User talk:SandyGeorgia

About meTalk to meTo do listTools and other
useful thingsSome of
my workNice
thingsYukky
thingsArchives

FACs needing feedback view •
Mission: Impossible – Fallout	Review it now
Galileo project	Review it now
Worlds (Porter Robinson album)	Review it now
I'm God	Review it now

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, see WP:FAC/ar.
Otherwise, Leave me a message.

Why POV?

Hello, could you please specify what you mean in saying that Mozart and scatology is POV? I'm fully aware that this topic is a very loaded one, and for this reason I've stuck very close to what scholarly reference sources say. Yours sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

A bit more

Good grief, I really think you are going overboard in your work on Mozart and scatology. Could you please just calm down a bit, wait for a while, and then read the article and check the reference sources before editing further? I am an experienced WP editor and the article was sourced as carefully as I possibly could. In particular, if you read it before editing, you will see that Simkin published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, and that he is not the only one to set forth the Tourette's syndrome hypothesis. I personally feel it is not a good hypothesis, but it is part of the literature on Mozart (see the cited articles on Tourette's syndrome) and readers want to know how professionals have assessed it. Sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I hope you've caught up now ... see the article talk. Simkin's views simply do not enjoy widespread or respected medical consensus, the article has multiple issues requiring cleanup, and is POV until other sources are included. And I am perfectly calm; I do work fast when I see an article that needs work, and I have long ago read everything there is to read on Mozart and TS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The Fat Man

At the moment, he's blocked but not banned, so he could actually log in and use his account to edit his talkpage. Editing my talkpage is technically socking, but I'm not given to making a fuss about people socking just to tell me something. I was never involved in the discussions about blocking/banning the Fat Man. Do you want to explain to me why he's not disruptive/whatever it was he's been blocked for, or point me to a good summary of why. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Er... Elen, no he can't. See the "cannot edit own talkpage" in his block log? – iridescent 12:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right. There's that many on-again off-again entries in the block log I lost track of it. I do feel I'm missing something here - I never followed the guy's career, so I am interested in why Sandy values him so highly. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I think because Sandy values those who write stuff, as opposed to those who police stuff. Malleus Fatuorum 14:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I too tend to be more tolerant in people who "write stuff"; it was surprising to me, then, to discover that TFM's last 200 article contributions go all the way back to November 2008. The skew toward articles related to the Howard Stern Show may well be a hint as to his current priorities. Or not. But it's been a long time since TFM has really been in the "content contributor" category in any meaningful way. Perhaps this helps to explain the dissonance between those who have not known him for years and thus do not share the "content" memories with Sandy. Risker (talk) 14:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You may well be right. Even the best of us can become jaded, no matter how much we believe in the idea of wikipedia rather than its current implementation. Malleus Fatuorum 14:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

EotR, it will take me some time to write the reply this deserves, so I'll get to it after I find the time to pr/ar FAC ... hopefully by today! Glad you asked ... what has happened here is wrong, wrong, wrong, and a disturbing Sign of the Times about the direction Wiki is heading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, I've been a bit curious about this as well, so thanks for taking the time to explain. Hope you're well, by the way, and surviving the holiday. Best, Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you ever get the time to put together some info about TFM? Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Not yet, but I think about it every day (and feel guilty and negligent :) (If the conversation on Jimbo's talk jogged your memory, yes, I'm talking about The Fat Man in some of my references. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Saw your comment on YF-23 review and I recalled your "association" with TFM: write it! We miss his wit! Farawayman (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that if I ever start writing it, I will become so disgusted at seeing it in print that it will turn in to my "good-bye to Wikipedia" screed: better editors than myself left Wikipedia over what was done to TFM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hallmark

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

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

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

Part apology over Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome‎

I offer a part apology over Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome‎. I had edited the article thinking that it already had 7 uses of {{cite journal}}, so increased use of citation templates was reasonable, whereas it actually only had one (I must have seen the count post- initial reformatting rather than pre-). I assume you'll now remove that existing cite journal too? I'll then see about manually re-adding the extra available DOI and PMC links, since it will be worthwhile to have them. However, to say cite templates are not used in the article is not exactly right when there seem to be about half a dozen uses of {{cite book}} also. Had there been strictly no citation templates in use I would not have picked up the article in the first place. Rjwilmsi 23:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Rj, I've been meaning to get back over there and fix any stragglers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

2nd FAC

Hiya Sandy. My current FAC is sort of stalled at the moment (1991 Atlantic hurricane season), and I think/hope that it's in line to be promoted. Given that, I was wondering if I could add another article to FAC? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It helps if you give me a link :) I only see two supports, and I've never given permission for a second nom without three. Perhaps if you reviewed some other nominations? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I have, and it hasn't worked. :/ But it's good to know what you are waiting for on 1991, thanks. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Admittedly, my FAC gripe is just that I've had a FAC up for over a month without enough supports. Here's a dumb question though. Would you mind reviewing my FAC - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1991 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1? :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I would, Hink, but I took a bad spill last night because of my construction issues, have bruises and abrasions everywhere, not in shape to do so. If it's still up when I'm feeling better, I'll do that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

IP sock for Taro-Gabunia

50.17.45.35 (talk · contribs) - Pushing on music articles if they are ready for FAC [1] and same with Portal 2 [2]. Two other named socked had done the same behavior. --MASEM (t) 12:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Dabomb87 already blocked it. I agree that it looks like Taro. Interestingly, the IP appears to belong to Amazon. Ucucha (talk) 12:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

TClapton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox#Real_Madrid, and familiar pattern of calling attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking the same. Indef'ed. Ucucha (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Pepper v Hart

Mind chipping in vis a vis this? Ironholds (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hurricane FACs

Hi Sandy. Just to let you know, Hurricanehink (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1991 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1) and Cyclonebiskit (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Igor/archive1) will be offline for a while, as they are under an imminent threat from Hurricane Irene. Other members of WP:WPTC will be keeping an eye on the FACs while they prepare for the storm (or in Hink's case, evacuate farther inland). Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know ... just checked the news, doesn't look good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, in CB's and in my case, I think mother nature is telling us to get a new hobby. But I'll be defiant and keep on hurricaneing! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Karma--Wehwalt (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

TCM FAC

Hey Sandy, I was wondering if you could check over the current FAC. I'm feeling quite positive about this one, but I'm not too sure yet. Thanks, --Tærkast (Discuss) 16:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you know when the next batch of checking FACs will happen? Thanks.--Tærkast (Discuss) 15:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm planning to do that today. Got hung up over the weekend and couldn't. Karanacs (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you were active at FAC yesterday Sandy. Still need me to run through? Karanacs (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks! I went through over the weekend and there wasn't much I could do except update the Urgents list-- hopefully that will have changed while I was over doing my broken record at WT:CUP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Quick Q

Hey Sandy. I remember we weren't supposed to minimize resolved comments, but then I see several pending FACs that have them. So can we?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Best not to ... I only saw one, and those comments were sooooooo long that I decided to leave well enough alone, simply because I'm too busy to do anything else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha! Thanks :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yikes-- dealt with both of them now. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for that Sandy. I was carried away. Can I possibly transfer them to the talk page? --Efe (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Give me a link and I'll do it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Its here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Emancipation of Mimi/archive1. The nominator did not give a point-by-point response, so perhaps my comments can be transferred in toto to the nom's talk page. --Efe (talk) 11:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy. That'll be big relief for you and for other reviewers. --Efe (talk) 11:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Cup, etc

Do you want me to just comment on any open FACs where the nominator is a WikiCup participant? I lurk FAC enough, as you know. Is that what you mean by "enforcing" the rule? I'm happy to do so if that will resolve the problem, but I fear that you will find new concerns. J Milburn (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

yes, that is all I'm asking, it's just not that hard, so that I don't have to get involved in COI on those matters (periodically, when I note an ill prepared FAC is getting Support, I browse the CUP to see if that is the issue, and am perenially frustrated to realize that no one notifies). Resolute's personal attacks need to be addressed as well; I don't know what bug crawled up his shorts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll keep my eyes open. With respect, you do have a habit of polarising the issue- the "Cup people" versus the "FAC people"- which could serve to irritate. I know that you have no interest in the Cup beyond its effect on FAC, but this has the unfortunate consequence that it could appear that you just turn up on the talk page on a whim, have a moan and cause some drama. Apart from this issue, the Cup has gone very smoothly this year, so it really does stick out like a sore thumb. I am not meaning to excuse any actions that may or may not have been taken, I'm just trying to offer a vision of how you may come across to some. J Milburn (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that was part of the problem; based on previous comments left by you at the cup page I was led to believe that I could not comment on current CUP noms. Would've gladly helped out a bit more there otherwise, especially since I've gotten back in the FAC game of late. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Sandy, but when you waltz in making demands and uttering threats to shut down good faith nominations because of a trivial concern, while also making serious allegations against good faith editors, I tend not to react with sunshine and lollipops. Instead of being so dramatic, why didn't you just go to Sp33dyphil's talk page and politely request that he remember to add that note? As I said, I forgot to add such a note to my nomination for over a week because I simply didn't think of it. When I did remember, I made the note as a courtesy to you. Not to FAC in general, because I can't recall Raul, Karanacs or Laser Brain ever expressing the kind of issues you complain about.

You will get no argument for me that last year's WikiCup turned into a bit of a clusterfuck at times. But this year's has been fairly low key, and the remaining participants all appear to be in it for the right reasons: Friendly competition while seeking to build high quality articles. I would appreciate it if you left the past behind and judged this year's competition against this year's competitors. If you actually do think there is any abuse of FAC going on, then bring specific examples. Unspecified complaints involving what might potentially happen is not productive. Resolute 16:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Coursening of the culture: I'm not entirely a Pollyanna, but when I see the Charlie Foxtrot word used anywhere, my brain shuts down. Not in my world, sorry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I felt an almost overwhelming urge to fix your spelling there (coarsening), but managed to resist. Malleus Fatuorum 13:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Darn you! Earn your TPS keep! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Moving the marker

I think it'll be easy to write a bot to do the daily marker-moving on FAC that you do now. Would you mind me doing that? Ucucha (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You are totally awesome, U. Karanacs (talk) 14:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:Bots/Requests for approval/UcuchaBot 3. Ucucha (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, U .... are you still stuck at the beach ? I've just returned home, see lots of kerfuffles, but won't be able to catch up for several more days. I'm not sure how a bot can do that, since I move it depending on the number in each section, whether there's a backlog, etc ... it may appear that I do it by formula, but I don't actually. On the other hand, I don't mind if you do it by bot, either .. not a big deal either way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, still in Miami until tomorrow. It's a nice place, though I haven't spent much time on the beach; if I wanted to be cooked I'd go sit in an oven.

I'm sorry for jumping the gun a little then. I can implement it to make sure say half or 60% of the FACs are in Older nominations, or that all FACs older than x days are in Older nominations. What I can't (easily) do is make it depend on how many FACs aren't receiving many reviews. Ucucha (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It is perfectly fine with me if you implement whatever algorithm you'd like to use ... I have generally tried to keep the Older list down to the most urgent, if I was able to exercise some discretion. But it's really not a big deal ... I just read over the discussion at the bot and am glad to see the bot will take on the other necessary tasks (cleanup of issues that affect GimmeBot for example). Go to Versailles restaurant for a fantastic Cuban meal in Little Havana !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh for gosh sakes; one can't even offer a casual recommendation for a fantastic meal with encountering POV warriors on Wikipedia-- I see that article has taken a tangent since I last visited it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I'll have it place the marker before the 1st FAC that is >14 days old. Is there any other clean-up the bot could do? I now have it kill whitespace at the end of lines and all underscores. That restaurant sounds interesting, whether it's really the seat of the Cuban government in exile or not; I might go there tonight. Ucucha (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

UcuchaBot 3 just made its first edit. It actually moved the marker down because of the algorithm used. I got back from Miami, by the way, so I'm all settled in at my college now. Versailles was a great tip. Ucucha (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Glad you liked Versailles (<mouth watering>); thanks for making our "job" easier! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Me again

Hope all is well. This process [[3]] seems out of whack to me.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFA2011

I used to have a huge amount of respect for your work. Lately you have started breezing in on all sorts of projects, taking a superficial look, making cutting remarks that fall just short of PA, and breezing out again without offering any objective criticism. Before talking about train wrecks, try reading the projects first and looking at the bloody hard work that's gone into them and gathering the stats, and then consider doing something better yourself. Please. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

What exactly have you achieved with your incessant chatter about RfA reform Kudpung, which seems essentially just to boil down to a proposal that nobody must say anything you don't like? The answer, of course, is nothing. Malleus Fatuorum 14:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Could I suggest a look at this proposal which looks like it might be the first to go live, with 4 seperate areas of detailed research? Worm^TT · (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Worm: I tried. I still see a jumble that doesn't address any of the crucial issues, too many links, TMI, and by the way, I seriously doubt that I have voted in only 24 RFAs. I don't encounter any of the crucial points of RFA reform, just a maze of data and a jumble of links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Sandy. I'll have a look at the data pages, see if I can make them more readable, it's certainly something I've been thinking about. The problem is that I'd like to keep the data available to those who would want to crunch it themselves, whilst making the page more readable for those less inclined to. Can't say I'm 100% certain where the 24 RfA comment came from, which goes to show how spread out the data is. However, I'm trying to steer the community away from emotive voting based on hearsay and unfounded opinion, and towards making a choice based on actual hard and fast information.

You might be interested to know that I'm also hoping to do some analysis of DYK when I get a chance - I'm currently planning to sample all the DYKs for one day each month, check for plagiarism/copyvios, check the views and number of changes made on that day, see if the article has been improved further and so on and so forth. I'd like to know quite how bad the problem is at DYK. Any suggestions for metrics I should be looking would be much appreciated. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I would hope to be able to help you with both if my construction is ever completed and my life ever settles down ... I haven't been able to find that page that analyzes editor RFA votes for a long time (it seems to have gone missing), but I'm pretty sure I've nominated more than 11 successful admin candidates. The most useful metric for DYK that I know of is that there has never been a single queue that I've checked that doesn't have either of 1) plagiarism or copyvio; 2) non-notable articles; or 3) an expansion or minimum character count that is based on non-reliable sources. That the DYK "regulars" don't want to address this, don't recognize that DYK's own criteria is invalidated when articles are padded with non-reliable sources, or that they shouldn't be rewarding copyvio is most alarming, and that it has been going on unabated for more than several years is the real concern. RFA, the biggest problem is unqualified, pile-on supports (and what led me to realize the extent of the problem at DYK was finding RFA candidates touting DYKs that were fully plagiarized, hence, the two issues are related). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding RFA counter - Snottywong had recreated one after X!'s went down. You've voted 126 times (assuming you trust such tools!) Worm^TT · (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Malleus, Kudpung has probably done more for RfA reform than most of the users who incessantly chatter about it. He has founded, kick-started, coordinated and put a hell of a lot of work into an RfA reform project that has implemented some changes, developed multiple to-be-proposed ones, put an absolutely immense amount of suggestions (that we haven't even begun to develop into proposals) on the table, and gathered an obscene amount of data. Of course, you don't have to agree with him (or any of us) in the least, and you don't have to expect us to succeed, but please don't suggest that Kudpung endlessly talks about RfA reform and accomplishes nothing.

Sandy— sure, there's an insane amount of links at WP:RFA2011. I think it's reasonably organized, but if you have a suggestion we would be happy to hear it. Swarm ^{u | t} 19:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Tosh. The only thing Kudpung wants is to ban all comments and questions he doesn't like at RfA. That's not reform, its evisceration. True reform would begin with the fundamental question of why we need RfA at all. Malleus Fatuorum 20:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Incessant chatter:

Incessant chatter

1398 (1195/203) Malleus Fatuorum 1007 (1007/0) Balloonman 877 (805/72) Durin 844 (802/42) Pedro 768 (666/102) Dank 759 (710/49) Majorly 735 (686/49) EVula 719 (625/94) Kim Bruning 548 (533/15) WereSpielChequers 541 (322/219) Useight 485 (463/22) Keeper76 467 (0/467) MiszaBot II (bot) 466 (409/57) NoSeptember 461 (440/21) Wisdom89 447 (444/3) Chillum 430 (333/97) Xeno 429 (388/41) Dlohcierekim 408 (385/23) Anonymous Dissident 382 (370/12) Juliancolton 336 (294/42) Kurykh 330 (325/5) Wehwalt 312 (301/11) Deskana 307 (302/5) Amarkov 303 (279/24) SoWhy 299 (287/12) Friday 270 (268/2) MBisanz 270 (266/4) Tango 269 (237/32) Retired username 267 (256/11) Mailer diablo 264 (253/11) Splash 263 (231/32) Oleg Alexandrov 261 (245/16) Cecropia 255 (229/26) Iridescent 253 (226/27) Avraham 249 (247/2) Radiant! 249 (248/1) Nathan 247 (241/6) Giggy 243 (221/22) Carcharoth 238 (229/9) Bibliomaniac15 229 (228/1) Ottava Rima 227 (194/33) Davidwr 225 (223/2) Hammersoft 225 (213/12) Titoxd 222 (222/0) Hiberniantears 220 (195/25) Skomorokh 217 (206/11) Nae'blis 214 (208/6) Ironholds 213 (203/10) Aiken drum 210 (15/195) BD2412 209 (201/8) Dragons flight 208 (194/14) Kudpung

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that easier than addressing the charge that all you're concerned with is to eliminate all opposition at RfA. Malleus Fatuorum 17:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm only concerned with eliminating drama and incivility from RfA, and the votes made by regular participants who simply use RfA to protest at adminship as a necessary evil. But of course, I suppose it's easier for you to make up your own reasons why people do things. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brunette Coleman/archive1

Unfortunately, a RL situation has arisen which will take me away from WP for a couple of weeks or so. This means I won't be able to respond to any comments made on the Coleman FAC after today. At present the nom looks in good shape (6 supports, no opposes, no outstanding issues). Should something significant arise, which you feel needs attending to before the article is eligible for promotion, could I ask that you leave the nom open until I am able to attend to it? Many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

PS. I will try and clear up any outstanding comments/opposes that I have registered on current FACs Brianboulton (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Based on the latest edit there it looks like you don't have to worry about that :) Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Good luck in RL, Brian. I hadn't actually seen this message before I went through FAC today, but your nomination was in great shape and the article has been promoted. Karanacs (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Example used

Noting here that I made the following comment in a fairly public place, using an example of a recent post you made to someone's talk page to illustrate the point I was making. In fairness to you and Daniel, I thought it best to let you both know that I used you two as an example. I was rather dismayed at the tone you both took, and I suspect that I may take some heat from either or both of you for pointing this out, but I think it needs to be aired. While I agree with you that Daniel has and was still overly personalizing the issue (and I said this on his talk page), I also disagree with the attitude encapsulated by 'conduct unbecoming of an admin'. That is too often used to beat admins over the head with by non-admins (who know it can't be said to them). If there is any future friction, can you please try a different approach and treat it as editor misconduct rather than admin misconduct (unless it actually involves misuse of the tools)? And to forestall some predictable comments, I've long supported the admin tools being given to long-term editors such as you, Malleus and Tony (to name just three). I'm aware that some wouldn't touch the tools with a barge-pole, but I do think that if non-admins are going to use the 'conduct unbecoming of an admin' warning, they should hold themselves to the same standard. Or to put that another way, what do you think should happen when a non-admin engages in conduct unbecoming of an admin? Nothing? Carcharoth (talk) 23:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

There's so much wrong with that post that I won't take it on, since I simply don't have time. I did browse enough of WT:DYK and the Malleus issue, though, to realize that not only admins, but also trusted oversighters, are able to attack and personalize issues there, which I still think is quite shocking. Since the arbs have typically agreed that admins shouldn't conduct themselves like that, I don't know where your ideas come from, but I sure hope something will be done to stop the unbecoming conduct towards anyone who stands up for Wikipedia policies from admins, denialists, oversighters, and vested contributors at DYK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That hypothetical situation (long-time editors like me, Tony, and SandyG being given the admin tools) would clearly be sensible, and for that reason has no chance of achieving anything near consensus. As a point of order though, speaking only for myself, I would not accept the admin tools for exactly the same reason that I've refused every other of Wikipedia's baubles: I don't even have rollback, and never will, and if anything like the abortion that was pending changes is re-introduced I will leave rather than apply for that "right". Malleus Fatuorum 16:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, find handing out admin tools to long-time trusted users to be a completely nonsensical idea altogether. Nor do I think non-admins should be held to the same standards as admins: why set the bar so low? The point apparently missed is that admins are rarely blocked, or even taken to task at ANI, for behaviors that would result in a block for non-admins. Case in point: the example you provided, and the recent attacks on Malleus at WT:DYK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

On the subject of blocks, have I ever told you that I was once blocked for using the word "sycophantic"? It was only today that the blocking admin admitted she had made a mistake, but the block still sits there in my log for administrators like User:Rjanag to point at as some kind of justification for their own misdemeanours. I'd like to see Rjanag's ears pinned to the telephone pole across the road from my house, but I can't find any forum focused on the crimes of the administrators. Malleus Fatuorum 19:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

On your more general question about the editorial misconduct of administrators, one thing I think you're failing to recognise is the increasing frustration with the view that abuse from administrators isn't really a problem unless it involves some misuse of the administrator utility belt. But even when it does, as in the case of bad blocks, of which I have several even by the admission of the blocking administrators, nothing much happens. Therefore any administrator who is prepared to block for incivility must be equally prepared to be blocked when they themselves are incivil, with the same threshold for judging incivility applied to them, and ultimately desysopped if they persist. Any chance of that happening before the heat death of the Universe? Malleus Fatuorum 16:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

And in this case, it's even worse-- the admin in question is an oversighter, meaning he has access to extraordinarily sensitive information. If I have long been worried about admin conduct, I'm now even more worried (and my concerns are not lessened by observing the conduct of another admin at WT:DYK). But then I'm also concerned that Carcharoth isn't aware of the stand reinforced repeatedly about admin conduct by the arbs involving more than abuse of tools-- it's about abuse of community trust. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

To put it bluntly, it's about admins (and oversighters) taking the piss, and being held to lower standards than they're supposed to be policing. Doesn't seem like a difficult idea to get your head round to me Carcharoth. I think we see with relatively inexperienced editors like User:Sharktopus and his recent ill-considered foray into ANI how some can be misled by a blind faith in the righteousness of the administrators. Malleus Fatuorum 18:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, what I see is little communities which operate largely independently of each other misunderstanding each other when they interact. I noticed the ANI thread Sharktopus started today, and it was fascinating to observe the social dynamics at work there. And to reply to Sandy's point, the point I was making is that the 'community trust' thing is often overdone. When people use it they often mean "I don't trust this person because of what they've just done, therefore they have obviously lost or are abusing the trust of the community". It's a logical leap that makes little sense. There is no real single community on Wikipedia, just lots of localised communities of varying sizes that mix and mingle (plus some types that skit around on the surface, like wikignomes or occasional editors).

I still think that part of the wikidrama that erupts periodically is because different people see different things to what others are seeing, quite literally. Different people watch different pages and see different aspects of other editors. Rather than upset anyone else by using them as an example, I'll use myself as an example. Someone who only ever saw the edits I made years ago will have one impression of me. Another person who only saw the edits I made to arbitration pages as an arbitrator will have another impression of me. Those who gave me barnstars will have other impressions of me. Those who saw what I posted above will have other impressions of me. And so on. The same applies to all editors. Think of editors as multi-faceted crystals and how most editors only see one or two sides of the other editors they interact with. I said I wasn't going to use examples, but Malleus and Sandy, imagine the impressions others have of you if they only ever see you in one mood or posting to a particular location?

The best approach is probably not to judge someone until you've seen and/or encountered and/or interacted with them in several different settings. The absolute best setting to see what someone is made of is to edit an article with them. But would anyone really bother to do that? Much easier to judge someone from one or two comments they make on drama noticeboards. Sadly, that's human nature. Carcharoth (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That's just wacky. I don't judge editors at all (and I quite often go on to get on famously with editors in spite of disagreements over content or policy). I discuss content and how to improve it. Some at DYK don't want to do that. And yes, when people behave abusively in discussions, they do lose community trust. I am very uneasy that someone who has treated me the way Daniel Case has also has access to extremely sensitive information, because some of my emails have been forwarded to the oversight list, and those folks should be very trustworthy, not prone to fly off the handle and say inappropriate things to or about other editors, or further drama, or personalize issues. The best I can say is that I don't understand your point at all, since I don't judge editors based on one encounter. I did, however, check out some of Daniel Case's articles, and found that helped me understand why we aren't getting the message through at DYK; could anyone please explain to me how on Earth Anna Wintour could be a GA with the amount of uncited text and apparent POV assertions, and a BLP no less ?? We need experienced editors commenting on the problems at DYK-- not deflection, not shooting the messenger, not refusing to engage the issues from editors who don't know Wikipedia policies because they have never built content. So, because they don't know better, they attack and shoot knowledgeable editors who have a problem with the process, personalizing it to the editors because they simply don't understand content building. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Judge was maybe the wrong word there, and I'm talking about all editors and what they do with the 'first impressions' they gain about other editors they interact with (i.e. about what some may think of you based on what they see of you). When someone turns up at a place like WT:DYK and says something forthright that needs to be said (and has been said many times before), this may be the first time some editors at that page will have encountered that person. They may be a bit taken aback, they may correctly work out what is going on, but some will mentally pigeon-hole someone on the basis of a single or few encounters and that can colour all subsequent discussions. This is one way in which disputes arise and escalate. Disputes are sometimes resolved and sorted out by a more conciliatory approach, and sometimes a more forthright approach is needed. As for "when people behave abusively in discussions, they do lose community trust" - that applies to lots of people all over the place, with later comments regaining some of the trust. Moving on, is it possible that what you said about Anna Wintour comes across as judgmental? You would (correctly) describe it as "discuss[ing] content and how to improve it", but where is the line crossed from doing that to judging an editor, as opposed to working with them? Anyway, enough for today. Carcharoth (talk) 02:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I just found a missing piece of my argument (I came across it several days ago and couldn't remember where): Wikipedia:Did you know/Hall of Fame#T:TDYK editing milestones. (Side note: seriously-- would any other process keep track of how many edits participants have to talk ????) I haven't located yet another crucial diff from a week or so ago, where Gatoclass honestly made the argument at WT:DYK that DYKs padded with content from non-reliable sources were not a problem since non-reliable sources were found all over Wikipedia (I could hardly believe I was reading that, but didn't bookmark it). So, I don't think there is ever or ever should be any problem with judging content on Wikipedia (as opposed to editors). While I agree with your general points about initial impressions of editors who are not known outside of their own area, the problem at DYK is that you only have to look at that Hall of Fame page to understand why certain participants aren't willing to see, absorb, recognize, or discuss the problems, but are quick to shoot the messengers. If you compound that with a general lack of content building experience, it's not hard to see why some of them have had to resort to personalizing the arguments, when the criticism is sound. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I want to ask your advice on improving DYK reviews

This idea was somewhat inspired by your criticisms of QpQ reviewing, so I was hoping you would advise on a practical plan for improvement. We could get rid of QpQ reviewing if we could attract more competent people to do some reviews. I'm thinking about how to do that and I hope others are too.

Until that happens, we can work on nominators' reviewing skills, instead of giving new people a free pass on their first four articles and then demanding they start doing QpQ. I built a short "review substitute," which would take less time than doing one thorough review, but I am sure others could improve it. Any nominator too new to review should instead:

• Explain how the hook's reference meets the criteria at WP:RS
• Review Wikipedia:Copy-paste and assert that the article complies (or fix the article if it did violate it.)
• Review the three rules at WP:Plagiarism ("Incite, intext, integrity") and assert that the article complies (or fix the article if it did violate it.)

Thanks again for your civil visit to my talk page, and for the overdue education I got on CPP/Plag thanks to your efforts in the past. There is a lot more general interest in such issues at DYK now, and in addition to the AfD-style archiving of past reviews there is now a better checklist transcluded in the nomination template. So we are making real progress toward improving DYK and I hope we will continue to do so. Like any big volunteer project, it takes lots of work. Sharktopus ^talk 19:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I've already given, I think, all the advice I can to the point of repeating myself endlessly for several years, so at the risk of redundancy:

1. Until/unless there is accountability from the admin who puts the content on the mainpage, I believe we will continue to see DYK as a forum to further plagiarism, cut-and-paste, copyvio, and non-reliable sources rather than a place for educating new (or experienced editors) or encouraging new content that complies with policy.
2. See No. 1: if the admins putting the content on the mainpage can't doublecheck that the articles meet their own criteria, then the volume should be reduced, by whatever means that can be done. It has somehow become a conclusion that it is a right to have a DYK on the mainpage. That Is Just Wrong.
3. Here is one fundamental problem, and by the way, one furthered recently in a most disturbing post from Gatoclass, who according to some stat somewhere on some DYK page, is one of the two most frequent contributors to WT:DYK (the other being, of course, Daniel Case): Explain how the hook's reference meets the criteria at WP:RS. I am completely befuddled at why DYK regulars do not understand their own criteria. Articles must meet a minimum character count or minimum expansion. If those character counts or expansions are based on irrelevant text padding from non-reliable sources, blogs, etc. and about non-notable topics, how can the article meet the DYK crit? You can't JUST verify the hook; how are reviewers verifying that minimum character count or expansion are met if they aren't doing some review of sources and don't even know Wiki's core policies on sourcing?
4. People who plagiarize and violate copyright don't realize they're doing it all the time, so asking them to sign off will accomplish nothing. Even some of the most prolific regulars at DYK don't acknowledge the importance of not putting law-breaking content on the mainpage; how can we expect the newbie reviewer or writer to understand that? See No. 1: we need experienced, knowledgeable editors accountable for the final step (and that would include only editors who respect the importance of not violating copyright-- those are in short supply at DYK right now).
5. QPQ was a serious step in the wrong direction: abolish it. Cut volume until you get enough reviewers to maintain minimum standards. BOATLOADS of Wiki's best editors have left DYK in disgust-- they may come back if it cleans up its act. The reviewing template is another step in the wrong direction: people who aren't knowledgeable can just check the boxes, there is no accountability and no institutional memory.
6. The only step in the right direction recently has been that subpages are created, but to my knowledge, they aren't archived anywhere (unless that has changed).
7. There is a serious lack of knowledge of notability at DYK. You had one recent prolific copyviolator who put up hundreds of non-notable bios, based entirely on information provided from sources not independent of the article (legacy.com obits of info submitted by family members, law sources submitted by the lawyer's themselves, etc.). DYK is NOT educating new or old editors on Wiki policies: it is encouraging the creation of thousands of articles that violate core policies and will never be cleaned up and rewarding the editors who do same.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure I've said all this before, so doubt it's helpful. When/if my life ever settles down, I'll wade back in with a check of the daily DYK queue, and I'm pretty sure I know what I'll find. This is not to say some exceptional editors don't use DYK-- but those editors also go on to create vetted content like GAs and FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

PS, I have just refigured out (for the second time) that Rjanag is/was User:Politizer, whom I welcomed to Wikipedia and attempted to educate on core content policies as he was trying to learn to edit-- he was a nice enough fellow, but he has never been a content editor. I believe he moved on rather quickly from content creation, after having a distinctly difficult time understanding our content policies. Yomangani, on the other hand, knows content. Of the other two defenders of the status quo at DYK, I know Gatoclass has supported copy-paste from public domain sources in the past, and I'm not aware if Daniel Case has ever created vetted content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, I don't really appreciate your (like Malleus') insinuating that I've never been a content editor just because I participate at DYK. I have written (with input from others here and there, as is always the case), several FAs, as you should know since you passed them. You keep on accusing me and people at DYK of "deflecting" issues because we don't like you, but you are doing the same thing by insinuating that my arguments are worthless because I apparently don't know how to edit content--an accusation which is, quite frankly, untrue.

Regarding the lack of daily archiving, a consensus was made weeks ago to remove it: Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 72#Are daily archives needed?. Don't pretend to be surprised by this, because I clearly explained all these issues to you in a thread here, which I even came to your talk page and gave you a link to multiple times, and you repeatedly ignored and never commented on or even bothered to read. To be perfectly honest, I have no concern whatsoever anymore for your opinion in matters which I have repeatedly given you the opportunity to discuss and which instead of commenting on when asked, you just ignore the discussion and then make snide remarks like this behind my back at other forums. If you had an opinion about whether the daily archiving should have been kept, you had multiple opportunities before this to speak up, so unless you're ready to start a discussion about bringing it back you might as well just keep this opinion to yourself. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

1. insinuating that I've never been a content editor just because I participate at DYK. I didn't intend to insinuate any such thing. I said that you've never been a content editor based on 1) my experience of actively editing with you, where you didn't understand content policies, and 2) that you went from there to being an active participant in mediation and at DYK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

   To the best of my knowledge, your only experience actively editing with me was an admittedly poor edit I made to the Tourette syndrome article during my first week or two as a Wikipedia editor. If I remember correctly, I thanked you for educating me on the external link policy (the problem was that I had unwittingly posted a link to a website that violated copyright); I don't think it's fair to judge someone as an editor based on one of his/her first edits to the encyclopedia, as we all know this project has a steep learning curve. I have also never, to the best of my knowledge, been an active participant at WP:M. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

   Then it appears I may be confusing you with another editor, as none of this is familiar to me-- I will investigate and get back to you on this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

   The edit I was referring to is this. We discussed it here. Like I said, this was within my first two weeks or so of editing. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks-- that helps, but not a concern at all! I'm still trying to track down the name of the editor I may have confused you with, so I can understand if and how it happened. Working on it ... can't find the article or editor yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

   Found! My sincerest apologies, Rjanag-- I most certainly did mix you up with another editor. I have struck my mistaken commentary here (if you know of any that I missed, pls let me know). I'm unable to decipher why I confused the two of you, and that would be very hard to find, but I am most sincerely sorry for the serious mistake. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

   Accepted. I would prefer to just focus on substantive issues from now on, but as you and I have both seen from the past few months' discussions at WT:DYK that is unlikely to happen (at least not at that forum). rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

2. I did notice after my post that you had an FA. Have you ever had Ling.Nut look at the Chinese FA? It didn't have a particularly strong FAC, since the Nutty Ling was absent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

   I have more than one FA. Regardless of whether or not you like any of them, they did pass, so I don't think it's fair for you to suggest that I don't know how to edit content. The fact that I haven't edited much of it recently has nothing to do with my ability to write content, and everything to do with my interests and the way I choose to volunteer my spare time. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

   Again, if I am confusing you with another editor, I will redact and correct after I investigate. This was prompted because I came across my comment at your RFA, and I may have mixed up two cases. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

3. " ... because we don't like you,... " That's a very interesting thing to say on Wikipedia. In other words, you are acknowledging that you are personalizing the issue rather than looking at the substance of the problem. Not good, Rjanag. And an editor's worth at Wikipedia is, IMO at least, highly based on their knowledge of content policies, so no, I don't consider it the same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

   I wasn't saying "we don't like you"; I was saying "you accuse us of [deflecting issues because we don't like you]". rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

   Ah, that's a bit better, but still not optimal, since I have not done any such thing (hence my misread of what you wrote). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

4. I'm not surprised by anything anymore at DYK-- the lack of a daily archive is just a continuation of the whole "no accountability" problem. Anyone can review FAC and FAR archives at any time-- FAC and FAR delegates are accountable and their work is on display for anyone to peruse. Not so at DYK. I have spoken up ad nauseum about issues at DYK, and have been ignored, so why should I keep restating the same thing over and over there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

   When I raised those points (which I linked above) about the need, or lack thereof, for daily archiving, you never responded. If you think a daily archive is necessary, you should have said something. As I explained very clearly to you, the nominations are archived and they are already organized in many ways, and no one other than you saw a need for them to be organized by date. If you have a clear reason why the archived nominations should be organized by date, you should have stated it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

   Do you think it surprising that anyone trying to improve the serious issues at DYK would stop trying to keep up with that page? Shooting the messenger isn't the best way to conduct business. I believe I've said as many times and as many ways as I can that 1) accountability in general, aided by 2) an archive system might go a ways towards solving the problems at DYK (at least it would make analysis of issues possible). Without an archive, it is difficult to demonstrate that the issues occur regularly, frequently, and unabated. We're left in a position of "taking my word for it" that I have never checked a daily queue and not found issues, we're left with no institutional memory, and no way of deciphering who are the less-than-good reviewers and who are the serial offenders and who are the admins putting copyvio and blog sources on the mainpage,so that we can educate them. Once again, I find your refusal to consider options for solving the problems to be somewhat intransigent.

   Please give me an hour or so to investigate whether I've confused you with another editor and get back to you on that; if I have done so, I will strike and, of course, apologize. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

   I don't think I have ever refused to consider options. In fact, I'm the editor there who's been bending over backwards trying to implement a bunch of demands (first nomination subpages, then a daily log, then removing the daily log when everyone else objected to it and you never responded to my message about it, then Tony's checklist, which I am now reconsidering and putting together an RfC for getting rid of it once this "trial period" has passed). If by "shooting the messenger" you're referring to my interaction with Malleus there recently, if you actually look at the discussion you will see that my first comment there (the second message in the discussion, replying to Malleus) was a civil and honest answer to his question, and only after he started his usual game of calling people stupid did I react in turn (which, in retrospect, I should not have). Anyway, my point is, if you want to criticize someone for ignoring feedback and being unwilling to make changes, you should probably not choose the one person who actually is volunteering a lot of his time to try and make changes (and going out of his way to solicit feedback, in an environment where most people are more interested in participating in drama than discussing any substantive issues--if you look through WT:DYK you will see that I have started multiple threads asking for comments about various versions of this checklist thing, and almost none have gotten any response). rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

   Your continual belligerence is tiresome and unbecoming Rjanag. I suggest that you refresh your memory of your recent comments at WT:DYK to see who was (repeatedly) throwing around accusations of stupidity. And, then, if you have any shred of honesty or integrity, come back here with an apology. Malleus Fatuorum 18:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

   The Malleus issue aside, I agree that your subpage has been the only improvement since the recent discussions started (and as you know, I think the checklist is a big mistake, but I need not repeat that lest Daniel Case go off). I do NOT have time in the midst of my construction and move to keep up there any longer, and unfortunately, the environment at DYK is unnecessarily hostile. Part of the reason I stopped spending my (very limited) time there was some of your snippiness (along with outright hostility from others), and I don't think your recent attack on Malleus helped or was the conduct expected from an admin (that is what led me to check your RFA, see that I supported you, and that led to the confusion with another editor).

   In terms of letting bygones be bygones, I think it would be stupendous if the environment at DYK would improve to the point of being able to rationally discuss the issues, which are quite serious, without the denialists shooting the messengers. Next time I weigh in there, I'm going to be triple, quadruple and extra careful to start fresh; we'll see if the usual suspects go on a defensive rampage. Even better, wouldn't it be nice if I didn't have to revisit there, because DYK stops being a training ground for non-notable, non-reliably-sourced copyvio  ??? Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe you have confirmed my points. You don't get to just ignore a large group of editors raising legitimate concerns about DYK because "you don't like them"; collaborating to improve matters is the way things should be done on Wikipedia. If the DYK regulars are a group who largely don't understand Wikipedia content policies, they should not be putting content on the mainpage that includes plagiarism, copyvio, and furthers rewards of editors who put up hundreds of non-compliant articles that will never be fixed. Now would it be possible for any of the defenders of the status quo at DYK (which is not a good one) to focus on the issues and stop shooting the messengers? Alternatively, would it be possible for them all to just leave me alone until I finish my construction and move, at which time I will weigh back in at DYK, and most likely find ongoing copyvio? Why don't you surprise me and prove me wrong: go do something to fix it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your thoughtful reply itemizing improvements that include ending QpQ, re-enlisting good editors to review, requiring admins to be accountable for each item they promote, affirming WP:RS for article text as well as for the hook, affirming WP:N for articles, and reducing flow. (The flow is now down to 3 runs of 6 each per day, by the way.)

You can find past reviews using a link from the article talk page, now placed there by the DYKbot when giving credit for a DYK. Or at least you can if you look at the article talk page history, I was just checking Talk:Typhula_quisquiliaris to show you the link to my review but apparently the GimmeBot removed the DYK talk, so you have to find it in talk page history here. The review flags the name of the person promoting it to Prep but not the name of the admin making up Queue. I would prefer to have the "extra-accountability step" of promotion be with the person moving items to Prep if only because non-admins (including me) can do that, so we have a bigger potential workforce to carry the load.

I admit my QpQ-idea is a bit like nailing a board across the hole in the front steps, but without prejudice to the idea that preventing people people from breaking a leg at the front door will not reduce my interest in nailing some boards across the hole in the living room floor as well. I know you can envision how much better the living room would look with an actual wood floor and some better furniture -- I don't disagree, but some things have to be fixed first and other things second. In my opinion.

I will make up a table to show how the "review substitute" would look, taking more of your suggestions into account, but I am not very good at wikitables so that is probably not something you want to watch while I'm doing, unless you want a good laugh and a rather long one. Sharktopus ^talk 21:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Incorporating your suggestions into the hypothetical "review substitute," and feel free to hat this if it is taking too much space on your talk page. Sharktopus ^talk 01:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Requirement	Signature
# I have reviewed notability criteria at WP:N.
# My topic meets those criteria.
# I have reviewed source criteria at WP:RS.
# My article is based on sources that meet those criteria.
# I have read the restrictions at WP:COPYPASTE
# My article does not violate those restrictions.
# I have reviewed the three rules at WP:PLAGIARISM ("Incite, intext, integrity").
# My article follows those rules.

Counterexample: Billy Hathorn would have (and did) make all of those claims. Same ole, same ole ... unless editors knowledgeable of content policies are accountable for overseeing what goes on the mainpage, DYK will not likely be fixed. Anyone can and will check anything on a checklist; no one is accountable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• OK, well let's leave the front step unpatched for now and work instead on the hole in the living room floor? I have some ideas about what might help get started there. Sharktopus ^talk 03:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Good grief, is DYK really still worth it? I admire you Sharkotpus for sticking with it. I've long tired of it I'm afraid. Is it really worth the hassle. Your front page credit must really mean a lot to you huh?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I enjoy working hard on varied group projects, such as (for example) Wikipedia. I have never seen credit to "Sharktopus" on our front page, nor is my name likely to be there unless Anna Frodesiak's flattering portrait becomes Featured Picture. But let me stop messing up Sandy's talk page when I know she is busy, I will draft something elsewhere once I get finished drafting the three different talks I'm supposed to deliver tomorrow, yes, I should have done them last week but I didn't. Sandy, thanks for the hospitality! Sharktopus ^talk 20:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Archiving

I still don't think you've given me a clear answer as to what exactly you want out of a DYK archive that isn't already available in the present system, but I just threw together Template:Did you know nominations/Log. As you can see, this is almost the same format as the archives at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log; the only difference is that it links to category pages rather than pages with transcluded nominations. This page is not in any way a new archive or anything; all the information in this page was already available in the existing archives that I explained at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 69#Record of promotion from prep to queue, all I did was organize it into a table. So as you can see, we already have a system that keeps an archive of all passed and failed nominations for a given month, which is what you have at FAC (except that the numbers at FAC are more manageable). Anyone who wants to do the sort of investigation you seem to have in mind can use that (although, as I explained above, I'm not really sure how this archiving system or the one at FAC would help such an investigation). If you had something else in mind, e.g. checking all reviews by a particular reviewer or all noominations by a particular nominator, then no, that is not built into this archive, but I don't think it's built into the FAC archive either; nevertheless, Wikipedia has tools for analyzing a given user's contributions that can probably help with that. Anyway, my point is, I'm not really sure what more you want. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for not responding sooner-- I missed this post apparently while I was trying to sort the editor mixup. The categories allow one to analyze trends only if one separately clicks on every single subpage in the category to gather data, whereas one can read through an entire FAC monthly archive to gather data. I'm glad something is now in place, and it is much better than the nothing that existed before, but I'm of the opinion that a hard archive (such as FAC and FAR, which includes every subpage transcluded and can be read top to bottom) would be easier to use for data gathering purposes. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, this is not really "now in place"; I only just now put it into a nice table, but the records themselves have been around since the beginning. It's maybe true that a hard archive would be a bit easier to use, but even that would be of a volume that is not comparable to FAC and FAR (an archive for every given day rather than every month), and anyway there was unanimous consensus at the discussion I mentioned above that whatever benefit this brought was not worth the trouble it was causing. Anyway, the records are all still there for anyone who wants to look at them. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Question for you, Rjanag - as well as a log of passed FACs, there also exists records of articles being delisted via FAR. The analogous situation for DYK would be an article removed from prep, queue or the Main Page - as I've recently done for several which I found to contain extensive or egregious close paraphrasing/copyvio/plagiarism. Are articles "de-passed", so to speak, kept track of in any way? If not, is there a way to implement this? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

No, there is no such record. I personally don't see much point in that (except maybe to identify problematic reviewers, although I think people get a good idea who those are anyway), but anyone is welcome to keep a record of that. I guess it would just be a matter of creating a list somewhere and adding a blurb to the instructions on "how to remove a hook from the queue" asking people to list the hook in that place. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

... I think people get a good idea who those are anyway ... That speaks to my second concern (accountability and institutional memory). Editors now active at DYK may have a good sense of who knows best how to review and who isn't up to snuff, but the problem at DYK is the frequently changing crop of editors, plus new editors required to review per QPQ, so that what is "known" today may be lost because there is no institutional memory. An outsider wonders how the Hathorn's (and many others like him) can go on for so long: I suspect it's because of the frequently changing editors at DYK and the lack of institutional memory. That can be contrasted with FAC and FAR where, because there are few delegates, we know and remember each reviewer's and nominator's strengths and weaknesses, and know what needs doublechecking before we pass or archive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the availability of a hard archive would have changed the Hathorn situation at least; regardless of whether or not there are archives, unless certain nominators are "branded" in some way newbie reviewers just aren't going to know who's trustworthy and who's not. I think that's just unavoidable. Of course, the Hathorn problem went on far longer than it should have, but I think it was more due to poor reviewing practices than to the lack of an archive. With or without an archive, a good review will catch these problems and a bad review won't. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thinking about who uses FAC and FAR archives and for what purpose, I suspect you're right. Most likely, the only folks who ever analyzie FAC and FAR archives for trends are FAC and FAR delegates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Search engine optimization

Hi Sandy. Could you (and any helpful lurkers) pop in at Talk:Search engine optimization? There is an editor who has been lobbying to plaster that featured article with unnecessary maintenance tags. Apparently he doesn't like the idea of using online sources that know what they are talking about. He seems to have gotten the mistaken idea that mainstream media are better sources for this highly technical topic. In any case, it is a shame to see a featured article get deteriorated by mistaken editing. I do not say the article is perfect, for it may need updating and quality control. Heavily spammed and reverted, many times, there may have been accidental removals of good content or accidental allowance of garbage. Thank you! Jehochman ^Talk 23:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for your kind words. It was refreshing to see some sanity on here for a change.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

My pet hate - image issues in FAs - link

Currently being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Use_of_movie-still_when_discussing_actress. I'm being my usual grumpy self, but it's probably something that needs looking at, at some point. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 00:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The Emancipation of Mimi

Hi Sandy. I'm leaving Wikipedia tonight for a full month, so I will not be able to monitor the FAC. I would like to withdraw, and start over fresh when I return. Thanks :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. Ucucha (talk) 01:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dragon Warrior/archive2

So that FAC is going to be speedy-closed, while others have been sitting in wait for over a month? And if so, and I or someone else bring it up for a third FAC, it's going to even less likely to pass because someone will find more excuses to oppose it? This is not very consistent, and I'm getting rather frustrated in the entire FAC process in general as of late. –MuZemike 03:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry it's been frustrating for you, but I disagree that a subsequent FAC is more likely to be archived because reviewers will "find more excuses to oppose"-- reviewers are generally receptive to a FAC that has been carefully prepared. You did mention that you would be getting the recommended book, so a clean start after you get the book is probably the fastest way forward. Also, to my knowledge (and please correct me if I've missed anything), there are no FACs open longer than a month with two opposes and no supports, except a law FAC that has an (as yet unsubstantiated) oppose on comprehensiveness that NewYorkBrad has said he will check. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Footnotes and punctuation

Regarding [4], the reason I had standardized the footnotes inside the punctuation was to make it clear the footnotes applied only to the single username. In this version, footnotes "3,4" after John Vandenberg might be misunderstood to apply to every preceding name and the footnote following the terminal punctuation after Iridescent might be seen as referring to the whole line (no?). I've undone your edit for now - if you revert back, please give the same treatment at WP:CheckUser. –xeno^talk 13:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Encyclopædia Britannica for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Snowman (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Autism

Hi SandyGeorgia, I notice you deleted my update to the autism entry. I can see understand why the link to our website might not be appropriate in the context, but cannot understand how the study I included qualifies as recentism - this is an important paper, was published in Nature, and has been replicated. I don't want to undo your edit, but maybe we can agree a way to best include the citation. Joconnol (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Autism again

Hi, If the primary source I added is too recent, a few others should probably also be deleted - particularly the ones regarding the mirror neuron system? The theory has not been supported - see Jojanneke et al. (2011). Should I start a discussion on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joconnol (talk • contribs) 18:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:MEDRS-- WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS is not the only issue-- Wikipedia medical articles rely on secondary reviews, not primary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

So we should delete references 94, 96, 97, 98?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.14.243.253 (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I checked 94 for starters, and it is a meta-analysis, hence fine (so I didn't check the others yet). If you haven't yet read or don't yet understand WP:MEDRS, you might pose your queries at Talk:Autism (for a broader audience), but I suggest you first familiarize yourself with MEDRS, and then provide exact text cited and links to the sources explaining why you find they don't meet MEDRS (talking about "Ref 94" for example in a dynamic environment-- where numbers can change as text changes-- isn't very useful). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Feedback requested

Hello SandyGeorgia, I would like you to provide feedback at this peer review. I'm planning on taking the article, Silver Reef, Utah, to FAC, and seeing as how you have experience in this area, your feedback would be much appreciated. Thanks, The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 21:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I am barely keeping up with my watchlist because of construction on my house-- kitchen installation began tody-- it's unlikely I'll be able to help out, sorry ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem Sandy, good luck with the house construction! :) The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 21:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Association of Kannada Kootas of America

Hi Sandy, thanks for the copyvio tagging on Association of Kannada Kootas of America, turns out I was too busy concentrating on the DYK article, I forgot that I had wikilinked this article too. I had planned to clean it up actually, so if it is OK, could I rewrite the article as a short stub? Thanks, Lynch7 12:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I saw it was written by a number of IPs, and you only had one edit-- but I wasn't sure who all those IPs are. I'm not actually sure how one goes about fixing such things ... some of my Talk Page Stalkers (TPS) may weigh in, or you may have to search around on those copyvio pages to figure out what you're able to do. It caught my eye because the capitalization in the article was so strange that it was a quick-and-easy copyvio find. Some of my TPS may know how to clean it up quickly so it doesn't have to be delinked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I just found the instructions in the template-- you rewrite it in a subpage. If you do that quickly, an admin can probably plop it in there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, will stir up a quick stub. Thanks, Lynch7 12:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

And thank you to you for getting on it so quickly with no fuss !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that's no problem :) . Anyway, I've rewritten the article here, and I will make a note on the Main page errors page. Lynch7 13:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Something for you

		The WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves
		By the order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of your continued contributions to the effectiveness of the featured article process. In your tireless efforts to maintain exacting standards and to foster diligent review practices, you have been a role model to our project, and we are deeply grateful for your example. This award marks the first time that the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves have been awarded twice to a single recipient; we are pleased to have the opportunity to recognize your work once again. For the Military history WikiProject coordinators, Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)