User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch98

Poor Man's Talk Back

ANI diff to original incident.

Followup for @Neutralhomer: ... this discussion shows what happens when one tries to discuss anything with this editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

More at ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I replied to you post here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, your offer to meatpuppet for Gerda in the Infobox wars is yet another indication that the arb case is either not understood or not taken seriously-- the number of editors colluding on the infobox situation was the basis of the problem to begin with, that led to the arbcase. (That personal attacks of that nature are becoming the norm, not dealt with anywhere, is no longer surprising.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

It has been taken to ArbCom for clarification and personally, I can't see how a user adding an infobox hurts anyone. It seems silly to prevent someone from adding something constructive (and infoboxes are constructive) to any Wikipedia page. It seems even sillier to prevent anyone from adding infoboxes for that editor. Regardless of what ArbCom says, it seems like this is a way to prevent an established and well-respected editor from editing.

I will await ArbCom's ruling on this one and proceed according to that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, still, you don't seem to be aware of or acknowledge the disruption caused to Wikipedia by editors colluding on technical issues. "I can't see how a user adding an infobox hurts anyone" indicates you may not be familiar with the case, or the issue that more editing by proxy is not what those involved in that case need. What they need is to curtail their attacks on those who disagree with them on the usefulness of infoboxes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Adding an infobox to a page is an "attack"?! What?! Explain to me how you came up with that theory. Are we now restricting people we disagree with? I don't agree with you, let's put some restrictions on you and vice versa? It's an infobox...come on! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The attack was by Montanabw on someone pointing out an infobox issue: this is characteristic of what has gone on throughout that case. Please focus: I don't really have time to bring you up to speed on an old case. I do have time to point out to you that suggesting that I will wade into that mess is not sound ... one would think admins would deal with the situation without more need for more editors to be drawn into the imbroglio and factions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, so you won't give me the short version of this "case", but you will tell me that I shouldn't take up this fight. That's the kind of answer that makes me want to. An infobox is not an attack, it is not a faction and it is not anything one should be restricted over. You have obviously forgotten why you are here, you are here to edit an encyclopedia, not put restrictions on people you clearly disagree with. You are not the Wikipedia Police Department, you are an editor. If you think you are anything more than that, please consult the "log out" link above. None of us should discourage an editor from expanding an article, as you are, over something one doesn't have the time to explain. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind taking the time to walk you through the case and the history if you would first read what is already on the page. Unless you are being deliberately obtuse, the attack is not hard to find. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, please read through all of the pages associated with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes, to see what the fuss is about. Adding infoboxes is not an attack (and Sandy never said it was), but there are factions associated with adding/removing infoboxes, and it is the kind of thing several people were restricted over. A lot of people think that adding/removing infoboxes is a really big deal, and Gerda was one of several people who gained editing restrictions when the issue was taken before ArbCom. This is not Sandy unilaterally imposing editing restrictions, or even several editors imposing them - it is a major issue that was taken before ArbCom that has resulted multiple ArbCom-enforced editing restrictions. You may not find it a big deal to add an infobox, but a lot of people do. I hope this clears some things up. Dana boomer (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Dana! I was beginning to wonder if I was speaking Spanish :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

@Dana: TL;DR, gimme the short version.

@Sandy: You were speaking, what I like to call, "round-about English". English that goes around in circles and doesn't really make a point, but uses big words. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? I gave you the short version above. So let me try again, with little words and short sentences. Some people like infoboxes. Some don't. They fight. They went to ArbCom. ArbCom told a bunch of people to knock it off. Including Gerda. </end of short sentences> Now, for some advice: if you want to get involved in the infobox issue, I suggest you get used to reading long pages, and drop TL;DR from your vocabulary. Dana boomer (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, seriously. ArbCom discussions all meld into one after awhile, I like short versions. Still doesn't explain why people don't like infoboxes and how that prevents someone from editing/expanding an article....or editing period in some cases.

I'll drop TL;DR from my vocabulary when you drop the attitude. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

If it was simple and able to be explained in a sentence, a paragraph, even a computer screen's-worth of text, it wouldn't be at ArbCom. To understand why some people/projects don't like infoboxes, you have to read their arguments - it has to do with appearance, necessity, breaking complicated ideas into little (sometimes oversimplified) chunks, etc. ArbCom doesn't rule on content though, they rule on conduct. And they ruled that several editors, including Gerda, had acted in such a way (tendentious editing, editing against consensus, WP:IDHT, etc.) as to necessitate sanctions. In Gerda's case, this included an injunction against adding infoboxes to any article she hadn't created. Also, per ArbCom policy, if an editor is restricted from doing something, other editors are prohibited for doing that something for them, as is currently being explained at the ArbCom clarifications page. But again, this whole paragraph that I have just written is way too simplistic (and I'm sure I'm going to hear about it from people who participated in the case). As I said above, if you want to understand disputes that end up at ArbCom, you're going to need to be able to read and digest long pages, because simple disputes that can be easily explained in non-TLDR fashion don't end up at ArbCom. And I would have seriously thought that an experienced editor such as yourself would not have to have this explained to him, several times, by several editors. Dana boomer (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

One, I like bite-sized bits of information.

Two, I think ArbCom is waaay too full of themselves, always have, and they all have forgotten why they are here.

Three, anything can be explained in non-TLDR fashion if you take the time.

Four, when an infobox causes an ArbCom investigation, people are taking themselves waaay too seriously and have forgotten why they are here.

Five, I have Aspergers (and Dyslexic), I lose interest in something quickly if not explained fast (hence the bite-sized bits of information).

Six, stupid decisions by bureaucracy (like in DC) normally have to be explained several times, so that even the most experienced people (like in DC) can understand it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, that does clarify why you'd perceive infoboxes as an unalloyed good. If you want some background, User:Geogre/Templates is well-balanced but you may find it a bit long; Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes is more easily read but also more polemical. Like most ARBCOM decisions, this isn't really "about" infoboxes (or dashes-versus-hyphens, or whatever triviality you like); it's about people's behavior making use of them. Gerda's behavior during the case made it clear that she was going to continue making and using infoboxes in ways that upset other productive editors, to the maximum extent possible without breaking the letter of the rules. It's a shame that these constraints hinder her editing: she's a talented and productive editor. But she would not be laboring under an onerous external restraint if she had shown internal restraint or better judgment. Choess (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom cases are hardly ever about what they appear on the face of it to be about, but that's by the by. Why do some people get so agitated about infoboxes? Some infoboxes are arguably useful and others are arguably a blot on the landscape. Pigsonthewing has much to answer for here, with his empty rhetoric about metadata. Eric Corbett 16:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, not intending to throw too many of the aforementioned "big words" at Homer, but the entire infoboxes case was just a proxy for collusion among a group of like-minded editors (that is, all about cabalism, never really even about infoboxes).

In the name of "infoboxes", one group of editors who were roughly (but not exclusively) aligned around technical issues and around returning users breaching cleanstart and various socks disrupting FA pages, has been allowed to indiscriminately block, attack and insult their "perceived" "enemies"; chase off multiple productive editors, both those building content and those also engaged in technical editing; impose technical preferences well beyond the infobox issue; apply the same admin double standards that Malleus thought he was fighting against for years in ways that they seemed to think would silence their "perceived" "enemies" (and in several cases has), choosing to ignore personalization, battleground, and personal attacks among their own; create battlegrounds not only in content editing areas like infoboxes, but also on Wikipedia-space pages, in content review processes, and on dispute resolution pages; work together to preserve POV in articles; and .... well, the list goes on ... and the arbs didn't even get to address most of this, but not surprisingly, the signs of the extent of these issues and the editors involved are showing themselves since the case closed. As always, it is unlikely that the arbs were not aware of all that was going on-- but no one presented all the evidence.

So, for Neutralhomer, although you are not the first (and won't likely be the last) to offer to or to actually act as a proxy in the broader issues surrounding the infobox case, I hope you now understand why such conduct is viewed by the arbs as disruptive, and actually has been and remains a factor in battleground conduct based on factionalism (to wit, the attack which led to this discussion). Re Choess's comments about Gerda, I suspect that what got her noticed by the arbs, although many involved went undetected, is a never-ending defense (from a well-established editor) that began to sound one time too many like "I don't know nothin' 'bout birthin' babies". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

As I said, ArbCom cases are hardly ever about what they appear to be about. Eric Corbett

Time To Go

ANI diff

Sandy, I have watched the ANI thread regarding Wehwalt, Kww, Montanabw and Gerda and I see what's coming. It's the same witchhunt that you drummed up against Rlevse/Pumpkin Sky (before running him out a second time). You drove out an admin and an editor of FA quality articles and you are about to do the same to Wehwalt, Kww and the rest. You are on a powertrip of epic proportions and it time for you to go.

I took a look at your edits (last 1,000 made) and almost all were either WikiSpace or TalkPage edits. A small number were to articles and those were slicing and dicing them into tiny bite-sized pieces. You have forgotten why we are here, that's to create a free encyclopedia and to do it in a collaborative way. What you do is create drama and be snarky. That's not creating anything but an unhealthy enviroment for collaborative works.

So, I am asking that you retire. You aren't helping the project, you aren't helping the collaborative creation of articles, you aren't helping anything. You are helping good editors leave this project and that is something I won't stand for. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't be mad at Sandy for complaining about the "good" editors at WP:ENB, FWIW, User:Neutralhomer. You may be on to something, because you know more than I do, but Sandy isn't always barking up the wrong tree. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Take, for example, the thread above, where the project might really stand to find a new way to deal with student abuse. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

@User:Biosthmors: This isn't a student editor or someone from a school. These are editors who are have accounts, have been here for years, have created numerous Good and Featured Articles, 3 are admins, the other two have numerous different account rights (like autopatrolled, rollbacker, reviewer, etc.). These are good editors who do good work. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of some of the Rlevse/Pumpkin Sky issue. Sandy was bang on with that one. In this comment we have a former arbcom member stating he needs help uploading images to commons [1] and here he is threatening people with "Karma" [2]. Hum playing games I think. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

@Doc: During July of 2011, if I remember correctly, that's when the uploader got all messed up and didn't get fixed for months (and didn't get totally fixed until a couple weeks ago). Even I needed help uploading images and I have been here for 7 years. He does have a point about karma, it does get you in the end. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

And this [3]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like PSky asked several questions to Nasnema and Nasnema evaded those questions. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

All the while trying to claim to be a new user... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Not the smartest idea, but can you blame him? He gets run out on a rail, the only way to come back is to pose as a new editor. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry not much for games. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Neither am I, but when an editor is forced out over something minor, I think "games" are allowed. By "games", of course I mean "a second chance". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

"Only warning"

Hello Homer. Because you said above that you don't like English that uses "big words", you "like bite-sized bits of information" and you "have Aspergers (and Dyslexic) [and] lose interest in something quickly if not explained fast (hence the bite-sized bits of information)", I will respond in bite-sized bits as I have time.

Since you seem concerned about creating a collaborative environment, let's first address your attempts at intimidation, for example of Anthonyhcole on his talk page, where you said you will "see to it that you don't come near Wikipedia for a very long time". As someone who has expressed the disdain for ArbCom that you did above, I'm not sure how you feel yourself empowered to do this, unless you have a direct line to Arsten's twitchy finger on his block button. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Editcountitis and WBFANitis

Next, let's look at editcountitis and WBFANitis; then we'll move on the specifics of each editor you mention above. Three bite-sized points for you:

1. When I spent hours daily reading and processing FAC nomination pages for some extremely fine articles-- as well as many cookie-cutter, pedestrian-prose articles so prima donnas could get their stars they would then use to bang other editors over the head with as if they were somehow "special"-- I didn't notice anyone complaining that most of edits were to project space.
2. I think it's wonderful that some editors can churn out dozens of pedestrian-prose, cookie-cutter FAs, on topics which rarely get viewed, never get edited, and rarely need updating. This project needs all kinds, and those have a place. Of course, I wish the pedestrian prose wasn't passing FAC these days, but it is. Anyway. Some of the rest of us edit in areas where we aren't so fortunate. The articles we write need constant monitoring and updating, are hit by all kinds of whacky edits, and lately, are under assault by student editors. Sorry if you don't like the fact that, as the university term-end approaches in the US and students cram text into medical articles all at once so they can get their grade before Thanksgiving, the education program consumes the attention of medical editors. Them's the breaks. Maybe I should have been a ship, hurricane or coin editor.
3. You seem to be impressed that some folks can churn out dozens of cookie cutters. You don't seem to understand that in some topics, a dozen cookie cutters are not as hard to write or maintain as, say, one of the topics User:Moni3 wrote on, like Donner Party or the song "Amazing Grace", or one medical FA. Sorry, I'm not at all impressed by WP:WBFAN, and neither are most of the older, experienced, seasoned FA writers, who long expressed dismay that WBFAN was just another part of the reward culture.

You seem to not only have a bad case of editcountitis, but also a case of WBFANitis. Any questions so far? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Two days, no response yet; are you still here, Neutralhomer? Since you like "bite-sized bits", I don't want to get too far ahead of you. Well, next ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Moni3 didn't write Donner Party alone, although she was the project manager, parcelling out stuff for me and Karanacs to do. In retrospect, given that I've recently been accused on here of bullying women, it's rather extraordinary that I stooped so low as to take direction from a woman. Eric Corbett 19:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

This would be where I point out that I have never seen you use "your" number of FAs to advance a position. That is, it's a meme in here that you use colorful language and get away with it because of your FAs. On the other hand, I routinely see some others mentioned in this discussion using WBFANitis as a justification for their poor behavior. We'll get to that point in the discussion with Homer eventually. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

You'll never see me using my number of FAs to justify anything, but I'm afraid my "colorful language" is just part of the territory. I've just looked at that list and I see that I'm at number 12, with Mike Christie snapping at my heels. I'm rather superstitious about the number 13, so maybe I ought to get a move on and try and catch Ealdgyth. Eric Corbett 20:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Just remember that every FA means another day on the main page... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

"Older, experienced, seasoned FA writers", that would discribe Wehwalt. He's been here longer than you or I (older), he has more FAs under his belt on a variety of subject (experienced), and he has worked with numerous editors (including myself) on thos articles (seasoned).

Your sentence, though, is hypocritical. You say you are not impressed by WP:WBFAN, but then you mention "older, experienced, seasoned FA writers". So, you find the list of FAs by different editors unimpressive except people who have wrote FAs? Doesn't make sense.

The subject matter, though, isn't what you should be impressed by (unless you like that particular subject). What you should be impressed by is that editors, not just Wehwalt, put hundreds of hours into one article, went through the GA and FA processes and even the TFA process. In some cases, went to different areas to get the sources needed for that article. There are somethings you can't find online, you have to go to a library in a specific town. They did all this. Not because of a "reward", but because they were writing an encyclopedia, to better this project. Something you don't seem to understand.

I would love to see every article on Wikipedia in GA or FA status. It would mean that people were editing the articles, creating new ones, making them better, making the old ones better, and doing away with the drama that slows this project to a halt.

If you are unimpressed by writers who write good and featured articles, then you do need to move on as you have lost sight of what this project is for. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I am not impressed by tedious, cookie-cutter articles that can be churned out with a minimum amount of work or that require little upkeep. YMMV. Shall we move on now to other points? This would be a good time for you to stop suggesting I move on, because that is something I will do when I'm ready, and it is more likely to be related to student editing than the deterioration in the FA process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Because your answer isn't an answer. You don't explain why you dislike hundreds of hours of work, many different users collabratively editing to create something better.

I seriously hope you never help students edit. The project will never been the same with a bunch of SandyGeorgia Jr.'s walking around. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I gotta start dinner, so I won't be able to continue with this thrilling conversation. After that, I gotta work on my GA again and the sandbox article. Might be a couple more days before I get back to the "The SandyGeorgia Personal Vendetta Drama Show". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

"Neutral"homer

Just so we can be clear, there's not much "Neutral" in the homer in this discussion. You've overlooked or defended (above) some rather egregious behaviors among your Wikiassociates, so I will point out that:

• You are the editor who most frequently posts to Wehwalt's talk: [4]
• The User talk page where you most frequently post is Wehwalt's; in fact, his talk page is the third most frequently edited page for you anywhere on Wikipedia: [5]
• You were among the small group who congregated around the WP:QAI crowd: [6]

In other words, you are here defending your associates. That is fine. But when I do that (if I do that, as I rarely do), I declare my previous involvement and relationship. Your Mileage May Vary. Just so we can be clear as we move forward to the more substantive issues. Whenever you're ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Remember, short attention span...and these weren't bite-sized anything. Also, I have been working on a GA for the past 3 days and not really had time for "The SandyGeorgia Personal Vendetta Drama Show".

I'm the most frequent poster on Wehwalt's talk page because him and I worked on an FA a few years back. When you work for almost two years on an article, you tend to talk alot. He is also a pretty damn good editor, so I appreciate his opinion on articles I am working on. He has 99 FAs (you have 3 by the way), so I like to ask questions when I am editing, to become a better editor and a better writer. I would rather write/edit than deal with drama. I'm sure you probably forgotten how to edit an article, what with all the drama, so please contact Wehwalt for a refresher course.

No matter how you want to spin it, no matter what you think he did, you pushed PSky out...twice. I worked with PSky (when he was Rlevse) on different articles as well and whenever I needed an admin for something (him and I were online about the same time). I also reviewed the Grace Sherwood article for him, twice.

So, if this is your big evidence that I am defending people I know, that I edit Wehwalt's talk page the most and I defend PSky, you need to get better evidence. As I said, I defend PSky because of you (and he isn't here to do so himself) and Wehwalt and I worked on an FA and I value his opinion.

I'm still working on that GA, so it might be a couple before I get around to answering you...if ever. Remember, we are here to create an encyclopedia and that's what I am working on. If you want drama and personal vendettas, please try Facebook, Twitter or any number of other sites. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Please see the "About Me" section of my userpage for an explanation of my username. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Neutralhomer That's quite a lot of information for someone with a short attention span and wanting bite-sized bits. OK, we're clear that you're not "neutral" as concerns Wehwalt or PumpkinSky, and we'll get around to your allegations about PumpkinSky soon enough. Not wanting to move in larger bits than you are able/willing to process, you let me know when you've had a chance to review and respond to the other sections above this one, so we can move on to more substantive matters. Regarding your statement: "He has 99 FAs (you have 3 by the way)"; there's your WBFANitis acting up again. I have one FA, not three. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You gave me 3 large sections, I gave you 5 short paragraphs. According to WP:WBFAN, you have 3 FAs. You want to think you have 1, whatever, you have 3. When you lose the snark, I will get to that above section. Still working on a GA, working on a sandbox article, but first, I gotta run to the store and grab some groceries. Ya know, real world stuff. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

We still have plenty of territory to cover in sorting out your misunderstandings; I'm patient, and ready whenever you are. On your belief that I have three FAs, that demonstrates the problem with WBFANitis that so many experienced FA writers have long understood, and the reason many reject that page (ping Yomangani). In fact, it's even incorrect to say I have one FA, because without collaboration (eg, Colin, Tony1, Fvasconcellos, Dwaipayanc and too many others to name), it wouldn't be an FA. Anyone can stick their name on a nomination and get credit at WBFAN, and that was done in two cases with my name even though I didn't want it. If my name were stuck on every FA that was promoted based on my efforts, I'd have what, thousands? Same goes for those 99 you mention, which wouldn't be FAs if numerous editors weren't reviewing, and folks like moi weren't spending up to ten hours daily reading and processing through about 4,000 FACs and FARs over the course of my involvement in the FA process (we will eventually discuss why the FA process is no longer turning out quality, but that will make a whole 'nother non-bite-size discussion). Summarizing, no one has x number of FAs, but some folks do like to pound other editors over the head with what they perceive to be "their" accomplishments, while ignoring the multitude of editors who make it happen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It's good to hear that, at one time, you edited collabratively with other editors. But, you took the article to WP:FAC, making it your FA. If you and all those people took that article to FAC, then it would be a joint FA. But you didn't, so you could say you had your own "WBFANitis" (as you like to call it) and wanted the credit for yourself.

On my one FA, I gave credit were it was due. Wehwalt and a couple other edits got recognition for their efforts in helping me with that article. It might even be one of Wehwalt's FAs.

You seem, though, to be caught up in this whole "FAs are bad" thing. I would like to know why? Why do you see FAs as a bad thing? You seem to not like editors who create, what you see as, "cookie-cutter" FAs and any editor who creates them other than the still unseen "older, experienced, seasoned FA writers". Why do you dislike the improvement of articles? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

That's bloody ridiculous. When Samuel Johnson was taken to FAC Ottava Rima and me had a Hell of a job trying to get SandyG to agree to be one of the nominators. Yet without her it wouldn't have got through. Eric Corbett 21:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

You probably had a helluva job getting her to agree to be one of the nominators because she doesn't like FAs? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Which parallel universe are you broadcasting from? Eric Corbett 21:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I am just quoting Sandy's own words...but I do keep a second home on Pluto. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't see any evidence you are quoting my own words, understanding my words, or even reading my words; what I can see is that this "bite-sized bits" business is going to take quite some time if you won't pay attention even when the discussion is fed to you in small pieces. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

"Sorry, I'm not at all impressed by WP:WBFAN, and neither are most of the older, experienced, seasoned FA writers, who long expressed dismay that WBFAN was just another part of the reward culture." It's at the end of #3 in the section above this one.

Two reasons I can't pay attention to the conversation is, first, I have a real life (you might want to look that one up) and I have to make dinner, go to the store, feed the cat (that last one is mandatory since he has teeth), and other essential activities. I don't have time to play Wikipedia with you non-stop for your enjoyment.

Second, you just bore me and this conversation bores me. If you were able to make coherent sense, and recognize that you contradicted yourself in one sentence, then I might not be as bored. But your above sentence, plus a large amount of snark, shows you either don't see and understand or wish to acknowledge that contradiction. So, why bother with the conversation. I gave you several questions to answer, you didn't. I took the time to address yours, why not mine? That's another question, in case you are confused.

So, if you are not willing to participate in the conversation, acknowledge your own contradictions and try and make this conversation about me, when it is about your own powertrip, then why should I devote time and energy to it? I shouldn't and I won't.

If, at any time in the future, you are willing to participate in the conversation without the snark, please let me know. Until then....Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Presumably, Homer, you came to my talk page not to harass me, but to have a dialogue. If you in fact are not interested in having a dialogue, then I should dispense with the time-consuming "bite-sized bits" (which I engaged at your request), and put out one long answer to everything. But if you have no intentions of reading, engaging, or understanding that, why should I? Are you here to dialogue or harass? Your choice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

This still going on? OK, yeah, I came to start a dialogue about you, you have tried to make this about me. I'm not interested in having a conversation about me (I'm Autistic, not Narcissistic). I came to have a conversation about your powertrip that makes you go after anyone who does something you don't like. All of this people are good editors, but you try to push them out. I came to have a dialogue about that, but you wanted to talk about something else, be condescending, and throw the "bite-sized bits" thing back at me whenever you had the chance. That's not a conversation or a dialogue, it's you trying to start an arguement.

If you want to drop the snark, the condescending attitude, and trying to turn the tables and make the conversation about me, I am more than willing to have this dialogue. Until then, I won't participate in your arguement. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You didn't come here to "start a dialogue". You came here to disparage Sandy and demand that she leave Wikipedia at once ("Time To Go"). You can't possibly be surprised that a constructive dialogue failed to ensue. I don't think anyone's mind is going to be changed here, and I'd encourage both of you to let it go, but that's up to you. MastCell ^Talk 17:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

"Start a dialogue" were her words, not mine. I was just quoting. I find that if you want to get people's attention, you don't send them a nice invitation to coordially invite them to a conversation, you throw a rock through their window with a note attached. What better way to get Sandy's attention then to ask her to retire? I either get a conversation or she retires. I didn't expect the latter, I got the former. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

That is a truly odd approach to human interaction, but I hope it works for you. MastCell ^Talk 17:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, in most cases it works just fine. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

That you think that sort of approach a) works, or b) is condoned or effective on either Wikipedia or in real life is very sad. Now, whenever you really want to dialogue, I'm willing. There is a lot wrong with everything you're posted on my page, which I'm ready to explain (either in bite-size bits or all at once) whenever you're ready to engage in good faith dialogue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Post by NH

It's been just over 3 days since you posted your reply in the section above. I have been working on a GA and playing in the snow, so I haven't had time to respond. You have been working on Causes of autism, I hope you added vaccinations in there or at least mentioned it as there are those out there who still believe that vaccinations or the ingredients in them cause Autism. I would also capitalize "Autism" in the title of the article.

My "Time To Go" was meant to get your attention and it did, which I am glad. But the ensuing conversation (more like train wreck) didn't solve anything. You didn't touch on anything I brought up and tried to make the conversation about me. That's not going to solve any of the problems I have. I can't make you sit down and discuss these things, and it is silly for me to keep coming back and vainly hoping that you might address something I brought up without condescending attitude or snark, without taunting me with my lack of attention span and without trying to turn the conversation on me.

Side note: If you are going to write on Autism and Aspergers, you should know that we don't have large attention spans, except on subject we find interesting. Otherwise, it is TL;DR.

So, since it is clear this isn't going to go anywhere with snark and 'tude, I leave you with some information on the Causes of autism article. There is, in fact, a gastrointestinal connection with Autism. References: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. There a couple news sites (local and national), the National Institutes of Health, a few magazines and a science site in there. Please research the subject, don't just slice and dice and expect someone else to do the cleanup. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, you might have wanted to Google "Aphasia" and "Zolpidem" (or "Ambien") before removing it from the Aphasia article. Turns out the New England Journal of Medicine and the National Center for Biotechnology Information at the National Institutes of Health agree that Ambien is useful for treating Aphasia in stroke victims. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Did I just see someone lecture Sandy on how to research and edit an autism article on WP, and cite a mouse study reported in the HuffingtonPost as a source for a "fact" on the causes of autism. :-) -- Colin°^Talk 09:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

And more :) :) There's not one cite in his list that complies with medical sourcing guidelines, and he replays the one case report on Ambien in agraphia that I mentioned, and then mischaracterizes it. Since Homer alternately reminds me that he only processes information in bite-sized bits, and then fills up my talk page with huge chunks of misunderstanding if not misinformation, it's kind of hard to figure out how to respond to him. (But he does want to use uppercase on Causes of Autism, against WP:MSH. I'm wondering if I should be concerned that he's stalking my edits?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

@Colin: I gave many sources, I don't consider the HuffingtonPost to be a reliable one, but I threw it in there anyway. I believe the others make up for it. :)

@Sandy: So the the New England Journal of Medicine and the National Center for Biotechnology Information at the National Institutes of Health don't "compl[y] with medical sourcing guidelines"? Really? I take it a CBS affiliate, a local newspaper (repeating an Associated Press article), and the UPI (United Press International) don't comply either. Oh, you shouldn't be concerned, since I'm just replying to your posts. You also should know a little about Autism before writing about it. I do know a little about it, since I was diagnosed with Aspergers, a high-functioning form of Autism in 2003, though I have had it since birth. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Has this conversation reached the point where I can say "Obvious troll"? Or do I have to apply Hanlon's razor a little bit longer? Step away from the keyboard, Sandy. Pour nice glass of wine. Enjoy responsibly. -- Colin°^Talk 18:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Let me just chime in to correct an apparent misunderstanding about how the National Center for Biotechnology Information works. The NCBI operates PubMed and MEDLINE, which are indexing services for the medical literature. The text of scientific papers is often hosted on the NCBI website, particularly when the full text is freely available through PubMed Central. But the content of those papers should not be attributed to the NCBI. That would be like finding a paper via a search engine, and then attributing its content to Google.

Otherwise, I second Colin's wise advice. MastCell ^Talk 19:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

@MastCell: Thank you, that makes sense to me. I thought the National Center for Biotechnology Information was just a medical division of NIH. I wasn't aware that they were NIH's publishing house, for lack of a better term. I readily admit, "bio-" anything is not even close to my skill set, so I, foolishly, clump it together with everything "medical". That is my goof and I apologize for that confusion.

@Colin: I'm not a troll (see here for stats), I am just voicing concerns on an article that I feel is being sliced and diced by someone who isn't that well read on the subject of Autism as I feel necessary. I feel, like many do, if you are going to write about something, you should know a great deal about it, else what you are writing looks like a jumbled mess. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, I don't really know who you are, but may I politely suggest that you disengage, stop posting here, and find something else to do? It's clear that you're not accomplishing whatever it is you were trying to accomplish, and I'm of the mind that nothing good is going to come of your continuing to post here. The appropriate place to discuss article improvement is on the article talk page. --Laser brain (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I tried to do that above, but I accused of stalking and being a troll. Kinda had to respond to that. I'll try again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Rather exciting I think

I don't know if you'll be able to see this BBC report about the idea that real-life events can alter DNA. I haven't looked at the research, but I've never been convinced that conventional Darwinism is the complete explanation. Lamarckism isn't either of course, but it's maybe not the "blacksmiths don't inherit their fathers' muscles" nonsense it's invariably painted as. Eric Corbett 01:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Works for me ... nice of you to pop over here sometimes. Lately I'm averse to some of the crowd that hangs out on your talk :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not fond of Amanda either. Eric Corbett 01:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The Emory memory research might be worth mentioning at the Wikipedia article on transgenerational epigenetics. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Not unless it's covered by a secondary review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's another more detailed article on the same Emory study. I suppose lots of review articles will cover it eventually. Yet to be seen whether offspring of Wikipedians refrain from disagreeing more than three times per day.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Nice job on autism causes page

Common sense award

I think what is on the causes of autism page is well done. I also like your common sense approach. I am not really sure how to send you a message on content but thought I would try this. I see the vitamin D deficiency hypothesis which should be there because it is in the literature, but the hypothesis does not make any sense because oral supplementation of vitmain D among the very young has increased dramatically over the last 20 years and autism increases with it. An alternative cause of the epidemic is the opposite: too much vitamin D supplementation and fortification among the very young, which makes a lot of sense considering the calcium channel nature of many autism syndromes, the biochemistry of those with autism, and the epidemic. I have a book about it on amazon and some academics have told me the ideas in it are provacative. Does something need significant media exposure before it can appear in wikipedia? As you seem to know a lot about autism causes would you have any interest in reviewing it? I could send you a .pdf copy. Sbittker (talk) 03:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Sbittker. I appreciate your kind words, but causes of autism-- in fact, most of our autism articles-- was mostly written by now-departed User:Eubulides. To include a new theory in the autism articles, it would need to be covered by a recent, high-quality journal-published secondary review, which would be independent from the originator of the theory. It would need to be part of an important review for us to know what weight it is given; it would need to be a high-quality journal because autism is a featured article, and it would need to be an independent secondary review per our medical sourcing guidelines. In otherwords, there is no need for me to review your book; your work and theory would need to be covered by an independent high-quality journal review of the causes of autism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Nothing has changed

DYK admins still don't do the most basic checking. Tony (talk) 05:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Still? Why is it that it's always the same few over there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Shoot the manufacturer. You don't put a few badly made products on the shelf and expect the shopkeeper to find them all. It's happening so much these days because the product life cycle is so much shortened. Cars, for example. In the old days, there would be extensive product testing, but now the customer is in the front line, and product recalls and PR are the first line of manufacturers' defence. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 05:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

FAC

Hi, as someone who reviewed the previous nomination can you comment on this. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 03:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Vensatry. I appreciate you asking, but it's unlikely I will be able to find time soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Alright, do comment when you find some time :) —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Cannibis ref link

Hey, I don't know if you've seen or used this in one of the cannibis artictles, but this is the most ginormous pubchem page I've ever seen. Even if you'd prefer not to cite tertiary sources, it'll probably help with determining due-weight to different topics, given that the page contains a ton of primary/secondary citations. Pubchem isn't that useful for identifying the beneficial effects of a drug though. Regards, Seppi333 (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Seppi333, oh my ... I don't know whether to thank you or curse you :) :) It's very slow going on that suite of articles, and I suspect it will be months before we get to the point of looking at something like that page. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Student editing

Hi, you've experience in this area so I'd just like to know, other than edit quality, what's the most pertinent info to check out in regard to student editors? Are their courses somehow enrolled or engaged with the WP structure and how does one find that out? Thanks in advance. FiachraByrne (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Goodness, there is so much wrong that it's hard to know where to start. If you have the time, I suggest reading as much as you can handle of the page and the archives at WP:ENB, the entire page and last archive at WP:ENI, and all of WT:ASSIGN. Then factor that nothing has improved (in fact, it's gotten worse) for at least two years. They are sometimes enrolled, sometimes not; finding the courses is difficult because there is a wacky new education interface; and even when you identify problematic student editing, there is no structure in place on Wikipedia to be able to deal with it. In several cases, the same problematic courses keep hitting Wikipedia term after term; the problems in the medical realm are alarming; and more and more unregistered courses are appearing. (In defense of unregistered courses, we had one article hit this year by two courses at once, and the unregistered course members actually improved the article, although the disproportionate effort put into Agraphia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Dolfrog, Anthonyhcole and myself makes me wonder if it was worth it, and the effort required by three of us to keep one article on track shows that we can't do the same for the hundreds of articles edited by ill-prepared students. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy for the quick response; that's a very useful orientation. Given that this doesn't involve medical content as such and the original article wasn't in great shape to begin with, it's probably not as serious a problem in this instance. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Cannabis

If you need sources just let me know ...as we have 127 books digitized on the subject. -- Moxy (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Moxy, but right now there are plenty of sources, and few hands to the task. I seem to be doing most of the menial work alone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Motion: Argentine History (MarshalN20)

You have made a statement in the clarification request relating to Argentine History. This message is to let you know that a motion amending the original decision has now been proposed. You are welcome to add comments on this motion underneath your original statement. Thanks, AGK [•] 11:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Exacerbations

Hello, Could you tell me why you reverted my change to add the definition to Exacerbation on the M.S. page? I am new here - and am trying to do the right thing - any insight you can offer would be helpful.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aceofphrase (talk • contribs) 17:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Aceofphrase and welcome to Wikipedia. You should sign your entries on talk pages by adding four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after them.

You added to Multiple sclerosis a link to an external website for the definition of a basic term.[7] There are several problems with that addition:

1. We don't link to external websites within text (we do link to external websites, for example, in the "External links" section, see WP:EL, or in citations).
2. When we do link to internal definitions (in this case irritation is the link you were looking for), we link on first occurrence within the article (see WP:MOSLINK).
3. It is not good practice to link to common terms that don't aid reader understanding of articles (see WP:OVERLINK). In this case, since you seemed to think that the word exacerbation needed to be defined, I linked the first occurrence to irritation.[8] I consider that overlinking of a common terms, but others may disagree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia Thanks for the information. I am a person who struggle with MS. And many people do not understand the word Exacerbation (IMHO) which is why I linked it. I looked for the definition in Wikipedia, but did not find it. I did not think of using "irritation". Thank you for taking the time to respond and help me out. Aceofphrase (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Aceofphrase If you type the word exacerbation into the search engine on Wikipedia at the left-hand side of the screen, you'll see that you are taken to the article on irritation. If you plan to work on the MS article, you should know that it is a featured article on Wikipedia, and must follow not only our standards for featured articles, but also our medical sourcing guidelines. Please be sure to have a look at WP:OWN#Featured articles. Happy editing, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Captodative effect

Hi, if your expertise extends to chemistry, I'd appreciate your looking over this DYK nomination. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, but I'm weak on chemistry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Usernames

You thought that was tough? There is at least one person who has recently been allowed to change their name to what appears to be either Arabic or Urdu script. Now, I understand that this might happen across projects - you start somewhere else and then come here -but it is pretty rare to see someone on en-WP going out of their way to change away from Western scripts and indeed pretty rare to see someone using such character sets even when they regularly edit at, say, ml-WP, ta-WP or hi-WP. It's a copy/paste job every time I want to refer to them because I've got enough problems typing with a standard UK keyboard without switching to the Urdu or whatever version. Obviously, this is all my fault ... - Sitush (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Bad user names have always been crazy making, but now with the new notification system, where one has to type and re-type awful names, it's even more irritating. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Why is this secondary source dismissed by you?

I refer to this[9] revert, where you revert this review:

• Meier, Ellen; Tackett, Alayna P.; Wagener, Theodore L. (2013). "Effectiveness of Electronic Aids for Smoking Cessation" (PDF). Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports. 7 (6): 464–472. doi:10.1007/s12170-013-0343-8. PMID 24319519.

Which was discussed on the talk page([[10]]) before inclusion for that particular problematic sentence. May i assume that you blindly reverted based on your opinion of CFCF and the edit text of The Magnificent Clean-keeper? Because otherwise it doesn't make much sense. --Kim D. Petersen 19:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Addition: i've addressed this (before this) with CFCF[11] and now also on the talk-page[12] - Considering that this is what got the article protected earlier - i expected editors to be more tentative in their edits to the page, which appparently (and dissapointingly) isn't the case). --Kim D. Petersen 20:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it isn't; people are plowing in the same text without discussion. I'm just returning from lunch and have found three messages from you ... I will catch up on my watchlist and then explain on the talk page there ... my concern is different than those expressed so far. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing this calmly, i was rather peeved at the restart of edit-warring on the article, despite the hiatus and the discussions that have taken place since that time. My comment here was more a sign of frustration and a hope of establishing some control/calm before it spiralled down into blocks or another lock-down. Hope you understand :) --Kim D. Petersen 22:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

And thank you for asking calmly ... I was heading out the door for lunch, and have been playing catch up for days, trying to do too much at once, and should have explained before you had to ask! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Hypothyroidism help

Hi Sandy, I'm wrapping up the baseline edits of the hypothyroidism article addressing all of the citation needed templates, updating sources for verification purposes, and getting rid of the more questionable sources when possible. Once I wrap that up, I'd like to ask for your help in getting the article to at least GA status or featured perhaps. I would really appreciate your help given your expertise in that domain and I'd like to see what goes into the process of raising a B-classish article to GA+ level. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'm on board ... but my time is always difficult until the holidays are past. Glad you're doing this! I will check in when I can (surely not til after Thanksgiving weekend has passed). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Made a few more changes to the hypothyroidism article. I know there are still a few old sources included in there that should be replaced if possible, but please let me know what else needs tweaking/improvement to get it up to GA/FA status. I think it's really on its way though now that all of the citation needed templates have been verified/answered. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I will have a look, Tyler-- it may take me some time to get through it. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

No rush, I prefer quality over speed. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

TylerDurden8823 it's always hard to get people's attention over the holidays. Hang in there, very nice work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Help with sourcing

Hi there Sandy,

I ended up working on the Medical cannabis page at the same time you did, and tried to help with some of the requests for better sourcing. I need some help understanding what is needed, if you wouldn't mind? For instance, is this an OK source? I hear that we can't use primary sources, but that we need reviews of literature, like this, is this correct? These were removed tonight from the article immediately after I added them. Can you help me to understand how I can help (I don't want to waste an hour trying to help and have my work erased by someone, if this makes sense). Thank you very much, petrarchan47tc 04:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Petra ... the PDF you listed above is not for a review-- it's a study, a primary source. PMID 23684393 We need secondary reviews of primary studies. You may be confused by thinking that because something is journal-published, it's a secondary review (not the case). Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches may help you better interpret WP:MEDRS. The other link you gave above is to an editorial-- rarely (but occasionally) useful for anything on Wikipedia. Once you learn your way around in PubMed, you can click on the links at the lower left to see which articles are review articles, or you can confine your searches there to review articles by checking the box at the upper left. Let me know if you still have questions-- almost all of the health content in our cannabis articles is sourced to primary sources, when there are plenty of secondary reviews available on almost every topic. For example, I wrote the TS content; click around in the "Publication types" on the PMIDs and you'll see they are reviews. PMID 15721825, PMID 10686169, and a Cochrane review (which I'm not yet sure how to cite, have asked another editor). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps with this help I will finally understand this, but I wonder if you will be working as well to find these secondary sources for all the cn tags, or is the work that you and Alexbrn do primarily to tag things for others ( no sarcasm here - just looking at a a lot of work and hoping for help )? petrarchan47tc 04:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, a reread of your note tells me you are working towards getting proper sourcing, sorry I missed that. petrarchan47tc 04:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't always supply the best sources because I don't have access to a journal database. I have HighBeam and Jstor through Wikipedia-- which are useless for medical content-- and I got a Cochrane account through Wikipedia, but for most other journals, I'm out of luck. What that means is that I can remove primary sources, but I can't always add back content to secondary reviews. I will try, though. Do you have access to journals? One thing that helps when searching PubMed is to also click on the "free text available" tab; sometimes I can find full access that way (and then we add that via the PMC parameter in the cite journal template).

The other problems that are created when writing entire articles around primary sources are WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH, WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOT (news) ... for health content, we need to wait to see what secondary reviews say about primary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Another editor does have access and has offered to help when needed, though they are rarely available. Does Alexbrn not have access? This seems like a pretty big project, it would be great to have more help, and obviously we need access to the MEDRS. This is truly frustrating. IMO, Wikipedia shouldn't be demanding of its editors to find pay walled or otherwise restricted sources, or sources that the average reader can't understand (written by researchers for researchers). At some point "too technical" should apply, it seems. petrarchan47tc 05:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't really know Alexbrn, had never encountered or worked with him before, so don't know if he has journal access. (When I merged content to Medical cannabis from the now deleted Cannabidiol effect on epilepsy, I saw that the article needed work, just got to it today, and posted to WT:MED for help.) But it's generally not a problem to track down the free full text of an article once you've located one via PubMed, and there are plenty of free full-text reviews in PubMed. I can help with the Cochrane Reviews. First, get familiar with PubMed, and you'll see how many are freely available. If you come across something you think helpful, but not available, you can inquire at WT:MED if you don't have a university library nearby. I used to live near a good library-- no longer do. That stinks, but I do like my new home :) SandyGeorgia (Talk)

This sounds good. It sounds like a do-able project and there is no great urgency(?). Thank you kindly for breaking this down for me, much appreciated, and I much appreciate your efforts around here, wow! I'm not a fan of paid editing, but I actually think you deserve a paycheck for all this work ;) petrarchan47tc 05:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Your advice was great. I'd like you to look over this edit, if you would, to see if I'm using refs correctly. I'm wondering also why I am, after one day of experience with PUBMED, able to find such a different view of the matter than the expert from the MEDRS noticeboard, who as you can see, came up with a very different story. I am also concerned that the help brought in to these articles may not be entirely NPOV. Would you be willing to review edits from Alexbrn to see if guidelines are being followed properly? I would like to understand, if they are, how we could come up with such divergent research. There is a history between us, and this isn't the place, but my assumptions of good faith are standing on thin ice. To go over, and fix, even one edit - like the MS entry - has taken me 45 minutes. If there is tendentious editing going on, whether it's revenge editing or POV against the article subject, I want it stopped now. It's better to tag these articles for needed refs, than to have someone completely change the articles having done crappy or no research whatsoever, leaving misinformation and a non-neutral article. Make sense? petrarchan47tc 04:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Petrarchan47 - I'm not quite sure what this "history" is you mention. So far as I remember we only encountered each other on a Monsanto article some time ago, where disagreement was the norm rather than the exception! Anyway, with these cannabis articles there is a serious problem which needs fixing so getting distracted with ridiculous talk of "revenge editing" is not the way to go. For the MS material, your sources look good. It is best to cite things with PUBMED ids by using <ref>{{cite journal|pmid=xxxxxxx}}<ref> where 'xxxxxxxx' is the pubmed ID number; a bot can then expand the citations automatically. My search didn't find these newer reviews (I guess we are using different search terms and different search engines), but the fact we have gone from the original poor content and sourcing to a 2010 review (my edit) to 2012 reviews (your edit) is not a problem, it's progress - and certainly a good direction to be heading in. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

(Add) Though, looking at your new sources again I'm now not so sure about their quality, at least for a couple of them. Anyway, personally I can postpone investigating further and/or fine-tuning the content on MS. So long as we're on planet sensible here, there are much bigger issues in the wider article(s) to deal with ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Petra, as requested, I've looked at the MS section in medical cannabis.

1. When you cite a source, please use the Diberri Boghog template filler to provide a complete citation from a PMID. It's not really fair to expect other editors to do the cleanup, which takes time away from writing.
2. Please have a look at WP:MEDMOS (for example, we don't refer to people as "patients").
3. I copyedited your section, which didn't change the meaning, except for the final study, which was ever so slightly misrepresented.[13] PMID 23011861 (It happens that I speak Spanish, and because that journal usually has free full text, I have registered online with them.) That source clearly discusses side effects. Which brings me to the next point ...
4. I hope you aren't using abstracts only for citing text? Abstracts quite frequently are inadequate ... if citing a source, you should have access to the full source, not just the abstract, so you can present a fuller picture.
5. On that text, as to your specific question about differing sources, it's a good thing when we are talking about differences at the level of secondary review, because then we're editing and engaging Wikipedia at the level of sourcing we should be engaging at. I noticed one of your sources is a review from Muller-Vahl. Considering they are among the folks promoting cannabis in Europe, one would expect their reviews to contain different conclusions than others. For example, they are behind the cannabis for Tourette syndrome research, and yet better Cochrane reviews clearly evidence and highlight all of the problems in the Muller-Vahl work (see PMID 19821373). I hope that answers that question-- I consider them a non-uninterested party in the question, and have doubts about their work. So, you can present Muller-Vahl reviews, PMID 23008748, but don't be surprised that other indeed better and more thorough reviews disagree with them. (Incidentally, I've not yet found time to expand the TS section of the medical cannabis article to account for the problems the Cochrane review found in the Muller-Vahl work, but I will when I have time.)

Which brings us to your AGF-ometer questions:

1. I am happy to entertain on my talk page your questions about how to better edit; I am not happy to host an interpersonal dispute that contains assertions of less than good faith. I've explained above why reviews may differ. It is up to the person wanting to add text to make sure it is appropriately cited; it is not up to other editors to write the article you want to write. I have never edited before with Alexbrn; I've seen no evidence here of either bad faith or bad editing.
2. Yes, it takes a long time to fix bad edits, and it's taken *ME* a long time to clean up the bad edits on just one cannabis article, and we have an entire suite of them, apparently edited mostly by *you*, so I suggest not pointing fingers or complaining about time spent cleaning up edits. On first brush, I see that you have created a suite of poorly sourced highly POV articles, and yes ... it is going to take a lot of time to clean them up. Settle in; collaborate; or it's going to be a long ride, and as of now, the editor on the wrong side of guideline and policy is not Alexbrn.
3. I've not yet seen any indication that Alexbrn doesn't understand guideline or policy, while I've seen plenty that indicates you didn't (I hope now you have a closer understanding of how we source and write medical content) and that we'll all have to work a long time to clean up the resulting POV mess. Researchers-- even reviews-- disagree. The way forward is to use the most recent, highest quality sources you can find, understand that everyone here is a volunteer and we're all doing our best, and to keep your discussions focused on sources and edits, not the person. If I see a problem with Alexbrn's edits, I'll call him on it just as I will call you ... but it will take some amount of seeing the same thing over and over before I will assume bad faith from him ... or from you. Some of your sources are not the highest quality and even if reviews, are less thorough. I know that for fact by comparing the Cochrane review of Muller-Vahl's work in TS with their own statements. Expect to have differences even when reviews are used; keep your discussion of the sources focused on the text, not the editor. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Whoa. I did not create any suite of articles. My involvement at the Cannabis (drug) article began when I discovered it was claiming that cannabis had killed people, when in fact one of the most oft-cited factoids about cannabis is that it never has. So I began that day to reverse misinformation on that article, which led to a pretty healthy discussion on the talk page where multiple editors took part in crafting a section on "safety" that actually reflects RS, which says that no one has died from cannabis use.

If your claims that "I" am responsible for the sad state of all the articles in question, I have to assume you are basing this on edit counts alone. I would ask you to rethink this evaluation, and if you feel it's wise to find someone to blame, do a more thorough investigation and look at the edits themselves. My initial reason for editing the (non-medical) cannabis article, which was an observation that someone had been twisting facts and literally putting a lie in Wiki's voice, led me to the related articles on effects, which had been hit by the same type editing. Realize the POV goes both ways.

I asked you in good faith to help me, as I want to be a good editor and am not here to cause harm to the Pedia. You gave me friendly advise which I very much appreciate, and thought I had used your advise appropriately. Now I am getting "you didn't cite it properly" "you didn't word it properly" etc etc. I am not sure how the help has turned into finger pointing and blaming me for things you never told me to do in the first place.

I would like to be a part of this editing process, but perhaps it's only for experts? If that's the case, I do hope you all look at the entirety of studies rather than, as Alex did, pick one single study and end up with a statement (as with MS) that diverges far from what is known in RS. In the case of MS, it is said to be the malady most well documented to benefit from cannabis medicine. Yet the one single study that was chosen by experts from MEDRS noticeboard ended up saying there was just no evidence to back it up whatsoever. I have observed that there exists a preconceived idea from some of the the MEDRS-noticeboard folks that wouldn't qualify as neutral on this subject (not referring to you, Sandy), and I believe the use of a single, cherry-picked study and resulting edit shows that POV, regardless of which side, is equally egregious to an encyclopedia.

If you are no longer willing to help me understand the intricacies of editing health-related issues with patience and kindness, that is fine. Thanks for the little bit you did teach me, though as you point out above, partial understanding may not be much better than having none at all. I am happy to watch from the sidelines as others improve these articles, and if you look at my edit history, you will see I have had no intention of working on them and have a much different focus for my work here at wiki. However, I hope your concern about neutral coverage is aimed at every editor equally.

Lastly, I don't know much, but I am wondering whether there might be a bit of overtagging here? We have a giant tag saying the whole articles need medical references, then we have a paragraph in the Lede which has the same tag 4 times, only a few inches away from the larger one. Seems almost like vandalism to me. petrarchan47tc 21:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I had looked at and was very aware of your contributions to that suite of articles, no my statement was not based on editcount but actual contributions, but considering that you recognized early on in this discussion that only now are you understanding our guideline, I approached the discussion with no intent to blame you for past mistakes. What my last comments address is that you appeared here with assumptions of bad faith towards another editor, and carrying an interpersonal dispute to my talk page. I didn't know either you or Alexbrn before this discussion: all I can judge either of you by is the quality of your edits. And how intact your AGF-ometer is. Based on your past contributions to the articles, I pointed out that you weren't in a position to be coming to my talk page to cast doubt upon someone else's intent or work. In case I haven't been clear enough, having reviewed your contributions to those articles, you are in no position to accuse anyone of cherrypicking of sources, so let's move forward now without unnecessary accusations. Those articles are the biggest mess I've encountered since the old autism mess was cleaned up in 2007 and 8, we have a large chore ahead, and I remain willing to help in good faith, letting past mistakes be bygones. Now that you understand the guidelines, I don't see any reason for acrimony. I hope we can work together without assumptions about people's motives. Better than worrying about whether an article is overtagged (vandalized, you say), perhaps you could get busy helping cite the text, because many medical editors have been working overtime to clean up quite a dramatic mess in there, and there is only so much one or two people can get done in a day. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Tourette's

I'm your culprit I think. I reckoned with a Cochrane, why have more? But I'm not arguing ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's the deal; it's helpful to address why people *believe* cannabis helps with tics (what helpful benefit did the original studies show according to reviews, and what is wrong with those primary sources, according to reviews). The older reviews did that. If we just come along and say, "NO go" based on one review, with no further explanation, we don't help our readers understand why/how the notion that cannabis is helpful took hold. And that is a firmly entrenched notion wrt tics and TS. I will try to find something more recent than the 2005 reviews to augment the Cochrane review. I'm also unimpressed by Cochrane's content in the TS realm, by the way. For now, I've got to find time to get back to Mike Christie on some other articles, so I'll leave the cannabis suite to you for a few days !! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

That all sounds correct, and I've restored the additional sourced. I have to say, looking at the suite of article, it feels like an overwhelming task. Apart from the medical stuff there is a lot of overlap of general material too. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but it's doable. Eubulides did it with a much worse POV walled garden in the autism suite of articles, before we had bite in MEDRS, so it can be done. Autism was way worse. Cheer up !!! The reason I put up a fuss about TS is that it doesn't help to alienate the pro-Cannabis editors, and the review text I had in there previously helped add to balance. When using the reviews available, we should try to point out both sides of the arguments if the review gives us something to work with-- it helps our readers, and it helps lower "battleground", when folks see you have good intentions :) :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't *think* there should be too much of a battle, as it's not as if the evidence (that I've seen so far) seems to be anti- cannabis (except perhaps for some alarm about psychosis-related risks); rather most of the evidence seems equivocal and uncertain whereas the articles here are taking the most positive tack possible, from whatever sources. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Within the walled garden ...

Long-term effects of cannabis#Pregnancy is probably the merge target; but this section is as problematic as the pregnancy article was in itself :-( Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Step-by-step ... it's going to take a long time to clean up this mess. Don't be discouraged ... as you can see from User:Eubulides/sandbox/autism, much worse has been done! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You probably noticed I added a mention of Cannabis (drug) over at WT:MED - yet another big overlapping article ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 22:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

... This article (a former GA) has over 1,000 watchers and averages ~7,500 views/day. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 23:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess you mean ... now it's war. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

It certainly adds some context to that medical disclaimers discussion: this is an article on a major topic with many watchers and over 6,000 distinct authors, yet doesn't seem to have had any MEDRS discipline and has been serving-up large quantities of bogus health information to many people daily. This cannabis stuff makes for an interesting case study of WP and health content, and it ain't pretty. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 23:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Win-win. If it's not possible to clean up the cannabis walled garden, then there's a case showing why we need a medical disclaimer. I can't believe the extent of this mess and that no one even realized or mentioned it before. I only noticed because I went to merge a poor student essay on epilepsy and cannabinoids into medical cannabis ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks 2

For this. If you notice any more similar or related activity in the future, will you please let me know on my talk page? I'm weighing what to do about this (if anything). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

DrFleischman, I missed your post here due to some unconstructive harassment occurring elsewhere on my talk page; sorry for the delay. More of same has continued today; I have attempted multiple times to get that editor to engage on article talk in good faith; my attempts thus far have been unsuccessful. Would you be willing to try? See many recent sections at Talk:Medical cannabis. If you can reach that editor and get them to engage in good faith, an RFC/U can hopefully be avoided. If not, that would be the next step. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It's hopeless. Just like you I have no credibility with this editor. He/she is completely convinced that editors with different perspectives are stealth paid or otherwise COI advocates. It's a good-vs-evil battle. Going back through their edit history this has been a theme for months. I believe no matter what I say will simply reinforce this theory: "It's a double bluff!" etc. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

DrFleischman No, it's not hopeless. Considering my editing history, she/he/they will have a hard time implying or saying I have any connection to any "stealth paid or otherwise COI advocacte", although they've come close enough already. You, I, anyone can continue to encourage this person to AGF and learn correct sourcing and editing according to Wikipedia policy and norms; should they be unwilling or unable to do so, then there are numerous steps in dispute resolution that can be tried. I don't give up easily, so I will continue to try to reach this editor until/unless it becomes truly hopeless; there are new additions on her talk, and at Talk:Medical cannabis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I commend your optimism. I, for one, have better ways to spend my time than to try to convince this editor I'm not a government agent. I tried by laying out all of my "anti-government" contributions for him/her to see but it led to nothing but renewed accusations. Have you seen this? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I try to avoid discussions of paid editing because that is hopeless. We can't do much about paid editing; we can do something about one editor in here. You asked me to keep you posted if there was more from her; there is, and continues to be. If you don't have time to pursue dispute resolution, then why did you ask me to keep you posted? See WP:DR; there are many avenues that can be tried if these editors continues down this path. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I might have miscommunicated slightly. I might be willing to start or contribute to a discussion about this editor's misconduct, particularly if the misconduct continued to interfere with my editing, but the goal would be to stop that misconduct, not to change his or her beliefs about me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see :) Well, when people have deeply held beliefs that aren't grounded in fact, they rarely change, so that is never a goal for me. We shall see if the editing behaviors subside, and AGF takes hold. If they don't, DR is worth a try. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Alice Lazzarini

Hi Sandy, I know you have more on your plate than you can handle. I helped, via OTRS, an individual who was arranging permission for an image. She asked if I could give her a update on when the article about her might be ready. As I'm sure you are aware, AFC is badly backlogged. No magic bullets have occurred to me, but this is an article about someone who has made some progress related to Machado-Joseph Disease Research. My hope is that you, or someone in the Medical Wikiproject might be inclined to take a look at it.

The article is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alice Lazzarini.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Sphilbrick-- great to hear from you! I will do that ... not only because I owe you :) but also because it will be a useful distraction from the less pleasant editing engaging me right now, and because I have an interest in Huntington's since my time in Venezuela, when important discoveries were made there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Sphilbrick there's quite a mess in there-- she meets notability but there are rather grand statements in the article that are uncited, most of what is cited is self-cited, and I suspect copyvio. If you are in contact with her, can you get her to forward the offline sources? If so, I might be able to eek out an article, but it's not going to look like it looks now unless there are some independent citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm cautiously excited. I just wrote to her, and suggested she contact you via the "Email this user" option.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks-- if she sends me some sources, I might be able to fix the article. But something is troubling me. User:Forgottendelights, who has been editing Wikipedia as long as I have, puts up a crap piece of work at AFC, and then I have to spend hours fixing it. It smells like paid editing to me, and bad editing to boot, and if that is the case, I'm being taken advantage of (by someone who forgot his or her delights). In other words, if Lazzarini paid someone to create that article, I hope she gets her money back. If she sends me sources, I'll fix it, but as of now, most of it is either uncited or self-cited. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Recruiting template

I've removed your addition of the {{recruiting}} template on Talk:Medical cannabis. Petra is not recruiting anyone. She was talking about forming a workgroup/project to focus on the article. As for her recent attempts to solicit editorial help, she's now been informed about WP:CANVASS. As of now, there is no organized attempt to recruit anyone to the medical cananbis article except for the documented attempt by Drug Free Australia, but this is under dispute. (see also their document) Viriditas (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

She was most clearly discussing recruiting well after I several times pointed out to her that there is already a WikiProject Cannabis, and that they were pinged. She specifically mentioning several things (diffed on her talk page and on article talk) that were recruiting. If she has now changed her mind, that is probably a good thing. At any rate, I hope she is better advised now to cease canvassing and will also begin to engage the article talk page appropriately, and understand how to use sources.

Considering the discussion above (which I'm seeing now for the first time), it's doubly curious that you would remove the {{recruiting}} tag.

Separately, Viriditas you have multiple times stated on talk that I have moved replies when I have not. Please explain what you mean, so I can understand where we are differing. Can you please show me a diff of what you think is me moving a reply? If you don't have diffs, I would appreciate you dropping the issue, as your repeated claims are derailing article talk page discussions. I once inserted a sub-heading to what I thought was a separate, new discussion, and you removed it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Sandy, I'm tired of repeating myself. She was not recruiting anyone, which is why I removed the tag. You misinterpreted what she said. She was recruiting editors to start a new workgroup/WikiProject (which I don't think is a very good idea, but is certainly plausible). That's why I removed the tag. As for the threads, yes you started a new subsection, but you also added new comments above old ones, breaking the order of replies. I'm not going to talk about this any more because I have a lot to do today. Good day. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like either you agree that I didn't move threads, or hopefully, you will at least stop derailing article talk discussion with that claim. (There was every indication of recruiting, and removing the tag considering even more recruiting mentioned at ANI is strange.) Good day to you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Mentioned among other places, "...I have a biochemist friend who studies cannabinoids, and who has agreed to join us in working on these articles ... " and "I am also calling in some scientists/researchers in the field, and as your team also has a doctor, I don't see how this could be viewed as a problem, or as anything but a great benefit to our readers."

• And on MastCell's talk [14]
• And on Petrarchan47's talk [15]
• And here.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Optimism

FWIW, the reviewer who passed the hook recognized the issue and will presumably be more careful in future. Have you tried using WP:Main_Page/Errors before? The edit summary does implicitly acknowledge that there was a problem. Sunrise (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS is no more effective at DYK reform than DYK reform is. One reviewer becoming aware will not change the pattern; it's been going on for eight years, and with quid pro quo reviewing, and a high rate of turnover, there's hundreds more reviewers where that one came from. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sunrise (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Charcot undo

Hi - I'm a beginner. In the main article, references are made to novels (fiction) depicting Dr. Charcot. Since fiction was included in the article, I thought that a reference to the award nominated film "Augustine" would not be inappropriate. What should I have done differently and why? Respecfully, Muzumea Muzumea (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Muzumea, my apologies-- I missed this message until just now. At Jean-Martin Charcot, you'll see that the other mentions are cited, and to high-quality sources. The idea is to avoid trivia (if anything there is uncited, I will remove it as well, as it is trivia). If you have a quality source establishing the relevance of the film to Charcot, that would be a different story. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

thanks - the film was discussed in the new york times - do you consider that relevant ? Also, i wonder if the larger question is to separate history from fiction. Should references to novels and films be entered into a subcategory? Muzumea (talk) 12:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, in general, history should be separated from fiction, but we have to avoid creating WP:TRIVIA, ala "popular culture" sections. For an example, see Samuel Johnson#Legacy. If you provide me a link to the New York Times article, I can provide an opinion as to whether there is enough content/mention there to rise above trivia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

ok, will do. also i probably should have linked the film name to an existing wikipedia article on alice winocour and the film itself. one of those articles (don't remember which one) cites the new york times article. thanks for your patience with me. i appreciate it. Muzumea (talk) 15:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

here's the reference :

• Scott, A. O. (16 May 2013). "Doctor and Patient: A Gothic Love Story". The New York Times. Retrieved 28 November 2013.

Muzumea (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

You mean this source for Augustine (film). I will look at it. By the way, sources need to be provided in every article (that is, even when linking to another article that is sourced, you should include sources in the current article). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Added: [16] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me get up to speed.Muzumea (talk) 12:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

List of en.Wikipedia medical errors

Did you say you've started a list? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Just parking this here until I know where to put it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I parked it on my user page for now: bonus, it was student editing. The course was Wikipedia:United States Education Program/Courses/Brain and Behavior (Lisa Lu)/Articles. Probably everything they inserted should be checked: [17]

By the way, our best example yet is the intentionally misleading and POV entire suite of articles at {{Cannabis}}. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I was curious so I went fishing, which, after deleting, led me to formication to find this, which I'm guessing was even older given the former's edit summary. IDK if some editors are really this ignorant or they're just trying to mislead people. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit: I only implied this, but tactile hallucinations aren't characteristic of amphetamine psychosis - which is the only case where visual/auditory hallucinations are sometimes reported occur. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Reference

Shoptaw SJ, Kao U, Ling W (2009). "Treatment for amphetamine psychosis". In Shoptaw SJ, Ali R. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. (1): 2–8. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003026.pub3. PMID 19160215. "A minority of individuals who use amphetamines develop full-blown psychosis requiring care at emergency departments or psychiatric hospitals. In such cases, symptoms of amphetamine psychosis commonly include paranoid and persecutory delusions as well as auditory and visual hallucinations in the presence of extreme agitation. More common (about 18%) is for frequent amphetamine users to report psychotic symptoms that are sub-clinical and that do not require high-intensity intervention... About 5-15% of the users who develop an amphetamine psychosis fail to recover completely (Hofmann 1983)... Findings from one trial indicate use of antipsychotic medications effectively resolves symptoms of acute amphetamine psychosis."

Gerweck is still editing: [18] Have you investigated further or does something need to be done? That seems to be separate from the student editing problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked any further. Sorry. The little energy I have I'm devoting to other things than curation, just now. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll look into it - I don't think it's related to any course/student editing issue so much as a long-standing case of misinformation in an article (4+ years). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

If it's of any use to you, User:Adrian J. Hunter#Long-standing errors I've found and fixed (also, a reminder we still have a way to go). Most are biological but not strictly medical. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 02:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Failed verification in BLPs

When you tag statements as {{failed verification}} in BLPs like this, it might make some readers believe that the BLP (or his supporters) is lying about his credentials, when the real problem is simply that the website changed the URL—but not the title of the page or the fact that this material is actually there. It took me no more than a minute each to go to those websites and find the new URL through a very simple search. I request that in the future, you do this yourself before adding tags that might be misunderstood as denigrating the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that in the future you actually review the history of an article before suggesting work that others might do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Why would that matter?

You've just gone and tagged a statement that he's a director at ARC as "failed verification", when two simple clicks, on the most obvious links at the cited page, takes you to "ARC researchers, collaborators and staff – Principal Investigators/ Collaborators in Cambridge – Professor Simon Baron-Cohen, Director"

Don't you think that erroneously tagging things like this makes you look (equally erroneously) kind of stupid? If I were an inexperienced editor, I'd start reverting your erroneous tags, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

you are welcome to cite the entire article while dealing with a POV SPA who adds citations that don't verify text while removing text critical of the subject. Have at it-- don't ask me to work for you when you can't even correctly review an article's history. I am really going to spend my time citing an article that is wholly reverted by an SPA. The entire article is unctied, and likely a copyvio as well-- something your critical review missed, so go for it-- find *all* the citations, and don't come over here and expect me to do it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

My point is that the citations do verify the text, although sometimes the URL leads to the main page rather than to the specific page (i.e., the page that is actually given as the title in the citation). I'm not asking you to clean up the mess. I'm asking you to stop adding erroneous claims that the material isn't in the cited source merely because the URL is incomplete or a WP:DEADREF.

The page's history, and the behavior of the other people there, is really irrelevant. Today, you tagged a statement as having failed verification for no reason other than the website changed their URL scheme and you didn't want to spend a minute looking for the new URL. If the page's history had been perfect, your action would have been sloppy. If the page's history had been even worse, your action still would have been sloppy. I'm perfectly willing to believe that the other guy is screwing up. But two wrongs don't make a right, and sloppy tagging is only going to convince this guy that you are unreasonable and out to smear the subject.

And, yes, if you're too frustrated and/or too busy to assume the tiniest bit of good faith, then let it go. There are four million other articles out there, and you have no obligation to make sure that this one ever gets fixed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't work for you. I would say that when a supposedly experienced editor looks at an article like this and claims it is cited, when it mostly is not, and then can't be bothered to look at the SPA's history on that article, then that supposedly experienced editor is welcome to do the kind of work I usually do to clean things up-- don't ask me to do it for you when you can't be bothered to even review history. It appears that you are more in need of instruction on the problems with the citations then the SPA. And take your holier-than-thou attitude somewhere else; I'm tired of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Med-related DYKs

Marriage and health, Animal models of autism, both in queue. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm sorry for all the damage I have caused at WP:MED, through the citations that are incorrectly formatted, to primary sources, and through the BLPs I have created. Fortunately, the shit article I wrote about Alycia Halladay isn't in article space yet. I hope you will eventually forgive me. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 23:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding medical BLPs, again

Hi SandyGeorgia, and happy Thanksgiving. I am still wondering when you are going to elaborate on which of my medical BLPs need help and in what way, as I had requested on WT:MED. Unfortunately, it has been a sufficiently long time that the thread "Large number of new BLPs need eyes" has been archived, so we'll have to start over. I hope I hear back from you soon. Jinkinson talk to me 01:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I did put further detail there ... and I also noticed that no one else responded and the thread was archived. Troubling. I will restore the thread and get back to it ... again! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

RFC

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/RFC on medical disclaimer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Apologies I was confused about how and where to place my comments... Lesion (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I also have concern about this statement:

" As of mid-December, local discussions showed approximately 60% in favor of a disclaimer on medical content, and approximately 20% against, with the remainder open to a trial or expressing no opinion. "

These discussions are not supposed to be decided according to number of "votes". Also, who calculated this figure? It does not tie with my impression of that discussion in which as I recall most were against. Lesion (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I calculated it ... want me to replay the list to you? At any rate, if it troubles you, it can be removed. Are you concerned there might be support for the disclaimer? Seriously-- you were notified of this RFC days ago-- it would have been nice of you to raise this then. A clean RFC is always a nice thing, and I bent over backwards to make sure everyone had their chance to have a say before it was launched. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

If we are talking about the discussion that was on WTMED, given the amount of concerns raised by the majority of commentators I do feel it is an oversimplified analysis. Lesion (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Lesion, I also had concerns about this and removed it. And for the record, I support SandyGeorgia's removal of the subsequent sentence, as leaving it would IMO give too much weight to the opponents' views in the lead. I have also just provided links to the two disclaimers and a more precise description of their locations. I hope that will seem helpful to everyone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Lesion recognizing that discussion is "not a vote", perhaps you are nonetheless misremembering. In the preliminary discussions, 17 editors were in favor, five were iffy, and six were against. Anyway, the text is removed because it's not that necessary, and I hoped for a clean RFC, unmucked up by last-minute revisions when I had announced the draft a week ago. I guess the 60% rattled some nerves. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like I completely overlooked that summons. I do remember posting a message on James' talk fairly recently. There are more editors who supported the disclaimer in that archived discussion than I remember, although I have not tallied "votes" to confirm these figures in another editor's reading of the discussion. I must have been in and out of the conversation at that point. I still would hesitate before applying a percentage since it should be based on the rationale of the commentators, not the numerical outcome. WP:There is an essay/ guideline on this somewhere. Apologies for messing up the format of the RfC page, I am done commenting there now, back to my current future GA hopes. Kind regards, Lesion (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thank you for all the hard work you do for WP:MED. Keep up the great work! Yobol (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! The work gets tougher and tougher, and when work gets tough, the tough get working :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for all the time and effort you put into improving student edits in my Darwinian Medicine Course this past semester. We all learned a lot about Wikipedia as well as the course theme. Several students commented that this project was very satisfying. You and other wikipedians offered helpful suggestions for future project, too. I will pass them along to colleagues at other universities who are contemplating something similar. Happy Holidays! Sanetti (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedian in residence

Applications are open for a 6-12 month 7-12 hours/week online "residency" at the Cochrane Collaboration.

• Expressions of interest.
• Details and application form

The position: Cochrane is now seeking a talented and engaged Wikipedian in Residence to work with its contributors for an initial term of six months, with a possible extension to one year. The WiR would help Cochrane's authors interact with Wikipedia, understand its policies, add reliable sources to expand and update medical articles, and engage with the broader Cochrane and Wikipedia communities to further the partnership between the two organizations. A great candidate can operate as a liaison and a teacher of how Wikipedia works, in addition to being a competent and active medical-editor themselves.

Might that interest you? You're overqualified as far as being able to advise them about MEDMOS, MEDRS etc., but I'd like someone with your intelligence, drive and vision in the position because I see this as an important opportunity to guide the big-picture relationship between the us and them.

(From the application form) "The WiR will report to, and be guided by, Cochrane’s Head of Communications & External Affairs, and a Senior Editor of The Cochrane Library. They will also interact regularly with other members of Cochrane’s senior management team and representatives of its publishing partner for The Cochrane Library."

(There are preliminary discussions about a residency at NCBI next year too, but if it happens it is likely to be on-campus.)

Talk page stalkers: please also consider this. Some very promising candidates have already added their names to the list, but it would be great to have more. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I see some good names in there-- better them to travel to India than me :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Would you consider it if they dropped the India trip from the requirements? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I hope you're having a merry festive season, Sandy, and that 2014 brings you more joy than you can endure. Thank you so much for taking on the unreliability issue. Please don't hesitate to let me know if there is anything at all that I can do to help. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Seasonal greetings

	Christmas greetings for 2013 and best wishes for 2014. Peace on earth and goodwill to all May you take pleasure in all you do and find success and happiness
	Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Glad Tidings and all that ...

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

I wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2014! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 21:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

	Merry Christmas and best wishes for a happy, healthy and productive 2014!
	Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

[19]...Modernist (talk) 03:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

This befits her. Best wishes for the new year, SG. Kablammo (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy holiday season....

	Cheers, piña coladas all round!
	Damn need a few of these after a frenetic year and Xmas. Hope yours is a good one....Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Best wishes

	Belated happy christmas and a happy new year.
	Wishing you all the best for 2014.

A cup of coffee for you!

To help you keep up the good work on Simon Baron-Cohen. Sjö (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

And a top up

Holy cow, will no admin ever do anything about this ???? Multiple posts to his talk page, no response yet on article talk, continuance of same, and now cherry picking reviews to add only the most favorable. This is as clear COI editing as it gets, and s/he should be banned from the page. I have cleaned this article up at least five times over the years, and now I'm Minsk's janitor again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Late here - due process would be an RfC on the editor's behaviour as the next step. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Cas ... lovely ... so I keep doing massive cleanup, while WAID can't read the talk page. I think it would be better to just stick big tags on the article and leave the work to someone else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, it was late and we've been doing a massive house cleanup. Need to look in more detail and have a think. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry for now, Cas ... the Minsk account has finally responded on talk, after half a dozen attempts and after I laid out some interesting evidence (there is much much more where that came from, but no need to rub it in). The years-long POV/COI editing may stop now-- if not, something will need to be done. I am, for now, making a detour to resolve some secondary, interesting but not surprising developments at that talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)