User talk:SandyGeorgia: Difference between revisions

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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:

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.
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.
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Morality

I'm just perusing the talk page archives of Natalee Holloway and I came across this little gem from Talk:Natalee Holloway/Archive 4#Disappearance of Natalee Holloway: "I never remember an agreement, just your threats to oppose it based on your personal morality (aka nothing to do with Wikipedia). - User:AuburnPilot" I'm going to start collecting quotes like that. I was trying to explain the ethos here to someone yesterday. I told him it's not generally thought necessary to put a disclaimer about the unreliability of our medical content at the top of medical articles, which staggered him. Then I told him it's a generally accepted norm here that we don't care about the feelings of our subjects or readers - or each other for that matter. He thought it was sad. I'm not as angry as I used to be about it, I'm starting to find it interesting.

While I'm here: Thank you so much for all the effort you put in on this project. I am really pleased to see you so engaged these days. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of a disclaimer on our medical articles. With the addition to the normal POV-pushing and agenda-pushing by various researchers and corporations of the mess caused by student editing, there is no possibility we can ever keep up, and we should have a gigantic disclaimer on every article. After all, Wehwalt can install his own version of a threatening ownership on an FA; why can't we install a template on all medical content that warns everyone who hits Wikipedia first via Google that they are reading something written by RandyfromBoise? It wouldn't bother me at all; we can't keep up, we shouldn't pretend we can.

If you think that quote shows the dominant "morality" present on the Holloway article, I can only say that you ain't seen nothing yet. That's a long and deep and sordid story. What brings you to Holloway? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny! I just came here to mock them for this template:{{maintained|Wehwalt, AuburnPilot, Kww}}

Sorry I don't know how to point to it without putting it on your page. I saw Holloway mentioned on a talk page somewhere. I can't remember where. So, tell me a sordid story. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthonyhcole it usually becomes evident to anyone who follows there for any length of time, and I think it more effective to let people discover the depth and breadth of the issues on their own. It is enough to make one wonder about the ethics associated with some professions, but then in the medical realm, we have Otto Placik and his plastic surgery edits, so "first do no harm" is no exemption when it comes to Wikipedia! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've pretty much got the idea. Grrr. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I should commend your diligence ... or point out that it's not exactly rocket science :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you boot up the internet we should just show a disclaimer reading: "Pile of shit ahead." --Laser brain (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wikipedia:General disclaimer states that "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY", which is semantically equivalent if less emphatic. MastCell ^Talk 22:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes patrol medical articles using Recent changes/Medicine and can confidently assure you that anything could be in our higher-hanging fruit. As for Wikipedia's general and medical disclaimers, they may protect the Foundation from legal liability for somebody overdosing, neglecting symptoms, eschewing treatment, etc. due to what they read here (I'm not as sure as the WMF seems to be on that point) but I'm talking about moral not legal fault.

The prominence of a warning that appears behind a tiny-font link at the bottom of an article among a bunch of other tiny-font links is not commensurate with the seriousness of the potential harm. I know a lot of non-Wikipedians of widely-varying tech-savviness, and those at the more naive end of that spectrum - even the smart ones - have no idea that anyone can add whatever they like to our articles. None of them is ever likely to click the Disclaimer link. You may say, "Oh, smart people would never take anything we say seriously" but (a) I'm not so sure and (b) half our readers have a lower than average IQ. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Followup at ANI, at BLPN, and at Nikkimaria talk; [7] [8] I see the "sordid" part is becoming more clear, even without me having to say a thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh. Please don't make me read that review. I don't mind some kinds of sordid - but I haven't yet acquired a taste for fetid. This is whole saga is fetid. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ya think? No sympathy from me. I've dealt with it for seven years. Get tough! Here's another reason it's fetid: [9] I am reluctant to bring even an obvious SPI because of the spurious block from an involved admin after a simple question related to socking. That thread was a waste of everyone's time. At least Arsten didn't involve himself; maybe he's learning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I started reading the talk page: yep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medical disclaimer

After discussion on multiple talk pages, it was revealed that multiple other language Wikipedias do have medical disclaimers.

Wikipedia language	Number of articles	Template	Position in article
Chinese	732,000	zh:Template:Medical small	Top
Dutch	1,700,000	nl:Sjabloon:Disclaimer medisch lemma	Top
German	1,600,000	de:Wikipedia:Hinweis Gesundheitsthemen	Bottom
Indonesian	322,000	id:Templat:Penyangkalan-medis	Top
Norwegian	399,000	no:Mal:Helsenotis	Bottom
Portuguese	802,000	pt:Predefinição:Aviso médico	Section: Treatment
Turkish	220,000	tr:Şablon:TıpUyarı	Top

This proposed version for use on en.wikipedia emerged from discussion at User talk:Alanyst/sandbox/reliability disclaimer and several other on-Wiki talk pages and external websites:

I am planning to install it on Tourette syndrome (where I am the only significant contributor) unless a significant consensus against emerges. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overagainst

I was quite open that I was a novice on an FAR. Wehwalt asked me on the FAR page for what I wanted, the goalposts as he said. "I asked you to put down what you wanted done so we could talk about it." I then used an analysis of the 'Media coverage' section to explain my thinking on is wrong in the article, giving concrete examples. Several other sections have similar problems. Kww queried and I enlarged on what I said. I'm sorry if it was the wrong place but please understand that I was told there that I had not made my position clear there so I replied there. I have never had an objection to discussing things on the Talk page and have been doing so, all they had to say was let's take this to talk. Today I immediately took the issue of the refs and external links to the talk page.

At the start there were 3 saying there was no need for a FAR, 2 for, and the first uninvolved editor said the FAR was a waste of time. I did not think it a good idea to just leave things unanswered and maybe let the FAR be halted. Sorry if that was unnecessary I continued that longer than necessary and annoyed you, I can assure you it was no fun for me either. I am a complete novice at FAR which I made clear more than once. When experienced editors of FA like Wehwalt and Kww are asking me things on a FAR page or making an argument on a FAR page I took it to be OK to reply on that same FAR page. Answers take longer than questions. I understand you want peace from me on the FAR page. You supported the FAR when it was in danger of getting squashed (I thought it was anyway), so your wish is my command. Please feel free to contact me here or on my Talk for any reason.Overagainst (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overagainst, I realize you have acted in good faith, and that you didn't understand FAR. That is why I made the long post on talk. Now I think the best thing everyone can do is to let it alone for a bit, and not spread the discussion all over. Let the process work, please. It is a deliberative process, and the delegates do not act rashly in either direction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to shut up on the DoNH Talk page too?Overagainst (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what DoNH stands for, but Overagainst, I am not your keeper, and I really don't want to be drug any further into this mess. I made a post to try to help ALL of you stay on track, mostly because what you are all doing to the delegates is miserable, and I've been in those shoes. Please do not continue to expect anything from me; it appears at times that anything I may do to try to help on that page is destined to backfire. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DoNH Talk page = Talk:Disappearance of Natalee Holloway. Disappearance of Natalee Holloway is what the article is called now. I was not clear if you when you said "I think the best thing everyone can do is to let it alone for a bit, and not spread the discussion" you thought my participating in the discussions on Talk:Disappearance of Natalee Holloway was unhelpful to the FAR. But as you have obviously not been paying any attention to Talk:Disappearance of Natalee Holloway I was being obtuse. Adieu.Overagainst (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, sorry-- I have not looked at the article talk page. On the DoNH, I'mADork. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Today

Re my recent comments. I have never had much to do with admins, especially ones actively opposing what I was trying to do, and those I interacted with on the Natalee Holloway page ran rings round me with BLP caveats. So I took 2 months off and came back to the article when I initiated the FAR. About those comments today; frankly, I was intimidated by the complaints by an admin (who has popped up on the Talk and the FAR) about taking things to BLP noticeboard, (which I have done only once, ever) and worried my name was cropping up a lot in disputes there over the last couple of days. I panicked. However I see from the discussion at the admins notice board that you and Anthonyhcole can keep things above board. I also felt, after reading an edit summary about juvenile pretentiousness (which, though I'm old, I took to be about me) that I had made a bit of a fool of myself on some of that stuff. I just mentioned the issue of naming all 3 to give it an airing, and then got carried away as is my wont. In the event nobody thought there was a problem or the matter needed to be taken further so there is consensus for using the names of the trio, which is fine by me. My ideas for possible improvements to the 'Background section might include things like: she had got her driving licence, church affiliation (if Natalee was a churchgoer) could be added to the article. Also there could be a brief reference to what I believe her mother said about her not being particularly worldly for her years. Another possible addition is I believe she and the school group were from a state where they not old enough to to buy drinks, but they could do so in Aruba. The way the drinking is talked about currently in the article is completely over the top. There could be a mention that there was drinking by her group on their holiday (as if that is surprising), and then maybe something about her being bought a shot of 151-proof rum at the end of the night by van Der Sloot. She had a drink in a nightclub, not drunk though; her puzzled remark when she saw the brothers in the car rings true. Your approach to the way Natalee is portrayed seems right to me.Overagainst (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overagainst It is hard for me to know how to best answer you. This is complicated by the fact that I find it much more effective-- and that I have much more credibility on Wikipedia (Anthonyhcole came to this article and came to his conclusions without ever having had any contact with or feedback from me)-- because I don't take things like this backchannel to email, where I could speak more openly. Someday, I will issue you a Barnstar of Integrity for sticking with this in the face of the intimidation visited upon you from not one, but three, admins. Although I cannot stomach reading the talk page of Natalee Holloway (the misogyny and misrepresentation repulse me), I was aware that you were in there because I keep the page watchlisted, see edit summaries, and know that the same struggle has been going on for six years (just based on what I see in edit summaried).

I understand how you feel and what you are facing, and do not mean to make you feel worse by pointing out that you may not fully understand BLP policy. Again, your instincts about that article (that POV is used to create a BLP situation, whereby victims are re-victimized) are entirely correct, but you are, to put it bluntly, naïve in the ways of Wikipedia and the ways groups of editors can protect POV, and the effort that it takes to get it addressed. You remind me of me when I first came to Wikipedia and thought Hugo Chavez could be neutralized; it took me four years to realize that there were more of "them" than "us", and that Chavez would be dead before a neutral article was written. I was right. He's dead, and his article is still POV.

It seems to me that you thought that by pointing out what is obvious to anyone who knows the case, the right thing would be done. That isn't how it works in here. To work on an entrenched problem like the Holloway article, you have to really know and understand policy, and you have to be willing to go point-by-point, for years, arguing the case based on sources. There are sources that can be used to correct the POV in the article, but as far as I have been able to tell, your arguments have not been based on those sources. And some of your BLP arguments haven't been entirely correct, which has extended the case and impacted your credibility.

Based on your passion and persistence, you will be a force to be reckoned with in your future Wiki career. But laying out things that you think should happen in the article, arguing from a logical, common sense perspective, isn't going to get you anywhere in that article, and it is creating discussions that are long and unwieldy. Have you read the book I recommended on the FAR? The only way to begin to neutralize the Holloway article is to work on one point at a time. There are hundreds of things wrong with that article, but as long as the ratios of editors willing to change that are not in your favor, you cannot expect to make much progress. One thing at a time. I have already provided, I think, three samples on the FAR. Here's another: on May 10, Joran received part of the extorted money. He went to Peru. He killed the Peruvian on May 30. Why does our article not mention that it was the money he extorted from the Holloway family that allowed him to travel to Peru to kill? What do sources say about that? You have to argue the missing pieces from sources.

I could go on and on with examples, but I do not want to work on that article. The worst victimization of a victim that we could ever visit upon the mother of her dead child is to run an article on our mainpage on the dead girl's birthday when that article is slanted towards a negative characterization of the mother and her dead daughter. Wikipedia has already done the worst thing it can do to living people: anything else is irrelevant to me, and I imagine to the victims by now as well. We, at Wikipedia, should hang our heads in shame.

I'm sorry that I have discouraged you by having to point out where you have been a bit off on BLP policy. I do admire the work you've done. And I really do wish I didn't have to be involved any more there. I have little hope anything will ever change there, and I find it most frustrating to even have to think about how repulsive that article is. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the article is going to change, thanks to you. People are beginning to pay attention to what happens there now. I have had this problem before with a coven of editors protecting POV, when I tried to do some work on Murder of Meredith Kercher. I got nowhere and people were complaining about unwieldy posts on talk there too. The difference then was that an admin (SlimVirgin) was put on the page to ensure the facts and tone changed to reflect the Knox acquittal, and although he reverted me a few times, I got the message and was greatly aided by a really good book on the case that had just been published, and which I bought (duh), it was plain sailing. Unfortunately, I was re-convinced I was a master of persuasion and editing after that. I knew you had a good book from a couple of things you said before. I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with, and the best thing seems to be if I wait for you to take the lead.Overagainst (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OA, I'm afraid you might not be understanding. I am not going to "take the lead"; it's unlikely I'll even take a major role. If I see more abuse (of process, of admin tools, or of people), I may weigh in periodically. Or I may not. It is not a great book-- it is merely a bit better than what the article currently relies on (RECENTISM, FOX news and CNN, with slanting towards the Aruban/Dompig POV, painting the girls as trashy promiscuous drunks). If you want the article to change, you need to argue from sources. Do not expect or count on me to do that for you. SlimVirgin is a she, and she knows BLP as well as anyone; perhaps you can ask her to help you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I get the picture. Hopefully when the featured review re-starts I'll be able to be more constructive, and less obtrusive.Overagainst (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the spirit ... bite-size pieces. One point at a time, keep discussion always strictly based on sources. Forget about what makes sense and what you think should be obvious; just say what the sources say. And not with a wall of text. I'm glad you're not discouraged ... the ride you've had would have chased out a lesser person! Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

		The Bio-star
		Kudos for all your work this morning on hypothyroidism! --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you! I'd rather do that than watch the testosterone fest evolving at WP:ANI! I don't know if I've ever told you that I think you have the coolest username since my last favorite coolest user name (may you not end up where he did). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for what you do around here, again. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For the excellent work you do to keep Wikipedia high quality ( at least as much as you can ). And hold the line on quality over quantity. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some stroopwafels for you!

Just a snack, best enjoyed with a cup of warm coffee. JFW | T@lk 14:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

stickyprod-medrs

Sorry for not explaining what I meant more thoroughly when I suggested it, I was in a bit of a rush. My idea was to implement something analogous to how we handle new unsourced BLPs for medicine-related articles - a prod for medicine-related articles that fail our medical referencing guidelines that could only be removed if the article had been brought in to compliance with them, and would otherwise be userfied or deleted at the end of a seven day period. It seems like it would help address problems with shitty medical editing, both student and non-student related. If you agree that it sounds like a useful idea, I would be more than happy to write up and run a proposal for it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a wonderful idea; thank you very much for explaining it, for suggesting it, and for offering to work on it. There are many areas of Wikipedia I'm just not familiar with (like AFDs and prods and such) because most of my Wikitime has been spent working at the FA level. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once I'm back from thanksgiving, I'll write something up and run it by you and WT:MED. I'm not entirely sure we'll get it passed through the general community, but it really does seem a way to make it a lot easier for all y'all. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I love this idea. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Demo of the Medicine box

Recent changes in WP:Medicine

Articles and their talkpages:

Not mainspace:

Medical cannabis (source)
Cannabis (drug) (source)

Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
99	1,062	11,551	38,885	20,113	1,187	72,897

List overview · Lists updated: 2015-07-15 · This box:

SandyGeorgia, above I have added the Medicine box to this page, you asked about. See the code; you can put it on any page. I also added {{clear}} below to prevent the box flowing into the next section.
Also I added two "personal" pages to follow (took autism example from your recent contributions). See the code, for the two options (link & textlabel). I can give more examples if you want to. -DePiep (talk) 06:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

QOL followup

Note to self, from WP:ENI for followup:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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, petrarchan47 t c 04:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 )? petrarchan47 t c 04:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, a reread of your note tells me you are working towards getting proper sourcing, sorry I missed that. petrarchan47 t c 04:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. petrarchan47 t c 05:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 ;) petrarchan47 t c 05:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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? petrarchan47 t c 04:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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

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.
Please have a look at WP:MEDMOS (for example, we don't refer to people as "patients").
I copyedited your section, which didn't change the meaning, except for the final study, which was ever so slightly misrepresented.[10] 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 ...
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.
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:

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.
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.
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)[reply]

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. petrarchan47 t c 21:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

... 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[11] There are several problems with that addition:

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).
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).
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.[12] I consider that overlinking of a common terms, but others may disagree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@@ Line 419: / Line 419: @@
 You have made a statement in [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Argentine_History|the clarification request]] relating to [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine_History|''Argentine History'']]. This message is to let you know that a [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Motion:_Argentine_History_.28MarshalN20.29|motion]] amending the original decision has now been proposed. You are welcome to add comments on this motion underneath your original statement. Thanks, [[AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 11:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
+== A brownie for you! ==
+{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
+|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Brownie transparent.png|120px]]
+|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you for all the hard work you do for WP:MED.  Keep up the great work! [[User:Yobol|Yobol]] ([[User talk:Yobol|talk]]) 19:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
+|}