Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by VanishedUser 23asdsalkaka (talk | contribs) at 19:13, 28 October 2010 (→AN/I: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Template:FixBunching

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

Template:FixBunching

Template:FixBunching

Haha

Yeah, originally I planned on taking a small break then I inherited some money so I quit my job and spent some time traveling. Now the money's dried up so I've been spending more time at home and working full time again. The main reason I came back though is because I did some reading while I was taking it easy, and A Confederacy of Dunces blew me away. I'm doing a big overhaul on John Kennedy Toole right now and hopefully Zagalejo will be able to help me with some copy-editing (by some I mean writing the lead, and rewriting the body). BUt I think I'll be back for good now. Quadzilla99 (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

can you check John Kennedy Toole for formatting errors and such plz k thx bye Quadzilla99 (talk) 09:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and Zagalejo hasn't let me know if he'll copy-edit it yet. So ignore the writing for now until I get someone to look at it. Quadzilla99 (talk) 09:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits. I'll make those changes in all of the articles I edit. Just an FYI, Zagalejo and I have come to the conclusion that the two bios written on him have issues. One is too short, and the other wouldn't pass WP:RS, as there have been serious accusations that it contains errors, misquotes, inaccurate characterizations, and other issues. Originally I thought I could work around it since I read it with a critical eye but no dice. I'm 99% sure everything in there is accurate though, anything that sounded fishy I avoided and the book did contain a lot of valuable info. I'm going to write a lead just for appearance sake and keep it on my watchlist. But I won't nominate it for anything unless a new bio comes out. What a waste of time. Quadzilla99 (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:V

Sandy, does Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Proposal_5 look okay to you? --JN466 15:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Re:Watch-spiders at Ceoil's page

Per your edit summary: I never, ever presume to attempt to shut a woman up. And besides, it ain't my talk page. JNW (talk) 03:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Smart man :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

What's to be gained? The most irritating voices are invariably the ones I learn the most from. I hate that. JNW (talk) 04:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe they should stop being irritating? Flies, honey and vinegar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I've never tried that, though I suspect it would taste better with flour and without the insects. JNW (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Add chocolate: you may find her less irritating, with or without the flies, honey and vinegar. YMMV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Very nice, though I fear I may have given the wrong impression. Glibness and Victoria's Secret catalogs aside--and you are impressively well versed in said publication--one is thinking not so much of gender-specific aggravations, as the inevitable frustrations encountered in social interactions when there is an agenda at hand. If I want something, then the actions of others will always appear to present obstacles; such is the nature of the ego. All I want is spiritual enlightenment. JNW (talk) 01:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You won't find it at Victoria's Secret (although what would I know-- never been there myself ... from looking at their catalogs, I'm pretty sure anything purchased there would probably be made of synthetics or fall apart in a week. :) I think it's hilarious that they fly chocolate in from Chuao for that Sundae: for some reason, Venezuelan chocolate has a really good reputation that is mostly based on hype. It actually tastes like crap (I hope AWickert doesn't read this and whack me.) My best memories of Chuao are being hit in the head by a rock flying from a construction site and getting a concussion. But I drove home with the headache, drove right through my garage, knocked it down, turned off the car, and went upstairs and went to sleep. So much for Chuao chocolate and me! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Sandy you have the most interesting adventures! Knocking down the garage with a concussion - that's a good one. And you didn't even get chocolate for it... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

That is truly terrifying. I have had no such exotic travels, unless you count the years of youthful hot-headed driving in and around New York City, which did include running over a brick-sized rock on the George Washington Bridge around midnight. As for V.S., I plead guilty to having purchased gift cards.... JNW (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Send one my way-- I'll make the sacrifice! TK, that's a minor story among my adventures ... better is when I escaped from the National Guard in Venezuela, was smuggled out of Argentina in the cockpit of a DC-10, was caught in a shootout ... I could go on. I've fallen asleep after two concussions: put that together with my birthplace, and it explains a lot about me! How's your head today? @JNW, now you get my GW story. I lost a clutch on a car with only 20,000 miles in the boontoolies of the New Jersey Turnpike, and couldn't find a hotel, rental car, or repair shop anywhere nearby, so decided to drive home without the clutch. I can drive without a clutch, but not across the GW Bridge! So I let a complete strange man I met in a roadside Macdonald's who said he could get me across the bridge into my car! Glad I'm still alive, chastity intact-- in hindsight, that wasn't very smart. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Re: driving adventures, perhaps one ought to live where cars are not needed. Coincidentally, my GWB mishap was also resolved by a helpful stranger, an off-duty mechanic on the way home to Jersey. JNW (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

My head is good today, and managed to catch up with some work. Thanks for the concern. I lost the clutch in my car a few months ago on freeway and just kept going. As you say, you don't need them on the freeway, it's what happens when you get off the freeway that's a bitch. Can't even begin to compete with the DC-10 and shootout! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear it :) Hey, I solved my coffee dilemma: set it up the night before, so all I have to do is stumble into the kitchen and find the "on" button. I think I can manage that-- amazing what one can do by engaging the brain. With apologies to John Mayer, my brain is a wonderland-- it got me out of eating at Macdonald's for two days on the NJ Turnpike! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Sandy - since you're online ... I'll probably get in trouble for saying this, but I'm turning the blue banner on page to full retirement and to black. I'm sure you'll be able figure out why. So sorry, but really don't want to stay after all. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

:( :( Going to see what I can figure out now. Please ask Ceoil to give you my e-mail address ... we will miss you. I wish I could have cheered you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I tried to stay, but this is impossible. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No it's not-- you just have to know who to avoid. Reasonable people can read and will draw reasonable conclusions. Whatever you decide to do, you take care of you and your health first. You are well regarded here, and that's more than many others can say. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ceoil disappears for weeks at a time, so it might be a while. Logging out now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Be well. Kind regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No response to above plan. Am momentarily enabling my email to give you non-public health update. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

My bad, TK-- I do have your e-mail address now (so you can disable e-mail if you want), but I just haven't sat down to catch up on my e-mail. Will do soon, and my apologies for the neglect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably back online

Hi Sandy. I have managed to drag myself back into a semi-normal routine, which means I will probably be online at least some. I will try to take my turn at FAC this week, though I'm sure I'll need your help again at a later date!! I won't be reviewing for a while, so if you want to take a stab at reducing the backlog by reviewing, feel free. Thanks for your help last week - both your actions and your words were greatly appreciated. Karanacs (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Pedro II

Hey Sandy. I'm working on the article tonight, will add my comments (or Support) at FAC tomorrow morning. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Nguyen Chanh Thi FAC

May I add another? Yes, I've been reviewing YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure (and thanks for the reviews)! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

FCDW

I really thing Misplaced Pages:Featured content workshop should be integrated into the Signpost newsroom. It doesn't publish itself separately, and it's a Signpost department, so why is it an unintergrated project? ResMar 00:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Response to Message to TijanaP

I apologize for cross-posting. I'm relatively new to wiki and not sure how the messaging system works.

Hi SandyGeorgia, I thank you for your comments. Please note that, while I am affiliated with the Douglas Mental Health University Institute in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. I am not a spammer and did not wish to commit any kind of offense. I was simply trying to better the knowledge on Misplaced Pages based on some of the research that we have done here. We are a nonprofit health institution. We offer patient care and we do research and training. We are an affiliate of McGill University. If you read carefully, you will see that the knowledge I contributed is all relevant. With respect to PTSD, we have a researcher here that specializes in the use of propanolol during therapy sessions to reduce the intensity of the traumatic memory. With respect to major depression, we have a researcher here who specializes in depression in children. With respect to Alzheimer's Disease and cognitive remediation therapy, the knowledge was also equally new and useful. As our website is validated by the experts that work here, we do conform to the rules of the MEDRS articles. Please let me know if you have removed any of my posts and I can then enter into a discussion with you about each of them. I thank you for taking the time to chat with me. Please rest assured my intentions are honest. I also feel that the knowledge I have contributed was pertinent and was not just interspersed within[REDACTED] at random. (Talk) 2:31PM, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I will respond on your talk page, to keep conversation in one place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete

Should Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Terrible Towel/archive1 be deleted? Your edit summary suggested as much, but you didn't CSD tag it. Ucucha 22:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I usually hold off for a few hours before tagging them, just to make sure I didn't goof, or the nom doesn't object, or whatever-- it's possible for me to miss an editor name change or something like that. If you want to go ahead and delete it now, it's probably safe; I left a withdraw notice for the nominator. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It's gone. I can restore if necessary, but that doesn't seem likely. Ucucha 23:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding a new board

Hi! I noticed your comment regarding creation of a new noticeboard... I don't see any reason why we can't be bold and do that? Obviously some planning and discussion should take place on the particulars, first such as an explicitly defined purpose for instance. Cheers!    Thorncrag   04:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

could you … ?

Hi, SandyGeorgia. I was very interested in a comment you made at the RfA for Elen of the Roads: "It has become increasingly important to augment the admin corp with content contributors first and foremost." You may not have time to explain this at length to me, but is there an existing discussion you could point me toward? Are you saying the admin corps is strong in those who are technically proficient, but who lack what used to be called writing skills? Or general understanding about how to research and develop a topic? Or do hands-on editing? Just curious about this, as I find myself often baffled about how the community works. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive644

• Malleus
• Merridew
• Giano
• Rodhullandemu

And this, and the entire page from here down.

I understand Elen of the Roads does good work, but I haven't crossed paths with her that I can recall. I've Supported non-content contributors in the past, but only when I've worked with them and know their character and contributions quite well. Since I'm going to begin opposing admin candidates who don't work on content, she should view my Neutral as good news. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check these out. (I appreciate what you're saying about Elen; I didn't come here in regard to her RfA, but for my own information, just so you know.) Cynwolfe (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a new one unfolding here, once again taking over numerous talk pages, more evidence of the three-ring circus that is the admin corp, and why content contributors need to take back (or take for the first time) the Project. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The problems as I see it have to do with navigating the stages of growth that any organization goes through. There are many versions of sociological or business theory on this, but here's an example (skip down to "Greiners (sic) Model of Five Phases of Growth"). This web page is about corporate for-profit growth, but the model works for non-profits, because it's basically about how you institutionalize dynamism without strangling it. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

But Wiki isn't growing (at least not in good or desired ways, unless we think more child editors becoming admins is "growth"): it's decaying. Perhaps this explains it: "If management now fails to control the activities of these departments, they would start to handle tasks more from their own view than with the whole business in mind. At its extreme, departments would work against each other." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup. And decay is part of the life cycle of an organism. The question is whether WP will adapt as successful organizations do. It makes for an interesting sociological study. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Something would have to be done about this delegation stage; i.e., the monkeys (to whom we've given the keys) are running the asylum, and there is no one who will get the keys back from the monkeys so the crazy content writers can carry on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for going to the trouble of providing those examples, it explained a lot of the fuss I'd seen (and at least one landmine I'd totally tripped over) a great deal better. I know you were responding to Cymwolfe (and I appreciate the question, too), but I got something hopefully useful from your answer as well. Best regards, --j⚛e decker 00:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome; shining the light in dark places is my pleasure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

What do you think of this idea? You could comment on the talk page there, if you wanted. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

could you ? 2

Hi, could you check out my requests at Talk:2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt and WT:VEN. thanks, Rd232 18:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. Must I? I unwatched the lot :) I'll get to it a bit later-- been busy all morning, and have to attend to some offline stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Well it seems no-one else is going to respond to the WT:VEN assessment request; it shouldn't take you too long to handle those. (I'm working through the WP:VEN assessment backlog, but some of my own work needs someone else to look at it.) The coup article I want to nominate for GAN and it would be best for you to make any comments before that gets under way. Rd232 18:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I've got a busy day today IRL, and tomorrow have to read FAC, so I may not get back to you til Sunday-- I do have some questions on assessment that I've been meaning to raise with you as soon as I find time. That would probably be as soon as this subsides at ANI: "admins eating their own. And while they are busy in their solemn discussions on how to throw one of their own to the wolves to satisfy the mob (cf. John Byng) at least they cannot be doing as much damage elsewhere". On the notion of taking the Coup article to GAN, I haven't read it in quite some time, but the last time I did, it was among the worst POV articles, and bringing it to standard would involve some heavy research that would take quite some time-- are you proposing we work on that, or has the article improved since I stopped following? I wouldn't mind trying to work on it, but history shows it would be unlikely we'd make progress if talk page disruptive behaviors take over per usual. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I did a lot of work on the coup article recently. That's why I'm asking you to look at it; it wasn't anywhere near GA before but I think it is now. Rd232 14:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to peek in over the weekend, but I still need to know we're not going to see the talk page degenerate into disruptive behaviors we usually see from others if I take the time to weigh in. I try to "police" disruption from "either side of the aisle" wherever I see it, but no one else seems to do that on the Ven suite of articles. I don't want to wade in again, only to end up attacked and getting nowhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

One other thing, in case you have time to get to it before I do: somewhere on DGG's (very long) talk page, I seem to recall asking him about the reliability of Silence of the Scorpion; would you have time to find that discussion? I never got beyond the first few chapters in that book, and I hope it didn't end up in a box in storage when I moved, but there is info in that book that has to be factored in. Doing so might involve me spending a lot of time in LexisNexis to find other higher quality sources to back up some of his points-- but I'm not sure until I really have time to read it, but I suspect it will take some time and considerable research to bring that article to GA standard. I'm saying this, obviously, before looking at your recent work on the article ... because the last time I looked, there were many points that weren't covered, and doing that right will involve a ton of research to find good sources. Knowing how that "coup" evolved is one thing-- finding sources to back edits is another, that will take a lot of time. I really haven't wanted to do that work until/unless the disruptive environment is controlled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:DGG/Archive_0.8#Book, from this search. Rd232 15:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Rd-- question: if I have to dig up that book again and read it, would you be willing to do same, so we can be on the same page wrt missing content and finding sources? I will be late for lunch now, ACK! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I've read the first three chapters (which are online) and a number of reviews, including and . I've also looked at the resources the author has online. I've concluded the book is not a serious attempt at history; it is rather a historical novel from the perspective of the opposition. That his research providing the basis for the book appears funded by a Fulbright Grant for Creative Writing appears emblematic. For a concrete example, take his handling of the Neustald video. He appears not to mention it in the book, and his website's discussion of it here is disengenous to say the least. The video refers to six deaths, but Nelson talks about the video mentioning "several deaths", and then proceeds to make a case that this might have been a reference to the two deaths occurring earliest in the day! This alone goes along way to discrediting him as source. Of course he ignores completes Neustald's testimony that he had already been told on the night of 10 April that there would be deaths - there's no good way to deal with that, so best ignore it. In sum, I'm expecting you will want to examine the source closely and make a case for using it; and of course we can discuss specifics on a case-by-case basis - particularly for opposition views worth documenting qua opposition views it may be useful. Anything else, I'm reluctant to take his word for it, without some means of verifying claims. Anyway, I have no inclination to get the book myself. Rd232 00:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Crossing paths

I didn't think we'd crossed paths either, but then I remembered ] (which was a bit of a train wreck). This sums up what happened up to the point where Fifelfoo withdrew his nom. Following Marskell's close of the actual discussion as Keep, you (and he) expressed the desire to see the discussion focus on identifying what actually needed improving in the article. In the Scope creep I tried to put together a framework to focus the discussion, and used my usual tactic of trying to get everyone to talk to me as a means of starting the discussion. The historians (Istvan, Ryanjo, Peters Vercrumba and Fifelfoo himself) took it from there and rebuilt the article. I'm really quite proud of this, even though I didn't edit a word in the article :)

As I said somewhere else in the RfA, I feel very much that the role of the admin is to keep the decks clear for editors, and if it passes I'd hope to be an admin you could call on for help. I've met Randy in Boise - even if I don't know he's talking bollocks, he's always the one with no references - or his only source is the Illuminati, or a Russian website of the sort where you feel compelled to run a virus scan after you've looked at it. It's the perils of opening the doors for the talented amateur, the Renaissance man or woman who is prepared to research new topics and write articles on them, that you also let in the trolls, the SPA's possessed of THE TRUTH, the POV warriors out to put the world straight, and the nutcases. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ha, so we have ! You did a fine job there, and Fifelfoo (who used to write very hard-to-follow commentary at FAC) has turned into a fine FAC reviewer. I'm going to continue to follow your RFA, Elen, but I typically don't support candidates unless I know them very very well-- I have to be sure they won't turn into POV-pushing admins, wheel warriors, and block-happy power trippers (we've got plenty of those already). I suspect you're not the type :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen some of Fifelfoo's more recent work, and he does seem to have got over his communication problems. No worries about the RfA - of course I hope I won't turn out like that :), but I respect your approach to support completely. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Image reviews

Sandy, I am a bit busy these day. I am not certain I would be able to take on image reviews at FAC with the same level of details as before. I can take a look but it will have to be one or two days later. Jappalang (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

I have answered your question - it's a bit of an essay I'm afraid Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Spoilsport

BAH. Parrot of Doom 20:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Who's the spoilsport? I expected a revert war with you calling me names so we could both be blocked :) Anyway, I use international datestyle myself, but we do have to be consistent on that page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Number 1's (Mariah Carey album) FAC

Hello. That is not fair that you closed the nomination. It's not my fault that barely anyone goes to that page to review the articles for nomination. I had a support and no opposes, if anything it should be promoted because it didn't have any oppose. That is not fair, you could have at least put your comments and I could've earned your support as well. I'm sorry, but that's BS, I waited 3 weeks andd got support, not fair to remove!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why you aren't responding to my query. Than can you give me permission to nominate a different article?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Partly because it wasn't particularly polite or collegial, so I was hoping a Talk Page Stalker would respond while I was busy with FAC. Partly because there's a big link at the top of my page that explains it. And partly because it's in the instructions at WP:FAC. Articles cannot be promoted to FA without consensus from reviewers that they meet WP:WIAFA. If your articles aren't getting reviewed, there could be a reason: often reviewers don't weigh in on articles if they see a lot of problems, as that leads to a lengthy discussion and process. Or, it could be simply because FAC is lacking reviewers, in which case, the same could happen to another nomination. Your best bet is to try to collaborate with relevant WikiProjects to bring in more editors, or to review past simlar FACs in the archives to locate reviewers who might be interested in the article. You might also consider taking those articles through Peer Review or GAN first. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I apologize if my post wasn't polite, its just upsetting that after 3 weeks it should get denied, even though it has support. This being the case, since the nomination fell through simply because there wasn't enough support and not too much oppose, can you please consider letting Daydream be nominated early, like now? I mean I'm actually trying to produce high quality articles, not through a bunch of weak BS into the mix. Please consider it, as I really waited so long for that last one. Thanks--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Because your previous nomination was a Delisted Good Article, I'm wondering why you don't consider WP:GAN or WP:PR first? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Because it was De-listed like 2 years ago, when Misplaced Pages was very different. Its not like that happened recently. I mean manyy ediitors expressed to me how it was ready. I even had a support as you saw. And besides Daydream has already been through a successful peer review :). So what do you think?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless you figure out why you weren't getting reviews, putting up another FAC would get the same result, and just add to the FAC backlog. Looking over the first article, I see plenty of uncited text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah well quite simply I'm going to let the other editors that are invlolved in album pages that I know, and let them know and encourage them to review. Thats my plan, and I really don't see all this unsurced text. Thanks--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Soooooo what do you say?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 05:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe I already said, but I'll repeat. There is uncited text, unless you determine why you aren't getting reviews, the result is likely to be the same, and I asked why you haven't considered GAN or PR before FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Because I don't think its necessary to go through that, it is NOT required, and I feel the articles are good enough without it. Its also very time consuming. I already told you I would let other editors know and suggest they review it. And I believe the FAC page doesn't have enough traffic and reviewers.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 05:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You know what Sandy, forget it, I'm not going to beg you for a darn help or favor. Thanks for listening and I"m going to deal with one of the other directors.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 13:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It may be more effective to first deal with the uncited text. I'd also point out that your one support was from an editor who is still learning English. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't pointed out any specific un-cited text, so I'm not going to look for it. Well I'm glad you don't find his opinion very important, but I always have. Bye--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 13:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

RE:

1st Essay no rule. Second revert 5 times in ten minutes, finishing to warn an user and find that was attacked again all alone is not excessive? Tbhotch 04:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Care to translate? Vandalism on WP:TFA is normal, the page should not be protected except in extreme circumstances. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

He's saying that that WP:NOPRO has been downgraded to an essay (after a recent RfC), and that vandalism had to be reverted five times in ten minutes (which he considers excessive). Dabomb87 (talk) 04:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Dabomb :) Looie496 is on all the vandals, doesn't seem problematic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What's the problem it will be unprotected in what, 4 hours?, if IPs really want to edit it can request an edit on the page, BTW I'll go to bed at time when the page is unprotected, seems like no one watch TFAs so if you want to spent your time or others time unprotecting the page is up to you. And sorry for my EnglishTbhotch 04:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• (ec)And people complain that I am unintelligible. I should give Tbhotch a barnstar for the single most incomprehensible post I have ever encountered. :-) • Ling.Nut 04:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that we don't protect the TFA unless the vandalism is excessive, because Wiki is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". The vandalism was not excessive for the mainpage, and if vandalism is excessive, four, six or eight hours of protection is more than is needed to curb it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Didn't you mean "The encyclopedia that anyone can vandalize, deface and frustrate readers that are looking for well-written information?" Tbhotch 04:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not for us to decide whether to protect the TFA; it's community consensus, no need to discuss it here. Tbhotch, I just looked at your userpage and realized that Spanish may be your first language: my apologies for the tone above where I asked for a translation, as I couldn't decipher your post. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm an English student so it's normal to make so kind of errors, don't worry. If people do not make me notice about them, who will do it? Tbhotch 04:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, when I said "care to translate", I didn't realize that English wasn't your first language, and we should still allow for that on Wiki. So I still apologize. I speak Spanish if you ever need help, BTW. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Image review at FAC

It wasn't meant as a dig; sorry if it came across that way. I was just rather surprised that the FAC for that article didn't touch on the images at all. Many FACs I've been involved in have included some review of the images' license status ... most recently I recall participating in this one, where I argued at length for the inclusion of a book cover with simple text (and thus copyright-ineligible) in the article.

If there are only a handful of us who understand the policy, that again calls back one of the criticisms I had when it was adopted ... that only a small group of editors would fully understand the policy (and of those few, I would say at least half do so to try to exclude as many borderline images as possible, so I don't totally trust them to be impartial). Daniel Case (talk) 06:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

In the case of my Grace Sherwood article, someone did say the images were okay. I've responded on my talk page on this and found an image I think we can use. Both pls visit there. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing free images

Well not bad summery as such but the public domain section would imply that there are far fewer works in the public domain in say france than one might expect (ah moral right how do we hate thee). The derivative works section completely ignores the whole "useful article" issue.©Geni 15:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

There probably are fewer pd works in France, as it has no Freedom of Panorama (walks off muttering 'copyright the fairy lights on the bloody Eiffel Tower will you.....")--Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The lights are copyright? Aw gee. I hoped with ol' Gustave 70 years dead, that we'd be in business ... bloody frogs.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

read 'em and weep --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

That does not, however, mean that a daytime picture of the Eiffel Tower isn't a free image (And I've always thought that, as bad as French law is on the subject, Italian law is even worse). Daniel Case (talk) 04:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they say that sometime this millenium, Roman copyrights start expiring.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Your RfA comments

As I stated in other replies, I have been contemplating the possibility of pursuing an RfA and thought it might come at some point in the future. I was taken aback that anyone would nominate me at RfA and I believe that I have shown in my recent edit history that I am a different editor than I was before. I appreciate the concerns you raised and those of the other opposes, and I understand why you may feel that I'm not ready at this point. Regardless of the outcome of this RfA I will do my best to continue to improve as a collaborative editor and to address all the good faith issues that you and other admins may raise here. Alansohn (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Sandy is not an admin, though she will smile happily at your comment, I am sure :) . Congrats on your candidacy though I suspect it will not meet the required percentage. Brave man, that. Hell week is not for the faint of heart. And to do it twice?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Alansohn, I recognize that you may have altered your behavior since the Arbcom blocks, but working at DYK isn't the way to evidence that you are a different editor wrt those behaviors (particularly considering plagiarism concerns with lots of DYKs and some of yours, and the lack of adequate oversight at DYK and how easy it is to put up a DYK), and the DRV in July 2010 indicates that you still have strong tendencies in that problematic area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate the fact that you believe that DYK has a "lack of adequate oversight", it most certainly is not the fast-and-loose trivial accomplishment you make it out to be. With each of my articles averaging about 2,500 characters, I have contributed a few million bytes worth of new and improved articles backed by ample reliable and verifiable sources, which could just as easily have been several dozen GAs or FAs. I have successfully focused on expanding the breadth of coverage in Misplaced Pages through DYK and your condescending attitude towards that approach is uncalled for. Moreso, if you are going to make extraordinary negative claims about my editing you are going to have to back up the assertion you make above regarding "plagiarism concerns with lots of DYKs and some of yours". Alansohn (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Alansohn, part of your past problems wrt RFA have to do with you becoming combative when others disagree with you; I don't think it would be productive for me to dig up more than this example. Please see Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

For someone who's tossing out baseless and unsupported allegations of alleged plagiarism, my response is hardly "combative". This is not a mere disagreement; You are making a rather direct personal attack. If you genuinely believe that William S. Stevens or any other article has been plagiarized by me you are going to have to provide evidence, not merely point to a definition of the term. Alansohn (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

And now you are becoming combative. There is no personal attack; I linked the evidence (your article that follows the structure of the NYT article with some juggling). Critical reading and a thick skin are good qualities in admins. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a rather thick skin, but your claim of plagiarism is baseless. If you have any evidence that any aspect of the Misplaced Pages article for William S. Stevens has been plagiarized from his obituary in The New York Times you have yet to provide it. Without it, it's just a baseless personal attack. Alansohn (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I prefer to think of it as a conversation that may lead you to improve your editing, and maybe even some oversight for plagiarism at DYK. At any rate, this conversation has run its course. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Just driving by and noticed the P-word, which always gets people seriously riled up, so I took a brief look at this compared to here. Alansohn, you seem to have pretty closely followed the structure of the obit, i.e. the order of presentation of facts follows the same sequence. You have been selective in what you wrote about as compared to the obit, but you do not seem to have incorporated material from any other sources. I certainly see the problem with incorporating a new source properly when it already explains things in the most logical way and I try never to use "that" word, but from my own limited experience evaluating copyvio and plagio issues, I'd suggest you could achieve a better standard than that. Just sayin' :) I'm not sure, but WP:Close paraphrasing may be of some help here. Franamax (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't my intent to single out Alansohn when the real problem is DYK in general, in that its lack of oversight encourages copyright infringement and the reward culture. But since Alansohn wants more evidence, here is one more. I only meant to say that DYK is not the equivalent of the kind of serious content work that I look for in admins; it's too easy to slap up a quick copyvio at DYK, and they get accepted without close checks on the paraphrasing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think I would would pass those first 12 edits, taken as a body. It's not exactly "read everything / close all books and windows / write what you now know / go back and prove how you know it", but it looks like the material was integrated well enough. I'm often wrong on this stuff when specifics are pointed out to me though. :)

You are singing from my sheet when it comes to DYK concerns in general. I stopped watching that long ago, heck even I have two DYK credits. The rotation period seems too short for the available manpower and the incentives seem wrong to me. Dunno how to fix that though, other than volunteering my own time for the case-by-case bits. I could see lowering the rotation frequency to increase competition for available slots, but that seems a rather nasty way of going about a wiki. Franamax (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK has lost its way. It might as well be renamed "... did you you know that I've written this rather nasty little stub with a tediously boring hook that nobody's bothered even to check for basic spelling and grammar mistakes?" Malleus Fatuorum 23:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK never had a way; there was never a "golden age before all the good ones were taken". The first five DYKs were:

• Did you know that a pencil sharpener "is a device for sharpening a pencil's point by shaving the end of the pencil"?"
• ...that in 1971, Pakistani writer Eqbal Ahmad was indicted on charges of conspiracy to kidnap Henry Kissinger?
• ...that jumping plant lice and aphids are considered to be the "primitive" group within the Hemiptera order of true bugs?
• ...that the Tokyo Monorail, which travels at speeds of up to 80 kph, was constructed to coincide with the 1964 Summer Olympics?
• ...that the Balkan comic opera Ero the Joker was first performed on November 2, 1935?

 – iridescent 23:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I knew that. I was trying to be generous, to see how it felt. Malleus Fatuorum 23:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hang on a 'sec, did you just admit that you have feelings (or at least the potential to have them)? This seems a major development, and even raises the possibility other editors may have thwm too. ((Double-super smiley ;;)) Franamax (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No joking about Malleus. You might get blocked. Or not. Ucucha 23:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Most likely not :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

How about DYK ... that DYK is a sensationalist Home Health Guide ?!?! One proposal I liked from Alansohn:

Overlook Hospital
... that a doctor at Overlook Hospital in Summit, New Jersey recommended the consumption of alcoholic beverages to delay the onset of contractions of a pregnant woman? Created by Tomwsulcer (talk). Nominated by Alansohn (talk) at 03:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this Project supposed to be taken seriously (except 1 April of course ... wouldn't want to offend present company :) Is that really how we should present a Hospital on the main page? The whole hook "thingie" furthers sensationalism, by picking out one obnoxious doctor to highlight in a DYK about a hospital. I believe there was some oversight on that one, though, and it wasn't run ... could be wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It should have been retired from the main page a long time ago. It had a purpose once: to expose new articles on the main page in the hope they would be improved and at the same time to encourage and recruit new editors. Unfortunately it was never made clear to the visitors that their participation was encouraged, so it never really worked, and somewhere down the line it became a medal-collecting exercise where editors demand their "right" to have their article featured, their "credit" delivered, and their records noted. It's a pity because inaccurate stubs could be a great editor recruiting tool. DYK is by no means alone in bringing mediocrity to the main page though - articles in OTD and ITN are frequently worse. Yomangani 00:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

My one foray into ITN resulted in 1) a POV article being run on the mainpage, and 2) me being told to STFU. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Mine resulted in the discovery that I am part of a reformist Jihad. Never knew that. Ucucha 00:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Not only am I unclear as to the ax grinding with regard to DYK, I am still unclear as to where there is plagiarism in the William S. Stevens article. If anyone has a serious interest in dealing with allegations of a widespread epidemic of plagiarism in this article, any other article I've written or at DYK in general, it would be far more helpful to discuss these issues WT:DYK rather than beating a horse that isn't present. Alansohn (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Simply: DYK had lofty goals that made some sense in the Project's earlier days, to encourage article creation and expansion. Now it mostly furthers the Reward culture and creation of marginally useful articles for "prizes". Spend a lot of time reading the talk page at WP:WIKICUP. The problem with many DYK articles is described in the close paraphrasing link given above, and also, when the structure of the article mimics the source (please read the Dispatch I linked). It happens often when articles are put together quickly from one or two sources, and it can be hard to avoid if putting together a lot of DYKs quickly is the goal. I still didn't mean to make an example of you: before the plagiarism Dispatch was written, I wasn't very knowledgeable myself, and probably did some of same somewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concerns with the process, but DYK still serves the beneficial purpose of fostering the creation and expansion of new articles and making the reading public aware of these articles. The work that you have done on GAs and FAs, meticulously analyzing each sentence and source has produced a substantial number of high quality articles, and I appreciate the assistance that you offered when I was working on GAs for Manhattan and Teaneck, New Jersey. After devoting tons of time to those efforts I became hooked on DYK after realizing how many articles didn't exist, despite the availability of biographies and obituaries about the subject. We need Misplaced Pages to improve the depth of articles, a task that GA and FA status serves well, but we also need to fill in the holes and that's where DYK still has a vital role to play. I wouldn't denigrate anyone for working on getting an article to GA status and I don't see the reason to be hypercritical of DYK. I had read the signpost piece on plagiarism before and I read it again. I have always tried to make sure that any editing I have done complies with those paradigms. While I appreciate your concerns about my editing history, I am confident that over time I will be able to convince the community that I have made a meaningful change. But the charge of plagiarism cuts at the essence of everything I've done on Misplaced Pages. I hope you understand where I come from on this issue. Alansohn (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand Alansohn, and appreciate the more moderated tone now. I guess what I really wanted was not to denigrate your DYK work, but to point out that it's not the best vehicle for showing you've overcome the arb blocks. And there is a real problem with how DYK has become part of the Reward culture, ala Wikicup. Have you had a look at Dabomb87's RFA? He was sanctioned in the lame date-delinking case, and he overcame that with a resoundingly successful RFA, but he worked his arse off for more than a year, and dealt with that head on-- DYK is more of a hidden area where you didn't necessarily demonstrate that you'd overcome those past issues. I appreciate your reasons for getting involved at DYK, but to overcome the XfD issues from your past, it just might not be the best place to work-- do it for fun, but know that if you want to pass RFA, accepting a surprise nom isn't a good starting place, and you have to address your past blocks head on, not think a lot of DYKs will overcome them. Also, I'm certain I never used the word "plagiarism" at the RFA; I do understand Franamax's point that it is a very loaded word on Wiki, even though I don't see it that way, since I was quite ignorant before that Dispatch was written. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah well, I'm not a big fan of the specific wording in that Signpost article, but I'll accept that it drew attention to our commuity efforts to get the guideline up and running. Alansohn, I think there are three different themes here. One is the whole question of what purpose WP:DYK exists to serve. It would be unfortunate if that were the only reason your RFA tanked, but that's not what I'm reading; the second is whether you yourself committed rampant plagiarism. I came here entirely unprompted through plain 'ol TP-stalking and made my own independent evaluation of the two candidate articles presented. It's only my opinion, but for one of them it's "on balance, likely OK" and for the other "hmm, I have kind of a queasy feeling about this" - so it's not a guilty/innocent area, IMO it shades into grey. Not a federal case, but maybe something for small-claims court; and third, your suitability as an admin candidate, which I suspect may be foremost in your mind right now. Me, I would hate everyone who opposed my RFA forever, except I forget who they were. ;) Sandy has the privilege to express her own views, you indicated an interest in DYK proceedings, thus it seems apropos to comment thereon. I'm rather troubled that these are two-year-old events being rehashed, but at the same time I've not seen your disavowal (or even adequate explanation) of what happened. If you are going to stand as an administrator, you better be willing to talk about everything. Franamax (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I forget who almost all of them were :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It's clear to me that as an editor and a person that I've moved beyond the incidents that led to blocks in the past and made the personal changes to ensure they don't ever happen again. I knew that it would take more than one RfA to get to that point and that a first RfA would serve as a benchmark where I might be able to convince some one-time no voters to switch sides based on continued changes. I'm still concerned about the claims of plagiarism, and any more specific evidence of violations would only help efforts to address it where it has appeared in existing articles and help me avoid the issue in the future. Alansohn (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Take your lumps, take a full six months, and be above reproach. If you do all that, I think it will be close, though I would not put money on it. If you fail, if you then take another six months, ditto, ditto, I think you'll be OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Move a misplaced FAC to FLC

Hi, the nominator of Misplaced Pages:Featured_article_candidates/List_of_countries_by_future_HDI_projections_of_UN/archive1 would like help moving it to FLC. I've also notified User:The Rambling Man and User:Dabomb87. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

How many FAC people does it take to change a lightbulb ? :) Thanks, Ucucha. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Sixty, but it takes half an hour to finish the dance, because none of the regulars want to step on anyone's toes. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Which in DanceSport is the easiest way to step on others' toes... Titoxd 20:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

List of countries by future HDI projections of UN

Hello. I've put (by mistake) the article (mentioned above) in the FAC list instead of the FLC list. Could you please move the article, from the FAC, to the FLC? Cohneli (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

What is lacking?

Hi, Sandy. Could you be kind and tell me what it lacking for both Pedro II and Cabral's FAC nominations to end? Pedro II has six "support" views and Cabral has nine "support" views. After weeks, what is missing to get their approval as featured articles? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It's the same ole, Lecen: I don't want to close your noms because of potential claims of COI in the Chavez realm, and Karanacs does closings on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays. Sorry that you appear to be penalized because of our interaction on Chavez, but it's the safest thing to do :) Also, the noms were held up on image issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, you are 100% correct. Cheers, --Lecen (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Douglas Institute References on Misplaced Pages

Hi Sandy, I appreciate your response. I have read the two pages you gave me carefully and discussed them with a colleague.

"Therefore, it is vital that biomedical information in articles be based on reliable published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." (Our articles are based on realiable published sources - however, as I understand, the main source of the problem comes from the fact that our articles do not use references & are not peer reviewed - this is what they told me) "However, see here: All Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources   A good secondary source from a reputable publisher will be written by an expert in the field and may be editorially or peer reviewed." (So, it does not have to be peer reviewed but it is preferred is what I am understanding?). Is there any way you could change your mind given the fact that we our website is written and updated by the 67 researchers that work at our Institute?? I shall await your response. Thank you for your time TijanaP(Talk)

Wikiblame

Hi Sandy, I'm a Moonriddengirl TPS. I saw your interchange regarding Wikiblame. I thought I'd share a personal experience, just in case it helps. I've had occasion to want to know when a phrase was first added to an article, so naturally, I tried WikiBlame. When I first started using it, the tool would start checking versions in order (there may have been a way to make it work differently, but I didn't figure it out). Sometimes, I would set Wikiblame to work, then try to find it myself manually, using a binary search, and I was mildly amused to note I could often find it faster than the tool. I didn't totally abandon it, as I could put it to work while I did something else, but it was so slow, it hardly seemed worth it.

Then, something changed. My guess is that the tool owner either implemented binary search, or maybe just changed it so that was the default, but it now works much better. I've used it several times recently with good success (as with any tool it can't be used mindlessly. I recently looked for the first use of phrase, thought I found it, then checked earlier version manually, and realized there was an earlier version differing only by a typo from the one I looked for, so the original addition date was a bit earlier than the tool suggested, but that's not the tool's fault).

I hope you'll give it a try again. I've only been involved in copyright issues in a minor way, but want to spend more time in that area, and the tool is invaluable for that work.--SPhilbrickT 18:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Hmmm, wrote all those words and didn't even include the main point - to wit - if you tried Wikiblame before and didn't find it helpful, try again, as it may work better now.--SPhilbrickT 18:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much-- I made it work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Great! I'm glad to hear it. (keep up the good work.)--SPhilbrickT 18:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Robert Falcon Scott TFA

Just to thank you for watching Scott on its TFA day on 24 October, while I was away. Regarding the note you left on the talkpage about lower/upper case, in Scott's time naval ranks would certainly have been written as "Lieutenant", "Captain" etc, rather than "lieutenant" or "captain", and many sources still use upper case for military ranks though it is becoming increasingly customary not to do so. Similarly, there is no real objection to "First Class" becoming "first class". As to "Naval Assistant", this is a formal job title rather than a general job description, and my preference is to capitalise. But again, UK conventions are changing and the lower case format is would be equally acceptable now. Brianboulton (talk) 11:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure

You are invited to participate in the Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure which is expected to close in a little over a week. If you have received this message, it is because it appears that you participated in the 2009 AC RfC, and your contributions indicate that you are currently active on Misplaced Pages. Ncmvocalist (talk) 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I favor "one person, one vote". I just want to be the one person with the one vote.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't be scared...

It roll up wikisleeves and put 'editor' rather than 'reviewer' hat on. I think it is a salutory experience all round. I am saying this with MDD as there are other editors to nominate for FAR and/or referee it. Yellowmonkey is getting stuck into buffing Tasmanian devil and urging me to get more active in it...and tehn there is lion for which I have to go to the library and fetch a written text for again. I am feeling a little jetlagged still so the more cerebral stuff is taking more of an effort - also October 31 is our tax deadline (headdesk/facepalm), one of those excuciatingly onerous and boring tasks that one must do or ring up and beg the tax office for more time etc. In short, I am running on about one piston at present...Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Heck, I don't really want to FAR it, I just want the work to get done, but it seems like every time work gets started, a new editor comes along and wants to chunk in even more primary sources. Keeping those big articles clean is a chore, and I think if you'll whack it back once and for all, you'll be battling less of that over the long haul-- like what Eubulides did to AS and Autism. Take it easy there, and welcome back. (Sorry I don't share your enthusiasm for Paris :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Like I already said to Casliber, a lot of old Australian flora/fauna articles need help, and in the case of TD, many of the parts such as genetics, disease transmission and immunology needs someone who actually knows some jargon and more than what I know... Of course anyone can do the easy stuff about food, burrowing, observations of macroscopic behaviour etc Since more people read this page maybe Casliber might feel more pressure :P, and Fauna of Australia and Australian Green Tree Frog are still waiting for him ... YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 23:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ping me when you put up the frog, I'll help out with that (gotta even out karma for all the frogs that succumbed to my "care" as a boy). Sasata (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

December 1964 South Vietnamese coup

May I have another, please? I have an endorsement from an elite reviewer, so to speak YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 23:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

YM, you gotta start linking me directly to the FAC, so I can commit less Gisms and keep up with Malleus elsewhere :) Yes, I see plenty of Support there, no issues, and Karanacs will likely go through tomorrow anyway. But honestly, people will complain less if you can wait a day for her to go through :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Chain Saw FAC

Hi Sandy, I was wondering if you could look over the FAC now and see if there's consensus to promote? Thanks, --The Taerkasten (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Karanacs will most likely go through FAC today (she closes FACs on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesday-- I do the rest of the week); has DCGeist finished up? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think so, all the issues raised have been addressed. I'll just make sure. Thanks,--The Taerkasten (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll run through FAC later tonight - probably close to midnight UTC. Karanacs (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that Davidpatrick may need a talking to as well.

For what? Voicing an opinion on ANI that you disagree with? Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 19:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I was coming here as well concerned about that comment. It's already enough of a shame that everybody else has completely ignored what he said (which seemed rather reasonable to me.) Kansan (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

He appears to me to have grandly missed the point. If anyone else has as well, I doubt my explanation will help. I wonder how much of that particular block unfolded off-Wiki, on IRC or other sorts of places, BTW, and who else participated? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Simply bringing up a perspective that nobody had yet considered in the rush to condemn the block is not "missing the point", and accordingly, what happened where (IRC or whatever) is not strictly relevant in whether he has the right to participate in the discussion. Kansan (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have missed our point. Your comment comes across as aggressive. I'm sure that you didn't mean it to but that's how it sounds. Could you delete it please? Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 19:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I fail to find the aggression in suggesting a "talking to" wrt BLP issues; in fact, it seems rather mild. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously you fail to see it otherwise you wouldn't have said it. But when two people independently come to your talk page to say that they see a problem with that comment, that should probably tell you something. The language is menacing, mildly so but unacceptable none the less. Please remove the comment. You can't say that you are against wikibulling when admins do it but engage in a low level example yourself. Please, just remove it. Or strike it if you prefer. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 19:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Now who's bullying and menacing? Two editors who think "talking to" is "menacing"? "Talking to" over BLP issues can only be construed as menacing if you're got a mindset predisposed on the whole issue, which would be interesting in and of itself. You may go away now because I've given you my final answer: there is absolutely nothing menacing or bullying in my very mild choice of words-- or if you prefer, you can block me for refusing to cowtow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Theresa is not bullying or menacing you; she's politely communicated her concerns about what was said. At least when I think of the term "a talking to", I think of being yelled at; inveighed against. It may simply be a difference in how we perceive the term. Kansan (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Clearly we disagree on bullying; when an admin comes here three times and pretty much demands that I remove a very mild comment, that is more menacing than the original comment. I suggest she block me post-haste, as I see an old style (2003) admin at work here. BTDT. And I really can't feel responsible if your parents talked to you differently than I talk to my children-- you have a very strange idea of "talking to" in my world. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You are way too emotionally het up. Of course I won't bloody block you. I did not demand it i requested it. Calm down, Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee!

Please save your condescending tone for children: I already raised mine. You can go away now; you've shown your colors and double standard. Malleus wins again. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

I'm confused now; is sarcasm an appropriate response to nonsense comments ("menacing") or not? Эlcobbola _talk 20:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

What's the diff showing the comment Sandy made? I can't find it. Menacing? Is that the word that should be used? --Moni3 (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Here. Kansan (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=393261796 Menacing is too strong a word and i should (not) have used it. But it's not nice and doesn't add to the discussion. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 19:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC) (maybe this didn't help, i meant to write should not have used it)

That is, if anything, unclear. I'd ask for a clarification to avoid confusion, but I cannot, in any way, construe that as menacing. Driving through a farmer's market is menacing. Driving around in a van with tainted windows around schools and offering children candy from said van is weird and menacing. Alluding to blocking another editor for coming to a talk page and calling a confusing comment menacing is menacing. This is why ANI doesn't work and is hideous. Useless crap comments meant for levity take over serious situations. Comments that should be clarified are instead mischaracterized. Instead of trying to get to the root of an issue, editors are asked to strike comments and apologize. Time and again we reject opportunities for real understanding for superficial infantile gestures. For some reason, it makes some of us feel good, but the communication problems are never resolved. --Moni3 (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

(EC) It's hard to find diffs at WP:ANI because editors like Teresa seem to think humor is called for when a really bad block is placed, so there are lots of ecs. It's curious that she finds a block discussion funny, but my text "menacing". Here's the exact text from the Viriditas' block discussion:

I've reviewed every discussion I could find and it looks to me like exactly the kind of "admin cowboy" block that should lead to a quick desysopping and for which Wiki should have a process in place for desysopping short of arbcom-- the very problems with abusive admins that have been oft-discussed of late. Wrong on many levels. I suggest that Davidpatrick may need a talking to as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not find the block funny at all! What a silly thing to say. My let's all block each other comment was sarcasm directed at SofV for his outragous comment, ment to show it for what it was. stooopid. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 19:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You've worn out your welcome here, Theresa, and I'm sorely tempted to resort to Malleus-style language because of your unnecessary and bullying provocation and childish language and logic. You strike me as the type of admin who got through in 2003 on a few votes and hasn't adapted to the real and current Wikiworld. You are here demanding that I strike a mild comment, while you haven't yourself struck the "menacing" charge which is much more aggressive and bullying than anything I said-- can you say "double standard"? If you're just dying to block me, do it. If not, please go away so uninvolved folks can tell me if I need to strike or rectify anything. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• After looking through the discussion, as a neutral third party that doesn't care about the outcome in any way, I have to agree with Theresa and Kansan. David just mentioned that Viriditas was being abrasive in his requests. While the requests were not unreasonable, the wording was far from optimal. I'm not sure why David would need "a talking to", and suggesting so did seem to be rather hostile. Titoxd 20:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you, Tito; once the Theresa drama subsides here, I will get over there and re-read everything and clarify as needed. The BLP issues seem to have been lost in the shuffle at ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• David wasn't even talking about any BLP issues; he was just criticizing the tone used by Viriditas, and pointing out how it could have a chilling effect on other contributors. Asking for David to be "talked to" in the same paragraph where you essentially requested desysopping sanctions against another editor can be easily construed as requesting sanctions against Davidpatrick—sanctions that, I may add, are not justified by his comment in the unblock discussion. Titoxd 20:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Then my post was unclear, as oft happens me with-- "talking to" referred to the original BLP issues, which I would have hoped that anyone who was following the original issue as it unfolded would understand, but apparently it and I wasn't clear enough. At any rate, Theresa sure trumped it all up in all the ways that admins manage to mess things up and get the original issues off-track at the three-ring ANI circus. The BLP issues are what caused the whole thing to begin with. It will take me some time to get back through the whole thing and figure out how to rectify-- hopefully the ecs have subsided now, and Theresa seriously needs to adapt. She can't be threatening others like this, and if she doesn't think she did, she needs to rethink her tone here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Which ironically proves Davidpatrick right: tone is everything... Titoxd 20:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• I doubt that I use the same tone on editors who violate BLP as I do on others-- it's a disgusting offense, so I imagine my tone probably changes in those discussions, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• After typing a long and hopefully nice response over there, and finding myself in several more edit conflicts, I see this snarky post there from Theresa, made after the discussion here:

  ::And what, may I ask, has Davidpatrick done wrong here? Kansan (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  :::Disagreed with Sandy Georgia? Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 20:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

  Now, if I were another person, I might say something like, "You, Theresa, are one nasty piece of work and a real troublemaking intermeddler". But we all know I don't say things like that, so instead, I'll rethink my clarifying post and post it when the edit conflicts have died down and I'm good and recovered from being bullied by an admin who doesn't see BLP issues when they slam her in the face. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • You refused to remove the comment despite three people telling you that it wasn't helpful. So yes I am a nasty piece of work, for you anyways. Nothing i could do no matter how polite I tried to be is going to change your opinion. i am an admin therefore I am evil. But I'll not let your comment on ANI go uncontested. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 20:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Grow up. Two obviously involved editors called it "menacing" and asked me to strike. Two uninvolved didn't find it menacing at all. After discussion with Tito, I agreed to rectify and was doing so when I edit conflicted. Now go away and threaten the children here; they might cower in fear. I won't. I was on my way to rectify and clarify the comment when I saw your latest snark. You are a bullying admin, and your threats here are much worse than my misunderstood comment about the BLP issues on that thread. Now block me if you'd like-- I really don't care. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
    • (ec) Theresa, I am not sure you are accurate in that assessment. For all we know, she could have been amending her comment at the time. Adding snark when someone has complained about snark (here) is not helpful. I encourage both of you to refactor your comments. Titoxd 20:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Yeah you are right. OK, Sandy's constant victim talk got to me I suppose. I'll change it. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 20:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
      • (more ecs, what a show) Perhaps among her other skill sets, Theresa is unable to check contribs. Mine clearly show I took about 10 minutes to work on my refactoring and clarifying response there, when I found her snark in edit conflict.

        20:37, October 27, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Titoxd ‎ (→SandyGeorgia: YMMV)

        20:32, October 27, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:SandyGeorgia ‎ (→I suggest that Davidpatrick may need a talking to as well.: piece of work)

        20:21, October 27, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:SandyGeorgia ‎ (→I suggest that Davidpatrick may need a talking to as well.: re)

      • It is the snarkiness like this that renders ANI ineffective, and I've sure got better things to do with my time than to fight edit conflicts with snarking posters so I can enter something necessary. You, Theresa, are the type of admin who sheds more heat than light, and that is why ANI doesn't work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• (ec) Theresa removed that from AN/I. At this point, I would encourage everyone to stop casting aspersions at each other and copyedit Hurricane Alex (2010) or something. Titoxd 20:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Another EC, and after her latest snark ("Sandy's constant victim talk"), she can stay off my talk page. It was clear where this was headed from her first threat, and nothing was going to stop that. In case it's not clear-- don't post here again, Theresa. I've got work to do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

My, what unnecessary unpleasantness... you look like you all need a cookie! Sandy, here's one for you. :) Rd232 21:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Rd232 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thank you for the calories, Rd! Two lessons from this: 1) s/he who takes on admin abuse will be targetted, and 2) the good thing about ANI is that abusive admins self-identify during the three-ring circus. Reminding myself that's why sane people stay away as much as possible, while they "eat their own". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Make that three lessons: I forgot it's arbcom season when lots of admins join the ANI circus to rachet up visibility and score potential votes! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, you deserve the calories today. Looks like a rough day, but I like your spirit. Would send a tune your way, but I really suck at giving out tunes. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Just another day at the office :) I wanted to be able to say Malleus was wrong, and a different approach might shine some light, but alas and alack ... attention spans and all that, folks have got to *read* to understand what's going on out there and how it affects content. Following ANI and RFA for a few days will cure anyone of hoping for improvement in how admins treat editors! I know I know I still owe you an e-mail from about a week ago about your health issues-- I've been terribly negligent about keeping up both here on Wiki and with my e-mail. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

If you have time...

I am interested in bringing Canadian heraldry up to FA. Never having been through FA, I don't have the foggiest where to begin. If you have the time, would you be able to look over the article and suggest a couple of broad brushstroke areas that need improvement before I even consider the process? (I should note there is a new section for the article in the works, covering legal status and issues in Canadian heraldry. It's just a bit of a slog to write.) → ROUX ₪ 04:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Scratch that last bit; turns out the source I need hasn't been published yet. → ROUX ₪ 13:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I will look at MOS-y issues, but if I dig in too much on the content or sourcing side, then I'd have to recuse at FAC. Perhaps other TPS will have a look. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Righto, thanks! → ROUX ₪ 04:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Check the tools I installed on talk-- you've got some dead links-- and check for WP:OVERLINKing. What holds up most FACs is images (see info on image review, and the previous Dispatch linked there as well), and the images there could be tricky, so you might want to "get in line" with the very few good image reviewers who work at FAC, and ask them to have a look now. Try Jappalang (talk · contribs), Elcobbola (talk · contribs), Stifle (talk · contribs) ... there are others, but they are all very overworked. Portals in infoboxes don't go over well at FAC, because they belong in See also. I didn't look at content or sources, but the article doesn't look underprepared from a mile-high flyover. Also, those big quote marks in the quote box should go ... The best thing you can do to prepare for FAC is to read the entire page for several weeks. And review :) Anyone can! You don't have to feel prepared to enter Oppose or Support; Comments on anything you see that needs work always help, and by engaging FAC you'll know what to expect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! The portal link is inherited from the infobox template; I don't see a way to suppress it, and I'm not sure the inevitable argument if I try to remove it from the template is worth it. In terms of images, there are indeed problems; coats of arms in Canada are automatically copyrighted, which means either they need to be FU images, or wholly new images will need to be created for each illustration. I will check out those links. → ROUX ₪ 05:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

A couple of things on the sources - don't use abbreviations such as pch.gc.ca - use who the organization was that put the webpage out - Canadian Heritage in this case. Also, make sure you're consistent with how you refer to things in the references - you have both RHSC and Royal Heraldry Society of Canada, you'll want to use the later to avoid people not knowing the abbreviations (as a general rule, only abbreviations like UN, BBC, ESPN that are known all over the world can be used safely). Current ref 24 lacks a publisher. Analness in references is important too. Also, one question someone will be sure to bring up - are there NO published printed works? By using only online sources you're leaving yourself open to the concern that you've not surveyed all the relevant literature. A quick Google books look shows this search, which discounting the first listing (the Books LLC will be a printout of your article... lovely, isn't it!) , shows a number of works that probably should be checked. Likewise Google Scholar would need to be checked also. Hope this helps. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Noted re:consistency, will hop on that now. There are only a couple of printed works on Canadian heraldry; A Canadian Heraldic Primer published by the RHSC and given out to members (I will be one sometimes in the next month or so, when I have some free cash), and the book by Beddoe, unfortunately not currently available at the library. → ROUX ₪ 13:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Roux, if you want my help with Canadian heraldry, let me know. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

FAC run-through

Don't know if you saw my email. I didn't get to FAC last night...do you want me to run through all of it today or just look at the ones you are recused from? Thanks and sorry. Karanacs (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Karanacs-- my apologies, I just saw your e-mail now. Hugs-- life gets better, and what doesn't kill 'ya makes you stronger-- with time :) I can get through later tonight, but I'm heading out soon and am going to be out most of the day, so if you want to do it today, that would work, too! Whatever works for you. You take good care there, best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll do a quick run-through today, so you'll still have time to take a look this weekend if you want. Karanacs (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

OK-- if you run out of time, don't worry-- I'll look through when I'm home later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Just in case no one has told you ladies recently: You rule. If you ever came to my house I'd get out the 25-year Balvenie I hide from all the other company. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank goodness you know my drink-- rumor has it that I can't handle my liquor; when I drink wine, it ends up on the carpet; and tequila makes me happy! You rock, too! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

If you can't handle your liquor, I recommend plastic bottles.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Growing pains

There seems to be enough activity on the "civility" issues that maybe something will get resolved. I would like your (and the TPS') comments about a couple things, though. First, the Viriditas block. I think asking about a desysop was perhaps too far to go at that point. That's why I was suggesting a block. Blocks are pretty minor now, and I suspect if people starting arguing that admins should be blocked for various inappropriate uses of the tools, it might get more traction. After a couple of bad-use blocks, arguing for a desysop would be easier. The other issue is this block. I'm not asking anyone to comment there, and I would actually suggest people avoid it. Nevertheless, I wouldn't mind some feedback, here. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I think, actually, most admins are smart enough to jump out of the water when it starts getting warm. If any stay until it's boiling, they deserve their fate.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Briefly—TR is in the right in terms of content ("British Isles" is the only correct term, unless you're going to list every island individually, since Sky don't just broadcast to UK and Ireland but also Isle of Man, Guernsey, Jersey, Sark, Alderney, Herm and assorted other islands which aren't officially part of the UK or Ireland), but he's been so generally obnoxious that nobody's going to jump to his help. – iridescent 18:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I've had my own run-in with the whole "eliminate BI" crowd and really wish someone with some horse-power would step in and actually see what TR and Mick are saying here... it's very definitely SPA for a few folks there, but because they are "civil" they get away with being SPAs that really push a POV. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the comments on the content issue, but that wasn't quite what I was seeking. Indeed, the content issue seems to be mostly divorced from the "civility" discussion, but perhaps that's part of the problem there. I'm trying to figure out what's going on with these "general sanctions", and how discussing content can lead to one-year blocks that people actually support, even if the source (TR) is annoying. Seems very chilling. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't watched every single step of things with the BISE, or whatever it is, but it appears that TR and Mick (and others) are attempting to point out that HK and others are SPAs/etc and are getting told to not discuss the editor, just the content, but their point is that this is SPA behavior and you can't avoid discussing the editor to some degree. However, a few admins have the attitude that you can't discuss editor behavior at any point and time, so it's just driving TR/Mick absolutely insane that their points are being ignored/swept under the rug, etc. That's just my take on it. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Basically, everything has to be viewed through this prism (see here) for more context). "Ireland" is a power word on Misplaced Pages; "right" and "wrong" don't even matter, because the 1RR provisions mean whoever gets their retaliation in first "wins". You really don't want to get sucked into this fight; it's destroyed the Misplaced Pages careers of an awful lot of people (Vintagekits probably being the most noteworthy). – iridescent 19:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Spanish help???

Juan Carlos Loaiza is an unref'd BLP in the Equine project, and quite honestly, I can't even begin to think about sourcing it. Help??? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiftigerWunsch 19:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

I have started a thread at AN/I regarding you classifying Malta Test Station as plagarism when it received a DYK. That is not only a false characterization of the article but your labelling it was bad form. You could have brought your concerns to the talk page, to blank out a page that is on the main page of Misplaced Pages looks bad. And most importantly the template states explicitly that you are to contact the contributor. That is ME. Though of course I'm sure you templating it has nothing to do with your continued "warnings" about everything I do. I suggest you remove the template, and stay away from anything I do. Thanks.Camelbinky (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)