User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch65

Non-English sources

Sandy, ideally, what would you like to see WP:V say about this? It currently says:

Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material. When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text or in a footnote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians. When citing a source in a different language, without quotations, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote, or to the talk page if too long for a footnote. If posting original source material, editors should be careful not to violate copyright; see the fair-use guideline.

So, in brief, if you're quoting, the original and a translation are expected in the text or a footnote. If only citing, translations are needed only on request, and if they're very long, they can go on talk. The problem with making the latter mandatory even when not requested is that some editors use non-English sources extensively, so we'd in effect be asking them to type up whole pages of books, even if no one had asked for it. This would create copyright problems, not to mention that no one would do it anyway. Is there some way of tightening the wording that would help with the kinds of issues you're seeing? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 08:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's what I'm after. Cited text (not a quote), faulty translations (POV), short excerpt (one sentence, in this case), contentious material. Whenever a translation is challenged, it should be added to the footnote so more editors can see it and recognize the faulty or POV translation ... by putting it on the talk page, we minimize the number of editors who may see and recognize the faulty translation, and we don't serve our readers. Since I work with Spanish-language sources so often, I agree with you that making their inclusion in footnotes mandatory in all circumstances would be cumbersome, but when a faulty translation of contentious or controversial material is challenged, and the quoted text is requested, that non-English text should go in the footnote so that 1) more editors will see it and opine, and 2) our readers can see exactly what was said. Our readers may often speak the language of the article they're reading. It seems to me that this is similar, anyway, to good practice in English (when interpretation of text is challenged or contentious, we add the English quote of the cited text to the footnote). On BLPs, we should err on the side of always including the non-English text in the footnote (I saw that in one case at FAC, where the material might have been considered defamatory, and seeing the exact text was important, to make sure it was translated correctly.) Does that help? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that helps, thanks. I'll give some thought to the wording and get back to you. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 08:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; maybe as a sample, you can see if too much is quoted now at Manuel Rosales in the footnotes vis-vis copyright; I've done all I can do there for one day, although there's still work to be done, which I've left on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

More context for the particular situation I'm dealing with. I've been through more than half a dozen iterations and attempts at getting contentious material removed from the lead of a very controversial article. That text is completely unsupported by reliable sources, including a Lexis-Nexis search. The tendentious editor is adding a Spanish-language source that does not support the claim as fact, yet citing it as fact in the lead, no less (serious case of WP:UNDUE). What few of our readers may realize is that 1) Chavez owns the judiciary in Venezuela (and that statement is well supported by RS), and 2) in Venezuela, anyone can be charged with a crime and held practically indefinitely in jail, without trial. Saying that someone was "charged" with X is not the same as saying that X is true. The full Spanish text would help show the problem in this case, even though the claim is completely unsupported by RS and the text doesn't belong in the article at any rate, much less in the lead, rather the issue should be explored in the body of the article with attribution and detail on the controversy, including Chavez's ability to charge anyone with anything and throw them in jail or force them into exile. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Further context. Not understanding the messy transitions in power that occur in countries that don't have well developed democratic institutions, the world (and reliable sources) persist in viewing what happened in Venezuela in 2002 as a "coup", although it was never considered a coup in Venezuela. It was ruled by the Venezuelan courts as not being a coup, rather a "vacuum in power" after Chavez resigned under popular protest when the military refused to fire on their own countrymen who were peacefully protesting. Once Chavez got control of the judiciary, that ruling was overturned. None of the vagaries of this situation are well explored in the text of the article, which has been whitewashed since I stopped following it years ago, and now reflects the pro-Chavez POV almost exclusively. Relevant exploration of the issues leading up to the "coup" has been removed from the article, or sourced to pro-Chavez sources, and the relevant articles-- that should be wikilinked-- orphaned or merged out of existence (General strike that led to Chavez's resignation, Sumate, and Raul Baduel also went orphaned after he turned on Chavez and was highlighted by human rights groups as an example of Chavez's political persecution). Yet we have a statement of fact in the lead, which is not fact, not supported by any RS, and no mention of the events leading to the "coup" in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

of course you ignore the RS which doesn't support your view, noted on the relevant talk page (2002 coup). The source given (Cannon 2004, citing Rey 2002) was perfectly clear: "There was rather, according to Rey, an ‘unconstitutional power vacuum’ because the President had been illegally imprisoned, and the Vice-President was in hiding to avoid the same fate, yet there was no military leader prepared to assume power (Rey, 2002:10)." And you have no problem at all spouting off all manner of bad faith accusations. For reference, here is the 2002/3 strike at the time it was merged in 2006 (which I had nothing to do with, but when I updated the redirect with a section link, you accused me of merging it out of existence; no apology when I clarified that either). In general, your position seems to be that anything not to your liking is the result of conspiracy. Rd232 ^talk 16:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

And, you continue to cherrypick one source against a preponderance of reliable sources. As someone who edits medical articles knows all too well, anyone can get just about anything printed in even a peer-reviewed journal; that's why we give due weight to a preponderance of reliable sources. I supported the merge of that article at the time, not knowing the merge target would remain underdeveloped, with discussion of the events leading to Chavez's resignation minimized and completely overlooked in the article lead. My apologies if I have implied that *you* merged the article out of existence, since I supported the merge when I was a novice editor. (If I acccused you of that, I'm not aware of where in all this mess of different DR venues, but if I have done so and you can point out where, I will strike.) The current problem is that the content needs to be developed in the "coup" article, and is completely missing from the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Cannon (2004) is, to my knowledge, the only academic article addressing the legality of the coup. Even you will have a hard time explaining how this is "cherrypicking" (so I presume you'll just ignore this point; I've got your MO by now). Rd232 ^talk 12:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

With hindsight, "cherrypicking" is probably a loaded term, and I will strive to use "over-reliance on one source" from now on. Being the only academic article carries problems (like the absence of alternate viewpoints), and we shouldn't write entire articles around a few sources that have one viewpoint. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Woah, Sandy

Meant to say "Niiice archiving" before the weekend, but then went out and the rest is a bit of a blur. So here goes:

		Home-Made Barnstar
		For exquisite mass archiving. RB88 (T) 15:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Why, thank you :) Very kind of you ... and thanks for all your work at FAC! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Manual Rosales

Yes, I'm sure you'll do a bang-up job on "cleaning up" Manuel Rosales; I have no doubt that after deleting sources you claim are unreliable, even though the issue is still under debate you'll make a big effort to replace those sources. Not at all likely that negative information will magically disappear; that [a] Venezuelan politician (this one happening to be anti-Chavez) suddenly becomes a martyr. Will Interpol's acceptance of the arrest warrant survive? Who can guess! ^{Note, BLP violation removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)}[1]

Sorry, but everything you've said and done recently, and not least the way you said and did it, makes it perfectly clear that you are interested not in collaboration but in war: this is a political battle for you. Well it isn't for me; I'm just an academic trying to contribute to encyclopedia articles, some of them on Venezuelan topics where few are active and there is little content, and what there is is generally poor and based solely on recent news sources. More debate with and above all contributions from collaborative editors from a variety of perspectives and a willingness to use sources that go beyond the oppostion/US media bubble would be better. Collaboration like that is supposed to be Wikipedia's strength, and occasionally it really does work. But it's obvious that you're not interested in collaboration; Exhibit A: the Halvorssen thing: you want to discredit one of a handful of editors who don't share your views on these topics, by any means necessary.

Anyway, if you are interested in collaborating, then drop the "VA is unreliable" shtick - follow what Jayg said at RSN, and replace it where possible; dispute it where necessary; leave it where it's sourcing some uncontested information or providing a balancing opinion. Rd232 ^talk 16:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears that you're still misunderstanding the conclusions of Jayjg and others about VA's reliability and the appropriate use of it as a source. Other than that, most of your post is an assumption of bad faith. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not wrong, that's exactly what Jayg said. And WP:AGF applies until proven otherwise. The Halvorssen incident alone almost justifies dropping it - but it's far from alone. Rd232 ^talk 16:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you've yet digested the Halvorssen issue; you appear too upset to absorb all of the recent events. You screamed "BLP vio" on Mark Weisbrot where there was none, yet saw no BLP issues in Thor Halvorssen Mendoza or Manuel Rosales. Of concern is your uneven application of policy, where your POV seems to have affected your judgment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic. Even now - even now you decline to either explain the issue or apologise. And PS I conceded a mistake at Rosales (though you managed to make the mistake seem more egregious than it was by falsely claiming the claim had not been reported in any mainstream media) - and it's not like I fought to keep it in there; when it was pointed out, I was able to reconsider. You should try it some time. Rd232 ^talk 16:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue at Halvorseen was abundantly clear, and pointing it out to an experienced editor would be patronizing. ChildofMidnight cleaned up the attempt to smear Halvorssen Mendoza, with info about Halvorssen Hellum, and that issue is resolved. Why does this continue to trouble you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Because you so repeatedly declared an egregious problem (yet declined to fix it) and took the fact I didn't fix the entirely unexplained issue as evidence (as you still do) of POV editing. Your evasiveness that explaining would have been "patronising" is spectacular! You made no attempt to fix the issue or to explain it on talk; you jumped straight into WP:BLPN with an accusation that this edit which moved some text about created a "smear". And apparently it was fixed by these edits which moved some text about and copyedited! Neutral observers will recognise this as WP:GAMEing. Rd232 ^talk 16:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

And good faith observers will notice that I'm only one person, a very busy editor, and can't get to everything myself, when we have serious problems on hundreds of Venezuelan articles. Having said that, I intended to clean up Manuel Rosales before my eye Dr app't today, after which I won't be able to read for several hours, and instead, that time has been allocated to you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've done all I can do for one day at Rosales, and left unresolved issues on talk there. I'm stalled now because I don't know the exact Spanish words of what he was charged with, so I don't have keywords to search on for expansion of the description of the allegations. I did look at the Venezuelanalysis pages that were previously in the article, and found some bias and inaccuracies in those pages, but didn't find what I was looking for on the exact charges (in other words, I didn't find that they fill a gap relative to other English sources). I suspect that if one only or mostly reads VenAnalysis, one doesn't realize the bias that can creep into one's perspective. "Rosales participated in the April 2002 coup d’état against President Hugo Chávez, ..." [2] for example, is a biased, inaccurate, unsubstantiated and simplistic statement of what happened there (and I'd revert such text as a BLP vio because he sure wasn't and hasn't been tried and convicted as such) and sloppy journalism (see how other sources describe the situation, much more accurately-- I don't know if you were involved with Venezuela then, but I was). I hope you'll notice the wording I've used in the Rosales article, which is supported by most reliable sources (relative to the discussion above with SlimVirgin about non-English sources). And there are a few other things on talk to be resolved still; JRSP is usually able to fill in gaps using reliable Spanish-language sources.

I have now seen the diff provided by JN466 at WP:RSN:[3]

"I missed where he acknowledged the mistake; do you have a diff? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

[52], the lower half of the edit. --JN466 08:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)"

and I'm glad that he mentioned that I needed to scroll to the lower half of the edit, because that is probably how I missed it the first time, in the rush of so many posts over the last few days. I do see now that you acknowledged that the information should not have been included, appreciate that, and apologize for not having seen it sooner.

On the issue of the "legal threat", so we can sort that ... I first approached you calmly, as I should with an experienced editor. Your first response was just a dismissive WikiDictionary definition,[4] and your next response was to reiterate that it wasn't a threat and add on a patronizing introduction,[5] but I viewed that in the context of the dicdef you gave me first (that you didn't consider it a threat because of your definition of a threat). So, I asked very neutrally at AN/I. And then the AN/I thread fell apart (as they are wont to do) because the first person responding misread the original post, and the peanut gallery chimed in. I should learn to go directly to an admin when I have a question, and avoid AN/I; eventually Floquebeam gave me the simple answer I needed-- that it's not considered a threat, rather harassment. And then you clarified and apologized after all that. To my mind, your first clarification wasn't, because I saw it as based on your WikiDictionary definition of threat, and not answering the question. I hope that explains the confusion there.

On Thor Halvorssen, while you seemed outraged about Mark Weisbrot, seeing BLP issues everywhere (and I recognize you were partly confused because you had misread a diff about Banco del Sur, which added to the mess), you went to Halvorssen and re-arranged his article to bring information unrelated to him, rather his father, to the top of the article, making that the first info in the article and adding a link there to his father, yet you left the information about his mother at the bottom of the article. Later you went to WP:RSN and said, "Thor Halvorssen Mendoza, a Venezuelan described by the New York Times as 'a scion of wealth and privilege'," (as if that somehow discredits his work) [6] reinforcing my concern that the moved and added text was to get it up top, before his accomplishments, to discredit Halvorssen as having a silver spoon in his mouth and a father with a checkered past. I still don't see why you moved that particular text up, leaving the mother's text below, and I would move it all back to the bottom putting his career and accomplishments first, but in the tense environment that existed, and given that I had seen you edit warring on every article where I had engaged you to that point, I wanted fresh eyes to look at it at BLPN, which they did. I don't think that text belongs first, but other eyes have looked at it, so I'm satisfied and consider it resolved. I've said that several times, and I'm still not sure why it continues to be a concern: to my mind, I couldn't understand why you were using the BLP claim to remove text from Weisbrot, while appearing to arrange text in a way at Halvorssen that would discredit him before his accomplishments are viewed.

There's still the issue of the four reverts at the Coup article, where I still don't think we understand each other, but after spending most of the day cleaning up Rosales, I'm too tired now to finish this up. I do want to say again that, in spite of his POV, JRSP and I have been able to work together to balance articles, he does respect policy when I point something out, and I don't recall too many edit wars with him. In three years of editing around him, I've never seen him be as rude and dismissive as you have been, starting most of your posts with sarcasm and insult (perhaps that's because he's Venezuelan). I haven't appreciated your "undue much" edit summaries or your lectures to me that I don't understand BLP, when I believe I've evidenced that I do. I hope more collegial editing can exist between us. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I appreciate some attempt at explanation, however long overdue.

1. "libel" - I don't buy it. First, it was never readable, by a reasonable person, as a threat. Second, my user talk response made it perfectly clear it wasn't - how else do you interpret a reference to the definition of "threat"? I also said so explicitly at BLPN (where there was nothing "patronising" about explaining the history you brought up; I did note it was " pointless historiography", but then you do so consistently insist on bringing up irrelevant issues at DR fora - generally with elements of misrepresentation - in an attempt to discredit me, and when you do, I'm forced to explain or correct). Ironically, as I said in my reference to the "threat" definition, you don't seem to understand the nature of "threat". It requires intention to act - and it would require an abuse of the English language to read any intent to act into the original remark, even before clarification. Third, you repeatedly refer to it subsequently as "harassment" even after it was clarified, including morphing my passing remark into multiple "threats of libel". In fact the manner and frequency with which you have referred to this and other settled issues qualify, in my opinion, as actual harassment.
2. Halvorssen - I don't buy it either. You could have reverted with an explanation, and if you thought it so bad, should certainly have done so. You might have jumped straight to BLPN rather than talking, but doing so without reverting, and without explaining (despite repeated requests) - nope, I don't buy it. I also don't really buy your concern about moving the father's story out of the HRF section where it was clearly chronologically misplaced, and that this somehow contrasts with the mother's story staying there, where it chronologically fits and is directly linked to HRF. As for noting "scion of wealth and privilege" at a noticeboard - this clearly shows his membership of the old pre-1998 political elite, and supports my view that HRF is established primarily for political purposes. (The focus of its activities makes that pretty clear anyway, even if you didn't know the founder's background.) Rd232 ^talk 12:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
3. The four reverts issue has been explained repeatedly, and you can see the history and talk discussion history yourself. You could just take my word for it, but your belief in my bad faith seems incurable; judging by repeated references, not least on your "BLP violation" subpage, you think I work for VIO, and ergo cannot trust a word I say. (To which I'd suggest you look further into my editing history beyond Venezuela, but that's really up to you.) Rd232 ^talk 12:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

One more thing: please go back to RSN and see what Jayjg and I actually said. You might also look at the endorsements [7] of VA; I wish you knew the significance of Ellner's, but I doubt it. (He's the leading English-language academic on Venezuelan left politics, and as neutral as it gets.) Rd232 ^talk 12:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

PPS If you wonder I why I seem rude and dismissive - a large part of that is because you have never knowingly missed an opportunity to assume bad faith on my part. (That, and your own rudeness and disruptiveness in consistently seeking to close down debate and poison dispute resolution with claims of my general wrongdoing, instead of allowing debate to take its natural course, and focussing on the proximate content issue.) Rd232 ^talk 12:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you seem "rude and dismissive" because your anger[8] is affecting you in these discussions; I appreciate that you rethought and removed the personal attack, and I suggest that a break from these issues for a day or two might be good for both of us. You don't seem willing right now to engage in productive dialogue, and a few days off may benefit both of us. It's unfortunate that I found the smear on Manuel Rosales just as I finally had time to engage with you, and fixing that BLP was a priority, and that you removed from your talk page my statement that admin recall didn't seem necessary, but filling my talk page with assumptions of bad faith is not the most optimal way to advance this discussion. As I believe I mentioned to you several times (but if I didn't, I will now), I had surgery and a cold and several Drs app'ts and pressing RL issues in the same week that I was dealing with a large backlog and a massive RFC and several other issues at WP:FAC, and had to take off far too much time to clean up Rosales, since such an embarassing BLP is not a credit to Wiki. I would be grateful if you would look at the remaining issues I left on Talk:Manuel Rosales so we can close up that chapter, and I'm sorry that the amount of discussion on this when I've been so busy caused me to miss your acknowledgement that adding the content to Rosales was in hindsight a mistake. Now, when you're ready to dialogue productively and without assumptions of bad faith, I'm ready, but I will again be out most of the day with pressing RL issues, and still have many issues to deal with at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

They're not assumptions of bad faith, they're evidence. However I'm a lot keener to cease editing WP for a good while (maybe permanently) than to pursue the matter. I could do that if you would agree to the terms of use of VA which Jayjg suggested and I agreed with and developed into a clear proposal. Rd232 ^talk 15:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I will explore that as soon as I have time, but based on the two VA articles I read yesterday when dealing with Rosales, I'm not reassured that they should be used at all anywhere as a source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(humor diversion) I found out yesterday that I urgently need new eyeglasses, and I think carving out time to deal with that should be my priority right now :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What exactly did those sources say which was untrue? In any case, if any news organisation that ever published an untruth, half-truth, misinterpretation, etc were damned as an unusable source, there'd be nobody left at all. Isolated examples are not the issue (never mind that any individual example can probably be disputed - but that was a debate that over reams of discussion at RSN nobody wanted to have - discussion about concrete examples). Rd232 ^talk 16:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

? since when does chronological order take precedence over threaded indentation? if you need to take break, please do. Rd232 ^talk 16:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Rd, your sarcasm everywhere we engage [9] is not contributing to a productive or collaborative editing environment. I hope you're less angry when I find time to re-engage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Rd, my cold turned into a lingering and nasty cough that is keeping me up at night. As soon as I can, I'll deal with the BBC/Globovision citation, and next read the Alvarez article, but I've also noticed that JRSP isn't editing, and am hoping he'll surface soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have now read Alvarez; if there are other sources you want me to read, please let me know. While I can't disagree with some parts of his basic hypothesis (and that is what it is), even his hypothesis is not well developed in the article. He emphasizes the party aspects as more important than the economic aspects in the breakdown of democracy in Venezuela, yet never explores those very economic issues in the article. It is also "iffy" to assert his hypothesis as fact in Wiki articles, particularly when his article hasn't been counterbalanced, refuted, confirmed or addressed by other journal articles. I'm particularly concerned about the extreme number of grammatical errors, typos, and the poor level of English in the article, suggesting either that it was a poor translation from Spanish, or the journal doesn't receive strenuous peer review or have good editorial oversight. Since the paper is focused on the role of party politics in the breakdown of democracy in Venezuela, some parts of his paper could provide good additions to the politics of Venezuela, if attributed as his opinion, but I don't see how it should be used to source statements about Chavez's 2002 removal from office as "fact"; those parts of the article are underdeveloped, and are not the focus of the article. I also noticed significant criticism of the Chavez regime, couched in very careful language, as such is necessary in the current environment of political persecution in Venezuela; I suggest the article isn't as favorable of Chavez as how you seem to read it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

My ip number

I asked you yesterday why you added my IP (189.116...) to your list, you didn't reply. So I am asking the same question again. If you don't want to answer then remove it. Thank you. 187.46.229.120 (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Because with dynamic IPs, I need to remember that we're talking to one editor. Does that trouble you? If so, I can HTML comment out your IP from that page, but if I don't park things somewhere, I may forget. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind you keeping track of my IP. I just don't want to be listed under "Venezuela BLP problem" as I've had nothing to do with that. 189.65.155.201 (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see the problem; I will find a new title for that page and move it. That was unintentional: my apologies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Your comment

Per your comment on the Dief FAC page in closing, which I just noticed, how do you separate notes and references?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You use the {{#tag:ref|(insert your note here)<ref>You can put a footnote too!</ref>|group=(Name your notes section)}} format. Then set up your (notes) section with headers and a {{reflist|group=(name of your notes from earlier)}} in it. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain more simply? You can take it to my talk page if you don't want to congest Sandy's.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Example:

Lalalala lalala More stuff....

notes

For more examples, see Lightning Bar or Carucage. You can make the "group" parameter any label you want, some people use "nb" or "note". You don't have to footnote the #tag bit either.Ealdgyth - Talk 02:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, helps to see it in practice. I'll play with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI - user name change

Not sure if you still have this page watchlisted, so just as an FYI: User:Ibaranoff24, who nurtures the Ralph Bakshi article, is now User:Sugar Bear. [10] Karanacs (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Earthquake: science done, would like MoS-trained set of eyes

Re:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2007–2008 Nazko earthquakes/archive1, I'm done. The content is, to the best of my knowledge, scientifically correct. I fixed all of the spelling/grammar/style things that caught my eye too. But I'm spotty on the finer details of WP:MOS and not sure that I caught all the spelling/grammar/style issues, so if you could find someone (or had a very kind talk page stalker) to look it over, I think it would be ready for promotion. Awickert (talk) 05:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much, A; I see you put quite a bit of work into it ! The content work is the most important, and any one of us an pick up MOS issues later. Thanks, again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Been distracted ...

I've spent too much time today arguing on various FAC pages when I ought to have been spending my time opposing more FAcs, or giving Karanacs an even harder time with her Lady of Quality GA nomination. Sometimes we can lose sight of why we're here ... --Malleus Fatuorum 01:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You noticed my frustration :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hard to miss really, even for me. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

We've got something like 600 KB on talk pages, and I need reviews for tomorrow's pr/ar :) Go review a boat or something! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not touching a boat article with even the very longest of bargepoles right now, but I will look at a few others. No more orange bars from me tonight. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, neglect the boats then; want me to pass 'em with two supports?  :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Err no. I take your point. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC restarted

I restarted the remaining RfC bits in a way I thought was fair. Can you give me some quick feedback in case the last glass of wine marred my judgement? I really don't want another 300K of talk page, but we did actually manage to achieve some consensus on this last set of conversations and may be close to some additional consensus on some of these items. It would be nice not to have to have these conversations again in six months. Anyway, let me know if I screwed up on anything. Mike Christie (talk) 03:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks wonderful; thank you so much for doing all of that. Do we need to somehow link the old RFC there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I just commented out the RfC tag on the archive page; I don't know what botification goes on for RfCs but I figure Tipp-Exing it out is the right thing to do. Do we need more links than the individual archive links in each section I created? The overall archive link you added was a good idea, but doesn't that cover all the bases now? Mike Christie (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Links look good, I just don't know how we're supposed to handle the RFC part. I don't know what kills RFCs :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I read the manual and it appears that manually removing the tag is good enough. I think the official RfC is now dead; we now just have the discussion threads I restarted. Mike Christie (talk) 04:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike; it really is grand to have you back! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! It's great to have the time to get involved again. Mike Christie (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

FAC: July 2009 Ürümqi riots

Sandy, Your closing note implies that the article didn't pass. I don't quite understand... the 'concerns' were clearly from a POV-pusher, and his allegations proved to be blatantly false. Can you have a closer look to see. If there is a problem elsewhere - and I saw that most other concerns were addressed - is there something that can be done to rectify this? Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you please give me the link to the FAC, so I can get there faster? (My big purple notice isn't working :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/July 2009 Ürümqi riots/archive1. Hope this helps! Dana boomer (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Dana (I Love MY TPS ... did you get a box of chocolates from Ealdgyth for all of your review work at FAR?).

Ohconfucious, that FAC had been up for three weeks, and recieved no support. You will probably find that when you bring a clean, well-prepared article to FAC, with none of the small, technical issues that clog the page, the FAC will have a better chance at succeeding, and reviewers are less likely to be scared off by what you consider a POV oppose, causing the FAC to fall to the bottom of the page with no Support. I suggest making sure you have addressed everything else, and bringing it back in a week or so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I supported. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I merely scanned the FAC for this response (and that is why you should follow FAC instructions and not bury your support in the middle of a line). The argument is the same; three weeks, one support, no consensus to promote, better to start fresh in a few weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I get. Do you mean it doesn't have to go through the hoop of a GAN before bringing it back? Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

GAN is as backlogged as FAC, and is not a requirement for FAC, but if you can get a good reviewer there, it can be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Patience wearing thin

My patience is wearing very thin with this kind of nonsense, I'll be staying away from FAC and its related discussions for a while, because coupled with the bullshit about citation templates I'm on the point of exploding, and that wouldn't help anyone or anything. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Go punch some pillows (but don't kick the dog or the wife :) Or do what I'm doing, taking on POV-pushers all over the Wiki ... we don't realize how good we have it at FAC, where we only deal with top-notch articles. Our problems are small problems :) Chin up !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

PS, and go easy on Eubulides; he does great work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

He's getting on my tits. so best I go do something else. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Move your tits; get a breast lift :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably wise that you seek an alternate destination for a bit, MF, if I understand what passes for English on the citation template page, you just got clobbered.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Darn, Wehwalt, you should know by now it takes me two edits to add one thought: damn edit conflict. Who clobbered Malleus? @Malleus ... Or take a look at the people who get on my t ... errr ... case; I'll trade if you want !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think they are talking Japanese over at the citation template discussion, but I don't think at least one of them thinks too well of Malleus right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure they're speaking Japanese, but as you know, Malleus isn't much concerned about how well people think of him :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll live. I just can't bear to watch the ignorant discussing their prejudices with the stupid, and I don't much care who knows that. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is more a case of a broken clock, to use a dated analogy, being correct twice a day.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think nobody knows for sure, but long articles, and articles clogged up with lots of images, are a problem. I've been on WP:SIZE since my reviewer days, but no one else seems to care. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Just a quick thank you for sticking those "nbsp" examples in Takalik Abaj - it wasn't something I'd come across before! Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 10:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Venezuelanalysis

Hi, thanks for commenting on Venezuelanalysis at WP:RSN. I've actually started a new section to summarise and refocus: WP:RSN#Venezuelanalysis Reboot - perhaps you could comment there? (I'm asking everyone who participated in the old WP:TLDR thread.) Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 12:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Rd232 ^talk 17:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for calling attention to the significant problems we're mutually encountering; perhaps ANI will make something of it other than a circus :) Were you planning to respond to my query above on Alvarez and other sources you want me to read? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Not at the moment. You really don't seem to get (I'm sure I said this to you) that I'm trying to emphasis the "retired" part of "semi-retired" for a good while. The only thing stopping me is the VA thing not being resolved. Rd232 ^talk 19:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

What I do get is that you repeatedly taking the same issues to multiple noticeboards, and then restarting them when you don't get the answer you want, is preventing me from completing the work requested at Hugo Chavez :) I do hope you're able to retire soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You claim (again) that the issue was settled. Please explain what the answer was, giving full due attention to all the participants in the TLDR thread, and to the new information presented subsequent to most people's involvement, and to the new information presented in the Reboot. Rd232 ^talk 19:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The ANI post is obviously not the "same issue" as RSN. Unlike you, I can distinguish between content issues and behavioural issues. Rd232 ^talk 19:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Remember the break you're trying to take, Rd; the discussion of VA is that-a-way. I've got to gather sources for Chavez, and other things keep interfering. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You have only yourself to blame. If you didn't keep trying to derail dispute resolution, I wouldn't have been forced to address that behaviour pattern of yours. Rd232 ^talk 19:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Perception, perception. I think taking issues to multiple noticeboards and restarting discussions away from the full discussion already had is also "derailing dispute resolution". And that's without mentioning other behavioral issues like edit warring, non-neutral editing, and other signs of WP:TEND. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find RSN and RSN are the same noticeboard. Please evidence taking the same issue to different noticeboards: I've gone to different boards on related issues, but not the same one (except possibly the one time you tried to derail BLPN, I don't recall the details). Rd232 ^talk 19:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Rd, let me make something clear. You're busy, I'm busy, your orange bars don't strike me as being aimed at a reasonable dialogue aimed at settling our differences, and they're preventing me from working. You've already taken your concern to AN/I, and if asked, I'll evidence your repeated "asking the other parent" on Weisbrot, when you didn't get the answer you wanted.[11] [12] [13] [14] [15] There was no need to initiate a new thread at RSN, unless the aim is to obfuscate all the feedback already given. That's my point of view; yours may vary. Now, unless you want to begin to talk to me instead of at me, or just remind me that you want to retire, we've got both better things to do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good evidence of the way you've sought repeatedly to shut down dispute resolution. Sequence: after I raised an issue at BLPN,[16] 1 (one) person commented at Talk:Mark Weisbrot,[17] and she almost immediately sought to derail the chances of any further BLPN input with an off-topic post claiming general misbehaviour by me and another editor (this would prove a habit - how much of the RSN threads are taken up with accusations of this sort?). After I attempted to greatly clarify the issue at Talk:Mark Weisbrot and to restart the BLPN discussion (subsection "Synthesis"), she again sought to derail the dispute resolution. Since there was disagreement specifically on that, and the initial comment from another editor failed completely to address the synthesis issue, and since Sandy'd already derailed the BLPN thread enough, I went (WP:SYNTH being part of WP:OR) to WP:NORN for input specifically on that issue. Of course she promptly jumped in and sought to derail that too! [18] Adding similar material to a different article produced a slightly different policy issue (WP:UNDUE); I thought it was borderline OK, and posted at the appropriate noticeboard for clarification [19] Of course she derailed this too, jumping in again with general complaints about alleged misbehaviour. So, yes, thanks for evidencing your misbehaviour. Rd232 ^talk 01:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Rd, what would it take to get you to stop harassing me? When the "legal threat" question was raised,[20] I was told it wasn't harassment unless it became a pattern; your posts to my talk page are becoming a pattern. Are you here to discuss article improvement? Would you like to comment on the Alvarez article? You've said you want to retire; if so, why do you keep pestering me? Have you filed a BLP on the article you mentioned below? Are you here to improve Wiki? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It's you who keep harassing me by attacking me at every possible opportunity and venue; the post above is illustration of that. If you don't want to discuss it further, fine. Rd232 ^talk 02:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I note that you have not answered my request to Please explain what the answer was, though you have found time to again imply that it was all settled in your favour. Rd232 ^talk 19:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

still not answered this question. Rd232 ^talk 02:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Non-English sources

I've been giving this issue some thought. Would it help from your perspective if we add something like the following to the policy (V)? That any translation of material that could reasonably be regarded as contentious, not only quotations, should be added to a footnote, length permitting (the original and the translation). And that, in cases where the length is prohibitive, or in articles where there are a lot of footnotes containing translations, a talk-page subpage should be created (e.g. Talk:France/translations), and that this should be pinned in the archives, or at the top of the talk page, so that it doesn't disappear. We'd also have to add something about being careful not to violate copyright e.g. by reproducing entire newspaper articles, and that copying should be judicious.

Would something like that work? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Something like that ought to do it, SV. The problem has typically been with quotes of only one sentence, mistranslated, taken out of context, POV introduced, etc., and if more editors viewing the article could see the original language, they'd be more likely to pick up the POV sooner. I also think we should make the recommendation even stronger on BLPs. Thanks for looking at that ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The Rookie (1990 film)

Hi, I'd like to know if you think the following article; The Rookie (1990 film) is up to FA specs. I believe in its current state, the article appears to conform to most if not all of the criterea for FA status. The main image includes WP:ALT, the plot section is well written and concisely detailed but not overly detailed, the production and release sections are thoroughly filled with content, the references and the article in general is properly punctuated and gramatically correct and it includes all the necessary relevant external links, plus its correctly categorized. I feel the most that could be accomplished with this article is pretty much there and complete. Since the film was not entirely successful and the fact that its about 20 years old; information is a little hard to come by. Do you think it can pass the way it is? I've seen other FA approved articles with slimmer content make the cut. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Mike, I appreciate the request for feedback, but FAC is based on reviewer consensus; I'm only the "judge" of consensus, not articles :) And I'm particularly busy over the next few weeks. I'm confident some of my talk page stalkers will give you some feedback, though. Good luck with it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hah haha Haha .......Oh, ok. Sorry! Just a quick question, is it ok for me to insert the article on the FA Candidates page for that "Reviewer Consensus" ?...lOl...Mike Tompsonn (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone who has more time than me will probably give it a glance here soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, gr8 Mike Tompsonn (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Mike. As one of the reviewers who felt the article wasn't FAC-ready the other week, I thought I should respond. You've done some cleanup, but I shouldn't mince words—I still think it's long way short, primarily because I can't agree with your assertion that "the production [section is] thoroughly filled with content." Four short paragraphs is not enough for an article like this. While you're right that slimmer articles have probably made the FA cut (I'd have to check), I'm willing to bet that few (if any) of those are film articles, for which sources are almost always obtainable. If you want to create a film FA, the best thing you can do for inspiration is to look at existing film FAs. Your first port of call should be Wikipedia:FA#Media; find a film of similar reputation and profile to see how the primary editors treated it. Just because this film is old, and will likely be considered ... less significant than others ... when Eastwood's career comes to be assessed, it doesn't mean the sources aren't out there—just harder to find. I guarantee that there will be enough to create fully-formed development, writing and filming sections. Your problem will just be accessing them; given that it's a 1990 film, most will be offline: newspaper articles, journal articles, making-of books, back issues of Variety. Just take a look at the frightening offline reading list for the article I'm finishing off right now, and that's from 1999. I don't expect to see the same depth of coverage for The Rookie, but as a quick example, it took me only minutes to discover that the film is covered at length in the January 1991 issue of American Cinematographer (vol 72, issue 1), and another minute to identify several potential goldmines among these. If you're lucky, maybe the DVD has a commentary track, production notes or a making-of featurette. I don't mean to dissuade you from improving the article; if you have the opportunity to do some heavy duty research, it's definitely worth it. But as the article currently stands, submission at FAC would I think only demoralise you. I don't want to see that. So, if you want further advice, or even hands-on help, it can't hurt to bring the article to the attention of Wikiproject Films. At the very least, it'll mean fewer orange bars for Sandy. :-) All the best, Steve ^T • C 22:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologize, Steve; I appreciate you taking the time. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

lOl.....Well, thanks for the enlightenment Steve. Indeed when I was editing this page, I did view numerous film articles that were already certified with FA status. The style of the article is very similar to other featured film articles. From what I take about what you've wrote, I think the only problematic issue is the Production Section being a little light on content. The article has a strong Intro, the Plot is similar in composition to other articles, the critical reception is fairly thorough (but maybe not on a level for a film like Avatar) - but its sufficient for this film. And finally, the External links and punctuation are generally strong. I can't say that I really have the time necessary to dig up an old entertainment magazine for extensive research. I will try to look into what you've displayed and see if I can make additional improvements. And as far as sparse content is concerned, how about that recently featured article titled Bale Out ? ....lOl....I know its not a film article and I'm not saying that its insufficiently sourced either. I'm just saying as far as extensive content is concerned, it seems a little dry. But it still made the cut. I appreciate the help. Thanks Mike Tompsonn (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP

I have no doubt that you will apply the same rigorous standards here as you did for Manuel Rosales, n'est pas? Rd232 ^talk 00:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

As you can see from my contribs, I'm busy ... feel free to deal with whatever is there yourself (I don't know the case). Your sarcasm is noted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I do see New York Times and Associated Press there, so I'm still concerned about your grasp of BLP vios relative to a partisan source like Venezuelanalysis.com; posting sarcasm to my talk page isn't helpful (see WP:POINT), and if you know the case, and there's a BLP vio, I believe you should report it to BLPN for intervention from a neutral party. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Didn't actually intend it to be as sarky as it now reads; it was posted in an extreme hurry. I'll take it to BLPN. (I find it hard to refrain from wondering whether you'll consider it forum-shopping though.) Rd232 ^talk 02:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Multiple sclerosis

After your comments two months ago I have been doing a full review and revamping of the sources used in the article. Right now I believe that all issues with the use of primary sources have been addressed. I have tried to only use high quality secondary sources which has led to a reduction in the number of references from over 160 to less than 70. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That's wonderful news, Garrondo, but I won't be able to peek in for at least a week. I hope some of my talk page stalkers will look it over! Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I was not asking for a visit (although it will always be welcome!!) but informing you since it was you who raised the issues. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 08:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Collaboration

"Most collaborative, experienced and respectful editors don't seem to have a problem communicating with me: YMMV."[21]

I've replied, [22] but don't wish to continue the conversation on my talk page; if you wish to reply, please reply here.

You have shown no sign of being either collaborative or respectful. In the few weeks that we've substantively crossed paths, you've attacked me at every opportunity (generally as part of a seeming deliberate attempt to disrupt dispute resolution on specific content issues) and frequently misrepresented and manipulated, in what amounts to a harassment campaign (User:Rd232/notes). You seem to believe that I'm either a paid Venezuela propagandist or some kind of activist, and that as a result anything goes. I'm neither - I'm an academic with a slight wikiaddiction (so I guess I should thank you for driving me into semi-retirement).

For the record, I joined WP in October 2004, becoming an admin in October 2005. I made a few edits to Hugo Chavez (the centre of the Venezuela disputes, so I've checked the history for that article) for the first time in mid-2005 (edits mostly in the summer); 3 in 2006 (including a vandalism rollback), zero in 2007 and 2008 (OK, I was mostly absent from mid-2006 to early 2009 - but it hardly looks like a long-term commitment to controlling Venezuela articles, does it?). In any case, as Soxred's tool and some careful thumbing through my history shows (especially pre-2009, when I seemed to get a lot more involved with Venezuela), Venezuela is just one of many topics I've edited, and only a relatively small proportion of my edits (especially on the edit side rather than the talking - reams of talking here).

I know I shouldn't really have to explain myself to you; but that's just what I'm like - I want to get along with people. I'm happy to learn things from people who disagree strongly; I'm happy to admit mistakes. If you had brought an assumption of good faith along with your renewed interest in Venezuela, we could have had some productive collaboration I'm sure. As it is - bye. Rd232 ^talk 09:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

24 Waterfall salute!

Thanks for your advice on FAC vs. FLC. Waterfalls in Ricketts Glen State Park made Featured Article today! Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sam Loxton/archive1

Hi there Karanacs. It's now the bottom FAC and I've expanded the politics section and explained by it shouldn't be expanded further, and so have some other folks, but haven't been able to elicit a reply from User_talk:Rebecca#Loxton_FAC. Thanks YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems a little dramatic

• War at WT:FAC serious this time Sorry, I don't understand the "war" and the "serious". —mattisse (Talk) 18:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm guessing that Sandy's referring to "Disasters of War", which is being discussed in that section. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• But what is so "serious"? —mattisse (Talk) 18:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• I do not know, but as far as I can see, Sandy was just notifying someone that their FAC nomination was being discussed, that's all. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Simple, my post right above it to Ceoil was a joke. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, great! So you don't take all that stuff at WT:FAC seriously! Good to know. —mattisse (Talk) 01:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Mattisse, don't try to wilfully misunderstand when you are intelligent enough to read in context. "Serious" as opposed to Sandy's post above it. You really should pull your neck in now; we got your point. Yomangani^talk 01:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Eh, thanks for notification Sandy. Johnbod is quite right, I do have a machine gun approach to editing - tend to begin in chunks and get it out there, after that it's tat tat tat...20% of my edits to the page are minor. Whereas JNW and, espically, Johnbod are inclined to add more in fewer edits, and both have far more knowledge, are more careful and overall considered (see the talk pages). Anyway, I far prefer to work in a team, and that wont change, even if leglistlated against, as would seem some would prefer.

I hope I havn't gone and broken the internet or anything! Ceoil ^sláinte 21:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

First test of new FAC instructions

Sturmvogel 66 nominated HMS Lion (1910) one day after Petlyakov Pe-8 was archived. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see discussion aat WT:FAC. The conclusion seems to be that there are no criteria, as I understand it. Kindest regards, —mattisse (Talk) 03:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm going on the instructions currently in place, which read: "If the article is archived, and not promoted, the nominator may not nominate any article for 2 weeks unless given leave to do so by a delegate; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a delegate will decide whether to remove it." --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The editor has requested an exception on Karanac's talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I left him a friendly notice pointing to the new instructions. It wasn't a "zOMG you violated the rules!" --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sandy's offline right now and I was sick and offline so this got missed. I've granted the exception since there is already feedback. Thanks for paying attention, Andy, and I'll see if I can pay a little more attention now. Karanacs (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There's another case at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Say Say Say/archive1. I have noted the rule, but the FAC instructions leave it up to the delegates what to do with it, so I'm noting it here (I assume Karanacs also reads this). Ucucha 02:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It's been resolved now; the nominator asked me to delete the page and he'll come back later with the nomination. Ucucha 02:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

For when you get back

No hurries, just a reminder when you get back that I'm COId from closing Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Irish Thoroughbred/archive1. When I nominated it, I forget you'd be out of town this week and I'd be doing the closings. It's only been up just over a week, but will be closer to 3 by the time you're due for your next FAC closings. Karanacs (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Turns out my friend got wifi, so when we're around the house, I do have internet ... so I have more availability than I thought, although sporadic ... I'll be able to watch it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean you had to do it now. I'll munch on a Girl Scout cookie (one of the coconut kinds with caramel drizzled over the top) in your honor ;) Thanks, but now go play. Hopefully it is warmer where you are than it is here. Karanacs (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It's freezing here ... and I'm waiting for the girls to wake up from their nap before dinner, so got it done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Today.... on Masterpiece Theatre

*Trumpets*

*Older distinguished gentleman enters room, draws deep breath*

The growth of humanity, a wise man has been heard to say, is dependent upon man's ability to learn from his past mistakes. Women, however, can make all the mistakes they dare. Case in point: our episode today surrounds the meteoric rise to fame of the silicone implants embedded in Pamela Anderson's chest and their auspicious writing career, as interpreted by Bea Arthur. Let's watch.

The beauty of it. Someone pass me a tissue. I weep. --Moni3 (talk) 13:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"Weiner"? Who came up with that, the big-breasted blonde or the husky-voiced matron? Even *I* can write more descriptively than that. I've known grown men who cried when that other big-breasted blonde whose name escapes me died ... pass *me* the tissue box. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Mark Weisbrot. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. 187.47.23.230 (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ever hear of WP:DTTR? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Cute, coming from an IP already at 4RR. [23] [24] [25] [26]. Who wants to file the report? :) Эlcobbola _talk 17:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I wish someone would! The sun finally came out here, and I've spent my morning chasing socks and vandals and correcting faulty edits from an involved admin! Wiki fun day !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Besides, that's a dynamic IP, long involved in related discussions, so it can be back in a second; now I've got to go find the other IPs it has used. <grrrrr ... > It's a gorgeous day here, and I'm supposed to be on vacation! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)