From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Useful links
  • Who is Sandy Georgia? - "Sandy is a complicated person in real life. She passes her time in simple surroundings, trying to deflect the worship of those who know her and use her gifts to help others. She has been hunted as a fugitive, cursed as a tomb-robber, and is renowned as a lover and duelist. She is a worshiped as a God in Honduras, but is an outlaw in Peru. No living man knows her real name, as she only whispers it into the ears of those she is about to kill. All love her and hate her, she is SandyGeorgia." -- Tim Vickers 17:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC) [1] [2]
  • Subsequently, however, in order to, and also—almost never needed and almost always redundant. How about this—found once on Wikipedia: He was mortally wounded and subsequently died. No kidding !!!! Overuse of however, is common on Wikipedia, but also and subsequently are fun, too. User:Tony1/How to improve your writing has good information on these plagues of Wikipedia.

Misc good stuff

Most reputable volunteer organisations screen their volunteers before accepting them. That makes it a lot easier to insure or indemnify them. Obvious personality disorders, histories of unsavory behavior, habits of propositioning other volunteers, or an unwillingness to comply with an organisation's basic behavioral expectations are all grounds for refusing or releasing a volunteer. Wikipedia doesn't roll like that; we take people with any (or all) of the above. ... This site persistently hosts a small number of people with frank personality disorders. A much larger fraction of the community is not frankly pathological, but lacks all reasonable sense of perspective. Unless that changes - and I don't see it changing - I'm not willing to compromise whatever pseudonymity I still enjoy. I admire the courage of people who edit under their real names, in the same way I admire the courage of people who do trick motorcycle jumps over flaming trucks, but that's not me. MastCell Talk 04:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC) [3]

Ignorance is infinite, while patience is not. Ultimately, you will lose patience with the unchecked flow of ignorance, at which point you'll be blocked for incivility. The goal is to accomplish as much as possible before that inevitability comes to pass. MastCell Talk 04:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC) [4]

... the more I see of Wikipedia from the vantage point of a semi-detached observer, the more certain I am that the trends I was pointing out a couple of years ago—an obsession with strict compliance over common sense, the increasing domination of policy-wonks, an accelerating decline in the number of editors actually active in content work of any kind, entrenched US west coast and south-east English cultural bias, and simultaneous (and contradictory) unhealthy fixations on the concepts of "anyone can edit" to the point where respected users argue for the unblocking of some of Wikipedia's most disruptive nutjobs because "anyone can edit" and of "disruption warrants blocking" to the point where generally non-problematic users are either blocked from editing or hounded off the site owing to minor breaches of etiquette or personal grudges—have come to dominate the internal workings of Wikipedia to the point where it's becoming impossible to get anything done unless one's a member of one or another privileged clique who'll circle the wagons for you ... While I may make the very occasional reappearance, I don't really see the point in dedicating substantial time to a system which is willfully ripping itself apart ... iridescent 14:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC) [5]

There is no such consensus, of course. Eric called this the most ridiculous block he'd ever seen. Brad stated that, in general, either warning or requesting evidence would be more appropriate than a block. Kww opined that there was no personal attack in Sandy's comment. And James suggested that Sandy did provide evidence for her accusation. Brad is the only one who mentioned a warning, and then in general terms and as one of several options. There is a consensus, but it's a consensus that this block was mistakenly applied. In that light, Mark's statement in the block log is unfortunate.

I don't mean to pile on as the block has already been lifted, but since the black mark will remain in Sandy's block log I'll add my view that this was an inappropriate block and should have been lifted without prejudice. I'd ask Mark to be a bit more circumspect in the future about what he writes in block/unblock statements, since they are effectively indelible. As block logs are generally not amended even to correct mis-statements, a link to this discussion will have to suffice when Sandy's block log is cited in the future. MastCell Talk 18:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC) [6]

Just pointing out that "Colin and the Videos" would be a good name for a band. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Misc yukky stuff

If you saw a thread on Reddit claiming I am a paid government shill, please do read my denial. It may help you understand how and why Mr. Reddit got it wrong.

  • No one that matters or with any knowledge of Wikipedia thinks you are a paid editor... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • :Agree completely. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I can't say I'd ever thought you could possibly be a paid editor. Years ago, I learned to NOT try to edit something when you started editing, because you make so many small edits and typos that it's safer to wait til you're done... If you are a paid editor, you'd better be getting paid by the edit rather than by the amount of prose added... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh good grief. I can't imagine any context in the wiki-world where anyone who understands the project could consider you a paid editor. Wow. Boy have they missed the mark. Risker (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • During the miserably cold winter, I remember being in the car one morning, hearing the news about Venezuela, and I thought to myself, "boy does Wikipedia need Sandy right now." And then there you were, doing what you do best. Hang in there and keep it up. You've been working those pages as long as I remember. Own? Pfft! Stewartship is a different matter. Victoria (tk) 01:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Exaggeration in health-related science news
  • An Indian pharmacy journal article scraping text from Wikipedia without attribution: [7] Then future editors can cite that journal, unaware that is a mirror and not reliable. Another reason why our medical articles should respect MEDRS and have a prominent disclaimer at the top.[8]
  • PMID 24276492 Evaluation of gastroenterology and hepatology articles on Wikipedia: Are they suitable as learning resources for medical students?
  • Example of medically irresponsible text that stood for two years.
  • Not atypical for medical editing on Wikipedia: Plastic surgery advocacy
  • Schizophrenia and {{Cannabis}}: [9]
  • Vandalism that inserted inaccurate information at coprolalia stood for six months, undetected, unreverted. [10] (by definition, TS requires verbal tics).
  • Nine months of long cough; will that kill ya? [11] Another Wikipedia pharm article, vandalism that has stood for nine months and is now mirrored on dozens of internet sites.