Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:08, 25 January 2011

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

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.

Introduction to Evolution

Hi, I was contemplating renominating the Introduction to Evolution for FA. My intent, for the process to be observed by my struggling group of students in the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject AP Biology 2010. If they observed the many challenges and scrutiny that often occurs they may better grasp the futility of a last minute effort. This particular article has always been tumultuous at best . Even the demotion was a bit convoluted in that it was nominated for deletion by an enthusiastic editor who immediately deleted it in its entirety; then lost the FA star under an entirely different version. The original has since been restored, hopefully improved and has been stable for some time. My question. Would you consider taking a quick look at the referencing format to see if it still meets FA standards? I will not waste the time if it's an automatic fail on that note. Just a quick glance at format with a thumbs up or thumbs down will suffice - not a detailed critique. If it is not too grotesque - I will nominate in hopes that the former Fa version is still a quality piece of work! Incidentally, both you and User:Malleus Fatuorum are perceived as a sort of deity among my band of high schoolers - someone to fear and respect. --JimmyButler (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Opinion request about external links

Hello, your name was suggested as a knowledgeable editor whose opinion would be valuable. Would you mind taking a look at this query at WP:EL/N? Thanks muchly. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I need your help

Somebody has nominated this article for GA status. I remember you telling me a couple months ago that Legends of America isn't a reliable source. I've been working on replacing the Legends source with reliable sources, but I'm not exactly finished. Can you take a look at the article and tell me if there are any other unreliable sources? I think I found them all (still have to take care of them, though), but I want to get a second opinion. Thanks, The Utahraptor/_Contribs 17:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

Req opinion of SG and willing TPS

Opinions, please. Potential essay in WP space. --Moni3 (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yup, it pretty much defines a specific attitude. I particularly like the parts about tagging - I cannot stand arriving at a tagged article; it always makes me wonder why the page was tagged but nothing done to fix the problem. Nice job. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I tag articles, medical generally, because 1) bad medical info is as bad (dangerous) as a poorly sourced BLP; 2) there's no human way for me to fix them all (today, I was fixing some dab links that took me to scores of medical articles, and almost everyone I checked was dismal, with no chance of me being able to fix them all, I don't have journal access, and researching medical articles ain't easy or quick); 3) maybe someone will fix the issues if they're tagged; 4) our readers should know when they're getting poor medical info; but, most importantly, 5) so I can come back and delete the trash in a month or so if no one fixes it. I think a medical stub is better than misleading medical info-- I sometimes wish we could just blank uncited medical articles so our readers would move on to their next Google hit, where they might get accurate info. Google any medical condition and see where Wiki comes up, because medicine editors have done a phenomenal job of adding templates that link articles like crazy, increasing their google ranking-- people in need of medical info are reading our uncited, poorly cited trash! I also tag POV biopolitical articles when the talk page owners make progress impossible; I don't tag articles when talk page discussion is ongoing and it looks like the issues may be addressed. In short: perhaps you can distinguish between editors who generally build content and sometimes tag articles, and those who only tag articles, particularly of editors they stalk, and have never built a real article themselves. And to close, Wiki is 99.9999% trash-- let's alert our readers to that, since it's not possible to fix it all. Or change policy so that we can delete on sight anything that isn't cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hate the taggers(' sins. hate the sin, not the sinner, gotta remind myself) in general. Think the vast majority (not you Sandy of course) would do better to take a strain and go learn how to research and write. Totally sinks morale to have these people doing drive by tags. Plus it's all crap that should go on the talk pages. Yeah, a lot of wiki articles suck. Duh. Either shoot the project or live with it. But the turdbox droppings that look fancy are just awful.TCO (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I think tagging medical articles is valid - readers should know if issues exist on those articles and you have a strong argument Sandy. Most of my work is in the humanities, and it's annoying to click into an article to find, for instance, an absurdly long plot outline and a tag asking for references. Yeah, someone wrote a plot outline and didn't add scholarly material or reviews, and then someone comes along and tags. The tagger should take a moment to supply a reference - they might even learn something. I think a lot of tagging is done to increase edit count. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Well, I also dislike editors who have never built as much as a GA, but spend days on end placing fact tags on articles or statements that aren't causing anyone any harm -- I just think medical articles should be treated like BLPs (and that we should elevate that to policy, but I've been saying that for years ... ) Some people should get a life and go play somewhere else if they're not here to build articles that make a difference to someone, somewhere, somehow. (post-ec to TK) Agree: but not only to increase edit count, sometimes it's merely to plague editors they don't like. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I wrote most of that from my own experience, including an unreferenced BLP I saw blanked (most of which was common knowledge anyway) and a current events article. I have no experience in medical articles. What sense could you or any med article participant make of drive-by tagging? Can you turn it into some kind of purposeful action? With no experience in them, I don't see a point in tagging them and returning later. Maybe you do.

I peruse quite a few articles all the time, many of which are wretchedly written or just trivial compositions. Like you, I understand I can't fix them all. The ones I tag I end up rewriting, like Emmett Till. For various reasons I don't fix issues in some articles.

Perhaps I should make a distinction here, or maybe a more forceful statement of one's entire existence on Misplaced Pages consisting of tagging. If editors never add content and only tag, that does not improve the site. Or did I make that pretty clear anyway? --Moni3 (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you made it very clear and it's a valid point that needs to be made. Some tagged articles I come across are quite easily fixed, some not as easily fixed but I often place them on my watchlist with the intention of returning to fix. The culture and tag-and-run is one that annoys me - a lot. Thanks btw for the good essay and for getting this conversation started. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think tagging should go in the articles. Put it in the talk page. If no one fixes it there, so what, at least you did not deface the article. What makes a fancy template different than putting little self editing comments into your writing? We know wiki is not finished product. The world knows it. And I would not give any special status to medical articles either. There is bum dope all over wiki. That's life. Either fix it, delete it, or live with it. Or put a comment on the talk page.TCO (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

And there's where we differ-- I think bad medical articles SHOULD suffer the disgrace of a tag, should look ugly, should have something that discourages innocent readers from engaging them when they think they're getting accurate, important info that may matter in decisions that affect their health (OK, any reader who believes Wiki is stupid, but there are lots of stupid people out there, and how many of our readers know the difference between an FA and Joe-Bloe's-favorite-fringe-theory medical or psych article?). Fixing an uncited medical article-- even a short one-- often takes weeks, usually requires journal access, and we've got, what, tens or hundreds of thousands of them? Mostly JUNK, because some editors who add info to Wiki have an agenda (surprise, surprise)-- and it's WAY worse in the psych realm, which IMO, is the single worst series of articles on Wiki because they attract more than the usual number of kooks. If I tag 'em, someone often fixes them, our readers are warned, and if no one fixes them, then I'm justified in deleting the garbage so our readers can move on to something accurate when our articles come up first on Google. Yes, I think it's effective for medical articles, because everything in them needs to be right, and little is casual info, like on a BLP, where some of the info isn't harming anyone. A medical article is different than say, Hugo Chavez-- anyone coming to that article most likely isn't looking for info because they probably already know the score, and if they're too stupid to sort the POV or if they trust Wiki for info on Chavez, they were drinking the kool-aid anyway, and they're not likely to make important decisions that could affect their well-being based on what they read about Chavez. But someone googling around for medical info is more likely looking for helpful info without preconceived notions, and likely to hit Wiki first, not know how to sort a trash article from an FA, and be misinformed on something that actually matters. They should be warned. I wish our warning was better for med articles and said something like, This article is uncited, which means there's a very good chance you're reading a load of bullroar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, can you then make some sense of this action for medical articles? Can you suggest say a paragraph about tagging med articles? It's outside my experience. --Moni3 (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd say, sort something in your essay to, is the info you're tagging harming our readers? If not, place a talk page post instead. (Someone who tags statements that don't make a hill of beans difference to anyone, and are likely accurate anyway, comes to mind.) And on your earlier question, yes, the tagging often produces results. If someone cares about the article, the tagging will force them to fix it (assuming it's well justified on talk), or give you reason to take them to DR if they remove the tags without fixing the article. If no one cares about the article, it allows someone to stubbify the garbage so our readers won't be misinformed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

And another thing, we have BOATLOADS of medical articles, including almost all of our medical GAs, that are full of primary-source original research, often pushing a pet fringe theory. We should be able to delete it all-- it's every bit as important as our BLP policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Some of it might actually be unsourced second-source research and, as a general rule, I'd put after such assertions if I knew they were unsourced research. Perhaps delete those later on if they prove to be OR? — Rickyrab | Talk 19:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I've used wiki for medical stuff. I been lifting weights and got injured.  :( I've used the net for medical stuff. Any time you do patient research on the net, it is an iterative process and you have to weed through some bull. Might as well put a tag on the monitor. And I know lifting forums where they explecitly say, don't be an idiot and ask questions about injuries here, see your doctor. That said, I actually find it helpful BOTH to ask forum questions and to talk to my doc. I know the forum does not now all and I can filter.

P.s. I would make a cute rejoinder saying that we should watch out for bad Pokimon dope here, but teh Wiki actually has pretty stellar Pokimon info.  :(TCO (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Wiki is full of POV and fringe stuff. And also just low quality at times. Maybe we should have editors here, or something instead of letting anyone reach out and change our webpage from their side.

Here are the page hit stats on our disclaimer page; TS gets as many daily hits, and Schizophrenia gets 15,000 hits a day. How many of our readers do ya think can even find that teensy disclaimer link at the bottom of the page? And there are LOTS of stupid people on the internet (and some of them are even Wiki editors :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on this conversation as I'm working on another page, and came across this tagged page ( Women's Army Corps )- I mean, really, doh! Pretty much everything needs expansion. That said, I think Sandy's argument re medical articles is extremely valid. Perhaps if fewer tags were used they'd have a greater impact? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep! That ties in to my message of "tag if the article is harming someone", otherwise, take it to talk (for example, put expansion on talk). But I'm also forced to tag when talk page discussion yields nothing, due to tenditious editors, ownership, whatever. But even on that I've changed: because I'm so discouraged about the amount of pure trash on Wiki, I don't even bother if the page doesn't get high views. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I think cases of active tendentious editing is different than the tagging-for-sake-of-tagging. I don't run into as much tendentious editing as you, but when I do it's incredibly draining and discouraging. In that we agree, very much. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Best solution on tenditious editors used to be "tag and unwatch"; now it's just "unwatch". I'm jealous of those editors who get to edit off in corners where no one bothers them and they rarely have to deal with trolls, stalkers, vandals, spam, POV pushers, and run-of-the-mill kooks -- that doesn't seem to have been my lot on Wiki :) But yea, sometimes tagging is a last resort, but tagging for the sake of tagging on non-med articles is probably rarely productive. Maybe someone will tell us why they do it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I think because they don't know what else to do here and don't really want to write an encyclopedia - as Moni's essay suggests. Logging out now, but Happy New Year, by the way! Don't worry too much about the roof - we lost all our gutters in last year's storm - that was fun! - but only a memory now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

As much as tagging annoys me, it does have its uses. For example, active WikiProjects will use the categories created by tags to create cleanup lists. There are very few such projects, though. The articles I frequent (music-related) often have months- or years-old tags, many of which don't even apply, but people are afraid to remove them. Any text that would be harmful to someone should just be removed, not tagged. We do this for copyvios, so why not BLPs and med articles? Our exposure would be no less for the latter two, it would seem. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP already says that problematic unsourced material should be removed, not tagged. I think the spirit of that would apply to BLP material with issues other than sourcing. Extending that approach to medical articles... well, why not? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, maybe you, Sandy, or anyone else interested can assist writing this paragraph here. I understand your point that tags should be scarce, but they're not. The essay is to persuade users to shift their attitude from "I'm a tagger and I'm proud!" to "Oh, I should fix that." Your points about med articles are well-taken, but I'm not quite sure how they would be incorporated into the rest of the essay. While medical articles should get a template of some kind, in your opinion, that does not address the problematic behavior of doing the least amount of effort in mass tagging. So I feel rather dim here, and I think I need your help. --Moni3 (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm more than usually dim because of lack of sleep, but I'll contemplate this after pots of coffee and when I have time. Medicine articles perhaps need a whole new set of unreferenced or poorly referenced templates; not sure I know how to design those. Will look at that para once I'm coherent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Presented to SandyGeorgia on January 7, 2011 for your tireless persistence in editing with precision and style and defending the difficult articles while encouraging others to do the same. I note especially your thorough work across numerous related articles in dealing with the subject of Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent research. A true wikipedian! -- Brangifer (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Texas Chainsaw Massacre

User is requesting a Guild ce of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. It has been up for FA several times and you were reviewer of last splat against the wall. I think that to make the article an enjoyable read, it needs a re-org/rewrite more than nitpicking on sentences. See here: Comments? TCO (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Editor unilaterally declaring WikiProject advice pages to be part of the Manual of Style

See changes like these: , which give you a reason to look at the discussion on my user talk page at User talk:WhatamIdoing#I_Am_Trying_To_Cleanup_The_Category. I've already provided background information, e.g., links to WP:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice_pages.

The "new" editor is also deleting appropriate uses of Category:Style guidelines of WikiProjects, e.g., , but that shouldn't screw up FAC work. I've left at note at WP:MOSCO as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, goodness-- how much of it has he done? If a lot, maybe this needs to go to ANI to get him to stop and to begin the cleanup. Are you the only one dealing with it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

He or she has only done one today (WikiProject Poker) and has been asked to stop(User_talk:WhatamIdoing). I don't think there is much issue here other then a misunderstanding. Regards, SunCreator 18:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, no one is coordinating a response, but the editor isn't highly active, and I think that at least most of it has been reverted so far. Recent actions that concern me include this proposed name change to a "Manual of Style (subject)" format. It indicates that we're just not getting it.

Category:Style guidelines of WikiProjects is at CFD now, which I'm unhappy about. Yes, the name is technically 'wrong'. Most of them are essays or infopages, rather than "official" style guidelines. But there are so many bigger problems to deal with.

(I wonder whether the hints about socking on the user's talk page will actually end up at SPI.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

In addition to Poker, look at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Water supply and sanitation by country: Manual of Style , Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines . 65.93.14.196 (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems I'm not reliable

I'm obliged to confess that after some time the usual mistrust devoted to my person is starting to bother me a little bit. Just noticed your request to "someone" review Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies FAC nomination. If I did not know you, I'd think that you were trying to help me out with more reviews to be sure that the article is good to go. But I know, and you know, that your request is simply because you mistrust me.

I invited Mike Christie and Dana boomer to review the article, since you're very selective of the people whom you trust, but they opted to ignore it. Everytime someone reviews any of the articles I always tell them that the books can be easily found online at google books or that they have English-written editions. I'm not here for self-promotion or because I want somekind of position here at Misplaced Pages. Or for any political, social or personal agenda. I'm here simply because I like writing about Brazilian history.

Sincerely? I really don't care if people say "that's nice" or "great work" but it wouldn't hurt getting a little bit of respect here. Everytime I had somekind of issue you stood against me. When an editor wrote "oppose" in an article I wrote simply because he disliked an external infobox that had nothing to do with the article itself and even after other editors complained about his behavior (including ignoring requests to explain better his position) you stood against me. When another editor had his own particular ways of intepreting Commons' rules you stood against me. Even after I told you that 2 editors who were both administrators here and at Commons told me that he was wrong. In Hugo Chavez that also happened. I'm seeing 2-3 editors with a political agenda writing pieces of political propaganda disguised as "articles" moving freely and doing whatever they want. For... what? 6 months? Or more? I've been warning about that and you keep staying against me. In all these cases the other editors were considered by you as reliable editors or something similar. I have no idea how could I get my credentials to be considered part of this select and small group but I prefer to stick with my principles.

If I invite editors whom are considered "reliable" by you to review my articles, you complain about it. If I don't or if the ones who review them aren't the editors you consider as reliable you always leave the impression that I might be doing something wrong, such as picking selected editors who would certainly support me. Sandy, you have no idea how frustrating and unmotivating it is to write here. --Lecen (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I asked for more reviews because you canvassed: it's not in the article's best interest to merely close reviews where there is canvassing, so be happy it's continuing and getting reviews-- a better article will result. Yes, there are editors in Chavez with a political agenda who violate every Wiki policy in the book, but your talk page tone doesn't help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not against aditional reviews. In fact, if I was, I wouldn't have requested 58 different editors to review my article. What I do not like is the always-present feeling of mistrust towards me. And about Chávez: see my remarks there from the beginning to nowadays. At the start I thought I was dealing simply with unexperienced editors or people who had different views on how to improve the article. For months I tried to be reasonable. Now it's more than clear that there is, in fact, a small group of editors who have turned not only Chavez' article into a piece of propaganda, but also others related to it (Castro, Che Guevara, etc...). Not only that, they have a very powerful strategy of fooling well-intentioned editors by "discussing" over and over in the talk page with the clear goal of going nowhere. That's not the point of going over here to talk with you. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, wrt FAC, you canvassed. As you may (or may not) know, I'm recused from closing your FACs because we interact on Chavez. If you want to talk further about the serious problems at Chavez, could that wait until I finish reading FAC? I check my talk page when I'm reading FAC in case the orange bar is FAC-related, and when it's not, it delays my FAC reading. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not in the mood to discuss Chavez at all! That's a huge headache. And I don't mind if my article stays for a month or more open. I like when people review it. More they do, better the article becomes. You don't need to worry about this discussion anymore. Thank you for listening. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Lecen, I'm finally done with FAC, and recovered (two hard weeks of closing FAC, first server errors one week, and today, two different sock situations that had to be dealt with); when I'm trying to focus on reading FAC, I can't give proper attention to other issues.

First, and most importantly, you are doing excellent work with Brazilian history articles—an underrepresented area of Wiki, and an example of what other countries (like Venezuela) should be aspiring to. I don't mistrust your work at FAC.

Next, Hugo Chavez, so I can get that out of the way and answer your FAC-related questions. Changing the situation at Chavez is not within my power any more than it's within yours: I am just another editor there, just like you. I'm not an admin, and even if I were, I couldn't use admin tools there as I'm involved. I can do no more and no less to fix that situation than you can. Yes, we have all manner of policy violations and disruptive and tendentious editing there, removal of text sourced to highly reliable sources to replace it with text sourced to partisan sources, whitewashing of issues according to due weight of reliable sources, tag-teaming, ownership, edit-warring, you name it-- that article has it all. The situation will not be resolved until/unless it goes to ArbCom, and if that happens, here's how it will end. They will all be topic-banned. But so will you, because of the tone you adopt on the talk page; your rants there are not helping the situation, and I try to address all editors equally, even if (like you) they are right about the policy issues and frustrated at the ownership and policy violations. ArbCom doesn't look at content-- they look at editor behavior-- and as long as you are contributing to the talk page toxicity, you won't escape sanction if it ever comes to that, and you don't advance the article. What that article needs is editors who know and respect policy, and that includes behavioral policy. If you want to try to do something productive there, you need to lower the rants and focus on policy and sourcing-- exactly as you do when writing a Brazilian featured article. Being combative with editors who won't even listen to reason will get the article nowhere, and you topic-banned along with the rest of them.

Now, to FAC. Similarly, being combative with reviewers can only end one place: reviewers will stop engaging your articles, and they'll end up archived for lack of review. We're all volunteers here, and no one has to review any article. I asked other reviewers to look at the FAC because you canvassed; that's plain and simple, and it's to your advantage that the FAC wasn't just shut down. You don't seem to have digested this. Reviewers don't like being canvassed, and that will also keep them away. If you canvass on subsequent FACs, they likely will be shut down-- just for you to know. The four editors who weighed in on your current FAC gave nothing to indicate they know FAC standards, and considering the canvassing, a lookover from experienced reviewers was needed.

I'm not sure why you raise the google books issue, so not sure how to answer? I don't know what the issue is there.

On the image issues, being an admin on Commons does not guarantee the level of knowledge we are accustomed to working with at FAC, just as being an admin on en.wiki doesn't assure us of anything about that editor's competence. RFA is a Vote, not a test of competence or knowledge. When there is disagreement about image policy among reviewers, I always ask for a second opinion, and I typically ask editors who have a track record of being moderate, thorough and accurate. I find that such editors usually give enough information that the nominator can understand the problem, and the issues are resolved.

I think that's everything; hope I didn't miss anything, because I'm tired. The take-home message is that being combative at either the Chavez talk page or FAC isn't the best approach for getting what you're after-- well-written, neutral articles that conform to policy. I don't mistrust you at all, but you might give your approach another thought. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

History of Sesame Street

Sandy, just checking if you did what you meant to here; your closing note seems to imply archiving, but you put "promoted". Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Crap. That's what comes of dealing with socks when I'm trying to read FAC. Now Christine will be upset. The trolls win. I 'spose I won't check my talk page anymore when reading FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, fixed, thanks Mike. On the bigger picture. Those templates were added as a courtesy, and create extra work for delegates, but I try to do them because the "community" keeps demanding it. But the real indicator of status is whether a FAC is moved to the archives or the featured log. Hope this helps reduce general confusion-- I don't believe I've made that mistake before. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I always understood that the real marker is the edit to add the articles to WP:FA, actually, but it comes to the same thing. I was sure it was a typo, but best to catch it before Christine misinterprets it, since then you have a disappointed nominator. Glad I saw it. Thanks for promoting Fantastic (magazine), by the way; I thought that one probably had a little longer to wait! Off to put together the next nom ... Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Faith

I appreciate your faith. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

CSI effect FAC

Hey mate, you left some comments at the FAC for CSI effect. You also requested that I ping you when I was through with them, which I now am. Here is the relevant diff. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Antivax fraud links

Hey Sandy. Here's a great list of the latest news. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Another quoting Brian Deer: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/03/brian_deer_responds_to_andrew_wakefield.php -- Brangifer (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we would use blogs in the article, when we have so many highly reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Your behaviour

I didn't like your behaviour towards me on Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Walden–Wallkill Rail Trail/archive1 at all. You commented that I had edited a smiley template before I voted in favour of the article. Why is that relevant to the FA nomination? And for instance, the prose quality and the citations of an article constitute together the criterias 1a, 1c, 2b, 2c and 4 of WP:WIAFA. I actually spend much time reviewing the article, and my account is more than one year old. Please read WP:CIVILITY and stop being so rude at FAC. Thank you. --Eisfbnore 17:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't like my behavior, and appreciate the review (as always) but yours could be enhanced by reading the instructions at WP:FAC. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

On a quasi-related matter, could you please do something about Fasach Nua on the rail trail FAC? He/she keeps insisting that a portal image fails WP:V, or some such patently wrong assertion. I understand that doing image reviews is thankless and voluntary, but this user is basically misrepresenting official policy and making me nervous.
--Gyrobo (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want me to "do about Fasach Nua", since as far as I can tell, his request is correct. He asked for an OTRS on an image uploaded about five years ago that can't be verified as free and "looks" on the surface like professional work, meaning it could be copied. Asking for an OTRS, considering the editor who uploaded it is still active, is not unreasonable-- if the editor were not still active, it would likely need to be removed from any article aspiring to FA. I don't see anyone requesting the uploader to submit an OTRS, and more importantly, I don't see that particular portal listed on any of the many train FAs written by Iridescent. If an editor chooses to add the portal to the article, the status of the image needs to be clarified if it's to be an FA; that is, mainpage eligible. Fasach Nua isn't often wrong, so if you disagree, you could ask Jappalang for a second opinion, but it is not without merit that Iri didn't use that portal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's entirely unreasonable. The same argument about professional quality could be said of the article's other portal images, File:Cycling (road) pictogram.svg and File:Hudson river from bear mountain bridge.jpg. It's possible that any editor could pass off someone else's work as their own under any license; having them submit an OTRS won't prove anything. Do I have to submit an OTRS for all the photos I've taken? This seems like a precedent for arbitrarily forcing editors to redundantly confirm licenses on uploaded images based on subjective criteria. I don't see how it's connected to WP:V, and I'm not going to humor Fasach Nua or anyone else by making a request I believe is pointless and based on the assumption that editors here are incapable of producing high-quality work. I was kind of hoping you'd tell him/her the exact same thing.
--Gyrobo (talk) 03:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a reason for me to get involved in a good faith review involving a simple request for an OTRS. As I see it, you have three options: 1) do nothing and take your chances; 2) ping Jappalang for a second opinion; or 3) query Iridescent, who has written boatloads of train FAs and may have some insight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for responding as much as you have, I'll look into option 3. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been thinking this over, and really, I've decided I'm not okay with this – especially given the original nature of this section. You were perfectly willing to take the time to caution another editor on the use of smiley templates, and imply that they were somehow lacking in their assessment of the article, but you aren't willing to point out when a different editor is misrepresenting image policy? I don't know what your personal history is with Fasach Nua, and I understand that image review is a job that nobody wants to do, but from my experience, Fasach Nua tends to derail nominations based on patently wrong assertions (see South Park (season 13)). The whole process is lengthy and demoralizing and could be completely avoided if a delegate would just involve themselves and say, "hey, that's wrong. Let's move past this." That's my opinion, and I just wanted to express it.
--Gyrobo (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If I thought it a clear misapplication of policy, I'd state that. Have you requested a second opinion from Jappalang? Have you queried Iridescent, considering that portal is not in his train FAs? Have you considered removing the portal and asking the train folks to sort their image issue and re-add the portal when it's sorted? You have many options; asking me to opine against a good-faith reviewer is not one of them. Getting more feedback is. Holding up a FAC over a portal link strikes me as intransigent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The reasons you don't see the Portal:Trains link on mine are (a) I dislike garish portal links (and fail to see the point of portals, which nobody ever seems to pay attention to), and (b) because of the UK's unique status as the birthplace of heavy industry, and London's unique status within it as both the birthplace of urban mass transit and home of the world's largest public transport network, WikiProject UK Railways and WikiProject London Transport are effectively independent of WP:RAIL, as the issues are so different to those affecting the rest of the world. (India and Japan also have independent railway projects, for similar reasons.)

If I were nominating this, I'd remove the portal-links box altogether; it adds nothing to the article, and is of no use to anyone (people looking for articles on trains or cycling are going to search on their area of interest; they don't want a generic list of every train, cycling etc related article). I include portal links only if they're part of an infobox or navbox that would be included anyway; to my mind, Portal-space is a failed experiment that should be MFD'd, since they never got the expected numbers of viewers and most are moribund. (Portal:Trains is actually something of a rare success story, but that's only because Slambo has dedicated so much time to stopping it deteriorating.)

Regarding this particular image, I can't see any issue that would affect FAC; this just looks like another piece of Fasach Nua obstructionism. Yes, FN is often right, but it's the stopped-clock principle at work; assuming 2⁄3 of FAC nominations aren't ready for whatever reason, by serial-opposing everything he's going to be "right" 2⁄3 of the time. I can't take any of the arguments against this image seriously; it's clearly a crude home-made drawing comprised of the standard MS Paint objects, not a piece of professional work; I (or anyone) could recreate it in ten minutes. It also not only appears on the talkpage of every railway-related article on English Misplaced Pages, but is included on the main navigation page (under "Technik") of the notoriously image-copyright-paranoid de-wikipedia. Since changing the image would affect (literally) tens of thousands of pages, I'd be opposed to replacing it. – iridescent 12:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Iri-- that's helpful! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there some way to integrate this conversation, or at least Iridescent's reply (and my original query), on the FAC page? I can't think of how or where to clearly insert it into the discussion there.
--Gyrobo (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't like to quote other people at FAC without their permission, so you could ask Iri, but since I'm aware of his opinion, I don't need to also see it on the FAC. More to the point, why not just remove the portal as Iri suggests and eliminate the issue altogether? Your choice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to quote me if you want, if you think it will avoid people raising the same issue over and over. I agree with Sandy, that the sensible solution is to remove the portal links altogether, as they add no value to the article. As I say above, somebody with an interest in long-distance cycle routes in the Hudson Valley will search on "Cycling in the Hudson Valley"—they don't want to be taken to a definition of "cycling" and a bunch of "notable cycling quotations". For some narrowly-defined topics portal links make sense, but nobody is ever going to want to see a list of every Hudson Valley related article on Misplaced Pages. – iridescent 17:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I happen to disagree with you on the importance and value of portals, I think they're an excellent way to get casual readers to learn more about a topic; and proportionally, a larger percentage of portals are of featured quality than articles (~14.2% to ~0.09%), so I don't think it's fair to say portals are a failed experiment (perhaps they would be more heavily trafficked if they were better promoted in articles?). As you've said, the trains portal in particular is very comprehensive and well-maintained, and I've been working over the last few days to get the Hudson Valley portal up to FP quality. And given the fact that there is no issue over the trains portal image, I see no reason to remove a resource readers might find useful.
--Gyrobo (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, ...

1. That a higher percentage of portals are featured tells you something about the featured portal process, nothing about their value.
2. For a view of failure on a rather massive scale, here:

   http://stats.grok.se/en/201101/Portal:Hudson_Valley

   http://stats.grok.se/en/201101/Portal:Cycling

   http://stats.grok.se/en/201101/Portal:Trains

3. They are heavily promoted-- on virtually every article. Which puts the massive failure in perspective. That they are so heavily linked and no one looks at them shows the extent of the failure.

In conclusion, there is no rationale reason to keep a portal link in an article if that link is impeding FA status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, I don't usually have your talk page on my watchlist (it's way too active!) but I happened to notice this discussion. I hope you don't mind if I ask a related question; does your comment above imply that you believe Fasach Nua's oppose is valid? Or are just suggesting that the portal link is not useful? I assume it's the latter, since you were careful above to avoid giving a personal opinion on the validity of the oppose (and I can understand why), but it sounds a bit like the former. Mike Christie (talk – library) 22:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

In general, I would need a policy or guideline reason for declaring whether any given oppose is invalid-- for example, objecting to redlinks is invalid. This is a matter of opinion, and when it comes to opinion, I have to weigh consensus. Fasach nua has one view, Iri has another, I respect both opinions. Others could weigh in with entirely different opinions-- it's up to Gyrobo if he thinks a portal link is worth holding up a FAC over. I'm just pointing out the facts as they roll in :) I have no opinion one way or another on the value of the portal link (the stats tell us that) or whether the image meets policy, other than I do think holding up a FAC over a portal links shows some unnecessary intransigence, and I am not about to be declaring good faith reviews or reviewers "invalid" unless they clearly breach policy or guideline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Gyrobo is not seeing clearly because of his investment in the portal. I have no opinion on portals, I never look at them, but it seems to me that fighting on two fronts simultaneously is rarely a good idea. Gyrobo, just dump the portal link and get the FAC over with. What you choose to do after that is up to you. Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, I think it's completely unfair to make it seem as though my view on portals is some sort of obstacle to this article being promoted, since the consensus seems to be that there is no copyright issue here. Whatever your or my opinion is on portals in general, and these portals in particular (all of which have higher daily views than the article itself), there is no policy reason to exclude them. Throughout this discussion, you've called me intransigent and basically told me the only way to ensure a smooth process was to just ignore consensus and remove the portals to placate one editor. You've been unnecessarily antagonistic toward me; after requesting your input on this issue, your first response was for me to "do nothing and take your chances", and your statement about portals views, while perfectly logical, was prefaced by a condescending and unnecessary "Um, ...". And throughout this discussion you still hold Fasach Nua's opinion sacrosanct, and treat the issue as though I'm some sort of firebrand zealot with an axe to grind; I'm just a guy writing about rail trails in his spare time. I honestly don't understand this. But I intend to continue nominating FACs for a very long time, and I completely refuse to endure such behavior. The next time I ask you for assistance, please show a little more compassion. And to respond to Malleus, I did not perform extensive work on the Hudson Valley portal until after Iridescent pointed out the low quality most portals suffer. I'm not insisting on including this portal because I've worked on it, and it isn't even the portal Fasach Nua is complaining about.
--Gyrobo (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Gyrobo, I don't know what's going on in your thought processes, but your persistent misrepresentions or miunderstandings are not ingratiating. First, what consensus? We have to two opinions as of the last time I checked. Not enough for me to hold up a FAC over, but certainly not enough for you to declare consensus, either. Second, the intransigence was because you continued to ask me to take a stand on a good-faith reviewer without having done the many other steps available to you to resolve the matter (which you finally did after I had to prod you several times). Third, the antagonism has been yours: I've answered your questions. I think you'll find you'll have a much easier time at FAC if you are less combative-- I have a very thick skin and am highly unlikely to be bothered by your statements here or to even remember them a few weeks from now, but not all reviewers do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of record, I immediately queried Iridescent the first time you recommended that I do so. You did not "prod" me. Regarding your comments on consensus, two editors on the FAC said the image wasn't a problem, and Iridescent said the same thing; I assumed that since you didn't point out a policy issue on the matter, that you also agreed that the portal image doesn't suffer any kind of copyright issue. That's the consensus I'm referring to; removing the portals because you think they aren't useful is another issue, and suggesting that the FAC may be held up because of something unrelated to policy or the article's content is what I'd consider intransigent. It has not been my goal to be antagonistic, and I've tried very hard to express my thought process: I came here because the image review was not conducted in good faith (asking that an editor fill out an OTRS on their own work strikes me as the definition of bad faith), and since you had already partially reviewed the article, and are a delegate, I thought you could point to a specific policy as a justification for whether the image was okay. Instead, the only advice I received from you was to involve more people or to just do whatever the reviewer suggested, lest it derail the process. At no point did you explicitly state your opinion on whether the image, as it currently is, constitutes a policy issue. If I appear combative, it's because the sole reason I entered this conversation – to obtain that opinion – has been met with evasiveness and condescension.
--Gyrobo (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Another way

Has anyone emailed Bart the creator? He's an admin on .nl and .en with email contact on User:RexNL and nl:Gebruiker:Rex page. I see no sign anymore has asked for his input - no request on his talk page for example, he does have 63K of contributions on the English Misplaced Pages alone. Despite no recent activity on Misplaced Pages it would not seem difficult to track him down, he has a Twitter and Facebook account for example. Regards, SunCreator 17:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think a querry is reasonable and is low barrier. If there is old submitted content and it didn't require an OTRS and the user is unreachable, then would support overuling an FN object. But if FN is getting a bad feeling and it is easy to queery the creator, might as well do so. Heck, might find something useful. TCO (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

"Oh, Hi Bart! A user on Misplaced Pages thinks you're a liar/thief. Can you just send an email to OTRS declaring otherwise? Thanks." As I mentioned in the FAC, don't waste your time on this. If someone wants to assume bad faith on commons uploads, then there is nothing OTRS can solve. Choose option 1 and just throw out the review, it's not like one user's image review is the gospel truth, given that everyone disagrees. - hahnchen 20:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. We have to assume good faith. On images, that is a pretty short assumption; we all know how many commons pages shouldn't be there, but there doesn't seem much reason to doubt the uploader's word here. I don't think an OTRS should be needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Given the circumstances. I think it's quite reasonable to ask Bart where the train image came from. Regards, SunCreator 20:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

What are the circumstances? How does this image differ from every other image placed under a free license by their uploaders? Asking this Bart fellow to fill out an OTRS is akin to me walking up to my mailman tomorrow without any evidence of wrongdoing, and asking him to confirm in writing that he hasn't rifled through my letters. It's easy to do, but completely unnecessary and insulting.
--Gyrobo (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Well these circumstances

1. I am assuming good faith about User:Fasach Nua who knows more about these things then I do. It's a thankless task bringing bad news that images may not be usable and it is hardly going to be meet with a happy response. So if he/she does bring bad news I don't think it can simply be dismissed without some further insight.
2. The date of the image is 2005, when public domain was acceptable. PD is no longer acceptable(?). I think from that time if something was widely used some felt it was public domain.
3. A check on Commons:User_talk:Rex#Image_Tagging_Image:Pharos_of_Alexandria.jpg shows pages of deleted images that Bart uploaded. Different reasons no doubt, but not a good sign a user has so much deleted.
4. Bart's own description said "This icon is made for trains/public transport/locomotives.", note, he doesn't actually say he made it - opening the possibility that he merged the background and a train icon he found.
5. The upload time(15:09, 9 November 2005) on Commons:File:LogoOV.png is 49 minutes after the original(14:20, 9 November 2005) with a different train was created. This time is key to consideration I think. It certainly made me think twice because the image is to good to be made in 49 minutes and suggests it was one that was already available.

Regards, SunCreator 21:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Gyrobo, this mountain from a molehill is intriguing. You don't seem to mind accusing Fasach Nua of bad faith, but don't want to simply ask an active contributor for info about the image. Very strange contradiction. At any rate, I don't make or decide policy-- I weigh consensus-- and I'm not in the business of doubting good faith reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

In response to SunCreator, the image in use here is P train.svg. While LogoOV.png may appear very similar, and is listed as a raster version of P train.svg, the latter was created almost a year later and if the images are examined at high magnification, very different designs are visible. As Iridescent pointed out, the design uses basic geometric shapes; given the creator's other vector uploads, I see no reason to doubt that this isn't an original work. The status of LogoOV.png isn't at issue. And Sandy, if someone was making what I believed to be unfounded accusations against you, I would defend you as well – but that doesn't mean I won't point out when I think you're wrong. You say that you won't doubt good faith reviewers, but by encouraging me to get an OTRS for this image, you're basically doubting a good faith uploader. I find that hypocritical. Fasach Nua made an assertion that I thought maligned another editor's good name, and I sought remediation. That's why it's important to me.
--Gyrobo (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, if you're assuming that the original image is a bad faith upload, then an OTRS message would mean nothing. Instead of bending over backwards to accommodate one users obtuse opinion, your time would be better spent reviewing Walden–Wallkill Rail Trail at FAC. - hahnchen 22:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, the images(P train.svg and LogoOV.png) are not created independently. I hadn't noticed that detail so I've stricked my above request to contact Bart. Bart isn't the creator. Regards, SunCreator 22:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Gyrobo, please try to read critically and stop putting words at the tips of people's fingers that they didn't type. It's time for you to let this go and stop alleging bad faith of a good faith reviewer. This mole hill is a big enough mountain now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Can't we just drop whoever is the uploader/creator a note and ask for some info? Maybe we don't even need an ORTS and the fellow just says I did that when I was younger and less copyright educated. Not sure why we think we have to ask in an abrupt or demeaning manner.

I may not be a characteristic example of Wiki misbehavior (worse than normal), but I confess to loading a bad image up (I hope I don't get repermabanned. It was an old crime.) I even successfully blathered that the image for Stover at Yale was off copyright (since the book is). But of course that does not mean the photo is. And I snagged it off a website. But if someone said, "hey man, I'm taking Owen Johnson to FA, is that image really cool, I would just say...naw...it's not. Go to the city library and get an old edition and make a legit image."TCO (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		Saints Star Award
		For the thought, clarity of argument and patience you recently showed at Jimbo's talk page, which deftly moved a discussion about gender from ignorant to sensible discussion... thank you. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you still on board with this?

Shall I keep looking through, or have you lost interest? Malleus Fatuorum 01:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Busy days IRL-- I intend to catch up as soon as I can, but perhaps not until tomorrow night. Since you're on it, I wasn't worried :) I appreciate it, and don't mean to be neglectful, but I'll be more settled after next Monday. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I just had more questions than answers. As an aside, my psychiatric bible is Szaz's Myth of Mental Illness, so I probably won't be much help with the content. Malleus Fatuorum 01:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Me neither-- I don't have all of the sources, and I'm not as up on Schizophrenia as some other disorders; I may end up pinging Doc James to look at those, but I want to find time to do what I can first, since he's overworked. But so am I :) I've got about ten things I need to catch up on-- not when I'm tired after a busy day, with more to come. I do appreciate all you've done already. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't quite finished with this yet, but I'm getting there. I was diverted by Margaret Thatcher's GAR, which is done now, so I should be able to get through the rest of it over the weekend. Enjoy your break. Malleus Fatuorum 03:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Susanne2009NYC & Potter articles

Hi Sandy - I've been using your sandbox User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox/Susanne2009NYC to update this situation that I'm still, slowly, working on. I hope you don't mind & wondered if I should just copy it over to my own subpage, or keep it all in one place? Found two more articles last night that I need to add to the list. Hope your January is going well and not too snowy - very cold where I am. Btw - love the saints barnstar above. It's well deserved. Take care. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

RE, not too snowy, LOL !!! Do whatever is easiest for you with my sandbox ... move, copy, whatever works, I no longer have time to keep up with that. And I owe you an e-mail from months ago-- it's still flagged in my inbox! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

We had a heavy snowfall last night and school cancelation today. If you don't mind I'll leave the info in your subpage and continue to update and will get around to copying at some point. I've been traveling and have a cold that's knocked me flat, so am using this indoor day to try to catch up a bit. I've changed my email since months ago so will send you a new one with the new address. Probably fine to unflag and delete the old email ... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Travel, cold, heavy snowfall-- are you living in my life? :) In spite of my neglect, I hope your health is looking up! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for asking - yes, I think finally getting better. I'll put the health details in an email when I get to it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Elimination Chamber

Made a comment about your comment at its FAC. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

TPS question on MOS for images

I know there's a statement somewhere in the bowels of the MoS that images can't be left-aligned at the top of certain article section levels, but I can't find the damn thing. Could some kind TPS please point me at it? I promise to put a link on my user page pointing at it so I don't lose it again. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

There used to be, but I think it may have gone now. Malleus Fatuorum 01:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Correct, it was removed-- it was based on WP:ACCESS, and it turned out not to be an issue after all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

Hi, I recently reviewed a GA for the first time and posted some comments on the review page here. I felt that since I have written a GA and nommed a second that I should probably start helping review too. Did I do a decent review on Hurricane Able (1952), or is it a poor-quality review? I will return and revisit the article and make more comments after these issues are fixed, but, in the meantime, is that a good start? Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a good review. Sandy generally handles FA stuff rather than GA, so any of the latter you can refer to me; she has enough on her plate. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Wizardman! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)