Are you interested? RO(talk) 19:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Writing help needed[edit]

Hi Sandy. I have done a lot of work on the article Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge, and would like to see it have a shot at FAC, because its 20 year anniversary is coming up this year. Although it had recently been through the GOCE after a long wait, you expressed a few weeks ago that it was still not up to par. I asked for help from RHM22, who is busy outside of Wikipedia at the moment, and Dr. Blofeld, who often helps me on such articles, but is not right now. What other options does someone like me, a pretty good researcher and technical editor, but not a great writer, have to get this job done? Are there only a few editors who are good enough, and must be begged to help over and over again? What would you do in my situation? BollyJeff | talk 16:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the welcome[edit]

Hi SandyGeorgia,Thank you for the welcome to Wikipedia and for your immensely helpful links and guidance. Greatly appreciated! Autumnstorm19 (talk) 04:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review of Parent Management Training[edit]

Check the talk page of Parent Management Training

The article was failed and needs some work and/or defense.

It's an article that I know you worked hard on.Tadamsmar (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look[edit]

Ok, I think you can go take a look at the article now if you like.--ZiaLater (talk) 05:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B-P House[edit]

Hi Sandy,

thanks for the warm welcome back here. Not that I'm now going to dig into WP again as I did before, but some small editing couldn't go amiss. So, I've had a look at the referencing of B-P House, and cleaned it up. Obviously I removed the single pinetree ref, as the remark (B-P painting copy also in Geneva office) was not really a valuable contribution. Have a look at what I did, and if you have new recommendations, feel free to drop me some more hints.

PS. Essentially, the PineTree information is really good and valuable. It's main problem is that it is grabbed from all over (including WP as you point out), so the work is not to question the info itself, but to find good refs for them.

Regards, Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SandyGeorgia/arch102&oldid=1184013920"