Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:13, 19 July 2007

• Archive 1: August 2003 - November 2003
• Archive 2: December 2003 - March 2004
• Archive 3: April 2004 - July 2004
• Archive 4: August 2004 - November 2004
• Archive 5: December 2004 - March 2005
• Archive 6: April 2005 - July 2005
• Archive 7: August 2005 - November 2005
• Archive 8: December 2005 - March 2006
• Archive 9: April 2006 - July 2006
• Archive 10: August 2006 - November 2006
• Archive 11: December 2006 - February 2007
• Archive 12: March 2007 - May 2007
• Archive 13: June 2007 - August 2007

Accusation

I am referring to . Please don't accuse me of being someone from the Intelligent Design folks. It's an inappropriate personal attack and a very offensive one. Please stop accusing me of trojan horse argimentation. That's bad faith. Finally, don't block me for "general troublemaking". I have not done anything to you. As an ArbCom member, you should know better than that. --rtc 20:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Deskana end time

Raul, technically the RfB did in fact end at 21:19 as it was posted to WP:RFA at 21:19 3 July 2007 . On the admins channel on IRC, we were having a bit of fun with Deskana, who was jittery about the result. The end time changing was a bit of fun in support of that; entirely accurate, but just a bit of fun. The promotion was an obvious consensus, and there's no disputing that. Eight minutes would not make any difference. Just wanted you to understand why it was done. Thanks, --Durin 21:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Your message

Thanks I appreciated it! Giano 22:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Andrevan RfB

What do you think the consensus is here? Given this falls below the 90% threshold that is normally accepted, what do you think is appropriate? --Deskana (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've posted on the Bureaucrat's noticeboard asking for input related to that (and Ral's RFB as well). Raul654 02:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Andre (talk) 02:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Raul654 03:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ral's RfB

In response to your query, Raul, I would strongly object to promotion. I posted a rather extensive oppose on Ral's RfB. Therefore, I do not think I should close. Also, there are still four hours to go so we can't be conclusive now. If it really is a broil when it actually closes, I think bureaucrat only chat is appropriate. The non-bureaucrats will already have had their say. Otherwise, extend the RfB for 24 or 48 hours. -- Cecropia 03:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I know you object, which is why I'm treating this one with kid gloves. I think your suggestion to extend the nomination to a reasonable hour is a good one. Raul654 03:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

{edit conflict) To elaborate just a bit, I really wasn't sure there would be a problem until just today (soon to be yesterday) when I saw a rapid buildup in support and then looked at The Signpost. We already have two competent (I believe) new bureaucrats. I think it would be better both RfA and Ral and the signpost to not promote this as discretionary. -- Cecropia

Either 24 hours or 48 hours would give people a chance to absorb whether they find my oppose important or not. If you are amenable to extending, I think doing it now would be best so we're not going down to the wire. Cheers, Cecropia 03:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the point of extending it would be to have it end at an hour that isn't in the middle of the night for me (and presumably you) :) -- how's 40 hours? Raul654 03:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. :) -- Cecropia 03:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that an extension to a time convenient for you will be less convenient for crats in other parts of the world. The advantage of a close and a bureaucrat chat is that you can canvass the opinions of more crats without requiring them all to be in the same timezone. WjBscribe 03:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd thought about that. I'm not going to do multiple extensions. I think what I'll do is extend once for 40 hours, after which (if there isn't a clear result) I can freeze it and we can talk about it. But in order for me to do that, I want it to end at a time convenient for me. Raul654 03:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Raul's laws

I was reading your Raul's laws and was struck by Rule 11 - By the same token, the users who most zealously advocate changing Misplaced Pages's rules are the users who refuse to obey the rules as they currently exist. Their article looks like its going to be deleted at AfD or are in a debate over an issue specific to an article, they run over to the policy or guideline affecting their particular issue and change it or work to change it. Scholarly reliable sources are better than newspaper reliable sources for important topics like Global warming so we need to change WP:V to establish this. An unsourced Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Misérables is about a classic work so we need to change WP:NOT#PLOT. I get the impression that such efforts are increasing due in part to the increased speed at which editors understand how the system works. Do you get a sense that there is an increase in such efforts or is it pretty much the same as before? -- Jreferee 07:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If do not understand the above comment. Who is they? What is "their article"? You may also wish to read this - "What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such." Raul654 20:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

There was an effort to use that ArbCom ruling to insert into W:V that no non-academic sources could be used in science or history articles at all, no matter how reliable. I think this is what Jreferee was referring to. SlimVirgin 20:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

For historical topics, that's clearly wrong - we can and should be using first person sources. For science topics, off the top of my head I can't think of any specific situations in which prohibiting non-academic sources would be a problem, but I tend to suspect it would. Raul654 01:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Raul654. "Their article" refers in general to articles by users who refuse to obey the rules as they currently exist. "They run over" refers to 'the users who refuse to obey the rules as they currently exist run over'. Two recent examples (at WP:V and at WP:NOT#PLOT as noted above) gave me the general impression that efforts to advocate changing Misplaced Pages's rules are increasing by those who refuse to obey the rules. I was wondering if you too sensed an overall increase in efforts to change Misplaced Pages's rules by those who refuse to obey the rules. I was impressed that your Rule 11 written a while ago was true even today. Sorry for the confusion. -- Jreferee 22:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting FAC

I was wondering if you might cast an eye over this current FAC? Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Introduction to general relativity. Reading this article has got me (an architect) the closest to actually understanding relativity as I've ever got. Objections are being raised that wikipedia is not a text book and that it should be merged into General relativity or punted over to Simple English. I disagree and think there are some subjects of considerable importance to modern life, that do warrant a special approach by wikipedia, and that such articles are a credit to us. Care to take a view? --Joopercoopers 15:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not fond of "Introduction to..."-type articles, for exactly the reason you just mentioned - Misplaced Pages is not a textbook. I'm not saying the material should be deleted -- it's just the general relativity article should be written such that it covers all the material covered by the introductory article. Raul654 20:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

On the same token, though, disagreeing with the topicality of a well-written article should be no grounds for opposing the article's FAC. The article should be looked at from it's current position, and if it meets the criteria, then it should be supported and accepted. While it's technically not too late to merge the articles, it would probably be an inappropriate action to take at this point in time, but since I have yet to review the article, I should not say anything further. _└┘t  20:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the interesting thing about this FAC is that when judged against the criteria, it will probably fail 1b. comprehensiveness. But here's the thing. On the one hand we don't want to 'dumb down' wikipedia, but on the other it should be intelligeble to a general readership. In my view FA's shouldn't be so technical as to prevent the later, particularly with such 'non-intuitive' subject matter. How can we achieve this in this case? The opinion voiced by a number of objectors is that there is a holy grail/beautiful balance that can be struck in the main article. I think this is wishful thinking. The beauty of the simplified version is, in part, it's approach - a sequencial explanation of the evolution of the precusor theories, and also its paring away of extraneous facts. So we're in the strange situation where we have a superb article, understandable by most intelligent but non-specialist readers, that can't be considered one of wikipedia's best because it will be charged as not comprehensive by a scientific elite. In my opinion there's no reason why an introduction and a full version can't both be considered 'our best work' - the introduction immediately disclaims its comprehensiveness in its title, so its hardly misleading, and the benefits are incalcuable. Aren't we here to inform? --Joopercoopers 22:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has at least 450 Simpsons articles (very quick count), including one on D'oh. I don't oppose these because there are people willing to write all of them (certainly this is an excessive number dedicated to a single television series that has lasted a mere twenty years - empires that lasted for hundreds or even thousands of years get less coverage on wikipedia). What is the big deal about two useful articles on general relativity? As I said on the FAC page, I fail to see the harm here. I see only benefits: both specialist and lay readers can gain a better understanding of general relativity. A combined article would necessarily suffer on either the mathematics or the metaphorical explanation. (By the way, if you want to delete an article, it would not be the "introduction to general relativity" but rather "general relativity". That is the specialist article.) Perhaps I should suggest a merger of those 450 articles... Awadewit | talk 11:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

One more voice in favor of "introduction" articles in general. Absolutely our goal is to both cover a topic comprehensively, and make it understandable, but there really are certain topics that you just can't do that to in only 30-60K of text. Relativity is possibly the poster child for this; there is a lot to it, and it just isn't simple. So the basic approach here, where one article goes for comprehensive, and the other goes for introductory, is a fine solution. There won't be an infinite number of articles like this; articles on people, or places, or things, or events, which between them will always make up 99% of our content won't need introductions ... but this is a large, complex, and unintuitive concept, that has made a significant impact on the world. --AnonEMouse 14:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, the size of a topic should never be a consideration. There are topics on which 100s of books and tens of thousands of pages have been written. Summary style and subsidiary articles deal very well with size. What is an issue here is complexity and technical material and the level of knowledge assumed of the reader. Should the article be self-contained (as stated at Misplaced Pages:The perfect article: "it includes essential information and terminology, and is comprehensible by itself, without requiring significant reading of other articles"? Or should it assume a certain level of existing knowledge? Should Misplaced Pages attempt to do introductory articles? I think it should. Carcharoth 15:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen this?

User_talk:SandyGeorgia#Your_comments_at_FAR.

News to me that I'm a part of an anti-Raul cabal! Marskell 17:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Per Yomangani's very funny post to my talk page, I just want to know if President of the Society for the Destruction of Raul645 (sic) is a paid position :-) I've got overnight houseguests due, so will have to continue my cackling later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Raul, I'm very surprised and annoyed by this and hope it won't worry you in any way. Please be assured that I, and every editor I have mentioned you to, hold you in extremely high regard and are deeply appreciative of the hard and generally-unsung work you put into making the FA process run as smoothly as it does. You are a valued and highly-respected member of the Misplaced Pages community. Tim Vickers 16:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Your input on Andrevan's RfB closure would be appreciated

Please see Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Promotion_of_Andrevan. Thank you, --Durin 17:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Please? Haukur 11:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Haukur 13:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied there. Any replies to my replies will have to wait until I get back. Raul654 13:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No they won't - but any replies to replies to your replies will. :) Haukur 13:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Your further response is requested at Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Promotion_of_Andrevan. Thank you. --Durin 13:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

My edit

Didn't even know that I did it. I was looking through you edits and I must have clicked it, the page must of reloaded, and then I must of clicked another link before the page could have refreshed. My mistake. Pepsidrinka 20:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at your revision to the page, but I didn't know that I had hit the rollback button. Pepsidrinka 20:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Happens to everyone Raul654 20:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Bot break

In case you're planning to do any promotion/archiving, the bot operator will be away from the net until sometime in the evening of 7/15. Gimmetrow 21:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

My girlfriend is flying up from Florida tomorrow and we're going to the beach over the weekend (no internet access). I do want to do some archiving/promoting before then, since the FAC is getting out of hand. Raul654 01:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Gimme may be gone already, Raul; he's mentioned to me several times that he'll have a problem with weekends over the summer, but that Sunday night promotions would work for him. Not sure if this helps any ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the FAC can wait until Sunday night if it has to. Raul654 03:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

-1= 0

Could you please tell me what line the mistake is in? In exchange, allow me to hand over a more common and less challenging 1=2 proof:

let a = b

multiply both by a

a.a = a.b

take b squared from both sides

a.a - b.b = a.b - b.b

(a-b)(a+b) = b.(a-b)

Cancel out the (a-b) on both sides

a + b = b

Since a= b then the following substitution is valid:

b + b = b

2b = b

Cancel out the b's

2 = 1.

Ofcourse from here we can proove any number is equal to anything! Tourskin 22:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied on Tourskin's talk page. Raul654 01:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

FAC list

You may want to whittle down the 80+ item FAC list.Sumoeagle179 00:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I want to, but (a) apparently the bot operator is out until Sunday night, and (b) I won't be here until then either. So it'll have to wait a couple more days. Raul654 13:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Seeing that you are awake

Would you mind having a look at this thread? I'm quite weary to fill out a BugZilla ticket with only two 'crats liking the idea. Titoxd 01:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to get much done in the few hours I have to edit tonight before I leave for the beach tomorrow. I'll put it on my list of things to do, but I make no promises that I'll get to it for a while. Raul654 01:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Cameroon on the Main Page

Hi, Raul. I see you have Cameroon scheduled to be on the Main Page tomorrow, July 14. I'm going to be out of town and away from internet that day, and I'd like to be able to keep an eye on the page while it's featured so prominently. Would it be possible to trade Cameroon's place in the queue with another article? I'll be back to internet Sunday night, so Monday or later would be perfect. Sorry for being a bother; if it's impossible, I can live with that! Better to have the article on the Main Page when I can't look after it than to not have it there at all! Thanks, — Brian (talk) 04:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 04:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Bengali Language Movement FAC

Hi, Misplaced Pages:Featured_article_candidates/Bengali_Language_Movement is now at a stable state, with all opposition issues either withdrawn, or fully covered. The article has gone through a lot of copyedit, and the editors who initially opposed (e.g. User:Tony1) now opine that the article has improved to FA level. So, can you please close the FAC? Thanks. --Ragib 18:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Some FAC issues

Dear Raul, When you get back into things and before you get stuck into promoting etc. you may want to take a bit of time and have a look at some comments by Spamsara (talk · contribs) on Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Ailanthus altissima and Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Deinonychus - in terms of how many cites there should be in a Featured Article, which then may lead to some clarification on FA criteria etc. (Obviously in one case I have a vested interest but I've tried to open it up for debate on FAC talk page) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

login problem

Hello! I am user ro:Utilizator:Bekuletz on the romanian wikipedia. I have a little problem with my en.wiki account, it seems i've lost my password. I can't remember when I created it, and I think I have not confirmed my email address for that account. I have made no edits on en.wiki using the username User:Bekuletz. My confirmed email address for the ro.wiki account in bekuletz@gmail.com. Can you reset the password, or delete the account so I create a new one? Please answer on my ro.wiki talk page, or send me an email to the address I have mentioned. Thanks! ro:Utlizator:Bekuletz --01:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

FAC for Northeastern United States tornado outbreak of 1989

I would like to withdraw my FAC nomination. Other users have suggested that part of the article is significantly lacking, and their criticisms will require a few months of work to correct. Thank you. -RunningOnBrains 04:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

2007 Canadian Grand Prix FAC

Can I ask why you failed this so quickly. All issues had been addressed in some. I was waiting for more feedback. Buc 05:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

J. D. Salinger FAC

I too was disheartened to see my FA candidate, J. D. Salinger, delisted and archived. True, it had received two votes to delist, but the first was from a user who has since been blocked and vanished, and the very next comment on the nomination after his was "please don't delist it." The second user who voted to delist has engaged in a dialogue with me about improvements to the article, and I have made all of them except for one (adding peer-reviewed journal refs) which I said on the FAC page (since archived) would take me a few days to make. Did I overstep some time limit for FACs? I just felt like the article was so close, you know? Thanks, Hobbesy3 05:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Scaling FAC?

Raul, I periodically think about how FAC would scale further, but I don't want to waste bandwidth at WT:FAC if this is not really a concern at current levels of activity. Examples of things which I assume are very time-consuming to do thoroughly: complex noms that have lots of responses and which take a lot of time to read and evaluate; getting through the sheer volume of FACs; seeing which of the FA criteria have actually been reviewed and which are outstanding; seeing if anyone with content expertise has looked at the article. Do you see bandwidth as a significant issue right now or in the near future? If not, I think the system is doing fine; otherwise, I'd be interested in seeing what ideas people have, and might post some myself. Mike Christie (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

what is the code for the wikistress thing

the title says it all

(Raul - I assume you won't mind) Please see Template talk:Wstress3d. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The current hot topic

Hi Mark,

I see from the discussions at the "talky" parts of RfA that they are trying to see you don't get much work done today. ;-) For my own part, I would really appreciate it if, in future RfAs (and especially RfBs) that you follow the convention of not discussing pending matters (between closing and decision) with the general community, even within project space. I understand and respect that your style is to bring things to a rapid and satisfactory conclusion, but sometimes speed is not the only issue and there are other bureaucrats, both to discuss with or to make the decision themselves if need be. When bureaucrat responsibilities are discussed with whoever else just happens to be online at the time, it empowers a handful of respondents to try to move a process that is the province of the entire community and the responsibility only of the community-chosen bureaucrats to resolve. Just as a practical matter, you can see the ongoing heat generated by making even a correct but swift opinion on a disputed matter. Best regards, Cecropia 15:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

House demolition FAC

House demolition has now been stable for a couple of weeks, so per your earlier suggestion I've nominated it for FA status - see Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/House demolition. Please feel free to comment! -- ChrisO 22:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Gimmebot

Ack!! What is Plan B? I know all the steps to do it manually, but ohmigosh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That last promoted/archived bunch hasn't been botified. I asked Rick Block (talk · contribs) if he could be of any assistance, and started a list of the steps in each process at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox (not including updates to articlehistory). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hrm... I'd prefer not to wait a week to do promotions. What are our options? Raul654 15:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the best plan is, because I don't know why he went on break; this was news to me, and I'm concerned about how long he might be gone. Actually, I'm more than concerned; I'm downright undone and worried, because Gimmetrow asked me at the beginning of the summer if I could learn to run the bot, and perhaps I let him down. If Rick Block is able to help automate some of it, we can probably keep up manually until/unless we hear from Gimmetrow. And, perhaps we could go back to adding the old templates to the pages for facfailed, etc. until we get a better idea of when/if GimmeBot will be back to update ArticleHistory. Further conversation on RickBlock's page, and sample steps at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If Gimmetrow is truly gone for a long period, and/or a backup is needed, I'd be willing to look at what it would take. I probably have sufficient technical background to be able to run it. I would rather not be first choice, if another volunteer with more spare time can be found, but I'll volunteer if needed. Mike Christie (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't have the bot code, Mike. Gimemtrow asked me if I could run it at the beginning of the summer (because he was going to be unavailable on summer weekends), and I said no :-( Several people have volunteered to help, so we need to coordinate this conversation somewhere off of Raul's busy talk page. Raul, should we move it to the talk page of my Sandbox? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The FAC promotions/failures look easy. I'll do the lot from the 17th when I get back this afternoon if nobody gets them beforehand. Yomangani 16:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

ah, the gems come out of the woodwork fast :-) Do you have Dr pda's articlehistory script, or would you rather leave that part to me or Fvasconcellos? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I should be able to manually keep up with the FARs, since that's a lower volume; it's the FACs that are daunting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

PS, to my knowledge, the people with programming skills who are most familiar with the task are Rick Block and Dr pda, but judging from Dr pda's contribs, he's busy and not on-Wiki much. I think Rick Block can probably jump in the quickest to do something, but will wait to hear his response. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If anyone needs help updating ArticleHistory, I'll gladly jump in, just slap me upside the head. I did a few manually back when the template was first created, and, although it takes considerably longer, I think I'm pretty accurate :) Now, where can I get this articlehistory script everyone's talking about? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, heck, I'm so useless on that stuff. Can you browse the talk page at Dr pda (talk · contribs) and figure out how to add it to your monobook, or can you grab it from my monobook? I'm not sure how that works. Doing articlehistory without it is not a healthy undertaking :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Got it. I know, Talk:Cocaine gave me a lot of trouble... At least it was a nice challenge :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

oh, it's a boatload of work at first, but we are finally getting to a point where we are reaping the benefits, and I don't have to fix almost _every single nom_ that shows up on FAC (an example is the kind of mess now at those Raelian articles). If anyone is interested, pls also grab the articlehistory error category from the userbox on my userpage, as I have to browse it daily for errors introduced by vandalism and the GA folk :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Goodness gracious

Tell me Santa Claus exists; tell me there's justice in the world; tell me that I'm not seeing people asking me to make lists of things on my FAC! Everything I've learned on Misplaced Pages goes against it! Can you just confirm that I'm not going insane? Zeality 05:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The comments on Sandy's talk

Raul, I usually abide by the adage regarding sleeping dogs, but I find myself unable to at the moment. A week ago I posted you a link to a thread started by FeloniousMonk on Sandy's talk. Here it is again. It's since expanded (though he has said nothing else himself), but all I really care about is the initial post. It's a smear. It's a smear of the worst sort, because it's obviously hearsay (he's never interacted with me, and I don't think with the others). And it's damaging because it hits good faith long-term editors who don't deserve it. I need to know whether you avow it, and if so I would like to see it typed from your fingers. I ask because you've been silent; perhaps you thought my initially bringing it up was glib or unconcerned. If I were the only name mentioned, I'd pay no mind. But slandering TimV (who, as you know, is one of our most prolific current FA producers) and Sandy (who, as you also know, puts in more personhours than anyone for FAs) is not right. Does Tony send shots your way? Yes, sometimes—but Tony's a big boy and is allowed his opinions. I do not believe I have ever directed the slightest hostility towards you. So: do you feel I and others mentioned are trying to "undermine" you? I would very much like to know. Marskell 17:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess I need to grow some balls; I too would like an answer. Four respected editors in good standing were smeared, and that's not good for the Project or for Wiki's culture. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Aha, finally an answer to the gender question ... or is it? --AnonEMouse 19:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

TimVickers is calling me "babe" now; that's my story and I'm sticking with it. Anyway, I was up late last night putting together the GimmeBot Sandbox info, and just got a nap, so back to finish my commentary. The comments on the FAR were not from Marskell, Tony or TimVickers—they were mine. It was wrong of me to characterize the lead of the article as "embarrassing", because that belittled people's work. And the FAR wasn't the appropriate place to raise a question about the appearance of conflict of interest, so I sincerely apologize to Mark for that; I don't envy the considerable crap that goes along with your position and have always tried to help. Also, the silliness on my talk page doesn't reflect upon how seriously I view this matter; it was an attempt to keep it calm, and to keep two other editors with a history of hot-headed encounters from going at each other. IMO, this is very serious, and Misplaced Pages should scrap any pretense of a pillar code of conduct if the culture tolerates the kind of "phlegm" FM deposited on my talk page and on FAR. Policy pages are not owned by anyone and there should be no place on Wiki for the intimidation, harrassment, lack of civility and failure to assume good faith expressed by FM on my talk page. Considering your silence, I would like to know if you believe I have intended to undermine you or carry on a "vendetta". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a sensitive issue which I have been trying to handle delicately. My intention until now has been to refrain from saying anything publicly to avoid taking sides and inflaming the issue. I believe Marskell is correct when he says that Tony sends shots my way (this one was a bit on the stranger side). I have quite intentionally avoided reciprocating to Tony's remarks (again, to avoid inflaming the situation and driving Tony away). FM, Giano and others believe Tony is undermining me and that I'm ignorant of what he's doing. I'm not ignorant - I have chosen to avoid the baiting. Further, they (FM, Giano, et al) have painted Marskell and Sandy with the same brush. I believe they are in error on this. I have never gotten the sense of hostility from Marskell or Sandy.

Without meaning to sound sappy, I can say without reservation that we all have the best intentions at heart. It is my sincerest wish that all the people who regularly participate on FAC and FAR, as reviewers, nominators, and editors (all of you: Tony, Sandy, Marskell, FM, Tim, Giano, Lucifer, etc) could work together amicably. Raul654 21:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)