About meTalk to meTo do listTools and other
useful things
Some of
my work


My will to participate in Wikipedia has waned due to the harassment it brings, both on and off Wikipedia, with real consequences to living persons and their families.
I receive pings by email only; I may continue to occasionally check my watchlist and email, but please don't count on me to regularly respond to queries or to keep up with the work I once did.
This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

This user page has been mirrored on sites that are not en.Wikipedia.org. I do not use this user name anywhere other than en.Wikipedia, with some edits to the Spanish Wikipedia. If you are reading this page anywhere else, that would be a project I'm not involved in, where the User SandyGeorgia was not created by me.

  • 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]
The BLP Barnstar
If you'd told me 6 months ago that it was possible to have a substantial rewrite of the JK Rowling article, including the controversial areas, largely done and dusted without any major acrimony or multiple RFCs, I wouldn't have believed you - but that's exactly what you've achieved. Well done! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
The Writer's Barnstar
Sandy, you've more than earned this barnstar your amazing work on J.K. Rowling: reading the biographies and rewriting that section; working throughout to keep the article compliant with MoS; organizing the talk pages; bringing focus and best-practice processes throughout. I've learned a lot just from watching your work. You and the entire crew should be proud of the work there. It's a great achievement. Congrats! Victoria (tk) 23:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy
I found the time to read through your comments at the close review at AN and wanted to thank you for stepping in. Managing conflicts can be hard: looking at the context of the dispute, identifying issues, and raising them politely but firmly with colleagues is not easy work, so it's nice when people step up to ensure a healthy community. Thanks for setting a good example! Wug·a·po·des 07:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Quotable quotes
You've mentioned WP:BLUDGEON and measured it in terms of the number of comments someone writes in a discussion. I don't measure it in those terms, though. Consensus-seeking editors talk to each other. They reply to each other's points. Each tries to understand the other's position and address their arguments and that's awesome and it's what a request for comment is for. And some editors are passionate about their subject, which is one of the things about Wikipedians that I find most endearing. I'm a discussion closer because I rather enjoy reading such conversations. And let's remember that WP:BLUDGEON isn't a policy or guideline, although it is certainly widely cited.
I'm saying that the number of contributions someone makes to a discussion isn't a problem. Where editors talk about each other and restate their own positions while ignoring the other's points, that's the problem.—User:S Marshall
5 Nov 2023
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
30 Oct 2010
Just pointing out that "Colin and the Videos" would be a good name for a band. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris
30 Mar 2018
I find the thought that people who speak a certain language are getting their medical information primarily from Wikipedia deeply frightening. We are not competent for that task. We are competent to write a tertiary source that summarizes secondary sources. We shouldn't even be trying to be some kind of WebMD. Levivich
27 Dec 2019
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
15 Feb 2011
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

25 Jun 2013
Venality, stupidity and greed are always with us. But our individual acts always leave behind a touch of beauty and sufficient artifacts to allow others to find something deeper for themselves. A Wikifriend 27 Aug 2022

es-4El nivel de este usuario corresponde al de un hablante casi nativo del español.