User talk:SandyGeorgia

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.

I usually respond on my talk page, so watch the page for my reply.
To leave me a message, click here.
 The current time is Saturday, 09:20 UTC.


FACs needing feedback
Indiana in the American Civil War Review it now
Tropical Storm Kiko (2007) Review it now
Chiprovtsi Review it now
Frederick III, German Emperor Review it now
Faith Leech Review it now
Urgent FAR/FARCs
CL&N Railway Review it now
Speed of light Review it now
Comet Hale-Bopp Review it now
H.D. Review it now

Contents

Christmas theme for DYK article

I started a Signpost article about DYK's upcoming Christmas theme at Wikipedia:FCDW/December (as you suggested). Any thoughts on more content that could/should be added? I left a message in the DYK discussion area asking other DYK regulars to contribute to the article. By the way, there continues to be DYK/FA/FP discussion for April Fool's 2009, so a Signpost article definitely needs to be planned before and/or after April 1st. Royalbroil 05:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your start ... perhaps you can add more wording to encourage editors to contribute, explaining how to contribute, deadlines and such ... assume the reader has never heard of DYK and doesn't even know where to start. You can pull some of it from the earlier DYK Dispatch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Has there been any discussion about the possible bias of featuring Christmas on this day? Awadewit (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I was a little surprised at that myself :-) If there hasn't been, there will be if the Dispatch goes out with no attempt to balance coverage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
DYK has a purposeful bias and always will (it even notes that a large portion should be American based, for example, because of its user base). Ottava Rima (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm also surprised that there's a push to have a Christmas theme, just like I was surprised that there was a Halloween theme, because both are based on religious holidays. Some Christians are very opposed to Halloween because they feel it glorifies the occult. I never would have pushed for a theme on either topic. Royalbroil 13:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Many other websites have a themed front page on holidays. We can't please everyone. By having a "theme" to work on, it perhaps encourages more people to start writing and expanding new articles that they otherwise wouldn't have. For example, I worked on Halloween Pennant, something I'd never even heard of before it was suggested as a possible article to use. I think it's a good idea (well I did suggest it, at least the Christmas one). I don't think people are going to get that upset because it's "biased". We have articles for events on other days, why can't we for Christmas?
Ottava, the note on the next update page is disputed by me and at least another editor. – How do you turn this on (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
You can dispute anything you want, but it all boils down to the idea that en Wikipedia caters to its audience, which always puts a primary emphasis on the US. In such an idea, it would be wrong not to mention Christmas. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps this can be resolved on the DYK pages, and then the Dispatch can be written. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

FAR and away

Hi Sandy. As we've discussed, I will not be able to daily monitor Wikipedia and the Featured article review. Happily, the workload there has been shrinking because so many of the older FAs have already been processed. It really isn't a lot of work at the moment. User:Joelr31 isn't especially active either, but he can probably handle closures. I will ping him to offer an opinion here. And I will, hopefully, stop by from time to time to make closures myself.

There are only two issues. One is segmenting the reviews (Review commentary/FARC commentary) and moving to FARC. This is really a janitorial thing that can be assigned to anybody. The only real question at FAR, as you know: are people working? If people are working, no need to move to FARC. If people are working, no need to make a final closure. Three weeks, three months, whatever. In the interests of content improvement, hard deadlines have disappeared at the review.

The other issue is pointy, flame war reviews, where an article is nominated and the conversation gets nasty in the first 48 hours. Best to simply close these, although it's a case-by-case decision. Joel and I may not notice such instances given infrequent editing, so I think you or Raul might stop by the page once a day or two to check for this.

A great number of excellent editors have made saves over the years. This year, Ceoil and DrKiernan have probably been the two most important assets, so you might want to keep them in the loop on any changes to the review structure, if you or Raul feel changes need to be made.

Peace be with you Sandy, Marskell (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Raul is away at a conference and may be very busy catching up once he gets back at the end of this week. I see you closed and segmented several, so nothing at FAR is urgent right now; I'll continue to watch for flare-ups and put heads together with Joelito, Ceoil and DrKiernan once Raul is home and settled. Godspeed, my friend; I am honored and priviledged to have been in the presence of your work and friendship on Wiki, and will look forward to seeing you, however infrequently, whenever you pop back in. Be well, always, never too far away, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Even though I am not very active I am always watching FAR. I have, intentionally, let Tim handle the majority of cases since FAR as we know it today is his conception. However, I will take a more active role in the future. I will gladly participate in any discussion if FAR leadership changes are needed. Joelito (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I have only three concerns/questions:
  1. That we always work in a way that keeps Marskell's seat at the table, for when he returns to fulltime editing.
  2. Do we need another person to segment or can you handle that as well?
  3. All too often, situations come up (at both FAC and FAR) where I need admin help. Between Raul, Marskell and you, I could usually find someone if there was a FAR flare-up, but now we may need another means of locating an admin in sticky situations (for example, I don't like to remove TFA FAR noms if it's an FA that I promoted, as that feels like a COI). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Oops. I thought I had replied to this already.
  1. Tim will always have a spot even if it has to be mine.
  2. I can handle everything as long as the FAR quantity is low (less than 30). However, I wouldn't mind if we picked someone to share the tasks. Joelito (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  3. We might need another admin for those situations in case I am not available. Joelito (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I have ideas, but will wait to hear from Raul, once he's home and settled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: Comment

My apologies, but this comment got lost in all of the commotion and I just noticed it. Thanks for the note, I appreciate it. One thing I've always done since I've been an administrator is listen to the community. Of course I have my personal opinions on every issue, as does everybody else, but I am more than comfortable with listening to the community and using their input to make what are typically better decisions for the community as a whole. I thought this was evident with my unblock, but some seem to think otherwise. Regards, Rjd0060 (talk) 16:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

A new anti-drama bot?

Can I use it? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

May you never feel the need. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that drama (or at least my amount of involvement in it) tends to decrease when I go ballroom dancing... that's something you can always try, right? :D Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Reminds me of an old joke:
"You're not going out in those baggy old trousers are you?"
"They're not baggy, they're bandleaders' trousers."
"Whaddya mean, bandleader's trousers?"
"You know, plenty of ballroom."
--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Let's say that those ballroom trousers don't have much ballroom... although it is even worse for the ladies. If you just saw professional "international latin" costumes for women... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive FACs

Yes, if you suspect JeanLatore, you can go ahead and message me on my talk page. Oddly enough, Son of Bob was not JeanLatore, but an editor in good standing. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

uContribs - ArbCands

OK, done (for now). 557,134 edits summarized and the smoke detector hardly ever went off after the third set of firemen came and smashed it. I listed you too 'cause I was sure it would push the edit count over a million - oh well.

I share your opinion about TimVickers. And even before I'd run the data, I'd agree about Tim, just from what I've seen from day-to-day.

Looking through all that data though, there is a pretty obvious candidate for ArbCom, one who is pretty darn familiar with building an encyclopedia and all that entails from the effort. I can't canvass of course, so all I can do is hint: starts with "S", ends with "andyGeorgia". :) Franamax (talk) 06:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You Are a Gem: thank you (although I'd rather not see my name on that list :-) Can you summarize the results like this?

Samples

Based on User:Franamax/Ucontribs-0.3b‎
First edit GT Edits Main- space Name Mainspace WP-space AN Article to AN1
Top article Edits Status FAs Top WP Family Edits Edits No.2 Edits3 Ratio 14 Ratio 25
2006-06 40567 65% TimVickers Evolution 1100 Featured 13 FAC 653 442 9 5267 12/1 2.5/1
2006-02 86886 46% SandyGeorgia Tourette syndrome 1135 Featured 2 FAC 10534 650 3 2200 3/1 1.7/1

Arbcom candidates

Based on User:Franamax/Ucontribs-0.3b‎
First edit Total edits Main- space edits Name Top article Edits Status FAs Top WP Family Edits to top WP Family AN Edits No. articles with more edits than AN family2 Edits to those articles3 Ratio 14 Ratio 25
2005-01 44,049 36% Carcharoth Ptolemy (name) 208 Start 0 AN 2850 2850 0 – – 1/14
2006-05 44,821 69% Casliber Major depressive disorder 758 @FAC 23 FAC 1784 215 13 4589 21/1 3.5/1
2002-02 155,168 Charles Matthews Ramism 138 None 0 RFAR 1028 31 – – N/A N/A6
2004-02 11,256 58% Cool Hand Luke Salt Lake City 58 GA 0 RFAR 450 219
2003-05 9,074 17% Coren Zoophilia 26 B 0 AFD 764 471
2005-03 26,742 44% Fish and karate Edward Low 152 FA 2 AFD 2869 1930
2006-01 4,336 44% George The Dragon Gretna F.C. 20 Start 0 AFD 157 156
2006-04 13,098 68% Hemlock Martinis Sinestro Corps War 141 FA 1 AFD 361 68
2006-10 19,604 20% Hersfold Bertrand Russell 75 B 0 AFC 1849 307
2004-09 30,978 47% Jayvdb W. H. R. Rivers 51 B 0 AFD 5165 256
2003-02 15,594 57% Jdforrester United Kingdom 85 B 0 RFAR 2167 87
2005-03 19,404 24% Jehochman Search engine optimization 426 FA 1 ANI 1981 1981
2004-05 6,332 54% Kmweber Princeton, Indiana 29 C 0
2004-08 8,187 38% Lankiveil Nundah, Queensland 61 B 0 AFD 2676 44
2006-02 3,877 46% NWA.Rep Culture of Taiwan 98 B 0 ANI 170 170
2007-09 4,238 13% Privatemusings Socrates 45 B 0 NTWW 408 177
2005-11 53,211 48% Rlevse List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) 865 FL 12 SCOUT 2551 1605
2006-02 12,397 72% RMHED Deaths in 2006 271 B 0 AFD 1369 98
2004-10 21,046 43% Sam Korn George W. Bush 72 GA 0 AFD 653 424
2007-09 3,237 41% Secret Selena 37 FA 3 AFD 638 39
2006-02 6,530 25% SirFozzie Colin Cowherd 85 Start 0 ANI 848 848
2005-10 10,892 38% Vassyana Taoism 146 GA 0 NOR 645 298
2005-02 42,854 37% White Cat Starfleet ranks and insignia 456 B 0 RFAR 1494 1220
2005-09 17,409 52% WilyD Peter Jones (missionary) 414 A 0 AFD 1632 294
2006-03 49,463 22% Wizardman Art Houtteman 178 FA 2 AFD 2461 280
2006-11 44,063 18% WJBscribe Ruth Kelly 71 GA 0 CHU 4324 719
  • 1 A measure of mainspace to AN editing
  • 2 The number of articles to which the editor has contributed more edits than to the Administrators' noticeboards
  • 3 The number of edits to the articles in which the editor has contributed more edits than to the Administrators' noticeboards
  • 4 The ratio of the edits to which the editor has contributed more edits to AN and that editors AN edits
  • 5 The ratio of edits to the editors' top article and edits to AN
  • 6 Too few to analyze

Disussion

If you hold the view (as I do) that Tim Vickers represents the gold standard in excellence in balance between dispute resolution skills, policy understanding, civility, and mainspace editing, looking at the numbers this way shows that balance. Summarizing the numbers this way shows the editors top mainspace article, top WP (family) area of activity (for example, as expected, my contribs at FAC are disproportionate), and proportional time spent contributing quality articles versus engaging the Administrators' noticeboards.

Tim has healthy contributions to the Administrators' noticeboards, but he has contributed more edits to 9 articles (for more than 5,000 edits total) than he has to AN. He has 12 times as many edits to those articles as he does to AN. He has 2.5 times as many edits to his highest-edited article (Evolution) as he does to AN. This shows an editor with quality mainspace contributions, significant AN input, but a priority, commitment and balance towards mainspace while avoiding drama at the trainwreck that is AN.

We need ArbCom members who have demonstrated a commitment, first and foremost, to understanding how dispute resolution applies to building quality articles in mainspace, and understand article building skills. We don't need more career ArbCom members who don't know what content contributors deal with, who don't understand what goes in to building our best content, and who spend a disproportionate amount of their time rubbernecking the trainwrecks at AN/I instead of building articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Your original idea, most-edited article:AN-edits ratio, seems to fail as a useful comparison - it's only identified outliers in the data. From what I've seen running these scans, I'd suggest using at least the top-5 article total as the numerator. Better yet would be top-20, since that is a very good cut-line for where the "long tail" runs out in mainspace. It's quite reasonable that a dedicated content editor would have 20 or so titles of interest, whereas the antivandals will have a different curve, with a lower front and a much longer tail. That will make the ratios more meaningful (Tim and Cas will just get bigger numbers, but the rest will get at least reasonable numbers. If you change the table and do a few at the top, I'll pitch in starting from the bottom. Franamax (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that (which is why I stopped there, so I could reformulate), but had a busy day, and didn't get a chance to re-do it ... same for tomorrow. Looking for other ideas, too ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I like your ideas for analysis. Unfortunately I can't do any of that with automation, so it will go onto my could-do/should-do list (and you've already got it half finished, hint-hint lol). If you or someone else with a good data parser wish to add a section to my page, feel free to do so - it's not my page anymore, it belongs to the wiki.
As to interpreting the ratios, while I generally agree, some caution is in order. Edit counts to an article reflect several factors, among them edit-warring and vandal-fighting. My most-edited articles include hair and fingernails and some subjects taught in grade school - they ended up on my watchlist and are favourite vandal targets. I've also noticed that the GA/FA process spawns a huge number of edits, most of them quite minor (correcting typogrammos, reshuffles, reformats). Of course this is essential work, but the plain edit count only indicates obsession, not progress. ( ;) ) I refuse to believe that Tim or Casliber have made >500 major contributions to Evolution and Lion - the count just reflects their attention to detail and desire for excellence, it doesn't stand well as a ratio.
Similarly, straight counts in the AN area aren't necessarily informative. You would need to look at whether those edits increased or decreased the drama, added to or removed from the quantitative information as opposed to opinions, were accompanied by edits to user talk pages to elicit information or calm feelings, etc. It's very difficult to reduce to a simple ratio, although when a candidate has 100 article edits and 10000 noticeboard edits it becomes pretty clear.
I do agree with you though, article-building and collaboration are very important. That's why I combined the page/talkpage counts, to look at "works well with others" and did the family summaries for "contributes widely in a particular area".
If you don't wish to have your listing appearing on the page, go ahead and comment it out. I go by the simple rule that someone who asks for others to be listed, gets listed - but it's your preference. I'd rather that 600 editors would ask to be in the list and I had some magic genie to run them all. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride... :) Franamax (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I was afraid I'd have to do that myself :-) Yes, I understand well the pitfalls of editcountitis, but trends are already demonstrated in the little bit I've done so far. In terms of looking for balanced editing, I think this works as a proxy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

re: Flight 19

There's something at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flight 19/Archive2 as well: I think Moni got tangled up in upper and lower case ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I was just looking at that. I think we now only have /archive1 and /archive2. The links seems to all work okay. The problem was Moni creating /Archive2/archive1 and /Archive2/archive2 but that's now sorted and they've now been deleted. --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Blah blah poop. --Moni3 (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Chuckle. By the way, did Sandy ever mention that I missed something different out in each of the first twenty or so FACs I archived? A remarkably impressive display of absentmindedness/incompetence, even if I say so myself :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I got to learn when nobody (except Gimmetrow) was watching, when he and I built all the articlehistories. Gimme knows where the bodies are buried. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawing FAC

I want to withdraw the nomination for Tropical Storm Kiko (2007) since it will take a while before the article is completed. It will then need a peer review and copyedit. I think I'm supposed to ask for the withdrawal... :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Cyclone, pls add a note on the FAC, and I'll get to it when I archive on Saturday; good luck ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Interview (part 2)

In response to the previous edit summary:

  1. Noted.
  2. I did. Neither his position as editor-in-chief nor the slowness of his responses should prevent us from conducting an interview. If he wants to use it once it's done, great! If not, oh well!
  3. Except for #1, I presume. New list posted here. Assuming you actually want to.

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 05:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse

Sandy, I added a support on Casliber's FAC. I stated that I am breaking my declaration that I wouldn't participate at FAC anymore. Mattisse has some how used that to try and claim like I haven't a clue about pages and that I shouldn't have a say. Yes, I still watch pages nominated for FAC. Yes, I occasionally contact individuals directly. Mattisse's comments are part of the reason why I don't want to participate at FAC. Instead of focusing on the criteria, its just an excuse to trash others.

Can something be done? Can Mattisse be told to stop? Could my whole section, vote and all, just be moved to the talk page instead of junking up the FAC? Sigh. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I moved that to talk (Sandy, please let me know if you want me to revert myself). That FAC has gotten so off-track that I'm afraid to review the article. Karanacs (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Karanacs—I tried to move that bit to talk earlier, but the incredible load time for a 300kb page combined with four edit conflicts eventually made me throw up my hands. What a nightmare. Maralia (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
There is a ton of personal commentary on that FAC, and Sandy. of you are okay with it, I will happily take the time to move it all to the FAC talk page. Karanacs (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I have frequently dropped hints, but perhaps I should be more direct. It is diffiult for me (as the closer) when the community doesn't deal with the scuffles that (rarely) happen at FAC, as that obligates me to engage (as I've had to several times on that FAC) when I should be a neutral observor. I've delegated (at various times, and I may have forgotten someone) FAC tasks to Karanacs, Elcobbola, Moni3, Maralia, Woody, Roger Davies and Dweller: if any of you think commentary on that FAC would be better moved to talk, you are welcome to do it. If you move anything to talk, though, remember that the links to the talk tab don't show when you're viewing the entire FAC page, so links need to be left, and then those links have to be updated when the FAC closes and moves to archive (in other words, it's a lot of work to have to move commentary ... more desirable would be if reviewers would confine their long commentary to article or FAC talk, rather than overwhelming the FAC with off-topic discussion). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I missed noticing this particular problem until it got totally out of hand—never in my wildest dreams would I have imagined such drama at a Casliber FAC. It shouldn't be your responsibility, but you certainly watch them all much more closely than anyone else; maybe drop a note here for your talk-page watchers whenever you notice something unsavory brewing? I'm sure that a mere 'help needed at X' or 'could someone look at Y' would draw a few sets of fresh eyes. Maralia (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I can set up something, along with the whole "WikiLife Without Marskell" Chapter, that will work to notice admins when attention is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Ottava: I'd like to extend my sincere appreciation for your support of this article, into which I have put a considerable amount of effort. And let me assure you that you are not the first to have difficulties with Mattisse's attitude. See, for example, here, or see any of my "commentary on Mattisse's commentary" (to paraphrase Karanacs) about your support. By the way, I realize that our initial encounter was less than pleasant, so I hope that my defense of your FAC support, in addition to being a sincere contribution to the FAC discussion, might serve to help make up for my poor response to you on my talk. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
99% of the time I'm grumpy. The other 1% of the time I am overly protective. I supported the article because I've watched it grow. I care more about promoting lots of effort and the desire to improve things to an encyclopedic state than I actually bother with some of the trivial disputes. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Same here. Although I've been with the article only since June of this year, I feel pretty much the same way. It has certainly come a long, long way from its state at the previous FAC. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Funny though, the nice antispychiatry opinionated person did lead me to an intriguing and fascinating book, which I then spent the next 45 minutes reading and I will probably buy off Amazon or something (tax deductible too XD)...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Help with GA

Hi Sandy. I have mentioned you at the bottom of Talk:Russian submarine K-152 Nerpa/GA1. Could you comment on the correct formatting of cite web publishers? Thank you very much. Jehochman Talk 22:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Rick Bot temporarily offline

Hi Sandy - Just an FYI - my bot is temporarily offline (the machine it runs on seems to need a new power supply or something). I'm not sure how long it will take to get it fixed, but until it is the bot will not be botting. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia content modification information:

  • This page was last modified on 22 November 2008, at 04:16.

Wikipedia Authorship and Review

Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by PediaView.com. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with PediaView.com.

Wikipedia Usage Guidelines

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "User talk:SandyGeorgia".

The URL for this specific entry is:

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.