User talk:SandyGeorgia/archtemp

FACs needing feedback ; view • edit
La Isla Bonita	Review it now
History of infant schools in Great Britain	Review it now

If you want me to look at an article or a FAC, please provide the link (and have a look at User:Steve/Oppose rationale for some helpful info).
If you are unsure if a FAC is closed, please see WP:FAC/ar.
To leave me a message, click here.

About me

Talk to me

To do list

Tools and other
useful things

Some of
my work

Nice
things

Yukky
things

Your RfA comments

As I stated in other replies, I have been contemplating the possibility of pursuing an RfA and thought it might come at some point in the future. I was taken aback that anyone would nominate me at RfA and I believe that I have shown in my recent edit history that I am a different editor than I was before. I appreciate the concerns you raised and those of the other opposes, and I understand why you may feel that I'm not ready at this point. Regardless of the outcome of this RfA I will do my best to continue to improve as a collaborative editor and to address all the good faith issues that you and other admins may raise here. Alansohn (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy is not an admin, though she will smile happily at your comment, I am sure :) . Congrats on your candidacy though I suspect it will not meet the required percentage. Brave man, that. Hell week is not for the faint of heart. And to do it twice?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alansohn, I recognize that you may have altered your behavior since the Arbcom blocks, but working at DYK isn't the way to evidence that you are a different editor wrt those behaviors (particularly considering plagiarism concerns with lots of DYKs and some of yours, and the lack of adequate oversight at DYK and how easy it is to put up a DYK), and the DRV in July 2010 indicates that you still have strong tendencies in that problematic area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the fact that you believe that DYK has a "lack of adequate oversight", it most certainly is not the fast-and-loose trivial accomplishment you make it out to be. With each of my articles averaging about 2,500 characters, I have contributed a few million bytes worth of new and improved articles backed by ample reliable and verifiable sources, which could just as easily have been several dozen GAs or FAs. I have successfully focused on expanding the breadth of coverage in Wikipedia through DYK and your condescending attitude towards that approach is uncalled for. Moreso, if you are going to make extraordinary negative claims about my editing you are going to have to back up the assertion you make above regarding "plagiarism concerns with lots of DYKs and some of yours". Alansohn (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alansohn, part of your past problems wrt RFA have to do with you becoming combative when others disagree with you; I don't think it would be productive for me to dig up more than this example. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For someone who's tossing out baseless and unsupported allegations of alleged plagiarism, my response is hardly "combative". This is not a mere disagreement; You are making a rather direct personal attack. If you genuinely believe that William S. Stevens or any other article has been plagiarized by me you are going to have to provide evidence, not merely point to a definition of the term. Alansohn (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And now you are becoming combative. There is no personal attack; I linked the evidence (your article that follows the structure of the NYT article with some juggling). Critical reading and a thick skin are good qualities in admins. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a rather thick skin, but your claim of plagiarism is baseless. If you have any evidence that any aspect of the Wikipedia article for William S. Stevens has been plagiarized from his obituary in The New York Times you have yet to provide it. Without it, it's just a baseless personal attack. Alansohn (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I prefer to think of it as a conversation that may lead you to improve your editing, and maybe even some oversight for plagiarism at DYK. At any rate, this conversation has run its course. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just driving by and noticed the P-word, which always gets people seriously riled up, so I took a brief look at this compared to here. Alansohn, you seem to have pretty closely followed the structure of the obit, i.e. the order of presentation of facts follows the same sequence. You have been selective in what you wrote about as compared to the obit, but you do not seem to have incorporated material from any other sources. I certainly see the problem with incorporating a new source properly when it already explains things in the most logical way and I try never to use "that" word, but from my own limited experience evaluating copyvio and plagio issues, I'd suggest you could achieve a better standard than that. Just sayin' :) I'm not sure, but WP:Close paraphrasing may be of some help here. Franamax (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't my intent to single out Alansohn when the real problem is DYK in general, in that its lack of oversight encourages copyright infringement and the reward culture. But since Alansohn wants more evidence, here is one more. I only meant to say that DYK is not the equivalent of the kind of serious content work that I look for in admins; it's too easy to slap up a quick copyvio at DYK, and they get accepted without close checks on the paraphrasing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think I would would pass those first 12 edits, taken as a body. It's not exactly "read everything / close all books and windows / write what you now know / go back and prove how you know it", but it looks like the material was integrated well enough. I'm often wrong on this stuff when specifics are pointed out to me though. :)

You are singing from my sheet when it comes to DYK concerns in general. I stopped watching that long ago, heck even I have two DYK credits. The rotation period seems too short for the available manpower and the incentives seem wrong to me. Dunno how to fix that though, other than volunteering my own time for the case-by-case bits. I could see lowering the rotation frequency to increase competition for available slots, but that seems a rather nasty way of going about a wiki. Franamax (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK has lost its way. It might as well be renamed "... did you you know that I've written this rather nasty little stub with a tediously boring hook that nobody's bothered even to check for basic spelling and grammar mistakes?" Malleus Fatuorum 23:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK never had a way; there was never a "golden age before all the good ones were taken". The first five DYKs were:

Did you know that a pencil sharpener "is a device for sharpening a pencil's point by shaving the end of the pencil"?"
...that in 1971, Pakistani writer Eqbal Ahmad was indicted on charges of conspiracy to kidnap Henry Kissinger?
...that jumping plant lice and aphids are considered to be the "primitive" group within the Hemiptera order of true bugs?
...that the Tokyo Monorail, which travels at speeds of up to 80 kph, was constructed to coincide with the 1964 Summer Olympics?
...that the Balkan comic opera Ero the Joker was first performed on November 2, 1935?

– iridescent 23:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that. I was trying to be generous, to see how it felt. Malleus Fatuorum 23:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on a 'sec, did you just admit that you have feelings (or at least the potential to have them)? This seems a major development, and even raises the possibility other editors may have thwm too. ((Double-super smiley ;;)) Franamax (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

No joking about Malleus. You might get blocked. Or not. Ucucha 23:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely not :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about DYK ... that DYK is a sensationalist Home Health Guide ?!?! One proposal I liked from Alansohn:

Overlook Hospital
... that a doctor at Overlook Hospital in Summit, New Jersey recommended the consumption of alcoholic beverages to delay the onset of contractions of a pregnant woman? Created by Tomwsulcer (talk). Nominated by Alansohn (talk) at 03:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this Project supposed to be taken seriously (except 1 April of course ... wouldn't want to offend present company :) Is that really how we should present a Hospital on the main page? The whole hook "thingie" furthers sensationalism, by picking out one obnoxious doctor to highlight in a DYK about a hospital. I believe there was some oversight on that one, though, and it wasn't run ... could be wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should have been retired from the main page a long time ago. It had a purpose once: to expose new articles on the main page in the hope they would be improved and at the same time to encourage and recruit new editors. Unfortunately it was never made clear to the visitors that their participation was encouraged, so it never really worked, and somewhere down the line it became a medal-collecting exercise where editors demand their "right" to have their article featured, their "credit" delivered, and their records noted. It's a pity because inaccurate stubs could be a great editor recruiting tool. DYK is by no means alone in bringing mediocrity to the main page though - articles in OTD and ITN are frequently worse. Yomangani ^talk 00:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My one foray into ITN resulted in 1) a POV article being run on the mainpage, and 2) me being told to STFU. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mine resulted in the discovery that I am part of a reformist Jihad. Never knew that. Ucucha 00:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not only am I unclear as to the ax grinding with regard to DYK, I am still unclear as to where there is plagiarism in the William S. Stevens article. If anyone has a serious interest in dealing with allegations of a widespread epidemic of plagiarism in this article, any other article I've written or at DYK in general, it would be far more helpful to discuss these issues WT:DYK rather than beating a horse that isn't present. Alansohn (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simply: DYK had lofty goals that made some sense in the Project's earlier days, to encourage article creation and expansion. Now it mostly furthers the Reward culture and creation of marginally useful articles for "prizes". Spend a lot of time reading the talk page at WP:WIKICUP. The problem with many DYK articles is described in the close paraphrasing link given above, and also, when the structure of the article mimics the source (please read the Dispatch I linked). It happens often when articles are put together quickly from one or two sources, and it can be hard to avoid if putting together a lot of DYKs quickly is the goal. I still didn't mean to make an example of you: before the plagiarism Dispatch was written, I wasn't very knowledgeable myself, and probably did some of same somewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns with the process, but DYK still serves the beneficial purpose of fostering the creation and expansion of new articles and making the reading public aware of these articles. The work that you have done on GAs and FAs, meticulously analyzing each sentence and source has produced a substantial number of high quality articles, and I appreciate the assistance that you offered when I was working on GAs for Manhattan and Teaneck, New Jersey. After devoting tons of time to those efforts I became hooked on DYK after realizing how many articles didn't exist, despite the availability of biographies and obituaries about the subject. We need Wikipedia to improve the depth of articles, a task that GA and FA status serves well, but we also need to fill in the holes and that's where DYK still has a vital role to play. I wouldn't denigrate anyone for working on getting an article to GA status and I don't see the reason to be hypercritical of DYK. I had read the signpost piece on plagiarism before and I read it again. I have always tried to make sure that any editing I have done complies with those paradigms. While I appreciate your concerns about my editing history, I am confident that over time I will be able to convince the community that I have made a meaningful change. But the charge of plagiarism cuts at the essence of everything I've done on Wikipedia. I hope you understand where I come from on this issue. Alansohn (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Alansohn, and appreciate the more moderated tone now. I guess what I really wanted was not to denigrate your DYK work, but to point out that it's not the best vehicle for showing you've overcome the arb blocks. And there is a real problem with how DYK has become part of the Reward culture, ala Wikicup. Have you had a look at Dabomb87's RFA? He was sanctioned in the lame date-delinking case, and he overcame that with a resoundingly successful RFA, but he worked his arse off for more than a year, and dealt with that head on-- DYK is more of a hidden area where you didn't necessarily demonstrate that you'd overcome those past issues. I appreciate your reasons for getting involved at DYK, but to overcome the XfD issues from your past, it just might not be the best place to work-- do it for fun, but know that if you want to pass RFA, accepting a surprise nom isn't a good starting place, and you have to address your past blocks head on, not think a lot of DYKs will overcome them. Also, I'm certain I never used the word "plagiarism" at the RFA; I do understand Franamax's point that it is a very loaded word on Wiki, even though I don't see it that way, since I was quite ignorant before that Dispatch was written. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah well, I'm not a big fan of the specific wording in that Signpost article, but I'll accept that it drew attention to our commuity efforts to get the guideline up and running. Alansohn, I think there are three different themes here. One is the whole question of what purpose WP:DYK exists to serve. It would be unfortunate if that were the only reason your RFA tanked, but that's not what I'm reading; the second is whether you yourself committed rampant plagiarism. I came here entirely unprompted through plain 'ol TP-stalking and made my own independent evaluation of the two candidate articles presented. It's only my opinion, but for one of them it's "on balance, likely OK" and for the other "hmm, I have kind of a queasy feeling about this" - so it's not a guilty/innocent area, IMO it shades into grey. Not a federal case, but maybe something for small-claims court; and third, your suitability as an admin candidate, which I suspect may be foremost in your mind right now. Me, I would hate everyone who opposed my RFA forever, except I forget who they were. ;) Sandy has the privilege to express her own views, you indicated an interest in DYK proceedings, thus it seems apropos to comment thereon. I'm rather troubled that these are two-year-old events being rehashed, but at the same time I've not seen your disavowal (or even adequate explanation) of what happened. If you are going to stand as an administrator, you better be willing to talk about everything. Franamax (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I forget who almost all of them were :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear to me that as an editor and a person that I've moved beyond the incidents that led to blocks in the past and made the personal changes to ensure they don't ever happen again. I knew that it would take more than one RfA to get to that point and that a first RfA would serve as a benchmark where I might be able to convince some one-time no voters to switch sides based on continued changes. I'm still concerned about the claims of plagiarism, and any more specific evidence of violations would only help efforts to address it where it has appeared in existing articles and help me avoid the issue in the future. Alansohn (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take your lumps, take a full six months, and be above reproach. If you do all that, I think it will be close, though I would not put money on it. If you fail, if you then take another six months, ditto, ditto, I think you'll be OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had no reasonable expectation of passing at this point and my plan is to continue the positive work I've done, expand my scope a bit and try again sometime next year. Meanwhile I'm not letting the lumps bother me and I'm doing my best to take constructive criticism from the many opposes. Alansohn (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chain Saw FAC

Hi Sandy, I was wondering if you could look over the FAC now and see if there's consensus to promote? Thanks, --The Taerkasten (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs will most likely go through FAC today (she closes FACs on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesday-- I do the rest of the week); has DCGeist finished up? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think so, all the issues raised have been addressed. I'll just make sure. Thanks,--The Taerkasten (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll run through FAC later tonight - probably close to midnight UTC. Karanacs (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the longest film FAC or what? The four prior FAC's didn't have as much scrutiny. I've addressed DCGeist's latest concerns. I don't know what's going to happen to this FA, honestly.--The Taerkasten (talk) 12:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not even close to long or a record :) I'll get over there later tonight or first thing tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that Davidpatrick may need a talking to as well.

For what? Voicing an opinion on ANI that you disagree with? Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 19:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was coming here as well concerned about that comment. It's already enough of a shame that everybody else has completely ignored what he said (which seemed rather reasonable to me.) Kansan (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He appears to me to have grandly missed the point. If anyone else has as well, I doubt my explanation will help. I wonder how much of that particular block unfolded off-Wiki, on IRC or other sorts of places, BTW, and who else participated? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simply bringing up a perspective that nobody had yet considered in the rush to condemn the block is not "missing the point", and accordingly, what happened where (IRC or whatever) is not strictly relevant in whether he has the right to participate in the discussion. Kansan (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have missed our point. Your comment comes across as aggressive. I'm sure that you didn't mean it to but that's how it sounds. Could you delete it please? Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 19:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I fail to find the aggression in suggesting a "talking to" wrt BLP issues; in fact, it seems rather mild. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you fail to see it otherwise you wouldn't have said it. But when two people independently come to your talk page to say that they see a problem with that comment, that should probably tell you something. The language is ~~menacing,~~ mildly so but unacceptable none the less. Please remove the comment. You can't say that you are against wikibulling when admins do it but engage in a low level example yourself. Please, just remove it. Or strike it if you prefer. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 19:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now who's bullying and menacing? Two editors who think "talking to" is "menacing"? "Talking to" over BLP issues can only be construed as menacing if you're got a mindset predisposed on the whole issue, which would be interesting in and of itself. You may go away now because I've given you my final answer: there is absolutely nothing menacing or bullying in my very mild choice of words-- or if you prefer, you can block me for refusing to cowtow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa is not bullying or menacing you; she's politely communicated her concerns about what was said. At least when I think of the term "a talking to", I think of being yelled at; inveighed against. It may simply be a difference in how we perceive the term. Kansan (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly we disagree on bullying; when an admin comes here three times and pretty much demands that I remove a very mild comment, that is more menacing than the original comment. I suggest she block me post-haste, as I see an old style (2003) admin at work here. BTDT. And I really can't feel responsible if your parents talked to you differently than I talk to my children-- you have a very strange idea of "talking to" in my world. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are way too emotionally het up. Of course I won't bloody block you. I did not demand it i requested it. Calm down, Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee!

Please save your condescending tone for children: I already raised mine. You can go away now; you've shown your colors and double standard. Malleus wins again. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

I'm confused now; is sarcasm an appropriate response to nonsense comments ("menacing") or not? Эlcobbola _talk 20:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the diff showing the comment Sandy made? I can't find it. Menacing? Is that the word that should be used? --Moni3 (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here. Kansan (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=393261796 Menacing is too strong a word and i should (not) have used it. But it's not nice and doesn't add to the discussion. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 19:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC) (maybe this didn't help, i meant to write should not have used it)[reply]

That is, if anything, unclear. I'd ask for a clarification to avoid confusion, but I cannot, in any way, construe that as menacing. Driving through a farmer's market is menacing. Driving around in a van with tainted windows around schools and offering children candy from said van is weird and menacing. Alluding to blocking another editor for coming to a talk page and calling a confusing comment menacing is menacing. This is why ANI doesn't work and is hideous. Useless crap comments meant for levity take over serious situations. Comments that should be clarified are instead mischaracterized. Instead of trying to get to the root of an issue, editors are asked to strike comments and apologize. Time and again we reject opportunities for real understanding for superficial infantile gestures. For some reason, it makes some of us feel good, but the communication problems are never resolved. --Moni3 (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) It's hard to find diffs at WP:ANI because editors like Teresa seem to think humor is called for when a really bad block is placed, so there are lots of ecs. It's curious that she finds a block discussion funny, but my text "menacing". Here's the exact text from the Viriditas' block discussion:

I've reviewed every discussion I could find and it looks to me like exactly the kind of "admin cowboy" block that should lead to a quick desysopping and for which Wiki should have a process in place for desysopping short of arbcom-- the very problems with abusive admins that have been oft-discussed of late. Wrong on many levels. I suggest that Davidpatrick may need a talking to as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not find the block funny at all! What a silly thing to say. My let's all block each other comment was sarcasm directed at SofV for his outragous comment, ment to show it for what it was. stooopid. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 19:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've worn out your welcome here, Theresa, and I'm sorely tempted to resort to Malleus-style language because of your unnecessary and bullying provocation and childish language and logic. You strike me as the type of admin who got through in 2003 on a few votes and hasn't adapted to the real and current Wikiworld. You are here demanding that I strike a mild comment, while you haven't yourself struck the "menacing" charge which is much more aggressive and bullying than anything I said-- can you say "double standard"? If you're just dying to block me, do it. If not, please go away so uninvolved folks can tell me if I need to strike or rectify anything. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After looking through the discussion, as a neutral third party that doesn't care about the outcome in any way, I have to agree with Theresa and Kansan. David just mentioned that Viriditas was being abrasive in his requests. While the requests were not unreasonable, the wording was far from optimal. I'm not sure why David would need "a talking to", and suggesting so did seem to be rather hostile. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tito; once the Theresa drama subsides here, I will get over there and re-read everything and clarify as needed. The BLP issues seem to have been lost in the shuffle at ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David wasn't even talking about any BLP issues; he was just criticizing the tone used by Viriditas, and pointing out how it could have a chilling effect on other contributors. Asking for David to be "talked to" in the same paragraph where you essentially requested desysopping sanctions against another editor can be easily construed as requesting sanctions against Davidpatrick—sanctions that, I may add, are not justified by his comment in the unblock discussion. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then my post was unclear, as oft happens me with-- "talking to" referred to the original BLP issues, which I would have hoped that anyone who was following the original issue as it unfolded would understand, but apparently it and I wasn't clear enough. At any rate, Theresa sure trumped it all up in all the ways that admins manage to mess things up and get the original issues off-track at the three-ring ANI circus. The BLP issues are what caused the whole thing to begin with. It will take me some time to get back through the whole thing and figure out how to rectify-- hopefully the ecs have subsided now, and Theresa seriously needs to adapt. She can't be threatening others like this, and if she doesn't think she did, she needs to rethink her tone here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which ironically proves Davidpatrick right: tone is everything... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that I use the same tone on editors who violate BLP as I do on others-- it's a disgusting offense, so I imagine my tone probably changes in those discussions, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After typing a long and hopefully nice response over there, and finding myself in several more edit conflicts, I see this snarky post there from Theresa, made after the discussion here:
::And what, may I ask, has Davidpatrick done wrong here? Kansan (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
:::Disagreed with Sandy Georgia? Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 20:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Now, if I were another person, I might say something like, "You, Theresa, are one nasty piece of work and a real troublemaking intermeddler". But we all know I don't say things like that, so instead, I'll rethink my clarifying post and post it when the edit conflicts have died down and I'm good and recovered from being bullied by an admin who doesn't see BLP issues when they slam her in the face. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You refused to remove the comment despite three people telling you that it wasn't helpful. So yes I am a nasty piece of work, for you anyways. Nothing i could do no matter how polite I tried to be is going to change your opinion. i am an admin therefore I am evil. But I'll not let your comment on ANI go uncontested. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 20:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Grow up. Two obviously involved editors called it "menacing" and asked me to strike. Two uninvolved didn't find it menacing at all. After discussion with Tito, I agreed to rectify and was doing so when I edit conflicted. Now go away and threaten the children here; they might cower in fear. I won't. I was on my way to rectify and clarify the comment when I saw your latest snark. You are a bullying admin, and your threats here are much worse than my misunderstood comment about the BLP issues on that thread. Now block me if you'd like-- I really don't care. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - (ec) Theresa, I am not sure you are accurate in that assessment. For all we know, she could have been amending her comment at the time. Adding snark when someone has complained about snark (here) is not helpful. I encourage both of you to refactor your comments. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah you are right. OK, Sandy's constant victim talk got to me I suppose. I'll change it. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 20:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - (more ecs, what a show) Perhaps among her other skill sets, Theresa is unable to check contribs. Mine clearly show I took about 10 minutes to work on my refactoring and clarifying response there, when I found her snark in edit conflict.
      20:37, October 27, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Titoxd ‎ (→SandyGeorgia: YMMV)
      
      20:32, October 27, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:SandyGeorgia ‎ (→I suggest that Davidpatrick may need a talking to as well.: piece of work)
      
      20:21, October 27, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:SandyGeorgia ‎ (→I suggest that Davidpatrick may need a talking to as well.: re)
    - It is the snarkiness like this that renders ANI ineffective, and I've sure got better things to do with my time than to fight edit conflicts with snarking posters so I can enter something necessary. You, Theresa, are the type of admin who sheds more heat than light, and that is why ANI doesn't work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Theresa removed that from AN/I. At this point, I would encourage everyone to stop casting aspersions at each other and copyedit Hurricane Alex (2010) or something. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Another EC, and after her latest snark ("Sandy's constant victim talk"), she can stay off my talk page. It was clear where this was headed from her first threat, and nothing was going to stop that. In case it's not clear-- don't post here again, Theresa. I've got work to do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My, what unnecessary unpleasantness... you look like you all need a cookie! Sandy, here's one for you. :) Rd232 ^talk 21:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rd232 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thank you for the calories, Rd! Two lessons from this: 1) s/he who takes on admin abuse will be targetted, and 2) the good thing about ANI is that abusive admins self-identify during the three-ring circus. Reminding myself that's why sane people stay away as much as possible, while they "eat their own". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Make that three lessons: I forgot it's arbcom season when lots of admins join the ANI circus to rachet up visibility and score potential votes! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, you deserve the calories today. Looks like a rough day, but I like your spirit. Would send a tune your way, but I really suck at giving out tunes. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just another day at the office :) I wanted to be able to say Malleus was wrong, and a different approach might shine some light, but alas and alack ... attention spans and all that, folks have got to *read* to understand what's going on out there and how it affects content. Following ANI and RFA for a few days will cure anyone of hoping for improvement in how admins treat editors! I know I know I still owe you an e-mail from about a week ago about your health issues-- I've been terribly negligent about keeping up both here on Wiki and with my e-mail. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time...

I am interested in bringing Canadian heraldry up to FA. Never having been through FA, I don't have the foggiest where to begin. If you have the time, would you be able to look over the article and suggest a couple of broad brushstroke areas that need improvement before I even consider the process? ~~(I should note there is a new section for the article in the works, covering legal status and issues in Canadian heraldry. It's just a bit of a slog to write.)~~ → ROUX ₪ 04:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that last bit; turns out the source I need hasn't been published yet. → ROUX ₪ 13:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at MOS-y issues, but if I dig in too much on the content or sourcing side, then I'd have to recuse at FAC. Perhaps other TPS will have a look. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Righto, thanks! → ROUX ₪ 04:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check the tools I installed on talk-- you've got some dead links-- and check for WP:OVERLINKing. What holds up most FACs is images (see info on image review, and the previous Dispatch linked there as well), and the images there could be tricky, so you might want to "get in line" with the very few good image reviewers who work at FAC, and ask them to have a look now. Try Jappalang (talk · contribs), Elcobbola (talk · contribs), Stifle (talk · contribs) ... there are others, but they are all very overworked. Portals in infoboxes don't go over well at FAC, because they belong in See also. I didn't look at content or sources, but the article doesn't look underprepared from a mile-high flyover. Also, those big quote marks in the quote box should go ... The best thing you can do to prepare for FAC is to read the entire page for several weeks. And review :) Anyone can! You don't have to feel prepared to enter Oppose or Support; Comments on anything you see that needs work always help, and by engaging FAC you'll know what to expect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The portal link is inherited from the infobox template; I don't see a way to suppress it, and I'm not sure the inevitable argument if I try to remove it from the template is worth it. In terms of images, there are indeed problems; coats of arms in Canada are automatically copyrighted, which means either they need to be FU images, or wholly new images will need to be created for each illustration. I will check out those links. → ROUX ₪ 05:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things on the sources - don't use abbreviations such as pch.gc.ca - use who the organization was that put the webpage out - Canadian Heritage in this case. Also, make sure you're consistent with how you refer to things in the references - you have both RHSC and Royal Heraldry Society of Canada, you'll want to use the later to avoid people not knowing the abbreviations (as a general rule, only abbreviations like UN, BBC, ESPN that are known all over the world can be used safely). Current ref 24 lacks a publisher. Analness in references is important too. Also, one question someone will be sure to bring up - are there NO published printed works? By using only online sources you're leaving yourself open to the concern that you've not surveyed all the relevant literature. A quick Google books look shows this search, which discounting the first listing (the Books LLC will be a printout of your article... lovely, isn't it!) , shows a number of works that probably should be checked. Likewise Google Scholar would need to be checked also. Hope this helps. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noted re:consistency, will hop on that now. There are only a couple of printed works on Canadian heraldry; A Canadian Heraldic Primer published by the RHSC and given out to members (I will be one sometimes in the next month or so, when I have some free cash), and the book by Beddoe, unfortunately not currently available at the library. → ROUX ₪ 13:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roux, if you want my help with Canadian heraldry, let me know. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ta, gimme. It's live now as a FAC. Be gentle, I'm a virgin. → ROUX ₪ 05:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAC run-through

Don't know if you saw my email. I didn't get to FAC last night...do you want me to run through all of it today or just look at the ones you are recused from? Thanks and sorry. Karanacs (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Karanacs-- my apologies, I just saw your e-mail now. Hugs-- life gets better, and what doesn't kill 'ya makes you stronger-- with time :) I can get through later tonight, but I'm heading out soon and am going to be out most of the day, so if you want to do it today, that would work, too! Whatever works for you. You take good care there, best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do a quick run-through today, so you'll still have time to take a look this weekend if you want. Karanacs (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK-- if you run out of time, don't worry-- I'll look through when I'm home later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case no one has told you ladies recently: You rule. If you ever came to my house I'd get out the 25-year Balvenie I hide from all the other company. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank goodness you know my drink-- rumor has it that I can't handle my liquor; when I drink wine, it ends up on the carpet; and tequila makes me happy! You rock, too! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't handle your liquor, I recommend plastic bottles.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I missed a lot in one measly afternoon out of the house. Priorities, priorities! Does anyone know if Karanacs got all the way through FAC, or should I go to the circus first? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think she went all the way through. The circus is much more interesting anyway. Ucucha 21:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ucucha ... OK, I'll ignore FAC for now (unless someone tells me otherwise), get my popcorn, and get busy over there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Growing pains

There seems to be enough activity on the "civility" issues that maybe something will get resolved. I would like your (and the TPS') comments about a couple things, though. First, the Viriditas block. I think asking about a desysop was perhaps too far to go at that point. That's why I was suggesting a block. Blocks are pretty minor now, and I suspect if people starting arguing that admins should be blocked for various inappropriate uses of the tools, it might get more traction. After a couple of bad-use blocks, arguing for a desysop would be easier. The other issue is this block. I'm not asking anyone to comment there, and I would actually suggest people avoid it. Nevertheless, I wouldn't mind some feedback, here. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think, actually, most admins are smart enough to jump out of the water when it starts getting warm. If any stay until it's boiling, they deserve their fate.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly—TR is in the right in terms of content ("British Isles" is the only correct term, unless you're going to list every island individually, since Sky don't just broadcast to UK and Ireland but also Isle of Man, Guernsey, Jersey, Sark, Alderney, Herm and assorted other islands which aren't officially part of the UK or Ireland), but he's been so generally obnoxious that nobody's going to jump to his help. – iridescent 18:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had my own run-in with the whole "eliminate BI" crowd and really wish someone with some horse-power would step in and actually see what TR and Mick are saying here... it's very definitely SPA for a few folks there, but because they are "civil" they get away with being SPAs that really push a POV. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the comments on the content issue, but that wasn't quite what I was seeking. Indeed, the content issue seems to be mostly divorced from the "civility" discussion, but perhaps that's part of the problem there. I'm trying to figure out what's going on with these "general sanctions", and how discussing content can lead to one-year blocks that people actually support, even if the source (TR) is annoying. Seems very chilling. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't watched every single step of things with the BISE, or whatever it is, but it appears that TR and Mick (and others) are attempting to point out that HK and others are SPAs/etc and are getting told to not discuss the editor, just the content, but their point is that this is SPA behavior and you can't avoid discussing the editor to some degree. However, a few admins have the attitude that you can't discuss editor behavior at any point and time, so it's just driving TR/Mick absolutely insane that their points are being ignored/swept under the rug, etc. That's just my take on it. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, everything has to be viewed through this prism (see here) for more context). "Ireland" is a power word on Wikipedia; "right" and "wrong" don't even matter, because the 1RR provisions mean whoever gets their retaliation in first "wins". You really don't want to get sucked into this fight; it's destroyed the Wikipedia careers of an awful lot of people (Vintagekits probably being the most noteworthy). – iridescent 19:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. Anything even tangentially related to Irish republicanism should be avoided like the plague by any sensible editor. Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples is only for those who find Talk:Catholic Church too placid. Johnbod (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an amusing way to phrase it, Johnbod. Thanks for the advice, but I really have no interest in whatever the underlying dispute is. I was concerned about the one-year block, nominally for incivility, for a rather restrained edit to a project talk page. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, you can't ignore the underlying issue. Those "block first and ask questions later" provisions are in place because they're the only way to maintain even a semblance of order; while I'm usually the first (well OK, the third) to rant against the Civility Police, in the case of BI their draconian measures are the only thing stopping it gumming up the entire project again. (For reference; the last time those restrictions weren't in place, this was what happened.) I support the block and I'd support an unblock. – iridescent 16:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That at least makes sense, even if I don't exactly agree. I wonder why the admins working in that area didn't explain the situation similarly? Gimmetoo (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found time to read this yet-- just wanted to say "Iri for ArbCom". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, caught up and read it: "Iri for ArbCom" again-- looks to be answered. On the Viriditas block, Gimme, I abhor off-Wiki efforts to get someone blocked, and that admin swooped in after a long absence for a really bad block. And at the three-ring circus, instead of pointing out to the complaining editor what his/her role was in the whole matter (bringing a user talk page discussion to the article talk page), when I suggested that someone should talk to him, I was accused of being "menacing". (Read from here down to see an unfair, heavy-handed admin, and notice how the other-- unblocked-- party is coming out vs. consensus now that others have weighed in on what he wanted to do on a BLP. Looks like Viriditas got a really bum deal there.) Anyway, I guess blocks just have lost all meaning, since they're passed out so randomly these days. I still want to see Malleus tell someone to STFU like Psychim62 (who abused the tools when he had 'em) did to me: Malleus would be blocked in five seconds. But I guess the BI thing has a pox on it like CC (double-- Catholic Church and Climate Change). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish help???

Juan Carlos Loaiza is an unref'd BLP in the Equine project, and quite honestly, I can't even begin to think about sourcing it. Help??? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was out all day-- I'll get on it once I've rested and caught up. If I forget (it happens :) whack me !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief-- you start trying to cite something like that and all you find are errors from Wiki propogated all over the internet, and on the es.wiki. I think I got it far enough along to avoid the BLP issues, but I asked Yomangani what a collera is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand collera to translate as Kummet, which is this (don't know the English word - harness? I suppose collera is close to collar) It's probably slang for handler. Эlcobbola _talk 02:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I've been trying to pass myself off as a cowgirl :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth would probably know best at this point; how does racing work? It's literally collar - is there an English equivalent for the slang? Back-up rider, maybe? es:Eduardo Tamayo Órdenes, a collera for Loaiza, also (apparently) had Loaiza as his collera, so that might be against the handler idea. Эlcobbola _talk 02:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno- I'm going to have to go to more rodeos, or stop saying, "This isn't this cowgirl's first rodeo" :) I've been made a liar! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oh, fiddlesticks ... next she'll want me to cite Ramón Cardemil, too! Tomorrow-- long day here! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

those are horse collars, and I'm not sure how the heck they relate to rodeo, but I'm not an expert on Chilean rodeo either. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My money is on the English word "heeler" ...or "header" (Team Roping). Эlcobbola _talk 03:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elc, you must be really bored :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put "partner" as explanation before I saw this. Elcobbola is probably right, but I don't know whether the roles might be interchangeable (so one person could at various times be either the heeler or the header). Partner seems pretty safe. The es wikipedia says "Collera: Es una dupla integrada por dos caballos y dos jinetes." ("Collera: Is a pair consisting of two horses and two riders") Yomangani ^talk 10:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Yoman and Elc-- I think partner works, but I've put out an e-mail query to a rodeo man who speaks Spanish, in case we can improve it to "header" or "heeler". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I talked to a rodeo man who speaks Spanish, and it's pretty clear that a collera is the "header". This article is about a Chilean rodeo champ, and the champ is usually the "heeler"-- the partner would be the "header". In team roping, collera-- corresponding to collar-- would refer to the "header" roping the cow's head, which any good cowboy can do, while the heeler has to do the trickier work, which is rope "both" of the steer's feet. If the heeler misses one of the steer's feet, he loses points, so he is the one who has to do the harder, quality work, and his partner is the header. Unless anyone disagrees, we could go ahead and add "header" to the article in place of "partner", since collera would correspond to a translation of header, per the yoke put on cow's or horse's head. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So we'll change it to "Header"^{[anti-plagiarism notice 1]} ?
Refs

^ Sandy's dad

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. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Camelbinky have had the courtesy to inform SandyG? He's such a stickler for the rules when they're applied to someone else. Malleus Fatuorum 19:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Camelblinky did inform Sandy (see below) although whether it was courteous... Nev1 (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Giftiger wunsch! Goodness, there is so much wrong in that thread that it may take me up to an hour to type my response (and then about three corrections for my usual typos). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

I have started a thread at AN/I regarding you classifying Malta Test Station as plagarism when it received a DYK. That is not only a false characterization of the article but your labelling it was bad form. You could have brought your concerns to the talk page, to blank out a page that is on the main page of Wikipedia looks bad. And most importantly the template states explicitly that you are to contact the contributor. That is ME. Though of course I'm sure you templating it has nothing to do with your continued "warnings" about everything I do. I suggest you remove the template, and stay away from anything I do. Thanks.Camelbinky (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"... stay away from anything I do" seems to be your standard response when you're caught out Camelbinky, but it doesn't wash I'm afraid. Malleus Fatuorum

Agree, see the ANI thread. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Malleus, what is it you do here again? ;)

On the subject of plagiarism, I often find myself reading the source material, putting the book down, editing a bit of the article, and then realising the original author has used the best selection of words available. Its most annoying. "'word' synonym" is an oft-typed phrase in my address bar. Parrot of Doom 19:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just do some GA/FA "reviewing", not even the real thing, but Camelbinky has kindly suggested that I might care to try my hand at an FA one day. I've said it before and I'll say it again; if Camelbinky is a grad student then I'm a Chinese whore from Mars. Malleus Fatuorum 20:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it really is the best selection, why go through the hassle of changing it? Quoting with attribution works just as well, if not better. Aiken (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to use quotes in making a point, or expressing somebody's opinion, but when relating facts its best to use prose. Parrot of Doom 19:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec, re Aiken) Quoting looks awful, as people expect quote marks to denote an opinion, not a fact. Consider Granborough Road railway station was "opened in 1868 by the Metropolitan Railway on the line between Aylesbury and Verney Junction." Following the creation of London Transport, the line was "closed, as it duplicated another line to Verney Junction via Calvert." – looks ridiculous, doesn't it? But sometimes with technical articles there really is no way to reword things - the only thing you can do is chop the facts up and spread them around. – iridescent 19:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, quoting wouldn't work for everything, but it's a compromise. Aiken (talk) 19:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually its just lazy. But reading the above kerfuffle has made me think...have I ever been a bit lazy in what I've written in articles? I sincerely hope nobody ever accuses me of such a thing, I'd be mortified. Parrot of Doom 20:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just recently quoted "the medium-grained deltaic sandstone matches stone traditionally produced in the Aislaby quarries of Eskdale near Whitby",[3] - factualish, but let them (in this case the V&A Museum) take responsibility for "matches" & "traditionally". Up for DYK, btw - there are still some believers! Johnbod (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, Sandy. Plagiarism shouldn't be tolerated. Ucucha 19:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I checked two of his other articles randomly (both DYKs) and had to blank them: Hamilton Hill, Schenectady, New York and Helderberg Escarpment. This might be a large-scale problem. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it does start looking like a large-scale problem (generally 5 confirmed instances is the arbitrary cutoff) then you can file a request at WP:CCI. Oh, and Sandy, don't worry too much about not listing blanked articles - we have a bot that goes through once a day and makes sure they're not overlooked. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know-- that was going to be part of the long response I still have to type-- I did think there was a bot ... the bigger part of my response is that it's not a Camelbinky problem-- it's a DYK WIKICUP RFA reward culture problem, and based on what I've seen at RFA, it is MUCH bigger than just one editor. Ya'll give me some time to type, k? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cabral FAC image review

I may be wrong, but the last Cabral image review is starting to feel like an impasse (maybe that's just frustration, though). As it is an editor's job to provide support for his/her edits, I don't know if it is expected of me, as one of the noms, to recruit other image reviews. I've tried to respond to the points made, though perhaps not as clearly or precisely as required. If other input is needed, I don't know of anyone experienced in reviewing images to ask, so I'll have to sit back and watch this portion of the process. If I should be trying to get more people to comment, let me know.

It would be sad to see images blanked, but if removal is what is required to resolve this, even though I believe it would be without basis, I'm not going to curl up and die if someone goes ahead and deletes images from the article. I'm going to cc the co-nom and Karanacs and step back from this particular issue. As I said, it's probably best for me to just watch how this plays out and try to trick my aged neurons into learning something. • Astynax ^talk 06:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for the delay, Astynax, and for the TLDR post to follow. Image policy is a very difficult area for many of us (myself included) on Wiki, FAC and FAR have precious few image reviewers, and the work they do is tedious and time-consuming, leading to them frequently being attacked or misunderstood (not saying you've done that). But making sure our images are properly licensed is as important as copyright issues in our article text is; it can sometimes seem to be the toughest part about FAC, but you don't want the alternative. If/when you have your possible day on the mainpage, you don't want that to be marred by angry editors screaming about images on the mainpage violating copyright, so it's best to try to get this right. When image discussions get tricky, and one of our best reviewers has already been in there, my usual advice is to get a second opinion. It's often the case that participants just aren't understanding each other, because there is so much nuance in the copyright issues. In the event that even experienced image reviewers disagree, I sometimes have to promote any way, but 1) that rarely happens, and 2) if it does, it puts your possible day on the mainpage at risk of being a nasty experience for you. Promoting without image clearance isn't A Good Thing. I'm concerned that Jappalang and you just might not be understanding each other. In a case like this, I suggest a very polite request to the much-overworked Elcobbola (talk · contribs) to have a look and help you sort out the issues. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which does not make any sense at all. According to Jappalang, the tag - always used, by the way - which says that any work made by an author who died more than 70 years ago is worthless. I would have to prove that not only the author died more than 70 years ago but also that the work was published somewhere before 1923. Ok, I know that there is a tag that you can upload works published before 1923. However, nowhere does it says that you have to prove both. Take a look in other history articles, or to be more precise, on articles related to historical figures. When they use a work from someone who died, I don't know, in 1878 or in 1914, they simply use the "date of death plus 70 years" tag and that's all. I told Jappalang that if his point of view is taken in account, around 90% of the images uploaded in those articles will have to be erased. If he has issues with Commons policy - which he has the right to -, he should argue there, not in this FAC nomination. Another example of the highly restrictive rules he wants to put in effect: the map of Cabral's voyage (This one: [File:Cabral voyage 1500.svg]) which was made by an editor at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop was to be proven that he made all by himself or something similar. There are countless similar maps all over Wikipedia. Are they all supposed to be erased, then? P.S.: On Spongie: I didn't know that. I've asked User:Wizardman to give some imput on the matter. Thanks a lot! --Lecen (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lecen, we can't use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments at FAC-- we must uphold policy, and Jappalang knows policy. FAs represent Wiki's best work; we don't compare to the other 99% out there, which contains a lot of trash, and we must try our best to put properly licensed work on the mainpage. I really suggest asking for Elcobbola's second opinion; I'm not likely to argue image policy with those who know it better than I do. If you listen to other image reviewers (like Spongie), it won't help advance the FAC, and if you tick off reviewers, the FAC will delay even more-- they're trying to help, and it's hard work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to kick him out. What I do know is that if I comply with his demands, the entire article will be devoid of images. And sincerely? I would be the first to say "oppose" if that happens. When I told you that 90% of the images found in articles would need to be erased, I was talking about Featured articles. See Albert, Prince Consort, Princess Victoria of Hesse and by Rhine or Princess Alice of Battenberg. Take a look at some of their images, or all of them. All have the "date of death plus 70 years" tag. None of them had to prove that beyond the date of the death of the author, the works were also published somewhere before 1923. Then here comes my question: why on Cabral's article do we have to prove that? --Lecen (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're still using an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Those images may not have received a solid review while at FAC, or there could be other nuances-- I'm not going to second guess good image reviewers. Also, regardless of whether you comply with FAC criteria or the article is promoted, images that don't meet policy may eventually be deleted anyway, so you're better off to take advantage of the excellent reviewers at FAC and deal with it now. They're here to help you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll do it. But you still haven't answered me why there is a "date of death plus 70 years" tag if by itself is useless. The same with "published before 1923". If by themselves they are worthless, why they do exist? If to upload a picture I have to prove that the author died more than 70 years ago and also that his work was also published in a book, journal (not merely done before 1923) why that is not told to us? Why there are two different tags that are the same as nothing, then? Why am I in here discussing this? This discussion should be happening at Commons, not in this nomination. --Lecen (talk) 00:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I will use the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument over and over. It makes no sense to see all those Featured articles being accepted excpet for the one I nominated. Why those articles keep being promoted, then? You know better than I that this discussion shouldn't be happening. Not in here. It should be at Commons. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 03:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back. Thanks for the response. I see that Lecen has already asked Elcobbola for comment. I certainly did not mean to clog up your talk on the subject, just noting the problem. I did read the passage the reviewer cited (or else I would not have linked to it in the first place). Upon rereading I still disagree with stretching an interpretation to cover the 120+ year-old images in the article, so I'll go back to watching. The self-review system on areas which touch on IP matters is very interesting. • Astynax ^talk 02:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism

I've been here a few years now, and I'm beginning to form the opinion that sometimes, Wikipedia's policies on writing and sourcing material can be claustrophobic, often reducing articles to little more than a list of facts strung together in the hope of producing something resembling a bit of prose. For instance, I've been busy the last few months working on biographies of the Gunpowder Plotters. Following the Camelbinky discussion at ANI I've looked through each article I've helped write, trying to find any hint that I've subconsciously plagiarised somebody else's work (a pretty scary thought). While I've found the odd word or phrasing here and there that looks similar to what's contained in the source material, most often when the source is online, I've also found it pretty difficult to rearrange what's written while staying within Wikipedia's policies.

Sometimes the source has expertly used a series of words which produce the most concise summary of the point being made - for instance the ODNB starts Francis Tresham's article "Tresham, Francis (1567?–1605), conspirator, was the eldest son of Sir Thomas Tresham (1543–1605) of Rushton, Northamptonshire, and his wife, Meriel Throckmorton (d. 1615), daughter of Sir Robert Throckmorton of Coughton, Warwickshire." I re-wrote that as "Born in about 1567, Francis Tresham was the eldest son of Sir Thomas Tresham of Rushton in Northamptonshire, and Meriel Throckmorton, daughter of Sir Robert Throckmorton of Coughton in Warwickshire". Its very close but in my opinion there aren't really many ways to rewrite that which would make sense, or be as concise. I sat for a few minutes, and couldn't think on how to improve it. I could change eldest to first born, but he may have had an elder sibling who died in infancy, not mentioned anywhere. I could remove the places and counties, or perhaps replace the Throckmorton connection with "a scion of the Throckmortons of Coughton", but removing the placenames would be silly considering that Lords were intrinsically linked with those places, and removing Meriel's father would instantly delete the family connection as there's no article on her. Immediately following that sentence, the ODNB says this "Anthony Wood in Athenae Oxonienses maintains that he studied at St John's College, Oxford, or Gloucester Hall, ‘or both’, but there seems to be no corroborating evidence (Wood, Ath. Oxon., 754)" - which on Wikipedia is "According to the antiquary Anthony Wood, Tresham was educated in Oxford at either St John's College or Gloucester Hall or both, although biographer Mark Nicholls mentions that there appears to be no other evidence to corroborate the claim." I mean, how could one re-write that so as to appear completely different, while at the same time actually making any sense? Parrot of Doom 10:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. We even specifically discount this in the guideline. Wikipedia:Plagiarism#What_is_not_plagiarism: Phrases that are the simplest and most obvious way to present information. Sentences such as "John Smith was born on 2 February 1900" lack sufficient creativity to require attribution. The end. Yomangani ^talk

So you're saying that if Nicholls had written "John Smith, the son of famous comedian Bert Smith, latterly of Blackpool Hippodrome fame, was a vetenarian famous for creating a chicken-pig hybrid", and I'd written "John Smith, son of popular entertainer Bert Smith, who performed at the Blackpool Hippodrome, was a veterinary surgeon who created the first successful chicken-pig hybrid", that wouldn't raise any alarm? The words may be different but the structure and meaning are exactly the same. You could line them up one under the other and see instantly the similarities. Its that which worries me, that someone might do something similar and conclude that I've simply copy/pasted another person's work, and made small changes. Parrot of Doom 11:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I often find myself with the same problem; biological descriptions also tend to be hard to put in one's own words. Sometimes I've had to resort to silly quotations like at Transandinomys bolivaris#Distribution, ecology, and behavior. Ucucha 11:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is quite silly. Yomangani ^talk 11:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But in a real world case, even assuming you didn't have more sources, you'd probably structure that differently, wouldn't you? (John Smith was a veterinary surgeon involved in the development of the first successful^{[citation needed]} chicken-pig hybrid, the MNX*. His father, Bert Smith, who worked as an entertainer, was a regular on the bill of the Blackpool Hippodrome.) Besides which, though it may be annoying if it raises alarms with copyvio paranoiacs and you have to justify it, if it isn't a copyvio then it isn't a copyvio and they (as I believe the Americans say) can "suck it up". Yomangani ^talk 11:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*As if the source article is not going to give the name of the delicious new hybrid

I might use two sentences if there was much to be said about the father, but in some of these historical articles all that's known is the name. I guess what I'm trying to say is, if you have a set of facts, and use the best, most concise way of writing those facts into a sentence, and that sentence happens to be similar to the source used for those facts - well, what to do? My inclination is to use the best English I have at my command, but unfortunately when writing from good sources like the ODNB, the author has already used that "best English". Trying to get around that problem is extremely frustrating. Parrot of Doom 12:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider individual sentences that closely resemble the source material to be much of a problem, but it's a concern when whole sections do, exacerbated when there's only one source being used. As you say, very often there's only one logical way to string 15 or 20 words together, added to which the author of the source very likely pinched the text from someone else anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 13:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, I guess. The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica summarises Tresham's parents in a very similar way - "Tresham, Francis (c. 1567-1605), English Gunpowder Plot conspirator, eldest son of Sir Thomas Tresham of Rushton, Northamptonshire (a descendant of Sir Thomas Tresham, Speaker of the House of Commons, executed by Edward IV. in 1471), and of Muriel, daughter of Sir Thomas Throckmorton of Coughton, was born about 1567, and educated at Oxford." A little more detailed, but 100 years earlier and the grammar is still quite close. In fact the Tresham article was originally just a straight copy of the 1911 edition, before I got to it. Parrot of Doom 13:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You made me look

...at International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems. What I found was very scary stuff, care to help out? LeadSongDog come howl! 14:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still trying to learn how to handle Copyvios, and it is waaaaaay more complicated apparently than just blanking the section-- something to do with the history of the article. But see the verbosity in the template at Malta Test Station and the big long discussion at Wikipedia:ANI#Accused_of_plagarism. Apparently, you can't just blank the section, but it's all over my head; as soon as I have time, I'm going to try to wade in to understand it, but I've got to get caught up at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you blank the section with {{subst:copyvio}} and notify the contributor then bots and editors who regularly handle copyvios will take care of the rest. We're gradually trying to make it more user-friendly. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think LeadSong failed to add the tag-- just blanked. To most of us copyvio noobs, that makes complete sense, and all this other process y'all are up on is counterintuitive to those of us who aren't intellectual property knowledgeable. We need a Dispatch, following up on the Plagiarism dispatch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the text is generally fine so long as it isn't restored by other contributors later, which is often a problem and the reason for mucking about with the history. Moonriddengirl recently wrote a 2-part copyvio article for WP:MILHIST so I'll bring up the idea of a Signpost article with her. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Verno-- here are my suggestions for a followup Dispatch:

Link the old Dispatch
Cover some of the text from that Dispatch (which was later deleted) from Kablammo (talk · contribs) discussing ways to avoid plagiarism when writing
Address head on the issues at DYK-- they continue today-- specifically the issue of copying the structure of sources (like NYT obits) as compared to close paraphrasing. Am I correct in thinking that Wikiblame won't pick up when article structure is plagiarized, nor will it pick up word juggling when structure is copied? I think the whole issue of copying structure is being missed in a lot of the discussions, that focus on wording.
Explain to all of us noobs how to deal with copyvios when we find them, in very plain language. We're dumber than we look :)
Ping in all of the editors of the last Dispatch for input and feedback-- add Franamax, and yourselves, and you've got most of our good copyvio people on board.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love a Dispatch. I think we need to clearly differentiate between plagiarism and copyvio, though, so I don't know if it I'd posit it as a plagiarism dispatch. We need people to learn the difference between the two (often interrelated) concepts so they know which they're dealing with. Copyvio, obviously, is a legal problem and much more urgent for that reason. This is my recent editorial for MILHIST: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/August 2010/Editorials, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/September 2010/Editorials. Any chance that could be used as the basis for something for Signpost? With less of my personality in it? :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MRG, I am sooooo far behind in everything (and I've got to prioritize FAC over the weekend) that I can't take the lead on this. (For starters, I don't know the difference between plagiarism and copyvio ... sigh ... so I've got to go read that.) I'm seeing maybe a three-part Dispatch here, but someone has to take the lead. I just think you should strike on this now, because people are finally focused on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right. (Quick guide: plagiarism is taking somebody else's work without proper acknowledgement; copyright violation is taking somebody else's copyrighted creative work without permission. CV may not be plagiarism if it is attributed, and plagiarism may not be CV if the work is non-creative or not protected by copyright. They frequently do co-exist, however.) Is there somebody familiar with the Signpost working world in general that I could ask to guide us in this, though? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skimmed your article, think I understand. Copying structure is copyvio but not necessarily plagiarism in every case. Is that correct? From the looks of it, you've already written a lot of what we need to cover, so the Dispatches shouldn't be too hard (but review my list above? and get someone to dumb it down, 'cuz our eyes glaze over when we don't know intellectual property-- write for teenagers :) On the Dispatches, well that is a long and unfortunate discussion, that I won't go into here, but they were shot on sight. Just put your stuff in some temp space somewhere (like WP:FCDW/Copyvio, link us all to it, and it will get published. That's the short version of a most upsetting tale :0 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright is a legal consideration. Plagiarism is an ethical consideration (not that law doesn't also reflect underlying ethics), independent of whether the given use is lawful. For example, the circumstance of borrowing a paragraph from a public domain work for use in an otherwise original paper. Although not an infringement (copyvio), failure to provide proper attribution (i.e. representing the borrowed prose as original thought) would generally be considered plagiarism. Эlcobbola _talk 15:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone. I did indeed omit to add and subst {{copyvio}} as I wasn't immediately sure of the implications. I'll do that now. The article talkpage had some curious background discussion too that may impact other parts of the article.LeadSongDog come howl! 15:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to read that very long template, LeadSong-- someone might poke you at ANI if you don't :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/TheCatalyst31#Response

Thanks for this - I had often wondered. In fact it almost puts into recommended MoS prose style the bulleted list on my own user page :) --Kudpung (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you liked it! And that candidate is passing, in spite of a lack of knowledge of Wiki, so ... RFA has issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we're clear

I don't have anything against you despite our recent clashes at the Utahraptor RFA, at ANI and WT:DYK. Just thought it'd be good to leave a note to that effect in case anything was assumed otherwise. Have a good day! :) Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 14:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problems here! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

red flags

I consider myself a strong supported of anti-plagiarism efforts, but I confess that I once fell into the "if it's not word for word it's not plagiarism". That was some time ago, but occasionally I see charges made where I didn't immediately see the close resemblance. Your strong comments at ANI raised a few red flags - I'm participating in a Photo Contest ("reward culture"?), have added a recent article to the DYK list, have recently considered running at RfA, and my article leans heavily on one source (no Wikicup, so avoided the sweep). I just reread it, and think I'm OK, but I may be biased. Given too many simultaneous red flags, I'd be grateful if you could take a look at Nathaniel Holcomb III House (with main source here) and tell me if I'm fooling myself.

I can tell, by glancing at your talk page, that you have far too much to do, so don't hesitate to point me to someone else if you don't have the time.--SPhilbrick T 17:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before the plagiarism dispatch was written, I was pretty ignorant too (on following structure), so I fully support WP:AGFC. A lot of people don't do this on purpose, and I think we only need to keep plagiarizing editors on a very short leash when they also disrupt in other ways, or won't invest the time to understand the issues and go back and clean up their work, which is usually an indication of general immaturity and that they probably don't belong on Wiki anyway. Since I'm still on a learning curve about this myself, I hope someone else will have a look, but my gut feel is that if you're asking the question, there's probably no problem :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over the article and the source and didn't see any close paraphrasing issues. It's usually not a problem when you're condensing pages into sentences like you did there. It shows up alot more often when people try to take three paragraphs of source and use it to create a three paragraph article. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking VW - I've seen your name enough to take comfort in your review; as SG suggests, I thought I was on solid ground, but wanted to make sure.--SPhilbrick T 18:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I love my TPS :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heads-up

You might want to keep an eye on the minor hissy-fit shaping up at, of all things, The Story of Miss Moppet FAC. I'm not going to make any further comments there (other than to change my support to an oppose if the demanded changes are made), but I can see this one getting out of control quite quickly if you or Karanacs doesn't step in to bang heads together. – iridescent 19:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That rabbit is scary: I may have to take some deep breaths and go for a walk before I go over there and see what's going on ! Thanks, Iri. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not just any rabbit; that's a Fierce Bad Rabbit. Look at his savage whiskers, and his claws, and his turned-up tail. – iridescent 21:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fierce rabbit attack, courtesy of JNW

Such inspiration doesn't encourage me to go look; sounds like an emergency, and I'd best buck up and go look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NEEE NAAW NEE NAWW, WIKI IMAGE POLICE, STEP ASIDE... Parrot of Doom 21:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, Iri, you gave me such a fright I thought Psychim62 had been in there telling me to STFU again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was told to STFU only a few hours ago.[1] Must be something they teach in admin school. Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus, you've got to learn to have fun with this ... it does eventually catch up to them, and your legacy will outlive all of them :) Ask yourself if you would give one minute of your time or attention to such people if you met them IRL? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for a place to put fierce bad rabbit in my user space. It rocks. • Ling.Nut (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Royalties to JNW (talk · contribs), via Ceoil. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah ha, I see you meant the Iri wabbit ! Shall we make that his ArbCom campaign poster-- I've drafted him, ya know. And MastCell and Yomangani and Slp1 ... it's not nice to ignore me! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there

So I popped in yesterday to make some minor edits. One thing led to another, and I closed some AfDs....what's next, I wonder? :) How have you been? I saw what happened to Marskell! — Deck iller 00:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Crap! I haven't seen your name in ages. Hope all is well. • Ling.Nut (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't complain! I'm a senior at the college now, as well as an avid game design hobbyist. Figured it was time to pop back in and do a few things, just like old times. — Deck iller 00:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - DK, you are nothing but a tease !! You pop in to say hi, and then you're off again. Do you always abandon womenfolk like that ?!?!? Hey, I ditched the wet basement house, and am now happy as a clam in my tiny new digs. And I lost the critter I got in your neck of the woods ten years ago. :-( Senior? YIKES!! How's everything else? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Very busy, of course! I'm no longer with my parents—I'm with a roommate about 1 mile from the campus, which is nice and convenient. Too bad about the wet basement; we managed to salvage ours after a couple days work. My parents are putting that house on the market soon. Wikipedia seems busier than ever — I think I'll just make an edit here and there until the semester is over. Besides the 30 hours of work per week and the 15-credit workload, I have a rather in-depth hobby to worry about: creating computer role-playing games. — Deck iller 00:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Like I said, you're a tease-- you tempt us that you're coming back, but you're too busy having fun out there :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, work and school aren't really "fun", of course. — Deck iller 00:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're happy as a clam creating games, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, RMN is serious business! It's still fun, though. — Deck iller 00:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the biggest thing you missed on Wiki (where it's the same 'ole same 'ole) is that I disagreed with him on something, so Tony decided I wasn't allowed to talk to him anymore. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should just stick to primarily reviewing stuff and performing admin duties; article quality phases out bigtime after being away for a couple years! — Deck iller 00:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews have gotten much tougher. And FAR is lagging-- they need help! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2:40 in....

The trailer for Truth In Numbers? I am wearing a black Idaho State ~~jumper~~ sweater, just behind Jimmy :) --> [2] Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid to look-- I'll wait for someone else to look and warn me :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"De facto source of knowledge for the entire world"? "No one in control"? Cas, you're famous on Youtube, but only we know it-- and at least you're not saying anything stupid :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We-ell, on that clip I don't say anything at all. Just standing behind Jimbo in a mob of wikipedians at a meetup. There was some filming later of the meetup, which I wonder whether any made it into the film (can't answer till I see it though). Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More "long time, no see" edits.

Well, I've decided to (once again) get a bit more active on WP. How have you been in the couple of years I've been avoiding the site? :) I see that some things never change around the place. :P Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 07:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my, if two of you are coming back at once, we may have to divide more categories at WP:FA. Wiki is the same ole same ole ... core policies violated all over the place, and FAC and FAR struggling valiantly to put up 1% of the total :) But some things do change-- I have a dry basement now! What are you planning to work on? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like Dec, my forte is in video games. :P Though, I have kept my eyes on a ton of drama going on around WP. Like THAT is news, right? :P Been trying to catch up on two+ years of drama, and it hurts the brain. :P Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )

I think you two got together and schemed up a resurgence of video games at FA! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bwahaha! Come to the Dark Side! We have cookies! :D Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 08:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLPs

Sandy, please be a little more careful with edits like this. The guy died in 1995 - he doesn't quite meet the "L" qualification of "BLP"! *grin* Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 12:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do know what the "L" in BLP stands for, and I'm happy that the Equine Project is staying on top of their BLPs, but after sourcing and translating two articles for the Equine Project, finding numerous factual errors and sourcing problems, and then checking all of the same editor's created articles versus the es.wiki articles, it appears that I made one mistake. I guess the Equine Project won't be requesting my translating services again. grin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Could you please explain the reasoning behind removing my edit summary while leaving the previous edit summary inaccurately accusing me of vandalism?

(Deletion log); 17:00 . . Nyttend (talk | contribs) changed revision visibility of José Sisto: removed edit summary for 1 revision (Edit summary vandalism; edit made only to make a point with the edit summary)

(cur | prev) 20:22, October 29, 2010 SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) (8,292 bytes) (edit summary removed) (rollback | undo)
(cur | prev) 19:12, October 29, 2010 Physchim62 (talk | contribs) m (8,290 bytes) (Reverted 4 edits by SandyGeorgia (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Mandarax. (TW)) (undo)

Could you also tell me what the guidelines are related to this edit, why you didn't notify me, and how this came to your attention so I can be more aware in the future of how to handle situations like this? The editor who accused me of vandalism knew when he did it that it was a mistake made in good faith and not vandalism. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You made an edit with absolutely no purpose except to denigrate another editor: that's edit summary vandalism. Anyone paying any attention to the article, even the infobox, could see that your edits had no policy basis; rollback was entirely justified. There's no need to notify people simply because their edit summary vandalism was deleted. Nyttend (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The notification immediately above this one tells me that you're tagging biographies as BLPs without paying attention to whether the individuals are alive or not. Expect people to use things such as rollback when you make such obviously incorrect edits, especially when those edits remove large segments of text such as with Sisto. Nyttend (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer the questions. Whether my edits (a good faith mistake) had no policy basis is not the issue. Being accused of vandalism when the editor who made the claim knew it wasn't is. (19:02 19:06 19:08 19:12) I'm sure you're aware that WP:AGF is part of WP:5P; what is your policy basis for removing an edit summary that did NOT denigrate another editor, while leaving one that does, and what type of null edit summary may I add to correct that if you don't intend to remove the previous inaccurate edit summary? I will deal with the minor issue above once you've answered the questions. [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, see Wikipedia:Revision deletion. I must admit I am struggling to see how Sandy's edit summary could be classified under any of the RD criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone paying attention could see that this wasn't a living person, so deleting validly referenced text could reasonably be construed as vandalism; there's nothing wrong with what was done to your edits. Attacking another editor with an edit summary, especially when the edit did absolutely nothing to improve the article, is vandalism. Nyttend (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend, do you really think that was a proper use of revision deletion? If you find this edit unconstructive, fair enough, but I can't see any reasonable purpose in hiding that edit summary. Ucucha 18:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Nyttend, I really strongly suggest you re-read WP:Revision deletion, in particular "RevisionDelete was introduced for administrators in 2010. The community's endorsement of the tool included a very strong consensus that its potential to be abused should be strictly barred, prevented by the community, and written into the policy. Especially, RevisionDelete does not exist in order to remove "ordinary" offensive comments and incivility, or unwise choices of wording between users, nor to redact block log entries. Material must be grossly offensive, with little likelihood of significant dissent about its removal. Otherwise it should not be removed." The only ways I can interpret this are either that you don't know the policy, or you do know it and are intentionally ignoring one of Wikipedia's policies to prove some kind of point. – iridescent 18:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I don't think she was attacking an editor there; rather, she was criticizing the actions of another editor. While the edit summary was not the best way to convey her message, I don't think we can classify it as a personal attack. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec x 3) The edit summary in question doesn't seem to qualify for any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Revision deletion and certainly doesn't qualify as grossly improper content. older ≠ wiser 18:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bkonrad. --Orlady (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend, I'm still waiting for your answers to my specific questions. It is apparent from the number of new posters showing up here that this unfolded off-Wiki, and I still need to know how to correct the record on that article, which is now twice wrong. Have you read WP:AGF? You are making some pretty strong, and inaccurate bad faith statements above, and I'd like to get this sorted and corrected without having to go to ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting. Thanks everyone, btw. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jujutacular, however this does not solve the problem, and I am still waiting for Nyttend's reponse.

(Deletion log); 19:35 . . Jujutacular (talk | contribs) changed revision visibility of José Sisto: restored edit summary for 1 revision (Consensus at User_talk:SandyGeorgia#Query)

cur | prev) 20:22, October 29, 2010 SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) (8,292 bytes) (null edit to point out improper use of twinkle to and allegation of vandalism in previous edit summary) (rollback | undo)
(cur | prev) 19:12, October 29, 2010 Physchim62 (talk | contribs) m (8,290 bytes) (Reverted 4 edits by SandyGeorgia (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Mandarax. (TW)) (undo)

Nyttend is currently online, still making accusations that do not accord with AGF, and has still not responded to my specific questions here. [4] [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend is still online and still hasn't responded.[6] I'll be leaving now, so if someone would like to e-mail me once Nyttend either posts here to answer and rectify,[7] or this abuse is resolved at ANI, I'll be back! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have urged Nyttend on his talk page to consider his position - as it happens, I think all three of you were wrong (Pyschim for calling what was obviously a mistake 'vandalism', you for the edit summary - not a good idea although I appreciate your frustration - and Nyttend for using an admin tool incorrectly), but Nyttend probably has the most to worry about as a number of people seem to have questioned his admin decisions recently for one reason or another.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that EotR (and everyone else as well), and I agree we all made mistakes, but the abuse of admin tools is a particular concern throughout Wiki of late (in fact, what led to my looking into the DYK problem). I do hope he will heed everyone's well intended advice and communicate here as is expected of him as an admin, so that this matter can be collegially and amicably resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acheron class torpedo boat

Hi there. Don't mean to seem to be piling on with all the DYK stuff, but the comment about references on the page Acheron class torpedo boat was, technically, incorrect - the 'notes' (inline) section noted the work, while the page mentioned was just below in the 'References' subsection.

Like so:

Notes

1. ^ a b c Winfield (2003) p.316
2. ^ a b c d e f[verification needed] Naval Historical Society of Australia

Bibliography

Winfield, Rif; Lyon, David (2003). The Sail and Steam Navy List: All the Ships of the Royal Navy 1815–1889. Chatham Publishing. ISBN 978-1-86176-032-6. OCLC 52620555.

* Australia’s First Warship - The Torpedo Boat Acheron at the Naval Historical Society of Australia website

(bolded are the relevant parts)

I totally agree that the part in 'notes' could have been a bit clearer, but the title and source were there. :) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 20:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And having read at WT:DYK...well, like I said above, I don't want to pile on, but you did overlook the actual link that was there all along (see this diff, under 'References' - 'Bibliography') while letting the editor have it over something he didn't even actually do.^{[citation needed]} Had the link not been there, then I would totally agree with you, but given the fact the link was there, well... - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something that seems self-evident to those familiar with the material and the source, may be opaque to others. Here, the fact that the footnote referred to one of the items in the bibliography was evident to the writer, you, and me (I have used material from that same institution), but not to an outsider. It is best to remove ambiguity. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 21:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Kablammo. I can't decipher easily the mess of pages at DYK, but as soon as I can figure out to whom I should apologize, I will do that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wrote the article in the first place and referenced it in accordance with Wikipedia:Citing_sources/Example_edits_for_different_methods#Shortened_notes, so far as I could. I don't think you need to apologise, by the way, but perhaps a bit more looking before leaping might be in order! Keep up the good work. Shem (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mutant Girls Squad

Removed from the main page for now. Shubinator (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Shu ... always glad to know we have some mature folk around. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'd appreciate it if you could tag the offending spots; I'm too sleepy to do the job properly. Shubinator (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Not I, and not when admins are circling looking for any excuse to jab me. Someone else can clean up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would do it if somebody can point me to the proper templates. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the club Sandy. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 02:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, thanks a lot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"They fuckers"? Tsk tsk. You have so lost my !vote at RfA. And u can take dat to da bank. • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You see how much freedom comes from never wanting to be an admin? You can do the right thing when others won't (or can't, because of incompetence). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But an admin who actually understands the life of content contributors and reviewers is an asset, yes? No? maybe? • Ling.Nut (talk) 09:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLPs, DYKs, and plagiarism

		Home-Made Barnstar
		I made this barnstar, and I award it to you in recognition of the commitment, integrity, talent and sheer hard work involved in what you do here. May you be happy and peaceful in what you do, and may you continue to hold out for the highest possible standards in your work here. John (talk) 06:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most kind of you, John; thank you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hey Sandy. I hope you're doing well. With the recent cases of admin abuse (especially the civility blocks and the improper use of RD, I really feel for you. The block threats from an incompetent 2003 admin are also alarming. I applaud your no-nonsense attitude regarding plagiarism and close paraphrasing at DYK, largely a reward culture at best. Your efforts to rid this wiki of idiots and myspacers who boast overly flamboyant and unreadable signatures are meritorious, and they are not to waste. Your morals and principles may not be valued by many in this ruckus, but it is certainly acknowledged by other victims, like Malleus and me, among others. I sincerely hope that you succeed in your endeavors to curb the extreme issues here. Take care. Whwya (talk) 06:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe after they chase Malleus and me away, I'll leave a small legacy. Would someone who is still editing at this Project put up an RFC to get WP:SIG to restrict sigs to two (non-flamboyant) colors, no outrageous fonts, no links that don't direct noobies to talk pages, and no ridiculously long superscripts? That may discourage children from playing on Wiki, and encourage those who are here for the goals of the Project. It would sure as heck make it easier for FAC delegates to read FAC. On the doing well part, I'll be back to my usual self in about eight more days; thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it'd be very beneficial to my suffering eyes to redefine WP:SIG to prohibit ridiculous signatures like this, this, and these. It's unfortunate that we've got no way to run these immature children out on a rail—these waste-of-space ~~editors~~ users who solely revert vandalism. If they're not here to build an encyclopedia, we gotta expel 'em (ha, just like they do in school :) ). On the note of DYK, it's sad that the regulars are complaining about your "giving us absolutely zero time to do anything about it". If the plagiarized articles with unreliable sources are on the main page, it is imperative to get them off forthwith before taking other action. SandyGeorgia, I salute you. Continue plucking them out if they're plagiarized! Your efforts to keep people honest are admirable and appreciated. Try not to get chased away! Without you and Malleus, this place is bereft of integrity and honesty. Whwya (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, there's a little too much personalization in that post for me-- I don't really want specific editors referred to as waste-of-space on my talk-- kinda goes along with that integrity thingie. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I understand...sorry. Anyway, it looks like the issues don't reside solely in DYK. It's just specific dishonest individuals. Wish you luck in helping to solve these problems! Whwya (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will they ever succeed in chasing us away? I plan to leave when I'm good and ready, and not a moment before. Malleus Fatuorum 04:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have a cookie

Torinir has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 06:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would help for my increased appetite :) Thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor who primarily reviews and deals with content-and-sourcing mess, please allow me to second the cookie for your recent work. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Eyed Kids

I didn't think that one would would make it through the day. I just wanted to say thank you for being gracious enough to wait until it was not a DYK before putting the deletion template up and I hope you have a happy Halloween! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 09:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I unfortunately take that back. I completely agree with you that the article needs to be deleted in its current form but I would also like an apology for the following

Not assuming good faith - As the second voter pointed out, there is a very misleadingly named source which if you check the history of the article you will see I used that source originally. When it was checked for DYK the source was removed and the DYK people still let it pass through. To my mind both parties made a mistake there, and an honest one at that.

Not assuming good practice/WP:BITE - I did not recreate deleted material. I re-wrote the article from scratch, using what I considered at the time to be reliable sources. Again, no one is arguing that I was right. However, I am very, very new to content creation. There was no need to say this should be speedied on sight. It wasn't the same article. Not even a tiny bit.

I'm not going to force anything out of you and I know we're not here for therapy but please think about it. I've written what I hope are a lot of good articles on paranormal subjects too and as a learner it hurts to have more experienced editors break WP:AGF on you. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 09:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And please don't mention subjects which are directly related to me on ANI without telling me again. It's only WP:CIVIL. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 10:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Panyd. I too have had times on Wikipedia where I felt short-changed. I think we all have. If there is a problem with an article (or a process such as DYK) many results-oriented folks (including Sandy) are quick to try to fix it. In the process, some people may feel their work has been disparaged. This is important: we value you as a contributor. We need to edit our work mercilessly however – don't be afraid to kill your own baby, as professional authors say! I hope we can avoid taking it prsonally when our work is edited or even deleted... and the ANI thread was about DYK, not you... • Ling.Nut (talk) 10:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to confess, Panyd, I can't sort out what you're saying at all, so please do come back when you're not upset so we can talk. I believe I did mention that the DYK reviewer sourced the article, so I understood it wasn't your work-- so beyond that, I'm not following you at all. Also, I believe I was not the one to mention it at ANI-- that was a DYK person. The very clear problem here is that the same DYK reviewer who passed the hook sourced the article (at least, that's what I understood from DYK, but I admit, it is SUCH a convoluted process, you can't find archives, who passes hooks, anything, so I may be misunderstanding)-- this was not about you, and I didn't bring it up at ANI, and I don't know what AGF issues you are referring to. I'd be glad to talk about it, but I checked a ton of your other DYKs and saw they were all fine, so I knew this was a DYK problem, where a reviewer sourced and passed it himself. I think. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, an apology on my part, the ANI comment was looking before I leapt. I saw the words 'incompetence' and Black Eyes Kids in the same posting of yours and presumed it was referring to me. That was my mistake, you have my sincerest apologies. Secondly, I feel, and if you don't agree I'll drop it, that saying the article should've been speedied on sight and that it was recreated deleted material was not on. I made sure to write the article again from scratch using what I thought at the time were reliable sources (again, I'm not saying I wasn't wrong there) and addressing the problems with the previous article. I even had an administrator let me look at the deleted content before posting. To me that is due diligence on my part mixed with a mistake. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 10:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no need to apologize, Panyd, I understand. I want to say that I checked a lot of your work and found it all to be high quality, which is why I knew this was a DYK problem. I also thought you were on break, or I would have brought you in earlier-- I was caught quite by surprise when they put it on the mainpage because they told me they would sort it. I had a hard time figuring out what had happened in the article, but one thing I knew was that inferior sourcing wasn't yours. I've been up all night, so please be well, and maybe we can talk more tomorrow if anything still isn't cleared up. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Two pages to read, Panyd:
  - User:Fences and windows/Unreliable sources
  - Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Ghi#Icon Group International
- Uncle G (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brown Lady

Hi, thanks for your message. I dispute the allegation that the article is a copyvio. Could you also point out to me where the article is "Completely plagiarized from that source"? After having started 406 articles here I am deeply offended by the allegation and am about ready to leave. Thanks. Jack1956 (talk) 11:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jack. I hope you don't mind if I ask you something. I see you have been a Wikipedian since may of '06; I sincerely appreciate your commitment to the encyclopedia. My question is this: what does it matter if one of your many creations is considered a version that needs to be done over from scratch? That is not an insult to you. We are writers, and we practice our craft together. Sometimes a bit of work needs to be done over. There is no harm in that. Your other work is still valuable; that is unquestioned... Looking forward to your reply. • Ling.Nut (talk) 11:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ling.Nut, thanks for your kind comment. I guess that, because I worked so hard on the 'Brown Lady' article, and to see other articles of mine similarly criticised, plus being called a 'liar' by another editor, is about as much as I am prepared to put up with. I genuinely cannot see where 'Brown Lady' is a copyvio. Jack1956 (talk) 11:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyvio is a tricky thing. I once had a conversation with a copyright lawyer, and he said technically a huge number of Wikipedia articles are in violation of copyright laws. That's because if any part of the article that is buried in its history was copy/pasted, the whole thing is in violation, since the history is accessible. Wow, can you believe that? That's nuts. But that's what he said. [he also said the odds were near zero that the original author would go to the trouble and expense of filing a lawsuit, though.] Now, I am sure if your article seems to be in violation, I am certain that it was a mistake as you were editing. That's OK. We all make mistakes. But in that case, you may need to start over again. I can help you (later, not tonight) if you want a coworker... • Ling.Nut (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would be great, and is very kind of you. Jack1956 (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - wait and see how the copyvio discussion turns out. If the article is deleted, don't worry. Consider it a first draft that you discarded. Ping me on my talk later if you wanna work on something.. • Ling.Nut (talk) 12:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - You could help Jack1956 with Charles Fitzroy Doll, ensuring that nothing copies, or is derived from a copy of (Your lawyer interlocutor was probably in part talking about derived works.), the OUP dictionary of architecture article, in the meantime … Uncle G (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism, thread 2

I agree it needs serious discussion, with someone even proposing to scrap DYK. I think that we ought to move discussion to a new dedicated page, as the section is becoming ridiculously long. I'd do it myself, but am not sure of what to call the new page. Aiken (talk) 12:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

links please? I have a bone to pick about a nasty case of COI. • Ling.Nut (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's on ANI, but it's been (rightly) archived now. As I said, it was very long and difficult to navigate. A dedicated page is required, and I think SandyG might be a good person to get the ball rolling. Aiken (talk) 12:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ping ping me me please please. COI is unacceptable. FA/FAR/GAN all have mechanissms against it; DYK... not so much. • Ling.Nut (talk) 12:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page. Aiken (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the horribly unwieldy title. :) I didn't want to miss anything. I've shortcutted it to WP:Pacom. I suspect this will head by way of RfC. Thanks, Sandy, for bringing this problem to prominence. I'm still trying to pull together something as you suggested. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, MRG-- I probably won't participate much there, and feel better that you're on board. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TFA

I've found an alternative Halloween-related FA which hasn't been on TFA before: Cock Lane ghost. I've had a quick flick through it, and it looks OK. Regards, wacky wace 12:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about suggesting this, but Parrot of Doom (talk · contribs) already has Gunpowder Plot as TFA on the 5th and Blackbeard later in November. Cock Lane Ghost is going to get a lot of juvenile vandalism. Nev1 (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A new one has been added already. Aiken (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it isn't particularly Halloween-ish. wacky wace 12:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep faffing to a minimum; if that means the Cock Lane Ghost is saved for another day I don't think that's a bad thing. Nev1 (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raul has already taken care of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oi, leave my cocks and fannies alone. Parrot of Doom 15:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephens City, Virginia

Since everyone is on an almost witchhunt (funny when Grace Sherwood gets brought into the conversation) could you check the Stephens City, Virignia page for "blatant copyvios", please? I had several admins, reviewers, editors and myself go over that page. One section is from the "Newtown History Center", with OTRS ticket credit and sourcing, so please don't count that as a copyvio, but I just want to make sure the article I put so much time into isn't "thrown off a cliff into the sea" like Grace Sherwood is right now. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just lighting this up again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not have time to check it at this moment; there are some sample questions at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Proposal 1 that might help you answer the question yourself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank God!

Thank God I didn't pass this one at GAN. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 14:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one raises a subtle point, which is that sometimes apparent plagiarism and copyvios are not, well not by us, but by the site which has plagiarized Wikipedia. I often spot check at GAR for plagiarism: if a GAR needs to be closed, I generally read through the article and check a few sources, both for verifiability and plagiarism, before closing it. Such experience has led me to propose reworking the GA criteria so that plagiarism appears prominently next to copyright violation ("Is it well written, attributed, broad, neutral, stable and free?") as it is an issue that reviewers sometimes miss.

However, it can take time to determine whether we are plagiarizing the source (potential copyvio) or it is plagiarizing us (unreliable source). In the case of http://www.hellamtownship.com, it looks like we are copying the source (as our article is so recent), and that the link to Wikipedia was added by the source later, but the internet archive does not yet confirm this conclusively. Geometry guy 19:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I raised a similar point in the discussion about manually running Corenbot against all FACs on my talk page. The problem has been compounded recently by the number of publishers who now produce print-on-demand versions of wikipedia articles, not always with the required copyright notice. This isn't going to be an easy problem to solve. Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to clarify some things here. As established on the talk page, it is not a copyvio. I parapharsed it, but not too closely. I do this all the time, and there is nothing wrong with it. The source mentioned did not copy off of Wikipedia, either. It simply mentions that there is an article on Wikipedia about it. Since the website was up before I wrote the article, it must be referring to an article about the topic that was deleted in 2005. It is 100% reliable, as it is the township's website and I'd figure they know a thing or two about the legend. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 22:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Circular-- a wiki citing a website quoting a Wiki. A town website isn't necessarily "scholarship". I see you removed the tag, which is wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps I wasn't clear. It doesn't take any information from Wikipedia, it just says there is an article on the topic. No circular referencing there. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos

I'd barnstar you, except that's just one more of the pathetic baubles that plague this project. But seriously, I can't believe the vitriol that certain people are pouring on you for pointing out rampant plagiarism. Driving good editors off the project? People who commit such cardinal sins, and can't take a telling, are not by any definition good editors. It's the same rubbish all over: when someone is right and you don't like it, attack them for not filling in a form, or for rocking the boat. Perhaps we need a Jeremiah barnstar?--Scott Mac 15:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Psst! I'm pretty sure that most people who've actually been following are not laying the blame for the departure at SandyGeorgia's door. If anything, the vitriol has been directed at other people entirely, and I suspect that it was the vitriol itself that was a major reason for the departure. I said it at User talk:Moonriddengirl and I say it again here: The name calling hasn't really helped. But then it never does; and I am amazed that people don't learn this from experience. Uncle G (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Name-calling doesn't help certainly. However, it isn't in the same league as plagiarism. Name-calling is regrettable fact of Wikipedia's culture, but you don't get into office here without a skin thick enough to cope with it. If an arb has departed (and I never take departures that seriously about here) it can't be because he's just suddenly discovered that some people will oft times use overblown critical language. It is more likely because he was called on a very serious matter and didn't have the gumption to put his hands up (and I'm not even going to be too hard on him for that - if someone went through my articles, I'm not 100% I'd not have slipped up). Some of the messengers may have been unnecessarily blunt (and by all means call them on that) but shooting the messengers and engaging in yet another discussion of the need for civil interaction (and I'm all for looking at that issue periodically) simply distracts from the issue in hand and looks like an attempt to distract from what's evidently a systemic and cultural problem.--Scott Mac 16:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some would say that the Wikipedia culture is a systemic and cultural problem. Rlevse had all of his permissions removed, which he's never done before to my knowledge. The whole tone of this discussion is acidic and not helpful. I thank Sandy for bringing up the issue, but sounding the alarm on articles on the main page that many times in 24 hours is bound to get people on edge. If you all truly want a constructive discussion about it with long-term positive effects, lay off the gas and sit down at the table. Shubinator (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - They weren't the messengers, though. They were just tagging along for the ride, pretty much. SandyGeorgia was the messenger, and as far as I saw managed to convey the message without blanket-insulting an entire class of editors. Xe didn't require "help" of that sort, and I suspect that we might be in a better position right now had it not been given. Uncle G (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - True - but when the cops pull someone over for drink-driving, people will unhelpfully rubberneck. Of course, they shouldn't: it causes accidents and slows traffic, but it is always going to happen. Linking the collateral to the decision of the cops is unhelpful. Shubinator's implied criticism of Sandy (among the backhanded compliments) demonstrates that linking. If there are so many problems with the mainpage in 24 hours, then sound the alarm with all volume, and certainly don't "lay off the gas".--Scott Mac 16:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - "sound the alarm with all volume": that's where I disagree. So Sandy should have cross-posted to WP:AN, WT:DYK, T:MP, and wherever else she could find? No. There are ways to bring up the issue (and get the main page issues taken care of quickly) without contributing to the atmosphere. I don't take issue with it bring brought up, but the way that it was (and is) done. A lot of the issues that took a while to resolve were brought up during a heated discussion...and of course, no one took action. Everyone piled in their own opinion instead. Shubinator (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        ... as you are doing here right now. Has the irony not escaped you? Malleus Fatuorum 17:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        "doing here right now": not sure if you're referring to bad atmosphere or talking instead of doing or something else. If it's the bad atmosphere, I'll stay away from this thread. If it's talking instead of doing, I pulled two of the articles that Sandy brought up. Yes, I did miss a couple buried in conversations. Shubinator (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        This is obviously SandyG's talk page, so it's up to her and you whether you (or I) stay or go. It's clear to me though that you see the embarrassment of having a TFA disfigured with copyright violation tags as something that should be dealt with quietly behind closed doors, whereas I see it as a clarion call, reminding us that something needs to be done about a long-standing and endemic problem; that can't and shouldn't be done quietly, someone needs to shout from the rooftops. Malleus Fatuorum 18:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        (ec) No, not "behind closed doors". A clarion call once I agree with (the TFA one is fine). A clarion call five times in a day stops becoming a call to action. "If we amplify everything, we hear nothing." Shubinator (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask all a question, since we are going after a current TFA, Grace Sherwood, for copyvios. Now...my question is...exactly how did the best of the best editors, writers and reviewers all overlook these "horrible" copyvios and SandyG herself miss them when promoting the page? How could all these people miss this and now, all of a sudden, it comes to light? Perhaps all those people didn't see a problem? Probably. SandyG didn't see a problem? Probably. But more than likely, the editors, reviewers and writers seen that the way it was written was far better than anything they could come up with and left it. This isn't Rlevse's fault in any stretch of the imagination. When you create and work on an FA (as I know) you put your heart and soul into that article to make it perfect, so I can understand why Rlevse left. The reviewing process needs to, itself, be reviewed and those reviewers (including SandyG herself) need to review articles even more throughly than previous. Not make a witchhunt of a witchhunt article (which no one sees as ironic but me) weeks later. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to wake up and smell the coffee. SandyG herself hardly ever reviews, her job is to judge the consensus amongst the reviewers. As to those reviewers who supported the article's promotion withot noticing that significant chunks had been copied from USA Today, well why not ask them? I will finally say that this issue was first raised last night, on the article's talk page, and it could then in my opinion have been easily dealt with, any problems with the article's history excepted. What actually happened though was tha the IP editor who raised the issue was blocked and Rlevse appeared to consider that the issue was a trifling one. Malleus Fatuorum 19:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am late to the party as usual and (inspite of furiously fast reading) can't make head nor tail of what is going on. However, I do know Sandy's dedication and judgement is very sound and Wikipedia loves nothing better than shooting a messenger, especially if that message is not one an Arb or senior admin wants to hear. So rock on Sandy. Giacomo 19:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The story began here, last night. Malleus Fatuorum 20:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've suspected for a long time, since I first checked out content projects such as FA and DYK in the early days and found their standards very low, that there may be a systemic problem with the organization of such projects. I've never really investigated that aspect of Wikipedia, preferring instead to ignore it and hope it gets better. Well thanks for checking it out and blowing the whistle. This did need to be done. --TS 20:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm way too tired to respond to all of this now, but this is the goofiest thing I've seen all day:

This isn't Rlevse's fault in any stretch of the imagination.

He who puts the copyvio in the article is responsible, not reviewers, not copyeditors, and not the delegate who promotes based on consensus. I didn't ask for this problem to become such a big deal: Camelbinky brought it to ANI, made a fuss because he wasn't notified, so I started notifying DYK (hence the claims about feeding the fuel by "crossposting" are silly). I didn't "blow the whistle"; I saw a copyvio by Camelbinky, dealt with it, failed to notify him, and got hauled before ANI, where the rest unfolded, and I would have left it days ago if Wiki hadn't allowed an admin to abuse of me and make false claims that I vandalized. We all know the only way to deal with abusive admins is through ArbCom, and someone should be dealing with that; if I can be targetted, anyone can. But when I see a copyvio on the main page, or anywhere, I have to respect policy. We all do. FAC reviewers aren't responsible for checking the entire history of the article to see when a copyvio was introduced-- the writer is responsible for what s/he brings to FAC. But we'll certainly need to start watching this more closely now so it doesn't happen again. This is a big problem that we all need to work on. In all of this mess, the most troubling thing to me personally is that an admin was able to abuse of me and that still stands. Something is stinky here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The analogy for me is software. It's impossible to test for everything, and even if it were possible it would take too long. As a result even the best software probably contains something like 15 undiscovered errors per 1,000 lines of code, so what testers tend to do is to focus on two areas: those where errors most commonly crop up, like nested conditional statements, and on stuff developed by individuals with a known history of making mistakes. Whatever we do though will never result in "perfect" FAs, or GAs, or DYKs. Malleus Fatuorum 22:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just catching up on all of this, but I think we have a serious problem. Malleus is certainly correct insofar as the nominator has responsibility for preventing plagiarism, but certainly he cannot be the only one? I am not seeking to assign blame to anyone, what is past is past, but I think the process has been shown to be insufficient. Regardless of our personal differences, we need to pull together to figure out a better way of making a reoccurrence as unlikely as possible. We all take something from the FA process, or we wouldn't be doing it; that process took a helmet to the head today. What do we do now?--Wehwalt (talk)

Just to be clear, it was SandyG who said that "He who puts the copyvio in the article is responsible", not me. I'm not saying I disagree, just pointing that out. Malleus Fatuorum 23:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I've seen anyone say that it's the nominator's fault either, unless the nominator was the one who inserted the copyright violation. Sometimes we take things on trust, and sometimes that trust is misplaced. What's the lesson we can learn from that? Not to trust anyone ever again? Malleus Fatuorum 23:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trust but verify. Right now the community is looking at us with suspicion. Suggest immediate, open, and powerful action. And I can't agree that the nominator can evade responsibility. If you nominate an article, you are attesting to the community that the article meets the criteria. In addition, the nominator is in the best position to check. I would think well of a proposal to give the FAD the nondelegable power to suspend from FAC for plagiarism. He probably had it anyway, but recognize it and put people on notice. I have other ideas too, but there should be a discussion someplace public, not on someone's talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure who you think the "we" or "the community" are, but I'll just note that the ineluctable conclusion of your argument is that the community's trust in administrators and arbitrators is misplaced. No surprise there then. Perhaps you have it in your mind that I was Grace Sherwood's nominator, or in some other way responsible for yesterday's debacle? If so then just spit it out. Malleus Fatuorum 00:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Just to clarify, the crossposting bit was an extreme example of what you could have done to "sound the alarm with all volume" that (I hope) we can all agree would be a bad idea. Didn't mean to imply that you had. (And I have no idea what the Camelbinky incident is; maybe later in the week when I have time I'll dig.) Shubinator (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's a shame that you decided to offer your opinion without an adequate grasp of the facts don't you think? Isn't that pretty much what you have criticised others for? Or do you not believe that the matter is of sufficient importance to be raised in as many venues as possible? Malleus Fatuorum 23:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I'm confused. 1) I thought this thread was (at least partly) about the DYK stuff, where I do have an adequate grasp of what's going on; 2) No, that's not what I've criticized others for. I've criticized them for bringing up the issues in a way that unnecessarily generates more tensions; 3) I'm utterly confused by your last sentence. Shubinator (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shu, I can't parse your post, don't know what you're saying. Anyway, my doggie died so I'm tired and upset and I'm going away. I do have an idea of how we may address this that I will explore with Moonriddengirl tomorrow or later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. By all means take a break...you don't have to work nonstop. Condolences about your dog. (I have one, so I have some idea of what that feels like.) Shubinator (talk) 23:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear about your dog, you've my deep sympathy for all you must be going through. Back on topic, thanks for doing the right thing for the overall good of Wikipedia, and getting this tricky issue of plagiarism the attention it needs. So, condolences and thanks for all your work, dave souza, talk 23:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JJ

You have new messages

Hello, SandyGeorgia. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template. File:Ico specie.png

Chzz ► 18:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the non-RS-backed stuff; could you take another look at that? /ƒETCH COMMS / 22:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

are you having fun?

Seriously - the copy-vio debacle, and then your dog dies. What's next? Best to you. Thinking of you. It's very sad to lose a pet. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd send cookies or chocolate, but am thinking you need something much stronger. How about a couple shots of tequila? (I like tequila ... ) Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry to hear about your dog! I remember when I lost my cat back in March. I was non-functional for days afterwards. Gentle hugs. --*Kat* ^(meow?) 06:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, man, I'm sorry to hear the news. How upsetting.--SPhilbrick T 17:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Sorry to hear about your dog. Good work on dealing with the copyviolation, appreciate all the work you're doing here Tom B (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto on all accounts. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query regarding removal

Regarding this removal, can you please elaborate, at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review#Addition_to_FAR_instructions_-_exceptions_for_extreme_cases? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Raul654. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nod, okay, understood, also got some good positive feedback about this at WT:FAR, no need for further comments/explanations. Thank you for your time. -- Cirt (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ulnar collateral ligament (elbow)/archive1

Do you want it zapped to avoid clogging the history? I've left a welcome note for the nominator, pointing to WP:RS and WP:MEDRS, which are the only two salvageable points for the editor from the QF comments. Bencherlite ^Talk 16:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking-- no, since there is info on the page, I archived it and think we should keep it in history. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having left you this message, I then checked your contribs and saw that you'd archived it properly (as it were) - next time, I'll check your contribs first... Bencherlite ^Talk 16:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daydream

Hello. So there is no confusion, Raul gave me permission to nominate Daydream early, so I'm letting you know so there isn't another misunderstanding/problem. Thanks.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[8] Dabomb87 (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something you might be interested in

I thought you might be interested in another example of the high-quality articles that have come through DYK recently. NW (Talk) 23:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad more people are noticing now. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the article creator. I don't think there's an issue with the article except perhaps that line, which I dispute (see talk page comment). Christopher Connor (talk) 00:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does illustrate a fundamental conceptual problem with DYK, which crops up occasionally: stripping context can be unexpectedly brutal to the meaning, unexpected particularly from the point of view of those who do know the context (writing the article/hook) and read it differently than most passersby. Rd232 ^talk 18:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fast question on citation templates

I have just seen the discussion on citation templates on FAC talk and as I am planning to take parkinson's disease to FAC soon I wanted to fix citations before hand. While I have used diberri for pmids I think I have mixed templates in the society section (citation and cite news). Which one should be used for a consistent style compatible with diberri's formatting? Would you mind answering at my talk? Your talk is a hell to watch... :-) Thanks in advance. --Garrondo (talk) 07:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to keep up

Hi, Sandy. I just wanted to let you know that I'm thoroughly motivated to stick with this (in fact, I've dreamed about it two nights running!), but I am very challenged at the moment by a work deadline with which I have no wriggle room. Most of the time, my job is gloriously undemanding, but when deadline rolls around I can be slammed. I'm off to read the various conversations. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad the issues are in such calm, competent, capable hands ... I actually have too much going on to be able to keep up with it all, so am limiting where I weigh in. I'm very confused about why Sherwood is being edited without reverting to the pre-copyvio version, but I don't understand all of this as well as you do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not entirely calm, or I wouldn't be dreaming about it. :) The problem of copyright violations on Wikipedia is one that's had me wracking my brains for solution for well over a year. I haven't even looked at that article today and probably won't get to until later. I have no idea what's being done. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's being actively edited without a reversion to the pre-copyvio version; I suggest consolidating work and commentary at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Grace Sherwood/archive1 to try to get everyone on the same page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - … where you'll find User:Uncle G/Grace Sherwood noted and available. If Secret wants something to work on, there it is. ☺ If you're all happy with that as a basis, I'll history merge it in. Uncle G (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I can't keep up with that, Uncle G, but you copyvio people have impressed the hell out of me, and I'm sure you all will handle it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        That draft is more my article rescue hat than my copyright hat. See Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron#Rescuing a Featured Article. It's a quick stub to push the article up out of the dank and dismal depths. Uncle G (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Sandy's dad

[anti-plagiarism notice 1]