Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:12, 23 November 2012

Archives

2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · 2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013–2015 · 2016–2017 · 2018 · 2019 · 2020 · FA archive sorting · 2021 · 2022 · 2023 Jan–Mar (DCGAR) · 2023 Apr–Aug · 2023 Aug–Dec · 2023 Seasons greetings · 2024 · 2025

I prefer to keep conversations together and usually respond on my talk page, so watch the page for my reply.

To leave me a message, click here.

Hallmark

Thanks for helping out with Hallmark of Hall of Fame movie Front of the Classs. I couldn't get the image to work for me, but it's there now and that's what counts. Also thanks for finding more sources and filling the blanks, such as summaries and plots. That's not my kind of thing. I was surprised no other user took the time to make a movie link, when Front of the Class was first announced. Especially since there's so much information out there now for Hallmark movies.

Your help is really appriciated. GiantTiger001 (talk) 07:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Ack! Thanks for the reminder that I was interrupted by Wikidrahmaz just as I was intending to expand that article from the sources. And thanks for getting the ball rolling. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Medical sources handout/paragraph

Sandy, if/when you create the sentences or handout or whatever it's going to be on sourcing, could you ping me? The students on the course I am working with (Misplaced Pages:United States Education Program/Courses/Psychology of Language (Kyle Chambers)) are having some trouble with correctly identifying secondary sources, according to a more experienced editor I'm talking to. I think your notes would be helpful. On the plus side, they seem to have been instructed to post notes to the article talk page offering to fix problems -- I've seen this note on several talk pages, almost identically phrased: "If anyone has any comments on the material that I have added or any more material that they believe should be added please comment on the talk page and I will be more than glad to take into account any comments". Let's hope they are as good as their word. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Assessing psychology articles in the education program

Sandy, I don't know if you saw the note I posted to the education noticeboard about assessing student articles, but I thought I'd check to see if you would be interested in assessing a couple of articles in the psychology area that you've been dealing with. You expressed some concern about whether the metric we're using for quality is good enough, so you may not want to participate on that basis, but if you're interested, you'd be a big help, because you'd be a lot more accurate than I would in assessing the quality of the sources used for these articles. It's a fairly quick process to assess an article, especially if it's short. I know you've had trouble with the pscyhology classes and these metrics are intended to help answer the questions you've been raising about whether the EP is a net negative to Misplaced Pages. If you're interested, the relevant link is here; it should be self-explanatory but ask if you have questions. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Mike, I cracked my elbow and the pain is keeping me from working ... what is your timing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no deadline, though it would be useful to have them done by mid-July, when the working group meets to talk about the education program. We have three volunteers working on it now, and I think we'll eventually get to all of them, so if you would like to reserve a couple for your assessment take a look at that page and just put your name after "Reviewer:" under "Reviewer 1" (or "2" or "3") with {{user|SandyGeorgia}} and they'll be there when your elbow recovers. (Sorry to hear you hurt it.) I think LiAnna is going to add two sample articles from every single class, and she hasn't done all of them yet, so the classes you've been working with may not yet be represented. We haven't created the "burden" assessment yet -- we're not really happy with any of the ideas we came up with for measuring negative impact, but we'll probably go with some form of questionnaire -- I'll ping you again when that goes up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Ping

Sandy, I've emailed for advice on an interwiki matter. Tony (talk) 06:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. Are you aware of this? I'd appreciate your thoughts, if you're interested. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Read the discussions with Iri ... concerned. Much goes wrong in here even with the best of intentions, and that one seems ripe for incidents. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. That's why I'm spamming it everywhere. The intention is obviously benign – an entity with a cheque account that can pay the minimal expenses involved in outreach to professional and scholarly organisations, NGOs, etc. – but it needs concerned eyes on it to make sure it doesn't morph into something nobody intended. Nothing is cut in stone at the moment. The discussion on Iridescent's talk page is a fair summary but some points not raised there are being discussed at m:WT:MED and m:WT:MED/Bylaws. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Medical article for FAC

Hey Sandy. I've been working on deep vein thrombosis for a while and I am shooting for a FAC submission in November. If you make some edits here in the meantime your input would be appreciated. I've opened Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Deep vein thrombosis/archive3. After DVT I plan on getting pulmonary embolism upgraded. That shouldn't be terribly difficult, as the two entities are considered together as venous thromboembolism. I hope all is well. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 03:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back

We've missed you, welcome back! LeadSongDog come howl! 12:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I would like to file an official complaint on the grounds of I CAME BACK AND YOU WEREN'T HERE. Luckily you returned in time for me to gripe about how long it took me to figure this one out. Not sure whether I should chalk it up to senility or straight-up incompetence. ANYWAY. How's things? Maralia (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see you back editing.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Applied behavior analysis

Hi SandyGeorgia,
How are you? It's been a while!
I wanted to know if you could reply to my comment on the talk page to merge the Behavior modification article into the Applied behavior analysis article, as ABA is the new term of Behavior mod.
See here: Talk:Applied behavior analysis#Merging_the_articles_Applied_behavior_analysis_and_Behavior_modification
Thanks!
ATC 03:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Saluts

Saluts from Venezuela. I have seen you have a long track history of editing articles related to my country, and I always wanted to have a talk with you. I've sene your work here and I consider that I may learn / have a good time talking with you. I am revamping the WP Venezuela and I am interested too in editing Venezuela-related topics . Well, I just wanted to say Hi. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Course project: Myoclonic epilepsy

Hi, thank you for your posts related to this article. I take responsibility for not being aware of Wikpedia's medical sourcing guidelines or Misplaced Pages's guidelines for the organization of medical topics. I will read these as soon as I can (probably next week). I apologize that unintended problems were created on the Myoclonic epilepsy article page. I have not looked over this page in detail since it has been edited but will do so next week. In the meanwhile, if problems as you see it are so big that the article need to be immediately reverted, please do so (but please leave a note on the talk page so students know why). I can always use the History tool to get students' work for grading purposes. I appreciate your patience as newbies (including myself) learn how to use Misplaced Pages in a way that is beneficial for education as well as the internet community. Neuropsychprof (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll spend some time on this topic tonight. Colin° 19:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Burden of education program

Sandy, I know you were concerned that some of the students editing under the education program were more trouble than they are worth. This is something it's been difficult to measure, so in response to some of the discussion at the recent education program RfC I created a burden analysis page. Would you be willing to cast a sceptical eye over it and let me know what you think?

Some of the results bear out your comments from this spring -- the worst performing class is a psychology class from Kentucky, which I believe is part of the Association for Psychological Science's Misplaced Pages Initiative, and I recall you being particularly critical of some of the medical article edits. For some of the edits I went to WP:MED to get a second opinion; you can see those discussions here. Any feedback you have time for would be very helpful.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Tone

Sandy, I used to have a lot of respect for the wrk you did around featured articles, and it is with considerable regret that I note that your tone has completely changed from what I remember. Two recent edit summaries of yours read, "what a nice man", and "tsk tsk". I don't think this is in line with the usual concept of constructive contributions to the project. Well, here's hoping that the old Sandy reads this. Thanks. Samsara (FA • FP) 16:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and I know we are far from the only people who think that. Ed  07:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Guys, I find the edit summaries quoted pretty mild in light of how strident many people's comments have been around FA lately. Come on, all of us could benefit from counting to 10 before we post. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Seconding Ian. --Rschen7754 08:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. They should also be read with an eye towards sarcasm or self-deprecation as well. a little AGF on intent goes a long way. Imzadi 1979 → 08:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I worry that the sarcasm is a sign of becoming disaffected with the project. This is not what anyone is looking for. Samsara (FA • FP) 08:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Samsara, you "endorsed" Wehwalt's statement, which included the comment that "the two editors who were Raul's enforcers, SandyGeorgia and Moni3, are gone or nearly gone, and without their intimidation, ..." (my emphasis). Do you endorse such language? Do you agree with the concept of Sandy the enforcer, intimidating other editors into supporting Raul? Do you think those who supported Raul appreciate the implication they are biddable pawns? -- Colin° 09:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

So hold the phone, are we skipping over the last several months of her trolling posts? While I personally think she did an excellent a great FAC delegate, she showed a much different face starting the day she resigned. Ed  10:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Eh? Samsara came over hear to lecture Sandy on a mildly sarcastic edit summary, just after endorsing a clear personal attack, and you come here to call Sandy a troll. What are you trying to achieve here that is remotely related to building an encyclopaedia through mutual collaboration and good faith in each other? And Samsara, I suggest you look up "disaffected" in the dictionary. Colin° 12:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

What am I trying to achieve? Collegial interactions from a colleague I used to respect. I have not been the only target of Sandy's posts over the last several months, and I think she could use a rethink of her approach to the site, rather than reopening old wounds. Ed  14:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

And "Collegial interactions" involve saying someone is a troll? Go and set an example by being collegial: that FAC talk page was anything but. Do you think Wehwalt was looking for a collegial interaction with Sandy, Raul or Moni3 after what he said (in some naive assumption that he was out of earshot)? Matthew 7:3 is most appropriate for this whole situation. Let's build an encyclopaedia and stop this nonsense. Colin° 15:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Colin, I think some of what happened in that RfC was more of the same. As I've said, regrettable. Samsara (FA • FP) 18:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I missed the diff where you went over to Wehwalt to lecture him on personal attacks. -- Colin° 19:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Samsara ... I'm relieved to hear that there is concern that a handful of participants continues to turn the FAC process into a WP:BATTLEGROUND and glad to know that you will be campaigning for a more collegial environment there to address these concerns. I'm sorry that "such a nice man" troubled you so, particularly considering the level of vitriol on that talk page, although I admit it's curious that folks would find sarcasm in a reference to Wehwalt as "nice". It's alarming that many of the participants both engaging in and supporting the battleground and uncollegial environment at FAC are admins-- has the long-standing campaign to get admins to conform to community standards been finally lost? I don't know that there were ever any "good ole days" on Misplaced Pages, but in older days that I recall, admins were routinely sanctioned for the type of conduct we're seeing on that page. I do think it would be good if you could do something to reign it in, and I promise not to refer to Wehwalt as a nice man again. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Deep vein thrombosis peer review

Would anyone like to comment at Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Deep vein thrombosis/archive3? I'd like for it to become my first FA sometime soon. Best wishes. Biosthmors (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Bio ... I'm sorry I've not been around more to help you due to my very busy summer and fall, and I regret that your PR is up during the US Thanksgiving holiday, which is a notoriously slow time for content review processes because so many of us are traveling or have family visits. I have a fairly busy Thanksgiving planned, but will try to get over there when I have a moment. Several of the best FA medical reviewers are Colin (talk · contribs) (I see he's already visited-- having Colin on board will be helpful, ditto for Sasata), GrahamColm (talk · contribs), and Jfdwolff (talk · contribs), so you might ask them to participate, particularly since Colin and Graham are not in the US and might not be on vacation this week. Also, have you checked with Jmh649 (talk · contribs) and Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs)? Also Mastcell (talk · contribs) is one of Misplaced Pages's finest, but he seems to have given up-- might be worth a try, but you may have better luck by emailing both MastCell and Jdfwolff. Also, perhaps ask that the PR be kept open until more medical editors weigh in ... there is an unfortunate trend of late in content review processes where folks who don't really know or engage the criteria are dominating the processes, so your FAC will go smoother if you make sure these folks weigh in in advance. Good luck, and I will try to get over there after my turkey ... next weekend is more likely. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Ack, I took a quick look at what was already on the page, see that Jfdwolff has already been there, and found quite a bit of incorrect info. GrahamColm is a FAC delegate, and I retired as FAC delegate earlier this year-- Graham knows his stuff, and I'm sorry you've encountered faulty info-- hope you aren't chasing your tail! Lack of knowledgeable review is becoming an issue every where ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look! Biosthmors (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to do more after Thanksgiving, but you're in good hands with Malleus, and I see Jfdwolff also reviewed. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Palilalia and...

Sandy, thank you for your contributions. I have good news and bad news. The good news (or is it bad?) is that I have a list and some contact details you can locate from User:Biosthmors/Intro Neuro. The bad news is that I started as an ambassador after the semester started, and I've only been able to interact with the students in a very limited manner. At this point my highest hopes are to 1) collect a list and 2) make sure next semester goes more smoothly. I've seen from your contributions that interacting with an onslaught of new editors who have not yet learned how things work is disheartening. I don't want to push you over the edge. I just want to let you know I'm also trying to help keep things working well here too. I'm confident you know what you're talking about when it comes to palilalia. One thing though, I think I'm a bit more lenient with temporarily citing a primary source (per WP:MEDREV) until a review is available or possibly citing another primary article as a secondary source for another primary study. I look forward to working with you to help keep things in check. Best wishes. Biosthmors (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

ah, ha ... so it's a class project! Engage pet peeve number 156: why do they never identify on article talk that a class is editing a project !? Then one can go to the class page and find ... inevitably ... that the professor is entirely unaware of WP:MEDMOS or WP:MEDRS, which is the norm. In this particular article, the student is focusing on not only wildy speculative case reports, but also case reports and articles that deal with stuttering rather than palilalia. And not only is some of the information simply wrong-- other correct information has been deleted. There are certainly times when leniency in primary sources applies (I allowed for that at klazomania), but it's not clear to me that this student is using sources correctly at all. I hope you can try to get that course on track ... whichever course it is, because by checking the editor's contribs, I find no edit to any course page, in addition to no tag on article talk ... so ... the usual frustrating stuff. Had they tagged talk, I would have located good sources for them months ago, but when I'm on Thanksgiving break, and they're trying to finish up and get a grade is a bad time to find out it's a course. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the course page today to clarify things further. Feel free to open a discussion there if you think my wording could be improved about primary/secondary/tertiary. The student working on palilalia has now started using the talk page per email advice. The professor is aware of this particular article/issue/revisions made to the course page from an email thread. And I'd love to have a specific template made that links back to User:Biosthmors/Intro Neuro from the talk pages of all articles. There should be a template put on all the talk pages. You're right. Once we identify the best form, I'd happily email the professor to ask the class to do it. That's how I got the list generated. And yes, our shared concerns about the appropriateness of encyclopedic writing and sourcing are why I volunteered to help the class. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

And I see there are ways to specify parameters in Template:Educational assignment. Great. Biosthmors (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

We could probably tag all of the relevant pages with {{Educational assignment|year=2012|link=User:Biosthmors/Intro Neuro}} and that would help out other editors. I didn't know there was a template for that, but it makes sense. Disavian (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

We could. And maybe using auto-wiki browser (though I'm unfamiliar) could save some time? Biosthmors (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Well I emailed Professor Potter and asked that he ask all of the students to make this edit. That should help for the time being. Biosthmors (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR

Hi there. You're one of the first 100 people to sign up for a free JSTOR account via the requests page. We're ready to start handing out accounts, if you'd still like one.

JSTOR will provide you access via an email invitation, so to get your account, please email me (swallingwikimedia.org) with...

• the subject line "JSTOR"
• your English Misplaced Pages username
• your preferred email address for a JSTOR account

The above information will be given to JSTOR to provide you with your account, but will otherwise remain private. Please do so by November 30th or drop me a message to say you don't want/need an account any longer. If you don't meet that deadline, we will assume you have lost interest, and will provide an account to the next person in the rather long waitlist.

Thank you! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Afroyim v. Rusk hopefully FAC soon

Hi. Afroyim v. Rusk (a 1967 Supreme Court case on citizenship law) is, I believe, very close to being ready for FAC. As a significant contributor to my last FAC a year ago (United States v. Wong Kim Ark), I'd be interested in whatever observations you might have. In order to avoid another knock-down, drag-out FAC session like last time, I'd very much like to clean up Afroyim v. Rusk as much as possible before I formally nominate it. Thanks, in advance, for any help. — Richwales 19:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Periodic table opposes

I was just about to update the oppose tally before you did. ~ GabeMc 03:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

TFAR

Thanks for your message re this. I've been away from computers for the last 29 hours or so with a long and delayed train journey in the bad weather the UK's got at the moment, a night in a hotel, a busy work day and a long and delayed train journey back (still in bad weather!). As the situation has moved on somewhat since you left your question/comment for me, I thought I would reply here, particularly as some of the issues appear to me to be more about me than TFA or TFAR in general.

I *obviously* know the following points: (1) it is exceedingly exceptional for an FA to appear twice as TFA (and I think that should remain the case); (2) this is a volunteer project (though why you think that I might not be aware of this, or what the relevance of your comment was to the matter under discussion, goodness only knows!); (d3) all FAs are equally worthy of appearing on the main page: in fact, I specifically supported a TV episode that Jack Merridew, or however you want to refer to him, had opposed on the grounds of being a "very boring topic" and unencyclopaedic, to give just one example.

But I do *not* have to have the same attitude (that all FAs are equal) to whether former TFAs should be re-run. Just because I opposed Sesame Street being re-run does not mean that I have to oppose Periodic table. The two are very different articles, *not* because one is a TV show and the other is a science topic, but because one has been designated as a "vital article", i.e. a key topic - and you and I both know that we have precious few vital articles at FA level. As you will have seen, Sesame Street was being proposed for the show's 43rd anniversary - hardly an exciting occasion worthy of breaking the rule, particularly when "History of Sesame Street" was still available for selection as TFA (as in the end happened) - and also because the show had been in the news in the US election cycle, which seemed another very very poor reason to IAR.

In retrospect, my use of the term "pop fluff" was a poor choice of phrase for the point I was trying to make. However, I was not thereby intending to denigrate in general terms a large group of FA articles (or their authors) and I am not trying to create two classes of articles and writers. I had hoped you knew me better than that, but perhaps not after all. I was clearly confining my remarks to the case at hand, namely a vital article being nominated for a second TFA appearance. I see a number of other editors got the point I was trying to make. There really was and is no reason for you to assume the worst of me and give the impression in your comments that you think I have double standards based on topic content e.g. "It leaves the appearance that what applies to science does not apply to culture articles". No, not at all. The greater the variety of articles that are nominated at FAC and TFA the better. Different things appeal to different readers of different ages in different countries with different outlooks, interests, backgrounds etc etc and long may Misplaced Pages and the FA process reflect and serve that. I hope that makes things clearer for you.

And I share your concern about keeping TFAR under control so that it remains useful for those carrying out the scheduling. That is *exactly* what I have been trying to do in recent months in particular. I have made many edits in that time to shorten blurbs or make them conform to standards, fix pictures, urge point calculations or correct inaccurate calculations, remove incorrect nominations etc. You will find my talk page activity in the recent archives, and I hope it speaks for itself. However, as a sign that the requests page is heading out of control or back to the bad ol' days of 200 editors clamouring for their day. I would have thought that that sort of "slippery slope" argument was beneath you!

I hope that sorts things out to your satisfaction, and I look forward to working with you in the same friendly way that we did before, at TFAR and elsewhere. It is good to see your name popping up on my watchlist more regularly these days. Yours, and very best wishes, Bencherlite 23:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bencherlite ... welcome back after what sounds like a frustrating day. I appreciate the long explanation-- some of which satisfies some of what concerned me (the "pop fluff" comment predisposed to some concern about two classes of FAs), but some of which leaves me with more questions and concerns.

1. exceedingly exceptional for an FA to appear twice as TFA (and I think that should remain the case); ... I'm glad there seems to be agreement on that important point, but the broader concern is the lack of discipline that had overtaken the page, a complete flaunting of the processes established to help the delegates, and a lack of regard for the job the delegates have to do. As far as I can tell, neither DaBomb87 nor Raul654 were asked if they approved this exception for Periodic table, and it should have been removed from the page, with a broader discussion about the matter of making exceptions for TFAs to run twice. If the community wants a larger hand in scheduling, that should be exercised responsibly. The page has become not an exercise in IAR, rather an exercise in POINT-- leading towards destabilization of the process.
2. (2) this is a volunteer project (though why you think that I might not be aware of this, or what the relevance of your comment was to the matter under discussion, goodness only knows!); ... The relevance is that we can't tell editors what topics to work on or force them to care more about one topic or another, and that is an essential part of how TFA is run. We don't value or reward one kind of editor's work over another's, beyond what consensus has already established via the point system (meaning, we don't denigrate "pop fluff" while we hold up other topics as more rigorous). You say you didn't intend that, but the end result is that we've made an allowance for an article (by leaving it on the requests page without broader discussion) simply because a small group of editors consider it "vital" (and the problems with that whole issue have been well discussed many times at TFAR and at FAC).
3. ... 3) all FAs are equally worthy of appearing on the main page: ... I'm glad we agree on that point, within the point system already established and subject to the exceptions already laid out by Raul. And yet, we've made an exception here beyond any circumstances worthy of the exception IMO (we appear to legitimately disagree as to whether and when we should be opening the door to exceptions, but my view is that we have never allowed exceptions to be added to the page, and it is the lack of discipline and POINTINESS that has taken over that page that is my concern now-- the page is supposed to be an aid for the schedulers, not a free-for-all).
4. Just because I opposed Sesame Street being re-run does not mean that I have to oppose Periodic table. ... IMO, it shouldn't even have been a matter of opposing or not: they didn't and don't belong on the TFAR page according to long-established consensus, and whether we want to make one of these exceptions that are supposed to be exceedingly rare should have been posed to the broader community. Periodic table was added as a request based on the feedback of less than half a dozen editors, and with no attempt to consult beyond the few editors who happened to participate in that discussion. The idea that this is IAR is faulty IMO-- it's POINTY as is a whole lot of what is going on at that page. Opening the door to any FA that is re-written being run twice is something that requires broader discussion, and IMO, the explicit blessing of those who have to do the scheduling and deal with the fallout of the many editors whose articles have never run on the mainpage.
5. ... but because one has been designated as a "vital article", i.e. a key topic ... We allow for vital articles in the point system, and even at that, there have been numerous discussions in the past of the issues with the core and vital articles, and how very few editors contribute to the decisions about the makeup of those article lists. Choosing to allow an article that some group considers "vital" to re-run, when we won't allow other kinds of articles to be re-run, does create two classes of FAs, TFAs, and editors. Something like that undoes the years of careful and judicious tending of TFA that Raul cultivated. I can see nothing good that comes from creating tiers at TFA beyond what the community has already agreed to via the point system. Something like this only confirms to all of those editors who work just as hard on their "pop fluff" topics that they are not valued. We have always sought to avoid this in the Featured article process, because volunteers will work on what most interests them and Misplaced Pages appeals to a much wider audience than, for example, scientists and chemists. As FAC delegate, it was most important to me that I not value a "core" or "vital" topic over a road article, a hurricane, whatever-- because that de-motivates editors.
6. In retrospect, my use of the term "pop fluff" was a poor choice of phrase for the point I was trying to make. ... And I share your concern about keeping TFAR under control so that it remains useful for those carrying out the scheduling. That is *exactly* what I have been trying to do in recent months in particular. It was your "pop fluff" comment that led to not a small amount of concern on my part, particularly because you have been taking an important role at TFAR and I respect your work. It is important to me that you recognize and understand that in the Featured article process we really have to strive to treat editors of different topic areas as equals. I strongly disagree with what is happening with Periodic table, but should the broader community, or Raul, or Dabomb disagree with me, I'll bend to community will and the voice of experience. My much bigger concern is the POINTY lack of regard for consensus and lack of discipline that is taking over that page.
7. I do not see one good-faith nomination of a second-run TFA ... It was a good-faith nomination, but even the nominator indicated after the very brief discussion on talk that s/he hadn't read and didn't understand the page instructions (meaning s/he clearly didn't understand the implications or that the point system wouldn't work at all for such a case). If we want the page to be useful to delegates-- and not descend into every-editor-looking-out-for-their-own-interests and to heck with the rest that prevailed a few years back-- I would have much preferred to see the page conventions as established respected, and a broader discussion about whether to set aside the previously established consensus (for example, consult WT:FAC) attempted.

Raul was and has always been clear and adamant when discussing exceptions; I have not seen any feedback from DaBomb87 on the topic, and we have not seen a broad community discussion yet. (And that's not likely to occur over a US holiday.) I believe you know, or hope you know, that I have always respected your work, and of late I have particularly been happy to see you participating at TFAR-- because the page has become unhelpful and because you were helping, quite effectively. I am relieved that you didn't intend the "pop fluff" comment, but I hope going forward that you will take under consideration three things: a) a realization of the history of that page and what happens when pointy I-want-mine-and-to-heck-with-the-rest takes over, b) the wisdom in the way Raul has managed that page and the FA process and not undoing his years of progress, and c) the importance in the FA process of valuing equally all kinds of editors and topics, and taking great care not to give even the impression that certain kinds of editors or articles are valued over others. All the best to you, always, and I do look forward to continuing to work together. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

You should be aware of WP:QAI by the way. I've been trying to keep an eye on the whole thing while Raul's been gone, and keep things somewhat in order (even telling Gerda not to schedule any more articles by herself) but not being associated with the FA process, it's been difficult... --Rschen7754 03:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for jogging my memory, Rschen ... I actually am aware of that page, and have noticed with some concern that certain editors FAs are always allowed a free pass in spite of long-standing and already discussed prose issues. It's most curious; some editors are exempt, while others are scrutinized. A bit cabalistic IMO, but then it's difficult to find a way to point out certain prose issues without finger pointing. So ... I just wish if that group really wanted to improve articles, they would improve them all equally (including articles written by members of that Project). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)