User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch91

Ping
Sandy, I've emailed for advice on an interwiki matter. Tony  (talk)  06:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't responded because I'm still gob-smacked, and don't like to comment privately on such matters. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
I just had an edit conflict when I went to update WP:FAS and I see you fixed the one stat I never dug around to get - thanks and glad to see you around. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 05:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean we both did the work at the same time :) Ah, we could been doing PRs !!  It's wonderful to see *you* around!  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)
 * There is monthly PR maintenance I usually do (creating archives and categories), so I did that first. Then I went to to FAS and had it all but the diff to the current month. I was glad to see I got the same numbers as you (but did not save my edits there). Thanks for your kind words, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 13:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Are we going to be seeing more of you again? I do hope so !  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hey Sandy, I just wanted to thank you for pointing me to parasitology experts - very kind of you. :) Best, Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 22:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome ... by the way, I'm not certain that either of them are actually parasitology experts per se, but I know Graham described himself once as ... ummmm ... something of an expert on diarrhea (sp?), so I thought he'd be on the right track :) :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like it, I'm not sure I want to know how he got to be such an expert though...! Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 22:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

"The Sixth Extinction II: Amor Fati" FAR
Thanks for jumping in and helping me realize my prose needed fixing. Alright, here's the deal. The article received a copy-edit from Crisco 1492, here. He suggested several things, that I fixed as well as a few new additions, here. I honestly feel that this article is now truly up to par with what you guys were wanting, and I truly appreciate you digging in and helping me improve it. Any more comments and suggestions would be great.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   17:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * IIRC, that is not a FAR, but a FAC? If you will please provide the link to the FAC, I can re-visit more quickly.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Information
I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My 76 Strat  (talk) 10:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Civility versus Encyclopedia-pillars
I had trouble thinking of an appropriate response to inter alia Fluffer's statement that Wikipedia does not cotton to copyright infringers.

On this topic, your lamentations and calls for renewing encyclopedia-writing have been as welcome as Jeremiah's prophetic message, which had fewer diffs.

19:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  20:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Your requested paper
Hi Sandy, A while back you were seeking a paper on Dr. Karel Styblo. I just [got word from Doc Taxon that it's in hand, if you'd say where you want it sent. Cheers, [[User:LeadSongDog|LeadSongDog]] come howl!  15:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for remembering! Should I email you?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Better if you have de:user talk:Doc_Taxon email you directly, I think. I'm sure you'll get more from the paper than I would :-) LeadSongDog  come howl!  16:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you again ! Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Anytime :-) LeadSongDog come howl!  17:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Styblo bulletin
Hi! I sent you the whole Styblo bulletin today. Have fun with it ... -- Doc Taxon (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, thank you ... such an interesting character, worthy of a great article (I came across him when doing new page patrol). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * you're welcome ... -- Doc Taxon (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

RE:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine
Hi SandyGeorgia,

I replied to what you said on the WikiProject page.

Some books say ABA is a form behavior modification. Others say ABA and behavior modification are forms of behavior therapy, others say ABA is a form of behavior analysis, and others say behavior modification is an old term for ABA.

If Positive behavior support is a form of ABA that just focuses on positive reinforcement than how does that differ from behavior modification? Is it that journals refer to behavior modification as a synonym for behavior therapy?

How can we straighten this out?

Because if a leading psychologist (who worked with Lovaas, the biggest authority on autism to date) said in an interview on Fox News that "Behavior modification is what we used to call it in the old days" and a speech therapist I've spoken to in the past also said that it used to be called behavior mod, then aren't they the same thing?

Also see here:. Lovaas' 1987 study (using ABA) was approved by the U.S. Surgen General as most effective for autism in 1999. The study said it was called behavior modification and nothing about the word ABA.

ATC. Talk 21:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * SandyGeorgia,


 * I found a journal explaining the controversy over the terms.


 * See here:.


 * It states as follows: "A New Science? [section] Perhaps there is a tendency to draw pejorative contrasts between PBS and ABA in order to bolster claims about the status of PBS as a new and distinct science or discipline (e.g., Bambara et al., 1994; E. Carr, 1997; E. Carr et al., 2002; Knoster et al., 2003; Sisson, 1992). There may be disagreement among PBS leaders on this point. On the one hand, for example, Horner (2000) stated that 'Positive behavior support is not a new approach. … [It is] the application of behavior analysis to the social problems created by such behaviors as self-injury' (p. 97). He further stated, 'There is no difference in theory or science between positive behavior support and behavior modification. These are the same approach with different names. If any difference exists, it is in the acceptance [by PBS] of much larger outcomes and the need to deliver the global technology that will deliver these outcomes' (p. 99). Other writers have referred to PBS as an 'extension' of applied behavior analysis (e.g., Turnbull et al., 2002, p. 377).

ATC. Talk 21:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That is quite helpful, ATC; you have turned into such a research hound! But, that isn't necessarily enough for a determination of what the best article name is.  Have you posted this new info over to the WP:MED discussion?   If they are one and the same, then a discussion has to be had about what is the best name to use, per WP:MEDMOS.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanx SandyGeorgia! And yes, WP:MED is where you replied to my comment! :) But I will take this up to WP:MEDMOS. Thanks! ATC . Talk 22:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oops, ATC, I meant that you should add this info to the original post at WT:MED, where more folks will see it. Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh I already did. Read the update at WT:MED. ATC . Talk 08:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * BTW, should I erase the section I wrote in WP:MEDMOS? Thanks! ATC . Talk 08:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!
— Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 16:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know, since I rarely check email. The perennial answer is as it has always been: no.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's too bad. I hope you'll reconsider at some point in the future; we could certainly use your help. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 02:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that's another invitation to RfA? Only the most anodyne of editors has any chance there, and you're certainly not that Sandy. Not saying that's a bad thing of course, just saying. Malleus Fatuorum 13:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, are your ears ringing? You should be over reading the WP:ENB; we talk about real Wikipedians over there :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I just got dragged into an ANI report that had absolutely nothing to do with me, because I'm a poor role model apparently, so my ears are always ringing. Malleus Fatuorum 13:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll go look. I think there's a drug for that ear thingie.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the post by Warden? Wow.  Some folks can say anything anytime anywhere in here.  While the rest of us ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was, yes. I met Sitush briefly back in February, and now suddenly I'm at the heart of everything that's wrong with Wikipedia's treatment of Indian cast articles, none of which I've ever edited. It's really hard to square the lack of reaction to Warden's comments with a block for using the word "sycophantic". Malleus Fatuorum 13:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well ... you're not alone ... I have a hard time squaring a lot of the things that are said to me and about me, particularly relative to what those folks get away with in here ... but Malleus, really ... they are not worth worrying about. They always say more about the person delivering the comment than the target; why don't you just consider such posts ammunition in your favor? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not bothered about Warden's comments, although no doubt some will find them credible. I've been reconsidering lately what it is I really want to do here, apart from writing articles on crucially important topics such as Malkin Tower of course. An early idea I had was to produce model articles in areas such as 17th-century English witchcraft trials for instance, and usher them through GA/FA in the hope that others would use them as templates for their own articles, but that doesn't seem to work. I probably need to get back into reviewing, as that seems to be where you get most bangs for your buck. I probably also ought to do what Ealdgyth has done, focus on or two topic areas and pretty much ignore everything else. Malleus Fatuorum 14:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is true that by reviewing articles you can "teach 'em to fish" (if only more would do that, instead of doing the work themselves), getting more "bang for the buck", hopefully resulting in more quality FA writers and reviewers.  Ripple effect.  Only if they're paying attention, though.  But you can also make a difference by writing an article in a topic area that shows how it can be done ... before I wrote TS, there wasn't a single quality article in the neurobiological condition range ... now we have several, and MEDMOS and MEDRS are the norm.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (stalking) Funny you should mention witchcraft and reviewing in the same breath, MF. It would seem an opportune time for you to return to reviewing, as a number of old hands have recently, by what seems like benign witchcraft, returned to the FAC fold in some shape or form, e.g. Sandy, Maralia, Ealdgyth, Karanacs and Tim Riley. Aside from just livening things up a bit, it all helps keep FAC standards at a decent level, so by all means join in the fun... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty impressive roll call. I need to think about what, if anything, I want to do here. There's a definite limit to the number of times I'm prepared to shrug off being called an incivil and uncollaborative cunt, and in fact not even a Wikipedian. I've not been enjoying my participation here for some time now, which seems to make it rather pointless from my perspective. Malleus Fatuorum 22:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I had actually intended to do more but I'm currently attempting to list as much of my father's railroad ... err.. crap... on eBay as I can while eBay's being kind enough to have a "no listing fees" sale until the 16th. Good timing ... I need to get rid of literally boxes of stuff. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Depending on the railroad, my father might be interested in buying some of it... he's kind of obsessed with the railways. Have a link? :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Mainly photos - http://www.ebay.com/sch/petermccue/m.html?item=221164890654&viewitem=&rt=nc&_trksid=p4340.l2562 - but some maps and other ephemera. Now... back to listing... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a really small world. A lot of those images, like this one, were taken very near to where I live. This one was actually taken in the town I live now. Did your father take all of these photographs? I sent an email to a local museum that could be interested in them; I can't imagine there are a plethora of Upper Peninsula railroad images floating around. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, these are images dad collected - some from another collector and some from other sources. He was always interested in the UP - and I have tons of images ... but he got at least one collection from an older railfan at some point (I think it was actually three or four over the years). THe photos he took are sitting in a couple of boxes and I have no idea what to do with them, honestly. Probably will hold on to them and let my son deal with them when I die... along with my horse files and the medieval history stuff. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Very cool. My dad does the same thing; I'll probably have to deal with his stuff someday too. :-) I'll let you know if/when I get a response from the museum curator—if they are interested in purchasing some of the UP images, perhaps I can put you in touch. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hiya
Hi Sandy, I noticed that you removed this source that I added a few days ago, stating that you believed it to be a primary source. It is actually listed on pubmed as a review article. You can tell if a pubmed abstract is a secondary source by clicking on the 'publication types, mesh terms' hyper text link. I understand and agree with your reasoning that it is unsuitable for a general overview article and such in depth content (delving into the mechanisms of cannabis related schizophrenia) is better suited for the 'causes of schizophrenia' article and I have moved it over there. I hope that this is okay?-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  15:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oopsie. Too many tabs open at once.  That means I mistyped a PMID and missed a different source I meant to remove.  Hang on, I'll go back and doublecheck all.   But you're saying you've readded that at the Causes article anyway, so leaving it out of the main article is OK?  I need to figure out which source I meant to remove as primary in place of that one ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I had a look, and trying to figure out which primary source PMID I typed in incorrectly after the fact is going to be too difficult (meaning there is still some primary source in there somewhere, but I'm sure it's not the only one). If you're happy with that text being in the Causes article, so am I; if you want me to re-add it to the main article, I will also, but keeping that article focused and of a reasonable length for an overview has always been a chore.  I do know how to determine if an article is a review on Pubmed (in fact, that abstract even says so in the second line).  By the way, if you are adding citations, please stick with the established style in the article.  We went to vcite long ago because the article is so slow to load (it is overburdened by numerous sources and really should be rewritten to the most recent, highest quality sources).  Also, the style used is the Diberri format; by plugging in a PMID, you can get a citation template, then just change the cite to vcite before adding.  Sorry for my mistake!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries Sandy. :) Okay, I will try and use the vcite. I am not familiar with it but if all it means is adding a v before 'cite' - vcite - then I don't think it will be too complicated to work with. :-) On second thoughts, I may add a source for schizophrenia resulting from cannabis being due to use during adolescence as I feel the distinction is important and of note to our readers. Thank you for the link, I am familiar with it.-- MrADHD  |  T@1k?  18:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I brought up the Diberri format because a lot of the newer citations in that article used an author format different than the Diberri format. Featured articles should have a consistent citation style, so using Diberri will keep us all on the same page.  If you want to add back in a sentence on that, fine; I constantly struggle to keep that article trimmed, and think it's not going to be long before someone takes it to WP:FAR and says it's time to rewrite the whole thing from the most recent high quality reviews, instead of a patchwork of hundreds of reviews of varying ages.  Sorry again for my mistake, and thanks for bringing it to my attention.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

re TFAR
Hi there, Sandy, you raise important points! I generally try to make time to read over the articles a day or two before commenting at TFAR itself. :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

three revert concept
I've been reading through the policies and I cannot find what your process is for dealing with a person or group of people who repeatedly post the same inaccurate information. Are you saying that after three tries, the made up facts are considered true? I don't get this.

Some articles that were cited by me and by previous readers have been marked "unreliable medical citation." These are articles from peer reviewed journals. What makes them unreliable?

Also I don't really understand where I need to go to find out whether you replied to me. It seems like your whole process is set up for people who have the time to figure out how to game the system and is unfriendly to factual corrections.DemonTigerMom (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I will respond on your talk to keep the conversation together. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Oops
Only just spotted this and that, quite by accident! Sorry for not replying till now. --Dweller (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Featured material reviewers
Do you think some kind of register of editors who can be asked to do a review might work, with some kind of frequency indicated? For example, I'd be happy to be called on for an article that desperately needs review (FAC or FARC), as selected by the delegates, every two weeks or so. Worst case scenario is that I sometimes say I can't do it. --Dweller (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know about a register, since that would sort of imply anyone can sign up, and not everyone is a good reviewer. I used to have that register in my head, and I used to ping topic experts when review was needed.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I get that. Fair enough. --Dweller (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

YGM
Ping. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Help with possible tendentious editing
Hi SandyGeorgia, I am not sure if you are an admin, and am not sure how to check (I am not new here, just new to needing help with other editors). I noticed that you have been trying to help ParkSehJik understand collaborative editing and policy at wikipedia. Perhaps you can help here. If I am incorrectly labeling Park's edits as tendentious, then I will gladly apologize publicly to him/her. However, I have been editing controversial articles for years with no issues, so I feel that I am being fair in my assessment. If you have time, will you please let me know what you think. Regards, Puhlaa (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Puhlaa: I'm not an admin, but any editor can address/speak to the issues occurring with ParkSehJik. I don't have time to weigh in to yet another one; dealing with the posts he's making on multiple pages is keeping most of the medical editors quite busy right now.  My advice to you is that editors who engage in the kinds of editing behaviors that Park is engaging in eventually take care of themselves, so try not to let it bother you too much, and keep your own house in order lest issues escalate to higher realms of dispute resolution.  There is no need to "label" him, and if you avoid labeling him, you won't have to apologize if you're wrong.  Let his editing behavior speak for itself.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply and advice :) I have another question for you, if you can help I would appreciate it. ParkSehJik put a 3RR warning on my talkpage that was completely unjustified IMO (see my talkpage if you want details ). I really pride myself on having edited controversial articles for 2 years with no 'issues'! I hope this 'good record' will benefit me, as you say, if things were ever to escalate to DR. I am wondering if his unjustified 'warning' will show-up anywhere on my 'permanent record' and if so, how can I appeal this? Thanks Puhlaa (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The short answer is no. Someone could find it in your talk page history, but 3RR warnings are common. You can remove or archive the 3RR warning.  A word about 3RR warnings-- they are a necessary evil, and many good editors get them.  The issue is that, should an editor violate 3RR, you are supposed to have notified them first of the 3RR rule before reporting them for admin action.  So, even if someone just thinks you might be escalating towards 3RR, they might issue you a warning just to cover that base.  Don't worry about it.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) Puhlaa (talk) 04:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Your edit at FFA
Hi Sandy. Long time no speak! I noticed that you de-bolded Frederick Russell Burnham at WP:FFA, in the belief that it did not run on February 9, 2012. Actually, that is incorrect. It was on the main page for around 17 hours before Raul pulled it after plagarism concerns were brought up by Nikkimaria on the article's talk page. Not sure if you remember or not, but it was basically Grace Sherwood Part II, co-nommed by the same editor no less. Sherwood is bolded at FFA because it was on the main page for a limited amount of time. If that's the case, I think Burnham should be bolded as well. Giants2008 ( Talk ) 15:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We crossed in the mail ... see my null edit, and I fixed the talk page of the article.  I had forgotten, actually, which surprised me.  Now that I've been reminded, I'm even more confused about why some contemporary editors claim there were only minor plagiarism problems in his articles, since not one but two had to be pulled!  Anyway, all fixed now, thanks to you!  Keep up the good work.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!
— ΛΧΣ  21  02:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Epa, si puedo, pero necesito come tres horas, hoy no ! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Esta bien. Puedo esperar; y gracias de antemano :) — ΛΧΣ  21  02:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Opinion on FAC
Hi Sandy... I was surprised to see your post at WT:ACN where you commented that you like my suggestions. Given those comments, I'm hoping that you won't mind if I ask you to give me some feedback on the comments I made at Featured article candidates/Asymmetric hydrogenation/archive1. I haven't done much FA reviewing and I know you have vast experience, and I'd value developing my skills in this area. Many Thanks, EdChem (talk) 13:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you were surprised; I vaguely recall we may have had differences in some discussion somewhere sometime, but you always express yourself well and your posts show considerable thought. That is an excellent FAC review; we could use more of you in there!  I like the "non-exhaustive" (since FAC is not PR, and that's a good way to put it), and I like that you first commended the work before giving some precise examples of the problems in a way that should help the writer improve. Thanks for helping out, Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Sandy, and thanks for your response. You are correct that we have clashed in the past - which isn't a problem, I respect that others may have views different from mine - and I am really glad to hear that my impression of how you viewed me is mistaken.  I like to think of myself as thoughtful and at least somewhat erudite, so it is gratifying to receive compliments from an unexpected source.  On the FAC, I'm glad to hear that you see it as both appropriate and helpful.  The candidature was archived shortly after I commented, however, so can you tell me if I (effectively) added the final straw that killed the nomination?  I hoped the contributor would see it and think about my suggestions, but I do understand that delegates have the responsibility to manage nominations.  Also, I didn't mention things I knew would still need consideration (such as the references, I am *sure* there would be decent review articles on asymetric hydrogenation as it is an area that has received Nobel Prize recognition) and I wonder if I should have stated explicitly that these would need consideration either by me or other reviewers before the article could be promoted?  Kind Regards, EdChem (talk) 07:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Ed. I only remember you as "thoughtful and erudite"; it takes a serious amount of prolonged and obnoxious behavior to earn a negative spot in my limited brain cells! No, it is unlikely that your feedback was a "final straw" because there was enough valid opposition to close the FAC before your declaration.  Quite the opposite; you added a good deal more constructive criticism that will help the editor and the article improve. Constructive feedback such as yours helps the delegates feel less bad when they have to archive a nomination:  closing a nomination is always hard on a delegate, but it's even worse when it has to be done without good feedback.  To give further suggestions for improvement, you can list issues on the article's talk page; it is easier to bring an ill-prepared article to standard outside of the visibility that a FAC brings and without the time pressure.  That path can even lead to collaboration with a new partner, which in turn can lead to future FAs!  Another thing you might do is watchlist Featured article candidates/Asymmetric hydrogenation/archive2 so that you can opine should it come up again.  (Nominators are supposed to check with previous opposers before re-nominating, but they don't always do that.)   By the way, I mentioned on WT:FAC that you might be able to help copyedit periodic table and there is another chem FAC up now:  Featured article candidates/Ununseptium/archive1 .  Best regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Willard Gibbs
Hi. Since you said you were unwatching the Willard Gibbs FAC discussion for now, I thought I should point out here that I asked for some clarification on your request for a copyedit. Cheers, - Eb.hoop (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Eb.hoop; it's helpful to provide links when referencing discussions elsewhere.
 * One thing that you can do when a prose concern is raised is to look for items throughout the text similar to the concern raised and correct them wherever they are found-- do not just correct those listed, but look for more of same. Generally, such an approach helps the nominator become a better FA writer, holds down the length of the FAC page, and helps avoid having FAC turn into a line-by-line peer review.
 * A second suggestion is to go to WP:FA, look for articles similar to your nomination, click on the contribs and search for effective copyeditors who have an interest in topics in your realm. Most FA nominators have a group of folks they collaborate with to help address individual strengths and weaknesses.
 * Third, get suggestions from the FAC community. Your FAC has been set back by three Supports that haven't fully engaged the criteria, which makes it even harder on you-- the nominator-- to understand the criteria or figure out who to contact for a copyedit.  I can give you some names, but whether folks are willing to take on an article that needs a thorough copyedit is hard to say.  WP:PRV has a list of folks by subject area, but not all of those listed are talented at copyediting.  You might approach, , , , , ,  ... well, that is not an exhaustive list, but it should give you a start.
 * In general terms, though, the fastest route to the bronze star when a FAC grows lengthy because the nomination appeared underprepared at FAC is to withdraw and resubmit. Many reviewers are reluctant to engage in lengthy FACs.  Good luck-- you have a very nice start, and the article will likely gain the star with a bit more work from editors who understand the FA standards.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

God of War FAC
I've left a couple of responses. -- JDC808  ♫  23:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars FAC
I've taken care of the "samples" and worked on the article a bit more. :) Best, --Khanassassin ☪ 16:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Further progress at the FAC. :) Best, --Khanassassin ☪ 17:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Broken Sword 1 reminder
Just a reminder for The Shadow of the Templars FAC. :) Best, --Khanassassin ☪ 13:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Hawking
The students that I added are all significant figures in the fields. You might not know but I know, because I am a working physicist. Moreover, they all have their own Wikipedia pages. I think that is enough for the significance. Moreover, on their wikipedia websites, one can find that Stephen Hawking is their PhD advisor. What kind of source do you want? Do you want me to dig out all the PhD thesis or CV for you? If you believe the sources are unreliable, then you might as well remove all the notable students from their supervisor's webpage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eltonjohn007 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What kind of source do I want? A reliable source.  Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so it doesn't matter what those articles say (unless you can find reliable sources in them).  A user-submitted data site is not a reliable source.  Please see WP:RS; that's the kind of source that we need for this data, this article, and all text.  One doesn't need to be a working physicist to source an article.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Circumcision
Hello SandyGeorgia ! Since the article "Circumcision" seems to be locked and controlled by You, at the religious part, I think that You should add "Christianity" there aswell. In the Acts of the Apostles is describen that on the Cyprys meeting, the deciples and other of the very early Chistians decided that "unjewish" followers of the new faith, did not need to became cicumcised. This is well as relevant as what jewesand muslims belive. I see no otherway than contact You about this issue. Best reguards Johnny Eriksson, Sweden 83.249.168.22 (talk) 02:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The Circumcision article is locked and controlled by me? Who knew?  Not me.  From whence came such a notion.  Gee, I don't even own one of those things, but I did edit the article once or twice.  I will copy your post to Talk:Circumcision so the propah authorities with penii can deal with it.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice! I'll respond there...   02:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sandy, you were right to leave it to me to write the responses to the IP. The typing of those responses did indeed involve certain keyboard combinations that required, shall I say, superdigital dexterity, and I can't imagine how you might have managed to produce them yourself.  Or, at least, unassisted.  Your keeping your ego in check for the overall betterment of Wikipedia will not go unnoticed.    03:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you just say I have a big dick? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I had to re-parse what I wrote several times to figure out why you'd come back with that response, and I was going to explain what I meant (which I thought was really funny!), but then, as E. B. White said, "Humor can be dissected, as a frog can, but the thing dies in the process and the innards are discouraging to any but the pure scientific mind."   03:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * SandyG must have one of those secret admin accounts that I've been accused of having if she can lock and control articles. Who'd have guessed. Malleus Fatuorum 03:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No great surprise you showed up here so fast. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You and your buddies ought to start listening, not hounding. Wasn't that the take-away from the recent ANI case you were involved in? Think on. Malleus Fatuorum 04:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Lovely. Nice to see you as always. Take care. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You were very lucky to get away without an interaction ban, but if you really want one then just carry on. As a matter of interest, which IRC channel do you and your mates use to coordinate your vendettas? Malleus Fatuorum 04:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Ping 2
Sandy, I'm emailing you on a Signpost matter. Tony  (talk)  03:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Now? It's bedtime, and I've got a cold! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Sandy Creek - 20 and 6
Someone changed the opening sentence of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting to "On December 14, 2012, 26 people, including 20 children and six adult staff members..." from the correct 20 and 6. You can edit it. Just cite the "comparable quantities" portion of WP:NUMERAL: "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures". I also let 2001:db8 know. You can reply here; I'll follow this thread. ;) --76.189.123.142 (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sandy Creek-- you mean Sandy Hook? It is much too hard to edit an article like that while events are developing and it's on the main page.  Fighting with edit conflicts to change a six to a 6 just isn't worth it-- it will be fixed in due time.  Best regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Obviously a typo; I linked to the article. Anyway, 2001 fixed it. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 00:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Nixon
Sandy, you are just trying to provoke conflict with your edit. Please do not. There was consensus for the style of the images at the FAC, and on talk. There is no excuse not to respect it. However, I have made the change to the caption to cure the misidentification. No one will buy that you are acting in good faith, we've been fighting for five years. Let's just walk away, shall we?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Most Wikipedians I associate with have intact AGF-ometers; I hope yours isn't broken. Given your announcement that you had unwatched, (what did Raul and I do to you?) and noticing that you had not corrected the faulty image caption in spite of me advising you of it days ago, I did you the favor.   You did not, in fact, correct the faulty image caption at all, so after quite a long wait, I fixed it myself when you said you were unwatching; you are most welcome.  Now, I suggest it's time for you to stop personalizing issues, and focus on content, not editors.  While you're focusing on content, there are still several outstanding issues that I identified on the Nixon article that will help prepare it for mainpage day.  So, are you or are you not unwatching?  It doesn't seem logical for you to complain about article improvements when you have not corrected inaccuracies so that others have to do it after you state you are unwatching.  You've been fighting with me for five years?  I'm sorry to hear that; that's not my MO.  I have noticed the repeated taunts, pokes and jabs all over the Wikipedia, but please don't assume everyone returns in kind. For most of the past five years, I was busy promoting your articles. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You do realize that this is the same Wehwalt you hounded for months with an entirely facetious 'Wehwalt for FA director' campaign, among other slights... right? While I'm all for the sentiment you express, and, speaking for myself, would be happy to move past our own recent kerfuffles, what you're saying here is entirely hypocritical. Wehwalt has absolutely no basis on which to assume good faith with you. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts; the "Wehwalt for FA director" campaign was Alarbus/Merridew's idea (surely you know where to find the diffs? if not I'll show you). The ed17, are you planning to show up every time, every place that Wehwalt pokes at me, and continue bringing up old grievances every time I correct an error in an article?  If you can't let go of past issues, would you mind staying off my talk page then?  If you're here for something constructive, perhaps you can deal with the edit summary of Wehwalt's linked above; the battleground needs to stop.  I'm still wondering what Raul and I did; do you know?  Thanks, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * While it may have been Jack's idea, you carried it far beyond its initial lifespan (read: dead on arrival) and attempted to tar him with it. Regarding his edit summary, I would assume the FA director fiasco is at least part of what Wehwalt is referring to. While I don't think your comments there are mean in any way, because they are negative, they can be interpreted as being influenced by your ... acrimonious past. Obviously Raul didn't comment at the TFAR, so that's really the only explanation I can think of. And no, I'm not planning to show up all over, and no, I'm certainly not doing this on behalf of Wehwalt, who I respect but have little interaction with. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed a provocative and unhelpful taunt from Wehwalt; The ed17, if you aren't here to be part of a solution, you shouldn't be here. You're entitled to your opinions regardless if they square with facts, but here on my talk page, if you can't deal in fact, please move along. I guess the answer is that you don't know what Wehwalt meant either, but you aren't going to take him to task for taunting and poking, here on my talk page, or anywhere else.  So, move along; I've got work to do. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is why I decline invitations to come to your talk page, because you dish it out but can't take it. Next year, by the way, I intend to propose that "election guides" not be allowed in userspace, making it easier to dispose of attack pages.  Exactly how many times did you mention me, TCO, Br'er Rabbit, and PumpkinSky in your batsh election guide?  48?  49?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if some users only had one username, I wouldn't have to repeat the names of all of their socks so many times, no? I don't dish it out, Wehwalt; I focus on content and facts.  You personalize.  That watchers don't know what your removed commentary meant or was aimed at doesn't mean both you and I don't know what it was about.  You continue taunting and poking here, those posts will be removed.  You want to have a real discussion, do so.  There is a legitimate question for you over at WT:TFAR; I still don't know what offends you so much about pointing out an error in right from left in an image caption, or why you think the instructions were "massively changed", or why removing overuse of "however" troubles you.  Can you or Ed try to come to my talk page just once and act like grown men, and stay on topic, without digging up old grudges?   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "you personalize ... stay on topic, without digging up old grudges" And this from the author of the election guide where the sole issues were adherence to Raul, support for your friends, and confusion to PumpkinSky and anyone else you dislike, at great length, with considerable repetition and an apparent inability to let a point lie without taking it up again and again, thus the fifty-plus repetitions of those names. And you omitted any mention of any conflict by you with PumpkinSky, myself, TCO, and Br'er Rabbit, but deceptively set yourself up as a neutral arbiter. As usual, you are trying to rewrite history and fool some of the people all of the time by constant repetition to those who know no better.


 * PumpkinSky's fault was not plagiarism, despite your continued trashing of him in the section above, but a lack of understanding as to what was acceptable in paraphrasing under our "house style"; once corrected he did quite well with Kafka, in coordination with Gerda, and with Truman, in coordination with me. His scouting-related articles were pretty good, too, certainly above the average fare. And his sins were relatively minor by comparison with the hue and cry you led; God knows I've seen my own articles far more blatantly ripped off on the web and in news articles. It was your job as delegate to check and ensure that nominators were aware of and adhering to standards in that area. You were the last line of defense. You did not do that; you were too busy making sure the Raulz did not change, and indulging in drahmah, to catch them. Notably, Kafka and Truman both followed your departure as delegate.


 * Br'er Rabbit is a real person too.  Despair over the unforgiving like yourself and some arbs caused his wikicide.  You can rewrite history all you want regarding him, but he improved hundreds of FAs, and left a legacy of people using his techniques to correct and avoid referencing mistakes of the sort you didn't catch as delegate.  If you combine the two, you wind up with hundreds of articles with improved formatting, thousands of referencing errors caught, and +2 FA for 2012, a real plus for the project because without him those mistakes would likely be seen only by the reader, and no one was going to do that work.  If, on the other hand, you combine yourself and Raul, you get harshness, intimidation, abuse of tools followed by utter abandonment of his job until he saw his enemies had left, a continuum of shrieking conflict, an unexplained resignation which is now getting history rewritten (waves at Brad section above), -2 FA for 2012, and very few articles improved. Those you applaud the departure of improved the reader experience regarding articles important and other. And that's what it's all about.


 * You and Raul were given authority in the expectation that you would use it to further the project, the only reason we are all here (other than those who see Wikipedia as a multi-player online game and have goals other than building an encyclopedia).  Eight years on with Raul, we have an absentee landlord, with processes adrift, and you his enforcer.  I am not certain that was what the community desired.  However, I am certain the situation does the community no benefit. If you and Raul would do a Kafka now and then, or even a coin, it would be something to place on the opposite side of the balance from things like PumpkinSky, Br'er Rabbit, Mattisse, TCO, and the poor guy you attacked this spring and you wound up at AN/I and it was closed as resolved when he said that you were so affecting his health that he had to withdraw.  That was a real person, harmed by you as well.  And don't let me start on you and Mattisse.  That you applaud the departure of productive editors from Wikipedia, seek to do more of it (I am well aware you are trying to build skids under me, with your recent attempt to get me blocked) says to me that you do not truly seek to advance the project, but seek to advance goals that are personal to you, goals inconsistent with those of the project.


 * Sandy, it's all very well to trash your perceived enemies, after all, we're just names on the screen attached to automatic random text generators and lack feelings. I hope it gave you peace, though from the repeated need to do so I fear not. But when Party A in a conflict, time and again, is the same person, it's unlikely that the issue is the various Parties B failing to grow up, especially when the Parties B have very few other Parties A they are in conflict with.  In my case, there are perhaps half a dozen people on Wikipedia I consciously avoid; only the FA leadership question is an active issue causing actual conflict.  Can you say the same? Elen, for example, since you brought her up, was your friend once, but you threw her away to be your target.  Do you feel good that that is so? I gift you a mirror, Sandy, spend some time away from the keyboard, gazing into it.   Delete away, the only person who needs to read this is you.  However, now I'll leave you ... alone.Wehwalt (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to compliment you, Wehwalt, on having managed to get blatant inaccuracies (not to call them lies, but whatever) in every statement you've made here. In my house, it's Christmas, and I've got relatives arriving soon, and two parties to prepare for.  Should I find the time over the holidays, I may address the falsehoods here.  Or I may just archive this so I can bring it back in January for the factual analysis it deserves.  Or by then I may decide to ignore it.  I guess that all depends on my Christmas.  At any rate, should I decide to address it, I advise you to be much more cautious in spreading ... falsehoods ... in your future writing.  Happy holidays, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The same.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (Ignorant talk page stalker.) It pains me to see those who care deeply about the quality of articles here focus on past negatives instead of past positives. Here's to hoping we can continue to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles. Best wishes to all! Biosthmors (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Done with the rest of my work for the day, now for some facts: So, I can't find anything remotely accurate in your post, and the rub is that you know that most of it is false, so cease and desist. I do find just a lot more of you revisiting old grudges. Based on your really crude posts of yesteday (Aruba), which I removed, and your strange comment to the effect that we've been fighting for five years (speak fer yourself), it looks like you've still got unresolved issues about Natalee Holloway. You really shouldn't hang on to such old business. We know you're glad to refer to her and her mother in despicable terms; we know I'm uncomfortable when you do that. Stop doing that on my page; it's crass and it's offensive and it shows you in a poor light. You say you want to lay down arms, but you constantly come to my page to taunt and bring up long resolved business. Put your money where your mouth is: just stop it. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) There were 21 candidates in the ArbCom elections; 4 of my 21 vote discussions related to the Merridew/Rlevse assault on FAC.  Your assertion that "the sole issues were adherence to Raul, support for your friends, and confusion to PumpkinSky and anyone else you dislike" is false.  And, you know just how false it is, since I have for two years running supported candidates who mentored the last serial sockpuppeteer that you defended and who targeted me.  It would be one thing if you just made a mistake, but this factual error looks rather hard for you to miss.
 * 2) Why should you have any mention in an arb election guide?  Or TCO?  Or anyone else whose actions had nothing to do with any arb candidate?  The arbs opined on issues relating to Rlevse/PumpkinSky and Alarbus/Merridew.  I left more than ample links to all of those issues; I don't know why you think you (not a candidate, not part of an arbcase, not the subject of anything opined on by any arb) should be mentioned.
 * 3) On Rlevse not understanding plagiarism, apparently you don't either.  Did the ethics change in the last two years? That's a specious lawyer's argument; do you really believe plagiarism is a matter of house style? Plagiarism is plagiarism and ethical standards do not bend to the whims of Wikipedians.  I do, though, agree with you that the Rlevse issues were not about his copyvio, and I said exactly that on my voting guide.  The problem with Rlevse was his violation of WP:RTV and WP:CLEANSTART, returning deceptively to revisit old grudges.
 * 4) The argument that I was "the last line of defense" at FAC is equally rubbish.  First, I didn't promote the article.  Second, even after Rlevse's plagiarism came to light, and I attempted to institute stronger checks, the "community" (ya know, that thing called consensus) rejected proposals to tighten copyvio checks at FAC, so I did what I had to do on my own: I just didn't promote until a reviewer checked.  And you know all of this, which puts your post here not in a very good light: Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria/Archive 10 and Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive48.
 * 5) Merridew is a real person who systematically changed accounts to target different sets of FAs, altering citation style without consensus to conform to his preferred style, and making quite a few people miserable along the way.  Then he began to taunt and hound-- a behavior for which he had been previously sanctioned.  Maybe he shouldn't demean, degrade, and smear at others.  But in the same paragraph I see you defending others who did same.  Merridew's contribution seems to be imposing his own citation method on articles without seeking consensus, and overlooking prose and other issues while at it.  So, while you were busy defending the actions of two now banned/indeff'd sockmasters (Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Davenbelle and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mattisse), excuse me but I was busy trying to promote articles at FAC while working in the environment that was furthered by deceptive returning users.
 * 6) On TCO, I welcome you to address the issue that he unfairly labeled hard-working editors who wrote what he perceived as "cookie cutter" FAs (hurricanes, ships, etc), yet while he was targeting and calling those editors names, mentioned that you specifically shouldn't be targeted for the same criticism of (your coin) cookie-cutter  articles.  It looked like he wanted to criticize an entire set of FA writers, which included you by his working definition, but exclude you because you were sympathetic to him.  What was that about?   I would have preferred he not target anyone's work in ways that would demotivate, but if he was going to do that, would not excluding a friend be hypocritical?
 * 7) ... an unexplained resignation which is now getting history rewritten (waves at Brad section above) ...   It was never unexplained.  Now would be a good time to stop calling me a liar.  That you are trying to imply that there is some secret to why I stepped down has now gone well beyond what AGF calls for, and you are looking foolish for continuing to push that story.  The reasons I stepped down are at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive55, and they are as true today as they were then.  I can't say I enjoy working under the conditions that the WMF has created any more than I can say that you made FAC an enjoyable place to work.
 * 8) Trying to blame me for the ongoing damage to FAC when Merridew/Rlevse et al continued the assault in spite of me being mostly absent all summer is lame.  And you are (again) trying to have it both ways: supporting those who called Raul a dictator while asking that we dictate to fix problems when community consensus doesn't allow us to.  Which is it?  Dictator or consensus?  I was busy almost all year, off-Wiki, yet every time I peeked in I found the same four or six users engaged in the same ole, same ole ... doesn't seem to have had anything to do with me.
 * 9) Elen, for example, since you brought her up, was your friend once ...  Really, is that so?  According to whom?  Thanks for sharing.
 * 10)  ... with your recent attempt to get me blocked ...  What?  Please fill me in; I missed that.
 * Also, Wehwalt, you haven't answered this query or explained what you meant by this edit summary:  Whatever it is that is causing you to spread such ill will in so many places must be painful; moving beyond it would be good for all. If you truly desire to resolve matters, and come to my talk in good faith, then please answer the questions and stop putting out attacks in edit summaries.  If you don't desire to resolve matters, then why do you continue to come here with the same years-old grievances?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sandy, I've had my say and you've had yours. We can't divide the wiki.  Let's move on.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, with followup. 1) I have to occasionally come across in my routine editing and reading the crass comments you make about Natalee Holloway and her mother; I can't do anything about the fact that I can't avoid reading your comments at times.  I do avoid responding.  I can insist that you never again place taunting comments on my talk page or as off-topic commentary in discussions where we are mutually participating.  I don't go around taunting you about your views on Holloway's mother; there's no humane reason for you to be doing the same to me, much less on my own talk page.  2) You have maligned both Raul and me on edit summaries and you have not yet answered or explained at WP:TFAR; I still do not know what your concerns are, and if concerns aren't explained, they can't be addressed.  Please stop the ongoing battleground and taunting and hounding, particularly in snide unexplained edit summaries.  3) It is clear that Theed17 will come over here to wag his finger at me if I say so much as "tsk, tsk" after such occurrences, while you get away with clearly attacking, off-topic and battleground statements and edit summaries everywhere.  Please stop; it is unbecoming in general, and unacceptable for admins.  That means both you and Theed17 (who also goes off-topic to take difference with any input I add to WT:FAC). That is what "let's move on" involves; please do it.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I reserve the right to criticize Raul's job performance, so to speak. See the quote on my user page.  Sandy, if you don't mention me, there's a lot less avenue to conflict.  I would also like it if you could avoid mentioning the other editors I mentioned.  But putting me in the election guide was no good.  At one time we had a deal that neither of us would mention or allude to the other.  That's still on if you want to have a go at it.  I think you know that I have relatively few talk page contributions.  If you don't give me cause to get angry, you can count on my ignoring you.  One good way is not to mention me.  I can't say anything about The Ed, I respect him but we move in different worlds.  I've been thinking of asking him for a review on Oliver Bosbyshell if I sent it to PR because of the military connection, but I'm waiting until after I go to the ANA library next month.  You'll have to talk with him yourself.  Sound fair?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone reserves the right to criticize Raul, or anyone else, as long as they don't taunt, hound, personalize, or engage in battleground. Can you say you haven't done that?  I don't think so, based on the examples on this page alone, not to mention many others in the past.  Criticize away, but try to use a level of constructive discourse and criticism that doesn't look like it came from a butt-hurt adolescent, and doesn't further the acrimony that was introduced around the FA process a year ago.  We've already talked at length elsewhere about the election guide; it would have been very simple to leave you out and use passive voice (RFCs were launched). It did not position you in a negative light. If you had requested, I would have done that; perhaps I still smart from Geogre's old complaints that I used passive voice too often, so I try to avoid it.  I've already said this elsewhere, so I don't know why you keep mentioning it (or why you didn't ask sooner); is it because you want me to take your name out of the guide now?  If that will help, I'll do that.  Please just answer the question (something you're not doing in this discussion, which makes it harder to understand or resolve matters).  On Theed17, we'll see what happens there; it's up to him. He and I have been round the block before about the varying standards he applies to different editors.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sandy, please do not set yourself up as victim. You are not more sinned against than sinning.  I am not responding because I am avoiding expanding the areas of conflict.  Neither of us is blameless.  I'll agree to the deal, not the commentary.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting, you express a desire to move on, then bring up ten-month-old incidents—which I apologized for, multiple times. I'll be beyond happy to move beyond our issues as soon as you start commenting on content, not contributors, like you did in the past. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking of revisiting old grudges which you can't seem to let go of, the next time you appear on my talk page to reprimand me for a "tsk, tsk" or some other minor not even snarky response to a full-on attack, while overlooking the significant personalization and taunting and attacking that led to the "tsk, tsk", then we'll deal with that. A suggestion:  if you find my commentary on FAC talk so egregious, why don't you keep your nose out of it and see if a neutral party sees the same problems you do?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We, as I think we've both realized, apparently have different conceptions of 'minor' or 'snarky'. However, I graduated today and am in no mood for more kerfuffling (that really should be a real word), so I'm going to bow out for now. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Get off of Wikipedia, and enjoy your day!  I'd do the same, except for a miserable chest cold.  yes, you do seem to overlook most snark, attack, hound and personalize while you're rushing to reprimand me for saying "tsk, tsk" ... maybe that will change now that you're credentialed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will be shortly. I had to recover after a massive attack of family. :-) Hope the cold goes away soon; I dealt with that at Thanksgiving. It's miserable. ... and I think you are too quick to call posts snarky, attacks, etc.; perhaps I take an overly liberal view of these posts, but I don't feel like I'm far off the mark. The personalization you notice is an unfortunate side effect of attempting to call someone out on their tone. :-) I suppose our wikihistory could possible be summed up at 'disagreeing interpretations'. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Fine toothed-comb
Thank you very much for poking through the article! Please, if you see any general types of errors that require repetitive work, like general formatting issues, just let me know and I'll take care of it. I don't want you giving up if you see I've done something that would require a lot of 'busy work' to fix, just show me how to do one or two. Appreciate it! 20:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm trying, I'm trying ... but the folks ahead of you in line don't seem to want to leave me to work. I saw your note at WT:MED and noticed your fine work on organic foods.  I don't do GAs, but I thought I could at least have a look.  So far, I'm seeing excellent sourcing!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Say, when you get a minute, can you please point me to like two or three of your favorite articles in the areas of refs formatting, MOS compliance, etc? I'd like a standard to consider working off of.  Cheers...   01:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In the realm of medical articles, there is autism and Asperger syndrome (which use vcite because it loads faster), Tourette syndrome (which I formatted manually, something different) ... but probably the best for you would be Ketogenic diet.  is one of Wikipedia's treasures, and his articles are perfect!  I've been trying to do a bit here and there in between other things, but the other things are persistently obnoxious ! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Broken Sword 1 reminder No. 2
Another reminder. - Resolved the issues, and found a great copy-editor. He's not a non-gamer, but when it comes to CEs, he's good, real good. :) Best, --Khanassassin ☪ 15:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add that I'm a bit rusty when it comes to copyediting, and that I didn't have time to do my standard two-pass process. If you still have 1a concerns, I'll see if I can adjust my schedule to do a second pass. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I've said it a million times, but if you add a link here, I'll revisit right away. When you don't, I forget. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Small archives are for small fries
Mine was bigger than yours, :p -- My 76  Strat  (talk) 06:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OMG Lol. — ΛΧΣ  21  06:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Richard Nixon talk page notice
I have added a section on the talk page for the article Richard Nixon titled "Section deleted on 13 December 2012." Please share your thoughts on the talk page. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Wenger FAC
Thanks for your comments, have withdrawn the article as suggested. Could you care to clarify the "multiple sections with the same names", I've only identified 'Foriegners at Arsenal' being one. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Lemonade ... or  are editors who may be willing to help with a copyedit.  On the section headings, see WP:MOSHEAD: "Section and subsection headings should preferably be unique within a page; otherwise section links may lead to the wrong place, and automatic edit summaries can be ambiguous."  The article has both Player and Manager twice:

I suspect that's probably the result of some WikiProject Guideline, which needs to be fixed. Good luck! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 7 Statistics
 * 7.1 Player
 * 7.2 Manager
 * 8 Honours
 * 8.1 Player
 * 8.2 Manager

Child psychiatry
It seems you have expertise in this field. Interesting, wikipedia's coverage of course could be much improved of it. You might be interested in collaborating on a few DYKs such as International Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Allied Professions and Western New England Institute of Psychoanalysis; your knowledge would be warmly welcomed.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  15:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Or maybe National Child Traumatic Stress Network, ya think (that took me 10 minutes or so)? Anyway, proof that WP:RED works.  DYK doesn't.  Donald J. Cohen could have been a very nice DYK; I'm not interested.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Blofeld, here is what you're missing. We had a national tragedy.  A legendary man started the program that is being used today to counsel grieving families in Sandy Hook.  I happen to have written that article last spring. His name, and that effort, are out there in the press, in the blogs, and being talked about by those who knew what he had done.  And look at how many people care about that article?  Wow-- 10 to 50 per day.   Here is another. I have no need to divert my editing efforts and time to dealing with DYK.  I wrote the article because the man deserved it.  Your motivations may be different; fine. But DYK is still a copyvio factory, and it won't be a place I want to associate with until someone besides Nikkimaria does something about that. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am more concerned that DYK encourages badge collecting, and results in posting of rubbish DYKs. But then I don't have much to do with the copyvio corps.  Rich Farmbrough, 22:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC).

A little note
This made me change my mind. I won't edit Venezuelan articles anymore (at least those related to elections). — ΛΧΣ  21  23:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey
Regardless of our differences .. stepping outside of wikipedia for a moment Sandy - I honestly do wish you a very happy holiday season. After the holidays? Then I'll gear up and debate whatever you want .. but for now - I wish you happiness for you and your family. — Ched : ?  00:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

A question about a comment in your voter guide

 * User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes2012

I had a question about a comment you made in passing in your voter guide, but I decided to defer bringing it up until after the election. In your introduction, you wrote that you resigned as FA delegate "in February 2012 so I could focus more on my area of editing interest (medical articles) after Wikimedia Foundation efforts furthered programs that have caused deterioration in the quality of Wikipedia's medical content." Either I have forgotten, or I never knew, what your concern was in this regard. Could I ask you to briefly explain or let me have a link? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not Sandy, but I suspect you'll find your answers in her recent comments here. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll take a look at that page tomorrow. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There's more than that, NYB; I'll try to type up something later today that won't require 50 typo corrections. I bet you're glad those elections are over!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't take this as a writing assignment or anything like that, especially since whatever you identify as a problem may not be something I can do anything about in any event, no matter how I might feel about it. But I do try to keep abreast of what editors perceive as serious problems on the project, and I could tell from your guide that you were troubled by this one, so I'd like to have at least a general idea of what it is, and perhaps your other watchers here might as well. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't undertaken the "writing assignment" yet because the issues I saw with WMF and the Education Programs (that have negatively impacted my medical editing) have grown into now four related issues ... related in my mind, at least. Did you get the gist of the issues at WP:ENB?  There's a lot to read there, but the dialogue is a worthwhile read; you can get a sense of the community divide.  I'll write more tomorrow ... really wanted to finish my tree!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I found WP:ENB very illuminating. I have recently done some work at the metallocene article.  After a while, I stepped back and asked how the article had come to be in its present state - my recollection of it was of a much better-written article.  So, I looked in the history and found this edit.  I posted a request at WT:CHEMISTRY for clean-up of the article, recognising from the user name that it was likely student work, but it wasn't until I read WP:ENB that everything crystallised in my mind.  This set of student work was done in the sandbox, as some at ENB advocate, but then was dropped into article space in a huge slab, a problem that Sandy has been commenting on at length.  The idea of wading through all of the new material and trying to make it encyclopaedic whilst also working on referencing, checking accuracy, etc., is more than I am up to doing at the moment.  So, Sandy has an excellent point... here is an example of an article where a large amount of work in clean-up is needed and where there is a real question as to whether the new material is a net positive addition once the problems of poor writing, reorganisation, referencing and reference checking, editing out the WP:NOT material, fixing overlinking and MOS issues, etc. etc. are all addressed.  This is an article that requires expertise to edit and fix, I know WP has little regard for experts, but I can think of much better uses for the time of those editors.  Further, looking at the issue of helping develop the students as editors, I take much more satisfaction from my recent WP:FAC review of asymmetric hydrogenation where I see an editor who is likely to contribute positively and my investment of time is much more likely to pay off in ongoing quality contributions.  Fixing the metallocene article, I see a lot of work cleaning up a mess that not only isn't my responsibility or problem but also is partly created by a WMF structure that (to me) reflects an attitude of underappreciation of the time and efforts of volunteers that actually build the 'pedia, and I resent the idea of spending my time on the article when it would have been better spent (and would have been more satisfying) developing the old version of the article.  And, I'm annoyed about the time I spent before I realised what had actually happened here.  Sandy, sorry for the rant, but I do feel better for saying this and in a place where someone like Brad might hear and be influenced in his thinking.  Regards, EdChem (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you muchly, Ed; you completed one part of my "writing assignment" quite nicely. Your post summarizes what is happening to me over and over and over.  I'm not sure if the problem is more pronounced in medicine or if others just haven't spoken up yet, but when I was first raising the issues (several years ago), the problem was compounded by the wall I hit when speaking to staff.  It was clear that established editors were undervalued.  I had promised medical editors like Colin I would help, and I was watching article after article fall apart while there weren't enough editors to deal with the problem.  Now that more people (like you and Slim and Melanie and Colin) are speaking up, at least we are being heard.  Now that you have summarized the Education Program portion to NYB, I can focus on describing the other, similar problems.  The despair is that paid staff are taking over and undervaluing the efforts of the free volunteers, at the same time that the arbs aren't helping either-- so yes, there is a factor that NYB can influence. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:21, December 12, 2012‎ (UTC)

Four issues affecting "regular" editors
Ok, digging in:
 * In your introduction, you wrote that you resigned as FA delegate "in February 2012 so I could focus more on my area of editing interest (medical articles) after Wikimedia Foundation efforts furthered programs that have caused deterioration in the quality of Wikipedia's medical content." Either I have forgotten, or I never knew, what your concern was in this regard. Could I ask you to briefly explain or let me have a link? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, NYB. My statement when I resigned is at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive55. While I was speaking mainly then about the 1) problem with student editing of medical articles-- and that my FAC duties were preventing me from returning to article work and helping my colleagues deal with the onslaught as I had earlier promised I would-- in my resignation, I also touched on two other areas of concern. Just as the situation with article deterioration and demoralization of established editors due to student editing has worsened since I wrote that statement, so have two other areas I touched on in my resignation statement:  2) "That task is made much more difficult by the apparent intent of WMF to emphasize quantity over quality" and 3) "POV dominates almost every article in the Venezuelan suite of articles".  A fourth concern encompasses these three: 4) a widening rift related to the value of "unpaid volunteers" who are increasingly at odds with paid staff or WMF-funded programs. On the ENB discussion board, both Malleus and Slim sum up the frustration well in what I see as the relationship between my first three concerns and the fourth: Malleus and Slim. Jbmurray (whose student FAs helped launch the Education program concept) added this (with an oopsie), which discusses the money factor, among others. The four issues:
 * 1) On the serious problems with the Educational program and student editing, there are any number of issues there that could end up in arbitration; I recommend reading the current page at WP:ENB. More editors are weighing in now than when I first encountered the same problems over the last few years.  The discussion has been robust.  Important concerns (rampant plagiarism, ethical, financial, article deterioration, students being coerced to publish under real names, and relating to Section 230) have been raised but not addressed adequately by the WMF, and there are more examples and eloquent descriptions of the problem there than I could summarize here.  The medical editors that are left on Wikipedia (and several of our finest are gone, as you may know) are unable to keep up with the impact. One sample of what is hitting medical watchlists over and over is discussed here.
 * 2) "That task is made much more difficult by the apparent intent of WMF to emphasize quantity over quality" ... this comment related not only to the Education Program debacle (that program promoted recruiting more editors at the expense of quality and retention of experienced editors), but also to Sue Gardner's off-the-cuff comments about Featured articles recorded and used against FAC in the attempt to change leadership that started last fall and lasted a year.  Sue Gardener is not ... to use an unfortunate phrase ... a "real Wikipedian" in the sense of editing, adding and improving content, and dealing daily with articles on a watchlist.  I imagine she was passing along something she heard, about which she knew little, when she should have kept quiet, and her dis of the FA process gave ammunition to the very small but vocal minority that wanted to unseat Raul654 as FA director.  Here we have another instance of paid staff at odds with the unpaid volunteers, and in this case, one who probably didn't really even know what she was saying.  Seeing that attitude reinforced my feeling that I would be better off getting back to medical content work, and reviewing articles at FAC, where I could make a bigger difference than I could as a delegate. She never fully retracted her statement: I don't think she could have because I don't think she understands what she said or how it was interpreted.  Her comment (combined with the socks and a returning editor breaching CLEANSTART and RTV) gave fuel to and allowed the campaign against FAC to continue longer than need be.  I had a very busy summer, but every time I found time to peek back in here, I found that in spite of four RFCs, and in spite of Raul and me both standing down (in my case, hoping the furor would die down in my absence, I can't speak for Raul, but likely the same), the same small group continued the issue, merely moving it from FAC to TFAR.  Paid staff had a role in allowing that to continue by making ill-informed statements that fueled the fire.  And when given a chance to address the battleground that continued even in my absence and Raul's absence, the arbs declined to do anything about the Merridew's taunting.
 * 3) "POV dominates almost every article in the Venezuelan suite of articles"; yet another situation where WMF money and funding seems to be driving quality down.  POV was an issue when I resigned, and I hoped by resigning I would have more free time to re-engage with Venezuelan topics.  While I was busy over the summer, any possibility of engaging Venezuelan topics with the aim of NPOV was eliminated.  The WMF funded a Wikimedia Chapter in Venezuela, and the editing histories of the editors staffing officers of that chapter are no surprise.  In Venezuela, if one criticizes Chavez or chavismo, one jeopardizes life and limb, livelihood and family.  Period.  You can be forced into exile, you or your children kidnapped and robbed; shot, knifed or murdered; lose your job, be persecuted by various authorities, tax, police, etc ... in short, no Venezuelan who might help neutralize the Venezuelan suite of articles would ever join a public chapter, and the chapter will only serve to allow editors who would further pro-Chavez POV to band together, courtesy of WMF.  I've looked into the editing history of the editors staffing who are officers of the chapter and have not been surprised by what I've found. So, the WMF has in effect funded POV editing on Wikipedia, and assured that editors attempting neutrality will be unable to gain consensus, overwhelmed by the volume of recruits on WMF's dime.  This is another example of the WMF having more money than it knows what to do with, and passing it out without awareness or consideration of the consequences to article quality, and in a way that undermines the pillars of the project.  Just after I resigned, Jimbo pinged my talk saying he was ready to work with me on reducing hagiography and increasing neutrality in Venezuelan articles: I would not even consider trying now to neutralize Venezuelan topics and I note that the POV tag is gone from the Hugo Chavez hagiography.
 * 4) Which brings us to the fourth, summarizing point: a growing divide between we schmucks who are out here in the trenches as unpaid volunteers, and WMF-funded programs and paid employees who don't understand, value or respect content contributors or article creators.   Another example of this is the loss of one of our finest editors working in the copyvio realm,, when she was hired away to staff.  WMF appears unconcerned with the seriousness of plagiarism and copyvio (re SOPA), and the loss of MRG in her regular editing duties (and what I perceive to be a softening of her stance since she became staff) is a big one.  At some point, it began to feel like the staff (with the exception of MRG, generally not very knowledgeable about content) and various funded programs are going to outnumber the rest of us dummies who are toiling along in the trenches as free unpaid volunteers.  What is emerging from the ENB is that no one is effectively running most parts of the WMF, and increasingly non-editors are trying to keep their jobs by spending donated funds on ill-advised programs that are spinning out of control in ways that are impacting us schmucks out here in the trenches.

All of this (what is the value of the unpaid volunteer) brings me to arb matters. I suppose we never will get an answer about what happened behind closed doors that allowed Merridew and Rlevse to taunt, poke, hound and bear out grudges on Raul for almost a full year (to the point that even when Merridew did that on arb pages, no one said a word). Different arbs have given different and contradictory accounts about was known when by whom, and whether they knew Alarbus was Merridew. I've never known either Kirill or Cas to lie or shade the truth, and we still don't know why Elen of the Roads did or said the things she did, seemed to try to bully me into silence, never did answer the questions (to this day), whether the arbs knew or not that Alarbus was Merridew, whether they were aware of the full extent of his taunting and hounding (even though some of it appeared on arbitration pages and it was all over FAC and TFAR, looking like breaching experiments to challenge the status quo), whether they cared that he was changing accounts to avoid detection each time he encountered resistance to installing his preferred citation style on different suites of FAs, why the arbs turned a blind eye when a known sockmaster who had previously been admonished to stick to one account with a finding that he had wikihounded continued to hound and taunt Raul (even under the arbs' noses), and why we were met with a wall of contradictory and incomplete answers from different arbs. All in all, the bottom line is that there no longer seems to be any part of this project where one can expect quality in content to be upheld. Staff and funded programs are not advancing quality, and some of the arbs-- for reasons still unknown-- said they knew Alarbus was Merridew, but let him continue to taunt and hound to the point of chasing off many FAC participants-- an effect still felt today in the decline in quality reviews. I think that's about it. Best regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Venezuela

 * I can't work out how much, if anything, WMF has given Wikimedia Venezuela, but it won't I think be much. I don't believe they have any "staff", and whatever cash they get probably goes on travel and small expenses for events. The editing the 45 members do is volunteer editing just like yours. Johnbod (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Here you go:  That is a boatload of money in bolivares (even after Chavez gets his share if the $$ were not exchanged on the black market).  Also, staff.  Have a look at this quite fine FA on en.wiki:  The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (film).  In the es.wiki (Spanish) article, one of those staff has maintained that article POV, and after reverting to his/her preferred POV version, protected the article (is that allowed on the Spanish wiki?) ... can't remember which.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks - as I said, no salaries, & apart from a pc & printer etc the biggest headings are travel & whatever you have in Venezuela for tea & biscuits. I see the revolution has not yet swept away Venezuelan notaries! They have no more "staff" than your local PTA. Johnbod (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct, no salaries-- I was using "staffing" in an informal sense. Setting aside that this amount of $$$ translates to a huge amount of bolivares and buying power (because my argument wasn't about the amount of money), the point was/is that the funding sets up an entity that can only further POV, because no editor who doesn't edit Venezuelan articles with that POV can publicly identify themselves by joining the chapter or letting their identity be known.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I prefer "blatently misleading" for "informal". When you are coming up with this sort of stuff there is little point about complaining about others' POV. Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Attacking the person instead of the issue is the weakest form of argument. We know what my POV is (and we know what yours is, too).  Money donated to WMF is not being used in a way that will further my POV and assure that only my POV will be represented in content.  The issue I am raising in all four points is that the WMF has more money than it knows what to do with, there are leadership issues, they don't always spend money wisely, and they increasingly spend money in ways that affect content and content contributors negatively.  I welcome your comments on the substance of the issue.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to substitute "volunteers who are members of the Venezuelan chapter" for "staff" in your comments above; otherwise they are clearly and intentionally misleading [now changed]. If the active volunteers in the chapter were not busy dealing with notaries and trying to encourage wikipedias in indigenous languages etc they would have a lot more time available to make their edits. The education project works differently but is also run by volunteers who you like to characterize as WMF staff. The striking thing about the WMF is how little interest they take in content, how little involvement they have in it, and how keen they are to devolve anything to do with it to volunteers. Attempts to attribute knock-on effects from WMF grants to a grand conspiracy to degrade WP content run counter to the reality and distract from efforts to tackle individual and different problems that have very different causes. Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to strike the word "intentionally". I didn't see the word "conspiracy" anywhere in my post: if you want a "C" word, (in)competence might be the better choice if we had to choose one, but you still miss the point.  WMF decisions make content work harder and harder. I've reviewed all of my uses of the word staff, highlighted those which were used to indicate paid employees of WMF, and changed two instances to "officers".  By the way, Venezuelans are quite accustomed to what you call "dealing with notaries"; it's how the country functions, even more so these days.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sometimes they do, and sometimes they make it easier, as with the JSTOR subscriptions and many other things. Now I suppose any edits not liked by one of those editors are the fault of the WMF too. The "conspiracy" appears in all your edits going way back, where anything arising in efforts that have received WMF funds is typically regarded as following instructions from the top. Thanks for making those changes; I have factored accordingly. Johnbod (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You still confuse conspiracy with competence; the common theme is that WMF staff (with a few exceptions) aren't "real" editors and seem unaware of the consequences to content of their actions, whether Sue Gardner's comments about FAs, the misguided Education and similar programs, or the latest trend of funding chapters. The bigger picture being, add that to the arbs failure to take actions to stop taunting at FAC, and it's harder and harder to see how content matters in here, or what value we "unpaid volunteers" have.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's what I'm saying you do. Seeing stuff as mere incompetence is progress, though you can't really accuse an elephant knocking over bushes of "incompetence". The latest trend is not funding chapters, as I have tried to point out to you before. Johnbod (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Education programs

 * re NYB and others. Back in February I made a number of comments and suggestions re the Indian Education program, including these proposals that might accord with some of Sandy's concerns. Ten months on and those pages are looking rather dusty, but I suspect that Sandy and others might feel rather more comfortable with such projects if the WMF accepted that a low proportion of copyvio was one way to measure if such schemes are a success. Currently one of the gulfs between the community and the WMF is that many in the community see this sort of WMF outreach as a source of Copyvio, whilst the WMF doesn't measure Copyvio when it calculates whether such schemes are successes or failures. Perhaps the WMF would pay attention if Arbcom were to rule that if there were to be any more such schemes on the English language Wikipedia then a low detected level of Copyvio has to be one of their measures of success.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  20:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not in Arbcom's purview. The community could recommend that educators mark copyvios as a fail, and send a very clear message to the foundation about this. Rich Farmbrough, 23:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC).

Merry Christmas!


— ΛΧΣ  21  is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. — ΛΧΣ  21  05:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


TBr and  ley  is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. TBr and  ley  15:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Year range punctuation in Template:Infobox SCOTUS case
Hi. [ This edit] in Afroyim v. Rusk broke the Infobox SCOTUS case template's logic for displaying the membership of the Supreme Court based on the year range. I changed the en-dash back to a hyphen in order to fix the infobox's output.

The documentation for this template says the SCOTUS parameter "needs a hyphen and not an en-dash between the years". In your opinion, is this a situation where the template is unacceptably fragile and has got to be "fixed" to accept en-dashes as well as hyphens? Or is it OK for the template to insist on a hyphen, given that it's documented? — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Richwales. I'm sorry for the mess !  In trying to track down why this is happening (a template that forces something that conflicts with MOS), I found Template talk:Infobox SCOTUS case.  If I'm reading that correctly, it sounds like the issue could have been fixed, should have been fixed, but maybe didn't get fixed because the writer of one dash script said he'd alter the script so it would avoid infoboxes (I think that's what the conclusion was, but why do we bother with dashes/hyphens anywhere if we exempt them in one infobox? I don't get it ...)  But I use a different script, I think, then the one mentioned there. Yes, it sounds like the template should be fixed, but ... ya know ... on December 24, it's not worth worrying about.  Let's just leave the hyphen, and let some MOS warrior sort out why that template hasn't been made to comply with MOS.  When a minor MOS issue extends beyond FAC's control, it can't be held against an article at FAC.  I'll try to finish up on both law articles today, but for a merrry ho-ho-ho, I get to unexpectedly spend part of Christmas Eve day getting a crown (tooth, not head!), so now I feel terrible about starting a review I might not be able to get back on promptly ... my apologies, and Happy Holidays !!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No biggie. This conflict is clearly going to have to get cleared up, one way or another, but not right this instant.  Which dash-cleanup script did you use, BTW?  I hope the crown happened successfully — they're no fun, I've had two (both on molars).  Have a Merry Christmas.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Lova Falk    talk   19:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)