User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch112

Jupiter
When you said the article got worse, do you mean the prose of the text I added? Most of it was taken from the Juno (spacecraft) and Hot Jupiter articles but I have trimmed them down. I will leave it to the copyeditors now. LittleJerry (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Before, it needed updating and some MOS cleanup; now it has indecipherable, garbled, and ungrammatical prose which cannot be fixed by a copyeditor, rather requires a content expert. I don't know from whence came all of those issues, but if you in fact copied some of that text from other articles, I see no indication in edit summary of that.  Are you familiar with WP:CWW?  When content is copied from another article, it must be attributed in edit summary.  I don't think that salvaging this article is within the scope of a WP:FAR, or the abilities of WP:GOCE.  If the Astronomy and Solar system projects are not going to engage, we are better off letting go.  I do appreciate that you tried!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, but perhaps you didn't notice those issues before. The sample paragraph about the "arrangement" of moons was there before me. If the prose is that bad all around, then it was that way before I got to it. LittleJerry (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am sorry I am just now getting around to responding; I have been swamped. I take your point that my Delist implied that the prose issues were yours; are you satisfied with what is on the FAR page now?  Best regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

FAC Nomination... Tech problems?
Hi there Sandy. I thought I'd make a post here instead of pinging you. I'm doing a source spot check for Le Panini. On Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paper Mario: The Origami King/archive1, Panini has added a lot of text to demonstrate the changes he's making. In reading past discussions, I got a feeling that the FAC templates are very sensitive to lots of things being added. Does Panini need to move this into a Sandbox ASAP? Replying here is absolutely fine, but I have posted on Panini's Talk to let him know this is going on, so feel free to reply here and tag Panini in it so he can see. Like me soon (I hope), this is his first nomination. Learning experience for me if I am wrong; a learning experience for both of us if I am right.

I didn't get to read what you posted on FA talk until after the discussion had been archived, but you seemed okay with people asking you questions about FAC directly (although I hope you don't go anywhere). I didn't want to alert the whole Talk page to what might be a minor or even non-existent issue. If I've pestered you over nothing, feel free to scold! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Quick fix, there's a link at the FAC page. I was concerned about the FAC page when making the change, but I assume I didn't think hard enough (I removed the references to leave just text). Le Panini  [🥪] 21:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, both ... much to catch up on before I have time to weigh in on the rest, but quickly, on that FAC, I do not see anything in the source review that will trigger template limits or that is excessively long. More later, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi there, Sandy. Sorry! Panini is swift and dealt with it very quickly. I've since learned that the problem is templates and, although the bot doesn't love 10k bytes of text, it isn't the issue that templates cause. He dealt with it very quickly (and knew it was silly; we all have brain-farts, as I did here). Sorry to trouble you. Hope everything goes well with Arb. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw that when I took more time to check it more carefully ... that was a lot of text on the page :) Sorry I had not gotten back to you (or  above); I am sitting on pins and needles with my little girl at the veterinarian for an emergency, so not wanting to engage anything serious until I get the Damn Phone Call.  Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * That absolutely blows�—really sorry to hear that. Going to the vet sucks for the obvious reasons; in addition to that, the bills rack up quickly for the little ones. Wishing you the absolute best. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, so kind, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The news was good! No cancer or tumor, no acute condition either (bowel obstruction), and we are thinking it is neurological back pain.  So much relieved.  And the bill wasn't too bad, either!  Thanks for caring, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Great! I'm also very relieved to hear that. Back pain sucks (it’s quite problematic in the UK). But manageable, and better than the horrible alternatives... — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Are the accessdates better now?
Are the accessdates on Hemothorax better now? 4thfile4thrank (talk) 02:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, 4thfile4thrank. My apologies, for the delay in responding (I have been very busy).   No, they are not.  Websites need accessdates; hardprint sources do not.  The distinction is between things that can change over time (so we need to know what version was used), and things that are in hard print and will not change.  So, for example:
 * https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/000126.htm is a website. It was last updated on 22 December 2020.  What date did you access it?  The citation is incomplete because it does not contain either a date or an accessdate.
 * https://www.emsworld.com/article/10324543/penetrating-chest-trauma is a website. It was last updated on August 2004.  What date did you access it?  The citation is incomplete because it does not contain either a date of an accessdate.  Also, it is not an acceptable source for a Featured article, which is the direction you hope to go.
 * https://www.merckmanuals.com/home/injuries-and-poisoning/chest-injuries/hemothorax?query=Hemothorax is a website, last revised in June 2020. All the same questions.  Did you use the website, or the actual book?  And this is not an acceptable source for a Featured article anyway.
 * Hadden, Will A. (III) (2005-07-01). Rogers, Cheryl; Wilcox, G. Jeanne (eds.). Horseman's Veterinary Encyclopedia, Revised and Updated. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-7627-9451-5 ... is a book. Book sources require page numbers.  And, since you are hoping for FA status, you have an inconcsistent date style.  Here, you have 2005-07-01 (ISO date format), where later you use a different format, for example, McCann MR, Schenk WB, Nassar A, Maimone S (September 2020).  ...
 * "Hemothorax". fpnotebook.com. Retrieved 2019-03-09. has an accessdate, but no author and no date (This page was written by Scott Moses, MD, last revised on 11/22/2018 and last published on 12/2/2020.) This is not an acceptable source for FA level.
 * That is just from skipping around. Samples only. I have not checked everything, but you must learn how to use sources and write full citations if you want to approach FAC.  Best regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I tried to fix the citations. Are they better now? Where does it say what contents are needed in citations and when in FA-quality articles? Steve M (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, . WP:CITEHOW explains the information needed in citations for all articles, and WP:WIAFA explains that citations must be consistently formatted in Featured articles. The overarching policy is at WP:V; information must be verifiable by readers.  Meaning that on books and very lengthy journal articles, page numbers should be provided. Buruli ulcer, complete blood count, and dementia with Lewy bodies give you examples of what medical featured articles look like, with good sources and correctly written citations.  Separately, I'd rather not spend too much more time on citation formatting issues at hemothorax.  The article is very far from featured status, with a long (yet incomplete) list of issues on talk that should be addressed well before worrying about minor formatting issues.  The focus should be on re-writing the article to newer and higher quality sources; minor formatting issues can be cleaned up if/after the content and sourcing improves.  Just be sure to add page numbers as needed along the way.  Engaging at the talk page of the article as issues are addressed will indicate to other editors that work is progressing, so that more feedback can be given, and will probably be more effective than raising things here on my talk. Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, Steve M, Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches may be helpful in understanding WP:MEDRS in general; WP:WIAFA additionally requires high quality sources. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I typically archive my talk page sections as soon as items are read; I hope you've got this one so I can archive? That's how I keep track of what is still on my To Do list ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you can archive it, just don't delete it. Steve M (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you can archive it, just don't delete it. Steve M (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - January 2021
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

¿Lees español?
Hi SG. I have heard a rumour that your Spanish is pretty good. If so, I wondered if you would care to have a look at some source to text issues which Nikkimaria has raised at Featured article candidates/Hurricane Bud (2018)/archive1? I know that you are extremely busy with all sorts of things, but this FAC has otherwise been well supported bar this one, entirely reasonable, query. If you could help out it would be much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, ; outside of highly technical legalese, I am more than competent in Spanish (I have native comprehension, near native speech, near native reading, but writing is just advanced, as I learned Spanish "on the job, in the streets"). On my list, not sure I will make it today, but will do.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Muchas gracias. No hay necesidad de apresurarse. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * That's good, Gog, but it is OK to tútearme !! (no hay necesidad de apresurarte ) ... familiar vs. formal :)  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Renewable energy in Scotland FAR
Hi Sandy. At Featured article review/Renewable energy in Scotland/archive1 you wrote: "Please ping me for a re-visit when Femke's concerns are addressed". It would be wrong of me to pretend that they have all been addressed to her satisfaction but she now writes there that "I'm terribly sorry, but my stress levels have been a bit too high recently, so I'm working towards a one or two month wiki break, and won't be reviewing this article further." I have never been to FAR before and I am not sure what to expect now - any advice gratefully received. Ben  Mac  Dui  11:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Darn it. I will look in tomorrow, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  12:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Ben MacDui I have had a look, and while I am seriously bummed out that Femke is having to back off of FAR work, I don't think you have a problem. She has outlined her issues, you have addressed them, and there are plenty of other reviewers (who also know that content area) giving feedback. FAR is different than FAC in the sense of needing to strike every issue, and the FAR Coords come to know the "voice" of each reviewer; Femke does not seem concerned.  Having said all that, let's see if  (FAR Coord) wants to look in and give you guidance.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at what's been said by the various reviewers plus what the article looks like now, it's definitely improved considerably from where we started. As Sandy says, since you've responded to Femke's points and there are other reviewers involved it shouldn't be a problem to move forward. I would suggest pinging the reviewers that aren't Femke to verify that they're satisfied with the changes - I think there's an outstanding question from Chidgk1 on 6 Jan. The citation formatting could still do with cleaning up as well, once the content matters are settled. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, understood and will do asap. Ben   Mac  Dui  18:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi Sandy. Thank you for this edit []. It helped motivate me to get back on track on my commitment to clean up the Pixies (band) article. (I only have a little bit of Wiki time these days so it's not fast-going but I'm planning to keep at it slow but steady.) It's motivating to know that someone is looking after the big picture of ensuring all the FAs are still up to scratch. I'm sure everybody really appreciates the work you're doing on this. I wish you a happy and healthy 2021. Take care and all the best. Moisejp (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi,, great to hear from you again! Yes, the work at WP:URFA/2020 and the re-invigoration of WP:FAR is motivating a lot of the old school editors to re-engage, work to improve articles, and generating enthusiasm overall about quality reviewing aimed at improving the pool of FAs.  But not all editors have similar motivations, so no, I can't say that "everybody really appreciates the work" :)  I can say for sure that the kinds of editors I care about appreciate it.  I really appreciate you weighing in here with the encouragement, and am very happy to hear this has motivated you.  Best regards, and Happy New Year, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm glad we both appreciate each other's work. :-) By the way, as you'll remember, there was also the Bob Dylan article I volunteered to work on about a year ago. Update about that: At the time I started a discussion [] and I (and Mick gold) fixed up issues that jumped out at us. We didn't have specific comments from anyone on what needed to be improved, just the general comment that the article could use some cleaning up. I'm sure if I looked more there could always be more things to fix, but right now I don't really have time to work actively on both it and the Pixies. I believe the Dylan article is in better shape than it was, and hope it may be considered Satisfactory for URFA. I know Mick is trying to regularly maintain it. Well, I know you have lots on your plate, so I'm not specifically asking you to go through and identify feedback points. But I guess I'm saying if at some point in the future someone (not necessarily you) were to identify specific feedback points, I could try to chip in just a little bit then. Cheers! Moisejp (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi again, ; yes I recall the conversation about Dylan, and am thrilled to see that our WP:URFA/2020 efforts are resulting in article improvement. I have been swamped, but am adding Dylan now to my "To do" list for URFA, in case I can give both of you any further guidance regarding possible improvements. When it's on my list, that means I will get to it ... but it's looking to be about a week away at this point, as I am quite behind. Maybe you would be interested in joining us at WP:FAR to help review some articles there! Or you could pick some from WP:URFA/2020 to review.  I know time is tight, as it is for all of us, so no prob at all if you are unable.  See you as soon as I can get there at Dylan.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I just had a quick glance; this is going to require some extended time :)  are you interested in working on Bob Dylan?  It is 16,000 words of prose, and everywhere I look, I find opportunities for trimming.  The Catalog section is anticlimactic and perhaps overly detailed, or could be moved up after Discography.  The Nobel Prize is mentioned twice; in its own section and in legacy-- why not handle it once? I'm not crazy about the order of the final sections, but don't know to fix them. But mostly, I see a need for trimming verbosity everywhere.  I think this can be easily cut down to a manageable size, and then examining the rest will be easier.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking at this, Sandy. Just also alerting that this discussion is going on here. Moisejp (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I will get over to the article to type up more as soon as I can, but I have been stalled because of needing to submit evidence and feedback to an arbcase, so patience :) Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, thank you, Sandy. But I'd like to stress that from my point of view I'm by no means trying to influence you to finish in any particular time frame. I've got enough on my plate right now that I won't be at all distressed if the comments aren't ready soon. :-) But I understand you possibly mean you'd prefer to finish them sooner rather than later to get the task off your to-do list. In any case, whenever you do get to them, I'll try to allocate some time with any other willing editors to try to address them. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * P.S. Hang in there with getting evidence for the arb case. It sounds like maybe not very much fun. :( Moisejp (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * ah ha, the essence of my character, and the big dilemma! If it's on my talk page, It Must Be Processed So I Can Archive It and Check it Off the List ;)  I should fix that part of me :) You can't imagine what happened to my brain when they added this blooming pingie-thingie.  Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks SandyGeorgia and for your comments. I've begun to trim the Bob Dylan article, including removal of the repetition of Nobel Prize material per Sandy's comment. Mick gold (talk) 11:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I use my talk page to track what is on my ToDo list, but I am so far behind now that I am beginning to despair. I am going to archive this section now, not because I've forgotten you, but because I've transferred this to my ToDO list above. I will get there :) Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

template
Hey, Sandy! There's a handy template you can use to never misgender anyone you aren't sure about. they also works with them, their and theirs. they gives they while they gives they. (Not here to start the GodNoNotNow discussion )—valereee (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Valereee; we'll defer the rest of this conversation for now, but that is quite handy! And yet another user preference this old dingbat needs to investigate to stay abreast of contemporary issues :) Which kind of troubles me, because I think, once I look at the preference options, I will conclude that I have no intention of telling people how to address me, because of WP:IDGAFism. On the other hand, if some people would consider ageism and screen readers and old eyes all the rest, and drop their brightly colored sigs, excess use of markup and italics and bolds and underlines and allcaps and all that, I will be much more amenable to joining in this gender distinction thingie. Like, a mutual respect thing for the old vs the new?  Thanks again (let's hope your post here does not engender some controversy :)  Regards,  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I investigated my preferences, and apparently I am set as a "they", as that seems to be the default. So, I guess I am a they, like it or not.  I'd much rather have people refer to me however the heck they want to, and if they happen to think I am a he, or happen to think I am a she, or happen to think I am a they, I don't care. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * this isn't right; why am I forced to choose? Why is there not a choice for "no selection" (meaning I Don't Care)?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe that the point of this prefs has nothing to do with English and everything to do with whether your userpage at the Spanish Wikipedia ought to identify you as w:es:Usario:SandyGeorgia or as w:es:Usaria:SandyGeorgia. The user interface uses this information to adjust the language.  There are apparently languages in which even the verbs are affected, so that you have to decide whether to write "SandyGeorgia he-edited the page" or "SandyGeorgia she-edited the page".  No language has more than three options, so there are only three options.  Its use by editors to avoid misgendering editors is nice but not the point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Still confused.  So, in order for the Spanish Wikipedia to recognize me as a "she" on es.Wikipedia, I am forced to identify as a "she" on en.Wikipedia?  Because I FerDarnSure am not a Latinx, which I am apparently now, since "they" seems to be the default.  What a mess.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, for the Spanish Wikipedia('s software) to recognize you as a "she", then you have to identify that way at the Spanish Wikipedia. You could also (alternatively or additionally) set it everywhere at once in Special:GlobalPreferences.  It is possible to set your preferred pronouns to a different option at each wiki, and it is not unusual for people to set a preference at only a few wikis and then leave the rest at the default. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Minneapolis
One week remaining until my time is spoken for. In Minneapolis, the two most egregious errors were fixed thanks to you. About 14k has been cut overall. Still need to go through about 2/3 of citations. If you have more comments please let me know. Thank you! -SusanLesch (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * this is on my list, but I have not yet been able to carve out the time ... I promise to try to get over there as soon as I can. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

David Salzman
Hi, thank you for making the problems more clear to me. I was not trying to start an edit war; I just found her edits to be incorrect and immature, so I reverted them. Anyway, I just took out all of the facts and bad citations that you noted. I will work on the the other things you brought up; I can do this. A. Julian 17:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.JulianEditor (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for popping in, and glad to hear this, User:A.JulianEditor. It is often the case that one editor just isn't hearing or understanding what the other editor is saying, and a third voice will help cut through it all.  Please pop back in here when you want me to have a fresh look at the article, in terms of removing cleanup and maintenance tags; I'll wait 'til you are ready.  Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

, I manage my To-Do list by archiving addressed items, so please let me know if further feedback would be helpful. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I will do a little work on the page right now. Thank you! --A. Julian 23:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.JulianEditor (talk • contribs)

I think I fixed MOS:JOBTITLE and MOS:ALLCAPS. Could you take a look? Thank you so much! A. Julian 01:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.JulianEditor (talk • contribs)
 * Hello again, . If you will step back through the article history and review the edits I made, you will see my additional corrections per MOS:ALLCAPS, as well as some WP:MSH corrections.  (Titles of sources should have all caps as well as title case reduced to sentence case, except for book titles.)  The more serious issues in the article remain (IMDB is not a reliable source, and there are numerous short choppy sections about his different jobs that could be better combined). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for all the assistance; you are really helping me learn. I just saw your edits on MOS:ALLCAPS, and I was confused why they were even capitalized in the first place. Someone else most have done that; thank you for catching that. You are the greatest editor I have ever come across. A. Julian 17:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.JulianEditor (talk • contribs)

URFA/2020
I saw your post at WT:FAC about stepping away from the FA process for a time. I'm sad to see that happen, but you do what's best for you. Will you still be active with WP:URFA/2020, or will someone else need to step up to watch for regular updates that need made as stuff with FAR or the list of noticed articles changes? If you won't be active with URFA, I'm willing to try to take a hand at keeping that page up to date. Hog Farm Bacon 02:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course I will stay active at URFA, FAR, and anywhere that a serious editor asks for my help! Look at my talk page (or archives) to see the number of editors who have been motivated to improve content because of our URFA efforts ... it is most rewarding and exciting, and you are part of that.  On the other hand, should I fade away in disgust, it's all yours :)  You know the ropes now, and that gives me quite a sense of comfort and accomplishment.  Bringing along promising new(ish) editors is even better than seeing articles brought or returned to FA standards. All the best, Happy New Year! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I hope you stick around. My hope is that all of the 2006 and before FAs at URFA can be sorted out by the end of the year, with good progress into 2007.  There will be some lag time with the ones needing FAR, as a higher percentage of the old ones will need FAR and there's a rate limit at FAR.  I've been impressed with the progress made to date, although this will be a multi-year process. Hopefully, if this continues to get attention, WP:URFA/2030 will be a much easier task. Hog Farm Bacon 04:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello again, Mr. Bacon! I see you were not amused with my bullet story :)  Whether I stick around or not has very little to do with the toxicity at FAC, and everything to do with that tree that fell on my a few years ago and tried to kill me :)  My back can't handle a full day of typing, I have to go to my iPad on the sofa, and then you all have to endure my gazillion typos. Sometimes I just can't sit anymore at a computer to type, so while the spirit is willing, the body isn't able. But ... also ...  I am not a diva-flouncer type, so if I ever go silent for more than a week, that means either I've faded away in disgust, or COVID got me, and URFA/2020 is all yours :)  Get through only part of 2007 by the end of 2021 !!  No, No, NO ... not nearly good enough. Set your sights higher young man!  FAR was neglected for ten years (see Wikipedia talk:Featured article statistics), not through any fault of our diligent, but because of the changing culture at FAC, which attracts nowadays more editors who seek TFA rather than working to maintain standards across the board via FAR. There was simply no interest in reviewing and upgrading older FAs, but all that is changing now.  Simply setting up the "FAR notices given" template, followed by the URFA page, was all it took to get it re-invigorated, and we should be able to do much better now on making up the lost time.   The goals need to be aimed at: by when can we catch up at having reviewed everything that is more than five years old -- for gosh sakes, we are now looking at FAs that are fifteen years old, so we are ten years behind!! But fear not, things will continue to get much better much faster. People like to be part of something that gets positive results, and you only have to scan my talk page and my talk page archives to see the number of editors who are enthusiastic and motivated about improving older FAs, and getting feedback about their own FAs to assure they are at standard.  Since FAC is not turning out enough diversity for the mainpage, bringing older FAs back to standard will be an increasingly significant venture.  And, even those older FAs that we can't save are usually at least improved by our efforts at FAR, so it's a worthy effort.  As time progresses, and we have processed first through all of those FAs whose nominators are truly gone causing them to turn to unsalvageable black goo on the Internet, we will begin to encounter more and more whose nominators are still around and have taken measures to bring their older FAs back to current standards.  That is, our "Kept" v "Delist" ratio will improve as time progresses.  But we need to, and can, be through at least 2008 by the end of 2021; 2011 by the the end of 2022; 2014 by the end of 2023 ... see where I'm headed?  We're still more than 10 years behind.  But you will see things gather steam as long as we keep encouraging editors through our talk page posts to improve content, and you will eventually see more and more editors joining the effort, simply because ... it is rewarding.  Look, for gosh sakes, at User:Femkemilene salvaging Earth, a WP:MILLION; that's pretty awesome. And how about this success story ... I had never heard of  or  in medical editing when boom, out of the blue, these two guys appeared to salvage Chagas disease at FAR.  And both of them have gone on to write their own FAs, meaning the Medicine project went from no FAs in five years, to three this year-- fueled by FAR.  So sometimes, if you can't bring people in the front door (FAC), you can bring them in the back door (FAR). And Spicy has turned into quite the reviewer. And Ajpolino went out and recruited an expert to bring Alzheimer's disease back to standard; sheesh, this is good stuff-- all because these two engaged a FAR. As to where we will be in 2030, I would not labor under the assumption that FAC as we currently know it will still be around then.  TFA pageviews have become increasingly irrelevant, and FAC resists any suggestion for improvement, and the numbers show that FAC is dying.  So, what matters is that, whatever the next paradigm is or becomes, we have improved articles in the meantime, and those articles will be well placed for whatever the future holds.  Sorry for all this, but I studied in this fellow's department, and moved from operations research to a career in strategic planning. (Not that I can remember now a single thing I studied or did, other than writing the largest linear programming model ever run in my day :)  I think long term, and getting beat up at FAC won't deter me, because FAC has short-term issues; not gonna set my sights low, or be bogged down by taunts and goading and words I never said being put in my mouth and negativity and egoism, when I know we are doing good work with article improvement, making progress, and mentoring very good reviewers via their enthusiasm to work at FAR. You can fight with strangers on the Internet who won't even allow for discussion, or you can Just Do Something that makes a difference. And there's more than one way to skin a cat. (Now we just need to get  back on board!) All the bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not that I didn't find the story amusing, it just hit too close to home - that same day I was embarassing myself in front of my girlfriend's father trying to target shoot a 9mm and not being very accurate. I'm considering dropping a note at MILHIST again hoping to get some attention to the articles on the template list of notices given.  I think that template is an excellent idea and is helping quite a bit in getting new blood to FAR by making things easier to keep track of, but it's getting very long.  Maybe MILHIST editors will get active in improving, or even get engaged with FAR.  There's only about 12 MILHIST ones on there, but the Battle of Blenheim FAR at least shows there's some energy left to maintaining FAs in the project.  I'm also considering dropping a note at WT:FAR asking the regulars to emphasize looking at the oldest ones since last review that need FAR nomination, as opposed to the more recent promotions, but I'm still considering the best way to phrase that request. Hog Farm Bacon 02:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well,, I am and should be quite proud of my shooting record ! On your idea to put a list at MILHIST, I am coming to the conclusion that hasn't helped so far.  In the instances we have done it (Hurricanes and MILHIST), it hasn't generated feedback or reviews, and I suspect it has frightened people, in the way of overwhelming them.  Because I've done this before, the length of this list doesn't frighten me.  But it is frightfully offputting to most editors.  I think we are at a stage where we might just hold off a bit and let steam pick up on its own.  And yes, I think we should just start plowing through the oldest ones, one by one.  But another thing that is important to do, and that will help generate positive enthusiasm is to put a list of notes on article talk first, with the idea to revisit in a month and give formal notice if no one has engaged ( to those ideas).  I suggest going straight to FAR notice only when the nominator has clearly stopped editing years ago, and it is clear that no one is following the article and the deterioration is extensive. Putting Notes only (URFA/2020 Notes section) is where I am seeing the best results, and people see that it is an overall review, not that they are being targeted.  The idea that "this article will be submitted to FAR if you don't fix this" makes some want to give up early on, but if you provide encouragement and lists, articles may be improved to a Satisfactory level.  Because of an arbcase, I am behind on reviewing at URFA (and the case may still require more of my time), so if you want to take the lead on explaining this at WT:FAR, awesome.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've made a post at FAR. It's not Shakespeare, and I probably missed something, but it's at least out there. Hog Farm Bacon 02:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Brilliant ! And ... Shakespeare is overrated :) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * (Oh Jesus. One takes a short leave from Wikipedia during the New Year and here they are writing novel-lenght commentary about FAR. Seen the ping, will see what's up, don't you dare leaving FAR now Sandy.) In the meantime, I will say that I have tried to avoid noticing the okay-ish articles so far. If memory serves me right, I think there's only 3/4 instances where I noticed articles with active nominators, ie. nominators that still edit Wikipedia today (the Hispanic Americans one, and Tumbler Ridge/Dawson Creek). The others are usually one of: not being maintained by anyone (like Bruno Maddox, that has apparently fallen off the Earth circa 2008)/very obviously lacking scholarly sources when they should have (Charles Edward Magoon anyone?)/missing inline citations. But I'm becoming increasingly worried by very important articles that are Featured despite never, ever having had a proper review (like Mount St. Helens and Baháʼí Faith - I'm not engaging on the second one though). I don't like the idea of losing extremely important FAs, but I like the idea of having grandfathered-in FAs on big topics even less. RetiredDuke (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep ... use your best judgment (since same is sound :) Some of the articles we are not bringing to FAR is because we are trying to avoid overwhelming certain editors all at once (I haven't checked, but I suspect Mount St. Helens falls into that category).  But even at that, I am troubled when I see that we have a FAR on hold for several months, and during that time, the person asking for the hold has submitted at least two FACs.  At some point, sorry folks, but stop seeking new promotions if you aren't maintaining your old ones.  Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  12:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

She bore him - even more...
I found this comment in § Misc yukky stuff at your User page:
 * More than 250 women who were only a uterus for some other "him"

and got curious about the number. So I did some search and found there are close to 490 occurences of the phrase – the results are visible at this screenshot: File:She-bore-him at enwiki Jan 2021.png.

I post it here just in case you'd like to update the number. --CiaPan (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! (Disgusting.) I will add that when I am on real computer ...ipad typing, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oops! Forgot to add the link to the search itself in case you'd like to replace the link as well, not just the number. Here it is: link. Keep safe! And happy editing! --CiaPan (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Peer review for Mic Drop (song)
Hi SandyGeorgia, I noticed that you have provided peer review for several bronze star nominees and was wondering if you'd be willing to leave some comments at Peer review/Mic Drop (song)/archive1? The article is currently a GA. I have listed it for PR exactly a week ago and has so far remained unanswered. Thank you for your consideration. Have a very happy new year. -- Ashley yoursmile!  13:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Ashleyyoursmile It is on my list; you can read the section just above your post to understand why it takes me some time to get to things, and how I have to prioritize my time sitting at the computer. If it's in my To Do section at the top of my page, it is on my radar, and everything at pre-FAC PR is on my list :) If I am not there within a week, please pester me again here on my talk.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you SandyGeorgia, I appreciate it very much. :) -- Ashley yoursmile!  17:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

URFA
Hey Sandy, sorry about posting the response on URFA improperly. I'll take a look at what you have done and follow that in the future. I am actually struggling to add a notice right now because of the amount of data in each section (and my slow computer). Is it possible to split the charts by year, instead of 5 years? That will make posting a notice a lot easier. Z1720 (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, not to worry.  We know it's a problem and have struggled with how to deal with it, but if we split the page, that will introduce other issues.  What do you think about trying this?  Put your notice only at Featured article review/notices given, and someone will copy it over to the master list?  (Oops, I am now seeing that Oliver is not there.)  Or put it on the talk page of URFA, and someone will copy it in?  If others have the same problem, we will be forced to do something different, but the page is still new and we are still experimenting.  Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with posting on FAR/notices given and having someone copy it over. I'm only going to review FAs once a week (since a user can only nominate to FAR once a week, and I'm working on my own FACs) so hopefully this arrangement will not be too much of a bother. I'm just concerned that other editors, who will try to edit URFA like I did, will encounter similar loading problems and not know what to do. I'll add Baltimore City College to the notice given list now; I must have forgotten to add Oliver's. Whoops! Let me know if you need anything. Z1720 (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, we will probably have to work out something different over time, but what best form that will take may depend on how the page progresses over time ... I could add a note to the instructions for now, suggesting that anyone who has problems posting because of the size could add their entry to the talk page. By the way, please do go read all of our ruminations at WT:FAR ... glad to have you on board !!  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I read through it this morning, and will probably read through it before I go to bed (Wikipedia talk pages help me fall asleep. It is surprisingly effective!) I was hesitant because of the India notice and backlash, but I hope that issue has subsided. Happy editing! Z1720 (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking through the talk page again, I think I got my pages mixed up! India was a different talk page (FARC maybe?). My mistake! Clearly I need to reread it. Z1720 (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Dimple Kapadia FAC
Hi there, Sandy!

Dimple Kapadia is back at FAC. Last time it ended up becoming a mess; I think it's much improved now. Please consider posting some comments, I'd appreciate it. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  11:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I am so sorry to disappoint you,, but I am not eager to rub elbows with this sort of thing, which is increasingly accepted in FAC discussions, with unwilling to address it.  Perhaps , who closed the previous FAC, could give you some ideas about how to attract reviewers when the FAC environment accepts that kind of toxic commentary aimed at other reviewers (presumably F&f in this case, but it has been aimed at me repeatedly as well), and discourages discussion of FAC issues at FAC talk. I would have been eager to help out in a peer review, and would have gladly helped had I not read more of the snark that was allowed to go from DYK to FAC by those who did not raise, or ignored, the problem when it was before arb enforcement and they had the chance to say something. And the last time I attempted to talk about his behaviors with TRM, he simply deleted my post, while F&f has always been receptive to dialogue about his behaviors.  FAC always handled its issues in house, without the need for ANI, so I am sorry you suggest it may end there; should this end up at ANI, there will be two sides of the story, including previous arbitration for similar behaviors.  For this reason, I have unwatched most of FAC, and am focusing on helping improve Featured content and help FA writers in other ways.  Regards, best of luck, and please do ping me should you end up back at peer review, or if the FAC proceeds without toxicity, in which case I would be willing to revisit my reluctance.  Meanwhile, should you encounter issues with F&f, do not hesitate to ping me, as I will speak to him, and he does listen, unlike the other party, who deletes talk page attempts at dialogue while escalating at FAC talk.  Best regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that I’m busy with other crap on Wikipedia and dealing with, yes, iPad editing and hadn’t yet gotten to dealing with the snark on TRMs talk page. Can we kindly not throw out accusations at folks who are on your side but who are dealing with some constraints? I am getting to TRMs page shortly...but I really am dealing with bouncy roads and edit warring also. I am sorry that I seem to have gotten into your bad books somehow, it’s not intentional..I’m trying the best I can, but frankly, I’m at least trying to weigh in on snark at FAC when I can. Why I am being singled out here when there are two other active Coords, and when two of the tree current ones have only been in the job for a year or less. The tolerance of snark and sniping has been going on a lot longer than I’ve been a coord and it’s going to take a while to reverse...but every time I get sniped at from the folks who are wanting me to ....I’m not sure what I am supposed to do? Bloack TRM? Ban him from FAC? I’ve said it before, I don’t HAVE the time I had back in 2008-2012. I can work on sourcing improvements or I can work on the toxicity on the talk page, but without support from other reviewers and Coords and other editors, I will burn out quickly. I’m just not sure what I’m doing so wrong that getting me caught up in this sort of comments. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Happy to hear that you are on it, E ... what we are ALL supposed to do is allow for discussion at FAC talk of ANY issues relating to FAC, and with others standing up to reign in TRM when he refuses to allow discussion of even routine and historical matters. IF this will cause you to burn out quickly, then something needs to change in the structure of the FA process, because FAC matters have NEVER had to escalate to ANI. The question is, why are you not getting support from other Coords, and what is anyone supposed to do about it when we are not even allowed to dialogue at FAC talk without being shouted down by only three participants, and with threads shut down before most can even weigh in? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Separately, when I mentioned at Arb enforcement that a promise from TRM to reign in these behaviors at both DYK and FAC would bode well, you missed an opportunity to raise same. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * (EC) I'm so sorry to hear that, Sandy. I turned to you because I've always appreciated your feedback, which is always matter-of-fact and never personal or based on some kind of agenda. Actually if you read closely, TRM refused to take part in this FAC exactly for the same reason. Can you believe the outcome of the other user's behaviour? Just look at the pervious FAC, what a mess it ended up becoming, with messages all over the place, users being addressed and asked to oppose it. Some editors refused to review the article back then becuase they did not want to appear on the same page with the other user. As someone so closely associated with FAC, you should have been the first to condemn it and fight this reality at FAC. I would never think of ANI as a good option; I wrote to the co-ords; I posted on the FAC talk page, and no one had a solution to what was going on. WP editors should not feel that their work is being degraded for basically every reason other than quality. If it was just one section of comments based on a proper review of the entire article (even if wildly negative), I'd have respected it. That was not the case, and I was advised to ignore the user by other editors, including a past co-ord, and still didn't do it. Once the FAC was over, I still invited the other user to offer a proper review on PR (please have a look if you like) - they never showed up. Then I invited them to WP:DR to resolve our disagreement over the issue that started it once and for all, and they turned it down as well. I did my best to assume good faith on that user's actions. It didn't help. This is why I disagree with you about this being toxic commentary. I let go of such things very quickly, it's just that I don't think anyone should be willing to tolerate such conduct again, and if it reoccurs, there must be a way to sort it out.
 * I want to believe the FAC indeed proceeds without toxicity so that I can invite you to give some feedback. I've always valued your input. There was one FAC of mine many years ago which was archived because of (or maybe: thanks to) your review, and I was happy to improve it and get your approval later. That's because I admire true professional approach, with which I associate you. Best regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  15:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just noticed your addition. Thank you! Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  15:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

First, Shahid, do not give up hope. Sometimes the darkest hour is just before dawn, and I always like to believe that things can and will turn around. Second, as to the behavior of *both* parties, we should be able to address these kinds of things at FAC talk, without escalation to ANI, but we are shouted down whenever we try (by ONE party, and two others now gone). So, here we are on my talk page, talking about FAC dysfunction. I used to read the entire FAC page, top to bottom, every single day (unless I was traveling, in which case others stood in my place, as I let them know). This allowed me to intercede very early on when I saw budding problems. From what I have been able to observe, perhaps incorrectly, even though we now have one-third the volume at FAC with three times as many Coords, no one is doing that. Which means that by the time the Coords see a problem, it may have already become a big problem. A related problem is that editors have come to increasingly rely on that damn pingie-thingie, which has eroded Wikipedia's culture, and translates to ... if you DON'T ping Coords, they may not see something quickly, but if you DO ping them, they are overwhelmed by pings. Bad situation. A third matter is that a very toxic environment took hold some time between 2015 and 2019 (I can't exactly say when, as I was not active; I can only say I knew very clearly from which group of editors it emanated, and most of them are now gone). So, when issues are raised at FAC talk, people simply stay away, or weigh in very tentatively. Then discussion is shut down (this has happened at least three, maybe four times, in recent months that I can recall, such that issues are left festering and unanswered). Had I seen the issues at your FAC early on, I would have spoken to both of them early on, on their talk pages, before it got out of hand. But, as I mentioned, Every Single Time I have approached F&f, he has backed off, while TRM deletes talk page posts without dialogue, so who bears the burden of furthering this problem, I ask you? F&f is willing to examine and contemplate his own motives and behaviors, with an eye towards moderating them. I can rather guess (this is speculation) that F&f has about as much enthusiasm to rub elbows again with TRM as I do, which would explain his reluctance to engage. I will always place the greater burden on the person who will not contemplate their own role in escalating problems, won't even talk about them, and won't even allow discussion about them. As to me being the first to condemn it, by the time I came to that matter, you already had a festering FAC, and condemning one party or the other is unlikely to generate good will (taking sides); yes, if the Coords are not there early to make it stop, your best recourse as a nominator is to ignore it, move on, let the Coords sort the actionable from the unactionable opposes. Continuing the dialogue on the FAC is what leads to an unreadable mess. I do wish the Coords would get there sooner, and I am VERY hopeful that Gog seems to be doing that. So, again, do not give up hope, and the darkest hour may be just before dawn. So, where does this leave you as a nominator? Well, FAC can only be as good as we ALL make it. That means, whenever you see any toxic behavior, anywhere at FAC, from either of them, if you do not stand up to it, then you cannot expect the FA pages to be of any use to you when you need them, as people are simply leaving in droves. Taking sides won't help. Encourage dialogue, be part of the solution rather than part of the problem by supporting dialogue on FAC talk. And please, for the love of all things good and holy, drop the mention of bringing FAC matters to ANI, where you will get nothing more than a circus from people who have no idea how FAC is supposed to function. And finally, yes, should these issues be addressed, I will be right back in there, helping you with your FAC, in any way I can. And if F&f misbehaves, I will address him. I hope someone will do the same wrt TRM. All the best, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll make sure to review for you, Shahid. I read the last review, and I'm sorry you went through that. It was an unnecessary inquisition. I can't give you a timeline right now, but I will get to it within a few weeks; I've a lot going on right now. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Tiger to the rescue! Thanks :)  Please do not hesitate to ping me (subject to the other issues mentioned on this page) should you think my intervention would be helpful.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much, . Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  12:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I'm happy to take a look at the item - I don't have the time, energy or inclination to get involved with a dispute, but the nomination should be completely separate from any issues than the articles qualities. You'll have to give me a bit though, as I'm struggling with time to get proper looks at items. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Kudos and thanks, (and while you're here, I have not forgotten that I owe you explanations still on FAC talk, but how to re-open a prematurely closed discussion that did not allow for consensus and left unanswered queries is tricky ... I will get to it!)  The "happy ending" is that you and I worked out most of the concerns via dialogue.  The unhappy part is that, clarification of the concerns, the history, the issues, why I didn't "ping" you, and so much more, needs to be wrapped up, but if I attempt that, I may be shouted down again. Addressing this issue was on my To Do list for today, but with this new issue surfacing, I think that not a good idea.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably a bit moot now Sandy. I'm pretty chill. If you have any issues with my reviewing (or my edits in general), my talk is always open. I'll pick up the review of this article to avoid any undue aggro. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, moot between you and me, but a lost opportunity to educate everyone about the concern, and fill in the history that led to it. Because I was shouted down and prodded into providing an example, and then the thread was closed before I could explain the history. Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you,, for readily rising to the occasion. I appreciate it. Sandy, I'm really grateful for your kind and elaborate response. Your encouragement really means a lot. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  21:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Things will turn around; now you have reviewers, and if it stays calm, I will peek in towards the end. Good luck, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Sandy, I've been informed about this discussion. First, I feel compelled to defend . I haven't read the above discussion with care, but I think her close in the last FAC (in June) was blameless. I agreed with her criticism of me.  Second, I will not be reviewing this FAC.  The dispute in the last FAC was in the text in the lead and sections 1, 2, and 2.1.  This diff shows that precious little has changed (other than Sfn'ing etc) in those sections.  I'm sorry that the dispute in the last FAC unfolded in the manner it did, but that was because I arrived there with little or no knowledge of this actress, though with some knowledge of the attendant culture, and it took me some time to figure out what happening.  I maintain that the FAC text has drastically expurgated or modified the indelicate aspects of her early life—for example, that her parents actively promoted her purported talents even as a child (she wasn't innocently "discovered"); that she was chosen for an Indian copy-cat "teen romance" (a made-up word in the Indian context, because teenagers in India weren't romancing in then, there was no youth culture, no Marlon Brando, no James Dean, no Daniel Cohen-Bendit); that her father was disowned by his father, ousted from the family business, putting economic pressures on the 14-year-old; that during the shooting of the movie, she, aged 15, fell for the forceful charms of a prowling Indian superstar aged 30; that, still shy of the Indian age of consent (which was then 16) was married within a week, leaving no time for her parents to even print wedding invitations (they were sent to a dozen-odd people by telegram); that once married, her husband forbade her from acting (she did not retire from acting; "retire" in English has the meaning of leaving employment of ones own volition, most commonly with a career under the belt, if not a pension; how does a 16-year-old with a one-hit-wonder retire?); that eventually she walked out on her husband (she did not separate, which has a legal meaning in India, like elsewhere); that ...  There is a relentless sort of snow jobbing at play in these sections, the dirt on her has disappeared, painted over with euphemisms. The sources exist, in some instances have been cited, but are paraphrased selectively. At the same time, her later career (after 1984), even the workmanlike, has been documented to death, skewing the biography.  How many reviewers will have any idea of this?  How will FAC criteria be applied to this? I certainly have no interest.  If the prose were stellar and I weren't on vacation, I might have shown interest.  But nothing moves me.  Nothing.  Best,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * F&f, starting with your first point, I hope I did not leave the impression of criticizing Ealdgyth's close, I apologize to her if I did, and in fact I find nothing remiss in the close. I respect and applaud your ability to admit to your mistakes and recognize when you are rightly criticized, and express your intent to back off from a dispute. Recognizing one's mistakes and taking responsibility for things done wrong is a good quality, and we could all use a bit more of it. It's not easy to type those words, and I admire you for doing that. I empathize with the desire to submit a defense when one feels they have come under fire, and there was certainly a lot of unnecessary flame in that FAC. In your shoes, and seeing this discussion revived, I, too, would probably want to express my side of the story somewhere where I could be heard. Now, all that said ... my talk page is always open to everyone, and there have been many a long and heated discussion here, but it is not  fair to Shahid to re-argue the actual points of opposition on the FAC on my talk page.  We can discuss process, we can discuss things that are going wrong at FAC, we can discuss how to better resolve disputes, what things we see that we might change about FAC functioning ... many things ... but it is "not my job" to adjudicate the actual FAC, and this is not the place to lay out the areas of opposition.  That is getting in to the Coords job. So please, let's let FAC reviewers and Coords decide on the FAC in the right place. As I've told you a couple of times already (thinking in your best interest and that of your loved ones); if you're on vacation, you really deserve to be on vacation.  I've had many months-long absences from Wikipedia, and they are healing, purifying and renewing. One returns with a new perspective, and can look at back at heated disputes and wonder ... why did I care so much ??? If you keep checking in, you are not allowing yourself that opportunity. It's healthy to take time to contemplate, "is this really the hill I want to die on?"  Wikipedia needs F&f's topic expertise in many realms; is this the article you want to risk having people seek a topic ban for you over?  I sense that you understand that the answer is "no", and that is why you have backed off and acknowledged your mistakes, and yet ... you still haven't given yourself that healthy distance of being able to put hurtful things said about you or to you behind you. You are needed on critical articles with broad geopolitical consequences; is it worth it to have other editors become so heated over this article that they would aim for a topic ban? I think and hope not, as Wikipedia and FAC are less without you.  With respect to FAC functioning, your concerns amount to sourcing and lack of comprehensiveness, but the sad reality is that WP:WIAFA 1b (comprehensive) is no longer being examined on most FACs, and trying to tease out whether that is the case on one FAC is not the best use of your time or knowledge.  That 1b is scarcely ever checked on any FAC is a discussion worthy of the effort!  Nominators have become so accustomed to reviews that gloss over the prose, that it is a shock when 1b or 1c is challenged.  So how can we go forward with better functioning at FAC is the discussion worth having.  Everything that you (F&f) typed here about the article issues reminds me that somewhere along the way, reviewers got the idea that it is OK to just read an article, nitpick the prose, make a cursory examination of a few other issues, not check for unrepresented or underrepresented sources or POV, and lodge a support. Let someone else check for 1b or 1c.  But what became of the step that is specifically addressed in the FAC instructions, where the reviewers and the Coords are supposed to look back at previous FACs and make sure all previous issues raised have been addressed?  You, F&f, should not have had to type up the concerns you did, assuming they were raised in the first FAC.  I believe things are improving with Gog's more vigilant day-to-day review of FACs, but I do not understand why this FAC got to the point it did; I see unacceptable ugliness at least around 25 May, yet the first and only Coord input was when Ealdgyth closed it three weeks later. Are Coords perusing FAC daily? Are they unwilling to exercise their options, like moving entire discussions to the FAC talk with a reminder to participants to start over, keep it brief, make their comments actionable and backed by sources, and do not personalize? Why are FACs becoming longer and longer, with segmented sections for every reviewer (contrary to the instructions, which are there for good reason), rather than simply, Oppose, 1b, these sources are not included?  If FAC participants don't take initiative towards calmly discussing process, procedure, problems and issues, we can't just expect the Coords to solve everything. Similarly, without reviewers, there is no FA, and FAC should think long and hard before chasing off a reviewer.  Bottom lines: F&f, give yourself the vacation you deserve, recognize that your concerns are not issues that should be focused on one FAC, rather overall FAC functioning, pat yourself on the back for acknowledging when you are wrong, and allow yourself to move on from this one FAC. Go Take Your Vacation.  Save your efforts for another day, and think about which hill is worth dying on.  All the best,  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * just a quick note about why it took so long for me to step in...last March hubby broke wrist and wrenched opposite elbow at work and was home three months. First six weeks in cast. And in May or June my faithful Mac tower died and it took a bit to get a replacement...(Clovis and hopes that I would be able to get it repaired...)...so I was somewhat...distracted. It’s all in my talk page archives somewhere... doesn’t mean I don’t wish I couldn’t have stepped in earlier...but it wasn’t laziness at least! Ealdgyth (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, Ealdgyth, dear, there is no need for you to answer to me :) :) Not your boss :)  The real question is one of FAC functioning; we have THREE Coords, why is this on you?  Is someone reading through every day?  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * :) I too have taken many a vacation before with nary an edit during. This one has proved harder.  It might have to do with my other writing not transporting me yet to places where WP does not impinge. Thanks for the timely reminder.  I like the hill metaphor.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, Ealdgyth, dear, there is no need for you to answer to me :) :) Not your boss :)  The real question is one of FAC functioning; we have THREE Coords, why is this on you?  Is someone reading through every day?  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * :) I too have taken many a vacation before with nary an edit during. This one has proved harder.  It might have to do with my other writing not transporting me yet to places where WP does not impinge. Thanks for the timely reminder.  I like the hill metaphor.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I must defend the article; a lot of what F&F has mentioned is pure WP:OR - no source actually mentions what he says. The article reflects exactly what the sources say, and the supposed dirt that has disappeared is really not true:
 * Her father's active involvement in her career is mentioned (that he socialised with film-industry professionals and sought to launch her in the film business); she could still be discovered even if it was her father's initiative, not only those found in the streets are "discovered". Sometimes aspiring actors go to numerous auditions until some director lays eyes on them and decides to make use (or: discover) of their talent.
 * "... that her father was disowned by his father, ousted from the family business, putting economic pressures on the 14-year-old" - the first part is correct but I find it less relvant in Kapadia's article; the rest is unsubstantiated. I've gone through many sources, can't see any mention of economic pressure put on young Kapadia.
 * That she was under the age of consent is not for us to mention unless the sources do it - we do mention her age as 15; that she married after a one-week courtship is there as well. The rest is left for the readers to infer. The invitation part (I can't see it) is trivial in my opinion.
 * Yes, she retired because her husband forbade her from acting, and that's exactly what the article says.
 * Yes, she walked out on her husband, and that's exactly what's mentioned! There are even quotes of her accusing her husband of infidelity and calling their marriage "a farce". Separation perfectly applies here (from Wikipedia: "Marital separation occurs when spouses in a marriage stop living together without getting divorced" - this is the case).

I'm sorry that the FAC turned into such a mess courtesy F&F. I suppose we really differ ideologically as far as Wikipedia is concerned. I really believe in verifiability rather than truth on Wikipedia. I wish he had adopted a more professional, courteous approach, with a review strictly based on Wikipedia policy and not his own interpretation of the facts and what "makes sense" to him. Throughout the process, I saw delibarate attempts to show nothing but contempt for others' work, and this attitude of always knowing better. I've received a number of emails from other editors (whom I didn't know) who know F&F from other places, letting me know of his history on Wikipedia (with diffs and proofs), explaining what underlies his fierce opposition to the article, and willing to participate in any community discussion condemning his conduct and seeking solution to his unacceptable ways. I still assumed good faith. He visited the talk page a few months ago when I shared my intention to renominate it; I insisted that he review it, and he refused; all he did was dismiss the article again - no review, no suggestions, nothing; just like on the FAC, he compared the article to one of "his" articles (after all there's a lot to compare between a 18th-century historian and a contemporary Indian flm actress), bragging about how much his work is better (thanks for Encyclopedious who was there to put him right in his place). I've worked with the most meticulous of editors, but they've always treated other editors with kindness. That's what sharing knowledge is all about - communication and the desire to help others as part of a greater effort to make this project better. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  12:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, Shahid. Just as I understood F&f's need to tell his side of the story, I understand your need to defend yourself and the article in a safe place, and I support your right to response :)  But this is why I also told F&f that my talk page is not the place to argue the FAC. So I will have to remind both of you that, while these two posts can stand, if there are any other posts arguing the actual FAC, I will remove them.  We can discuss process, how to resolve conflicts, etc here ... but the actual FAC issues belong at the FAC for reviewers and the Coords to resolve. As to the differences between you and F&f, I see the entire problem in a completely different light-- one where most of the problem quite simply traces back to the way reviews are conducted on FAC now.  F&f started in with a conversational tone, and one thing led to another, in ways that never should have even started if reviews were being conducted according to the instructions on the FAC page (which no one even seems aware of these days, and certainly no one wants to listen to the reasons why we put those instructions in place, to avoid precisely the kinds of messes that FAC turned in to).  But when one tries to explain that there are well thought out reasons for how FAC should function-- that are now being completely ignored-- one is shot down. We saw similar in another heated FAC in December.  FAC is not being used properly, which is (as set in the instructions):  Support, Oppose, Comment, with actionable reasons, no extended commentary, no need for sub-sections because lengthy commentary does not belong there anyway, either an article meets WIAFA or it doesn't, explain why briefly, and we are not here to pull articles through and have lengthy debates and prose fixing. Lengthy FACs should have been shut down BEFORE they had to get heated, and sent to the less pressured environment of Peer review. By the time someone shut down this FAC, the damage was done.  FACs should be watched daily, and two weeks is enough time to know if an article is promotable.  In your case, you were six weeks in (and a month in when other parties brought in really heated rhetoric), and that is where the problem occurs.  Had you been sent off to hash things out at in the much less pressured environment of peer review, things might not have gotten to the point they did.  And you would have been able to be back sooner, and get the star sooner.  Things did not have to, and should not have, gotten to the point they did on this FAC. I'm not taking sides that you are wrong, or F&f was wrong, when I see that what is wrong is that everyone is ignoring how the process was designed to work. And process discussion is shut down at FAC talk. I think the road to repair in relationships is the one taken by F&f; he has admitted he made mistakes; I see worse comments on that FAC than his, and I don't see recognition from those people. Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  12:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, Shahid. Just as I understood F&f's need to tell his side of the story, I understand your need to defend yourself and the article in a safe place, and I support your right to response :)  But this is why I also told F&f that my talk page is not the place to argue the FAC. So I will have to remind both of you that, while these two posts can stand, if there are any other posts arguing the actual FAC, I will remove them.  We can discuss process, how to resolve conflicts, etc here ... but the actual FAC issues belong at the FAC for reviewers and the Coords to resolve. As to the differences between you and F&f, I see the entire problem in a completely different light-- one where most of the problem quite simply traces back to the way reviews are conducted on FAC now.  F&f started in with a conversational tone, and one thing led to another, in ways that never should have even started if reviews were being conducted according to the instructions on the FAC page (which no one even seems aware of these days, and certainly no one wants to listen to the reasons why we put those instructions in place, to avoid precisely the kinds of messes that FAC turned in to).  But when one tries to explain that there are well thought out reasons for how FAC should function-- that are now being completely ignored-- one is shot down. We saw similar in another heated FAC in December.  FAC is not being used properly, which is (as set in the instructions):  Support, Oppose, Comment, with actionable reasons, no extended commentary, no need for sub-sections because lengthy commentary does not belong there anyway, either an article meets WIAFA or it doesn't, explain why briefly, and we are not here to pull articles through and have lengthy debates and prose fixing. Lengthy FACs should have been shut down BEFORE they had to get heated, and sent to the less pressured environment of Peer review. By the time someone shut down this FAC, the damage was done.  FACs should be watched daily, and two weeks is enough time to know if an article is promotable.  In your case, you were six weeks in (and a month in when other parties brought in really heated rhetoric), and that is where the problem occurs.  Had you been sent off to hash things out at in the much less pressured environment of peer review, things might not have gotten to the point they did.  And you would have been able to be back sooner, and get the star sooner.  Things did not have to, and should not have, gotten to the point they did on this FAC. I'm not taking sides that you are wrong, or F&f was wrong, when I see that what is wrong is that everyone is ignoring how the process was designed to work. And process discussion is shut down at FAC talk. I think the road to repair in relationships is the one taken by F&f; he has admitted he made mistakes; I see worse comments on that FAC than his, and I don't see recognition from those people. Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  12:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Belated Greetings of the Seasons
Sorry for the slow reply, I was out of town for the last two weeks and then came back only to end up going back to work. My first day off since I got back and only now am I able to get in and reply, but I wanted to say thanks for the season's greetings :) TomStar81 (Talk) 10:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Happy New Year, ! Stay well, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Game of Thrones peer review archive
Hi SandyGeorgia, hope all is well and safe. I saw that you archived Peer review/Game of Thrones/archive5 yesterday. I'm sorry I couldn't get to it this past month, perhaps I was a little burned out from working on it. Would you be OK with me moving some of your comments to a dedicated subpage in my userspace? I would like to work on it on my own time. Thank you again and happy New Years. --   LuK3      (Talk)   15:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem ... ping me if needed but I am interminably behind in my wikiwork now ;( Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course, thank you again. Enjoy your Wikibreak. --   LuK3      (Talk)   17:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hemothorax
I attempted to eliminate and replace all the poor sources with better ones. Have they improved at all? I have not addressed the date styling, but I would wish to know an age guideline of sources. Thanks, Steve M (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have answered at Talk:Hemothorax. It is preferable to keep article communication at article talk, so other editors can also weigh in.  (Archiving this section now, as I am struggling to keep up with what remains on my ToDo List.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Japan
Not a pingie-thingie. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I will look in Nikkimaria ... but I am falling so far behind now that I am beginning to despair :( Sandy Georgia (Talk)  03:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No rush on that one, just wasn't sure whether you had it watchlisted. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I had to take action
Please see your Talk's history. It is very important. please don't be angry but I am very passionate — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That was pretty funny :)  All right, if you insist !  And since I recently typed up the whole gory description for someone who wasn't aware, I will edit it down to remove the too-personal and add it here.  Momentarily :0  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It really was a direct answer to the question posed in your edit summary... Clearly, someone does. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Here's the whole long story ... because it seriously impacts my ability to edit.

I was resting in the hammock tied to a tree by the lake at a friend's cabin. A sensation of WHOOSH is the last thing I remember. The VERY big tree the hammock was attached to fell on me, and had it been one inch to the right, I probably wouldn't be here. The rest is from what others have told me, as I have little memory; my memory kicks in when I came to in a neurosurgery unit, many hours later. The whole thing was much more traumatic for everyone else than it was for me, because they feared I could die, while I was oblivious.

Fortunately, my adorable husband had the background to know exactly what steps to take on the scene before the EMTs could arrive, and while they were carrying me out. When ten or twelve strapping men tried to pull the tree off of me, he had to remind them to LIFT the tree rather than drag it across my body, causing further damage. To this day, none of them can explain how they were able to move that tree, but they did. Dear hubby did not allow the first responders to softboard me, he made them wait for the hardboard to arrive, and assured that they handled me in a way that would not leave me with a permanent spinal injury. Before the EMTs arrived, he had already evaluated me neurologically, and was convinced my back or neck wasn't broken, although I did have a spinal compression fracture. They didn't find the blood pooled under my head until they moved me to the hardboard, because my hair was up and blood had pooled in it; apparently I also hit a rock when I landed.

I had a subarachnoid hemorrhage, and my brain improved quickly, but my body will never be the same, after all the soft tissue damage around my head, neck, back and a compression fracture. Imagine my delight when I was able to respond to realize that my husband had educated himself about subarachnoid hemorrhages on Wikipedia's Featured article (!!!! Hooray !!!!), and knew that there is a high mortality rate. I was tickled pink when I got to write to User:Jfdwolff and tell him that our work is useful.

I would benefit from regular physical therapy, but I don't want to go out until COVID numbers decline. I am often typing on an iPad, which is all I can muster, from a horizontal position on the sofa. I have not been able to find any other setup that works for longer periods.

How it affects me on Wikipedia. First, medical featured articles are important :)

If I'm having a good day, I need to make hay while the sun shines. But I can't always get it in one post. Hence, my frustration when I am sometimes unfinished with something or something comes up when I am in the middle of unfinished business. And my need to find a new means of processing my watchlist, email and pings that would work considering my new limitations. I have to edit when I can, have to do as much as I can when I can, and then I often have to come back (usually from the iPad) to correct my 15 typos per post. I don't know why I have such an all-thumbs problem on the iPad, but worse, it won't usually let me backspace to correct typos, so I send the edit, knowing I will come back to it. So I always end up with the highest number of edits, even if my actual content is not that high. It drives me nuts when people base contributions to a discussion on WP:EDITCOUNTITIS because of all these factors impacting how I edit. While I was very careful with what and how I posted as FAC delegate, now my posts are characterized by sloppy writing, lack of clarity, mess after mess, that I later have to come back and clean up.

I sometimes remember to add an edit summary that says when I am iPad typing, but often even that is hard. I often indicate, "iPad typing, will respond further from real computer".

It's very nice of you to care, ImaginesTiger! Watch out for hazardous hammocks; I am still a bit post-traumaticcy about this, and can't even think of lying in a hammock again. It was such a scary feeling, for those brief seconds I recall, of the world falling away under me. The worst effect on me in real life is that I can no longer even think of waterskiing or snowskiing, and even my gardening is limited. But overall, the brush with mortality gave me a new outlook on life, for which I am grateful. That's all :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * My goodness! What a tale... You know, when you first linked subarachnoid haemorrhage, the first thing I did was check the article's status—and saw that it was promoted by you!


 * That's a horrible story, and I completely understand why you're still a bit jumpy around hammocks. You probably will be forever (maybe I will be forever, too). What a horrendous, freak accident. For the record, that tree really did try to kill you ... and, thankfully, it failed :) Wikipedia truly is an immensely valuable tool for people looking up their medical conditions. Doctors use it, too, as you know. I had an enraptured brain aneurysm about half-way through 2020, that thankfully was treated, and the article was really helpful to me (looking back, with what I know now, it isn't even at GA!). We really do feel an impetus to search and know as much as we can about our ailments, so it’s crucial that the information we find be comprehensive, and understandable to anyone—no matter their background, class, education... It’s a horrible story. But there is absolutely a nugget of positivity there.
 * That said, there's nothing positive about what happened to you. I'm so sorry you have to deal with this now. You persevere regardless, and are unquestionably among this site's most diligent. Have you looked into iPad accessories? It’s the world's most ubiquitous tablet, and Apple devices have a huge variety of things which might be useful to you. I suspect you already have, but Googling to try and see what people have made for iPad users with accessibility needs could be worthwhile if you haven't. Keyboards, specific stands, whatever you need—it likely exists.
 * Regarding edit counts, I can honestly say I've spent basically no time thinking about my edit count. If anything, I'd rather keep it low to maintain a high Promoted content to edit ratio. I try only to devote my time to things that I'm actively working on. I do, of course, sometimes make exceptions. I saw on your Talk page a discussion about Bob Dylan, and ended up just editing a section because I had nothing else to do right then while waiting for PR feedback. On that note, pretty sure I'm in the home stretch for the big nomination.
 * Your husband's commitment to remaining cool & calm in a moment of horrendous, life-threatening panic is commendable. Commendable beyond words, really. He did an excellent job, and has spared you so, so much. Thank him for me! And don't worry about the edits. In my experience, nobody notices. I edit my comments all the time and I have no accessibility problems; I am just a tinkerer. I want to be as clear as possible; I go back; I revise. Rinse and repeat. I wish that the Wikipedia app was better and more fully featured, because that would be so good for you. Proper, centralised notifications, a way to keep track of your watched articles... But alas, it is geared towards readers, not editors.
 * Thanks for sharing the story with me, Sandy. If you ever need anything, you need only drop me one of those infernal pings. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, I had never before noticed that I promoted it. What a very strange coincidence. Well, I sure hope I don't get other conditions I wrote or promoted-- yikes !!! No, it really was a positive thing, opening my eyes to many of the riches of my life at a time when that was welcomed. As you approach your dotage and contemplate how you will care for each other, this was a huge eye opener; I was safe. I had an iPad keyboard which just made me miserable. I haven't taken further steps because I hold out hope that once COVID remits a bit, and I can go back to physical therapy, I will have less pain.  Amazing what good body work does for me. I hope you have recovered fully from the aneurysm and you didn't end up with some risk factors. Yes, my husband's command of the situation was pretty amazing. I can't imagine what I would look like if those men had pulled the tree across me to move it! He has seen how mishandling on the scene can lead to irreparable spinal column damage, and was focused on making sure I was handled correctly.  Even while he was barking orders to get someone up to the street level to guide the EMTs down the hill via the neighbors property, which would get them closer to me. Even while I was semi-conscious and had no idea where I was, what had happened to me, what was going on, surrounded by EMTs or doctors, I had a very clear sense that he was running the show and I would be fine :) And I do have a memory of seeing the tears in my husband's eyes when they loaded me up for transport. And, when I came to two hospitals later, I learned he had the good foresight to gather my purse, eyeglasses and iPad from the scene of the accident, and there they were!  What a very nice conversation with you :)  All the best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * <3 — ImaginesTigers (talk)
 * I'm sorry to hear about your traumatic experience; best wishes for your recovery. isaacl (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, only per the last edit summary did I gather that something horrible happened to you! Glad you survived! Best wishes for recovery! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , that was a few years ago ... it only came up today because I was trimming my talk page headers, and Tiger reverted me :) And I keep it here to explain my dreadful editing these days! Another factor, is that sometimes due to brevity and typing issues, I sound ruder than intended. Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , that was a few years ago ... it only came up today because I was trimming my talk page headers, and Tiger reverted me :) And I keep it here to explain my dreadful editing these days! Another factor, is that sometimes due to brevity and typing issues, I sound ruder than intended. Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I was too tired to reflect that is was admirable prose for someone just hit that hard. Thank you for having come to my talk, and here I am, open to expanding knowledge in 2021. I tried to give the year a start by updating the project topics of QAI that I inherited. Please check (y'all watching, no pings) if they make sense, and tell me if you find anything offensive. I believe that we should use the limited time together that our frail health permits. Going to work towards a FAC tomorrow (my mother's birthday). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I have that problem: I come across as terse or rude because my health is far from perfect, though I don't mean that tone. Huge kudos to you for the amount of energy you do seem to have and the amount of work you get done around here. Btw - I'm really happy that you've reinstated the custom of talking on talk pages instead of communicating via pings. It's great to see. Hopefully others will emulate. Victoria (tk) 00:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Seriously; REJECT THE PINGAGE, people! We used to "know" each other in here!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Glad to hear you're okay Sandy; have always wondered, have pings always been around and just began dominating at some point? Or were they added later and immediately did so? Aza24 (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Aza; since I took actions to get more of my conversations back on talk, instead via stupid pingie-thingies, I've gotten to know many wonderful editors like you. I don't actually know when the pingie-thingie took over, as I was mostly away from editing for a number of years.  I know that when I returned to FAC and FAR, I found a whole different culture, a lack of the camaraderie we once had, and I eventually came to understand that the pingie-thingie had eroded the culture.  There is an old chart that shows that FAC, via my talk page, was once the Center of the Wikipedia World, connected via my talk page.  We lost that to our detriment.  I posted that chart at 's talk page, so will go look for it now.  He will know the history of the pingie-thingie.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Here we go: zoom in on this chart, where SandyGeorgia is the center, with Jimbo off to the side, and the FAC participants are all connected via my talk page. We were the most interconnected group of people who talked to each other on Wikipedia-- even more so than Jimbo's talk page. IIRC, that came from a 2013 study of talk page interaction, meaning it was after I resigned, and people stopped using my talk page as much.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * That is a rather intriguing diagram! Talk page conversations have certainly been the most enjoyable part of Wikipedia for me – besides the pure content creation of course. I'm glad you consider me a "wonderful" editor; I'm sometimes afraid that I annoy the long-time editors, whether that be commenting at FAC or talk pages. Though some of that is certainly my fault, like the spur of the moment email I sent Iridescent about a content dispute (I believe I sent one later apologizing, but sorry again!). Anyways, I don't know if when I joined early last year a shift from pings to talkpage had begun already, but I must say that when I first heard your complaint about the lack of interconnectedness (somewhere on WT:FAC I believe) I was rather surprised. Although, I wasn't around in your days of coordinating FAC, so I have nothing to personally compare right now to. Aza24 (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Aza, I contrast anyone who pitches in at FAR with anyone who doesn't :) We had our (serious) problems at FAC back then, but they revolved mostly around serious sockpuppetry. Multiple of them.  All at once.  Working towards undermining FAC. Generally, the difference between today (where FAC is mostly ignored by most editors) and then was that FAC was considered the best functioning process on Wikipedia.  Because someone was accountable, and there was a place where "the buck stops here".  Not that it was perfect, far from it ... but it was held in higher respect than today.  And there was a crowd that pitched in towards article improvement overall-- not just focused on getting their day at TFA.  (Which, sadly, no one reads anymore ... ).  Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've got to agree that TFA is in its death throes. There's greatly reduced diversity of topics going through FAC now, and people just don't want to read about the same topics over and over again.  Although I can't really say much about lack of FAC variety, as all of mine have been obscure MILHIST topics, which is one of the things we have lots of.  So yeah, I'm not helping there that much. Hog Farm Bacon 02:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Echo ("pings") was one of a trio of crank ideas from the WMF's unlamented former nutcase-in-chief Brandon Harris in the early 2010s (the others were the disastrous WP:FLOW system that was supposed to replace talk pages, and the Winter farce that was supposed to make Wikipedia "feel more modern"). It was railroaded through in 2013 (30 April 2013 if you need an exact date); the theory was that it would make it easier to attract people who were used to interacting on social media sites. I consider it completely pointless and will always encourage people to head on over to their Echo control panel and switch off everything they don't consider absolutely necessary. (If something is important to you, you should have it watchlisted. Importing Twitter's culture of canvassing and snitchtagging has probably done more to toxify Wikipedia than any other single WMF action.)
 * I agree that the concept of "featured articles" is dying, but I think you have the reason wrong. To my eyes, the problem isn't primarily that people are scared off by the atmosphere at FAC, or that rising standards make articles too hard to write (although both are true); it's that the way people read articles has totally changed over the last decade, and the entire concept of "featured article" is irrelevant to most readers. In the mobile view through which most people read Wikipedia, all the readers see is the lead and a clickable list of sections. People no longer read articles top-to-bottom, and in this context a high quality article is one where somebody looking for a particular piece of information can find it easily, not complying with arbitrary standards that were drawn up with desktop (and even hard-copy) readers in mind. (If you want a concrete example, a rule like MOS:REPEATLINK made perfect sense in 2005, but is to more than half our readership; thus, someone writing for the benefit of readers is going to need to explicitly and consciously violate WIAFA.) Wikipedia's definition of "high quality" has lost any real relationship to what Wikipedia's readers—and more importantly, the newer editors recruited from among Wikipedia's readers—would consider "high quality". In that context, one can hardly blame anyone for not seeing the point spending time to get a completely arbitrary accreditation. &#8209; Iridescent 15:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, Iri, there's a whole lot of substance there to be tackled, just as I suddenly got ugly-busy needing to write a whole ton of new evidence for the arbcase. I will have to come back to this, particularly wrt repeat links that were removed from dementia with Lewy bodies post-FAC, and THAT is a topic with dense terminology where duplicate links can certainly be justified.  And now I've taken on deleting duplicate links unless they are far removed from the first occurrence and are very necessary; not gonna do that anymore.  More later, except yes to disabling web pings; my editing pleasure has returned since I did that.  Apparently I didn't do enough of it, though, as I got an email that you had posted to my talk.  I don't need that !  Revisiting my settings next, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * PS,, the last time we talked around this matter on your talk, I (mistakenly?) took the impression that you disagreed with me that pinging had led to a deteriorating environment. I believe ECHO led to a pronounced, significant, and toxic climate, where we are no longer people to each other.  So, if talking about a tree falling on me helps bring us more together on talk again, and make us more human, cool beans :)  Feeling kind of bad that I left out why my husband's reaction was so significant in the story-telling, considering we were still recovering from him losing over 30 pounds (not overweight to begin with), following six months of being VERY ill from radiation sickness post-prostate cancer that was not detected early, so it was life-changing for me to realize that he was still there, still the man I married, able to care for me for months just as I had just done for him, and all of my fretting and worrying about our future, and being angry at Obama for causing the lack of early detection via PSA screening, was stupid, since a tree could kill me first anyway!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, Iri, there's a whole lot of substance there to be tackled, just as I suddenly got ugly-busy needing to write a whole ton of new evidence for the arbcase. I will have to come back to this, particularly wrt repeat links that were removed from dementia with Lewy bodies post-FAC, and THAT is a topic with dense terminology where duplicate links can certainly be justified.  And now I've taken on deleting duplicate links unless they are far removed from the first occurrence and are very necessary; not gonna do that anymore.  More later, except yes to disabling web pings; my editing pleasure has returned since I did that.  Apparently I didn't do enough of it, though, as I got an email that you had posted to my talk.  I don't need that !  Revisiting my settings next, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * PS,, the last time we talked around this matter on your talk, I (mistakenly?) took the impression that you disagreed with me that pinging had led to a deteriorating environment. I believe ECHO led to a pronounced, significant, and toxic climate, where we are no longer people to each other.  So, if talking about a tree falling on me helps bring us more together on talk again, and make us more human, cool beans :)  Feeling kind of bad that I left out why my husband's reaction was so significant in the story-telling, considering we were still recovering from him losing over 30 pounds (not overweight to begin with), following six months of being VERY ill from radiation sickness post-prostate cancer that was not detected early, so it was life-changing for me to realize that he was still there, still the man I married, able to care for me for months just as I had just done for him, and all of my fretting and worrying about our future, and being angry at Obama for causing the lack of early detection via PSA screening, was stupid, since a tree could kill me first anyway!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * PS,, the last time we talked around this matter on your talk, I (mistakenly?) took the impression that you disagreed with me that pinging had led to a deteriorating environment. I believe ECHO led to a pronounced, significant, and toxic climate, where we are no longer people to each other.  So, if talking about a tree falling on me helps bring us more together on talk again, and make us more human, cool beans :)  Feeling kind of bad that I left out why my husband's reaction was so significant in the story-telling, considering we were still recovering from him losing over 30 pounds (not overweight to begin with), following six months of being VERY ill from radiation sickness post-prostate cancer that was not detected early, so it was life-changing for me to realize that he was still there, still the man I married, able to care for me for months just as I had just done for him, and all of my fretting and worrying about our future, and being angry at Obama for causing the lack of early detection via PSA screening, was stupid, since a tree could kill me first anyway!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * PS,, the last time we talked around this matter on your talk, I (mistakenly?) took the impression that you disagreed with me that pinging had led to a deteriorating environment. I believe ECHO led to a pronounced, significant, and toxic climate, where we are no longer people to each other.  So, if talking about a tree falling on me helps bring us more together on talk again, and make us more human, cool beans :)  Feeling kind of bad that I left out why my husband's reaction was so significant in the story-telling, considering we were still recovering from him losing over 30 pounds (not overweight to begin with), following six months of being VERY ill from radiation sickness post-prostate cancer that was not detected early, so it was life-changing for me to realize that he was still there, still the man I married, able to care for me for months just as I had just done for him, and all of my fretting and worrying about our future, and being angry at Obama for causing the lack of early detection via PSA screening, was stupid, since a tree could kill me first anyway!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I am going to archive this section because I am so far behind and struggling to catch up and prioritize my ToDo List. Meanwhile, discussion of FAC-related issues continues at User talk:Iridescent, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iridescent&oldid=1000754378#What_parts_of_an_article_do_people_actually_read? here] and here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Fine to archive this, but also very fine that you kept a link to it on your user page. Thank you. Thank you for sharing your story. What an awful thing to go through. I am relieved, though, that you had a good man by your side throughout. I'm tossing the hammock I brought back from a recent vacation and, in solidarity, I'm going to spent an hour flat on my back with an ipad. Be well.PlanetCare (talk) 12:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Boing!
I feel guilty now for being reluctant to act. Boing! deserves double thanks because he came down with COVID-19 a week ago with very similar symptoms to mine and still stepped in. I'll try not to get so wound up by Colin in future. --RexxS (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ack, poor guy ... hope he's OK. I hope I don't have to set up a space in my userspace to get Colin and you to smoke the peace pipe!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

MOS:BADITALICS
I'm working on cleaning up some of the notes you left on a few of the URFA ones, purging six WP:ELNO failing links from the Invasion of Tulagi and doing some work on Confederate government of Kentucky. I'm looking to correct the BADITALICS issue, but I'm not sure which italics are against the MOS. The only italics I'm finding in the article right now are a Latin motto, the name of a ship, and the names of books and newspapers. Should the motto not be capitalized, or did you already get all of those? Hog Farm Talk 03:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hog Farm, there are several work titles missing italics in Bibliography. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah. That makes sense.  I was looking for extra italics, not missing italics. Hog Farm Talk 04:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've fixed three, which were attempts to hardcode italics via   into the title parameter in Cite book, which apparently had the opposite of the intended effect. Hog Farm Talk 04:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I already removed some bad italics; it is possible there are no others. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  04:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Mikhail Lebedev
We urgently need a Wikipedia article on the famous neuorscientist, Mikhail Lebedev. Can you please finish the article on Mikhail Lebedev this weekend? It needs to be nominated as a good or featured article within 30 days. I Already started. Please see Draft:Mikhail Lebedev (neuorscientist). — Preceding unsigned comment added by LotteryGeek (talk • contribs) 01:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

FAC Hi-5 (Australian group)
Hi I've had a few more responses on my Featured Article Nomination. I was wondering when you might be ready to add some comments, after your work on the Peer Review? In particular, I'd like your feedback on two sources listed in the source review ([4] and [5]) - both of which are a thesis. The source reviewer seemed okay to keep them. Looking forward to your assistance, if you are able to. Many thanks in advance SatDis (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I will try to get over there once I catch up, SatDis; thanks for posting to my talk, as that is a better way to get added to my ToDo list (I archive sections of my talk page as I complete items) than a ping :) Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have addressed your comments over at the nomination page. SatDis (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

FAR
I've made my comments on this Featured Article candidate. I have found problems, but because of the problems I just don't have the time to do more right now. I have a lot going on right now. I will revisit it later. I have some misgivings about the prose that I haven't mentioned on my review, but as an inexperienced FAC reviewer I lack the ability to explain them, and I just don't have the time to do what I usually would (a full copy-edit)... It would take too long :( It’s the fourth attempt for this article & I just feel a bit crappy about it. Just letting you know I've made my comments. — — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, since my prose isn't stellar, hopefully one of the talk page stalkers here will pick it up ... the nominator has certainly tried their hardest and is worthy of attention! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll try my best when I get to the second stage of the review. It becomes a more involved process when I can't trust that the article reflects what the source says. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I see that has gotten complex, just as I am pressed for time. I will keep an eye on it, but cannot get there for several days.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a note to say that ImaginesTigers has now supported the nomination. :) SatDis (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The article has been promoted. Thanks for all your help! SatDis (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for being the voice of reason, with short pertinent comments, in the RFA/CSD/NPP kerfuffle. I don't know that we have ever interacted and may not often edit the same articles or at the same time. I have noticed your good and tireless work, however. As I came to your page to leave this message, I noticed the post about your startling and painful experience with the tree. I am glad you are able to carry on and wish you a speedy and full recovery. Donner60 (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , my apologies for the delayed response (you may have noticed some kerfuffle on the page). I guess you are talking about 's RFA and the discussion at 's talk?  I am glad you appreciated the input, and thank you ever so much for well wishes with respect to Me and the Tree :)  Best regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was what I had noticed. No problem at all. I realized that it was a chore for you to edit at all. I just thought a word of thanks and good wishes would be appropriate and welcome. Donner60 (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Urinothorax
What more is needed for Urinothorax to become a GA/FA? Steve M (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think the best thing for now is to wait for the GA to process, and to continue learning the FA standards via the hemothorax article. I hope you have taken note from my talk page that I am not able to keep up with multiple requests daily :( Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Bill Gates
This is an ah question, not really a FAC question: any idea why the article history on Talk:Bill Gates isn't showing up? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Terrible mess of a talk page. The error in AH was this:
 * |action1=PR
 * |action1date=19:44, 19 March 2006
 * |=reviewed
 * Somewhere along the line, someone deleted |action1result=
 * No time to investigate, but that is usually vandalism. Gimmetrow used to have a category that tracked errors, but some nitwittery resulted in that being deleted, so I don't know what to do to prevent this.  Now fixed, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fix; if I see something similar in the future I'll look for that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Huaynaputina
Greetings,

I take that you are still too swamped to continue at Talk:Huaynaputina? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have evey good intention of getting there :( :( Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Flyer

 * Continued from discussion at SMcCandlish talk page, and
 * BMK's talk page. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Your input here on ArbCom history and how to change RfArb to improve the mudsling problem on-point and welcomed, and I thank you for that, but I really wish you had not muddled it with distracting "SandyGeorgia vs. SMcCandlish" non sequiturs which, at root, are really just more grandstanding about the Flyer22 case and editor. I'm taking it at face value that you really do prefer direct user-talk discussions instead being pings into ones at other pages. Please likewise take at face value the advice that most of your input and reactions that have any connection to have been unhelpful, and find something else to do (including more of the RfArb-reform ideas; this isn't a "get lost!" message). You don't have to agree with the offered perceptions but please do think on them instead of just reacting. For the record, I've valued your MEDRS and other work, and I really don't understand why you and Flyer22 had issues in the first place, since you both clearly had the good of the project in mind, including in that space in particular. This is much longer than intended, but something's come up and I don't have time to compress it, for which I apologize.

Getting on with it: Which page you posted to is irrelevant and no one is "stalking" your posts. BMK posted at Flyer22's talk page what basically amounts to a short and intemperate version of what the main thread at my talk page is about. You then pressured him on his talk page to redact, and he did, and that would normally have been the end of it. But Halo_Jerk1 noticed, because BMK redacted something Halo agreed with. Halo was offended that someone (you) who was recently trying to pillory his sister at RfArb had the gall to try to "appropriateness police" her talk-now-memorial page. He made it clear (in e-mail among editors who had frequently been in touch with Flyer22) that he did not think you or any one else among the opposition in the case should have anything to say at her talk page or about what is said there. That's the politely-phrased version. Since Halo was clearly not going to contact you directly yet was still likely to react very negatively to further input from you at or about that page, I let you know that your input at/about that talk page was seen by Halo as not helpful and even directly provoking. (And this is now an on-wiki diff that you've been so notified.) Your defensive and even kind of accusatory WP:NOTGETTINGIT response about all this, over at my talk page, commingled into an unrelated discussion, is again not helpful.

This is all not long after I made it clear just a few threads above that one, a few weeks ago at most, that your case-related user talk input was not helpful or desired. And your input in the actual case, of off-topic old WT:MEDRS/WT:MED history, was clearly not helpful in the case. Your attempt to impose at WP:CANVASS some draft ping-related stuff from that case, that had already been rejected by community consensus, isn't helpful, in any way, shape or form. Nor is lecturing about "policy", in ways that seem unclear on the difference between mass- and count-noun senses (policy as a mass nouns means 'rules, and systems thereof', not "pages with Policy atop them"; this is very important in the WP:ARBPOL context). Not helpful is hand-waving about WP:BRD, an essay, that does not trump WP:PGCHANGE and ARBPOL. (Yes, your edit was bold, in the worse sense, and it was immediately reverted for good reasons, but the D in BRD doesn't mean "discuss in irrelevant places why no one should criticize the judgment behind the boldness", it means discuss, at that page's talk page, the merits or lack thereof of the proposed change, which in this case already has a consensus against it from the start, so a very high hurdle to leap). Nor is it helpful to try to hijack a discussion like the one at my talk page with off-topic "you vs. me" material. Unhelpful to the point of silly is twice making a big point of my being "involved" in the background of the discussion when I'm the one who already made the point about how involved I am. All the while seemingly blind to your own level of involvement/investment; even your participation in the case at all was clearly grudge-bearing stuff about unrelated incidents a long time ago in a different topic area.

In short, you need to absorb the first law of holes, AKA "quit while you're ahead". I said in my e-mail to you, about Halo's wishes, that I was just passing on an FYI and had no beef with you. I meant that, but it will be hard to continue to maintain as assumption of good faith if you continue this drama-mongering, make-it-all-about-me, and opportunistic finally-get-what-I-want behavior. It's like an especially weird form of WP:GRAVEDANCING and looks more and more unseemly, despite probably being motivated by a desire to be helpful and involved. Sometimes it is not possible to be, despite the best intentions. This may be an emotional intelligence thing (and I don't mean that in a snide way; I have issues in this area myself), but it be pretty obvious that right after an editor's death is the absolute worst time to get simultaneously defensive and squabble-picking with grieving editors, or to take something from a dismissed case against the deceased and try to make it into policy (mass noun; specifically in this instance, a major change to a WP guideline). Just give it a long rest. You may be surprised who comes around later, who you end up entirely able to work with well after prior squabbles, if you just leave sore spots alone for a long time.

I'll reiterate that your on-topic material, about what's not working right with ArbCom, what once worked better, and how to fix it now, has been of value, and I would encourage more of it. By way of analogy, "It's important that you've attended the meeting and we're glad you're here, as long as you stop trying to juggle knives on the conference table. No one is going to be impressed and you're apt to put someone's eye out." — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the discussion; I have reduced your inflammatory section heading and linked to the previous discussions. While I normally prefer to keep conversations together, in this case, I am much happier to hold the conversation here, as it appears that you don't believe in archiving your talk page, which results in a lot of scrolling.  Anger expressed by those whose viewpoints did not entirely prevail in an arbcase is normal and natural; as time progresses, one is usually able to see things differently. I was certainly disappointed when the Medicine arbcase left so many things unresolved, but over time, I came to see that doing the least possible to solve the problem was preferable to bringing in a sledgehammer and issuing a finding about every single aspect.  I see similar here; a simple iBan was the least possible way to contain the problems, and hopefully could have led to ending the spillover to the Medicine project without needing to explicitly address it. I understand that you are disappointed and angry at the arbs. Not using a sledgehammer here was even more important, considering Flyer's health, and I appreciate that the arbs exercised great compassion throughout their handling of the case. Anger after a death is normal and natural; it provides a defense mechanism until one is ready to fully absorb and cope with the pain. It is so natural following the death of a loved one to grab on to something, someone, anything, anyone and direct their anger at that target, to put off facing the enormity of the pain and grief. In this case, we have both combined: a group of editors who are directing their anger from two origins (an arbcase and a death) at the arbs, and at editors they perceive (and I do emphasize perceive) as "in the other camp" in an "us vs. them" aspect to the case. This is a most unfortunate aspect of the case, which you and a few others furthered. So I understand that your anger has become directed at me.  But hope you will also consider the same words you wrote here: You don't have to agree with the offered perceptions but please do think on them instead of just reacting ....  One of the key things you have written now several times is I really don't understand why you and Flyer22 had issues in the first place ...  No, you clearly didn't. If you had tried to understand that, you might have seen how hostile your posts were.  I didn't have "issues in the first place" with Flyer; in over a decade, we had two differences; in one of those, even though I agreed with her on a source, I was excoriated by her nonetheless. If she then perceived me as "the enemy", well, I am not responsible for other people's actions, only my reactions. If you had taken time to understand my point, you would see that I did have issues with "friends" who did more harm than good to Flyer, by not steering her back on track as her behaviors began to seep into other editing areas.  I came to think of this case as, "with friends like this, who needs enemies".  I hope every one of those friends is thinking hard about how they might have behaved differently, before things escalated.  You then pressured him ... [BMK] This is a case where your anger (or Halo's) may be clouding your judgment. BMK's post was one of the first on the page after Flyer's death was announced, and before anything was completely clear to others.  Where you see pressure, I see a simple query as to whether you want what should become an enduring memorial to a deceased person to turn into something less than she deserved, with other ugliness on the page instead of a tribute. It was a plea to think of how you want a memorial to her to look five years from now. It is the same approach I took when Brianboulton died, and I saw some unseemly things starting at the Signpost.  BMK made his own decisions there, as is clear from his subsequent posts.  If he felt "pressured" he didn't indicate that. AGF is a thing, SMcCandlish, and your AGF-o-meter has needed a tune-up throughout this case.  Now, turning to the issue at hand:  you attempting to police me via Flyer's brother, Halo Jerk1, and apparently not realizing a) how much hostility you have directed at any one you perceive on the wrong side of "us vs them", and b) that you similarly appeared to be attempting to admin the case, even on the Workshop pages, even in email, in spite of your admitted and extreme personal involvement with the case. I appreciate that you have now indicated that you were in very close and frequent day-to-day contact during the case, as that changes my perceptions about any number of things that were written by many different editors. I mistakenly assumed that Flyer truly had left the building and was more concerned with her health than Wikipedia, and was not actively following the evidence.  I wonder how the case might have proceeded if you had made your considerable involvement clear earlier, as many of us thought Flyer was uninvolved. So ... you wrote:  Please likely take at face value the advice that most of your input and reactions that have any connection to the Flyer22 case in particular have been unhelpful, and find something else to do ... BMK redacted something Halo agreed with. Halo was offended that someone (you) who was recently trying to pillory his sister at RfArb had the gall to try to "appropriateness police" her talk-now-memorial page. He made it clear (in e-mail among editors who had frequently been in touch with Flyer22) that he did not think you or any one else among the opposition in the case should have anything to say at her talk page or about what is said there.
 * First, stop placing me in "the opposition"; Wikipedia is not a Battleground.
 * Second, you found my input unhelpful; I found yours unhelpful. Such is the nature of an arbcase.
 * Third, besides the veiled threats and hostility you have aimed at me in every interaction throughout the case, you have now crossed a line into proxying for an editor for whom a three-way iBan was passing before the case closed. Please stop threatening me with what Halo thinks about me wrt Flyer, when the intent of the arb decision was that Halo does not get to stalk the posts of other people, to engage wrt Flyer, and this is precisely what happened here, and which you furthered by threatening me.  I am now considerably concerned that because I offered evidence in an arbcase, I will now have to deal with this behavior via you for the rest of my Wikipedia days, and that has me feeling, yes, quite intimidated and threatened by you.  Let us be very clear here that you are very highly involved here, and aiming your anger at me, while spreading the very thing that the three-way iBan was intended to stop.
 * Please respect the intent of what the arbs were passing, even if you disagreed with it, and while I respect and understand your anger, I ask that you think hard about whether directing it at me is helpful.
 * Please take much greater care to be better informed before you write; I have not posted to Flyer's talk page for almost six years, and I did not need you to warn me not to-- it is not difficult for a person with any amount of compassion to recognize that her brother might not want to hear from me. That said, I find it unfortunate that I am unable to extend my deepest sympathy to a grieving family.
 * What happened here is a tragedy in every sense, and it falls upon all of us to be on our best behavior towards preserving a good memory of the considerable good done by Flyer. Your behavior is not furthering that.  I can certainly agree that I will not make further suggestions as the one I did to BMK, out of respect for the grieving, and not because you or Halo stalked my posts and threatened me. I would appreciate it if you would view my post to BMK as an attempt to honor Flyer's memory, not to disrepect it.   For transparency sake, I am also pinging one arb,  to make sure the Committee is aware of this conversation (and not because I expect a sitting arb to weigh in here). As we work through how arb processes might be adjusted in the future, I hope that you are able to set aside any personal animosity that appears to come from an unfortunate and misplaced notion of "us vs. them". Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I largely agree with SMcCandlish. The fact is that during the case you were arguing to get Flyer in trouble. And now you are trying to tone-police people, act like you did nothing wrong ever, and even after her death are going on about how her "friends" were the problem and about her "behaviors" and putting words in peoples' mouths about "day-to-day contact during the case". Let the poor woman rest in peace! The case was dismissed with none of these decisions passed. We do not need or want you lobbying after the case closed to change the result, as you did for the Medicine case. I also was frankly shocked to see you appear to "seize an opportunity" to get pinging added to the canvassing guideline against consensus.  Crossroads -talk- 18:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * FACT: I was advocating for a mentorship so sanctions could be avoided.  I am not surprised that you agree with SMcCandlish.  As long as both of you stop the us-v-them battleground you brought to the case pages, we should be able to get along moving forward. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Now, here's what's next. you have had your say, and I have had mine. What we are not going to do is continue discussion of a delicate arbcase any further on my page, or engage extended commentary from other editors. Please let me know if you have anything further to say, after which I will archive this thread. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I do, and there's room left for better mutual understanding ...
 * ... but it's not something random peeps need to read, and I'm happy with continuing in e-mail, or not continuing, or whatever.
 * I'll try just skip stuff I wouldn't have anything but a minor quibble about. This time I'm being long for precision, because some of your reply clearly has mistaken things I said for meaning things they did not.
 * "you are disappointed and angry at the arbs" – Not really. I am disappointed that ArbCom as a body is not following its own long-established rules and procedures, and allowed this case to turn into a morass of slander and b.s. I'm actually quite pleased that they seem to have seen through most of that snow job.  I'm intent on seeing the procedures changed so that a trainwreck like this never happens again. And it was a trainwreck in many ways, even if the drafted remedies were mostly pretty reasonable.  Ends do not automatically justify means.  That's not really anger, it's more frustration. The anger part was over pretty quickly, and was primarily about something completely unrelated to what we're on about here (namely the two ways the draft decision was breaking ARBPOL).
 * You're making a lot of (incorrect) assumptions about my relationship to and feelings about Flyer22 and why I was involved in the case, though that may be my own fault for not being very specific. She was an editor I worked with on some topics and whose work I respected, with whom I occasionally communicated more directly about this or that, as I do with 100+ other editors. Like I do with maybe more like 20 editors, we also shared some more private conversations (actually, I did that once or twice with WW early on, too).  Very lately, I became something of a Flyer22 confidant during all this DRAMA, because I was willing to listen, and I could tell something was up with her (the declined cogency and heightened alarm level, etc.).  But we were not close friends, and I am not wallowing in grief.  My involvement in the case was on principle.  I don't update it much, but I started an on-site mini-newsletter, WP:RADAR, on long-term threats to WP's future, and chief among them is organized PoV-pushing of off-site social and political agendas.  I don't give a damn what the subject of the agenda is, I just see it being advanced and I resist it.  If I see people getting demonized for resisting it, then I resist it more because that's F'ed up and my skin is thick.  As a former professional political activist, I have a good detector for it, and I trawl (not troll!) enough social media to know what agendas are in play and where they are coming from. I research them.  This case was not a "back up my buddy thing"; Flyer was not my buddy.  Flyer was an editor I respected, and had had some conversations with (some about steering her away from taking bait, actually), and whom I worked with on one thing, across multiple topics: application of NPOV and OR policy to articles subject to external viewpoint pushing of a palpably factional nature.  MEDRS people who remember me from the electronic cigarettes mega-drama know that I brought the same "ungenda" to that topic. It's how to do all of them.  I have no "admitted and extreme personal involvement". I have an declared and time-expensive involvement in this specific case, and in the WP policy issues behind it.  I'm one of the most policy-editing and policy-defensive long-term editors WP has left.  I said I'm not necessarily in a good position to draft a Signpost op-ed about this case – because I'm deeply involved in the case (i.e., I presented extensive evidence and analysis); that will make it difficult to write very objectively about it, though not impossible. Don't confuse involvement in a DR process with involvement in the overall personal life of another editor. Or with a strong PoV about the background topic (I'm quite open about my views in this subject area, and they're all about what is and is not appropriate in WP's own voice. I don't really have views about the socio-political questions people want to PoV-push about. The RS material on every aspect of this stuff is in constant flux, so I just try to go with what they're telling us, and I know it is going to shift over time. I think what you're not seeing here is that I don't have to be a personal friend or an ideological ally of someone to be very concerned about the fallout that can happen to that person from ArbCom not following its own rules.  I just have to have some empathy (I don't mean that like "and you lack it", I mean that my empathy was triggered repeatedly every day during the case [until Jan. 13, anyway] by witnessing the effects of the stress of ArbCom's failure to follow its own rules).
 * "I see a simple query as to whether you want what should become an enduring memorial to a deceased person to turn into something less than she deserved ..." – As someone she and her brother perceived of as going after her at ArbCom for unrelated old grudges, it is not even faintly credible to me that you don't understand that you're not in a position to be policing, or "adminning" as you say, her talk/memorial page. This is a perfect example of what I mean by you seeming to desire to be helpful yet being the exact opposite.  There is no AGF problem in pointing this out.  Having good faith in taking bad-idea action doesn't magically transmogrify it into a good idea.  This is important, and need to be well absorbed.
 * The "us vs. them" stuff: The long part above goes along with my frequent observation that the PoV pushing camps (on any topic) have a singular problem in common: failure to tell the difference between "you're not letting me push my PoV" and "you're pushing an equal but opposite PoV against mine". They are not equivalent. And when you're arguing to sanction someone in a dramaboard that  an adversarial process; there  opposition. That's not the same thing as suggesting a viewpoint opposition in the content dispute, though I could have worded it more clearly.  You're conflating (I may have led you to conflate) several things here into an illusory "us vs. them" scenario.  Being a policy-following editor resisting PoV-pushing and OR is not being an "us" vs. a "them", it's the Wikipedia way vs. WP:NOTHERE here behavior.  Observing that a bunch of editors are making lock-step but utterly fallacious arguments all against the same person who juuust happens to be the primary blockade of their well-diffed PoV-pushing is not "us" vs. "them", it's the Wikipedia way identifying a NOTHERE FACTION.  Complaining that your input into a case is basically extraneous old news that does nothing to elucidate or soothe or just flat-out shut down the shitshow going on in this other, unrelated topic area is not an "us vs. them", it just a relevancy and utility analysis.  I'm not lumping you in with any "them", and there is no "us" that I'm aligned with.  Indeed, a large portion of my complaint about your involvement in the case was that it was simply irrelevant.  You're  part of that PoV camp and  part of the dispute, or affected by it, that the case was centered on. You were just mad at Flyer about old stuff.  So it is not logically possible for me to be including you in that faction, including you in any "them", and I'm not sure why you think I am (beyond "opposition" in the legalistic sense maybe being confusable with opposition in a battlegrounding sense, so sorry again if my use of the term led to the commingling).
 * Yes, I did kind of try to "admin" the case, because the Arbs and the clerks were failing to do it. You're trying to set up a false analogy and false equivalence here.  Insisting on order in a proceeding that is running off the rails is  to trying to tone-police the talk page of a deceased editor you were just now hounding with grudge drama.  It's just a "WTF?"-level bad idea.  If you can't or won't understand that, then I fear we'll never be able to communicate sensibly about anything. :-/
 * "I wonder how the case might have proceeded if you had made your considerable involvement clear earlier". Given that I decided what evidence I was going to present early on and stuck to it, the answer is "it would not have". Flyer22 had dozens of complaints per day, and I did not try to address them, because (aside from me not being anyone's proxy toy) they were orthogonal to my goals in the case. And, honestly, not all of them were all that sensible, especially later on; many were emotional overreactions to the nature of an accusation and its tone and what someone might believe about Flyer if it were taken seriously, etc., while my goal had more to do with evidence of organized PoV pushing and "nuke this barrier to our agenda" behavior, i.e. the actual threat to Wikipedia.  That said, it was easy pointing out various holes in the insipid fallacies Aquillion, NewImpartial, etc., were presenting, but these were not usually even things Flyer22 had noticed and expressed concern about.  FYI, she was not actually closely following the case right at the start. I'm not sure how she got drawn into following it, and when she did, I urged her to mount her own defense and present her own diff pile if she were going to be following the case anyway. But she said she could not handle it. So I proceeded with my evidentiary plan (until basically hounded out of the case, though the US coming to the verge of a coup had much to do with my dropping out).  I was not being directed by Flyer22, I just chose to listen because she clearly needed a sounding board and was not doing well.  I trusted that Crossroads, who seems to have a waaay more efficient means that I do of digging up and organizing diffs, would cover most of the shotgun-argument nonsense that was coming out of the "you're anti-trans if you don't agree with exactly 100% of my dogma" camp. I think he did a pretty good job of that, and I didn't follow it closely, in part because the Workshop was a total trainwreck, and there are only so many hours in the day.
 * "veiled threats and hostility you have aimed at me in every interaction throughout the case" I don't even certain what that's referring to. I objected to you and some other editors trying to intimidate/harass one of the evidence givers. I asked you to keep the case-related material at the case and off my talk page. I pointed out that the relevance of your testimony was very questionable and seem to be grudgey.  That's not threats and hostility.  I'll say again that I don't have any general issue with you, and think you're a great MEDRS editor (I'm not really very aware of your contribs outside that area, but expect they're also quality). I think you just got involved in a dispute once and unhelpfully used someone else's unrelated and much later dispute to get back at that same editor.  It's not an unusual thing, but it is a thing.  Anyway, I don't do veiled threats.  If I plan to noticeboard someone, and I think giving them a heads-up or two or ten about this plan will change their behavior, then I'm quite clear about it.  The frequency of my actual dramaboard filing is very, very low.  If I think someone needs to be have their behavior examined for a sanction and that they won't change, I just file for the sanction.  I'm not subtle and crafty about this stuff.
 * "your anger, I ask that you think hard about whether directing it at me is helpful." Thing is, I'm not actually angry with you at all, though this is a crappy medium for making that clear.  Being critical and having concerns about your not seeing how unconstructive you're being are not anger, they're just criticism and concern.  I am way less emotional that some Wikipedians seem to think I am.  There's only one editor I'm actually angry at right now, and even in that case I don't think it's a bad-faith matter just someone who needs removal from the topic area.  I've reached out to you directly because I think you're sensible generally and will (eventually, I guess) see that your involvement, especially now, is not conducive to anything but undesirable results.
 * "I have not posted to Flyer's talk page for almost six years". Full circle to where we started. You quoted this yourself when building your bullet list, but seem not to've absorbed the forest meaning while picking apart the trees: 'Which page you posted to is irrelevant  .... Halo was offended that someone (you) who was recently trying to pillory his sister at RfArb had the gall to try to "appropriateness police" her talk-now-memorial page. He made it clear ... that he did not think you or any one else among the opposition in the case should have anything to say at her talk page or about what is said there.'  I'm having a hard time grokking why this isn't sinking in, why you think there is any argument to make against the actual message here, even if you want to quibble over some of the wording.
 * When I said that I don't understand why you and Flyer22 had such issues with each other, I didn't mean "I haven't bothered to look into it" or "I'm just unable to understand your arguments", I mean that the nature of the falling out, the depth of it, seems off-kilter, as with the "enemies" kind of behavior between her and WanderingWanda.
 * Being in communication with one or more of the parties (even one who refuses to participate) is not proxying for them. Frankly, neither Flyer nor Halo were in any frame of mind to even make the evidentiary arguments I made, much less the refutations I engaged in, which were principally logical, not in the form of dredging up diffs of old squabbling no one had thought to include yet. Flyer surely could have provided plenty.  Her interests when she started following the case were about her reputation and, well, legacy I guess you could say.  Mine were about not letting a GANG run roughshod over one of our "policy firewall" editors, even though I knew by then she was actually retiring for good and had been planning, before the case started, to do it in Jan.  I actually was not in contact with Halo during the case at all; first msg. I  got from him, period, was the death announcement.  But I had my own reasons for being in touch with Flyer; I was probing her in the early stages for any signs of b.s., like maybe she really was meatpuppeting at some webboard? Maybe she really was using Halo's account? Maybe ...?  I basically asked her a lot of trick questions and tried trip her up.  I became satisfied there was no b.s. going on.  Reporting to you that Halo is offended by you getting involved with his sisters' page content, even from a distance, and me asking you not to do that or anything like that, and expressing that it seems to fit a pattern throughout this case of you wanting to be involved and expting that you'll be helpful but actually making things worse, none of that is me proxying for Halo. Its me exercising my own judgment that trying to get you to drop the stick of your involvement in this entire matter is better than remaining silent.  I'm open about having communicated with Flyer, and Halo later, because I have nothing to hide. If you ask the faction players in that RfArb if they were coordinating in e-mail they'll surely tell you they were not, but the odds of that are very, very low.  I think we all know that Wikipedians communicate in e-mail and sometimes form usually short-lived "mini-cabals"; it's just part of the culture, even if it's kind of a wiki-taboo subject. I'm very disinclined to try to pillory people for seeming to do that, because you can't prove it, and everyone does it to some extent anyway. In an ArbCom case what matters is the quality of the evidence and analysis (mostly ArbCom's own analysis). Who provides the evidence verges on irrelevant.  Proxying is a real problem when banned or topic-banned editors use it to get others to make content changes and !votes for them, and when I-banned editors convince others to go after their "enemies". (I've been on the receiving end of that).
 * It's not my job to enforce Halo's "I-ban in spirit". You are not a party to the case, neither am I. I am not subject to an I-ban with Halo or you, nor you with either of us, nor .... Your argument along the lines that the three-way I-ban ArbCom were considering has some kind of import for or impact on this conversation between us doesn't seem to have a basis. Nor would it have been relevant to Halo contacting you directly, if he was emotionally capable of that right now without exploding.  I took the bullet to do so because I'm not going to have a melt-down and, like I say, my skin is thick.  I can handle being groused back at when I grouse at someone. Which is a good segue to...
 * Finally, I'm sorry that elements of this discussion have evidently but rather expectedly offended or irritated you. Editor-to-editor criticism usually does.  I will take your criticisms on board (there's a lot of stuff in your post that I did not address, and it's not because I didn't read it or care, but because I don't think it's wrong, at least in central gist).  I'm not exactly a fountain of social–emotional genius, and I know I can rub people the wrong way sometimes. But I felt compelled to speak up in this case, even if I may in some ways make an ass of myself in doing so.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have read this, and most of it is not related to anything that I think or have said, so I will acknowledge your need to write it, but there is nothing for me say about most of it. Whatever relationship you did or do have with the Flyer/Halo family is none of my business or concern. How you use that with respect to how you treat/threaten me is.  What I have said: As I have stated, I believe you are violating the spirit of the remedies that were passing when the case was dismissed upon news of Flyer's death.  If I am going to have to spend the rest of my Wiki days with you or the Halo/Flyer family following me or threatening me, then the arbs need to take this into consideration.  Whether it is via email or via posts to Wikipedia, I hope you can understand why I expect that to stop. Considering the history of abuse at the hands of admins I have endured, "offended" or "irritated" are not the emotions I would use to describe how your threats, as you admit you are "adminning" the case, have affected me. It is clear you don't seem to understand the line here between SMc the admin and SMc the very involved party, who is simply unhappy that the outcome was not what you wanted.  However the Halo/Flyer family chose to see me is not something I am responsible for or can control; that I continually advocated for lesser sanctions speaks for itself. I understand it may be hard for them to recognize that now, and I don't expect them to.  I expect you to stop fueling it. That you think it OK to visit that upon me, against the spirit of the sanctions passing by the arbs, is a concern.  No matter how many things you write to me prefaced by something different about having no problem with me, respecting my work, whatever, the only context I have to judge by is that which you have provided:  you have been consistently hostile and threatening and intimidating to me (and others) throughout this case, "adminning" where it was not your remit, and casting things repeatedly in an "us vs them" mode no matter the positions others took. You seem to think the elected arbs were not doing their job, so it was up to you to admin the case, as you have now admitted.  It wasn't. What you did was take up 25% of the workshop page, turn it into a mudfest, confuse other participants, and make statements based on partial or incomplete knowledge of facts. Please stop.  After today, I expect to hear no further statements from you about what you (mistakenly) believe to be my views about Flyer, which are things that are not based in fact.  Please respect the findings and remedies, which were aimed at containing the problem, and just stop spreading it, whether via email or on Wikipedia.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Copied from here:

Seems better to ping you than give an impression of trying to get the last word on your own talk page. Anyway, I'm sorry you feel any of this was "threats" or "following you" or in any way intended to thwart future better interaction. I passed on to you Halo_Jerk1's wishes that you disengage from anything to do with his sister, and I have absorbed your criticisms while offering some of my own, but there's really nothing more going on.

"Considering the history of abuse at the hands of admins [you] have endured", I can retroactively understand you might react negatively to particular concerns or phrasing, but I was not and still am not in a position to predict what those might be, and your own talk page header is rather insistent that people bring issues directly to you for discussion. If you do not want editors to e-mail you directly with concerns when discussing them on-wiki might be sensitive for them, you, or other editors, you can turn off the "Email this user" feature in the Preferences menu. I'm disappointed that you've returned to making the same claims ("us vs. them", etc.) you started with, as if none of our conversation existed or mattered, but I understand/accept that and am not going to pursue this further.

Not every attempt to work things out is destined for immediate success, but contrary to your apparent expectation, a long-running dispute between us is the furthest thing from any goal of mine. Peace. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Splitting a conversation now three ways is unhelpful. I did not intend to engage issues of "having the last word", although re-reading this page, I can see where I left that impression.  I appreciate your call for peace, and re-iterate that whether it is via email or on Wikipedia, my simple concern is that this (discussion of the Halo/Flyer family), and proxying by others to continue that discussion, whether via email or on Wikipedia, needs to stop. Period. Please do not continue that, as it is against the spirit of the sanctions passing, and doing so in a threatening way is ... interpreted by me as a threat by an admin who has the ability to follow through on that threat.  I have not said people may not email me, or that they may not discuss reasonably on my page.  I have asked you not to proxy.  You might separately consider that you may be perceived differently by others if you dial back unnecessary use of inflammatory language in your posts (eg, pilloried, grave dancing, and the like). Stating or implying that there was ANY sort of "gravedancing" in my post to BMK diminishes your overall credibility, and furthers the impression of being threatened. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * [Decided to drop in after a nap just in case there was stuff to deal with.] Oh, I didn't mean to imply I thought you wanted the last word or were trying to get it; rather, I didn't want to seem like I was pushing for it. (I know I can seem argumentative sometimes, and I also don't like it when people keep trying to argue against me on my own talk page after I've signaled I'm tiring of the discussion.)  I am getting what you mean about the general continued-discussion of the background matter.  To clear up something, which I think has much to do with the southward direction of the discussion: I'm not an admin!  I just an ancient wiki-fossil, and I've run for ArbCom twice, so I guess people think I am one sometimes.  I've found it very helpful to install (and I probably forget some people don't use) an admin-identifying script. If you want to take it for a spin, you can pull the one I use from my  (it's the least obtrusive one I've found, just adds a Unicode character after links to admin names, e.g. in their sigs).  Anyway, I get it now; it would certainly look like WP:INVOLVED stuff, sure.  A whole lot of what you were saying now has a different meaning when I re-read it and imagine that I'm an admin and that you know I am.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * oh, dear me, I Am A Dork. Well, that shows how freaked out I get with such things because of my unpleasant history with admins. Well, more later, as dear hubby and I are in ER now, opthamalogist on his way in (on a Sunday, how is that for service), looks like we will be here a while, possibly NAION, sudden vision loss. So wanted to say quickly so sorry for being such a dork,  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Holy #*$@, I hope that's just some temporary "here, take this pill and you'll be fine, it's just a [vitamin imbalance, common weak infection, whatever]" thing. That would be terrifying. On the other matter, don't worry about it for a second. I was "admin hunted" for several years, so I directly empathize.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Every good intention of catching up as soon as I can, things got hairy here ... long visit to local ER, followed by long drive in fog to teaching hospital ER, 11-hour day, drive back today to teaching hospital for surgery for detached retina, if it is foggy still, ugh, what a miserable drive as hubby cannot see ... I think detached retina is better than the alternative (NAION), and unclear at this point how much caregiving I will be doing for rest of week, how will hubby deal with clients if he can’t read ... for now, what a dork i am, everything that had me so upset was thinking you were admin threatening me, so so sorry for such a brain fart. Not sure I will have time to re-read things and strike or remove where I missed the boat ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  08:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it's just DR. That usually is reparable; some people recover from it 100%. Remember reading that test pilots, race car drivers, etc., get it all the time from G forces.  Like I say, please don't stress about the other stuff at all.  I know what "badmin" pressure is like.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sandy: Not sure how to indent here, but...As much as it is sometimes true that Admins are just normal editors "with a mop", there is a power dynamic, of course. And I agree with User: SMcCandlish that it is very helpful to install an Admin-identifying script. I use a script that highlights (most) Admin names in highlighter yellow, which stands out, and is easy to spot. Only one or two admins have custom sigs that override this, and they are easy enough for me to remember, if needed.


 * Go to User scripts/List and look under For Editing ---> Discussion Oriented. I think I am using "Admin Highlighter....a rewrite of User:Amalthea/userhighlighter.js that was based on User:Ais523/adminrights.js.", but I changed the color from cyan to yellow. My old eyes require something bold, but SMcCandlish's favored script may be more appealing to you. When I began editing in 2016, I attempted to avail myself of all the bells & whistles that I could comprehend. Anyway, the Admin Highlighter saves a great deal of time, versus checking editor's user pages to see "who's who", which was what I did in the beginning!  Tribe of Tiger  Let's Purrfect!  04:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The script I pointed to isn't going to let anyone override it, since it adds a character, and people's coloration CSS tricks can't interfere with it. It's script no. 2 imported in the page I linked to in meta.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼

Hello
Just passing through. I see you're still active. Happy new year. Gimmetrow 04:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * and a very Happy New Year to you, too! Always wonderful to "see" you; perhaps your ears are ringing about how often I've been mentioning you lately.  One of the most acerbic factors that chased you off is no more; I continue struggling to restore some previous normalcy to article history milestones and tame talk clutter.  There's a big long discussion at the Idea lab, should you care to peek in.  And ... should you be inclined, I think you could quickly tune up Ecclesiastical heraldry to get it marked satisfactory at WP:URFA/2020, and then go back to your peaceful retirement (I'm not sure I am able to accomplish the tune-up myself).  I hope you are well, Gimme ... except for the normal "ravages of aging", things are good here.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A bit surprised the notice there says "a lot of uncited text". Practically every sentence has a cite. I may look into the other point. Gimmetrow 22:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

FAC Boilerplate
Hi Sandy, I do hope you are well in this treacherous time. I realise the WT:FAC topic was closed (which is probably for the best), but I'd like to reach out a hand and just make sure that I'm understanding the issues at length so I can fix my reviews if there is something suitable rather than rehash this by not being up to speed.

I feel that our topic was derailed somewhat as it became about a specific edit, rather than the idea of "QPQ" at FAC. I currently post a substitution of User:Lee Vilenski/FA Template on every FAC I review, which is just how I work, I also do this at GA. I have updated it somewhat after our comments, specifically removing the word QPQ as well as being quite specific that I am not expecting any review in return for my review, rather that I have articles for review if the nominator was feeling inclined to do so. I have also moved this to the bottom of the review, which is more in keeping with other reviewers. I'd like you to know that I intend to use this going forward, so if there is anything in there that isn't suitable, let me know so I can make the changes.

I'm not sure if you are aware, but I've only actually been doing things at FAC for around 18 months or so. I know you commented about things being worse in the past, but I'm not familiar with the history. I'm just trying my best to adequately review articles, and make the articles I write be as improved as I can. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, Lee ... thanks for reaching out ... Got this message and just have not had time to get back over there and clear things up for several days now ... I promise to catch up and respond at length as soon as I get a free moment, last night I only tagged on to the last post on the page. I have some pressing things to finish, both IRL and on Wikipedia (preparing and submitting Arb evidence is like The Most Unpleasant Thing Ever), and then will turn my full focus to catching up with you. Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Take your time, certainly not expecting a quick response. I do everything in my power to avoid ARB, so I feel your pain. I think my above post can be summarised as trying my best not to be hard work. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I will get to this today ... I have not read most of what is at WT:FAC, so have to do a full-on catchup, which requires focus that I won't have until I finish my arb evidence. And reading through the kind of unpleasantry going on between the parties there (the arbcase) is just horrid and demotivating and demoralizing. (How is it that we let people get to the point of behaving certain ways for years, and that does have a direct relationship to why I no longer want to be part of the FAC environment, where an extreme minority of editors are allowed to shout down others at FAC when they raise a concern, goad and taunt, and close off what should be calm discussion, and that has been going on now for several years.) I want to be in the right frame of mind before I read up on the other and catch up with you.  Just a long way of saying I really appreciate you reaching out, and want to give you the attention you deserve :) :)  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I got caught up today on everything but this, so I will dig in tomorrow. My apologies for the delay, but after a day of reading unpleasant arb diffs, I don't relish reading through everything I missed at FAC.  Mañana, best regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, I am finally turning my attention to your template. I've briefly scanned WT:FAC, and there is much there that needs to be answered, and will be answered; I will focus here, and for now, only on your queries regarding User:Lee Vilenski/FA Template. Hope this helps! Best regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) I see it automatically creates a sub-head for your review.  NOT creating a separate section for a review is an important part of the FAC instructions, that is there for very good reasons, but no one follows it any more.  Well, of course, because there is no understanding of what factors led to the instructions specifically stating that should not be done. And it appears that no one reads the entire FAC page top-to-bottom anymore, to realize the problems caused.  This is not your problem, since everyone else is doing it, but next time I put on my flame-proof asbestos suit, I may (once again) try to start a discussion thread explaining the history of why the instructions say not to do that, what the problems are, and how that practice is currently contributing to the decline in FAC reviewing and a commensurate decline in article quality.  For now, ignore that part, because everyone else (except, I see Nikkimaria, who knows what she's doing) is doing it, too.  Even I started doing it, and I'm kicking myself for falling prey, as only in a very recent FAC did I see a very clear example of exactly why the instructions discourage doing that.
 * 2) " ... but reserve the right to comment on any issue I see ... " sounds so legalistic, formal, we want FAC to feel welcoming ... maybe ... but I may comment on other issues I notice ... ?
 * 3) " ... which you can deal with in any way you like ..." If you think like someone who is submitting their first FAC ... What does this mean?  They can't really deal with things in any way they like, because they have to address actionable concerns, whether or not you enter an oppose. So this could be very confusing to a first-timer, relative to what the instructions tell them.  Maybe ... please ask me questions if you don't understand my comments, or you may indicate which items you have addressed. Or something ... just "any way you like" isn't really how it works at FAC.
 * 4) " Hope you don't mind!" ... This makes it sound like they should mind, and could leave newcomers wondering why they should mind.  I don't see why you need to say this at all ... just remove it ?
 * 5) "Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list."  What if they didn't like the review ... you still want feedback, right? :) :)  I don't think the first part is necessary ... and they are "articles", not "items" ... so ... "If you are looking for articles to review, I have some at my nominations list." But I don't think you should add that until you have completed your review, for all the reasons I will explain when I do address what a HUGE problem this sort of statement was historically, explaining exactly what problems this kind of statement did cause, to such an extent, that we had to rewrite the FAC instructions to account for WikiCup interference.  But I'll get in to those parts at WT:FAC.  Just, for your purposes, we have to be very careful that a first-time nominator doesn't (mistakenly) think they have to run over right away and review one of your articles  ... which could be really unpleasant for you, if they have no idea to how to review, and that was one of the (many) issues that happened in the past with this kind of post, causing a backlog at FAC with deficient reviews.
 * Usually someone makes mine a section anyways... Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've noticed :) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this, most of this is suitable, and I'll make suitable changes. I simply don't see the issue with posting the link to my nominations page when I post the review. Historic issues (that I'm not aware of) and future issues aren't the same. When I post the header, I am committing to post a review for that article, unless it is archived before I finish writing my comments. The link is there as a nudge if you were to fancy reviewing another article whilst you wait, here is the link. I fear posting the link after would actually encourage quicker and less in depth reviews. I think that was the crux of the WT:FAC comments, as it feels like the community doesn't have a consensus on the link being there. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Glad some of it was useful, . I'll follow up with the other points at WT:FAC, but regarding "historic issues and future issues aren't the same", remember that "Just when you think you've seen it all ... " and "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it". Even with well intended editors such as yourself on board, if we open a door, the next person who uses that door may not be a Lee Vilenski.  And, the problems affecting FAC overall today are worse because no one is allowed to call out or discuss concerns at FAC talk, or think beyond the current examples.  And when one does call out a problem, "proof", "evidence" or "samples" are demanded, and so nice people like you end up feeling targeted :)  These are very problematic dynamics that have taken over FAC.  All the best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  12:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oops, one part I forgot to add, which is, again-- think in terms of newcomers. Because most old-timers aren't the ones we have to worry about.  I recognize that today FAC is very much a closed shop, but that wasn't always the case, and let's hope it won't always be the case!  There used to be newcomers rolling through there regularly, and we hope there will be again someday.  So when discussing process issues, they are the ones we should contemplate.  I fear posting the link after would actually encourage quicker and less in depth reviews. No ... if they see that at the end of their first FAC, they are more likely to understand what a review is supposed to be, rather than running over and saying on someone else's review, "Support, this is the best song I've ever heard!"  (Yes, we just saw that happen ... so think not of you, your level of expertise at FAC, the usual crowd at FAC ... rather those who don't know the ropes but may react inappropriately to a request to review elsewhere before they even know what is expected ... ).  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  12:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

FAC
Hi Sandy, I know this is the fourth time I have asked you, but I was wondering if you could leave some comments for "Pop Smoke" at FAC? I want at least one of Pop Smoke's articles to be at FA. I want to honor The Woo by giving one of his songs the gold star. Thanks a lot. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 07:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * TUB, I cannot promise anything as my husband is having emergency surgery today for detached retina, and now I am really behind... I will try, but not looking good, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  08:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm so sorry that you're going through that! I am totally ok with you not reviewing the FAC. I've been going through a lot too recently. Someone I loved dearly had passed away from Covid unexpectedly; now I am very worried about my parents and that the same thing will happen to them... I'm sending prayers to you and your husband. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 11:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Peer review
I was wondering if you could add comments to the second peer review of Cups? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, ; I am quite a few days behind here, but will do my best. It will take me some time to catch up and get over there, so please be patient.  I see no one in Aoba47's absence is helping maintain Template:FAC peer review sidebar (and I will have to dig back in to do that myself), but the best way to get yourself on my (and others) To Do list is to add your PR to that template to draw the attention of other editors. I have done that for you, but you can speed things up in the future by doing it yourself. Best regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended commentary on FACs
So I've found that most current FACs (including mine ) need at least 1000 or so bytes of commentary, either through queries or various comments. So would it be best to place these on the main FAC subpage to start out with, or to place them on article or the FAC subpage talk and then have a link back on the FAC page, or to have the comments on the FAC subpage and then slough them off onto talk after they are resolved? I have to imagine that any large-scale changes will result in loud complaining, but current FAC reviewing practices aren't exactly working perfectly. Hog Farm Talk 23:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a judgment call; think like the Coord who has to read it. If they are fairly straightforward things, likely to be easily resolved, on FAC.  If they get lengthy, put them on article talk with a link back.  If they get REALLY lengthy after the fact, then a fourth level heading may be needed, or resolved things may need to be moved to the FAC talk.  It is sometimes easier to tell in retrospect :) Take the example at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Bud (2018)/archive1; Nikki had called for an extensive review of Spanish-language sources, and there was no way I could put that on the main FAC page.   Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As I spend more time with FAC, I'm getting the impression that FAC reviews are not near as holistic as they use to be. I see why there needs to be a requirement for a source review hardcoded into the requirements, as that helps make sure that something doesn't slip through without a source review, but it seems to me that FAC content reviews should at least be giving some look into source reliability, but I'm frequently seeing reviews that pay no attention to the sources.  Great prose with unchecked sources sounds like putting the cart before the horse.  I almost put this at WT:FAC,  but I think that page has enough ongoing rambles that this one wouldn't be of any use there. Hog Farm Talk 17:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Precisely. As soon as I am able to type up mockup proposal, this is exactly what I want to explain. Post is all composed in my head, need time to get it in print.  You smart ;) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Since I am apprantly in "old grouchy discouraged" mode today - I'll point out I've been beating this drum for years. If someone else can change the culture, I'll be impressed, but it's going to be difficult. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What she said. But I see good signs. Why is the film called Grumpy Old Men, anyway ?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm trying to do my part by changing up how I first started doing reviews, but there's rather minimal effect that me as a lower-middle tier reviewer can exactly accomplish beyond annoying people with the occassional oppose. I see some things in reviews that encourage me, but then I see the whole MOS:LINKSTYLE thing at the FAC talk page starting to look like a few comments are more about passing FACs for the sake of passing FACs than making sure that the articles are actually comprehensible. Hog Farm Talk 18:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The reward culture has always been a problem in one form or another ... old-timer Yomangani was against WP:WBFAN for that very reason. I am on real computer now and am going to type us much as I can as fast as I can to catch up! Not sure how far I will get ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Trip thus far...
24 states - 18,481 miles. Haven't killed the spouse yet. (He points out that since I don't know how to drive a semi, I'd have problems getting home if I killed him... details details....) Two more weeks and then home for a few months. Time to start garden planning! -- Ealdgyth (talk) 03:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow ... sorta jealous ! Would love to get out of the house! Stay safe out there, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  04:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

BannerShell and auto archive bot instructions
Hello! I noticed when you edited Talk:United States Electoral College you wrapped also the archive bot's instructions probably by accident, disabling auto archiving:. Please ensure to inspect any banner wrapping before publishing your edits. Best regards, CapnZapp (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for making me aware that putting auto archiving inside a banner disabled it (that's stupid and counterintuitive), and thanks for fixing it in that case. I will work back through my other cleanup to find and fix any other instances.  Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Save:  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

On FAC comments
Hi SandyGeorgia,

Thought I should ask you, as an FAC regular, about my 2.5th/third FAC comments here. I was wondering whether I'm being unusually picky for a reviewer, especially with punctuation things that are quite subjective, or if it's just the natural result of a long article. My current conception of featured articles emphasizes summary style and good writing, but I want my review(s) to be appropriate rather than pedantic. Thanks, Ovinus (talk) 05:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Pardon me for jumping in, but every FAC regular will have a slightly different opinion about this sort of question. I prefer to copyedit the article as I go -- punctuation, word choice, typos, grammatical errors, and sometimes more than that.  For example, here are twenty or so edits on Edvard August Vainio, a current FAC.  I could have made that into twenty bullet points in the FAC but I think it's easier to just make the change and leave a note at the FAC saying "please revert any copyedits you don't agree with" -- it's much quicker and keeps the FAC shorter. I've been doing reviews that way for a while and haven't had a nominator complain yet. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Fwiw, I do mine the same way as yourself, noting issues with the article as I go - only making changes if I feel it is too difficult to explain what I mean. I think, overall, the format of the article isn't whats important, but (I think we can all agree) that the article is being improved is the most relevant part. Sandy may have her own views on this Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 12:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am yet another Let me absolutely clear, Ovinus: I loved your feedback. I hope wires haven't been crossed here, because I had no trouble implementing your feedback. There were a few that made me want to die (doing  ) but every single piece of feedback—including that one—improved the article in a small way, and all adding up to stronger article. Gog noted that problems still existed, and I think theirs was precisely the kind of feedback they were looking for (it'll certainly make their next look a little easier, and they'll be thankful for your attention). Like I said on the review, I really, really appreciate the effort you put in. The reason that I thought an Oppose would have been valid was because my only Oppose has been on those grounds. It wasn't because I thought you were harsh; it was just the volume of the comments. This is a problem I have with FAC: I don't know when to Oppose. For example, the active FAC on Hi-5 (Australian band) is one that my gut told me to oppose. I actively regret taking it on now, because in addition to all the comments I've left, I now have to copy-edit the whole article to not leave the reviewing hanging. They've implemented too much and too courteous for me not to. When do we, as reviewers, draw the line? Why would I not simply ignore a candidate that I would oppose instead of reviewing it? Similar to Mike, if I only have minor problems with prose, I'll just change it (see my copy-edit/review on "O Captain! My Captain") but your method (shared with Lee) is 100% valid, too, and not at all resented. In short: it was a great review. You weren't being too pedantic. I really appreciate it. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Another TPW piling on. Ovinus, for what it is worth, I incline towards Mike's approach, but probably restrict it to nominators I have worked with previously, experienced nominators, and articles which require few copy edit style tweaks. With newer nominators or with articles which I think need a relatively large number of grammar or MoS tweaks, I am more likely to list even minor points in the FAC. As I did with League of Legends. The theory is that while that is more work for me as a reviewer, going through identifying and correcting the issues is a learning exercise for ImaginesTigers, a variant of WP:DHTM. Or "teaching a nominator to fish". I have little idea if it works or how it is perceived, other than via a very low complaint rate. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Firstly, completely agree, Gog. Most of Ovinus' edits didn't teach me anything (they were just grammar corrections and improvements), but some did. If they had simply gone through and corrected these things – – then I wouldn't have known about it. That is totally to be expected; no reviewer has any way of knowing what a new nominator knows and doesn't know. Another thing here is that often I did disagree, but Ovinus explaining where he was coming from led to me clarifying the article text and improving it; the same occurred with Eddie's review, wherein sometimes him saying "this doesn't quite align with the source fully" led to me going out, finding a better source, and improving the language. This has been a great first FA process for me. I thought I was going to completely hate it, and there are still some things that cause me some fear (see my post on 's talk page), MoS and prose corrections aren't one of them. Ovinus, be not afraid: you've been an excellent reviewer for me, and (not to pick favourites) likely my favourite. That level of rigour can't be expected everywhere at FAC, but I'm so thankful you gave it to me :) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC) (PS. Sorry you're gonna wake up to all this, Sandy!)


 * Re waking up to this, I see I am late to the party, but always thrilled to find thorough advancement of understanding via calm discussion on my talk. I have a whole ‘nother perspective to add to what has already been said, so please stay tuned.  ;).  But after an intense afternoon and last night of extreme back spasms from too much time typing yesterday, where I could not continue catching up on my ToDo list, my response will have to wait a bit to see if the spasms will subside and I can get some time on the real computer (ipad typing now). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, (and thanks  for also weighing in); digging in now, with apologies for the delay after a couple of very bad back days, that have left me quite behind on my ToDo List. There's a lot to get through here, and I have a lot to say, so I couldn't dive in until I could sit for an extended period to type.While I agree with almost everything written here, there is another (separate) issue I want to raise. As everyone else has indicated, how one approaches a given FAC has many different components. If I am dealing with an experienced FAC nominator, whose style and preferences I know, I will often just dig in and do something myself, and only raise on FAC that which I am unsure of. If, on the other hand, I am dealing with a first-time nominator, I go to great lengths to make a gazillion small edits, each one with a complete edit summary that explains the whys and wherefores and links to the appropriate Wikipedia page explanation, and then I ask the nominator on the FAC to please step back through my edits, read my edit summaries, to understand the concepts. I don't always do that, though; if I feel like a nomination is rushed, and the nominator is basically expecting others to do their work for them, and not taking the time to learn, I may spell them out on the FAC instead. But NONE of this happens unless I am fairly sure the article can be promoted; elsewise, a swift Oppose, with brief samples, and refer them to Peer review is the kindest and fastest route to the bronze star. So, as others have said, how to approach any given FAC depends on many variables. Sometimes it's helpful to ask up front (if you don't know the nominator well). It almost always comes down to how sure you are about any changes that may need to be made (versus needing to inquire), how well you know the nominator, whether you believe the article is basically at WP:WIAFA standard (if it isn't, it shouldn't be on the page and improvements should be happening elsewhere), and what you perceive the nominator may still need to learn about how to optimally prepare an article for FAC. Now, all that said, I have a whole 'nother problem with the way almost all FAC nominations are no longer following the FAC instructions, because those issues are impeding review and affecting article quality. First, we have unfortunately obscured the instructions at WP:FAC via a collapse, and I am concerned they are a) not being read, as well as b) actively ignored. (This is not aimed at you; it is happening across the board, and even I fell prey.)
 * The first step in the instructions is: Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria ...
 * The point of FAC is for the Coords to determine if there is consensus that the article does meet FA criteria. The point of FAC is NOT to be peer review, and as FAC has increasingly become peer review and lost focus on yea-or-nay, it's ready or it's not, peer review has died as FAC has taken its place.  Not healthy for either FAC or PR that reviewers are having to spend so much time on prep that should have occurred pre-FAC. (I am NOT saying that is the case for ImagineTigers article, rather raising a general point.)
 * Under "Commenting, supporting and opposing" of Template:FAC-instructions, for very good (historical) reasons the FAC page is set up such that section heads with extended commentary are discouraged (and yet, somehow, that has become the norm). Some of the problems with this new trend of extensive use of section headings, contrary to the instructions:
 * They encourage longer and longer peer review type commentary on FACs. (And then we wonder why the Coords can no longer read through every day to detect any early problems.)
 * They give the Coords considerably more to read through than is needed to know yea-or-nay, meets the criteria, actionable issues addressed.
 * They cause the FAC page to reach the template limits, where commentary is then truncated (a problem with not only the section headings themselves, but with capping resolved commentary).
 * They are used to convey, in essence, POV and a summary that discourages subsequent review, and furthers the faulty notion that three Supports are adequate for promotion (when in fact, no set number of supports guarantees promotion if actionable opposes are outstanding). We now have people entering their Support or Oppose in a section heading, which was once discouraged for very good reason. One can scan the section headings and get a (perhaps faulty) opinion about the status of the FAC (oh, it has five supports, I don't need to review-- BAD, BAD, BAD!) So, when reviewers look through the list and see a FAC that has three supports, they may move on, thinking "that one's done, doesn't need my input". That exact commentary affected a recent FAC I was involved in.  So, rather than reading through a FAC to see what has been addressed and what has not, we may have reviewers passing by FACs they think are "done", and ... worst part ... no one realizing that in all of the WP:WIAFA 1(a) lengthy commentary, narry a reviewer has looked at 1(b), 1(c), or 1(d).  The ideas that reviewers can tweak up prose when comprehensive and reliability of sources have not been addressed is faulty and leads to faulty promotions.  And the idea that "enough support" or "enough review" has been generated comes from section headings, which allows subsequent reviewers to not really engage.  At the same time, they add so much length to reviews, that they put off subsequent reviewers.

I look now at Featured article candidates/Hi-5 (Australian band)/archive4 and Featured article candidates/League of Legends/archive1, and I despair. I have no inclination to dig in to reviews that long. I don't know why most of that is not placed on either article talk, or the talk page of the FAC, with a summary of where things stand and a link to page containing the detail. FAC was never intended to handle such extended commentary, and is discouraging subsequent review, and resulting in crucial things being overlooked. So, what I am suggesting instead ? Back to the instructions with consideration for why they were put into place. FAC commentary should look something like: That is, ANY TIME a reviewer needs an entire section, they should be taking it to article talk anyway, and this trend is part of what is undermining FAC. The instructions were put in place to avoid precisely what has become the norm: FAC as peer review, and length discouraging subsequent reviewers. If an article needs extensive work, the question of readiness comes up, and should the nomination simply be Opposed and archived quickly, so the nominator can make adjustments and be back quickly. That doesn't mean we don't value the excellent copyediting that often happens during a FAC, but we don't benefit by filling the FAC page with all the gory detail, when that can go on article talk. If we would move back towards the way FAC was designed to work, we might then also see FACs shorter and more likely to engage more than the three cursory prose checks, and we might also find more reviewers understanding that a prose support, when comprehensiveness or reliability have not passed an review are really doing nothing but chunking up the FAC page and discouraging subsequent reviews and resulting in subpar promotions. So, Ovinus, in your case, if you believe the article can be brought to standard during the course of a FAC, but that your extensive copyediting is only polish, icing on the cake, you can say that on the FAC, and take the lengthy commentary to talk; the Coords will check in with you before promote/archive if you don't keep them posted on your progress. Sorry for the length and thanks for all your help at FAC! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The prose is competent, sources are reliable, and the article is comprehensive. I am leaning support, but I do have considerable prose polishing nitpicks, which I will detail on article talk.  Then you provide a link to the article talk page section, and keep the Coords informed about progress. Short and simple, Coords know where things stand-- subsequent editors know which parts you have looked at and what is underway.  Coords can look in on the extended commentary and decide ... reasonable (let the FAC continue) or too much for FAC (archive it).  We have completely lost the sense of when it is faster to archive, since almost ALL commentary is now extensive, and that has come to be the norm.
 * Oppose The article has issues with 1(a) ... brief sample list ... 1(c) ... sources missing ... and (2) ... sample list. That can be accomplished in a few lines; no reason for sectioning, which might discourage subsequent reviewers from even reading.
 * Support I have no prior involvement with the nominator or the article, and have reviewed all criteria and find it meets them. I have the following queries, though ... followed by brief list ...
 * As a tangent, I am reminded that we had one FAC reviewer about a decade ago who consistently, almost every nomination, went through and copyedited and then entered a "Support on prose only" declaration, which was not only a waste of time, but slowed down the whole page. (I completely ignored his supports, unless his prose review came AFTER a sourcing review, but this kind of reviewing has become commonplace and accepted.) What on earth good is it to support on prose when reliability of sources have not been checked, comprehensiveness has not been addressed, and the article may still be changing? It is things like this that began to make 's reliability checks seem futile; why check reliability if people are supporting articles that do not use reliable sources?  My new approach, when reviewing in an area I am not familiar with, is to indicate something like "all my quibbles addressed, learning support, pending review for reliability of sources and by content experts".  So, I've told the Coords the nomination is viable, but should Ealdgyth uncover sourcing issues, I haven't left the Coords saddled with a premature Support, making it hard for them to archive. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I've been thinking this over... I don't know. The thing you say about FAC becoming a sort of "Peer Review +" does resonate, but it feels unavoidable. You note (in horror) that LoL has a long FAC page, and that is true. But at least one reviewer indicated that they hadn't reviewed others' writing (absolutely fine, in my opinion), so it clearly isn't a huge obstacle. Another issue here is that League already had a fairly extensive Peer Review: it received more attention than many, many other articles do, and still ended up with a lot FAC process. And a fast FAC process, to be fair.
 * Is there nothing that can be done about the technical limitations of FAC? I don't really understand why they have to be replicated, in full, on FAC. It seems like madness, and would never happen were the process instigated today. I know your scorn for it, but the information could all be relayed via a regularly updated table that draws from another source, just like the WikiCup does. Something like...


 * And for older reviews, that last section could be used to convey urgent needs:


 * You can laugh me out of your Talk for being naive, if you wish! But the template limitations, in my experience, make navigating an actual review much harder than it has to be. If they were a little more structured, like the pre-defined speech areas of ArbCom, for example, then it might be easier... — ImaginesTigers (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Ack. So, my point was missed, which is VERY likely because I didn't explain it well.  The length per se is not the problem, if the commentary is valuable and helpful on a nomination that was prepared and is likely to be promoted (that is, icing on the cake).  But that kind of polishing can be detailed on article talk.  The Coords need to know if WIAFA 1 a, b, c, d, e, 2, 3 and 4 are met: not how many prose nitpicks and tweaks were done along the way.  Tweaking can be done on article talk: a FAC is supposed to answer yes or no, criteria are met.  A link to talk can be provided if some polishing to an otherwise prepared article is underway.  THAT is being overlooked with the exclusive focus on prose nitpicks, and overwhelming page length due to prose tweaking. FACS need to be readable so coords and other reviewers alike can see which criteria have been reviewed.  Separately, what you are proposing is precisely what I am saying is the current problem with how sections are being used.  Reviewers look in, see X number of reviews and supports, and think Done.  That is happening now, and all of WIAFA is not being addressed. This is to FAC's detriment, and would be exactly the wrong way to go.  Seeing that an article has 8 reviewers and 3 supports does NOT tell you whether any of those reviews were any good, and whether any one engaged the core issues that should be FIRST at FAC:  WP:WIAFA 1 (b) (c) and (d).  There are not technical limitations; we only need to get the "icing on the cake" moved back over to talk where it historically resided. So that reviewers and Coords alike can truly scan a FAC to see if ALL of the criteria has been reviewed for and addressed-- not just prose nitpicking. FAC is not PR. FAC is not GOCE.  Prose should be competent before a FAC is opened, and copyediting should occur off FAC if needs are considerable, so that FACs can examine also whether an article is comprehensive, neutral, and reliably sourced.  Consider that I have encountered in only a few months nominations that were passing with biased text, that only I pointed out, in articles that had already garnered support.  What if I had passed them by? But as FAC stands right now, it is not much more than GAN.  GA is one person's opinion about a few items.  FAC has become three people's opinions about a few items, rather than assurance that all criteria are being addressed. Neutrality, reliability and comprehensiveness should be first and foremost, yet they are rarely even reviewed where we instead have lengthy copyedits. Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * No—I see, and I totally understand. It’s me who didn't explain myself clearly, because I think this can fix some of these issues! Bear with me here, because I think this can be put to our uses! You say that the criteria is not being applied in the way that it absolutely must for FAC to be (or, depending on who yo ask, return to being) a rigorous process. Pre-defined areas of speech might fix this, if the criteria were to be embedded in each of them. You compare it, derisively, to GA, but one of the things that is admirable in the GA process is the precise application of the criteria; it is the only way that an article can be passed or failed. Thy have templates to this effect, for example this one. If each nominator were forced to confront the criteria, directly, being reminded of it, it might bring down the average length of reviews by making them ground their opposition or support in the language of the FA criteria. The first step of every FA review should be a source review, followed by a spot check. Prose discussions would not valid (or counted as actionable) until the source and spot check were fulfilled. If someone wants to be the first person to conduct a FAR, then they are going to be doing either a spot check or an extensive source review.
 * The reason that the technical limitations are important here is because the co-ords can't implement templates to be used like this while full reviews are being transcribed onto WP:FAC. That limitation is affecting the project's ability to re-centre itself. The tables above would fix that: they would provide only a brief overview, and open up the Project to making FACs more rigid, by removing the technical limitations. If this system were in place, things would become easier for the co-ords, because they can easily see that (firstly) the sources are judiciously chosen and corroborated within the article, and then (secondly) that the prose is being assessed. Does that make sense? — ImaginesTigers (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Clarifying,, you said I "compare it, derisively, to GA". I said, "GA is one person's opinion about a few items. FAC has become three people's opinions about a few items".  I am no more derisive about GAN than FAC :)  And that is precisely what GAN is: a one-person review of a subset of the FAC criteria.  No derision intended.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As an aside which doesn't impact on the important points of the discussion, the GA templates are substituted ("subst"), so they would probably work with FAC even within current limitations. CMD (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's all the typing that's left in me for today; let's see what others have to say. Possibly the solution is a blend, possibly just raising awareness, but that's all I'm good for today :)  Best regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  03:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Two different tables/templates are being proposed, as far as I understand, plus then the "source review first" question which I know has been talked about previously. The first template is the overall "status" of the review in terms of supports/opposes, which I agree is more likely to cause problems than solve them. The second, regarding which criteria are addressed or not by a review, is more interesting. ImaginesTigers, take a look at my comments here - is that something like you're imagining? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What I'd personally like to see is unlikely to ever happen and would be difficult to get intrenched reviewer to do, but I'd much rather see a system where it's based more on criteria that raw support totals. One idea might be to automatically include a small box template highlighting the criteria with each FAC - would substing the template be a workaround to the transclusion limit on the FAC page?  Substing would also have the additional benefit of keeping the version of the template current at the time of the substitution up there, which would be more useful for future editors looking back at old FACs if the criteria change.  It just seems to me that there's becoming more attention to just raw support count than a detailed criteria-by-criteria look; we seem to get a look of supports based mostly on 1a and 2a.
 * I also think some things are just more complex than a simple support would suggest. For instance, I recently reviewed Featured article candidates/James A. Doonan/archive1. In that review, I felt comfortable with supporting criteria 1a, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 4, as well as the second and third segments of 1c.  I'm just not familiar enough with the subject matter and the sources to be expected for such a thing to judge comprehensiveness, and I simply didn't check 3, and licensing is not my strong suit.  And it's hard to convey all that in the expected support/oppose declaration. There are several instances where I can think of that I'd rather detail which criteria I reviewed against, rather than declare a plain support, as I think it's more nuanced than that.   - is it going to be problematic for some reason if in my reviews I start declaring which criteria I've checked it against and think it's satisfactory or not, rather than a straight support/oppose statement, or is this far enough from the review norms that it'll cause problems or trouble? Hog Farm Bacon 04:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Responding to the first ping I've seen here, and I'm not going to weigh in on anything before your immediate points, Hog Farm, at least not yet. Consensus to promote is based on meeting the FAC criteria and resolving comments based on those criteria, not raw support totals. Yes there's a long-standing convention that FACs require a minimum of three supports to pass but it's deliberately not written into the instructions, and I don't even mention it unless pressed, because there are supports and supports and not all are comprehensive. The word itself counts for nothing if not backed up by some evidence that the reviewer has considered the FAC criteria. No, I would have no problem with you declaring which of the criteria you're satisfied with and which you're not or don't feel able to offer an opinion. It all helps determine consensus. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , funny you should ask :) Reviewers used to explicity state things like, support on 1a, 2 and 4.  As FAC has become more and more 1a-lite, references back to WP:WIAFA have been completely dropped!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, Nikkimaria! So, first, the table you see above wasn't a proposal for something to appear in a review. Instead, I thought that the tech limitations were going to mean that my second change (the one you are interested in) wasn't possible. I thought, for that to happen, WP:FAC could become a simple table, where reviewers could skim the available nominations, and (more importantly) co-ords would be able to directly indicate if there was an urgent need for a second type of source. The existence of the headings is a huge barrier to what I was thinking about...
 * Secondly, sort of, yes! What you have shown me is very similar, but it would need to be a new template rather than just text; that would make it easier for reviews to fill out. The ones that exist for the GA-level are—in my view—unsatisfactory to just adapt wholesale for FAC. I can't obviously provide a quick, exhaustive example, but here is something I threw together very quickly as a sample: User:ImaginesTigers/sandbox3. In lieu of more comments here, I've added all of my feedback in the lead of my sandbox. I hope you don't think I'm a new reviewer coming in and trying to cause upheaval. I'm not taking any of this to WP:FAC. I just think this is something that could be worth considering! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 04:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As a formerly external observer I wonder if that upheaval is needed, though. Greater clarity at least... twice now the length of my comments has, in part, cracked the FAC monolith. Maybe it would help reviewers if there was an overarching table for each FAC, where reviewers write down which criteria they can support/oppose/tentatively support on? With broad comments on the main page, and smaller changes (up to a sentence, maybe) on the talk? I should be more active at peer review. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * you could unbreak the Internet by simply adding to your user space and following Template:FAC peer review sidebar. If nominators knew they could encounter more excellent and engaged copyeditors at PR pre-FAC, they would be more likely to use PR !!! Just imagine a FAC-world where everyone had first been through an Ovinus at PR !! That is how we should be optimally functioning. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * LOL, I'm flattered. I haven't been here that long, but after perusing some of our history and archives I feel like it's become more individualistic in general. Do you think that's the case? I wonder if there's a way to quantify that. I have so many questions to ask now... another one, if you have the time, is why there are a lot of obscure topics at FAC. As I told ImaginesTigers, I feel like achieving the bronze star—and, to a lesser extent, the green plus—is significantly more worthwhile for vital and/or highly viewed articles. I ought to tread lightly here, but is it just easier to meet the criteria for comprehensiveness on an extinct terrestrial mollusc? Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I have all the time in the world, locked in per COVID; the problem is how much I can type on any given day :) The problem of the obscurity of topics is covered on Iri's talk page, starting here, and continuing here. Yes, the problem has become aggravated (although Iri disagrees on the reasons).  Not only that, but reviewers who raise the concern and rail against the trend are berated and shut down on FAC talk.  I can add a medical example as part of the problem.  It is near impossible to get reviewers to engage a medical article (kudos on Hog Farm and Gog the Mild for being the few non-medical editors to engage recent medical FACs).  So, if you're a medical editor who has put the months to years in to writing a medical FA, and show up to FAC only to be rebuffed and ignored, why bother?  The medical editors have already reviewed; what one seeks is solid layperson review. Meanwhile, the video games get reviewers.  It is quite discouraging.  What is most needed is for frank discussion of these issues to be allowed at FAC talk and calmly discussed rather than shut down by a small minority whenever one raises them.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, let me extend that; it is more than discouraging, it is infuriating :) I cannot begin to count how many hurricanes, football, ships, battles, videogames, TV shows, you name it, FACs that I have read over the years, even if I have no interest in or know nothing about those topics.  (I don't know how to turn on my TV, although I do own one, and I also own a Blu-Ray for when my sons visit.) I read them to help lend a voice to whether they are comprehensible and jargon-free for a non-content expert.  I make it clear to the Coords that is the basis of my review.  Yet, over and over we see two things:  reviewers saying they are afraid to review a medical article, and jargon-laden articles passing FAC where the nominators refuse to address the jargon.  Srsly?  As a medical editor, I have to put extensive parenthetical explanations for the layperson.  I think football editors should be held to the same standard.  If I, because of my interest in Tourette syndrome, want to understand Tim Howard, I should not have to wade through football jargon I don't understand any more than the footballista should have to wade through jargon they don't understand at the TS medical article.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * (how long till you outdent?) Yeah, medical FAs are among the most important in my book. Their information, for better or worse, determines so much. Regarding jargon, I totally agree. I think there is a stronger ethical argument to be made to not use "sequelae" in Tourette syndrome than to not use "comma pump" in twelve-tone equal temperament, but if the point of FA is an excellent article, it should be accessible to a pretty wide audience rather than a gang of those invested in the topic.
 * I'll have to think about their actual contents later, but looking at those talk pages strikes a bit of fear in my heart. A bit of a tangent, but in my third month of this place I was disillusioned after having the ingenious idea of looking through ArbCom cases. I eventually realized they usually involve those few editors with the most passion, or with the most vitriol, but it was still... disconcerting. I'm just a teen with a hobby, you know? And a rather sensitive one at that, frankly, although I think I'll harden up in due course. Thankfully, my daily editing has been entirely peaceful and my experiences at FAC have so far been places of collegiality. So it scares me a bit that such arguments are encroaching on FAC, or perhaps were always there... a place I see/saw as an idyllic place of making the "perfect article" and, in that process, meeting wonderful people like all of you. Anyway, I think I'm being wayyy too dramatic. I'll probably mull it over on a walk. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weighing in at Iri's page is typically "safe" and reading there is usually informative. (As long as you always remember that I am always right and he is wrong :) :)  Just kidding, really!  As to ArbCom, you are correct, and it will suck the soul right out of any decent person, and leave you wondering why you participate here.  Over the last two years, as I saw both of my areas of most frequent editing (WP:MED and FAC) affected by disruptive personalization, I decided I had no choice but to weigh in on several cases (my only other choice was to just stop editing, which I did for several years). But I have seen diffs at Arbcom that make me wonder about humanity, and why we let things fester as long as we do.  And you are right that the wonderful people we meet along the way, and some of the brilliant articles we get to read at FAC, make it worthwhile.  Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Tiger, I thought about your proposal while I slept (sure, doesn't everybody do that? :) Consider these examples:
 * About a decade ago, we had one editor who quickly "copyedited" every FAC, and entered a Support on prose. Which was useless until sourcing and comprehensiveness was nailed down, and was even less helpful because the copyedits weren't that good.  So, suppose we had a template and an editor like that always checked the 1a box.  And then, as we see now, other editors skipped on by, assuming prose had been reviewed.  Not good.
 * For a long time, we had a sockmaster who damaged prose so badly that I had to keep track of what she had done so as not to shut down nominations prematurely simply because she had damaged the prose before the nominator could fix it. The sockmaster had a vocal group of supporters who prevented any means of effectively dealing with her disruption, and when not under the pressure of FAC, could be a good copyeditor.  But I frequently found appalling grammatical, typos, punctuation you name it errors in FACs when I looked, and wondered why the FAC hadn't been immediately opposed, and then would look and see that she had damaged the prose. Worse, she completely mangled one FAC by opposing on sourcing based on only having read journal article abstracts, rather than the entire articles. So again, allowing someone to check off a table can obscure issues like this.  Coords need to be able to read FACs that are not overly long, and sort out what's what and who's who, knowing that different reviewers have different strengths.
 * In as many months, I have encountered three FACs that passed MilHist A-class with POV/balance/comprehensive issues. And one of them already had three supports by the time I read it.  If each one of those three supporters had checked the 1b, 1c, or 1d boxes as they went through, that would imply that those issues had been reviewed.  And lead other reviewers to skip over that.  Bad.
 * Look at the counterexample of what poor Nikki is dealing with at Featured article review/Climate change/archive1 (thankfully she is infinitely more patient than I am). There we have a miles-long review which makes one wonder, at what point are we going to draw a line and say, is it within WIAFA or is it not?  Well, there's a world of difference between FAC and FAR in terms of outcome.  At FAC, if we decide a FAC is too lengthy and there are still too many moving pieces, we can archive, knowing that no harm is done and the nominator can work off-FAC and be back in two weeks.  The situation is less straightforward at FAR, because shutting it down means Keep or Delist-- so more patience is required.  I bring that up because what FAR might need is different than what might best serve FAC, and Climate Change is the rare exception at FAR (most FARs are unwatched FAs that can be delisted without a lengthy page), and hard cases make bad law, so we shouldn't be setting FAR processes around the lengthy Climate Change FAR.
 * So, I think my position stays the same. FAC is not limited; the problem is how FAC is being used.  Short, readable FACs with extended commentary and nitpicking placed on talk allow other reviewers and Coords to quickly assess what has been reviewed so far, and whether or not to weigh in.  Long, convoluted FACs obscure that which has not been reviewed, and discourage subsequent reviewers. The routine use of sections and section headings that convey Support or Oppose (against the FAC instructions) are leading to less thorough review and a decline in quality. All we need is a return to the instructions, and using FAC to briefly assess whether WIAFA is met or not, with extended commentary elsewhere, and quicker shutting down of those that can be better worked off FAC. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's actually extended FARs like Climate Change or British Empire that this kind of organization might be most helpful, which I why I tried it at the latter. For that matter, at FAC - particularly extended FACs - it might be useful for coordinators to be able to clarify which criteria have been addressed or not, to have something to point to when someone inevitably complains "I have four supports already [on prose], zOMG why has this not been promoted!1!". But I think for reviewers, an individual rather than overall approach would be best - here is my review that addresses 1b and 1c, not here are all the reviews and 1b and 1c were addressed by Nikkimaria (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting to let you know that I'm still mulling over your comments, and have been distracted over the past few hours. I haven't forgotten, and I'm not ignoring—this just feels pressing right now because the FAC has calmed down and I really need to get back to improving content while I have the chance. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Tiger, I thought about your proposal while I slept (sure, doesn't everybody do that? :) Consider these examples:
 * About a decade ago, we had one editor who quickly "copyedited" every FAC, and entered a Support on prose. Which was useless until sourcing and comprehensiveness was nailed down, and was even less helpful because the copyedits weren't that good.  So, suppose we had a template and an editor like that always checked the 1a box.  And then, as we see now, other editors skipped on by, assuming prose had been reviewed.  Not good.
 * For a long time, we had a sockmaster who damaged prose so badly that I had to keep track of what she had done so as not to shut down nominations prematurely simply because she had damaged the prose before the nominator could fix it. The sockmaster had a vocal group of supporters who prevented any means of effectively dealing with her disruption, and when not under the pressure of FAC, could be a good copyeditor.  But I frequently found appalling grammatical, typos, punctuation you name it errors in FACs when I looked, and wondered why the FAC hadn't been immediately opposed, and then would look and see that she had damaged the prose. Worse, she completely mangled one FAC by opposing on sourcing based on only having read journal article abstracts, rather than the entire articles. So again, allowing someone to check off a table can obscure issues like this.  Coords need to be able to read FACs that are not overly long, and sort out what's what and who's who, knowing that different reviewers have different strengths.
 * In as many months, I have encountered three FACs that passed MilHist A-class with POV/balance/comprehensive issues. And one of them already had three supports by the time I read it.  If each one of those three supporters had checked the 1b, 1c, or 1d boxes as they went through, that would imply that those issues had been reviewed.  And lead other reviewers to skip over that.  Bad.
 * Look at the counterexample of what poor Nikki is dealing with at Featured article review/Climate change/archive1 (thankfully she is infinitely more patient than I am). There we have a miles-long review which makes one wonder, at what point are we going to draw a line and say, is it within WIAFA or is it not?  Well, there's a world of difference between FAC and FAR in terms of outcome.  At FAC, if we decide a FAC is too lengthy and there are still too many moving pieces, we can archive, knowing that no harm is done and the nominator can work off-FAC and be back in two weeks.  The situation is less straightforward at FAR, because shutting it down means Keep or Delist-- so more patience is required.  I bring that up because what FAR might need is different than what might best serve FAC, and Climate Change is the rare exception at FAR (most FARs are unwatched FAs that can be delisted without a lengthy page), and hard cases make bad law, so we shouldn't be setting FAR processes around the lengthy Climate Change FAR.
 * So, I think my position stays the same. FAC is not limited; the problem is how FAC is being used.  Short, readable FACs with extended commentary and nitpicking placed on talk allow other reviewers and Coords to quickly assess what has been reviewed so far, and whether or not to weigh in.  Long, convoluted FACs obscure that which has not been reviewed, and discourage subsequent reviewers. The routine use of sections and section headings that convey Support or Oppose (against the FAC instructions) are leading to less thorough review and a decline in quality. All we need is a return to the instructions, and using FAC to briefly assess whether WIAFA is met or not, with extended commentary elsewhere, and quicker shutting down of those that can be better worked off FAC. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's actually extended FARs like Climate Change or British Empire that this kind of organization might be most helpful, which I why I tried it at the latter. For that matter, at FAC - particularly extended FACs - it might be useful for coordinators to be able to clarify which criteria have been addressed or not, to have something to point to when someone inevitably complains "I have four supports already [on prose], zOMG why has this not been promoted!1!". But I think for reviewers, an individual rather than overall approach would be best - here is my review that addresses 1b and 1c, not here are all the reviews and 1b and 1c were addressed by Nikkimaria (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting to let you know that I'm still mulling over your comments, and have been distracted over the past few hours. I haven't forgotten, and I'm not ignoring—this just feels pressing right now because the FAC has calmed down and I really need to get back to improving content while I have the chance. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The eye fun
Thanks to all for the well wishes! Catching up in one place with everyone I owe a response to from this page: and the friendly IP 86. Vanamonde3, I am mortified about not having yet gotten back to you at Noriega. You are first on my list, but when I can't type for extended periods, I am able to keep up with shorter discussions, while putting off tackling the big ones, so you keep getting put off ... so sorry :( I have not forgotten you.  Ditto for Jo-Jo.  The Ultimate Boss, as long as I have the reminders here on my talk page, I am intending to get over there, but wow am I behind now.  Same for SFGiants and the great Willie Mays. IP86, it is most odd to me that my husband never had floaters or flashes, and in spite of multiple indepth looks at his eye, no one ever mentioned anything close to a retinal tear; I don't get it, just all of a sudden vision loss with retinal detachment.  It is unclear whether my husband's skydiving and bungee jumping past are a factor, but it appears that Wikipedia's articles are probably wrong. A permanent vision loss would be career ending for him, so we are on pins and needles; followup Wednesday Feb 3. Mathglot, if you know you are at risk for this, my advice is to be well prepared in advance in terms of information, to hopefully not have to go through the three-day slow-motion emergency we went through. Had we known to just skip the three hours in the local ER and go straight to the teaching hospital, we might have had the surgery the same day, instead of having to make the one-hour-each-way drive in the fog three times. Very scary to be driving in dense fog, knowing that an accident could leave my husband blind. And two days of no food because of pending surgery, even though they didn't get him in to ER until 5:30 pm on the second day! That is, if you needed surgery, do you know where to go and who your surgeon would be? Meet those people beforehand ... it was unpleasant going through three different ophthalmologists in a teaching hospital, and only meeting the surgeon half an hour before surgery, and giving informed consent having, really, no idea what we were consenting to. You might get well versed ahead of time in vitrectomy, scleral buckle, the freezing thing (Cryotherapy), the bubble in your eye (Retinal_detachment), what the restrictions and directions are post-surgery just because that will give you less to process and cope with in the moment. It was a ton for us to process on top of no sleep, no food, dangerous driving, and being told we could not even stop to walk the dog before we hit the road, so having to figure out what to do with her, and then getting to the hospital as quickly as possible and waiting for eight hours. Then told to come back tomorrow for surgery in the morning. Then surgery not happening until late afternoon-- famished !! Are you able to easily rent or buy the head-down pillow or post-operative positioning chair, because keeping your head down for days results in neck and shoulder pain. Know where to get those should you need them. Please fire any questions you have my direction! SMcCandlish, in the interest of time, just going to let the whole thing go now, and archive that thread. I am so sorry for the admin misunderstanding. I was equally concerned that discussion should stop, whether on or off Wikipedia, and I think we are on the same page on that.

Thanks again to all for the best wishes ! And thanks Hog Farm for keeping an eye on WP:URFA/2020. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oops, forgot one ... I will look at those software options for typing as soon as I can ... thanks for that! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, and I'm sorry to hear of your husband's difficulties. I'll keep an eye out for a response. I have since accumulated real-life work again, and will not be able to respond in detail before next week in any case. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ah, that gives me time to catch up elsewhere! Thx, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I have written some short notes for you, in regards to iPad Predictive Text and also Administrator Highlighter. User:Tribe of Tiger/sandbox4. Hope this helps, and best wishes to you and your hubby!  Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!  04:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, I did User:SandyGeorgia/global.js but see no difference, after bypassing browser cache. I copied the code from your page. What am I supposed to be seeing? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Sandy, RE history skydiving and bungee jumping: hum, to me that sounds plausible (presumably he would have repeatedly experienced abrupt rises in intraocular pressure), but obviously I'm not qualified to say. Also, did he recently perhaps have some sort of a knock to his head (trauma)? (Also, possible genetic factors ??) I'm rooting for you both, of course! Fwiw, even with my tears, I encountered difficulties related to the need for rapid transport and on-the-spot decision-making (in my case, laser therapy vs surgery with advantages/disadvantages to each). Very best, 86.186.155.198 (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No known genetic factors, no other family history, no recent head trauma (the tree that landed on me also landed on him, and he walked away with a scratch on his wrist), but one of every extreme sport possible. Perhaps he had it coming :) :) How did you handle the issue of informed consent, when ... one's head is spinning with new terms and the need for fast decisions. Good to hear from you, Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sandy, there could potentially ( large hedge ;-) be a few factors there... Our *limited* knowledge of occupational risk factors (a somewhat neglected area here) necessarily derives from epidemiological/observational data. And if you're conducting case–control / cohort studies, you're unlikely to see significant numbers of people with histories of less common activities, such as various extreme sports. So, less frequently encountered occupations and pastimes are even more likely to fall between the cracks in our knowledge, unless someone gets to study them separately... Otherwise, one's left to heed impressions from the sectors, coupled with plausibility considerations (not strong evidence of causality). Clearly, contact sports tend to involve repeated impacts, but other sports and activities may be associated with other plausible risk factors (such as the Valsalva maneuver), even in the absence of physical knocks to the head. One plausible scenario here *might* be 1) the long-term effects of some extreme sports creating a predisposing factor, with 2) the physiologically unusual/extreme circumstances of the Triffid attack acting as a precipitating trigger for the event some time later. But that's just a sort of vaguely educated guess, fwiw.  Regarding the informed-consent / decision-making experience (to treat tears that hadn't initially responded to laser treatment), not being so used to the institutional culture here, that was something of an eye opener in itself... After being provided with a list of asymmetrical pros and cons without (presumably for specific medico-legal reasons) the opportunity to explore the matter further (as might have been the case in Italy), the first thing I instinctively did was close my eyes... fly off, a long way away, to a work desk... and try to think a bit more objectively... hum, a conservative versus a less-conservative intervention in the context of a non-life-threatening condition... probably go with the conservative option... and that ticks some boxes for my short-term real-world situation too. About a minute later, I relayed that to the wonderful young Spanish consultant, who smiled for the first time and said I'd done good with the reasoning. So that was all cool... Except, on reflection, hey, how about all those people without the benefit of some professional background to draw on? Or in different circumstances, such as yourselves? I can only imagine. (Anyway, I'm so grateful to all the expert help I received from all the wonderful NHS team at the JR Eye Hospital - thank you, thank you!) Very best, 86.186.155.245 (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Willie Mays
I just nominated the Mays article for a peer review, in which I hope to address all your prose concerns. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I was most disappointed at the lack of feedback on the FAC, but have been too busy to help. My husband has emergency surgery today for a detached retina, and I expect to be quite busy for the rest of the week with caregiving and forcing him to comply with dr's instructions (I may have to knock him out ) ... I am hoping that  will lend a hand at the Willie Mays peer review.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ouch! Prayers that the surgery and his recovery go well! If the review is still open once your life starts to return to normal, feel free to comment then! Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Prayers from me re the surgery as well. I'm left some comments at the review page. Hog Farm Talk 19:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh my gosh, me too; goodness, take care. Cloacal exstrophy is not a priority, we can do this later! I have lattice degeneration and have been warned about the possibility of detachment as well, so I know what it's about; my thoughts for him and you, take care. Mathglot (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

ref=harv
At an article talk page you checked for URFA, you stated The article is in a maintenance category for harv ref errors, but I can't figure out what it is. When I took another look, I think I figured it out, so I'll let you know what to look for, as if it's what I think it is, it's a pretty simple fix. It looks like you were referring to Category:CS1 maint: ref=harv, which isn't so much an error as a tracking category. Basically what's going on is that the citation template use to require the parameter |ref=harv in citations. Now, it is the default assumption in the templates, so the |ref=harv is not needed (although some cases will require a |ref=, such as cases where there is no author, or distinguishing multiple works by the same author in the same year by stuff like "Bearss 1998a"). That appears to have been the category you mentioned. So the way to fix it is to remove the text |ref=harv from the long citations if there is no other identifying information in the |ref= string. Anything with |ref= and the harvid template would need to be left alone though, as would anything with |ref=CITEREF. I hope this was useful to you, and not an annoying explanation. Hog Farm Talk 16:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Harv refs are still complete gibberish to me; I am slowly learning and still struggling to use them. I usually have to call in Dr Kay.  Now I will ping you instead :)  I cannot assure you that I will remember any of this!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not perfect with them, but I can generally figure out what's wrong. It was a bit of a learning curve for me first starting out.  I think Monkbot is making rounds hyphenating parameters and maybe cleaning |ref=harv up too, so maybe that'll fix some of those, although I'm personally not a fan of having cosmetic bots edits clogging up my watchlist keeping me from looking at changes that actually need watched.  Especially since it's been running on the articles in CAT:PROD specifically for some reason, which makes harder to see if the PRODs are being contested and need followed up on.  Cosmetic bot edits are both a minor help and a headache at the same time, IMO. Hog Farm Talk 17:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't Get Me Started On That :( Watchlist rendered useless for someone's idea of a useful cosmetic change, which is anything but useful.  Never shoulda converted the articles I wrote from manual citations.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Groan. And now it's Citation Bot, too.  I'm wondering why this or this to pages on my watchlist would really accomplish anything.  I thought there was a rule against purely cosmetic bot edits. Hog Farm Talk 05:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I configured my watch a while back to not show bot edits; I figured that catching the rare cases of a bot messing up is less helpful than not having to see the constant minor edits clogging up the list—would certainly recommend. Aza24 (talk) 05:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't feel comfortable doing that after a poorly thought-out FrescoBot task messed up links on dozens of pages on my watchlist last summer. I also like to check ClueBot reverts to articles on my watchlist to see if requesting revdel is needed. Hog Farm Talk 06:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, ClueBot is certainly something special; maybe Bots will help. Otherwise, you may just have to suffer through endless citation bot transformations of "pp" to "pages" :) Aza24 (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The bot is running without appropriate consensus for the edits it's making, but it doesn't seem that the bot folks care. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have determined that placing will prevent monkbot from doing its cosmetic task, I plan on adding that to pages I am watching. Hog Farm Talk 16:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)