User talk:SandyGeorgia

FACs needing feedback ; view • edit
Operation Matterhorn logistics	Review it now

If you want me to look at an article or a FAC, please provide the link.

If you are unsure if a FAC is closed, please see WP:FAC/ar.

To leave me a message, click here.

Template:FixBunching

About me

Talk to me

To do list

Tools and other
useful things

Some of
my work

Nice
things

Yukky
things

Communism

Dear Sandy, I know that you usually deal with the best of articles and not with the low-end ones, but you are one of the few experienced editors I know here and I feel that your advice and help could perhaps solve my problem. The problem is about the article Communism. I think that it is in a bad shape now - a rather unbalanced and POV list of communist sects, not a systematic explanation. I invested many hours to improve it (you know that I lived long years under a Communist govt so I am very interested in this matter) and my new version stuck for some time (this is the last version of it, after many colleagues changed it in this or that way). After some moths, an editor reverted it without previous discussion to the older version. I tried to revert back, but another editor, Bobisbob2, asserted that "my" version is not neutral enough and reverted again. I tried to discuss it (see Talk:Communism#Reverts to the previous version) but nobody else appeared and Bobisbob2 looks like a more able edit warrior than myself.

So my first question is: As an independent observer, do you think that "my" version is clearly better than Bobisbob2's? Perhaps I deceive myself and my text is really not as good as I think... And if you think that the current version is worse, what would you suggest me to do?

Thank you for your time. Best wishes,--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to think on this, Ioannes. I had a similar, unfruitful experience at Hugo Chavez, and finally decided to walk away, so my advice could be biased by personal experience and the lack of Venezuelan Wiki editors to help out there. Good to hear from you, and I see we have a Chess article proposed at WP:TFA/R; we should hear more from you folks in the FA department! I'll think on this and get back to you. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your advice, Sandy. But on the other side, Communism is a too important theme to be left to communists. Much more important than a minor chess master from the 19th century. It would be really nice if you (or another experienced editor) could compare the two versions of Communism a tell me which one is better. Best regards,--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 08:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Illumination

Hi, Sandy, wondering if you could talk to User:John Cardinal about ref consistency and what exactly that entails. I noticed he wholesale changed the ref style to Hey Jude and looking at his talk page he's been doing the same to other articles due to a misinterpretation of WP:CITEHOW (in the example of Hey Jude, he changed it from this to this, the latter implementing the use of Harvard-style cite templates). Other editors have brought the issue up to him regarding other articles but he doesn't quite grasp what's the matter, and I figured you might be better at explaining than I, particularly with your FA/FAR experience. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed sections?

Sandy, I know you've said in the past that we can't use collapsible sections in the body of the article, so you may want to take a look at Wikipedia talk:Accessibility#MOS:COLLAPSE outdated advice?. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 05:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help

You have earned this 1956 Hungarian Revolution Barnstar for stepping in at the right time to keep its FAR from spinning out of control István (talk) 05:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Durrah

Sandy, is there anything else that needs to be done with this? It seems that Elcobbola didn't get round to the image review, so I'd prefer to proceed without him because there's no knowing how long it will take. Is there any issue apart from the images? The reason I ask is that I'm finding the current situation somewhat draining. The longer it stays up, the more people can find things to comment on, or ask me to change, but every change I make triggers, or risks triggering, someone wanting some other change, because the balance is a delicate one (unavoidably). It currently has one strong support (Tony), three regular supports (Brian Boulton, Peter Cohen, and Laser Brain), one qualified support (Hamiltonstone), one weak support (Ling.Nut), and one oppose (Wehwalt). Wehwalt has moved from oppose to strong oppose to neutral to weak support and back to oppose. That in itself has been exhausting. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sandy. I think I aged 10 years in the last few weeks. I never thought I'd be glad to be asked for non-breaking spaces, but today I was delirious with joy, because it suggested home stretch. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny! Now I need to find time to scroll back through my talk page and see what all I missed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Minnesota

Maintaining an FA can sometimes be like cooking a steak with a hair dryer... Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell you how many problems that statement is creating in my brain. Bad hair days plus cooking in one post ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image reviews. alt-text reviews, sourcing reviews, prose reviews ...

Just wanted to share a few thoughts with you.

When I, and I'm sure many others reviewers, support an article at FAC, I've looked at the whole thing; image copyright, sourcing, prose, alt-text, the lot. As I did yesterday with this one. I support because I believe it meets all of the FA criteria, not just one or two of them. I'm thinking this specialist reviwer idea has become more of a hindrance than a help, and may actually be inhibiting non-specialist reviewers. It's for sure useful to have experts to call on where the sitation doesn't appear to be clear-cut, but routinely? I'm not so sure that's either necessary or helpful, and just places a burden on a few experts who could probably be better employed elsewhere.

Feel free to disagree. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting; I wasn't aware you also looked at images. Maybe it's time to throw the burden back on specialist reviewers to oppose when there are issues. I'll see if I have an opinion after reading through 60 FACs today :) I'm only through the top third, have found so far six ready to go but lacking explicit image reviews, and am reminded of Qp's thoughts on being nagged "to distraction" as the "mother of the whole process". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I objected to one quite recently because I wasn't happy about the copyright.[1] --Malleus Fatuorum 20:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I'm so sad I even check the copyrights on GANs. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking for a barnstar, or an RFA nom :) :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you mean you can't get both at the same time? ;) Dabomb87 (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want either, especially not that RfA death grip. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but let's get The Bomb up at RFA so I can stop db-g6ing faulty FACs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If folks want, I'd be more than happy to stop doing FAC source reviews. Would certainly free up more time for actually editing... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't! You are a separate and wondrous entity! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to thank you for promoting Jay Pritzker Pavilion without a second explicit image review, and was going to offer to ask someone to review its images anyway if you wanted.

As a followup on the above, I also look at the image licenses when I review FACs, though I am by no means an image expert. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's two. So, on images, perhaps I should no longer do all the babysitting of asking and waiting for explicit image reviews, and leave it to people to oppose when there are problems. The page is stalled, too many FACs are waiting for review, and we need to get it moving. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that the wilkipedia way? If image reviewers have a problem then they can say so, but it's probably too much to expect them to sign off every FAC. Same with Ealdgyth, that girl is far better off spending her time more productively. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey now! I've got enough on my plate, thank you... all those bishops to deal with... gotta get them ready for the copyeditor...Ealdgyth - Talk 01:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad al-Durrah

So I said I had some concerns that I'd like to address, and two hours later you close the discussion? That doesn't seem very considerate to me. Why couldn't it have waited a little longer until I had a chance to voice my concerns? Gatoclass (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was a sole oppose among several supports, I'm not annoyed about the oppose being overridden, such things happen when you are a minority of one. I'm more miffed the NFCC issues never got addressed, or rather, the nominator kept negotiating with the reviewers by deleting images, but never got a reviewer to agree with her (that's assuming that you can reviewer-shop). I don't think it would have hurt things for the article to await resolution of the NFCC issues and Gatoclass's concerns as well. My objections were not large, but I'd rather have seen a cleaner promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good wishes

I hope the surgery was minor and you're fully recovered. By the way, I don't know how long it's been since I posted on your talk page, but that's one big ugly header that popped up and shouted at me when I clicked edit. It's ugly! But I hope it achieves what it tries to. Best wishes. Mike Christie (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't :) I should probably give up on it. It's great to see you around again; I hope you're settled in! Surgery was nothing (although I walked into a faux pas with Ceoil in an earlier thread -- read up :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I started playing the videos and had to stop as I have a fourteen-year-old in here trying to do homework; but I got the gist. Glad you're well. I don't think I'm really back yet; I got a wild hair early last year to really learn Latin properly, and I am only a bit over halfway through the program so I think it'll be a while yet. But I'm not feeling like memorizing vocabulary or uses of the ablative tonight so I am browsing FAC. I think I'm about to comment on Flag of Japan; prose is not great. Later . . . . Mike Christie (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media of Venezuela

for god's sake Sandy, I just turned a listy mess into a stub. Wouldn't a talk page message on how to proceed from there, maybe with some sources if you have any to hand, be more constructive than a tag at this point? Rd232 ^talk 11:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, I corrected your "listy mess" by adding the correct templates and conforming to WP:LAYOUT (which you have now reverted). I don't think I need to point an experienced editor towards reliably sourced mainstream versions of accounts that are omitted and easily available on google news, while a known biased source is retained (venezuelaanalysis.com-- see Center for Public Integrity National Review, and venanalysis bias has been discussed many times on Wiki.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "listy mess" was this version. I don't pay much attention to WP:LAYOUT (except by osmosis), so if you really want the list articles referenced as see also's from the Overview rather than the See Also section, could you point me to the relevant bit. As for the sourcing - OK, I see we'll have to take this to WP:RSN, like I already suggested. Rd232 ^talk 12:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Items should always be incorporated into articles where possible, to avoid a long list in See also which turns the article back into a list (what you were trying to avoid). Templates or wikilinks are preferred to long lists of See also, as they incorporate the info into the body of the article. I agree the listy mess cleanup was good, but templates instead of long See alsos are preferred. "Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section, ... " The goal is to aid in writing articles and keeping info where it's relevant and easily availabe to readers, rather than ending up with long lists at the bottom in See also; the templates do that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but these are simply lists. It's a pretty useless referral from an overview. If they were in depth overviews of each media type I'd agree. Rd232 ^talk 12:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, one list is replaced with another list (in See also); the use of templates avoids that in one line, and templates are quite frequently used to link List articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The use of templates doesn't avoid that - it's just a horizontal list instead of a vertical one. Again, due to lack of sufficient helpfulness of the links, I'd leave them to the end. I doubt there's any policy adjudication between these two positions, it's a matter of consensus. But it's so damned trivial, I'll leave it up to you. Rd232 ^talk 13:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was a damn trivial correction I made, and your revert was unnecessary ... since I do spend my time at FAC and FAR, I have a tendency to know best practice in articles, and using templates to link Lists and avoid See also is one of those :) Fix it if you want; I already did it once, and don't really have time to clean up everything on every article (I'm more concerned when non-reliable sources are added in articles to introduce bias, and complete citations including publisher aren't given, so readers and other editors might not be aware of the iffy sourcing ... and it would take me days to identify all of those in Venezuela/Chavez articles). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I almost always give complete citations. It's less experienced editors who profilerate unadorned weblinks to God knows what. Rd232 ^talk 14:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost, but not always; I expanded and completed that citation, and it took me a while to figure it out. I could spend 24/7 checking and fixing citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ref was copied from Bank of the South. I hadn't noticed it was Global Exchange when copying; although it turns I did add it originally to Bank of the South. Rd232 ^talk 14:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see now why you were confused, and why we seemed to be talking about two different things. I always appreciate apologies; thanks ! And I'm glad that's clarified ... I really couln't figure where you were coming from, but now I see the confusion. Perhaps my comment that you seem to becoming agitated needs to be clarified now that I see you were merely confused about the cn tag, but I'm out of time-- will get to it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Venezuelanalysis. Rd232 ^talk 12:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Harvey Whittemore

Would you mind taking a quick look at Harvey Whittemore and commenting on potential BLP violations? I have edited the Xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus article since mid-October. Observing intense POV editing and recruitment by chronic fatigue syndrome patients and advocates, I created Whittemore Peterson Institute in an attempt to shunt the divisive editing atmosphere away from XMRV and into an article where the dictates of WP:MEDRS would not be paramount. During my research, I discovered that a founder of the institute, Harvey Whittemore, is a rather notable and interesting individual, and I created an article about him, as well. Several of the CFS advocates have labeled this biography with NPOV and BLP tags. In my obviously quite biased opinion, the biography is well-referenced and contains nothing resembling a BLP violation. Given your recent involvement in several BLPN issues, I thought I would ask for your opinion should you have the time and inclination. Thanks in advance. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ack, time is what I don't have, but since it's medical, I'll try to get to it soon ... you might also ask User:Tim Vickers, User:MastCell, User:Colin, User:Fvasconcellos or User:Eubulides. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why does User:Mastcell get all the credit for my work? :P MastCell ^Talk 20:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Busy brain :) Fixed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SandyGeorgia...I sent a note to a a few of the editors you recommended. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and my apologies for not getting right on it; real-life pressing duties call! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAC ... "cull"...

You done? I am waiting until you finish before I start a source run. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep ... thank you :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you. Everyone you archived was one less I had to do! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Gimmetrow will put up with us, we may have to start more aggressively archiving more often. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Useful stuff

Hello, Sandy's talk page stalkers. Tell me, are there any tools for spotting duplicated refs and/or for automatically converting them to that whizzy new list-defined reference system? (Hi Sandy, thanks for having a popular talk page). Yomangani ^talk 23:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Menos mal que para algo sirvo! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O_o... servir de ejemplo no te basta?? ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ay, pobrecita. Nadie la quiere...but please don't distract those eager helpers from my question. Yomangani ^talk 00:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ejemplo de que? Y cual de ustedes no me quiere? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may be of use. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was, thanks. Now I just need that citation converter and then I can leave Sandy to await genuine visitors. Yomangani ^talk 00:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"City of Blinding Lights" FAC

Hi Sandy (if I may call you that) and all knowledgable lurkers; I recently listed the article "City of Blinding Lights" for FAC. On the last occassion I was at FAC, No Line on the Horizon was not promoted for a second time. I was told that for future nominations I should "aggressively recruit music editors to review [the] FAC". Taking this advice in hand, I have left notices on WT:SONGS and Talk:U2 (since the U2 WikiProject is currently inactive) notifying editors of the FAC. I made it clear that I am not shopping for votes, just for feedback on the article, but I thought that I should post this message and let you know in case I have done it incorrectly. Does everything check out? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with your wording, which was neutral, not canvassing ... thanks for asking! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the quick response; I wasn't sure if I had worded it correctly or not, so I'm glad to know that I did! Cheers! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flag of Japan/archive2

The only thing that was needed was a copyedit, which was being done before you closed it. I am not sure what else could be done, but the rest of the issues have been solved (but folks are not striking them out). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check back with all opposers, and then you can re-nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doing that now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted everyone of the opposers; no one has replied to me in any way shape or form but one of the opposers has made edits to the article. I also think the copyedtior bailed on me or just really busy (so it is like halfway done). One of my source links is having a server upgrade that should be complete now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peer reviews and Article History template

Hi Sandy, since you know a lot about the article history template I wanted to ask if you thought it would be OK for a bot (perhaps Gimmebot?) to add peer reviews to the article history. PeerReviewBot currently archives peer reviews, but does this by just modifying {{peer review}} to {{oldpeerreview}}. CBM (Carl), who runs PeerReviewBot, is busy and not able to modify it to do this. Before making a bot request, I thought we'd ask you and will also ask Gimmetrow. FYI, TonyTheTiger originally raised this issue, which I am in favor of. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme is already terribly overworked (and seriously underappreciated, like FAC reviewers, he never gets thanked), but you can ask him. He originally started doing this work on FA, expanded into GAs (and was whacked for it), and now he's carrying quite a load. You can ask :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand - this was more a heads up to see if this raised potential problems (and if Gimmebot could do it) before a bot request. I appreciate all you and Gimmetrow do here. I almost always thank FAC reviewers, but I am never sure if I should leave thank spam here - figure you're busy enough as it is, but say the word if you like it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stalker admin alert

Any admins TPS around? I just went to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and the backlog there is outrageous; can anyone look at Music of Minnesota? Two different Panera Bread dynamic IPs added unsourced text to the article (which is at FAR, and has had massive cleanup) some time ago, and didn't respond to my user talk or article talk posts. Now a RoadRunner IP is adding the same unsourced text, and also not responding to talk queries, and way beyond 3RR as another editor tries to clean up after him to keep the article's star. Can anyone see if semi-protection is warranted, since the IP won't respond on talk? I left a query at Raul654's talk, and YellowMonkey can't semi because he nommed the article at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, RFPP isn't backloged, the requests there have been actioned but the archival bot isn't working from my look at the situation. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oh, my, I certainly misread that page :) I saw the long list, and thought it was a backlog (as you can see, I've never been there before). Thanks to both of you !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuelanalysis

This comment of yours at WP:RSN tickled me: "I have never seen neutral reporting from Venezuelanalysis.com, while sources like The New York Times, the LA Times, the BBC and CNN go to (irritating) pains to put forward the pro-Chavez point of view along with the anti-Chavez point of view." I'd be interested in seeing some examples of non-neutral news from VA (as distinct from opinion, of course), and equally examples of those sources going to "pains to put forward the pro-Chavez POV". Your framing is of course revealing: you're looking at it solely as an issue of opinion whereas I keep arguing it's an issue of information. International sources just leave so much out - and the odd quote from a Chavista (generally presented in such a way as to make it look as extremist or silly as possible) doesn't address that. Finally, the "pro-Chavez" or "anti-Chavez" framing is also revealing: it's the opposition view which completely ignores the social movements which brought Chavez to power and continue to broadly support the Bolivarian project, but are often sharply critical of particular individuals and problems.

Finally finally, it's worth pointing out that if I seem "pro-Chavez" it's actually purely down to the dynamics of editing on Venezuela topics. Beating back waves of US-based rightwing ignorance about Venezuela is unfortunately quite time-consuming, so that I get far too little time to work on the flawed reality of the Bolivarian project, which is what actually interests me. Rd232 ^talk 11:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your POV about democracy, freedom of the press, human rights, and small matters like, say, students dying in their fight for press freedom, is as clear as mine is. Why don't you go write Media in Venezuela correctly, neutrally and comprehensively? Show me you can do it, go ahead!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't - primarily because I can't do everything all at once - not least since I have a real life. WP:WIP. Rd232 ^talk 13:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Priorities ... you do find time to link Eva Golinger all over the place, but no time for neutral reliable sources :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not fair, and putting a smiley face on it doesn't make it any more so. (More of your misrepresentation - do you even notice it? Is it deliberate or unconscious?) I don't remember the last time I cited Golinger, and seeing as she's a Venezuelan journalist, I kinda thought it would be OK to cite her for a Venezuelan newspaper headline. Rd232 ^talk 17:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I know I need new glasses but this was a few hours ago. Since *you* frequently misrepresent or misunderstand, I frequently smile ... it keeps me healthy and happy. Since El Nacional is available online, why not also cite them, and represent the full story, not Golinger's account? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviously I meant "I don't remember the last time I cited Golinger before the recent edit that we both know prompted your remark". The point is your over-generalisation that I'm adding her everywhere is ludicrous and misrepresentational. As for linking to El Nacional, the paper in question - yes of course, if that edition is online (I doubted it, but didn't have time to look, and not having the Spanish original title doesn't make it any easier). But I do find bizarre both your implication here and your tag in the article, that the mere mention of the headline is opinion. Finally, in the context of the situation being described, it is beyond funny that you'd suggest that El Nacional would have "the full story". The full story emerges best from multiple accounts - but at RSN you're currently engaged in an increasingly hysterical crusade ("the future of wiki is at stake!") to effectively ban a key source you don't like. Rd232 ^talk 18:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second Exhibit for the day: do you just not see POV section headings when you edit articles? It's not that hard to correct while you're in there. It only took me 13 minutes to clean up and tag the article, but you could have at least removed the POV section heading while you were editing it. This is the kind of selective editing that indicates tendentiousness. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't know that fixing a minor issue in passing imparted a responsibility for a general cleanup. And "Turbulent history" is hardly "oh my god that has to be fixed right now" POV (the fact that it had been there since March 2009 suggests that, no?). Nevertheless, well done for sorting it out. Rd232 ^talk 19:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, but you would have fixed it if had been, say, a claim that Chavez was "illegally" detained, no? Or Weisbrot is described as an advisor to Chavez. You revert those lickity split. Edit equally across all articles; that's how you gain respect of other editors. Not selectively. That indicates tendentiousness. You were in there, and apparently it didn't even trouble you that the section heading was utterly biased and POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, I place a higher priority on WP:BLPs: shoot me! And "turbulent history" as a heading isn't good, but "utterly biased and POV" is a completely off the rails assessment. I do apologise for attempting to get away from Wikipedia for five minutes to my actual life - I won't make that mistake again in case it pisses you off! Rd232 ^talk 19:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing you towards good editing practices doesn't trouble me in the least! A la orden, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS, does your concern over BLPs also extend to Hugo Chavez or Thor Halvorssen Mendoza? Chavez is a POV unbalanced poorly sourced wreck, and Thor, well, we know that story. Consistency is key. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Thor, well, we know that story." - no, we really, really don't. Because you've declined to deign to give even the merest hint of a clue as to what the hell you think the problem is. Whatever it is seems to be egregious, yet you have made no attempt to fix it. You're a very confusing (if not confused) person at times. Rd232 ^talk 22:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) I don't think I'm confusing at all; maybe you're not listening :) You were quick to cry "BLP violation" on Weisbrot when there was none, yet you saw no problem on Halvorssen and don't seem to see a problem on Chavez, which is contradictory editing and appears tendentious. You are quick to revert accurate changes to inaccurately sourced text (four times, without checking the sources yourself, on the Coup article, even though *everyone* who has dos dedos frente a la cara knows that reliable sources do not say Chavez was illegally detained), but slow to remove a simple POV heading from a short article, that would have taken you one second, because you were editing that section anyway. Your method of editing is revert, revert, revert anything that isn't pro-Chavez, but you rarely seem to build content or neutralize content. In other words, what I see is an editor showing all the signs of tendentious editing. Your bite-iness and ownership tendencies chase off other editors, because your edits support JRSP's POV, so it's usually two against one. Now, JRSP clearly has a POV, but he's not hard to work with; when policy is pointed out to him, or sources are supplied, he backs off and doesn't edit war to enforce his POV; he does discuss, is not rude, and I've collaborated with him successfully on several articles, where between the two of us, we were able to respect each other's work and balance articles. You, on the other hand, have edit warred across almost every article where I've observed your work, have practically forum shopped when you didn't get the answers you want, harrassed with me the "libel" statement, don't seem particularly aware of policy or guideline or willing to read sources, and are quite a bit ruder than JRSP (undue much? is a sarcastic edit summary, and not conducive to collaborative editing, but that's your style ... noting that JRSP has a POV, but doesn't edit like that). In other words, I see an editor who edits Venezuelan content not to build articles, but to impose a specific point of view ... classic WP:TEND. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, despite our recent disagreements and the fact that I could write a similar paragraph about you, I do appreciate you expressing your concerns, particularly on tone, which I accept isn't always optimal. Most of this, though, is a rehashing of recent issues, and since I've previously explained my actions in those respects quite clearly enough, I'm not going to do it again. (Though I can't resist remarking on the ludicrousness of suggesting that in an editing dispute people should be checking every statement to its source even when the sourcing isn't disputed. And the "everybody knows" claim is rather contradicted by how long the statement stood with a suource not supporting it - if it were that outlandish a claim (illegality of detention of head of state during a coup... ), shouldn't somebody have noticed that problem a bit sooner?) Well, the claim of "constantly reverting" is new, I suppose. Sorry, but when there is contentious disputed content (especially if it's BLP-related) it is generally best to revert to a stable version or a version without the disputed content until the matter is settled. That requires more patience and more dispute resolution, but in the end it's a better result. When editors don't get that, or, as you have frequently done, seek to close down discussion instead of letting it run its course, that involves more reverting than ideal. Rd232 ^talk 01:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally your comments (and actions) suggest you do not understand WP:BLP. In short, it means being more cautious and demanding better sourcing in BLPs and of BLP-related statements in other articles, especially for material which is contentious, and especially for material which reflects negatively on the living person. Caution is most obviously understood as removing contentious material whilst discussion is in progress, and not re-adding it prematurely, when discussion is still ongoing. Rd232 ^talk 01:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS ChildofMidnight has been tweaking the Thor Halvorssen article. Has he fixed the problem you decline to explain or fix, or are you going to bollock him for not doing so? Rd232 ^talk 02:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FA prose

Hello Sandy. Many FAs are excellent. Others meet the technical requirements but aren't written too well. How to solve the problem without looking sour? Still others are a huge pot of facts that are referenced but are not too good.

I want to know because I have some ideas to turn 2 articles into FAsSuomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FAR is where FAs that no longer meet standards are reviewed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, you misunderstood me. I am trying to make articles become FAs. The prose part is confusing because when I look at FAs, some are clearly good but some are not. I am beginning to wonder if technical requirements are the most important, not prose. If that is true, I will concentrate on technical requirements, like references, but still work on prose. Any hints to good prose or it is not that important? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is important - it is criterion 1a. Awadewit (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the prose is central to the readers' understanding of any article. It is the first criterion that must be satisfied and probably the first that will be critically reviewed. Graham Colm ^Talk 22:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAC reviewers

Hi SandyGeorgia:

Though we haven't really met, I've been floating around the FAC page for the past couple of months, reading articles and reviews, because, as you know, I promised to help one nominator through the process, so decided to learn about the process. I see that you need reviewers. If you'd like, I'd be happy to pitch in when I have time. I have an advanced degree in literature, and spend quite a lot of time "reviewing" other pieces of writing IRL. Or do you prefer to have reviewers who have already written featured articles (if so, I can't help!) Also, have you ever considered some sort of a rubric to facilitate the reviews? Just wondering. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you'll be very welcom Truthkeeper, whether you've written an FA or not. FAC needs all the reviewers it can get. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can review an FAC, so please jump in! Don't worry about the structure of your reviews; as long as your comments are based on the FA criteria, anything you bring up at FAC pages is helpful. You may want to see Template:FAC welcome. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely TK88, anything you can do would be most welcome and appreciated. This guide to reviewing might help, and we all appreciate the offer (and that's why I like to let others speak up before I do :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all of you for the links and for the welcome. Don't expect me to jump in immediately (not really my style!), though I have been slowly making my way through the list and reading the articles. I'll take a little time to get up to speed and to fully familiarize myself with the process, but I'm more than happy to help. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAC withdraw

Excause me, Sandy, but can you close Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay/archive2? I want to get another article up to FAC as fast as possible and I don't know if I have the time to finish the problems for Escape from Butcher Bay right now. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, sorry, but no. There are currently long discussions on the FAC talk page about the problematic backlog at FAC, and running back-to-back noms through turns FAC into peer review. Taking one down just so you can put up another is a bit abusive of FAC reviewer time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was gonna do it two weeks later. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so keen to get an FA now? Awadewit (talk) 05:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prizes? Money? --Malleus Fatuorum 05:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you archived "Escape from Butcher Bay"s FAC. While most people would be upset about that, I would like to say thank you, escapcially since I finally know what problems it has. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saw this: [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about it? GamerPro64 (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Reward board: it encourages an "awards" culture. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have something on that. As a reviewer for articles at the FOUR Award, thats just not right. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAC withdrawn

Hi Sandy, I just thought I'd give you a heads-up and point out that the nominator of Nina Girado has agreed to withdraw the FAC. I know that you'd find this fairly quickly, but I thought I'd try to save you the time in perusing all those articles. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 05:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If someone else has time to look in there and do the diligence, it would be great ... I have a cold and am going to bed with tea and kleenex, behind on my talk page replies. Thanks for letting me know ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Andy Walsh (talk) 06:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope your cold gets better soon! Awadewit (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

		Thank You
		For your excellent and wonderful contributions at Wikipedia:Featured Article Candidates during the month of December 2009. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:COLLAPSE discussion

Re: [3] In case you missed it, I've replied to your comment and asked for additional information. Thanks! --SkotyWA^T_C 17:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel like such a bastard sometimes...

... in one evening having to derail this FAC and challenge this GA review. No wonder I'm so unpopular. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ah, but those who know and love you don't count? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finishing that off

Adding numbers to the sections, that is. I was called away to consume nachos and beer, and when I came back you'd done them all. Hope you feel less cotton-brained soon. Mike Christie (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

... for fixing the mess I made of the hat. JN466 15:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki isn't very logical, is it? Hat and hab don't go with usual HTML conventions. Thanks for working on the cleanup; I am so behind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAC closure for MSM

Hello. I noticed you just closed the FAC for the MSM. You noted image concerns, which had all been addressed, but I couldn't get the commenting editors to return and strike their comments. You also noted a lack of support (or participation). How can I get more people to participate in an FAC? One editor (Madcoverboy) was diligent in seeing his issues through until he was confident in supporting the nomination, but other editors just jumped in to comment on minor issues but never returned to see the FAC through, despite my invitations. I don't feel this FAC got a fair chance. Please advise. —Eustress ^talk 20:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About your closure of...

Just kidding, good call and no worries on Mystery Train; it was an oversight on my part. Keep up the good work, Skomorokh 20:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SECR K and SR K1 classes: remaining issues.

Hello, just an email to ask whether the website titles you highlighted as wrong are now accurate. For some reason I changed the titles to suit the article, but I have now copy and pasted the original titles as per example on the PDF document. I've also gone through the NBSPs as per MoS. Thanks, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because you never get enough appreciation...

		Like a Box of Chocolates...
		... your contributions at Wikipedia:Featured Article Candidates during the month of January 2010 are greatly appreciated. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandboxed section for FAC

Sandy, I don't know if you overlooked it on the FAC talk page but I did create a sandbox, as you suggested, that illustrates the marker idea. It's here. When I started it I was thinking a line on the page would be the easiest way to do it, but looking at the ToC I think this works pretty well. It couldn't really be easier to use. With regard to whether it substitutes for the urgents list, I'd say yes, but I would suggest the rule you would use is: move the "older" heading up so it includes all the urgents; if the resulting list seems short, move it up a bit more. I wouldn't mess with the order of the candidates on the page -- that way lies confusion and recriminations, and it's more complicated for you. Anyway, let me know what you think. Mike Christie (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it, I appreciate your work, I agree that is the way to go should changes be needed, but I just haven't had enough time this week to follow through on everything (surgery, cold, and keeping up with some egregious BLP issues in article editing). However, because yesterday's pr/ar reduced the page size of FAC to under 40 for the first time in a long time, I'm hoping the FAC backlog will stay low enough now that we don't have to implement that just yet ... keeping an eye on it ... I'm sorry for my negligence, after you did such good work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem -- no hurry at all, and of course if the volume comes down to a low level there's no need to do anything, as you say. Personally I think it would be wise to go ahead and implement whatever the most popular ideas are, since the problem is perennial, and it would be best not to have to go through the whole discussion again at WT:FAC next time around. Mike Christie (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but others have expressed concern that we're moving too fast, and if the page size is reduced, we can take some time to evaluate changes before implementing them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was what I was envisioning, too - thanks, Mike, for making an example for us! I haven't visited WT:FAC again this morning, but my guess would be we'd need another 2-3 weeks of discussion before implementing anything, and most likely require another round of the RfC with a smaller subset of proposals. Karanacs (talk) 13:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my thinking ... things seem to have picked up again at FAC, and before we adapt new wording at WIAFA, we're going to have to have another round of viewing the wording we'll use on those items that are passing anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Icos FA classification

Hello,

I noticed that Icos is classified as a "Business, economics and finance" article at WP:FA. However, most of the featured articles on companies are listed under the subject of their business; for example, Microsoft is under "computing". Since Icos was a biotech company, could you move it to "Health and medicine"? Shubinator (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please post the request to the talk page of WP:FA, and give it a few days to make sure no one disagrees? Deciding where to classify FAs is the hardest part of my "job" :) If no one disagrees, you can move it yourself in a few days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks :) Shubinator (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-English sources

Sandy, ideally, what would you like to see WP:V say about this? It currently says:

Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material. When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text or in a footnote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians. When citing a source in a different language, without quotations, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote, or to the talk page if too long for a footnote. If posting original source material, editors should be careful not to violate copyright; see the fair-use guideline.

So, in brief, if you're quoting, the original and a translation are expected in the text or a footnote. If only citing, translations are needed only on request, and if they're very long, they can go on talk. The problem with making the latter mandatory even when not requested is that some editors use non-English sources extensively, so we'd in effect be asking them to type up whole pages of books, even if no one had asked for it. This would create copyright problems, not to mention that no one would do it anyway. Is there some way of tightening the wording that would help with the kinds of issues you're seeing? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 08:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I'm after. Cited text (not a quote), faulty translations (POV), short excerpt (one sentence, in this case), contentious material. Whenever a translation is challenged, it should be added to the footnote so more editors can see it and recognize the faulty or POV translation ... by putting it on the talk page, we minimize the number of editors who may see and recognize the faulty translation, and we don't serve our readers. Since I work with Spanish-language sources so often, I agree with you that making their inclusion in footnotes mandatory in all circumstances would be cumbersome, but when a faulty translation of contentious or controversial material is challenged, and the quoted text is requested, that non-English text should go in the footnote so that 1) more editors will see it and opine, and 2) our readers can see exactly what was said. Our readers may often speak the language of the article they're reading. It seems to me that this is similar, anyway, to good practice in English (when interpretation of text is challenged or contentious, we add the English quote of the cited text to the footnote). On BLPs, we should err on the side of always including the non-English text in the footnote (I saw that in one case at FAC, where the material might have been considered defamatory, and seeing the exact text was important, to make sure it was translated correctly.) Does that help? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that helps, thanks. I'll give some thought to the wording and get back to you. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 08:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; maybe as a sample, you can see if too much is quoted now at Manuel Rosales in the footnotes vis-vis copyright; I've done all I can do there for one day, although there's still work to be done, which I've left on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More context for the particular situation I'm dealing with. I've been through more than half a dozen iterations and attempts at getting contentious material removed from the lead of a very controversial article. That text is completely unsupported by reliable sources, including a Lexis-Nexis search. The tendentious editor is adding a Spanish-language source that does not support the claim as fact, yet citing it as fact in the lead, no less (serious case of WP:UNDUE). What few of our readers may realize is that 1) Chavez owns the judiciary in Venezuela (and that statement is well supported by RS), and 2) in Venezuela, anyone can be charged with a crime and held practically indefinitely in jail, without trial. Saying that someone was "charged" with X is not the same as saying that X is true. The full Spanish text would help show the problem in this case, even though the claim is completely unsupported by RS and the text doesn't belong in the article at any rate, much less in the lead, rather the issue should be explored in the body of the article with attribution and detail on the controversy, including Chavez's ability to charge anyone with anything and throw them in jail or force them into exile. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further context. Not understanding the messy transitions in power that occur in countries that don't have well developed democratic institutions, the world (and reliable sources) persist in viewing what happened in Venezuela in 2002 as a "coup", although it was never considered a coup in Venezuela. It was ruled by the Venezuelan courts as not being a coup, rather a "vacuum in power" after Chavez resigned under popular protest when the military refused to fire on their own countrymen who were peacefully protesting. Once Chavez got control of the judiciary, that ruling was overturned. None of the vagaries of this situation are well explored in the text of the article, which has been whitewashed since I stopped following it years ago, and now reflects the pro-Chavez POV almost exclusively. Relevant exploration of the issues leading up to the "coup" has been removed from the article, or sourced to pro-Chavez sources, and the relevant articles-- that should be wikilinked-- orphaned or merged out of existence (General strike that led to Chavez's resignation, Sumate, and Raul Baduel also went orphaned after he turned on Chavez and was highlighted by human rights groups as an example of Chavez's political persecution). Yet we have a statement of fact in the lead, which is not fact, not supported by any RS, and no mention of the events leading to the "coup" in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

of course you ignore the RS which doesn't support your view, noted on the relevant talk page (2002 coup). The source given (Cannon 2004, citing Rey 2002) was perfectly clear: "There was rather, according to Rey, an ‘unconstitutional power vacuum’ because the President had been illegally imprisoned, and the Vice-President was in hiding to avoid the same fate, yet there was no military leader prepared to assume power (Rey, 2002:10)." And you have no problem at all spouting off all manner of bad faith accusations. For reference, here is the 2002/3 strike at the time it was merged in 2006 (which I had nothing to do with, but when I updated the redirect with a section link, you accused me of merging it out of existence; no apology when I clarified that either). In general, your position seems to be that anything not to your liking is the result of conspiracy. Rd232 ^talk 16:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, you continue to cherrypick one source against a preponderance of reliable sources. As someone who edits medical articles knows all too well, anyone can get just about anything printed in even a peer-reviewed journal; that's why we give due weight to a preponderance of reliable sources. I supported the merge of that article at the time, not knowing the merge target would remain underdeveloped, with discussion of the events leading to Chavez's resignation minimized and completely overlooked in the article lead. My apologies if I have implied that *you* merged the article out of existence, since I supported the merge when I was a novice editor. (If I acccused you of that, I'm not aware of where in all this mess of different DR venues, but if I have done so and you can point out where, I will strike.) The current problem is that the content needs to be developed in the "coup" article, and is completely missing from the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cannon (2004) is, to my knowledge, the only academic article addressing the legality of the coup. Even you will have a hard time explaining how this is "cherrypicking" (so I presume you'll just ignore this point; I've got your MO by now). Rd232 ^talk 12:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, Sandy

Meant to say "Niiice archiving" before the weekend, but then went out and the rest is a bit of a blur. So here goes:

		Home-Made Barnstar
		For exquisite mass archiving. RB88 (T) 15:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you :) Very kind of you ... and thanks for all your work at FAC! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manual Rosales

Yes, I'm sure you'll do a bang-up job on "cleaning up" Manuel Rosales; I have no doubt that after deleting sources you claim are unreliable, even though the issue is still under debate you'll make a big effort to replace those sources. Not at all likely that negative information will magically disappear; that [a] Venezuelan politician (this one happening to be anti-Chavez) suddenly becomes a martyr. Will Interpol's acceptance of the arrest warrant survive? Who can guess! ^{Note, BLP violation removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)}[4][reply]

Sorry, but everything you've said and done recently, and not least the way you said and did it, makes it perfectly clear that you are interested not in collaboration but in war: this is a political battle for you. Well it isn't for me; I'm just an academic trying to contribute to encyclopedia articles, some of them on Venezuelan topics where few are active and there is little content, and what there is is generally poor and based solely on recent news sources. More debate with and above all contributions from collaborative editors from a variety of perspectives and a willingness to use sources that go beyond the oppostion/US media bubble would be better. Collaboration like that is supposed to be Wikipedia's strength, and occasionally it really does work. But it's obvious that you're not interested in collaboration; Exhibit A: the Halvorssen thing: you want to discredit one of a handful of editors who don't share your views on these topics, by any means necessary.

Anyway, if you are interested in collaborating, then drop the "VA is unreliable" shtick - follow what Jayg said at RSN, and replace it where possible; dispute it where necessary; leave it where it's sourcing some uncontested information or providing a balancing opinion. Rd232 ^talk 16:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you're still misunderstanding the conclusions of Jayjg and others about VA's reliability and the appropriate use of it as a source. Other than that, most of your post is an assumption of bad faith. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not wrong, that's exactly what Jayg said. And WP:AGF applies until proven otherwise. The Halvorssen incident alone almost justifies dropping it - but it's far from alone. Rd232 ^talk 16:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you've yet digested the Halvorssen issue; you appear too upset to absorb all of the recent events. You screamed "BLP vio" on Mark Weisbrot where there was none, yet saw no BLP issues in Thor Halvorssen Mendoza or Manuel Rosales. Of concern is your uneven application of policy, where your POV seems to have affected your judgment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic. Even now - even now you decline to either explain the issue or apologise. And PS I conceded a mistake at Rosales (though you managed to make the mistake seem more egregious than it was by falsely claiming the claim had not been reported in any mainstream media) - and it's not like I fought to keep it in there; when it was pointed out, I was able to reconsider. You should try it some time. Rd232 ^talk 16:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue at Halvorseen was abundantly clear, and pointing it out to an experienced editor would be patronizing. ChildofMidnight cleaned up the attempt to smear Halvorssen Mendoza, with info about Halvorssen Hellum, and that issue is resolved. Why does this continue to trouble you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because you so repeatedly declared an egregious problem (yet declined to fix it) and took the fact I didn't fix the entirely unexplained issue as evidence (as you still do) of POV editing. Your evasiveness that explaining would have been "patronising" is spectacular! You made no attempt to fix the issue or to explain it on talk; you jumped straight into WP:BLPN with an accusation that this edit which moved some text about created a "smear". And apparently it was fixed by these edits which moved some text about and copyedited! Neutral observers will recognise this as WP:GAMEing. Rd232 ^talk 16:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And good faith observers will notice that I'm only one person, a very busy editor, and can't get to everything myself, when we have serious problems on hundreds of Venezuelan articles. Having said that, I intended to clean up Manuel Rosales before my eye Dr app't today, after which I won't be able to read for several hours, and instead, that time has been allocated to you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done all I can do for one day at Rosales, and left unresolved issues on talk there. I'm stalled now because I don't know the exact Spanish words of what he was charged with, so I don't have keywords to search on for expansion of the description of the allegations. I did look at the Venezuelanalysis pages that were previously in the article, and found some bias and inaccuracies in those pages, but didn't find what I was looking for on the exact charges (in other words, I didn't find that they fill a gap relative to other English sources). I suspect that if one only or mostly reads VenAnalysis, one doesn't realize the bias that can creep into one's perspective. "Rosales participated in the April 2002 coup d’état against President Hugo Chávez, ..." [5] for example, is a biased, inaccurate, unsubstantiated and simplistic statement of what happened there (and I'd revert such text as a BLP vio because he sure wasn't and hasn't been tried and convicted as such) and sloppy journalism (see how other sources describe the situation, much more accurately-- I don't know if you were involved with Venezuela then, but I was). I hope you'll notice the wording I've used in the Rosales article, which is supported by most reliable sources (relative to the discussion above with SlimVirgin about non-English sources). And there are a few other things on talk to be resolved still; JRSP is usually able to fill in gaps using reliable Spanish-language sources.

I have now seen the diff provided by JN466 at WP:RSN:[6]

"I missed where he acknowledged the mistake; do you have a diff? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

[52], the lower half of the edit. --JN466 08:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)"

and I'm glad that he mentioned that I needed to scroll to the lower half of the edit, because that is probably how I missed it the first time, in the rush of so many posts over the last few days. I do see now that you acknowledged that the information should not have been included, appreciate that, and apologize for not having seen it sooner.

On the issue of the "legal threat", so we can sort that ... I first approached you calmly, as I should with an experienced editor. Your first response was just a dismissive WikiDictionary definition,[7] and your next response was to reiterate that it wasn't a threat and add on a patronizing introduction,[8] but I viewed that in the context of the dicdef you gave me first (that you didn't consider it a threat because of your definition of a threat). So, I asked very neutrally at AN/I. And then the AN/I thread fell apart (as they are wont to do) because the first person responding misread the original post, and the peanut gallery chimed in. I should learn to go directly to an admin when I have a question, and avoid AN/I; eventually Floquebeam gave me the simple answer I needed-- that it's not considered a threat, rather harassment. And then you clarified and apologized after all that. To my mind, your first clarification wasn't, because I saw it as based on your WikiDictionary definition of threat, and not answering the question. I hope that explains the confusion there.

On Thor Halvorssen, while you seemed outraged about Mark Weisbrot, seeing BLP issues everywhere (and I recognize you were partly confused because you had misread a diff about Banco del Sur, which added to the mess), you went to Halvorssen and re-arranged his article to bring information unrelated to him, rather his father, to the top of the article, making that the first info in the article and adding a link there to his father, yet you left the information about his mother at the bottom of the article. Later you went to WP:RSN and said, "Thor Halvorssen Mendoza, a Venezuelan described by the New York Times as 'a scion of wealth and privilege'," (as if that somehow discredits his work) [9] reinforcing my concern that the moved and added text was to get it up top, before his accomplishments, to discredit Halvorssen as having a silver spoon in his mouth and a father with a checkered past. I still don't see why you moved that particular text up, leaving the mother's text below, and I would move it all back to the bottom putting his career and accomplishments first, but in the tense environment that existed, and given that I had seen you edit warring on every article where I had engaged you to that point, I wanted fresh eyes to look at it at BLPN, which they did. I don't think that text belongs first, but other eyes have looked at it, so I'm satisfied and consider it resolved. I've said that several times, and I'm still not sure why it continues to be a concern: to my mind, I couldn't understand why you were using the BLP claim to remove text from Weisbrot, while appearing to arrange text in a way at Halvorssen that would discredit him before his accomplishments are viewed.

There's still the issue of the four reverts at the Coup article, where I still don't think we understand each other, but after spending most of the day cleaning up Rosales, I'm too tired now to finish this up. I do want to say again that, in spite of his POV, JRSP and I have been able to work together to balance articles, he does respect policy when I point something out, and I don't recall too many edit wars with him. In three years of editing around him, I've never seen him be as rude and dismissive as you have been, starting most of your posts with sarcasm and insult (perhaps that's because he's Venezuelan). I haven't appreciated your "undue much" edit summaries or your lectures to me that I don't understand BLP, when I believe I've evidenced that I do. I hope more collegial editing can exist between us. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I appreciate some attempt at explanation, however long overdue.

"libel" - I don't buy it. First, it was never readable, by a reasonable person, as a threat. Second, my user talk response made it perfectly clear it wasn't - how else do you interpret a reference to the definition of "threat"? I also said so explicitly at BLPN (where there was nothing "patronising" about explaining the history you brought up; I did note it was " pointless historiography", but then you do so consistently insist on bringing up irrelevant issues at DR fora - generally with elements of misrepresentation - in an attempt to discredit me, and when you do, I'm forced to explain or correct). Ironically, as I said in my reference to the "threat" definition, you don't seem to understand the nature of "threat". It requires intention to act - and it would require an abuse of the English language to read any intent to act into the original remark, even before clarification. Third, you repeatedly refer to it subsequently as "harassment" even after it was clarified, including morphing my passing remark into multiple "threats of libel". In fact the manner and frequency with which you have referred to this and other settled issues qualify, in my opinion, as actual harassment.
Halvorssen - I don't buy it either. You could have reverted with an explanation, and if you thought it so bad, should certainly have done so. You might have jumped straight to BLPN rather than talking, but doing so without reverting, and without explaining (despite repeated requests) - nope, I don't buy it. I also don't really buy your concern about moving the father's story out of the HRF section where it was clearly chronologically misplaced, and that this somehow contrasts with the mother's story staying there, where it chronologically fits and is directly linked to HRF. As for noting "scion of wealth and privilege" at a noticeboard - this clearly shows his membership of the old pre-1998 political elite, and supports my view that HRF is established primarily for political purposes. (The focus of its activities makes that pretty clear anyway, even if you didn't know the founder's background.) Rd232 ^talk 12:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The four reverts issue has been explained repeatedly, and you can see the history and talk discussion history yourself. You could just take my word for it, but your belief in my bad faith seems incurable; judging by repeated references, not least on your "BLP violation" subpage, you think I work for VIO, and ergo cannot trust a word I say. (To which I'd suggest you look further into my editing history beyond Venezuela, but that's really up to you.) Rd232 ^talk 12:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: please go back to RSN and see what Jayjg and I actually said. You might also look at the endorsements [10] of VA; I wish you knew the significance of Ellner's, but I doubt it. (He's the leading English-language academic on Venezuelan left politics, and as neutral as it gets.) Rd232 ^talk 12:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PPS If you wonder I why I seem rude and dismissive - a large part of that is because you have never knowingly missed an opportunity to assume bad faith on my part. (That, and your own rudeness and disruptiveness in consistently seeking to close down debate and poison dispute resolution with claims of my general wrongdoing, instead of allowing debate to take its natural course, and focussing on the proximate content issue.) Rd232 ^talk 12:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you seem "rude and dismissive" because your anger[11] is affecting you in these discussions; I appreciate that you rethought and removed the personal attack, and I suggest that a break from these issues for a day or two might be good for both of us. You don't seem willing right now to engage in productive dialogue, and a few days off may benefit both of us. It's unfortunate that I found the smear on Manuel Rosales just as I finally had time to engage with you, and fixing that BLP was a priority, and that you removed from your talk page my statement that admin recall didn't seem necessary, but filling my talk page with assumptions of bad faith is not the most optimal way to advance this discussion. As I believe I mentioned to you several times (but if I didn't, I will now), I had surgery and a cold and several Drs app'ts and pressing RL issues in the same week that I was dealing with a large backlog and a massive RFC and several other issues at WP:FAC, and had to take off far too much time to clean up Rosales, since such an embarassing BLP is not a credit to Wiki. I would be grateful if you would look at the remaining issues I left on Talk:Manuel Rosales so we can close up that chapter, and I'm sorry that the amount of discussion on this when I've been so busy caused me to miss your acknowledgement that adding the content to Rosales was in hindsight a mistake. Now, when you're ready to dialogue productively and without assumptions of bad faith, I'm ready, but I will again be out most of the day with pressing RL issues, and still have many issues to deal with at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're not assumptions of bad faith, they're evidence. However I'm a lot keener to cease editing WP for a good while (maybe permanently) than to pursue the matter. I could do that if you would agree to the terms of use of VA which Jayjg suggested and I agreed with and developed into a clear proposal. Rd232 ^talk 15:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will explore that as soon as I have time, but based on the two VA articles I read yesterday when dealing with Rosales, I'm not reassured that they should be used at all anywhere as a source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(humor diversion) I found out yesterday that I urgently need new eyeglasses, and I think carving out time to deal with that should be my priority right now :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly did those sources say which was untrue? In any case, if any news organisation that ever published an untruth, half-truth, misinterpretation, etc were damned as an unusable source, there'd be nobody left at all. Isolated examples are not the issue (never mind that any individual example can probably be disputed - but that was a debate that over reams of discussion at RSN nobody wanted to have - discussion about concrete examples). Rd232 ^talk 16:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

? since when does chronological order take precedence over threaded indentation? if you need to take break, please do. Rd232 ^talk 16:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rd, your sarcasm everywhere we engage [12] is not contributing to a productive or collaborative editing environment. I hope you're less angry when I find time to re-engage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My ip number

I asked you yesterday why you added my IP (189.116...) to your list, you didn't reply. So I am asking the same question again. If you don't want to answer then remove it. Thank you. 187.46.229.120 (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]