User talk:SandyGeorgia

FACs needing feedback ; view • edit
Five Nights at Freddy's: Help Wanted	Review it now
Roswell incident	Review it now
La Isla Bonita	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.

Template:FixBunching

About me

Talk to me

To do list

Tools and other
useful things

Some of
my work

Nice
things

Yukky
things

Regarding a new board

Hi! I noticed your comment regarding creation of a new noticeboard... I don't see any reason why we can't be bold and do that? Obviously some planning and discussion should take place on the particulars, first such as an explicitly defined purpose for instance. Cheers! Thorncrag 04:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

could you … ?

Hi, SandyGeorgia. I was very interested in a comment you made at the RfA for Elen of the Roads: "It has become increasingly important to augment the admin corp with content contributors first and foremost." You may not have time to explain this at length to me, but is there an existing discussion you could point me toward? Are you saying the admin corps is strong in those who are technically proficient, but who lack what used to be called writing skills? Or general understanding about how to research and develop a topic? Or do hands-on editing? Just curious about this, as I find myself often baffled about how the community works. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive644

And this, and the entire page from here down.

I understand Elen of the Roads does good work, but I haven't crossed paths with her that I can recall. I've Supported non-content contributors in the past, but only when I've worked with them and know their character and contributions quite well. Since I'm going to begin opposing admin candidates who don't work on content, she should view my Neutral as good news. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll check these out. (I appreciate what you're saying about Elen; I didn't come here in regard to her RfA, but for my own information, just so you know.) Cynwolfe (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a new one unfolding here, once again taking over numerous talk pages, more evidence of the three-ring circus that is the admin corp, and why content contributors need to take back (or take for the first time) the Project. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problems as I see it have to do with navigating the stages of growth that any organization goes through. There are many versions of sociological or business theory on this, but here's an example (skip down to "Greiners (sic) Model of Five Phases of Growth"). This web page is about corporate for-profit growth, but the model works for non-profits, because it's basically about how you institutionalize dynamism without strangling it. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But Wiki isn't growing (at least not in good or desired ways, unless we think more child editors becoming admins is "growth"): it's decaying. Perhaps this explains it: "If management now fails to control the activities of these departments, they would start to handle tasks more from their own view than with the whole business in mind. At its extreme, departments would work against each other." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. And decay is part of the life cycle of an organism. The question is whether WP will adapt as successful organizations do. It makes for an interesting sociological study. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something would have to be done about this delegation stage; i.e., the monkeys (to whom we've given the keys) are running the asylum, and there is no one who will get the keys back from the monkeys so the crazy content writers can carry on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for going to the trouble of providing those examples, it explained a lot of the fuss I'd seen (and at least one landmine I'd totally tripped over) a great deal better. I know you were responding to Cymwolfe (and I appreciate the question, too), but I got something hopefully useful from your answer as well. Best regards, --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome; shining the light in dark places is my pleasure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of this idea? You could comment on the talk page there, if you wanted. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

could you ? 2

Hi, could you check out my requests at Talk:2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt and WT:VEN. thanks, Rd232 ^talk 18:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Must I? I unwatched the lot :) I'll get to it a bit later-- been busy all morning, and have to attend to some offline stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it seems no-one else is going to respond to the WT:VEN assessment request; it shouldn't take you too long to handle those. (I'm working through the WP:VEN assessment backlog, but some of my own work needs someone else to look at it.) The coup article I want to nominate for GAN and it would be best for you to make any comments before that gets under way. Rd232 ^talk 18:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a busy day today IRL, and tomorrow have to read FAC, so I may not get back to you til Sunday-- I do have some questions on assessment that I've been meaning to raise with you as soon as I find time. That would probably be as soon as this subsides at ANI: "admins eating their own. And while they are busy in their solemn discussions on how to throw one of their own to the wolves to satisfy the mob (cf. John Byng) at least they cannot be doing as much damage elsewhere". On the notion of taking the Coup article to GAN, I haven't read it in quite some time, but the last time I did, it was among the worst POV articles, and bringing it to standard would involve some heavy research that would take quite some time-- are you proposing we work on that, or has the article improved since I stopped following? I wouldn't mind trying to work on it, but history shows it would be unlikely we'd make progress if talk page disruptive behaviors take over per usual. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did a lot of work on the coup article recently. That's why I'm asking you to look at it; it wasn't anywhere near GA before but I think it is now. Rd232 ^talk 14:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll try to peek in over the weekend, but I still need to know we're not going to see the talk page degenerate into disruptive behaviors we usually see from others if I take the time to weigh in. I try to "police" disruption from "either side of the aisle" wherever I see it, but no one else seems to do that on the Ven suite of articles. I don't want to wade in again, only to end up attacked and getting nowhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing, in case you have time to get to it before I do: somewhere on DGG's (very long) talk page, I seem to recall asking him about the reliability of Silence of the Scorpion; would you have time to find that discussion? I never got beyond the first few chapters in that book, and I hope it didn't end up in a box in storage when I moved, but there is info in that book that has to be factored in. Doing so might involve me spending a lot of time in LexisNexis to find other higher quality sources to back up some of his points-- but I'm not sure until I really have time to read it, but I suspect it will take some time and considerable research to bring that article to GA standard. I'm saying this, obviously, before looking at your recent work on the article ... because the last time I looked, there were many points that weren't covered, and doing that right will involve a ton of research to find good sources. Knowing how that "coup" evolved is one thing-- finding sources to back edits is another, that will take a lot of time. I really haven't wanted to do that work until/unless the disruptive environment is controlled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:DGG/Archive_0.8#Book, from this search. Rd232 ^talk 15:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rd-- question: if I have to dig up that book again and read it, would you be willing to do same, so we can be on the same page wrt missing content and finding sources? I will be late for lunch now, ACK! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the first three chapters (which are online) and a number of reviews, including [1] and [2]. I've also looked at the resources the author has online. I've concluded the book is not a serious attempt at history; it is rather a historical novel from the perspective of the opposition. That his research providing the basis for the book appears funded by a Fulbright Grant for Creative Writing appears emblematic. For a concrete example, take his handling of the Neustald video. He appears not to mention it in the book, and his website's discussion of it here is disengenous to say the least. The video refers to six deaths, but Nelson talks about the video mentioning "several deaths", and then proceeds to make a case that this might have been a reference to the two deaths occurring earliest in the day! This alone goes along way to discrediting him as source. Of course he ignores completes Neustald's testimony that he had already been told on the night of 10 April that there would be deaths - there's no good way to deal with that, so best ignore it. In sum, I'm expecting you will want to examine the source closely and make a case for using it; and of course we can discuss specifics on a case-by-case basis - particularly for opposition views worth documenting qua opposition views it may be useful. Anything else, I'm reluctant to take his word for it, without some means of verifying claims. Anyway, I have no inclination to get the book myself. Rd232 ^talk 00:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number 1's (Mariah Carey album) FAC

Hello. That is not fair that you closed the nomination. It's not my fault that barely anyone goes to that page to review the articles for nomination. I had a support and no opposes, if anything it should be promoted because it didn't have any oppose. That is not fair, you could have at least put your comments and I could've earned your support as well. I'm sorry, but that's BS, I waited 3 weeks andd got support, not fair to remove!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you aren't responding to my query. Than can you give me permission to nominate a different article?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Partly because it wasn't particularly polite or collegial, so I was hoping a Talk Page Stalker would respond while I was busy with FAC. Partly because there's a big link at the top of my page that explains it. And partly because it's in the instructions at WP:FAC. Articles cannot be promoted to FA without consensus from reviewers that they meet WP:WIAFA. If your articles aren't getting reviewed, there could be a reason: often reviewers don't weigh in on articles if they see a lot of problems, as that leads to a lengthy discussion and process. Or, it could be simply because FAC is lacking reviewers, in which case, the same could happen to another nomination. Your best bet is to try to collaborate with relevant WikiProjects to bring in more editors, or to review past simlar FACs in the archives to locate reviewers who might be interested in the article. You might also consider taking those articles through Peer Review or GAN first. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I apologize if my post wasn't polite, its just upsetting that after 3 weeks it should get denied, even though it has support. This being the case, since the nomination fell through simply because there wasn't enough support and not too much oppose, can you please consider letting Daydream be nominated early, like now? I mean I'm actually trying to produce high quality articles, not through a bunch of weak BS into the mix. Please consider it, as I really waited so long for that last one. Thanks--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because your previous nomination was a Delisted Good Article, I'm wondering why you don't consider WP:GAN or WP:PR first? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was De-listed like 2 years ago, when Wikipedia was very different. Its not like that happened recently. I mean manyy ediitors expressed to me how it was ready. I even had a support as you saw. And besides Daydream has already been through a successful peer review :). So what do you think?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you figure out why you weren't getting reviews, putting up another FAC would get the same result, and just add to the FAC backlog. Looking over the first article, I see plenty of uncited text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah well quite simply I'm going to let the other editors that are invlolved in album pages that I know, and let them know and encourage them to review. Thats my plan, and I really don't see all this unsurced text. Thanks--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soooooo what do you say?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 05:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I already said, but I'll repeat. There is uncited text, unless you determine why you aren't getting reviews, the result is likely to be the same, and I asked why you haven't considered GAN or PR before FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because I don't think its necessary to go through that, it is NOT required, and I feel the articles are good enough without it. Its also very time consuming. I already told you I would let other editors know and suggest they review it. And I believe the FAC page doesn't have enough traffic and reviewers.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 05:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know what Sandy, forget it, I'm not going to beg you for a darn help or favor. Thanks for listening and I"m going to deal with one of the other directors.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 13:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be more effective to first deal with the uncited text. I'd also point out that your one support was from an editor who is still learning English. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't pointed out any specific un-cited text, so I'm not going to look for it. Well I'm glad you don't find his opinion very important, but I always have. Bye--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 13:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE:

1st Essay no rule. Second revert 5 times in ten minutes, finishing to warn an user and find that was attacked again all alone is not excessive? Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 04:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Care to translate? Vandalism on WP:TFA is normal, the page should not be protected except in extreme circumstances. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's saying that that WP:NOPRO has been downgraded to an essay (after a recent RfC), and that vandalism had to be reverted five times in ten minutes (which he considers excessive). Dabomb87 (talk) 04:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dabomb :) Looie496 is on all the vandals, doesn't seem problematic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)What's the problem it will be unprotected in what, 4 hours?, if IPs really want to edit it can request an edit on the page, BTW I'll go to bed at time when the page is unprotected, seems like no one watch TFAs so if you want to spent your time or others time unprotecting the page is up to you. And sorry for my EnglishTbhotch^Talk ^C. 04:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)And people complain that I am unintelligible. I should give Tbhotch a barnstar for the single most incomprehensible post I have ever encountered. :-) • Ling.Nut 04:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we don't protect the TFA unless the vandalism is excessive, because Wiki is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". The vandalism was not excessive for the mainpage, and if vandalism is excessive, four, six or eight hours of protection is more than is needed to curb it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you mean "The encyclopedia that anyone can vandalize, deface and frustrate readers that are looking for well-written information?" Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 04:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not for us to decide whether to protect the TFA; it's community consensus, no need to discuss it here. Tbhotch, I just looked at your userpage and realized that Spanish may be your first language: my apologies for the tone above where I asked for a translation, as I couldn't decipher your post. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an English student so it's normal to make so kind of errors, don't worry. If people do not make me notice about them, who will do it? Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 04:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when I said "care to translate", I didn't realize that English wasn't your first language, and we should still allow for that on Wiki. So I still apologize. I speak Spanish if you ever need help, BTW. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review at FAC

It wasn't meant as a dig; sorry if it came across that way. I was just rather surprised that the FAC for that article didn't touch on the images at all. Many FACs I've been involved in have included some review of the images' license status ... most recently I recall participating in this one, where I argued at length for the inclusion of a book cover with simple text (and thus copyright-ineligible) in the article.

If there are only a handful of us who understand the policy, that again calls back one of the criticisms I had when it was adopted ... that only a small group of editors would fully understand the policy (and of those few, I would say at least half do so to try to exclude as many borderline images as possible, so I don't totally trust them to be impartial). Daniel Case (talk) 06:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of my Grace Sherwood article, someone did say the images were okay. I've responded on my talk page on this and found an image I think we can use. Both pls visit there. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing free images

Well not bad summery as such but the public domain section would imply that there are far fewer works in the public domain in say france than one might expect (ah moral right how do we hate thee). The derivative works section completely ignores the whole "useful article" issue.©Geni 15:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There probably are fewer pd works in France, as it has no Freedom of Panorama (walks off muttering 'copyright the fairy lights on the bloody Eiffel Tower will you.....")--Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lights are copyright? Aw gee. I hoped with ol' Gustave 70 years dead, that we'd be in business ... bloody frogs.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

read 'em and weep --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That does not, however, mean that a daytime picture of the Eiffel Tower isn't a free image (And I've always thought that, as bad as French law is on the subject, Italian law is even worse). Daniel Case (talk) 04:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they say that sometime this millenium, Roman copyrights start expiring.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Move a misplaced FAC to FLC

Hi, according to this diff the nominator of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/List of countries by future HDI projections of UN/archive1 would like help moving it to FLC. I've also notified User:The Rambling Man and User:Dabomb87. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many FAC people does it take to change a lightbulb ? :) Thanks, Ucucha. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sixty, but it takes half an hour to finish the dance, because none of the regulars want to step on anyone's toes. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which in DanceSport is the easiest way to step on others' toes... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by future HDI projections of UN

Hello. I've put (by mistake) the article (mentioned above) in the FAC list instead of the FLC list. Could you please move the article, from the FAC, to the FLC? Cohneli (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is lacking?

Hi, Sandy. Could you be kind and tell me what it lacking for both Pedro II and Cabral's FAC nominations to end? Pedro II has six "support" views and Cabral has nine "support" views. After weeks, what is missing to get their approval as featured articles? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same ole, Lecen: I don't want to close your noms because of potential claims of COI in the Chavez realm, and Karanacs does closings on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays. Sorry that you appear to be penalized because of our interaction on Chavez, but it's the safest thing to do :) Also, the noms were held up on image issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, you are 100% correct. Cheers, --Lecen (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Institute References on Wikipedia

Hi Sandy, I appreciate your response. I have read the two pages you gave me carefully and discussed them with a colleague.

"Therefore, it is vital that biomedical information in articles be based on reliable published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." (Our articles are based on realiable published sources - however, as I understand, the main source of the problem comes from the fact that our articles do not use references & are not peer reviewed - this is what they told me) "However, see here: All Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources A good secondary source from a reputable publisher will be written by an expert in the field and may be editorially or peer reviewed." (So, it does not have to be peer reviewed but it is preferred is what I am understanding?). Is there any way you could change your mind given the fact that we our website is written and updated by the 67 researchers that work at our Institute?? I shall await your response. Thank you for your time TijanaP(Talk)

Wikiblame

Hi Sandy, I'm a Moonriddengirl TPS. I saw your interchange regarding Wikiblame. I thought I'd share a personal experience, just in case it helps. I've had occasion to want to know when a phrase was first added to an article, so naturally, I tried WikiBlame. When I first started using it, the tool would start checking versions in order (there may have been a way to make it work differently, but I didn't figure it out). Sometimes, I would set Wikiblame to work, then try to find it myself manually, using a binary search, and I was mildly amused to note I could often find it faster than the tool. I didn't totally abandon it, as I could put it to work while I did something else, but it was so slow, it hardly seemed worth it.

Then, something changed. My guess is that the tool owner either implemented binary search, or maybe just changed it so that was the default, but it now works much better. I've used it several times recently with good success (as with any tool it can't be used mindlessly. I recently looked for the first use of phrase, thought I found it, then checked earlier version manually, and realized there was an earlier version differing only by a typo from the one I looked for, so the original addition date was a bit earlier than the tool suggested, but that's not the tool's fault).

I hope you'll give it a try again. I've only been involved in copyright issues in a minor way, but want to spend more time in that area, and the tool is invaluable for that work.--SPhilbrick T 18:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Hmmm, wrote all those words and didn't even include the main point - to wit - if you tried Wikiblame before and didn't find it helpful, try again, as it may work better now.--SPhilbrick T 18:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much-- I made it work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'm glad to hear it. (keep up the good work.)--SPhilbrick T 18:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Falcon Scott TFA

Just to thank you for watching Scott on its TFA day on 24 October, while I was away. Regarding the note you left on the talkpage about lower/upper case, in Scott's time naval ranks would certainly have been written as "Lieutenant", "Captain" etc, rather than "lieutenant" or "captain", and many sources still use upper case for military ranks though it is becoming increasingly customary not to do so. Similarly, there is no real objection to "First Class" becoming "first class". As to "Naval Assistant", this is a formal job title rather than a general job description, and my preference is to capitalise. But again, UK conventions are changing and the lower case format is would be equally acceptable now. Brianboulton (talk) 11:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure

You are invited to participate in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure which is expected to close in a little over a week. If you have received this message, it is because it appears that you participated in the 2009 AC RfC, and your contributions indicate that you are currently active on Wikipedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I favor "one person, one vote". I just want to be the one person with the one vote.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, I'm gonna pass on worrying about the voting system this year-- I'm more worried that we'll have no good candidates. I don't care how we vote. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be scared...

It roll up wikisleeves and put 'editor' rather than 'reviewer' hat on. I think it is a salutory experience all round. I am saying this with MDD as there are other editors to nominate for FAR and/or referee it. Yellowmonkey is getting stuck into buffing Tasmanian devil and urging me to get more active in it...and tehn there is lion for which I have to go to the library and fetch a written text for again. I am feeling a little jetlagged still so the more cerebral stuff is taking more of an effort - also October 31 is our tax deadline (headdesk/facepalm), one of those excuciatingly onerous and boring tasks that one must do or ring up and beg the tax office for more time etc. In short, I am running on about one piston at present...Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, I don't really want to FAR it, I just want the work to get done, but it seems like every time work gets started, a new editor comes along and wants to chunk in even more primary sources. Keeping those big articles clean is a chore, and I think if you'll whack it back once and for all, you'll be battling less of that over the long haul-- like what Eubulides did to AS and Autism. Take it easy there, and welcome back. (Sorry I don't share your enthusiasm for Paris :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I already said to Casliber, a lot of old Australian flora/fauna articles need help, and in the case of TD, many of the parts such as genetics, disease transmission and immunology needs someone who actually knows some jargon and more than what I know... Of course anyone can do the easy stuff about food, burrowing, observations of macroscopic behaviour etc Since more people read this page maybe Casliber might feel more pressure :P, and Fauna of Australia and Australian Green Tree Frog are still waiting for him ... YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 23:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ping me when you put up the frog, I'll help out with that (gotta even out karma for all the frogs that succumbed to my "care" as a boy). Sasata (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 1964 South Vietnamese coup

May I have another, please? I have an endorsement from an elite reviewer, so to speak YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 23:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YM, you gotta start linking me directly to the FAC, so I can commit less Gisms and keep up with Malleus elsewhere :) Yes, I see plenty of Support there, no issues, and Karanacs will likely go through tomorrow anyway. But honestly, people will complain less if you can wait a day for her to go through :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 27 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]

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]

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

"It doesn't meet 1(c) if it doesn't discuss Aristotlean perspectives on the plot and include an explanation of the predator–prey relationship between cats and mice!" says the Fierce Bad Rabbit

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]

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.[3] 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 :) --> [4] 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]