This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) at 05:47, 13 November 2010 (→Malleus: confused now). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 05:47, 13 November 2010 by Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) (→Malleus: confused now)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)If you want me to look at an article or a FAC, please provide the link (and have a look at User:Steve/Oppose rationale for some helpful info).
If you are unsure if a FAC is closed, please see WP:FAC/ar.
To leave me a message, click here.
About me | Talk to me | To do list | Tools and other useful things | Some of my work | Nice things | Yukky things | Archives |
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 |
FACs needing feedback view • edit | |
---|---|
Tesla Model S | Review it now |
How You Get the Girl | Review it now |
2007 Greensburg tornado | Review it now |
Fast question on citation templates
I have just seen the discussion on citation templates on FAC talk and as I am planning to take parkinson's disease to FAC soon I wanted to fix citations before hand. While I have used diberri for pmids I think I have mixed templates in the society section (citation and cite news). Which one should be used for a consistent style compatible with diberri's formatting? Would you mind answering at my talk? Your talk is a hell to watch... :-) Thanks in advance. --Garrondo (talk) 07:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Trying to keep up
Hi, Sandy. I just wanted to let you know that I'm thoroughly motivated to stick with this (in fact, I've dreamed about it two nights running!), but I am very challenged at the moment by a work deadline with which I have no wriggle room. Most of the time, my job is gloriously undemanding, but when deadline rolls around I can be slammed. I'm off to read the various conversations. --Moonriddengirl 13:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm glad the issues are in such calm, competent, capable hands ... I actually have too much going on to be able to keep up with it all, so am limiting where I weigh in. I'm very confused about why Sherwood is being edited without reverting to the pre-copyvio version, but I don't understand all of this as well as you do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not entirely calm, or I wouldn't be dreaming about it. :) The problem of copyright violations on Misplaced Pages is one that's had me wracking my brains for solution for well over a year. I haven't even looked at that article today and probably won't get to until later. I have no idea what's being done. :/ --Moonriddengirl 14:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's being actively edited without a reversion to the pre-copyvio version; I suggest consolidating work and commentary at Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Grace Sherwood/archive1 to try to get everyone on the same page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- … where you'll find User:Uncle G/Grace Sherwood noted and available. If Secret wants something to work on, there it is. ☺ If you're all happy with that as a basis, I'll history merge it in. Uncle G (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I can't keep up with that, Uncle G, but you copyvio people have impressed the hell out of me, and I'm sure you all will handle it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- That draft is more my article rescue hat than my copyright hat. See Misplaced Pages talk:Article Rescue Squadron#Rescuing a Featured Article. It's a quick stub to push the article up out of the dank and dismal depths. Uncle G (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I can't keep up with that, Uncle G, but you copyvio people have impressed the hell out of me, and I'm sure you all will handle it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- … where you'll find User:Uncle G/Grace Sherwood noted and available. If Secret wants something to work on, there it is. ☺ If you're all happy with that as a basis, I'll history merge it in. Uncle G (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's being actively edited without a reversion to the pre-copyvio version; I suggest consolidating work and commentary at Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Grace Sherwood/archive1 to try to get everyone on the same page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not entirely calm, or I wouldn't be dreaming about it. :) The problem of copyright violations on Misplaced Pages is one that's had me wracking my brains for solution for well over a year. I haven't even looked at that article today and probably won't get to until later. I have no idea what's being done. :/ --Moonriddengirl 14:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Roger Waters
Some aspects of the FAC are now becoming nitpicky feedback loops, i.e., add detail, remove detail, add cites, remove cites, link, don't link, etc...etc...etc...I have been put on too many goose chases and random assingments from drive-by posters who don't support after their concerns are addressed. There are 6 supports as of now, how many does the article need to close the FAC? — GabeMc (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm going to run through FAC again tonight or tomorrow. Karanacs (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Please, this is getting so tedious I am wondering if I will ever run another article through FAC ever again. — GabeMc (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- This is where you should have come in, as a supreme delegate, to sothe, but you ignored me untill I lost my cool. You could have smoothed things out SG but instead you let SV nit-pick away at things that don't stop her articles from being FA. You are biased, IMHO. — GabeMc (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Look at Tomlinson and see if I am wrong? The article says he was an alcoholic, but it's not sourced, among other things. — GabeMc (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I am just having a bad day, but your closeness with SV makes your objectivity questionable. — GabeMc (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
One negative exchange with Sv and the month long FAC is closed. Defend you friends much? — GabeMc (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have done almost 2,000 edits to Roger Waters over the past 11 months, how can you close the FAC based on ONE negative comment to SV? — GabeMc (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- This will be my final response and then I'm off for the day; if you disagree with my action, discuss it with the community at WT:FAC, and Karanacs or Raul can overturn me if necessary. To answer your question: first "one negative comment" that was perhaps intended to be antisemitic; second, without strenuous review, we end up with potentially crap FACs and debacles on the main page (a current concern, and we are attempting to address that at FAC), and third, it wasn't just one comment-- you targeted her FACs, after two warnings, in what looks like retaliation for the review, which if allowed to stand, compromises the integrity of FAC. But most importantly, reviewers invest valuable time and hard work in to helping improve articles, and it doesn't appear you are in the best frame of mind to incorporate constructive criticism. With all that you've accomplished on the article, I hope to see you back in a few weeks when you're ready to tackle it again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have done almost 2,000 edits to Roger Waters over the past 11 months, how can you close the FAC based on ONE negative comment to SV? — GabeMc (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't being anti-semitic, I am 1/4 Polish Jew, I suggested that SV was being unfair to Waters based on Foxman's accusations that he was being anti-semitic. How funny, you just accused a 1/4 Jew of being an anti-semite. — GabeMc (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Closeness to SV???? I think you are a bit off there. While they can be civil to each other (as we all should be) SV and SG are hardly "close". Ealdgyth - Talk 23:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps a seething sexual tension. Like Alexis and Krsytle Carrington in a hot tub. Rage and hot suds. --Moni3 (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Is that what a short break is supposed to look like? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps a seething sexual tension. Like Alexis and Krsytle Carrington in a hot tub. Rage and hot suds. --Moni3 (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter really, if the FAC process discourages editiors Wiki will suffer in the end. Tedious is one thing, but over a month long? It's just way too much to be worth it, when you are a volunteer. I may not be a great editor, but I was donating my time, but don't worry, SG, Iyou won't ever see me at FAC again. — GabeMc (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- It was over a month long because you took a 10 day break in the middle. Johnbod (talk)
- No, it was more like 7 days, I was bust attending Roger Waters concerts, let's see, I sat 9th row center, 25th row center and 2nd row stage left. Yeah, I sure missed out. — GabeMc (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- "but don't worry, SG, Iyou won't ever see me at FAC again" - that's unfortunate. The article may not have been FA-ready (well, IMO anyway), but that doesn't mean your contributions aren't valued. Its certainly a much better article now than it was when I looked it over a year or so ago. Parrot of Doom 23:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, when Wiki is reduced to a popularity contest, I won't miss it. — GabeMc (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- You're looking at a pretty unpopular person (in certain circles) right here GabeMc, and I hang around with similarly unpopular people. Don't take it personally, even if you think others do - the article wasn't ready. My first FAC failed rather miserably. The FAC for DSotM also failed first time. Keep at it, and if you'd like my help don't be worried about asking, that's why I'm here.
- Oh and I've lurked on Sandy's page for quite a while, I can assure you that she's one of the most level-headed people here. Parrot of Doom 23:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- If SG was level-headed, then why close the FAC in retaliation for edits I did at Tomlinson. And I know I was right about some things at tomlinson because SV has now changed them as I suggested. Should the FAC be closed like this, is this even appropriate? — GabeMc (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- You got that right PoD. I hate you almost as much as I hate myself. :lol: Maybe we should start an !RfA process, where the most unpopular editors get an even shake of the stick. Malleus Fatuorum 23:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, when Wiki is reduced to a popularity contest, I won't miss it. — GabeMc (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- It was over a month long because you took a 10 day break in the middle. Johnbod (talk)
- (to GabeMC) I don't think the archiving was in retaliation for anything. Rather the process was starting to become disruptive, due to your understandable frustration with the difficulties you encountered during the FAC. I believe those difficulties were primarily because the article isn't yet at FA-quality. Its that simple, really. People are reviewing the article you present for FAC, they're not criticising you - if they are, they're idiots, and you should ignore them. Parrot of Doom 23:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- SG, please reconsider closing the FAC. I know I slipped up today, I'm human, I apologized immediately afterward. I have worked on this for almost a year, surely one bad day shouldn't be enough to end it. — GabeMc (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's not "ended". Just work on the article over the next couple of weeks to iron out the wrinkles that some reviewers complained about and take it back to FAC, when it should have a much easier passage. Most if not all of us have suffered similarly. Heck, I even had an article fail at GAN once, never mind FAC. Mind you, I was steaming mad about it, but that's another story. Take the time to prepare the article properly now that you know what kinds of criticism are going to be levelled at it next time, and next time will be a relative breeze. Malleus Fatuorum 01:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
It's raining thanks spam!
- Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
- There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Misplaced Pages Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
- If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Note
Heads up: I took your name in vain here. While I chose you as someone who would in fact be the diametric opposite of the term I used to describe you, there's a chance that people won't catch the ironic intent. So feel free to delete the whole thread if you want. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sandy, I just noticed that you've been going through some on-Wiki malarkey and that your pooch has gone to meet Brownie and Ginger. Please accept my apologies if my mention cited above has caused you any additional stress or discomfort. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not at all-- humor is always welcome, particularly in terrible times. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Extent of plagiarism
Hi Sandy, and sorry to hear real life has been treating you rough.
Just a little heads-up that I thought you might be interested in a note I left for Moonriddengirl.
Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter 17:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
What to think?
I am not overreacting, but I am not sure what to think about this edit. I was surprised to see the article called out like that on the talk page after passing what I thought was an unusually rigorous FAC, with scrutiny from both delegates and presumably Raul. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Nasty Housecat, I think what Sandy is saying is that it is never a good situation when the delegates are the ones that catch potential issues even though other reviewers have supported the article. You did a lot of work on the article and were responsive to concerns, but it would have been nice for other reviewers (me included) to recognize what the "red flags" are when reading an article. Karanacs (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey
I've been a good boy—I've been copy-editing various articles flagged with the c/e template. :) So far so good: it wasn't a tease! — Deckiller 22:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Exteding a hand and a ? ...
Hey Sandy, I respect your comment and oppose at RFA. As I said in my opening remarks, I did not handle myself in 2008 with the proper decorum as an editor in the FA nomination you cite. However, I hope that you will not universally hold my editing styles of 2 years ago against me forever. Either way, I just wanted to extend my hand - as I know we "clashed" years ago - but would love the opportunity to work together with a clean slate in the present (regardless of what occurs at RFA). As an aside, because I am unsure, am I expected to respond to "oppose" votes or are we expected to discuss the issues you raised on the actual RFA? I believe I can provide ample replies to your concerns, and I am willing to, but not sure if that is usually done. Would discussion of your concerns be more appropriate for the RFA talk page for instance? Thanks. Redthoreau -- (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Notice
Hello, Ms. "notorious troublemaker". Thought you should know. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR 23:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- User talk:SandyGeorgia#Note. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- See also A Modest Proposal, the (perhaps-not-as-well-known-as-once-it-was) satirical essay to which SBHB must have been referring in the edit summary. It's a bit of a clue that it wasn't a serious reference... Bencherlite 23:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- I thought so! Sandy's not well known enough to be notorious :).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Right-o. I best be shutting my mouth as usual. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR 23:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- I thought so! Sandy's not well known enough to be notorious :).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Taxonomic authorities
Sandy, it is commonplace to put taxonomic entities with their authorities thus: Regulus ignicapilla balearicus (Von Jordans, 1923). Until now, that seems to have been accepted as an adequate citation. I have been asked at a GAN that will be going to FAC eventually to provide a full citation. That is always possible either from a book or Zoonomen. However, it is convention in all books and journals to list citations like this Regulus ignicapilla balearicus Von Jordans 1923 Falco 19 Sonderheft p.3, that is, without the article title (if the original description is in a journal, rather than a book). Two questions
- I think the (Von Jordans, 1923) format is adequate citation, especially as it has never been queried in my articles or, as far as I know, in any others. Am I wrong?
- If a full citation is needed, in my view it should respect the convention of not giving article titles when citing journal sources. The original journals are often impossible to find anyway, so the title space would have to be left blank.. Do you agree?
Thanks, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Jim, no need to alert the cavalry! I honestly thought that this was just a citation that hadn't yet been converted from Harvard style to inline citation (Vancouver, I guess) style, didn't occur to me as I was reading it that you were showing a species authority. Sasata (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Since we're here anyways, isn't it convention to not give the authority in parentheses, as that implies the name has been changed? I remember Ucucha pointing that out in one of my GANs. Sasata (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- In zoology, the authority is placed between parentheses when the species is no longer placed in its original genus. Ucucha 18:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Which is the case here, I've added "as Sylvia ignicapilla" to make that clear. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- In zoology, the authority is placed between parentheses when the species is no longer placed in its original genus. Ucucha 18:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Since we're here anyways, isn't it convention to not give the authority in parentheses, as that implies the name has been changed? I remember Ucucha pointing that out in one of my GANs. Sasata (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Plagiarism
I thought you might find this post, and its subsequent comments, entertaining :) Parrot of Doom 18:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- I did. Reddit is fun to watch. Not so fun to cross. --Moni3 (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- The Washington Post and The Guardian have the story too. Still, makes FAC easier now the whole of the Internet's PD Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Links? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Unsure which linky is desired, but the original has inspired a Grauniad newsblog which isn't all that informative, and a rather better LAT piece (newsblog?) which gives further links, + the WaPO piece. Another recipe for fun is summarised in a guide by The Rabett, with a shorter followup. Interesting times. One useful link from that leads to the Office of Research Integrity..... dave souza, talk 18:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Links? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- The Washington Post and The Guardian have the story too. Still, makes FAC easier now the whole of the Internet's PD Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
PapaJohns.com Bowl
I just reviewed the article. Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl/archive1. I'll go ahead and remove it from the template :) —Deckiller (t-c-l) 01:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Re: Query
I have responded to you multiple times; I fail to see the point of another reply, especially since everyone disagreed with me. Nyttend (talk) 03:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Nyttend. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- You're welcome to take it to ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Really?
I've only been keeping a tangential eye on the RfA brouhaha on Jimmy's talk page, but there's a point I wanted to get a clearer view of your opinion on. You really believe that the criteria at RfA are too low? I mean, I agree with you that the process is pretty much broken, and quite a bit for some of the same reasons you do. But you think that the current process lets through unqualified people rather than prevent qualified editors from getting the bit? — Coren 14:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I think the false positives are worse than the false negatives. But, I suspect those days are over, and it is no longer a concern-- more people are now looking more closely at the automatic, pile-on, MySpace "popularity" votes. Particularly when the candidate tries to evidence writing ability via DYK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Any time I see a bunch of support votes from people with razzle-dazzle sigs, I know extra scrutiny is needed. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- What's your standard for "razzle dazzle"? :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 16:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Does it disrupt the page, is it hard to read around (for folks with old eyes), and is it impossible for newbies or experienced editors to figure out the username and the talk page link. We do not all have young eyes: one has his username in a teensy tiny superscript, others have absurd terminology that doesn't indicate how to find talk, and others are just disruptive on every count imaginable (TonyTheTiger). Others are so colorful that they can't be helpful to vision-impaired editors. Others are so large or so small that they make reading FAC a chore ... it goes on and on. As long as they can't respect my age, I don't have to respect theirs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- To be fair, Sandy, I don't think readability concerns in regards to eyesight really factor into many people's thinking processes unless they're prompted. I don't think they're all kids, just people who like messing with markup a little too much... you can always leave a polite note at their talk page before you consider them callow whippersnappers (and they view you as Sandy the mean old witch.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 17:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've never seen that work, no matter how often I raise it-- and, did it work with TonyTheTiger? Remember how long that went on? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not really... one of the benefits of not stalking your page that often is I stay out of the loop about most of this stuff (heck, I just found out about the whole Rlevese thing yesterday night.) You've probably tried the usual tactics and you put up with way more bull than I have to, so take my words with as little regard as necessary. :) Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 17:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- As someone who had an absurd signature for a time, I can corroborate Herr Fuchs' comment regarding mere playing about with markup (when one considers typewriters to be high technology, the novelty of computers can at times lead to distracting experimentation). Additionally, I found a large red signature to of great use (also by reason of old eyes - and brain to which they're attached) when tracking which FACs I'd reviewed. Bombastic signatures can indeed be a red flag, but the content preceding them should always be judged on its own merit (or lack thereof). Эlcobbola talk 19:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Correct. I believe I said on Malleus's talk that I had to accord them equal weight, for example, at FAC, but I didn't have to read them on someone else's talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- As someone who had an absurd signature for a time, I can corroborate Herr Fuchs' comment regarding mere playing about with markup (when one considers typewriters to be high technology, the novelty of computers can at times lead to distracting experimentation). Additionally, I found a large red signature to of great use (also by reason of old eyes - and brain to which they're attached) when tracking which FACs I'd reviewed. Bombastic signatures can indeed be a red flag, but the content preceding them should always be judged on its own merit (or lack thereof). Эlcobbola talk 19:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not really... one of the benefits of not stalking your page that often is I stay out of the loop about most of this stuff (heck, I just found out about the whole Rlevese thing yesterday night.) You've probably tried the usual tactics and you put up with way more bull than I have to, so take my words with as little regard as necessary. :) Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 17:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- (ecx2)Too many people have hard-to-read signatures. It's annoying if you're an old hand, but for newcomers it's really not good. We should try harder to encourage people not to be excessively fancy. In the relevant part of Preferences it points to the guideline, pointing at Misplaced Pages:Signatures#Customizing_your_signature, but ideally the entirety of the paragraph "When customizing your signature, please keep the following in mind" should be quoted in the Preferences, perhaps in a boxout to the right to separate it from the technical instructions. Anyone know how this might be done? Rd232 17:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- I dunno, I said some days ago that page needed work, and my eyesight ain't gettin' any better, but I don't have time to work on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well no doubt the policy page can be improved, but it would really help if the Preferences text was clearer and more prominent (though obviously it can't tackle all the issues in the limited space there). Rd232 17:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- I dunno, I said some days ago that page needed work, and my eyesight ain't gettin' any better, but I don't have time to work on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've never seen that work, no matter how often I raise it-- and, did it work with TonyTheTiger? Remember how long that went on? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- To be fair, Sandy, I don't think readability concerns in regards to eyesight really factor into many people's thinking processes unless they're prompted. I don't think they're all kids, just people who like messing with markup a little too much... you can always leave a polite note at their talk page before you consider them callow whippersnappers (and they view you as Sandy the mean old witch.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 17:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- David: Razzle-dazzle: "a confusing or colorful often gaudy action or display" (M-W). Tri-tones or more, boxes, non-standard characters, easter-egg links. :) --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- And let's not even get in to choice of usernames, which is another problem! Heck, I've got more than one editor mad at me because I have a habit of trying to address editors by name, and often get them wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Does it disrupt the page, is it hard to read around (for folks with old eyes), and is it impossible for newbies or experienced editors to figure out the username and the talk page link. We do not all have young eyes: one has his username in a teensy tiny superscript, others have absurd terminology that doesn't indicate how to find talk, and others are just disruptive on every count imaginable (TonyTheTiger). Others are so colorful that they can't be helpful to vision-impaired editors. Others are so large or so small that they make reading FAC a chore ... it goes on and on. As long as they can't respect my age, I don't have to respect theirs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- What's your standard for "razzle dazzle"? :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 16:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Sandy, just wanted to thank you for bringing up the sig issue. For readers with vision issues and other screen related issues, it's a valid concern. Sigs that are overly large, brightly colored, and use hard-to-read fonts distract from the text and can cause headaches. Pastels are okay - bright colors, not so okay. Now all I have to do is figure out how to shorten mine to TK ... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- I am so sorry that I still have failed to e-mail you about your eye surgery and migraines (I think I'm well beyond derelict now), and hope you're doing better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Don't worry about - you'll get caught up someday. Maybe. Hopefully. It's not as though things haven't been a bit busy around here lately. Just wanted to add to the sig discussion because people don't realize how distracting the colors are. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- And look at the kind of mindless things that can be done when not actively editing ... TK (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- I should be joining you soon, as IRC is probably all in a whirl about which admin gets to block me for calling a spade a spade. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Mindless indeed - like removing no source concerns from obvious copyvios (, , etc.) I do hope concerns about this user's (lack of) competence receive community attention. Эlcobbola talk 21:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Apparently non-admins know how to apologize :) "Community attention" is not applied equally to admins; should he or any of my detractors succeed in having me blocked for telling him he has no character, integrity or scruples, let it be known now that I do not want ANYONE to remove the block, period, without a full airing of the double standard at ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's the spirit! Malleus Fatuorum 21:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- I see you're getting your spirits back, too! Hard times recently for everyone: what doesn't kill 'ya makes 'ya stronger, and there may be hope for this place after all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- I am. I've come late to the realisation that no matter what any of us do here there will still be a queue a mile long dissecting it in infinite detail, looking for the smoking gun that proves we're the bastards they always believed us to be; all we can do is what we believe to be right, and bugger the consequences. Thinking about wikipedia in terms of Transactional Analysis also gave me some insight into where I was going wrong in my approach, in particular taking some nonsense too seriously. Replaying old scripts in the context of the TA Parent-Child-Adult relationship finally allowed me to see the wood for the trees. It took far too long though, must be getting old. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 03:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, come on ... I want all the credit for your turnaround! I've been trying to cheer you forever, but I do sense that you've finally gotten now to where your heart can go back in your chest instead of on your sleeve. For me, I'm sick of hearing the arbs tell us to use Dispute Resolution, when we all know it's broken. We Shall See ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- You certainly told me that many times, but I never really understood what was causing it until now, because I'm not like that in real life at all. Anyway, we'll see how the arbs deal with the growing unrest amongst the peasants. My guess is that Iridescent had it spot on; they'll close their eyes and pretend that everything is hunky-dorey. Time will tell. Malleus Fatuorum 04:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, come on ... I want all the credit for your turnaround! I've been trying to cheer you forever, but I do sense that you've finally gotten now to where your heart can go back in your chest instead of on your sleeve. For me, I'm sick of hearing the arbs tell us to use Dispute Resolution, when we all know it's broken. We Shall See ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- I am. I've come late to the realisation that no matter what any of us do here there will still be a queue a mile long dissecting it in infinite detail, looking for the smoking gun that proves we're the bastards they always believed us to be; all we can do is what we believe to be right, and bugger the consequences. Thinking about wikipedia in terms of Transactional Analysis also gave me some insight into where I was going wrong in my approach, in particular taking some nonsense too seriously. Replaying old scripts in the context of the TA Parent-Child-Adult relationship finally allowed me to see the wood for the trees. It took far too long though, must be getting old. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 03:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- I see you're getting your spirits back, too! Hard times recently for everyone: what doesn't kill 'ya makes 'ya stronger, and there may be hope for this place after all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's the spirit! Malleus Fatuorum 21:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Apparently non-admins know how to apologize :) "Community attention" is not applied equally to admins; should he or any of my detractors succeed in having me blocked for telling him he has no character, integrity or scruples, let it be known now that I do not want ANYONE to remove the block, period, without a full airing of the double standard at ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Mindless indeed - like removing no source concerns from obvious copyvios (, , etc.) I do hope concerns about this user's (lack of) competence receive community attention. Эlcobbola talk 21:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- I should be joining you soon, as IRC is probably all in a whirl about which admin gets to block me for calling a spade a spade. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- And look at the kind of mindless things that can be done when not actively editing ... TK (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Don't worry about - you'll get caught up someday. Maybe. Hopefully. It's not as though things haven't been a bit busy around here lately. Just wanted to add to the sig discussion because people don't realize how distracting the colors are. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, (re Coren at thread top) ...consider the problem of children promoting other children at RFA, when none of them know anything of the fundamentals of the project or adequately scrutinize the candidates, because they don't even know how? I get slapped on the wrist every time I try to bring this issue up, but perhaps it's because I make it on the right talk page rather than in obscure places such as Jimbo's talk page that might not even be on everyone's watchlist (It's not on mine). Your suggestions, along with those of some of the other heavyweights, are among the most focussed, and if threads such as that were to be kept in one place, your comments would carry even more weight and we might eventually get some action. --Kudpung (talk) 04:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Heck, I'm so busy I can barely type, much less in the right place :) I still think the best way to turn around RFA is by example-- if they don't, can't, or won't read, show 'em by example! And it is getting better, IMO, just in the two weeks I've been following. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Problem is, even though the process is supposed to be a debate, no crat can risk overturning a clear majority of pass or fail !votes, even if they are made by kids. But that's only one of the many reasons why RfA is a trainwreck.--Kudpung (talk) 04:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yep! The only place on Wiki that isn't a "vote" is FAC. One well placed oppose-- even comment-- can prevent an ill-prepared article from being promoted. No Such Thing at RFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- GAR used to be a vote, but moved away from that in 2007-2008, and although GAR discussions are closed in a fairly conservative way in general, the conclusion has sometimes been contrary to the majority view, on the grounds that comments were out of date or did not address the GA criteria. I don't know if RfA can learn anything from this, but it raises an interesting counterpart to the "well-placed oppose", namely the "invalid oppose". Geometry guy 20:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- G guy, I saw that oversight soon after I typed it, but never got around to fixing it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, no worries: I would have commented yesterday if I was at all bothered about such matters! For instance, GAN is also not a vote (to both its advantage and detriment), but that is not a terribly helpful example in connection with RfA!! No wait, hang on a minute, how about a system where one admin appoints another until s/he screws up... and only then we have an RfA?! ;) Geometry guy 21:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- G guy, I saw that oversight soon after I typed it, but never got around to fixing it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- GAR used to be a vote, but moved away from that in 2007-2008, and although GAR discussions are closed in a fairly conservative way in general, the conclusion has sometimes been contrary to the majority view, on the grounds that comments were out of date or did not address the GA criteria. I don't know if RfA can learn anything from this, but it raises an interesting counterpart to the "well-placed oppose", namely the "invalid oppose". Geometry guy 20:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yep! The only place on Wiki that isn't a "vote" is FAC. One well placed oppose-- even comment-- can prevent an ill-prepared article from being promoted. No Such Thing at RFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
FAR talk page
Hey Sandy, can you put your 2 cents into this? I don't know what to say to him. GamerPro64 (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Error on page
Sandy, apologies. I posted while running out the door to go visit family, and I've only just now got back to the house. If you go to User talk:Elen on the Roads you'll see what happened earlier (rather amusing). I have corrected the statement, although I do believe it makes no difference, as several of the participants are in my opinion making a significant effort to avoid looking at the evidence. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
King Vulture
I can't do a damn thing right anymore, can I? No one's gonna answer on the talk page; it hasn't been touched in 10 months at least. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 22:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps you weren't aware of the new instructions, but we don't need a long back-and-forth (I don't make the rules); please finish fixing it, as I'm busy. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I didn't see that discussion on the talk page first is now a requirement. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 22:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
3rd opinion needed
I was looking at DYK nominations the other day and found copyright violations at Hamersley & Robe River railway, and User:JamesBWatson rectified those concerns. Now, User:Calistemon (the creator) comes along at Talk:Hamersley & Robe River railway and says that "I really think, you need to gain some understanding what a copyright violation really is, mate. I go with User:JamesBWatson opinion that this is really a trivial matter". I would like to obtain your opinion on whether my concerns were "trivial". This is the text in the article (before rewording) compared to the reference:
- Article "With 1,300 kilometres of track, it is the largest privately owned heavy freight rail network in Australia."
- Reference "With a network of 12 mines, three shipping terminals and the largest privately owned heavy freight rail network in Australia, our Pilbara operations make up a major part of our iron ore activities globally."
- Article "Each train comprises of up to 234 ore cars, each ore car with a load capacity of approximately 106 tonnes. A fully loaded train weighs approximately 29,500 tonnes and is about 2.4 kilometres in length. Each train has an average cycle time of 28 hours."
- Reference "Each train is operated by a single driver, and comprises up to 234 ore cars, each ore car with a load capacity of approximately 106 tonnes. A fully loaded train weighs approximately 29,500 tonnes and is about 2.4 kilometres in length."
- Article "Treasurer Wayne Swan declared that access to the rail lines by third parties would increase competition, stop infrastructure double-ups and reduce damage to sensitive native title and environmental regions."
- Reference "Mr Swan declared the rail lines accessible by other users for 20 years on the grounds it would increase competition, stop infrastructure double-ups and reduce damage to sensitive native title and environmental regions."
Do these concerns seem petty to you? Whwya (talk) 01:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm really understanding how you feel. A 2005 admin, User:Moondyne threatened to block me for
incivilitypersonal attacks. Whwya (talk) 07:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)- You remove my warnings from your user talk page and then post them elsewhere out of context. So for the record, the warning was referred to this edit. –Moondyne 07:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, where exactly was the personal attack? Whwya (talk) 08:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not going to give you the pleasure of me republishing your words here. Anyone can see what you wrote. –Moondyne 08:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, where exactly was the personal attack? Whwya (talk) 08:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- You remove my warnings from your user talk page and then post them elsewhere out of context. So for the record, the warning was referred to this edit. –Moondyne 07:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- FWIW, I don't think the "largest privately owned heavy freight rail network in Australia" is a copyvio. Every single one of those words is essential to the statement: remove one and you get a different (and wrong) description, and the adjectives are plain English everyday terms one would naturally use, making it difficult to suggest alternative wording. Perhaps someone will correct me if I'm wrong. However, I don't think your comment at Talk:Hamersley & Robe River railway ("If you cannot realize that that is a copyvio, Misplaced Pages isn't the place for you.") was wise. If you end up being wrong about it, I hope you're big enough to offer an apology. Colin° 07:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Getting back to the question, I agree with Colin on the first one. The second one causes me more concern, because there are idiosyncratic phrasings that are reproduced exactly. The third one is acceptable in my view. The thing is, sometimes there are a limited number of ways of saying something, and the author picks the best way, and the other ways are vastly inferior. If one adopts the author's phrasing once or twice in a large article, I see no problem. If it is routine, I see a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- My 2c would be:
- First one is completely acceptable; "largest privately owned heavy freight rail network in Australia" is a statement of fact, necessary for the article, with no obvious way to rephrase it which would not decrease from readability;
- Second one is acceptable, in that it's a technical statement, but would probably benefit from being rephrased (and not by changing the correct "each train comprises…" of the original to the incorrect "each train comprises of…" of the Misplaced Pages article!)
- Third one makes it clear that it's a quote ("he declared that…"); although the quoted text ought to be in quote marks, I don't think anything's being breached here.
- All three are certainly marginal breaches at worst; in the circumstances "If you cannot realize that that is a copyvio, Misplaced Pages isn't the place for you" was a totally inappropriate comment. – iridescent 11:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed, question is whether there is a pattern or not, and that would take a close review of the whole article, which I will leave to the article's editors. There are times in writing articles, where I have to adopt the author's phrasing, or pretty close, because there is no good alternative phrasing.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- There are also times (for example, in medical articles) where some phrases are so-oft repeated across all of the literature that they become part of common venacular and are the best language for expressing a consensus medical view. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- We should always edit articles to avoid any question of copyright violation. While it would be good to successfully defend a claim of violation, it is better not to be put in the position of having to defend it to begin with.
- On the first sentence, it looks like the synthesis could have introduced an error. The quoted source does not say that railway is the largest because of its length (and I'm going strictly by the information here), yet that is what the article's sentence suggests. The railway may have 1300 km of trackage (or length of route -- which is it?), and is the largest, etc., but is that "largest" measured by length, ladings, or capacity? This could be an example of where an attempt to rewrite inadvertently introduces error.
- The second item could be reworded, or specifically quoted. I agree that a rewording would resemble the source as it really is a calculation.
- The third item can have quote marks. While the present (on this page, at least) does have attribution, without quote marks it is more likely that the phrase will later be edited to change its meaning.
- The examples suggest that the draft article was a copy-and-paste. Once someone starts an article by copying and pasting a source as a first draft, it becomes too easy to adopt the structure and phrasing of the source. Kablammo (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- As the "accused", I might just chuck in my opinion as well. As to the first and third sentence, I see little I could have done different, and little need to do so. The second sentence is a different matter. I should have made a better effort there, I will endevor to do so in the future! I think, with this opinion I'm pretty much in line with most other people here. Calistemon (talk) 13:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Ghost
Are you planning to archive this, or have it deleted? Gimmetoo (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Crap, I dunno what to do. There's a history there, and every time one of them is deleted, it means I can't go back and track. I've lost the plot on those "Pumpkin" accounts, because I can't see deletions. I think we should leave it until The Rambling Man weighs in, as those have been a repeat problem. On the other hand, TRM can see deletions, so do whatever you think best-- it does make it harder for me to keep up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- And while I was posting, TRM deleted it :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Eyeglass fund
Seed investment for fund :-) Carcharoth (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC) thumb|right|
- Seriously, why don't "they" move that button! I hit it twice in 24 hours. I shall send you the proper documentation for your tax returns just as soon as I set up the 501(c)3. You will be a founding member! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Placing
.page-Special_Watchlist .mw-rollback-link {display:none;}
on Special:MyPage/vector.css or Special:MyPage/monobook.css (whichever you are using) will hide the link from the watchlist. Ucucha 20:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)- Done, works, happy camper! Ucucha, is there anything you don't know? Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Why would someone actually want to rollback an edit from the watchlist? Ucucha 21:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Ucucha! I do it all the time; it's embarrassing. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I did it to the arbs-- top that! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Doesn't work - is there one if you don't have a css page? I haven't done it to the arbs, but have done it by accident to a few admins. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Did you clear cache, with ctrl-f5? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, did that and set up a css page. Still not working. Will give me something to play with for a moment - I'm supposed to be doing real work, but taking a break. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Weird—you're not using Vector by any chance? Ucucha 21:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- No. Can you look at my page and see what's wrong? I use Safari - maybe it's that. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Never mind - got it. Very cool! Thanks so much... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Donation, please ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Now back to hermaphroditic snails... Ucucha 21:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Never mind - got it. Very cool! Thanks so much... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- No. Can you look at my page and see what's wrong? I use Safari - maybe it's that. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Weird—you're not using Vector by any chance? Ucucha 21:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, did that and set up a css page. Still not working. Will give me something to play with for a moment - I'm supposed to be doing real work, but taking a break. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Did you clear cache, with ctrl-f5? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Doesn't work - is there one if you don't have a css page? I haven't done it to the arbs, but have done it by accident to a few admins. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I did it to the arbs-- top that! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you! I had exactly the same problem. Think we can persuade them to make this the default? I can't think of any reason anyone would want to undo an edit direct from the watchlist. – iridescent 21:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Suggested. Ucucha 21:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- I will look into it too. As you know (and have commented on, Sandy), it's easy to miss on a handheld. However, I am addicted to iphones, Words with Friends (same user name if anyone wants to play, warning, I'm good) and when in California, I got addicted to ... addicted to ... um, babes on the beach?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- By the way, the image of the gold dollar is a copyvio. People posted a lot of coin images thinking regardless of source, that because most US coin designs are in the public domain ... however, a coin is a three dimensional object and so photographing one requires at least some skill.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oh dear. That was my fault. Sorry Sandy - I liked the gold dollar. Now I owe you something else ... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Take one of the images from Saint-Gaudens double eagle with my blessing. They have been vetted.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oh dear. That was my fault. Sorry Sandy - I liked the gold dollar. Now I owe you something else ... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- By the way, the image of the gold dollar is a copyvio. People posted a lot of coin images thinking regardless of source, that because most US coin designs are in the public domain ... however, a coin is a three dimensional object and so photographing one requires at least some skill.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- I will look into it too. As you know (and have commented on, Sandy), it's easy to miss on a handheld. However, I am addicted to iphones, Words with Friends (same user name if anyone wants to play, warning, I'm good) and when in California, I got addicted to ... addicted to ... um, babes on the beach?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Suggested. Ucucha 21:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Done, works, happy camper! Ucucha, is there anything you don't know? Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Placing
Done with Pedro Álvares Cabral
Hi, Sandy! The last remaining issue with Pedro Álvares Cabral has been dealt with (Here: ). Regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Change to PANDAS
I made an addition to the PANDAS article (Research). Please check it for appropriateness and completeness. Make any changes you deem fit, I won't quibble. Regards. Mensch (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Non-free files in your user space
Hey there SandyGeorgia, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User talk:SandyGeorgia. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.
- See a log of files removed today here.
- Shut off the bot here.
- Report errors here.
Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Heads up
I'm going to be away from Misplaced Pages from Nov 13th until the Nov 27th. (Traveling from the 13th till the 23rd, then flying home for Thanksgiving and packing for a move) I'm trying to empty my plate between now and then. Is there anything that needs my attention before I go? Raul654 (talk) 07:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Lennon
You're right. Thanks for the heads up. DocKino (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Mainpage appearance
Epa ! Un monton de gracias por hacer estas notificaciones, but they've got a typo :) It should be appearance, not apperance. Thanks again! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oops, "appearance" added to my summary, thank you :). Tbhotch 22:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Por nada, y muy agradecida! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Quicker filing of 3RR reports
Hello Sandy. If it takes you 13 minutes to file a report, consider trying the script at http://toolserver.org/~slakr/3rr.php next time. It does almost everything for you, including the diffs, provided you feed it the name of the article and the editor. The script is mentioned in the header of AN3, as the '3RR report helper tool.' EdJohnston (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ed-- I did try it once a while back (can't remember how long), and it made me make a worse mess of things. If I have another opportunity (hope not!), I'll try it again to see if it, or I, have improved! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- On my to-do list is to write a better 3RR script, one which will combine adjacent edits into one revert and otherwise do a bit more to assist with preparing a report. Of course, doing so would probably take me longer than just filing the reports by hand, but if I make progress, I will let you know. MastCell 23:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, MC-- I think it was you who originally linked me to the tool. I Hate Filing 3RR reports. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- On my to-do list is to write a better 3RR script, one which will combine adjacent edits into one revert and otherwise do a bit more to assist with preparing a report. Of course, doing so would probably take me longer than just filing the reports by hand, but if I make progress, I will let you know. MastCell 23:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
It's not easy being green
hey Sandy - long time no see. So about Lennon - the card is actually green, and it's commonly referred to as the green card, which people will be more likely to understand than the actually incorrect phrasing "received his permanent residency". You don't receive permanent residency, you receive certification that you are a permanent resident..... which is the green card. I tweaked the text a tad and re-added "green card" - it's really not jargon, it's common parlance. At least that's how I see it. Whaddya think? Good to see you! Tvoz/talk 23:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- The green card in my house wasn't green ? I know it's common parlance, but does everyone know it? I don't feel strongly about it if you want to change it back, but they really aren't green-- the dollar bill is more green. Glad to see you at work there ! Things may get worse as Dec 8 approaches :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Look at the samples here; the one in my house looked like the bottom one-- no color or picture. They really are not green, but yes, I know they are referred to as that-- I sat through the interrogation, in separate rooms, about what kind of toothpaste I used and what color my pajamas were. :) But your tweak clarifies it nicely for non-US readers who may not know the jargon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with Sandy; "Green card" is an Americanism which will mean nothing to the other 95% of the world, and even the US ones haven't been green for decades. – iridescent 23:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- I checked INS websites, and they call them green cards, and it even appears that maybe the newer ones are (??)-- but they weren't always, and we still have to think of non-US readers. But Tvoz's tweak handles that ... our article is a mess (no surprise there). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think green card is common enough, through popular culture, that it is OK. And yes, green cards were pink once but that just made them better trivia questions. Yes, a few won't get it and will have to click a link, but really, doesn't even "permanent resident" require explanation or a link? It's hard to write an article that is entirely self explantory.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with Sandy; "Green card" is an Americanism which will mean nothing to the other 95% of the world, and even the US ones haven't been green for decades. – iridescent 23:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Look at the samples here; the one in my house looked like the bottom one-- no color or picture. They really are not green, but yes, I know they are referred to as that-- I sat through the interrogation, in separate rooms, about what kind of toothpaste I used and what color my pajamas were. :) But your tweak clarifies it nicely for non-US readers who may not know the jargon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, the ones I've seen are green - the one in the linked article on the bottom dates back a while, but what about the top one, the May 2010 picture? Looks pretty green.... I have family members in the process now, so, with any luck, I'll know first hand what color they are these days, and soon. In any case, Iridescent, I'm not so sure that the appropriate split of readers of en.wikipedia US vs world is really 5%-95%, and that movie was directed by an Australian and starred a Frenchman, and funded by those two countries, so I'm not clear that this is only known to Americans. (Of course Lennon's green card issue was an American issue, but that's another story.) I'd like to leave it as tweaked, as I think it is now clearer. And Sandy - I've been on this article since 2006, with over 100 edits, but it sometimes gets too contentious for even me (veteran of several wikiwars) - I think I may head for the hills on Dec 8. But I care about this one, and although I don't love everything about how it has been edited, I do think it holds together well as FA and I hate to see it rewritten as poorly as some of the recent folks in there have done. Was very glad you set it back to earlier version - that's what got my attention and brought me back in. Anyway - onward! Tvoz/talk 23:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- I like your tweak, I don't care about green cards anymore, and I'm glad an experienced editor is in there before Dec 8! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Short attention span? <just kidding> Tvoz/talk 23:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not really: when I'm done with something, I'm Done. :) Found! Now someone has to fix our article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Short attention span? <just kidding> Tvoz/talk 23:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- I like your tweak, I don't care about green cards anymore, and I'm glad an experienced editor is in there before Dec 8! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, the ones I've seen are green - the one in the linked article on the bottom dates back a while, but what about the top one, the May 2010 picture? Looks pretty green.... I have family members in the process now, so, with any luck, I'll know first hand what color they are these days, and soon. In any case, Iridescent, I'm not so sure that the appropriate split of readers of en.wikipedia US vs world is really 5%-95%, and that movie was directed by an Australian and starred a Frenchman, and funded by those two countries, so I'm not clear that this is only known to Americans. (Of course Lennon's green card issue was an American issue, but that's another story.) I'd like to leave it as tweaked, as I think it is now clearer. And Sandy - I've been on this article since 2006, with over 100 edits, but it sometimes gets too contentious for even me (veteran of several wikiwars) - I think I may head for the hills on Dec 8. But I care about this one, and although I don't love everything about how it has been edited, I do think it holds together well as FA and I hate to see it rewritten as poorly as some of the recent folks in there have done. Was very glad you set it back to earlier version - that's what got my attention and brought me back in. Anyway - onward! Tvoz/talk 23:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's well known enough for Green Card (film) with that notorious alien Gérard Depardieu. Johnbod (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, although the film wasn't called that in most non-English speaking markets (generally some variation on "Marriage of Convenience"). I agree that Tvoz's fix is fine. – iridescent 18:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Why do the Argentines always have to be different? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- In my experience, the Argentine version of things is usually marginally cooler than anyone else's, for some reason; from the music, to the architecture, to the football, right down to little things like the layout of Bue's city parks and the design of the subway map. (What gets me on the list is Quebec insisting on their own title, even though "Green Card" was perfectly adequate for France itself.) – iridescent 18:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Cooler? Right ... like the suicidal person who landed on me, the bomb that blew up the house next door, the kidnapping I witnessed, the office blownout by a bomb, the long poultry strikes that force you to eat bife, bife and more bife, the shootout I was caught in, the armed guard I had to have after being followed escorting a child to preschool to avoid kidnapping, the discriminatory firing of Jewish women over Catholic men, and having to be smuggled out of the country to give birth because kids' names have to be on an official list or you can't get a passport. Yep, that's cool ! I could go on at twice this length, but ... oh, left out my favorite. All pregnant women must have a smallpox and tetanus vaccination while pregnant, by regulation, or a Dr. won't treat you. Hence, the smuggling out in the cockpit of a DC-10. After all, they may give birth in a barn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- PS, my fix to our article isn't complete-- I can't find a reliable source discussing why they were called green cards before they green. I imagine it came from "greenbacks". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- (re 1) Hell, I wouldn't live in the place if they paid me, but I'd still rather spend a month in BA or Tigre than a month in Sao Paolo, Bogota or any of the other Latin American places that have suddenly become cool to visit. All the crime problems, the surrounding slums and a national diet that makes Glasgow look like a culinary capital, disguise the fact that central BA is still a genuinely nice place.
- (re 2) Probably—in fact almost certainly—when they were introduced in Ellis Island days they were actually green and made of card. (I feel vaguely left out that I don't get a card—my British equivalent is just "given leave to enter and remain in the United Kingdom for an indefinite period" stamped in my passport, and a tacky red-and-blue credit card sized National Insurance card.) – iridescent 18:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- (ec) I doubt that. This search shows 2 RS uses of Green Card from the 1940s. No doubt the stationery has been changed a few times since then, if only to hamper forgers. Johnbod (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- You have a point: in Sao Paolo and Bogota, I had an armed guard and driver with me at all times, even to cross the street. But people know that about those cities, and strangely, think BA is different. Go fix our article :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- BA was the South American city I felt safest in, I wandered around freely. In SP and most other cities I got a car and driver. Although Cartagena, where my brother lives, I felt very safe in. But then I'm a guy ...--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- FWIW, I would pretty happily walk around downtown and take public transport in most cities I've been to in South and Central America. The major exception is Colón, Panama, where I didn't get out of the taxi except at the duty-free port. There are some downtowns where I wouldn't want to be walking after dark: San Salvador, Lima (with exceptions), probably Caracas. Buenos Aires, in my experience, is fine after dark, and so is La Candelaria in Bogotá. (I haven't been to Sao Paulo; I'd be wary in some but not all of Rio.) Of course, there are suburbs that you should avoid night or day: this is supposed to be one of the most dangerous places in Latin America, and it's a barrio of Buenos Aires. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- I felt fairly unsafe in Lima, and always had a driver, there is an excellent English-speaking service. The mid-size Brazilian cities I was in (Puerto Alegre, Curitiba, Gioiania, Recife) I erred on the side of caution. Bogota I had no trouble with but my brother, who has lived in Cartagena for years with no trouble he's told us about was with me, and he speaks excellent Spanish.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- FWIW, I would pretty happily walk around downtown and take public transport in most cities I've been to in South and Central America. The major exception is Colón, Panama, where I didn't get out of the taxi except at the duty-free port. There are some downtowns where I wouldn't want to be walking after dark: San Salvador, Lima (with exceptions), probably Caracas. Buenos Aires, in my experience, is fine after dark, and so is La Candelaria in Bogotá. (I haven't been to Sao Paulo; I'd be wary in some but not all of Rio.) Of course, there are suburbs that you should avoid night or day: this is supposed to be one of the most dangerous places in Latin America, and it's a barrio of Buenos Aires. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- BA was the South American city I felt safest in, I wandered around freely. In SP and most other cities I got a car and driver. Although Cartagena, where my brother lives, I felt very safe in. But then I'm a guy ...--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- You have a point: in Sao Paolo and Bogota, I had an armed guard and driver with me at all times, even to cross the street. But people know that about those cities, and strangely, think BA is different. Go fix our article :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- PS, my fix to our article isn't complete-- I can't find a reliable source discussing why they were called green cards before they green. I imagine it came from "greenbacks". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Cooler? Right ... like the suicidal person who landed on me, the bomb that blew up the house next door, the kidnapping I witnessed, the office blownout by a bomb, the long poultry strikes that force you to eat bife, bife and more bife, the shootout I was caught in, the armed guard I had to have after being followed escorting a child to preschool to avoid kidnapping, the discriminatory firing of Jewish women over Catholic men, and having to be smuggled out of the country to give birth because kids' names have to be on an official list or you can't get a passport. Yep, that's cool ! I could go on at twice this length, but ... oh, left out my favorite. All pregnant women must have a smallpox and tetanus vaccination while pregnant, by regulation, or a Dr. won't treat you. Hence, the smuggling out in the cockpit of a DC-10. After all, they may give birth in a barn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- In my experience, the Argentine version of things is usually marginally cooler than anyone else's, for some reason; from the music, to the architecture, to the football, right down to little things like the layout of Bue's city parks and the design of the subway map. (What gets me on the list is Quebec insisting on their own title, even though "Green Card" was perfectly adequate for France itself.) – iridescent 18:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Why do the Argentines always have to be different? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, although the film wasn't called that in most non-English speaking markets (generally some variation on "Marriage of Convenience"). I agree that Tvoz's fix is fine. – iridescent 18:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Autism
- Hi SandyGeorgia, User:Anthony started a discussion on the Talk:Autism#Ambiguity_of_the_word_autism page, which I replied to. I'm wondering if you could reply with your insight. Thanks. :) ATC 01:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Plagiarism and RFA Bashers Central (for the admin abuse department, I direct you to Malleus
Your talk page is fun to read. Keeper | 76 03:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
John Lennon
Will you please review SlimVirgin's revert of my edits to John Lennon today. I really think I improved the awards section at least, and why not mention rock and roll in the lead? — GabeMc (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- What is "an early teenager"? A prehistoric specimen of a teenage homo sapien? Parrot of Doom 22:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- The phrasing might not be the best, but the point is to not stop at mentioning skiffle in the lede, as though it was his main influence. — GabeMc (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, Gabe ... I don't know much about Lennon, and Slim Virgin, Sasata and Tvoz all have better prose than I do. The mainpage date is still a month away, and there are plenty of editors in there who know the material better than I do, and know FA standards ... take the long-term approach, and don't let day-to-day changes worry you. It's only going to get worse as mainpage day approaches, and less knowledgeable editors start weighing in, so do your best to help everyone get along now, don't sweat the little stuff, before it gets worse :) Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's good advice. Thanks Sandy. — GabeMc (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for listening, Gabe :) What someone needs to do (quickly, hopefully) is get to a library and get their hands on that Playboy article, to iron out the sourcing issues. There are plenty of experienced writers in there, so if you can form a bond, iron out sourcing issues, and work towards consensus, you'll all be in better shape to defend the article once the onslaught starts. When every Tom, Dick and Harry starts weighing in there, it will get worse, and if y'all don't hang together now, the article might not even make it to the mainpage, which would really be a shame. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Could you at least look to see if you think the awards section is better my way, if you look now, you will see I fixed the text sandwiching. — GabeMc (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's changed every time I look-- at one point, someone had added images. It's best not to add any images now, because the ones that were there were vetted at FAC, and image licensing is an area few editors know well-- there are enough images, best to minimize any additions. Text squeeze is something that can be fixed at any time ... sourcing and size is what matters more now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Could you at least look to see if you think the awards section is better my way, if you look now, you will see I fixed the text sandwiching. — GabeMc (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for listening, Gabe :) What someone needs to do (quickly, hopefully) is get to a library and get their hands on that Playboy article, to iron out the sourcing issues. There are plenty of experienced writers in there, so if you can form a bond, iron out sourcing issues, and work towards consensus, you'll all be in better shape to defend the article once the onslaught starts. When every Tom, Dick and Harry starts weighing in there, it will get worse, and if y'all don't hang together now, the article might not even make it to the mainpage, which would really be a shame. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's good advice. Thanks Sandy. — GabeMc (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
With all due respect
Perhaps you would like to look at "peer review" yourself, rather than unilaterally deciding what is or isn't up to standards before anyone else has had a chance to look at it. Vyroglyph (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- See the WP:FAC instructions (you've never edited the article); FAC is not the place to make a WP:POINT about public domain text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
MEDRS/ANI
Sandy, I responded (thoroughly) to your question on MastCell's talk page. If that doesn't cover anything or you have other comments, let me know. Ocaasi (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
MastCell is such a wise owl. His point #5 about those who edit policy pages is spot on. Re: Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources#RfC on the relationship between the sourcing policies and guidelines, I'm going to be away on holiday for a couple of days so must leave you guys to it. Colin° 09:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- You go enjoy yourself, and don't let it get to you again. I like to remember the pendelum-- sometimes, even when you lose (I've long said the same as MastCell, that we should have a BLP-equivalent for medical articles, because it is so important to get it right) you end up winning, as more people eventually come to realize what happens when policies are weakened. And I like MastCell's point #1, too :) Go have fun; Wiki won't change in your absence :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
DYK problems: Principles versus action
- Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know#Actions speak more loudly than talk page promises
- Template talk:Did you know#Geoffrey Crawley
Here's irony. After hundreds of KiBs of talk page discussions, during which people express fine principles that doing nothing would be wrong and that recycling old content is not the point of DYK at all, as soon as it is pointed out that a DYK entry is recycling the information from a featured article from six months previously, and those very same people dig in and clamour that everything's all right and that there are no problems to fix. These fine principles go out of the window, it seems, when it comes to actually putting them into practice in even a single case. Uncle G (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, Uncle G-- I have no free time today, will try to look when I can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oh please! You choose to throw a hissy fit based on a plain misreading of the rules, and where you hadn't followed the actual reviewing/commenting procedures. Four different proposals have been deemed passed for implementation in the last hour, and discussion on others continues briskly. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- I hope the hissyfit wasn't mine (???)-- I've got bigger RL hissyfits on my plate today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- No - in Uncle G's first link. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly my point demonstrated. You've come up with a lot of work for others, including poor Coren, but when it comes down to it, your enforcement of review standards in your actual substantive contributions to the process rather than KiBs of talk page discussion, including the very "novelty" standards that permeate the whole of DYK, is to take no action, to deform the rules of DYK completely out of shape in defense of doing nothing, and to abrogate even the most basic of checking requirements (e.g. the hook against the articles that it links to) because they are "ridiculously" hard.
I've just noticed that the section of Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know immedately above the aforelinked is a section where someone points out a problem with a hook, and people say that "Oh noe! The horrible outsider didn't comment when the DYK entry was on the conveyor belt.". Ironically, when I in the very next section comment on entries that are on the conveyor belt, you raise a din about that, too. And you try to use personal attacks (which I'm sure SandyGeorgia is about to notice several of the fundamental errors of fact in) when you run out of actual argument, just as you are here.
You're not really working for change. You're expending reams of discussion and enacting no change in yourselves when it comes to what you do when it comes to actual cases. This is what the "horrible outsiders", which is the rest of the editorship, will see of you. Uncle G (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Some time ago I objected to a candidate DYK article because it came from another article. The conclusion, as I recall, was if a new article reuses existing text, the new article needs to meet the 5x expansion rule to qualify for DYK. Is that the issue here? Gimmetoo (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, the article was new but the hook fact was indeed already in another article, in fact an FA. But there has never been a requirement that the hook fact has never been included before in a WP article, nor (imo) should there be. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Some time ago I objected to a candidate DYK article because it came from another article. The conclusion, as I recall, was if a new article reuses existing text, the new article needs to meet the 5x expansion rule to qualify for DYK. Is that the issue here? Gimmetoo (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- I hope the hissyfit wasn't mine (???)-- I've got bigger RL hissyfits on my plate today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
zOMG
Did you just accuse me of not paying attention? I'll have you know that... wait... where was I? Oh well, enjoy the champagne. :) MastCell 21:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- <burp> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- It must be something good! I hope you don't suffer for it tomorrow... Geometry guy 23:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Malleus
He hardly needs any assistance from you; but he does need to receive support from the community at large, which I see dissipating rapidly, given his history. There are limits, and I see him pushing them beyond rationality. Nobody's fireproof here, and it helps to sustain an editor's credibility if they follow the commonality of editorship without being obviously confrontational. To achieve the latter whilst retaining credibility here requires significant effort to subvert from within rather than adopting a stance that is anathema to the vast majority of editors and admins. Adopting an apparent position of intellectual superiority here is frankly, doomed to failure, because it's just unsustainable. However, if he wants to open an RFC on me, I'd be happy with that; "bring it on". I just want him to realise that admins aren't that special, but neither are FA/GA editors. Finally, whereas mavericks in a community are tolerated for a while, they can easily outlive that. Rodhullandemu 04:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Plank-->eye. Malleus isn't an admin: you are. Your conduct is far worse than his, and if it keeps up, I'll be happy to start the RFC. If you can call people "wankers", bait and poke all you want in spite of two warnings at ANI, it seems that you are the one who isn't understanding whose patience is wearing thin with your poking. And please don't start the "admins aren't special" on my page; everyone here knows very well that if one of us called people "wankers", we'd be blocked. If you can't post with some logic and introspection, please don't take space on my talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Make my day. But please don't rake up dead issues that have gone nowhere. Rodhullandemu 04:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Don't test me: methinks admins calling people "wankers" and failing to heed warnings about poking Malleus will go somewhere. If you think an admin telling an IP "rfor fuck's sakle shut up and let me reply!!!Q wanker!!!" will go over well with the arbs, perhaps you'd like to test that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- That would have some legs if it were connected, but it isn't, even if sourced. But clearly "rfor fuck's sakle shut up and let me reply!!!Q wanker!!!" is not a rational edit, and I challenge you to attribute it to me, as opposed to an editor who might have had access to my WiFi connection in the same house. That's one reason why I no longer provide such access. Rodhullandemu 04:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- I suggest you stop digging and back away from the computer for the night; I don't think claiming your admin account was compromised will go over any better, particularly considering your history of using such language. And kindly stay away from Malleus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- That would have some legs if it were connected, but it isn't, even if sourced. But clearly "rfor fuck's sakle shut up and let me reply!!!Q wanker!!!" is not a rational edit, and I challenge you to attribute it to me, as opposed to an editor who might have had access to my WiFi connection in the same house. That's one reason why I no longer provide such access. Rodhullandemu 04:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Don't test me: methinks admins calling people "wankers" and failing to heed warnings about poking Malleus will go somewhere. If you think an admin telling an IP "rfor fuck's sakle shut up and let me reply!!!Q wanker!!!" will go over well with the arbs, perhaps you'd like to test that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Declined Mallleus should fit in here, or he should go away. Until he accepts the basic values here, he should not be welcome. Simple as that. Rodhullandemu 05:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm a little confused now. I thought this project was about writing an encyclopedia, which I do and you don't. Malleus Fatuorum 05:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)