SandyGeorgia

Welcome to Meta!

Hello SandyGeorgia, and welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). If you would like, feel free to ask me questions on my talk page. Happy editing! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

How nice of you to welcome me ... this is a PITA! They put an election thingie on my watchlist, and then I have to get technically undumb to figure out how to make it work :) SandyGeorgia 22:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a Single User Login? That'll automatically create an account on any WMF you click on, which makes it much easier. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Now I do, but I guess I also have to set preferences here ... SandyGeorgia 22:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I give up ... I tried to vote and confirm on stewards, but I keep getting red links. Now, if I'm on a unified account, shouldn't I be able to go back to en.wiki with one click? Can't find it, will have to log out and in again I guess. Techno-dummie. SandyGeorgia 22:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Giraud

[1] - Ottava Rima (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Risker claims that restoring an FA of 8k of text removed without cause (with wholesale removal of important sources and important information on the topic) needs to be justified. She is basically deleting 1/3rd of the FA without discussion and reinforcing a sock puppet's vandalism. Why are FAs allowed to be destroyed like that? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Note

I wanted to tell you that your actions over the past year have my 100% support, and I believe you are right in many of the recent conversations. I find it troubling that some people would willingly look the other way on important policies (socking, plagiarism, etc) because they are in agreement with the individual on something that lacks any real foundation. Quality content has been assaulted on every single level and I have a feeling that Wikipedia will no longer be "encyclopedic" in any sense of the term soon. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I responded to your guide with some of my own personal views. I found the Richwales concerns the most important. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I tried to complain against such things here in Sue's recent letter. I was attacked by entrenched WMF and WMf-affiliated people who simply want numbers and to throw money around. We built the only quality stuff, our product is used to attract other people who will only degrade the site, more money goes to people at top, and the system is taken over. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)