User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch113

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - February 2021[edit]

Issue 9—February 2021

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter

Happy February everyone. I hope the new year is starting to look better than the last one did. As always, if you have any ideas to improve the newsletter, please post them at the talkpage. Otherwise, here is what's happening around the project:

**Newly recognized content**
Late onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia nom. Maxim Masiutin, reviewed by Vaticidalprophet UPMC Presbyterian nom. Andrew nyr, reviewed by HickoryOughtShirt?4

**Nominated for review**
Louise Boursier nom. Doug Coldwell Friedreich's ataxia nom. Akrasia25 Kivu Ebola epidemic nom. Ozzie10aaaa Biotin nom. David notMD, under review by HaEr48 Lurie Children's Hospital nom. Andrew nyr, under review by HickoryOughtShirt?4 Urinothorax nom. Steve M. Imprinted brain hypothesis nom. Vaticidalprophet Management of multiple sclerosis Currently a FA removal candidate. Alzheimer's disease Notice of impending featured article review at talk. Major depressive disorder Notice of impending FAR at talk. Influenza Notice of impending FAR at talk. Menstrual cycle Notice of impending FAR at talk.

News from around the site

Another discussion has closed, with consensus supporting continued use of the phrase "committed suicide" in articles.
The Medicine Collaboration of the Month for February is Cirrhosis. Head to Talk:Cirrhosis to coordinate our efforts. You can nominate future collaborations at WP:MCOTM.
This month's target maintenance backlog is "articles that need more wikilinks". Just 65 medicine pages have {{Underlinked}} on them, so hopefully we can clean them all up this month.
Flyer22 Frozen, longtime and prolific editor on medicine and television/film topics, has died. You can read a brief reflection on her Wikipedia work here, and leave condolences at her talk page.

Discussions of interest

Continued discussion on the role of subject-specific notability guidelines at Wikipedia talk:Notability.
An ongoing effort to trim talk page banners has brought us a discussion regarding whether {{English variant notice}}s should be converted to editnotices.
An ongoing discussion at WT:MED considers spinning out parts of the infobox for medicines/drugs into other templates.

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will look later[edit]

That's more than I can take time out of a workday to look at; will have to look some time this evening. Looks interesting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

gotcha, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of Style DS Alert[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Crossroads ^-talk- 17:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Predictive text on IPad[edit]

Dear Sandy, I just discovered your description of the time "the tree tried to kill you" and I am so very grateful that you survived. I also edit on an IPad because I cannot sit. Two or so years ago I purchased a new IPad, (which has the ability to receive software updates, hurrah!) A wonderful feature is the "Predictive" keyboard function. I type the first few letters of a word, and a choice of complete words is displayed above the keyboard area. I can pick the correct word, or just keep typing until my desired word appears, or I finish the word. I suspect that it also has memories of my previously typed unusual words. This feature is an absolute god-send, because I type with my thumbs. Would you like me to tell you more about this? I don't want to clutter your TP, if you are already aware of this function. Best wishes for your health and happiness...Sincerely, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 00:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

very interesting, most appreciated, but tied up for a few days now, husband’s emergency surgery today for detached retina, will get back to you, most kind of you! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wish the dear man the best of success with the surgery and I am so very sorry that he is having problems. We will talk later...I will watch your page. Sending supportive thoughts to both of you. Best, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 09:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I use SwiftKey[1] when I'm trying to write articles on my smartphone. It either predicts what word you want to type or else you can swipe words without lifting your finger. Works pretty well. I hope you husband will be alright. (t · c) buidhe 17:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandy: Sort of un-piggybacked here. (And all best to your hubby too!) 86.172.7.156 (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC) (1-year+ and looking good after urgent laser treatment for multiple tears :-)[reply]

User:Tribe of Tiger and User:Buidhe, I saw a post somewhere from one of you directing me to look at something about this, but now I have lost track of where that is ... <sigh> ... that's how it goes with me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Margate[edit]

[2] - whoops, sorry :-( -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude no prob ... I only saw it because somewhere (I never remember where these things are) I installed something that shows dab links in red. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Crow Looked at Me[edit]

While I totally get that you have many things in the air and by nature and choice are always under pressure, ahem and hint hint...you participated in its PR review during the summer, and this one is special for the alt music crowd. I don't often call in favors with you, doing so here, as the album is more than moving and rather exceptional. If u could add it to your list, that would be great. Best as always. Ceoil (talk) 09:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil will do ... mañana ... have had a LOT going on at home. Hope you are both well, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sound as a pound. I hear you re home, this lock down here for eg, is way, way, way worse than last march/april. So cuando. Ceoil (talk) 09:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You rock. Ceoil (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tough read :( I see why you like it. Fix that wayward 2014 in there ... surely an error ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted. I'd not heard of the album before the PR, and now have two brothers and three friends converted to Elverum / the Microphones. DMT is doing something right. Ceoil (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am totally taken with the title. Besides. A Crow Pooped on Me. Twice. Seriously. And both times, I ended up married (one for better, one for worse :) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, though it could be worse...I grew up on a dairy farm...more than once, maybe even a 1000 times, a Cow Shat on Me while being milked; they have big intestistines. ps this is why. Ceoil (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 1f[edit]

Looks like I probably should have waited to propose that until I'd gotten more feedback on the wording. Hog Farm _Talk 16:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

entirely my fault for being overwhelmed and discouraged by growing health issues, at clinic, will explain later when not ipad typing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, home from the clinic. I'm sorry I didn't close the loop with you yesterday on the wording and proposal; I was wallowing and pouting over our combined (hubby and me) health issues, and feeling discouraged. Growin' old ain't for sissies. We still have at least a month before we will know how various things shake out. One immediate consequence is that I have less time for Wikipedia. He likes to drive; I don't. So, I could always work from a hotspot on our long trips, while he did the driving. But now I have to do the driving ... so, for example, all day today, I was out except for brief iPad typing from the clinic. I appreciate all you do; please don't feel at fault that there was some initial confusion. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can take over maintaining URFA/2020, if you'd like; at least for while you're busy. Hog Farm _Talk 23:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I count on you for that :) But I feel awful that I haven't gotten to more reviews there myself ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same. It's also at the point where recruiting one or two more active checkers would help. The standard's three, and there's quite a few that have me and you deeming them satisfactory, without getting much additional attention. There's been some good saves through this effort. If only I wasn't so busy, or I'd be trying to take a few on myself. Hog Farm _Talk 04:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF, hopefully this week's kerfuffle will bring in more editors. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

well, I hope something good comes of this "kerfluffle" (snorts). Ealdgyth (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Loan someone your shoes and let 'em walk a mile :) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone Owen peer review[edit]

I would like you to have a thoughts about Cyclone Owen in this peer review here. There are outstanding issues that I and Chicdat was not able to fix, and my WikiProject is, I admit, tired of dealing with this already. Mario Jump 83! 02:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:MarioJump83 thanks for reaching out. Normally, I am available to help with cyclone articles, but I have been having considerable back pain that is limited my ability to be on the computer for lengthy periods. I am so sorry to have to disappoint you, but just am not able to engage at this time ... barely keeping up with my watchlist. Good luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, thanks. I will try to tutor Chicdat instead. When you have time to go back, I'll send you an another ping. Mario Jump 83! 22:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Planet of the Apes[edit]

Hello Sandy,

I know I've been "out of town" lately, but could you please look at upcoming TFA Planet of the Apes? I remember well that FAC and the state of that particular article, so I had a very bad surprise when I looked at it today and noticed that an IP had loads of fun back in January moving everything around without any consensus. Gigantic tables scattered around the article and all the damned prose out of order chronologically!! Without anyone noticing it!! So I picked this version to try and put it back together but I could use a second (and better) pair of eyes on it. Should I keep going? I only reverted until the "Fourth film" subsection. RetiredDuke (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, dear, I am really bad with films; Aoba47 might you look at this one? I trust that your work is probably fine, RetiredDuke, but Wehwalt might also want to look in, considering recent (and unnecessary) kerfuffles surrounding TFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the nominator, Cuchullain is still active, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the bones of the article is more than fine, so a re-schedule won't be needed. It was just the random moving around of sections that made the article look like a mess when I found it. No regard for article structure whatsoever. (I really don't like to make bold moves without consensus, that's why I asked for help). RetiredDuke (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can be trusted ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like RetiredDuke has reverted to the FAC version. Is there anything more that needs to be done? --Wehwalt (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not revert it per se Wehwalt, since I do not have that particular "button". Just manually edited it back. I do not think there's anything we need from your end because the article is perfectly fine to run TFA. But as I had a bit of effort manually moving gigantic tables from one place to the other, it's always good having someone else checking if everything looks fine. But the nominator has been pinged in the meantime. RetiredDuke (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it has now been reverted to a better version, no need for anything else. (Sorry for the mild panic, this was just me wishing I had the revert thing-y on the day before an article goes up, and not knowing who actually has it). RetiredDuke (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that everything worked out. Sorry for the late response as I just saw the above ping. I know it is not the point of this thread, but I just want to say that you have done a wonderful job with the article given how much information there is about this franchise. Aoba47 (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(The wonderful job is actually Cuchullain's - praise be onto them - but I do agree that it's a remarkable article especially considering the franchise's longevity and complexity.) RetiredDuke (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RetiredDuke, Hog Farm, and Nikkimaria: sorry to be of no help, see here, now I can only hunt and peck on iPad, cannot do any real editing until computer is repaired and returned, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't be of much use for Planet of the Apes (I tried watching that movie once, thought it was the weirdest thing ever, and quit watching), but I'm watching this page and can help handle some requests in addition to URFA. I'm effectively snowed/extreme colded in (can't go to work because the heater is out in the building) so I'll have some extra time for here the next couple days except for when I'm under the local rolling blackouts. Apparently the aging local rural power grid can't handle the power needs for the cold spell Missouri is under. It hasn't been above freezing in about a week and a half, and was well below -10 degrees F for awhile early this morning. Hog Farm _Talk 19:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sin problema :) The Planet article looks awesome again so everything worked out in the end. (And I can't wrap my head around -10°F, that's absurd.) RetiredDuke (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm and RetiredDuke: we recently hit the Celsius/Fahrenheit intersection ;-). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. It wound up getting above zero eventually, so that was nice. We've got six inches of show on the way, and the forecast is calling for more tonight. Hog Farm _Talk 03:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah no. No, no. No way. We had a so called cold front around the turn of the year where the temps kept around 0 degrees Celsius for like a week and people wouldn't stop whining about it. RetiredDuke (talk) 12:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus[edit]

Hello, SandyGeorgia. You have new messages at Talk:Huaynaputina.
Message added 10:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus I was planning to get on it today, and instead, I spilled my entire cup of coffee on my keyboard. Keyboard is not happy :( I am hoping it will work after it dries out ... meanwhile, auxiliary keyboard attached, which puts my back in an awkward position. Tomorrow I have doc app't, so likely Tuesday, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice going. P anini ^🥪 02:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, always something with me! I am getting used to the new setup, but I killed the laptop ;( At least the doc app’t outcome was less than feared! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The concussion[edit]

Word recall was only really an issue for the first 36 hours. Also did something to my back and neck in the fall, which is probably gonna send me to the chiropractor eventually. Concussions are not fun. Hog Farm _Talk 17:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, with my first (more severe) concussion, I had word recall problems for six months, so I'm glad you're not having that. When the tree fell on me, no doubt the soft tissue damage (head, neck back) caused the most lingering issues. I hope you will consider finding a very good physical therapist, and avoiding chiropractics; one of the reasons I have been in so much pain lately is that I stopped going to physical therapy because of COVID. Those people really know how to deal with soft tissue, and they are so good at body work that it can be like a weekly relaxing massage. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire[edit]

Hi there, Sandy. Sorry if you're busy, and if you are, feel free to ignore this, but I stumbled upon vampire today and noticed, with pleasure, that it was at FA. I am sure you're familiar with the creeping horror of reading the article and seeing, oh no, this is troubled. If you ever have the time to take a look, I'd appreciate it. I don't like to flag up articles but, honestly, I'd currently oppose it at FAC under comprehensiveness and reliable citations... Looking back at the review process, it appears very few people had familiarity with the subject matter. I'd appreciate your input. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ImaginesTigers, This is a 2008 promotion, so it is listed at WP:URFA/2020. I would suggest listing your concerns at the talk page and noting it at the URFA page. (t · c) buidhe 16:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your participation at URFA or FAR would be greatly appreciated, I'm sure. (t · c) buidhe 16:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ImaginesTigers, I have been struggling to get back in the saddle since the detached retina. Buidhe has this right; the way to do it is to put a review on the article talk page, probably using the section heading WP:URFA/2020 review, outlining the deficiencies. Then you link that note of deficiencies in the Notes field at WP:URFA/2020. Give it a week or so to see if any active editors engage, and if the don't, upgrade it to a Featured article review notice, adding it to Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given. And then wait a few weeks, and submit it to WP:FAR if needed. The goal is to get articles brought to standard, so it is good to approach the whole process with patience, if you know there are still active editors who may be willing to upgrade the article. In situations where it is clear that active editors are gone, and no one is watching the article, you can go straight to Notice given, with the idea of heading to FAR in a few weeks. As Buidhe mentioned, we could really use more hands on deck at WP:URFA/2020. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both of you, for the reply. I'm sorry I didn't reply sooner—life's been hectic. I'll try and get around to this as soon as I can, but it could be a few weeks away. Thanks for informing me about that stuff; I'll skim through the list and see if there's anything else I have the expertise or know-how to review. PS. My first FA nomination passed a few days ago. I'm so happy! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FAC review?[edit]

Hi Sandy, I know that you are up to your neck with things, but Hog Farm could do with a hand. His current FAC - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/4th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate)/archive1 - has attracted interest from three experienced reviewers *cough* but all are MilHist aficionados. Any chance that you could skim the article for jargon and specialist terminology and to check it is broadly comprehensible to a general audience? If not, no worries. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild Will do ... I have been reluctant to engage content since I am iPad typing (my computer is stuck in a FedEx weather delay en route to Texas for repair), but I am slowly adapting to the flimsy temporary bluetooth keyboard I got to use with my iPad while I wait for my computer. Will get to it later today, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4th Mo. Inf. CSA[edit]

Thanks for reviewing the FAC. I can only imagine that must have been very difficult on the ipad. I've attempted to address all of your comments, I hope all of the changes made the article better. Hog Farm _Talk 23:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MedRS[edit]

Simple question: is this a suitable source for Zoster vaccine? I don't really understand the MEDRS standard. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(a Sandy-friendly talk-page stalker just jumping in, quite uninvited :) Basically no Ovinus, I think not, because this is a cohort study (that is to say, a *primary* study, albeit one conducted on a pre-existing database), and would generally be considered, per WP:MEDRS, a primary source. Hope this helps, though of course Sandy may have something to add. Best, 86.186.168.197 (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, 86 ... sorry for delay and brevity, spilled coffee on my laptop so it is in repair, ipad typing.
Ovinus, WP:MEDRS explains what primary vs secondary sources are in medicine. That is a primary source. I actually wouldn’t mind using it in a footnote for the very little new info it provides, not more than a phrase, but if you tell me what you want to do with the article, I can better guide you and give you some better overall reviews. All that study does is extend what is already known about Shingrix via secondary sources and clinical populations to non-clinical population, so it does not add much to the article anyway. Changes nothing ... Shingrix works, but side effects are no fun. Since I was one of the one in six who was very sick twice with Shingrix, happy to lend a hand there when I get my computer back. ( I do seem to hit the jackpot with medical stuff lately ;). For now, this may help: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ovinus, here are some secondary reviews:

Stoker K, Levien TL, Baker DE (June 2018). "Zoster Vaccine Recombinant, Adjuvanted". Hosp Pharm. 53 (3): 136–141. doi:10.1177/0018578718767103. PMC 6102791. PMID 30147131.
Levin MJ, Weinberg A (2019). "Immune responses to zoster vaccines". Hum Vaccin Immunother. 15 (4): 772–777. doi:10.1080/21645515.2018.1560918. PMC 6605864. PMID 30676834.
Shah RA, Limmer AL, Nwannunu CE, Patel RR, Mui UN, Tyring SK (July 2019). "Shingrix for Herpes Zoster: A Review". Skin Therapy Lett. 24 (4): 5–7. PMID 31339679.
Singh G, Song S, Choi E, Lee PB, Nahm FS (July 2020). "Recombinant zoster vaccine (Shingrix®): a new option for the prevention of herpes zoster and postherpetic neuralgia". Korean J Pain. 33 (3): 201–207. doi:10.3344/kjp.2020.33.3.201. PMC 7336348. PMID 32606264.

I am pretty sure that the journal that published the primary study is higher quality than any of the (above) reviews.

Here are the best recent reviews:

Tricco AC, Zarin W, Cardoso R, Veroniki AA, Khan PA, Nincic V, Ghassemi M, Warren R, Sharpe JP, Page AV, Straus SE (October 2018). "Efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of herpes zoster vaccines in adults aged 50 and older: systematic review and network meta-analysis". BMJ. 363: k4029. doi:10.1136/bmj.k4029. PMC 6201212. PMID 30361202.
Gagliardi AM, Andriolo BN, Torloni MR, Soares BG, de Oliveira Gomes J, Andriolo RB, Canteiro Cruz E (November 2019). "Vaccines for preventing herpes zoster in older adults". Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 (11). doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008858.pub4. PMC 6836378. PMID 31696946.

Hard to help when I can only hunt and peck, but that is a start, IP 86 or WhatamIdoing may guide you further until I get my computer back from repair. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Ovinus, for evidence on efficacy/effectiveness and safety, the last two (the 2019 Cochrane review, and the 2018 systematic review with meta-analysis published in the BMJ) would both be considered high-quality MEDRS. For a broader perspective, you might consider consulting PMID 29431387, a 2017 review article published in another respected journal, which takes into account 2017 guidance [3] published by the CDC (a type of MEDRS sourcing discussed in the guideline at WP:MEDORG):

Saguil A, Kane S, Mercado M, Lauters R (November 2017). "Herpes Zoster and Postherpetic Neuralgia: Prevention and Management". American Family Physician. 96 (10): 656–663. PMID 29431387.
86.186.168.197 (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both! So if I'm getting this right, we use reviews published in reputable journals, which survey multiple studies (often primary sources)? I didn't previously realize the difference. Meanwhile these primary sources should only be used as primary sources (e.g. Sokal affair) and shouldn't be used for medical claims. Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There’s a bit more to MEDRS, but you have that part basically right. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ketogenic diet[edit]

Don't bother warning obvious spammers; just take them to AIV and SPI. It's not worth your time, saying this as someone who's had to fight these spammers over at Wikidata with CU.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Menstrual cycle[edit]

Hi Sandy, I saw intended in-line comment. I'll sort it out tomorrow. I know what I am trying to say. Bst. Graham Beards (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Graham ... guess I can’t inline comment until I get my computer back, and the warranty repair service is *STILL* shut down, two weeks after the storm. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy, there is an IP editing along with us. Graham Beards (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I think I queried the wrong version ... but I couldn’t really figure out which source said what. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:BOLD[edit]

Have a question about MOS:BOLD at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States war plans (1945–1950)/archive1 to which maybe you know the answer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help, please[edit]

Hello Sandy, I hope you and yours are well and staying Covid free. Soon, I hope, everyone will be vaccinated and this can go the way of polio and measles and other diseases we have survived and conquered. I never thought I would live to see such a thing, but it has been quite an experience. Thank goodness for WP! It has kept me sane - well as sane as I get anyway. I need help learning how to split articles. I have read the page on it and am having trouble making sense of the directions. Steps 2 says "Create the new article by opening the empty page" - what empty page? Where is it and when and how was it created? I have been working at Problem of evil. Sandy it is 185,000 bytes! I don't know how many words that is, but I do know it needs to be split. I am thinking that splitting it in two, with sections 4 and 5 becoming "religious responses" or something, and then splitting off each type of theodicy into its own article with the main article containing only short summaries of each would be appropriate, but Sandy, I simply don't know how to begin. Step one is "Prepare the source article by grouping the material to be split out into a single section" - how the heck do I do that? If I can learn how to do this, I will no doubt go back and do the same to Biblical criticism as well, you were right, but it hurts me to say it. :-) At any rate, I hope you are willing to help. Thanx Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jen ... I am glad to help (saw the explanation on Mike’s talk), but I am working at a disadvantage as I spilled coffee on my laptop and it is gone off to repair in, of all places, Texas, which is shut down! I purchased a tiny bluetooth keyboard for my iPad and am learning to type on it. I can try to help you tomorrow. In the meantime, you could get up to speed on the most important aspect, WP:CWW— when you split off the text it is very important that you always use an edit summary that includes a wikilink to the article you are copying from. If you can read up on that part, I can try to walk you through how to copy the content into a new article. Let’s pick one to start with ... what would be the name of the first (new) article that you would split content to ? You will need to be patient with my typing as I learn to deal with this tiny little keyboard :). Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to the page size tool I have installed, it's 13,439 words, not counting the footnotes, references, block quotes, bullet bits, image captions, infobox, headings, or the numbered lists. Quite impressive. Hog Farm _Talk 06:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, HF; Jen, it would also help if you would give me a link to the page that provides the instructions your are following ... I have never read instructions, just know how to do it, but I want to be sure that I am reading what you are reading so we are on the same page. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jen, after you’ve read up on WP:CWW and WP:SS, the next thing, perhaps, is to look at an example of how Summary style works. I offer my own Tourette syndrome so you can see how the hatnotes and sub-articles work:

As you can see, all of that information can’t go in to one article, so I use summary style. At one point, I thought I would go for a featured topic but I lost interest :). But the advantage to you (eg at biblical criticism) is multiple FAs that are easier to maintain. As you look through my examples, think about what the lead sentence would be for each of your sub-articles, and think also about what you have to add to the bottom of each article (in terms of categories, etc, so the new page patrollers won’t be triggered when you start the new articles :). Off to bed for now, that gives you some info to chew on for now ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bless you, you wonderful person! Of all the people I have met here, I knew you would be most likely to come through for me - and know what you are talking about. ;-) I referenced [4] on splitting a page. They clearly did not have you proof reading for them...

I don't know which to do first. I checked and there are no individual articles for each of these major theodicies, which is a gross oversight in my philosophical playbook. I want to write each one! And I want to edit the existing article into a shorter summary style. But I suppose sections 4 and 5 should be split off first as 'Religious responses to the problem of evil' although it will be an inadequate article on its own, it can be improved later. It's a little overwhelming knowing what to do first.

Read the 'copying within WP' and have no problem complying. I was already somewhat familiar with this as I had a whole section reverted once when I copied myself and didn't know to note it. (I seem to learn things in backwards order here.) Also familiar with summary style which I have been using ob Christian ethics which I also recently redid. I will check out your articles to see if I can figure out hatnotes and sub-articles. My brain gets overloaded fast these days. You may be the one having to go slowly for me instead of the other way around.

Hog Farm, how did you get that word count? I have just spent 45 minutes searching for how to do a word count and couldn't find it. Please share!

I have no problem being as patient with you as you need. Take your time. There is no time limit on this, no one is going to close us out for taking too long, we can work as you are able. I am just grateful, period. Tomorrow is great. Thank you thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Prosesize is the easiest tool. (Note, WP:PROSESIZE redirects elsewhere, so the caps are important, might be worth an RFD at some point). I find it useful for the handful of times I need to determine DYK expansion. It's particularly useful at paring down how much of the byte county you see in the page history is actual prose and how much is wikitext code gibberish (infobox syntax can really rack up some byte count at times). It highlights in yellow what it's counting in the word/prose byte counts (never footnotes, block quotes, etc; it has bug to where about 5-10% of the time it won't count the lead on the first try). I find it pretty useful when I need to know such things. Hog Farm _Talk 06:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm You have no idea how much help this will be to me! Thank you so much. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, WP:PROPERSPLIT is ...awful. No wonder you are confused. So, if you’ve read everything else, remember to add an edit summary when copying content, have thought about which categories and external links you will need to add and what the new lead will look like, then just type the name of the new article somewhere, This is my new article name (like in your sandbox, or in to the search engine), and click on it, and you will see “you may create this page”, click on that, and create the page. Then copy your content in to there making sure the edit summary says, “copied from” the old article name with a live wikilink. You will need to have two different windows open in your browser ... the one you are copying from and the new article you are copying to. Try not to save the new article until you have added a proper lead sentence and categories so the new page patrollers won’t have you :). And don’t forget to add the references section. You can worry about deleting content from the old article after you have the new article working, but again, when you delete the content from the old article, be sure to say in edit summary, “content moved to” with a live link to the new article. Basically, you are just creating a new article and the only thing that is really crucial is that you follow WP:CWW by indicating in edit summary where you got the content. Then, don’t forget to tag the new article talk page with the Wikiproject tags that are on the old article. Let me know which part of this you don’t understand, since typing on this little keyboard with no mouse does not have me at my finest :) :). Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia It seems quite clear reading this. Why did they make it sound so complicated? But then you are better at explaining things than most people. You have that innate talent of boiling things down to their basics. Most of us are good at the opposite - complicating things. :-) I think I can do all this. I am concerned about the external links - and I know I will have to check the references to be sure they are all included correctly - but otherwise this seems pretty straightforward. Is it okay if I have you check my work before submitting anything? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Religious responses to the problem of evil[edit]

I am not sure how I could check your work in advance, because you have to just do it, but I am willing if you can think of a way. There is not much you can mess up that is not fixable as long as you attribute per WP:CWW everytime you copy, and whenever you make a big deletion, explain in edit summary where the content went so the vandal patrollers don’t think you are destroying the sum of all human knowledge :) . Remember that once you get your article names and structure in place, you can continue moving things around as long as you attribute. Start slow and I will watch :). Also, Hog Farm can use his adminly tools to fix anything disastrous. How about if we follow these steps to start ? The trickiest part is having two windows open at the same time and making sure you don’t mix up which is which ! Remember, you don’t have to do it all at once ... you can work in pieces, as long as the new article you create has the basic that the new page patrollers won’t tag it for deletion (enough sources for notability, no glaring issues that will trigger anything for new page patrollers) ... edit summaries indicating you are still working help keep the new page patrollers at bay.

Pick a section of problem of evil that you intend to summarize.
Create a redlinked hatnote at the top of that section, {{main|Name of new article}}, which I will see. Make sure you indicate in edit summary “setting up main hatnote for an article I will next create”, or the vandal patrollers may delete the hatnote because it contains a non-existent article momentarily.
Copy the content you want to move to name of new article.
Click on the redlink for name of new article, paste your content in there with an edit summary “copied content from problem of evil.
Remember to add a lead sentence (you can fix it up later), and {{reflist}} at the bottom, and the same categories as at the main article.
Save the new article, making sure you used the edit summary.
Tag the new article talk page with WikiProject links as at the old article.
Now go back to problem of evil and cut the content you want to cut, making sure to leave an adequate WP:SS summary, and making sure to use an edit summary “moved to name of new article”.
And then keep moving pieces like that, and fixing up the new article, just making sure to always attribute per WP:CWW.

Good luck ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS, another thing you might do is put a {{inuse}} template on each article while you are working, so that new page patrollers and vandal whackers are aware you are still working. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I do is a little different than Sandy's. I copy the content to a userspace draft, and user an edit summary with the pasting pointing to the old article. I then use {{Copied}} and place it on the talk page of both articles (the template just requires the url of the diff, the url of the revision of the page as of when you copied, and the names of the articles. See Talk:Battle of Marais des Cygnes for an example of that template in action.) Don't remove the content from the article it was originally in yet. Then, work the draft up in your userspace until it's ready to be moved to the mainspace. Once you move the draft, you can then remove the content from the first article (or better yet, summarize it down to a paragraph and then have a {{main}} pointing to the split-off article. In the removal edit summary, say something like "content split off to [page name]". This way is a bit more complicated, but it saves the fear of having the NPP folks catch you in the middle of a lengthy drafting. And if something goes terribly wrong with either way, ping me and I can G6 or perform a WP:RM/T or even revdel if need be. Hog Farm _Talk 22:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That works, too! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shew! I was worried there for a minute. I read your instructions and started, then came back and read the rest and thought uh-oh, because I have done it as Hog Farm says he has - I copied everything to my sandbox without deleting anything yet. It is all still in the original article but it's also in my sandbox. So now I create a new article and just paste it all in with the edit summary saying that's what I did? Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it's in a user sandbox, your best bet is to just move the sandbox to the desired article space title and then clean up the formatting. Hog Farm _Talk 00:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I did it. The article now exists as Religious responses to the problem of evil. My heart is actually thumping! :-) Now I go delete that same content from the original article and put the notice on the talk page right? Jeez I hope so! If I screw up, you can rescue the content right? Here goes!Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See my edits; otherwise, I think you’ve got it! Problem of evil is now at 8,400 words of prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: You cannot make any edit on wiki that can't be reversed by someone else. Admins can do a few things that would be awkward to reverse, but you (and I) can edit without fear of breaking anything yourself. It's all fixable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except you still need to bring over some of the sources to deal with HarvRef errors:

WhatamIdoing Thank you for the encouragement. This was my first experience with this so I was definitely nervous. But with all the good help it was smashing! Sandy, those refs are done - at least I think they are. I will check again... I couldn't stand it if you were disappointed in my work. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jones & Ryan 2006, p. 266. Harv error: link from CITEREFJonesRyan2006 doesn't point to any citation.
Sarma 2000, pp. 19–21. Harv error: link from CITEREFSarma2000 doesn't point to any citation.
Sharma 1962, p. 361. Harv error: link from CITEREFSharma1962 doesn't point to any citation.
Sharma 1962, pp. 270, 370–71. Harv error: link from CITEREFSharma1962 doesn't point to any citation.
Sharma 1962, pp. 270, 370–71, Quote: The problem of evil and suffering in the world is the most difficult one in Theism. We have explained Madhva's attitude to the allied problem of freedom and freewill, on the basis of the doctrine of natural selection of good or bad and of the tripartite classification of souls. It is not therefore necessary for Madhva to answer the question of the consistency of evil with Divine goodness.. Harv error: link from CITEREFSharma1962 doesn't point to any citation

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are amazingly wonderful! Thank you for those references, for all the help, and mentoring and just in general putting up with me. I can't say thank you enough. Now it is an hour past dinner and my husband is giving me looks so I will come back and fix those refs in a couple hours, but thank you Sandy! And thank you Hog Farm. I could not - would not - have attempted this on my own, and I think the article is better for it. I still have some content clean up to do in a couple of places - I don't understand people writing on philosophy if they don't understand it, but that's why I don't write medical articles. I wanted to tell you I have a dear friend with Tourettes. I appreciated your article. It was brilliant. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So glad you liked Tourette syndrome! It is so common that we all have a dear friend with Tourette’s ... even if we or they don’t know it. Have a nice dinner! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beaver[edit]

So I've been improving the article since the last FAC and had a new copyedit. I still a bit nervous about nominating it. I haven't had to do multiple FACs for an article since 2012. I think I fixed the problems from last time, but could you take a look? LittleJerry (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LittleJerry happy to have a look, but it may be a few day; I urgently owe Jo-Jo Eumerus first a review of an article she has been waiting over a month on ... Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LittleJerry update here: [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. LittleJerry (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LittleJerry the biggest sticking point in the last FAC was the sourcing; it looks like you have corrected most of that, but Ealdgyth and Nikkimaria are the editors you will most need to convince on that score. For example, you have replaced eymologyonline.com with lexicon.com, and I am not sure if that is any better— they are the experts. I see some issues:

Put all citations in ascending order, one sample only (there is more): causes giardiasis (beaver fever); and the beaver beetle and mites of the genus Schizocarpus.[48][21][49]
There is a prose problem here ??? It is no evidence for the behavior occurring in species outside of Castor.

I hope you aren’t discouraged that it has had rougher going this time; for at least five years, FAC wasn’t really doing its job, and I consider it a good thing that it is now— more than one FAC is nothing to be ashamed of :). Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the [48][21][49] point, we may have changed the rules when you weren't looking. CITE currently says "References need not be moved solely to maintain the chronological order of footnotes as they appear in the article, and should not be moved if doing so might break the text–source relationship." If in this example, [48] is about the first thing in the sentence, and [21] is about the second, and [49] is about the third, then that is arguably the "correct" order. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping me current, WAID, but that page is typical MOS gibberish and makes no sense. At any rate, based on WAID’s feedback, I had a closer look at the article, and LittleJerry I am not sure it is yet FAC ready. It looks like (I realize I could be wrong) that in response to the sourcing concerns from the last FAC, you have added more sources to the end of each paragraph, without clarity about what came from where. There are multiple long paragraphs with discrete and apparently citeable statements that have three and four citations at the end of the paragraph, encompassing as many as 18 or 20 pages that one has to read to try to verify each piece. I suggest the article would have a better time at FAC if you individually cite sentences to more digestible page ranges, to make verification easier. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I used to do the un-chronologicial cite order by relation to the sentence, but decided that the average reader would most likely not make the connection. Plus I figured that if there was a specific part of the sentence that was so important to connect to one citation, it's better to just put right next to it. E.g. from Portrait of a Musician: "Its attribution to Leonardo is based on stylistic and technical similarities to other works by him,[8] notably the face of the angel in the Louvre Virgin of the Rocks[2] and that of the titular figure in Saint Jerome in the Wilderness.[15]" Aza24 (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Aza24 because that is exactly what I meant when I said that page is MOS gibberish. I can’t figure out what it’s trying to say at all, but if it says what WAID says it says, I’m just glad FAC sometimes ignores MOS, and additionally, the way the citations are built now at Beaver are not aiding verifiability :). Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia I can fix these. Do I need to convert Campbell-Palmer. et al [27] and Baker+Hill [21] into sfn format? Are cites like Poliquin 2015, pp. 20–21, 29–32, 129–134 a problem? LittleJerry (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. LittleJerry (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Language settings[edit]

Hi SandyGeorgia,

The section we were discussing (in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-personal) looks like this now:

How do you prefer to be described?

() They edit wiki pages
   (When mentioning you, the software will use gender neutral words whenever possible)

() She edits wiki pages

() He edits wiki pages

Setting this preference is optional. The software uses its value to address you and to mention you to others using the appropriate grammatical gender. This information will be public.

As designed this is 'not meant to ask someone "what is your sex" or "what is your gender", it is literally only used for interface messages that might make use of a gendered pronoun. On the English Wikipedia we don't use these much, on other projects (such as the Spanish Wikipedia which has different words for terms like "User" it gets more use).

All that being said, we could possible change those labels, perhaps to something like this:

When mentioning you, the software will use gender neutral terms when possible (e.g. "They edit")
When mentioning you, the software will use feminine terms when possible (e.g. "She edits")
When mentioning you, the software will use masculine terms when possible (e.g. "He edits")

Would something like that alleviate your concerns on the selector? As far as the use of singular they, I don't think there is a better "programatic" option for things like interface messages in English. ("it" being the only nuetral singular pronoun in common English, but generally inappropriate to use for people). (please ping if replying here) — xaosflux ^Talk 17:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Xaosflux ... it says it is optional, but it is not; I am not able to uncheck and choose nothing— the default is “they”. It seems that because the software is unable to simply use my name or the generic “editor”, they force me to choose a pronoun. It is just as easy to say “SandyGeorgia edits” as it is to say She, He or They. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the labels are just confusing, perhaps we can make them better! The "they" option is actually "not declared", not really "declare as they"; it applies to interface messages such as if an admin tries to reset a filter penalty about an editor, and gets feedback such as: That user has not had {{GENDER:$1|his|her|their}} autoconfirmed status suspended.. (We have very very little use of this feature in messages here on enwiki). — xaosflux ^Talk 17:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are saying it (they) is not actually used anywhere ? But might it be in the future ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: no it is, but more specifically "non gendered" phrases can be - but they are rarely used. That example above is in production,for example if I try to use the "restore autoconfirmed status" administrator tool on your account, it tells me That user has not had their autoconfirmed status suspended.; if I try to use it on my self it says "his" (because I have opted in to masculine language identifiers). My point is that the use of they on that page isn't presecriptive, it is illustrative -- but the labeling may not make that clear? — xaosflux ^Talk 17:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I’m with you now ... there is not a problem in how it is used, rather in how it is described on the preference page ... and that can be fixed?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think so! I'll write up a software request on that. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! So now I need to revisit the RFC to see if I can make an informed choice :). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will follow up in MediaWiki talk:Yourgender. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 18:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prostate Cancer and Prostate Cancer Management[edit]

Hi SandyGeorgia, thank you for highlighting this. I reverted the deletion so I could re-write the contents to avoid plagiarism, please wait an hour and we'll get the page right. --Jvaf85 (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

THere are many other problems with those edits, but now that the copyvio has been reverted back in, I have altered the CCI people, as those edits will need to be revdel’d. The Cochrane people need MUCH better training, as this is about the fourth time I have had to approach them about problematic edits, although this is the first time they included COPYVIO. @Ajpolino and MER-C:. I apologize that my message is so brief, as I am iPad typing, while my computer is caught up in a weather-related delay on its way to Texas for repair. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I've deleted the page versions that contained copy/pasted material (i.e. they're hidden from view for non-administrator accounts). Jvaf85 I realize that makes assessing the problematic edits a bit more challenging, so if you have questions about the particular edits, or would like to see the removed text, feel free to post at my talk page or email me and I can elaborate. Thanks SG for bringing this up! Ajpolino (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, to clarify, I only deleted page revisions at Prostate cancer and Management of prostate cancer. If there's anywhere else I should be looking please let me know. Ajpolino (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ajpolino I am concerned about everything here, but I have not yet evaluated all of it ... the irritating computer issues as my computer is still,weather-delayed ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A confusing factor is that she seems to have taken text from an updated version, while citing a dated version ... so it is time consuming ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia Ajpolino Thanks for your feedback. I personally checked all of Grace's edit and corrected the citation. As I mentioned before this is because we've been using the DOI without the "pub2" ending that links to the latest version of the review. I have corrected this throughout her edits and we provided feedback (she's under our supervision). Furthermore, I've checked the language compared to the guidance in –[6] and edited accordingly. Thank you!!! If there is anything I'm missing, please email me too email me.Jvaf85 (talk) 10:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Belated Seasons Greetings[edit]

Hi Sandy - thanks so much for the Seasons Greetings on my talk page. I am so sorry to see about your tree and hammock accident and injuries, though very glad you are still here to write about them. I have been slowly working on something (mostly offline, a bit in my sandbox) and hope to be around here more in the rest of the year. Yours, - Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ruhrfisch— always glad to see you are still with us! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray ![edit]

My computer has been repaired and is on its way back to me via Fedex, after more than three weeks because of weather delay.

Not hooray: it requires a signature for delivery, and is scheduled to arrive the day we are gone to my husband’s one-month followup for the detached retina. And since that is a Friday, I don’t know when I will be able to retrieve it from FedEx.

So sometime next week, I can start peer reviewing, FAC reviewing, and URFA/2020ing again! Hope you don’t feel abandoned Hog Farm :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really thinking URFA can be mostly through the 2007 ones and into 2008. Once we get to times when the standards were more equivalent, and there has been less time for decay and nominators are more likely to still be active, it ought to get a bit easier and things should go quicker. My primary question is what should we do with the "problem" ones - the older ones at URFA hanging around in limbo because there's a lack of consensus on what to do with these. Stuff like Quatermass and the Pit and The Long and Winding Road or old project pings like Michael Woodruff. Additionally, am I the only one who picks out my next FAR a week ahead of time? Hog Farm _Talk 14:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we start bringing them to FAR, where people are forced to !vote ... but prefer getting through the truly bad ones first.

No, I always pick out my next FAR a week ahead ... but then I almost always change my mind (see my ToDo list above).

I have just realized we are going to hit a major hurdle on getting through 2007 (before I was FAC delegate). A well-respected FA writer told me that Awadewit’s (RIP) entire body of work was rife with OR, and I just started in. The problems are worse than I imagined. There is uncited text, unattributed opinion, but the bigger concern, there are editorializing adjectives everywhere that need to be checked vs. sources considering the amount of that I am finding. That is going to be a HUGE chunk of work, and requires access to the books used ... I knew there were problems in Awadewit’s work, but this is more extensive than I realized, as the problems were less by the time I was delegate and she was working with other editors. I don’t know who will take on reviewing dozens of literature articles, but there could be some pushback from “fans”. And Wikipedia:WikiProject Literature isn’t active. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It'll also go a little slower with the dinosaurs and some of the hurricanes. Some of the older ones of those two subjects need some work, but there's still active projects for those two subjects, so the older ones for those will hang around on the list while the projects get caught up. I have noticed that Star and Globular cluster have been getting some work, so maybe other astronomy ones will also see improvement. There is an old literature one going through FAR without much resistance right now, so maybe the Awadewit FARs will be friendly those involved. Hog Farm _Talk 15:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I. Hate. FedEx. My computer has not left Texas. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry to hear that you're stuck with an I-pad and no computer (well, I don't have a tablet so don't know how that goes, but imagine not well). Anyway, the reason I stopped by is that I noted the comment above re Awadewit and am surprised. I suppose that might make me a fan (and certainly not the well respected FA writer who complained), but I have worked on some of her Jane Austen articles and not found problems. All that said - I'm not very active and can't set a schedule, but if you need someone to look at literature articles let me know. It's best to leave a message on my page - I seem to have some sort on an issue with the pingie thingies in that they disappear when I click on them and if I don't respond immediately and am not back for a few days forget completely who pinged from where. Hope you get your computer soon and that all is well. Best, Victoria (tk) 03:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. The warranty repair company turned my computer around in a day and a half, but FedEx had it three weeks on the front end, and now four days on the back end. It hasn’t left the warehouse in the town where it shipped. I can type from my new iPad bluetooth keyboard, but find it harder to take on indepth work that requires a lot of Wikimarkup.

Victoriaearle of course you are a well respected FA writer, and should you be interested in doing the cleanup, I think you would enjoy it, and we would all benefit by not having to drag dozens of Awadewit articles to FAR. If we knew you were working on it, I’m sure I could convince others to hold off on FAR nomiantions. If you are game, I will outline the issues.

That is exactly the problem I have with pings, so I will pop a note on your talk, but would rather keep this conversation here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose getting anything in or out of Texas these days would be slow, but I'd probably end up buying a new computer instead of waiting so long! Anyway, I've had A Vindication of the Rights of Woman on watch for as long as I can remember, took a brief glance a few days or so ago and don't see issues except that there may be para breaks separating refs. I don't want to remove the tags in the lead, (don't know who tagged it), but yes, that's a very good summary. I'll have to dig my deadwood copy out of the depths of an old bookcase and can find and add page numbers if that's what needed. But - I work slowly. Just so you all know. As for the other issues, yes, am interested in having them outlined. Separately I see that Nancy Drew is up too. Sigh. Victoria (tk) 22:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC) P.s - in their wisdom, google books will not allow any page views of this now centuries old feminist text. Pfft!. Victoria (tk) 22:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fiddlesticks, Victoriaearle I typed up the whole thing and lost it in edit conflict. The iPad will not let me edit copy edit paste text to recover from an edit conflict. I tagged the articles. Will start over with whole long explanation, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will work in smaller pieces now. Besides the important issues, this edit shows the need for MOS:LQ corrections (punctuation inside quotes when it should be outside) along with the more important stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another piece (not the main problem, which I had typed up in a more coherent narrative): Talk:Anna Laetitia Barbauld#Featured article review needed shows that we also have to check for datedness. In that case, Wikipedia was criticized in a journal for relying on certain sources. (That IP has now declined to do the cleanup.) Will type up the rest next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The bigger picture. I started work as FAC delegate at the beginning of 2008; I don’t recall reviewing many of Awadewit’s 2007 FACs. In mid-2008, two prolific FA writers (independently of each other) brought to my attention problems with POV, COI and bias in her work. After that point, I kept a watchful eye, but I knew they were watching, and after that point, she also collaborated more often with other editors and I thought the problem had been addressed. Looking back at 2007 work was not in my remit. Neither of those editors is still editing. More recently, another prolific FA writer told me there was original research in her work. So, as part of WP:URFA/2020, I started through her FAs, oldest first 2007. I am concerned that I started tagging a long time ago, and no one has made any improvements— meaning her articles aren’t well watched, and we also need to see if junk has crept in since she last edited. I am hoping the problems are confined to 2007 and early 2008, but that is a LOT of articles and a lot of checking needed.

Here’s what I’ve found so far. Besides the less significant issues above, I frequently find a summarizing uncited sentence at the end of fully cited content in a paragraph. That expresses an opinion. These instances read as SYNTH/editorializing of the type both sets of editors alerted me to; one would need the sources to know if these instances can be cited, or if they are what I was told (that she got away with adding her own opinions to articles). It needs to be determined if those things can be cited, taking care with Wikipedia mirrors. Separately, but similarly, I frequently found adjectives that sound like puffery, that should be checked. All-in-all, a source-to-text integrity check is needed, as well as checking for datedness or selective use of sources to present a POV.

You are just the sort of editor who could do this, but it would be a long-haul project. With you on it, we should be able to avoid even a single FAR, and be able to feel assured the entire body of her FAs is sound and safe. When I referred to “fans”, I meant I didn’t want certain WikiProjects (where very little knowledge of FA level work is apparent) going through these articles and pronouncing them fine; you know what to look for and how to do a thorough job. If you will take this on, I think we would be in position to mark Awadewit’s work satisfactory at URFA/2020, and avoid a number of FARs. If you’ll do it, my suggestion is to take them from WP:WBFAN, oldest first, many of which I have already noticed as needing a FAR because I thought that would provoke someone to work on them ... I don’t think anyone is watching her articles. (This all sounded better the first time I typed it :). Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Big sigh. Re lead tags (and I agree it's a small issue), those ideas are in the body but slightly rephrased in the lead. In this edit I took the phrasing directly from the body for the lead, but reverted myself for now. Wikipedia:Peer review/A Vindication of the Rights of Woman/archive1 is extremely impressive. I'm not keeping up with current FACs but this is how PR should work, and, again without keeping up don't really know, but how many literature/philosophy articles are being submitted? Anyway, that's all a little tangential.

To the issue at hand: Awadewit was a healthy young woman, deeply immersed in a narrow field of study (studying literature tends to become quite narrow during the doctoral phase), with access to a university library, during pre-pandemic normal times. None of these apply to me. Her narrow field is a few centuries earlier than mine - though I did study "Vindications" (my studies were less narrow for lots of reasons) - my health sucks, I'm not young, and don't have library access. To get up to speed on a 200+ year old text such Vindication, about which tons of ink has been spilled, would require an immense amount of reading (hundreds, maybe thousands of pages), which might be required for the checks that you describe above. For example, the uncited sentence re double standards (second para in the "Feminism" section) - is neither incorrect nor OR, but a source would have to be found for it. I'm getting zero page views from Google books from some reason and I have limited access to whatever the Wikipedia library offers. That's for a single article. In other words, to check all 50 articles is ... well, a big lift.

I don't think there are issues in Vindication beyond the usual article degradation, which seems rather minimal, citation updating, polishing, etc, particularly given the rigorous PR. But I could be wrong.

By the time I became active Awadewit was becoming less active; I never reviewed any of her articles or collaborated with her. So I can't speak to the veracity of the accusations. It's sad, though and should, maybe, have been addressed at the time. My gut is telling me this is too big a lift for me, and I have to listen to my instincts. Maybe all you can do is delist all the articles and at some point they'll be renominated by someone else. Stranger things have happened.

In the meantime, when I'm able I can pick a little at Vindication, polish a little, tidy a little, and if I uncover any glaring issues I'll report back. Hope this all makes sense; I'm not quite sure how to react to the accusations at this moment except with sadness. Victoria (tk) 02:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t want to be— and don’t want you to be— discouraged too easily or too early. It would be an utter shame to lose Awadewit’s body of FAs (and I think we don’t need to check all of them, but 2007 is a good start). We can take it slow; I hope no one will be in a rush to bring such quality work to FAR, but I also hope that by tagging, people will be alert and begin to chip away at the issues. I don’t want to say anything further about the accusations except that, at the time, I kept it quiet but verified independently everything I was told, and passed that information on to certain arbs (back in those days, we didn’t really have a standard way of dealing with COI). My gut says the problems stopped by mid-2008. Today, I accessed my old yahoo account to review those ancient emails to make sure I wasn’t misremembering. This is not to say we don’t have a good body of work— just some things that need to be checked before we can mark them “satisfactory” at URFA/2020. Perhaps, no pressure, you will chip away at the pieces— you are our best hope :). Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So today I was able to access one of the sources, but could only view about 20% of the pages cited in the article (maybe even less). Awadewit's style was to rely heavily on text bundling; i.e a single sentence/statement takes from four or five sources. The few pages I could view were all citing sentences w/ bundled cites so it's impossible to sort out what comes from where without all the books at hand. Looking for OR is a little like looking for CP; an arduous sentence-by-sentence trawl to match text to sources - or in this case, to multiple sources.

I wanted to a least give it a shot. But after sleeping on it, I decided that taking on a project such as this, given the allegations and possible arb involvement, etc., and that I probably am not neutral, is not a good idea. I don't think it would be good for my health, to be honest. So I have say no. Sorry about that. I'll unwatch Vindication and any other pages of hers. Sarah's done some work with feminism, and Opabinia's PR was excellent (she has a better grasp of the philosophy than I do), so there are others who might be able to help. Victoria (tk) 22:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying and for considering it, Victoriaearle; you were the person I most trusted to sort it all out. The arb involvement was 13 years ago, and only because in those days, we had no other way to deal with confidential COI issues; I don’t consider it still an issue. Well, we will wait and see, and maybe someone will appear to work on the articles. I will archive this thread now, all the bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Societal and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome[edit]

Hi SandyGeorgia, on closer examination, you would have noticed that my two edits were only to correct the spelling of the word 'protaganist → protagonist' and to correct 'italic punctuation marks'. But, the person who added the sentence in question should appreciate that you found a reliable source. Woodlot (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ha, Woodlot, I see that now ... my sincere apologies! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done. Hope FedEx returns your computer soon. Woodlot (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oriel College[edit]

Hi, a couple of notes and queries.

Apologies for the first reference I added, I thought you were requesting a citation for the last fact in the paragraph, not the whole paragraph. The reference was to an official heritage listing on the Historic England website https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1046656. You commented the entry says "the info is user contributed, a Wiki", but I think you may have been looking at the final section of the page "Images of England" rather than the listing itself. Anyway I have replaced the reference as it did not cover the whole paragraph.

I don't understand what is wrong with the second reference I added, to Oriel College (David Rannie, 1900), which has a list of page numbers including 108–110, which I think cover the whole Twitty incident. I added a link to the book on archive.org, https://archive.org/details/orielcollege00rannrich. I also don't understand "all those pages do not contain this one quote" or "sloppy sourcing here so it appears we will need to get quite specific about what is where". I think the answer to "which page is this on ?" is 108.

I have to admit to a lack of experience with featured articles, so any feedback is appreciated. TSventon (talk) 04:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, TSventon ... thanks for stopping by. I am currently limited to iPad typing, with my computer in repair, so my messages are probably a bit too brief!

If you are saying that the big blue box at the bottom of historicengland.org applies only to the Images section, then that is certainly very poor web design, and I fell for it :)

On what I was asking to be cited, this is a Featured article that is far out of compliance with the standards and needs a lot of work, so when an entire paragraph is uncited, that means everything in the para needs to be checked and cited; in the case of that article, which is so far out of compliance, almost everything everywhere needs to be checked and correctly cited.

The page ranges given in that citation look like this: pp. 1, 5–10, 102, 105, 108–110, 241, 235. We can’t give that for every piece of text cited from that book, and expect a reader to go through a dozen different pages looking for a piece that is on one page; all of the page ranges in that article’s sourcing need to be narrowed down to where a reader can find the info cited— not all of the pages cited from that one source. For example, the cited quote is on one specific page. If something is on page 108, the citation should say, p. 108, rather than a list of more than a dozen pages the reader needs to check. A change in citation style may be needed; for two different sample of how you might cite book page numbers and ranges, see Tourette syndrome (short-form citations manually written) and dementia with Lewy bodies (page no citations using sfns). There is deficient sourcing throughout that article, and it is preferable not to have to add a cn tag to every statement that isn’t sourced, so I only added at the end of paras ... hope this helps! Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with the Historic England source, and it is RS. The user-generated content actually refers to the stuff below the blue box, I believe. The page in question says "There are no contributions" below the blue box, so I don't think there is anything user-generated at all on that page. Hog Farm _Talk 04:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ha, thanks HF. So, TSventon, the source is good— the web design is bad :). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me too HF. SG, I hope you get news on your computer soon. I have added page numbers to all the Rannie references using the rp template so as not to unilaterally change the citation style. The page numbers listed seemed to be correct and in the right order, apart from the missing page 11 which I added. Fortunately Rannie seems to be the only reference with a long list of page numbers. Books digitised by British History Online (e.g. the volume of the Victoria County History I added a reference to) don't give individual page numbers, but at least they can be searched electronically. TSventon (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:ACCESS[edit]

So I worked up a National Register of Historic Places and nominated it for FLC. Turns out the pre-existing table the list was built on had a number of accessibility and logical issues, such as color-coding with nothing else to identify that thing (and not having a key for the color-coding) or doing stupid things such as having a column for images that is sortable (how would you sort images?) So I spent about an hour jerry-rigging a homemade table to replace the easier-to-add template to. You're a bit more familiar with MOS:ACCESS things than I am. Would you say the sample table at User:Hog Farm/sanbox/NRHP table is compliant enough? It's not quite as pretty as the non-compliant template, and the internal code is ugly, but if its accessible and works right, that's good enough for me (and hopefully the FLC reviewers, because I think that output is about the limit to my template ability). Hog Farm _Talk 06:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: oh boy, this is depressing. I am not all that familiar with the ACCESS on tables, and like many issues (eg images), I relied on knowing who to ask, and never learned things myself. (I could process the FAC volume I did because I delegated and had a team of experts in each area.) And in this case, we may have lost the most knowledgeable editor per an arb case, and I am not sure where else to send you, as RexxS is no longer editing. I can suggest three things:

See the table I did at White House Coronavirus Task Force. I started it, but lots of people fiddled with it, and I’m not sure what most of the fiddling means.
Look above on my talk page, towards the bottom of the “To Do” section, and see a series of adjustments RexxS made to a table to make it accessible.
If all that fails, post to the talk page of MOS:ACCESS or to WT:FAC asking for more help.

Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Femkemilene I seem to remember on one of your FARs coming across an accessibility expert; might you recall that editor, or was it maybe you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy has helped me before with accessibility. Unfortunately, I don't know how to make tables accessible. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Best ask @RexxS:...as I have always found tables hard to do.--Moxy-

15:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS hasn’t edited since the arbs accepted the case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, Hog Farm, notice at White House Coronavirus Task Force that the table is set up so that the column with the image also includes the name, and is sortable by the name. That is specified with the data-sort-value parameter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And if all else fails, ask the people at FLC who are very good at ensuring tables are compliant with MOS:ACCESS. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There you go, HF ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind on all that above. I've withdrawn the nomination. Between arguments that the use of the template across the project should be consistent, and those that the current template should be used do to issues with it, it became clear to me that the candidacy was going nowhere. At least the list got improved in the pre-nomination work; content improvement is more important than the shiny little star. Hog Farm _Talk 20:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your efforts to meet the project's expectations on MOS:ACCESS are appreciated. It's a shame the inertia of a Wikiproject has prevented progress. Perhaps if those templates are ever brought up to scratch you'll consider re-nominating. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barbauld Editing[edit]

Thank you, SandyGeorgia, for encouraging me and for your openness to the updates I proposed for the Barbauld article. I have thought about your recommendations and went so far as to create an account, but thinking further about how complicated and time-consuming editing for Wikipedia is, I think I will leave the actual updating of the article to you or to others. I can mention this to others at the conference, who might be better able than I to follow through. 97.96.16.35 (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, IP 97; great to hear from you. But that article is not remotely within my realm of knowledge; I only entered the notice of a need for a Featured article review because of my work at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020. I am afraid that if someone like you (or other conference people) doesn’t fix it, it will probably stay in the state it is in. Perhaps you will change your mind :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editor of the Week[edit]

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your over-all efforts. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Gog the Mild submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

SandyGeorgia is endlessly busy: submits a lot of high quality and thoughtful reviews at FAC, puts in a shift and a half at FAR and seems determined to single-handedly revitalise PR. All top level and important areas. Any one of these would merit an EotW award, all three has me wondering if she is the beta-test of an advanced AI. Has nurtured any number of editors to higher levels than they thought they were capable of and been the driving force behind dragging more broken-down old FAs up to scratch than I care to think about. Sandy spares Wikipedia endless high-level time and effort and the encyclopedia is immeasurably richer for her efforts.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

SandyGeorgia surrounded by admirers

SandyGeorgia

Editor of the Week
for the week beginning February 21, 2021

Recognized for

being "a high profile, experienced editor that is also a regular bloke" and for doing incalculable good for the project. Always helpful: willing to school, guide and encourage. Has helped hundreds of articles attain FA status. Winner of the The Jolly Tired After Having Done a Fantastic Job Award in 2012. Takes the heat for speaking the truth. A Hero to many and Villain to a few.

Notable work(s)

Tourette syndrome, Samuel Johnson, Dementia with Lewy bodies

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 14:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now that I have tracked that down, I see Gog the Mild is a sneaky one :). Thanks, Gog, and thank you Buster7 for your work on editor retention. Buster7, I didn’t write most of 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt; the stats make it look like I did because I copied in most of the article from Zialater’s sandbox. Would you mind switching that out as it’s not really my work? I am much more proud of dementia with Lewy bodies, although if you are seeking something Venezuelan, ¿Por qué no te callas? is mostly my work. Thanks again to both of you ! I will find a way to get back at the Gog :) :). Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quite well deserved, Sandy. Hog Farm _Talk 17:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed well deserved. Still learning a lot from you :). FemkeMilene (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone had asked for my vote, I would have voted yes, and entered all the names of the dead on the rolls so I could fraudulently upvote you a hundred times... Oh wait... :-) Hrrmm (throat clearing) You will always get my one true vote - from the heart. No one deserves it more. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Took long enough. Hope your back has been doing a better job at being a back. P anini ^🥪 15:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all ! My back is doing better ... now if I just had a real keyboard, I could crank out some serious work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gog the Mild Sandy needs a WP page of her own defining "serious work" ... the rest of us have been left in dust so thick we can't even see what she means. Serious work? Good night nurse! Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on being named editor of the week! A rare and well-deserved honour! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A very belated congratulations on this honor. You have put a significant amount of time and energy into Wikipedia and I appreciate how much you truly care about it. Aoba47 (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Hello again. I just wanted to say good luck with the FAC proposal. I hope that it continues to generate discussion and will help with some of the larger issues in the FAC space. I hope you are doing well and enjoying your week! Aoba47 (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw this proposal (which I really like) because of the above comment—I wonder if this would be a good time to codify doing spot-checks for new nominators? Seems a consistently de facto norm that I wonder if we may as well officiate. Aza24 (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you ... always good to hear from you ... but the wheels turn slowly and the time may not be right just yet. I hope you are well, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that timing is very important and I think it is best to make sure everything is set and perfect before putting it out for wider consideration. I hope that my message was not pressuring you in any way. I was more so saying that I think your proposal is very interesting and the two-stage process has a lot of potential. I've been feeling a little under the weather lately, but it's nothing that rest cannot handle (at least hopefully lol). Aoba47 (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also just saw this proposal. Perhaps comprehensiveness should be in step 1? If the article doesn't have enough info, or omits major sources, waiting until step 2 to point this out might cause the article to need another source review, thus bouncing an FAC/FAPC back-and-forth. Z1720 (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 I am still quite behind after all day out yesterday, but would prefer to answer that over at User talk:SandyGeorgia/sandbox4 to keep everything in one place ... I'll get to it :)

Aoba47, your comment left me a bit worried; I hope you are OK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for making you worried and thank you for checking up on me! Thankfully, I am feeling much better now. I'm not entirely sure why I felt under the weather, but it was nothing serious :) Aoba47 (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to hear that, Aoba47; the last year has certainly taught us how important our health is! Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I have decided to return to Wikipedia editing as I do genuinely enjoy the process. Apologies for all of the back and forth for leaving and returning to Wikipedia as it is admittedly quite obnoxious. I have learned quite a bit from my short break about focusing on what I enjoy, etc. Anyway, I hope you are doing well! :) Aoba47 (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Aoba47 even short breaks are healthy ... and recommended ! But I am glad you are back, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to be back and it is always nice to hear from you. I hope things with you are going well! Aoba47 (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the randomness of this message. I just saw the recent discussion of Today's Featured Article (here). If you are looking for an alternative, I was originally going to nominate the "Blindfold Me" article for the Valentine's Day slot as this is the 15th anniversary of the song's release and it would be a different spin on the holiday. Just curious of your opinion there? I did not want to raise this point in the thread as I do not want to come across as opportunistic for suggesting my own FA as an alternative and I have tons of respect for the editor who worked on the Manson article. Aoba47 (talk) 06:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair though, my choice may run into similar problems. This song was recorded by Kelis and Nas during their marriage. They have since divorced, and Kelis has accused Nas of physically and mentally abusing her so on second thought, scratch my idea completely. Replacing Manson with another problematic thing would only make it worse. I should have realized that prior to posting my message ><. Aoba47 (talk) 06:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - March 2021[edit]

Issue 10—March 2021

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter

Here is what's happening around the project:

**Newly recognized content**
17q12 microdeletion syndrome nom. Vaticidalprophet, reviewed by Bibeyjj Urinothorax nom. Steve M., reviewed by Bibeyjj Lurie Children's Hospital nom. Andrew nyr, reviewed by HickoryOughtShirt?4 Biotin nom. David notMD, reviewed by HaEr48 Imprinted brain hypothesis nom. Vaticidalprophet, reviewed by Lee Vilenski

**Nominated for review**
Friedreich's ataxia nom. Akrasia25 Kivu Ebola epidemic nom. Ozzie10aaaa, under review by Casliber Diaphragmatic rupture nom. Steve M. Mihran Kassabian nom. Larry Hockett Sophie Jamal nom. Vaticidalprophet Menstrual cycle Undergoing FAR, contribute at talk. Alzheimer's disease Notice of impending FAR at talk. Major depressive disorder Notice of impending FAR at talk. Acute myeloid leukemia Notice of impending FAR at talk. Influenza Notice of impending FAR at talk. Autism Notice of impending FAR at talk.

News from around the site

There is an ongoing drive to review good article nominations through the month of March. Pick up a review if you have time. Instructions here.
The Medicine Collaboration of the Month is on temporary (perhaps) hiatus. You can still nominate future candidates at WP:MCOTM.
This month's target maintenance backlog is "articles with a dead link". Each typically takes around a minute to fix, so please hit one or two when you have a moment.
The desktop site's default "Vector" skin is being gradually modernized. Details here. Opt-in at Preferences>Skin preferences to begin getting used to the new look.

Discussions of interest

A large discussion is reconsidering deprecating the aliases for some citation template parameters.
Please look over edit-protected medicine pages to consider whether some could have protection levels safely lowered.

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

Ajpolino (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Crow Looked at Me query[edit]

Hi Sandy. Given your dislike of the ping function I thought that I would duplicate here my query on the FAC of A Crow Looked at Me re your review: "does this count as a pass for a first-time nominator's source spot check as well? Thanks." Gog the Mild (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gog the Mild, unless FedEx is lying again, my computer may be delivered later today, after three weeks in FedEx hell. I need to look closer as my review was so long ago, I can’t remember if I did enough to clear on all scores (source-to-text integrity as well as close paraphrasing). Sorry to be the hold up, but give me a bit more time ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem Sandy. No rush. Let us be correct, not speedy, by all means. We could start a campaign? "Free the FedEx 1". Gog the Mild (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I Hate FedEx. They have lied and lied. If they had told the truth at any point in this debacle, I would have made other arrangements, but I have spent three weeks thinking my computer was arriving soon because they won’t even tell me where it is. And, they took my $5 to guarantee an evening delivery last Friday, because I was at medical app’ts all day and they needed a signature, so I paid for a delivery after 5 pm. Those buttfaces took my $5 for a late delivery when my computer had not left Texas. Mad as heck, never again for FedEx. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

USPS isn't much better. I recently ordered a book and was told to expect it to arrive via USPS in 10-14 days. It arrived in about 40. And it spent about 35 of those in a single USPS sorting facility in Pennsylvania. Hog Farm _Talk 02:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, I' back. Not sure how long it will take me to get caught up. Not a fan of USPS issues, either, but UPS has never messed me up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My computer arrived (in the middle of the day even though I paid FedEx for an evening delivery).

It doesn’t work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:( sorry to hear that. (t · c) buidhe 03:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My condolences. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darn computer, errrr, FedEx[edit]

I'm back! What was billed as a five-day turnaround took three weeks and hours on the phone to try to track down which part of FedEx hell my computer was stuck in. Then the warranty repair people fixed the keyboard, but left everything else asunder. With the help of tech support, I'm back. But I did invest another two hours of time on the phone towards making FedEx give me back the $5 I paid for an evening delivery *last* week. Only $5, but I made them pay harrrrump! Passwords all updated, caught up on finances in Quicken, and now to figure out how to prioritize getting caught up here. But first, thanks to everyone who put up with my iPad typing through this! I could type (and even wrote an article at Allan J. McDonald), but just couldn't do any real reviewing, because I need three windows open for that, and edit copy-edit paste was difficult. Now to dig in ... I will probably not be caught up enough to start back in to WP:URFA/2020 until early next week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, Congratulations! You have now run out of legitimate excuses and must immorally refuse or get back to work. Welcome to Wikipedia. P anini ^🥪 16:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(And yes, I immediately regretted pinging you when I posted this. I forgot. Please don't smite me.) P anini ^🥪 16:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Panini!, you must know that I am a Boston Red Sox fan, and you cannot jinx me (it's not over 'til the Fat Lady sings) ... I sure hope I am out of excuses, and nothing else pops up! I am traveling now, but hope to start reviewing again next week. Also, I solved my love-hate relationship with pings by shipping them off to email :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lion Attacking a Dromedary[edit]

Hi Sandy and her many talk page watchers. I have a pre-FAC peer review for a piece of problematic art that I wonder if I can pique some interest in. I will trade my standard FAC source reviews, for PRs. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 05:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No trading needed ... I have every good intention of getting through all of the PRs, should FedEx ever decide to give me back my computer ... sent for an easy warranty repair, done in a day, but took FedEx three weeks to get it there, and now they are pulling the same stunt on the way back (blaming their delays first on weather, now on COVID vaccine deliveries) ... I can type on my iPad, but not well enough to do a serious review ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero my computer is back, and you are on my list ... it could still take me a few days to get caught up, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review! Work got busy (and the puppy is sick), but I should have time this weekend -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 05:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

awwww ... I don't like to hear about sick puppies :( Hope it is nothing serious. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Wow, I'm reading through your critique of my Joel S. Levine FAC submission, and while I have to say it stings a little to read (as it should), I'm also really grateful for your critical review! If you ever have the time to help improve the article I'd appreciate it :) Yitz (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Yitzilitt; this was very kind of you, and I apologize again that my critique "freaked [you] out", and commend you again for reacting so well to strong criticism of an article. You mentioned that you are interested in "how the personal lives of scientists and their work intersect". My thought is to offer you other ways to explore that interest. Many of the issues at Joel S. Levine are not at all unusual in bios; the problem is in how to write a bio for a published scientist. The solution is to gather all of the best secondary sources first, and take great care not to use primary sources incorrectly. There isn't a lot to work with on Joel S. Levine as there is not a considerable body of secondary sources that are directly about him.

Perhaps you will consider this possibility as you learn to work up a BLP ? Isabelle Rapin has a decent start, although nowhere near GA or FA standard-- just the basics. There are two sources specifically about her listed in Further reading that have not been worked in to the article. There is much more material in the sources listed that could be worked in. But note that NONE of the sourcing in the article now rely on primary sources or her bio, except for the one instance that cites where she works-- a correct use of her own bio for that institution.

I don't see that Levine can be salvaged unless about half of what is there now is cut out, and I don't see that you have a lot of secondary source material upon which to build an FA. No one has written considerably about him only. Finding another scientist to work on-- like Rapin-- could be a better use of your time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your excellent advice; I'll look into her work! Yitz (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A toast sandwich for you![edit]

That back pain is horrible. I would like the Cyclone Owen PR to continue by some feedback from you, however, this might take some time... In fact, I also had a back pain last year, though it is quite minor. Mario Jump 83! 12:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the yummy sandwich! I am slowly getting used to editing strictly from my iPad as my computer is in repair, and hope to catch up on all peer reviews soon ... but doing content review work is tricky from a teensy tiny bluetooth keypad, so please be patient with me :). Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP 86[edit]

IP 86, are you around? I wish you would register an account so we could reach you :). Your expertise is needed at menstrual cycle, which is undergoing a rewrite to retain featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Predictive Text (and Admin highlighting info).....[edit]

You have a busy and active talk page, so I am responding to your recent query under a dedicated section. Here is the previously posted info you are seeking: User:Tribe of Tiger/sandbox4. I hope it will be helpful. Best wishes, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 01:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tribe of Tiger, thanks so much for that ... now it is here where I won't lose it! I will sort through it the next time I have some downtime for iPad reading. I appreciate your effort! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, well, it's a pretty short read, wish there was more. Just discovered this today [7], which may be useful, if you have an iPhone. I am still clinging, tooth & claw, to my ancient "non-smart" cell phone! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 22:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, ToT ... I did a review this am for Ceoil (below) on the real computer, and now the back is spasming like crazy, so I am on sofa, with a tennis ball stuck in my back, iPad typing. I checked settings, and I do have predictive text on. It gives me word choices, but that does not speed up my hunt and peck, not does it help me with wikimarkup ... what am I missing? It is wikimarkup that is so difficult ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But I think the mashable info will help ... will try to sort it when not in pain ... Thx! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I alternate between laying on these hard things and ice to try to make the spasms stop. Giving birth was easier. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, oh, I am so sorry this has not helped. You are not missing anything, AFAIK. I don't edit on your more sophisticated level, with a lot of wiki markup, so I was thrilled with the Predictive text. My ten fingers remembered how to spell words, and type swiftly, but the two thumbs did not, although I now realize they are growing smarter. Still, I must hunt and peck for wiki markup. (Two tennis balls, in a sock, will enable you to apply pressure to two troublesome area, at once, FYI) I imagine that in the future, we will have virtual keyboards that allow us to "air type" without even touching a device. Surely, this is would be possible, for those of us touch type. Attractive finger caps or decorative studs imbedded in our fingernails, which could interface with a device and learn our finger movements. Some hope for the future? And, as Femkemilene mentions, there is speech recognition, which one of our long-term editors, possibly an admin, uses (will have to check). Sorry I could not provide more assistance. Best wishes! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 07:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your info is probably very helpful, i just have been in too much ongoing pain to focus on it, thx for trying to help, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Buidhe's swift key here to remind self: [8] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) I'm relying heavily on speech recognition, which allows me to lie down when my back pain becomes too bad. Dragon NaturallySpeaking, while pricey, allows you to make commands including wiki markup. For me the accuracy isn't great, but that's mainly my Dutch accent. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Femkemilene not sure what you mean that you can speak wikimarkup ... could you give me an example of what you speak to generate markup? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of options.

Words can be added. So saying SandyGeorgia renders SandyGeorgia for me.
Easy commands can be added via a user interface. "Open watchlist" opens a new tab, types the url and presses enter. Similarly, "ping user" types {{u|.
Difficult commands can be programmed up. For instance, cite report would insert that template, and allow me to toggle through the various parameters. There is no phone support for this function however. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, sounds awesome ... thanks ! Unless something improves, this could be a good option for me! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the learning curve is not small, but it's considered some of the best software in its class. Don't expect to know everything the first week. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, you might like to talk to User:Graham87, who is the long-term user/Admin that I mentioned above. Graham87 has been blind since birth. According to his user page: "I use the screen reader JAWS, with a speech synthesiser, to access the Internet." I am unfamiliar with the technical aspects that Femkemilene mentioned, but Graham may be another good source of information, for interacting with the internet by speech versus typing. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 01:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tribe of Tiger: Sandy and I go back a long way. I don't know anything about speech-to-text solutions; I just use a regular keyboard and my speech synthesiser speaks what I type and the text on the screen. Graham87 05:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Graham87, you were very helpful to me with a VPT question, and because of your technical expertise, I thought you might be able to help SandyGeorgia! I didn't realize that you already knew each other, how wonderful! Best wishes to you again, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That we do, Graham ... you have bailed me out a gazillion times! Thanks, Tribe of Tiger (and everyone) for trying to help me with my back issues, but now I have a new dilemma :). I spilled coffee on my laptop keyboard, fortunately had purchased a warranty, and have mailed it off to Texas for repair, and now it is stuck in a FedEx weather delay somewhere. So, I purchased a bluetooth keyboard for my iPad for the interim, and am adapting. I am wondering if this may be my solution, as I am now able to type with my iPad ! It’s not ideal, but it may turn out to be an inexpensive solution to my dilemma; time will tell. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, can you lie on your back and use the Bluetooth keyboard& iPad? I am a bit of an older person (female), and have lost track of new technology. I am wondering if between my upraised knees, largish belly roll and same sized boobs, (ahem, ahem) I could balance my iPad and a keyboard? If you think this might work, let me know, if possible. It's very helpful to talk to others and work out some solutions! Best wishes for your FedEx delivery. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G’morning, Tribe of Tiger! I am typing prone now. I will give you Too Much Gory Information on the chance it can help you as well. I am typing now from a prone position with knees raised.

Here is the keyboard I purchased (stupid Wiki, the links are blacklisted, so you will have to add https://www.amazon.com/ in front of each of these links ... and that was the hardest part about typing this!!)

ZAGG-Messenger-Keyboard-10-2-inch-10-5-inch/dp/B08M6BTP43/ref=sr_1_6?dchild=1&keywords=Zagg+messenger+folio&qid=1613908377&sr=8-6 (Zagg Messenger Folio)

and here is the more expensive

Magic-Keyboard-11-inch-iPad-Generation/dp/B0863BQJMS/ref=asc_df_B0863BQJMS/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=459728334703&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=453190211092364560&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9019801&hvtargid=pla-944203025691&psc=1 (Apple Magic Keyboard)

I now see would have been worth the money.

The difference is that the inexpensive version I purchased does not have a trackpad, so I have had to adapt to remembering to touch the screen in lieu of a mouse or trackpad. It has taken me some time to get used to it, but I am now so happy with this setup that I do see I could have made good use of the more expensive version, Apple Magic, which does include a trackpad.

I am also older, and besides the back issue from the tree, I have a serious essential tremor and arthritis in my hands, and as you know, with a back injury or back pain, one often is more comfortable with the knees raised. I am able to type on this keypad while prone, and with knees raised, although I sometimes need to put a small lumbar pillow under the iPad to raise it high enough to see over the boobs, depending on how flat I am lying. The setup works very well when I am propped with one sturdy pillow behind my back. And, if I set the iPad in the Zagg Messenger Folio on a desk, the positioning is perfect for real typing.

The major drawback of not having a trackpad is related to my benign essential tremor ... it is still hard via the touchscreen to grab and edit copy-edit paste text, so that takes me some extra time, but straightforward typing works and I am happy with the feel and touch of the keypad. That is, people will still have to endure my endless typos :) :). I also like that it has a key to toggle between the iPad onscreen keyboard, and the bluetooth keyboard, that it holds a charge for three months, and that the keyboard has toggle keys to sleep the iPad and to return to the iPad homescreen. As I have dropped and damaged iPads before, I also like the sturdy protective case, although I had to ditch my wonderful OtterBox. Because content review involves so much edit copy, edit paste to post in content, that part is tricky, but I am slowly getting more comfortable to the point that I hope to be able to do my “normal” amount of work soon, as it now appears I won’t see my laptop back for at least several more weeks.

In my case, it was worth the investment, and I am seeing additional advantages. My “real” computer is a very large, heavy laptop because I need it for the six-hour one-way trips to our cabin in the summer. It is too large to function practically as a laptop, and it really hurts my back to get behind the study desk to unplug it, so I leave it installed on the study desk except when we travel to the cabin, and then my husband unplugs and packs it for me. So, now having the bluetooth keyboard for my iPad means I will also be able to use it during the six-hour car drives to the cabin, so win-win! (Detour, never mind that when my husband got the detached retina, I feared I would be stuck now with all the driving, but he has recovered now to the point that his driving is fine.). Once I realized that the country-wide weather delays, plus the situation in Texas— which is where my laptop had to be sent for repair after I spilled coffee on the keyboard— meant that my laptop was going to be a long while getting repaired (it has already been five days and it hasn’t even left the local FedEx warehouse yet), I decided to purchase something interim. In my experience, the people at Target are very well trained, and I wanted to purchase something I could lay hands on rather than purchasing online ... so I went to my local Target and was typing on this inexpensive keyboard within half an hour ... easy peasy. It was a good interim solution, although I can see that the extra expense for the Apple Magic Keyboard may have also been justified. Hope this helps !! Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, oh my...thanks for this largesse of helpful information! You are so very kind! I am "off-wiki" for a few more days, but will supply a more detailed reply ASAP. I am so happy that your situation has improved, with the new device. Additional comments forthcoming!! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 23:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying hello[edit]

Hi! How are you? Hope you have been in good spirits through the pandemic! --Dwaipayan (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing good, thanks for asking. P anini ^🥪 17:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hello, old friend! Dwaipayanc, we are getting to the age where it is always something healthwise, but we did well with the pandemic. We were able to take lots of walks and get away to our cabin until winter set in, and we never felt too cut off or lonely. And now we have both been vaccinated, hooray ! How have you been ? I am not sure if you realize how often I think of you and thank you; every time I look at (yet another) overly long article that doesn't use summary style, I remember the favor you did me at Tourette syndrome when you chopped it to sub-articles.

Have you seen the effort at WP:URFA/2020 to review the older FAs? I cannot recall if you have any in there ... glad to see you again, and I hope you are well, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, We have been pretty good, too. No one in the family was diagnosed with covid-19, so far. Although I do not remember the details any more, sort of remember that Tourette syndrome was a very enjoyable collaboration!

I quickly looked at the WP:URFA/2020, and yes, there are a few FA articles there which I cared for! Do not know whether I will be able to work on those any more though (due to lack of time). Thanks, nice talking to you after a few years :) --Dwaipayan (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To do[edit]

Tools and other
useful things

Some of
my work

Nice
things

Yukky
things

FAC prep work: Uturuncu[edit]

Greetings,

in case you are interested in another FAC prep effort, Uturuncu is the next article that I plan to send to FAC. I see that you are busy and the Huaynaputina FAC will take time so I am not in a hurry with Uturuncu, so don't feel pressed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is on my list ... I hope to be able to get fully back in the saddle by the end of the coming week (fingers crossed that no new medical or computer conditions present). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Autism Prevention section[edit]

Moved to Talk:Autism

Hello, it is the good place to talk about a source ?

you've just reviewed my contribution about Autism Do you know the subject ? I erased a sentence within the section Prevention which says "Prevention While infection with rubella during pregnancy causes fewer than 1% of cases of autism,[118] vaccination against rubella can prevent many of those cases.[119] Here is my comment to the contribution => This is inappropriate to put that kind of information within an encyclopedia => this sentence relies on an article made in 2015 which says "In fact, rubella is and should be considered a vaccine-preventable cause of autism" solely relying to another article from 2010 saying vaccination prevent autism just because autism is linked to rubella syndrome... outdated info nowadays ? link between rubella / autism are from 1971 DOI: 10.1007/BF01537741) => what's you comment about it ? Allan.richard5093 (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Problems_with_GA_&_FLs[edit]

Hi! Since you prefer not to use pings, dropping this note for you and Joseph2302 here to the discussion above. I'm not sure if/whether you want to weigh in since the problem is still ongoing per JohnFromPinckney's notes. If you don't, no need to respond but I'll watch in case you do. Thanks! StarM 18:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Hi Sandy, I don't recall whether I ever thanked you properly for all your help in improving articles like "O Captain! My Captain!", so I'm hear to offer my sincere thanks. Your commitment to quality is admirable and the help you have been able to provide so many editors is really great. Anyways, thanks again and best wishes, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Eddie ... it was quite exciting to see it on the main page, as it felt like it would be a struggle back at the peer review stage ... so glad you made it there ! Great to hear from you, Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891 did you see it was the most viewed of the last ten days? [9] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

wow! No, I hadn't noticed that at all, thanks for letting me know. I'm not one to check page views often (with some of my articles averaging in the teens a month, they are somewhat depressing at times), but I did notice an awfully high level of vandalism on the page throughout the day. It's quite nice to hear that some people read the articles I work on :-). And to think it looked like this when I started! Yeah, it was quite the struggle for a little bit, but I enjoyed the challenge more often than not, and think I'm a better encycloped-ist for it. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funny thing is, I have to track my FA pageviews [10]... that’s how I know when there is a new development that might need to be added to the articles! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TFA questions[edit]

Hello again. I hope you are doing well and staying safe. Apologies for the random message. I have participated in two discussions about TFA requests (U.S. Route 30 in Iowa and The Coral Island) and I wanted to get your feedback on my comments. I opposed both of these requests (the first based on the quality of the blurb and the second as I do not think there is a strong enough justification to run an article for a second time). I rarely (if ever) oppose a TFA nomination so I feel quite uncomfortable doing so so I want to make sure I did not do anything inappropriate. I am having so computer issues, and I am currently using one of my older laptops until I can get my regular one repaired (hopefully) this weekend so that does not help matters. Thank you in advance and apologies for the trouble. Aoba47 (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, you are doing fine :) It looks like people are playing games at WP:TFA/R, as if the Coords don’t already have enough to deal with considering the February shenanigans. Which reminds me— I forgot to close that loop while my computer was out for repair. I hope your repair doesn’t have to involve FedEx !! Be well, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I hope that my repair does not require FedEx or any type of mailing service either lol. I hope that your computer is working right now. I never realized how much I took my laptop for granted until I had issues with my keyboard. It definitely makes me appreciate what I have lol. I hope you are well and have a great start to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 I don't watch TV and don't know anything about the Rugrats, but I had a look at Mother's Day (Rugrats) re supporting it at TFAR. I feel like I should know something about the article before supporting it. The article mentions critical acclaim for depicting breastfeeding, but tells us nothing about that depiction? Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk)

Thank you for the message. The part on breastfeeding is in the "Critical response" section and is supported by an article from The Huffington Post. I can see how this part is confusing since the episode summary does not reference the breastfeeding scene at all. For context, it occurs while the babies are sharing the favorite memories of their mothers, and one instance is about a pair of twins had their first laugh while she was breastfeeding them. You can watch the scene here. I am a little uncertain on how to introduce this without making the prose awkward. The sentence that would be revised would the following: Phil and Lil say that the best gift they gave their mom was their first laugh. Maybe something like Phil and Lil remember they had their first laugh while being breastfed by their mom who said it was the best gift they gave her. but I would be more than open to any of your suggestions. I hope this clarifies this, but let me know if you have any further questions. Aoba47 (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be fine; the problem I am having is that the blurb and the lead mention breastfeeding, and one wonders why it isn't mentioned in the plot summary. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. I will revise the plot summary to include the breastfeeding scene as that makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Glynn Lunney[edit]

On 20 March 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Glynn Lunney, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Black Kite (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus[edit]

Hello, SandyGeorgia. You have new messages at Talk:Huaynaputina.
Message added 15:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For information[edit]

Hi Sandy, you may, or may not, be interested in lending an explanatory hand here - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marjorie Paxson/archive1#Coordinator comment. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks Gog the Mild ... what I enjoy doing and helps offset my recent disappointments :) Replied there, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Lips Are Movin[edit]

Hello, SandyGeorgia,

I know nothing about FA tags but maybe you can tell what is wrong with the template settings on this page that caused Category:Wikipedia featured topics Title (Meghan Trainor album) featured content to appear. This red link category showed up on the Wanted Categories list but it seems more like an error than a category that needs to be created. Thank you for any help you can provide. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking now, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liz I can't sort that, and I'm not sure who can. While Lips are Movin was a Good article, there was no error. When Hawkeye7's FACbot promoted it to a Featured article, the error appeared, although I can find nothing wrong in the bot edits and the bot did not touch the Good topic event. Yet, Wikipedia:Featured topics/Title (Meghan Trainor album) still shows it as a Good article. I have no idea how Good topics are supposed to work, but it looks like there could be a coding error somewhere. There is not any good documentation on how good topics work that I can find. And the editors I once relied on for articlehistory no longer edit. If Hawkeye does not know, perhaps DrKay will. The next stop would be WP:VPT or Template talk:Article history, since I am stumped and don't know where to send you. But I note that Category:Article history templates with errors is empty. It seems as if, by one of the GAs becoming an FA, the code is not recognizing that it is a Good topic rather than a Featured topic. Not sure if GamerPro64 can add anything ... 'tis a mystery. @MaranoFan: just to keep everyone in the loop. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see. The article just got made Featured. That will have to be done manually. I'll have to remember for tonight. GamerPro64 19:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GamerPro64, will that fix the error that Liz is concerned about? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Good Topic is automatically promoted to a Featured Topic when sufficient articles become Featured. I can have the FACBot check for a GTC/FTC candidate entry in the article history and update the Featured topics template accordingly if you wish. It dorsn't do this at the moment. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ah ha! Thanks, Hawkeye. It sounds like that is the problem, and that is the fix. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The category is automatically added to the article by the ArticleHistory template when the article is marked as Featured by the Bot; see Module:Article history/config. But the category itself is not created, so the Bot would have to do that too. I have created it manually. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz and GamerPro64: has Hawkeye solved this now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's what we usually do for Featured Topics. Starting to think how we process topics is abstract compared to other projects. GamerPro64 23:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was beyond anything I typically encounter, but that's not saying much :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have instructed the FACBot to update the Featured Topic page to reflect the article's promotion, and to create the category if it does not already exist. While I was at it, I also updated the {{ArticleHistory}} documentation to add Good Topic, which was missing. It was interesting looking through the code of its Lua module to see what goes on. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My impression, based on I Dunno What, is that Gimmetrow did some stuff that no one else has yet replicated. I could be wrong! Anyway, glad that was solved, and thanks, Hawkeye. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Biggest sandwich ever?[edit]

You came to my mind while I attempted to fix this mess, because no one around here goes on about image placement like you :) That was the first time I saw a tourist map in a Featured Article. RetiredDuke (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, RetiredDuke, that’s a doozie! And it’s still bad. MOS:SANDWICH is a glorious tipoff to articles that are unwatched and unmaintained; are you writing up a FAR notice or should I? I am coming to a point of realizing on these second-time-around FARs how much time is misspent on articles that no one will maintain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

“Within the town, people usually traverse by walking.” SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahah, I still haven't got into the actual text, I went straight to the infobox. I'll write the notice, I just thought the map was funny enough to share. RetiredDuke (talk) 14:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you got the prize ! I haven’t seen one quite that bad, but still appreciate the tipoff that no one is watching the article. You can usually go straight to Economy and Demographics to find 20-year-old sources on geography articles like that. I am also coming to the conclusion that Geography articles are harder to maintain current than medical articles ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we are talking massive cities like San Francisco, Istanbul or Seattle... those must be the most difficult FAs to keep in shape over the years. They quickly get outdated, everybody is eager to add decorative photos and trivia, and they tend to become a bloated mess over time. Thankfully they are a rarity at FAC. RetiredDuke (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source reviews[edit]

I'm considering trying to do some more source reviews on articles I'm familiar enough with the topic to judge such things to reduce the burden on Ealdgyth, Nikkimaria, Buidhe, and the other prolific source reviewers, but would want to make sure I'm actually doing a good job at source reviewing before attempting to do that more frequently. My four most recent ones are Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joel S. Levine/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/International Conference on the Holocaust and Genocide/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2048 (video game)/archive1, and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Die Hard/archive1. I'd like to contribute more source reviews, but not faulty ones (FWIW, those four include one oppose and two struck opposes, which either means I'm just reviewing nominations with problems or I'm being too harsh). Hog Farm _Talk 01:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are going away early for the weekend, tomorrow, so I will read through those from the car as dear hubby is driving. Maybe others will look, too ... thanks for doing that! Have you seen all of Ealdgyth’s cheat sheets ? More soon, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS, Hog Farm, forgot to tell you ... I wrote Allan J. McDonald this week ... see talk page for anyone who wants a DYK out of it, since I don’t do DYK (I already asked one editor there if they want it first ... ) Maybe you want the Wikicup points? The sources give you plenty of room to add more content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't think there's much of a chance for me to be able to get the work for DYK done this week - I'm approaching college midterms, and life is hectic for me. When spring break comes, I hope to make a run at checking the Star Trek and Ealdgyth's ones at URFA. You know you're a true Wikipedian when your idea of "fun things to do over college spring break" is "review old featured articles" Hog Farm _Talk 03:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, U can nominate it yourself using my DYK credit if you want. I have done more DYK reviews than nominations. But I'm not sure what would make a good hook for McDonald. (t · c) buidhe 23:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Buidhe, but I don't speak DYK and really don't want to ... I just thought one of you might want the points ... take it if you want it ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS, @Buidhe, a good hook can be crafted from the NPR source, material I haven't yet added to the article in case anyone wants that. ... Twelve days after Challenger exploded, McDonald stood up in a closed hearing of a presidential commission investigating the tragedy. He was "in the cheap seats in the back" when he raised his hand and spoke. He had just heard a NASA official completely gloss over a fundamental fact. Former Secretary of State William Rogers chaired the commission and stared into the auditorium, squinting in the direction of the voice. "I'll never forget Chairman Rogers said, 'Would you please come down here on the floor and repeat what I think I heard?' " McDonald said. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe turns out that Z1720 will take it, Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, first, thanks for giving the version you reviewed-- I hate seeing fn# and not knowing what that is. My responses (basically to your question whether you are being too harsh):

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joel S. Levine/archive1, not too harsh at all; that FAC belongs at Peer review and should be closed. You picked up a number of issues, but there are more. By engaging line-by-line on an article that is not FAC ready, you will spend time that you could have spent on four other FACs. There is no consistent scheme for page numbers in terms of how many trailing digits are used. Wikilinks some publishers, not others, no pattern. MOS:ALLCAPS reduce titles to sentence case in citations. Ref 53 inconsistent citation style. I would not have put the effort you put into this, so you are not at all too harsh; I would have picked out a sample of the issues and sent him off to Peer review for cleanup with a Suggest withdrawal. And with that many problems in evidence, I would also check for the big ones right off the bat (pick one and see if there is any too close paraphrasing).
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/International Conference on the Holocaust and Genocide/archive1 looks like you covered everything and summarized your findings well.
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2048 (video game)/archive1 looks like a good start, and off to PR they go.
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Die Hard/archive1, same problem as #1, should have been sent off to PR quicker, you spent way too much time on that, and Your Time is Valuable :) Peer review is working again (and it will be working even more now that I have my computer back); it's OK to give them the idea and let them go fix it, rather than you having to check Every Single Source and Every Single Citation ... reviewers are here to help, not babysit.

You are doing great! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not entirely sure what to do in cases like Die Hard or Joel Levine where the sourcing needs significant work, but the nominator is actively working on replying to my comments. I'm not always sure that an oppose would really be actionable, if the comments get fixed quickly. With the Levine, I'm not confident in source-text integrity or the absence of close paraphrasing, but since the comments are getting fixed quickly, I don't really feel like there's an actionable basis to oppose on those comments once they get fixed. But I don't have the confidence in the sourcing to pass on sources without checking every single source. Which is a dilemma - I don't feel like I can oppose, but I can't support, and I'm not sure that I want to pick through every single sentence and every single source of that article. Not sure what to do there. Also doesn't help that I lack the credibility of an upper-tier reviewer. You or Gog or Ealdgyth have enough credibility in the system to be able to say that something needs withdrawn, while I'm likely to just be viewed as some rando who just doesn't like that article. Hog Farm _Talk 03:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is again, HF being HF (as a baseball fan, you will perhaps get the Red Sox connection :) Hog Farm, you are being too hard on yourself. The issue here is not whether one has cred as a FAC reviewer; it is that I have 15 years of experience as a medical editor, editing science bios, and have seen this kind of error (incorrectly using primary sources) over and over again outside of FAC. What I saw here is just part of my routine editing; there are so many doctor/researcher bios out there written just like this one that one despairs.

I don't believe one gets more cred at FAC by being an "upper-tier reviewer", and I seriously doubt that I am any better at reviewing than you are. I do perhaps have more experience in terms of knowing what kinds of issues to look for in what kinds of articles, but putting that aside, your reviews are quite often more substantial than mine.

We each have different ways of approaching reviews. As an operations research analyst, I can't help myself; optimization of scarce resources is the lens through which I view things, and for one of our best contributors to have spent so much time on a completely ill-prepared FAC is fingernails on the chalkboard for me. My approach is to take a first glance at a FAC enough to see if I should even engage before sending them off to PR; there are at least three dozen FACs on the page right now that deserve our attention, and we don't have time to get to them. That's not right; the ill-prepared belong at PR so we can focus on the FAC-worthy, while taking our time to help out at PR without pressure. But that doesn't mean everyone has to approach FAC as I do. And you are doing just fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to go into as much detail as Sandy, but these source reviews look fine to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this "Also doesn't help that I lack the credibility of an upper-tier reviewer. You or Gog or Ealdgyth have enough credibility in the system to be able to say that something needs withdrawn" .... and I'm rolling on the floor laughing. Just look at the Love for Sale FAC and see what "credibility" got me. Heh. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not unnoticed. But there is just so much wonkiness everywhere at FAC of late that it does not seem advantageous to pick one more battle ... I hardly know where to start, but need to finish the issues already being discussed before again taking on nominators being rude to reviewers! Although the abuse heaped on you there was absurd, the good news is that others are trying to pitch in and Be Like Ealdgyth :). Slowly but surely, FAC seems to be developing more source reviewers. Now if we could just gain back a Tony1-style prose reviewer, it might be possible to get the page below 30 FACs and get some closed in less than a month (which is apparently the new norm, and accepted, which is as alarming as the rudeness ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I hope we're still on good terms after FAC talk, it may have gotten a little heated, but hopefully Tom's suggestions can begin a path forward. On the topic of source reviews, setting aside the fact that Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1985 Tour de France/archive1 should not have been promoted, it raised an unfortunate example of why Sandy's FAC process proposal is superior (in terms of encouraging an initial stage of source reviewing) to the current process. The article had gone through three reviews, an image and accessibility review before I did the source review. In doing so I discovered one of the sources was certainly not admissible (I even checked with Nikkimaria, who concurred); yet the FAC had gone so far all that my comments became (understandably) met with disappointment, and the nominator basically said they would give up the FAC if the source continued to be impermissible... this is a clear example of how risky it is for source reviews to be done last; I guess I'm lucky that I've never done a source review at the end of an FAC where the conclusion was that extreme (in the worst cases it's usually no more than 10 unreliable/low-quality sources that can be somewhat easily replaced)... Aza24 (talk) 00:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we’re fine, Aza; having differences of opinion is not a bad thing as long as they are expressed constructively. I am feeling some relief that the Tour de France promotion so precisely showed the problems my proposal hopes to address. But, at the same time, I am increasingly concerned that there are so many problems at FAC that I wonder if a proposal about one aspect could possibly address what really ails FAC. The objectives of FAC are no longer clear to me, and I wonder if they are to anyone else. The off-putting length of FACs is one of the main problems; we have Coords trying to sort unreadable lengthy messes, we have a few extremely abusive and belligerant regulars, and reviewers are missing crucial items like you point out there. Since Laserbrain left, it seems that FAC is determined to further lengthy “pull em through by the skin of their teeth” FACs, at the same time we see FACs with outstanding issues promoted just as soon as the third support comes in or outstanding oppose is struck, in spite of a reviewer giving up at the opposition and walking away with considerable concerns still on the FAC. Which goes back to why you and I disagree about letting FACs grow out of control, as opposed to valuing, even encouraging, nominators to get their ducks in a row off the FAC page, and closing lengthy FACs that haven’t reached consensus quickly, after a few weeks at most, and sending nominators to sort their issues away from the pressure of FAC. If you have a FAC promoted on three (bare) supports because a reviewer gave up and walked away from the FAC, FAC isn’t doing it’s job. Two weeks was my outside limit, and we had a vibrant process with considerably higher throughput. Now we have stagnation via off-putting length, frequently belligerant nominators, reviewers being alienated or giving up, and critical items are missed. In short, what we have is a sense of entitlement and an absence of gratitude towards reviewers. Two of the last five promotions were precipitous, with unresolved issues left on the page yet promoted as soon as they had the minimum of supports, while the one who did everything “right”, went to Peer review, spent a month there getting stuff right, jumped through every hoop thrown thrown at them, got five supports quickly because they prepared well at Peer review— is stalled because two weeks at FAC is no longer considered enough. I am not sure any of my efforts have been worthwhile, if encouraging people via PR so they can present a well prepared FAC that will pass without absurd length and requiring a month is not valued. I am at a loss as to what to do next, and I don’t think the time is ripe to bring my proposal forward. It seems like there is no longer any cohesion at FAC, or any idea of how it should optimally function ... that is why I tried to steer the conversation you and I were having away from the specific and towards the general, so people could try to begin to understand each other before changes are proposed. I’ve watched the ups and downs for 15 years, and the current model is failing. My view is that moving to the PR model of transclusions will be the death knell in an already dying process. And then add to that the frequent statements on the talk page about “subjective” criteria (when they are all subjective to a degree), designed to belittle reviewers, and it feels like there is no solution to all that ails FAC. The culture is dominated by those who just want their stars, their points, their time on the mainpage. Meanwhile, over at FAR, we all seem to be working towards improving articles with common goals in mind, so I wonder if I am misspending my efforts by trying to help others prepare for FAC via Peer review. Oh, well ... things always look better in the light of a new day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really like your proposal! I think that having a more structured process may also begin solving issues around belligerant contributors, as it forces people to focus a bit more on content. I hope you bring it forward before I nominate my first article (sustainable energy with User:Clayoquot in maybe 3-6 months), as the new process seems less intimidating to me. What would be needed for the time to be ripe? FemkeMilene (talk) 08:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, there's a lot to unpack here, but firstly, I want to assure you that your efforts in revitalizing the process have been extremely beneficial for FAC and PR. In this sense, it is worth noting that in comparison to GAN and FLC, FAC is an extremely thorough and well-functioning process. This is not to say FAC doesn't have its own share of issues (we both know it does), but in my mind, it's important to remember how far we've come. I suspect outsiders to the FAC process probably do not see it as a failing one, which is at least somewhat reassuring :) Also, not to harp on my optimism, but it's worth noting that FAC has recently been attracting attention from many articles on extremely important topics, I mean just right now we have Huey Long, Apollo 12, Code of Hammurabi (!!!), the second Caliph of the Umayyad caliphate, Beaver etc; surely this is something notable in its own right? When I first came to Wikipedia a year and a half ago-ish, every time I'd check out FAC, I'd rarely see more than one article on things this significant, and most were on subjects I hadn't even heard of.

Now, separately, this influx of new articles is great, but it seems a bit unprecedented—for my time, at least. And because of this, now we increasingly see FAC at its "worst" (which is still not that bad): coords rushing promotion, good noms being archived for lack of reviews, overly long reviews etc. This is simply demonstrative of how fragile the current system is; it can't handle an FAC that works on all of our ideal efficiency. And the fragility (as we've seen) extends to the technical limits of the page, and the limits of our reviewing standards (length of reviews, that linking argument at FAC talk, etc.). Your proposal, I am confident, is a clear way forward towards addressing these things, PR can only do so much. I seem to have a different perspective than you on some of "those who just want their stars, their points, their time on the mainpage"—in my head, I immediately think of two people among those you are probably speaking of; however, I don't see it as clear cut as that. It is certainly true that some nominators see FAC as a gateway to those things, rather than a community vetted reviewing process, but it comes back to "impact vs intent". If a nominator is constantly bringing high quality and well written articles to FAC, but not taking the process as seriously as a newer nominator, are they hurting the encyclopedia? I would think, in general, no. They may not see FAC how they "should", but chances are they're so knowledgable in their subject and experienced with writing, that they don't have trouble meeting the FAC standards consistently, and well, that's the goal, isn't it? Again, I speak from far less experience than you, but I've been deepening into reviewing for some months now, so while I can't compare now to the supposed golden age of FAC (like 2012? I vaguely recall people talking about it somewhere) I can offer you a (hopefully) informed but fresh perspective, I would think. Aza24 (talk) 10:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the overall (my discouragement), I responded here.

Femke, I'm glad the proposal has your support (and thrilled you are working with Clayoquot, who is as competent as you). For the time to be ripe, I need to understand what FAC is about now; I no longer understand. And bringing forward a proposal that will add to the length of FACs (via more serious source reviews) at a time when we have fundamental disagreements centering on lengthy FACs will just be confusing. I don't believe I can bring forward the sourcing review proposal until we see more cohesive goals among FAC participants. At FAR, we all seem to understand what our goals are ... improve as many as we can while we get the truly bad off the books. I don't sense any notion that we even have common goals at FAC, and don't think bringing forward my proposal is timely when half of us support very lengthy FACs and half of us think they should be archived sooner.

Aza, I appreciate your glass half full to offset my glass half empty, as it helps with my discouragement. Overall, if we don't see nominators beginning to understand that having sufficient reviewers is more important than having lots of FAs, we are only rewarding star-seekers, and not furthering the overall process. Without reviewers there are no stars, and we are discouraging reviewers by a) belligerence, b) ignoring their feedback, and c) lengthy off-putting FACs. It is my opinion that FAC went south sometime after 2015 when the idea of the overall value of the bronze star (and work towards assuring the entire pool is worthy of the star) was lost, as we saw small groups of friends promoting the work of their friends up the WP:WBFAN line, based on prose reviews only, with no regard for the fact the bronze star no longer had any meaning as half the pool of FAs had deteriorated. That is why I value the selfless work of those who seek to save stars at FAR. In other words ... I have no interest in promoting FAC if, at the end of the day, we are only serving egos and promoting a sense of entitlement, that ends in belligerence and denigration of reviewers.

So, add to that, there is a fundamental disconnect on the purpose of FAC, that should be frankly discussed before I bring forward a proposal for improving source reviews. If this notion that some criteria are "subjective" (they all are) continues to be a manner to discredit reviewers, what is the point? I believe FAC should get back to evaluating whether the article appeared prepared before scarce resources are put into pulling them through. And they should be taken off the page quickly if they are so ill-prepared that they need super-segmented FACs that are longer than the article to pull them through, and increasingly taking a month. Others clearly disagree with me, and support segmenting FACs, long FACs, and pull-them-through-by-the-skin-of-their-teeth FACs. I don't want to be part of that; it's a waste of resources. Look at the very top of this thread, at how much effort Hog Farm spent on FACs that were not FAC ready. He could have processed four other FACs in the time those ill-prepared took. And that phenom explains the stagnation we see at FAC. (When Mike Christie got his new FACstats tool working, I was shocked to see that FACs had been running as long as three or four months; these days, there exists the idea that the appearance of an article at FAC is a guarantee of an eventual bronze star, no matter how long it takes. This promotes entitlement, not quality.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a lot of things to comment on, but I wanted to say I agree by the way that Sandy's efforts at FAR/FARC have revitalized that venue. I haven't done much there myself because my skill is more on writing something anew; either a new article or a total rewrite of an old one work but the latter isn't common at FAR(C).

Not all people who go to FAC want their day on the main page. I know I did ask that the Samalas article not be run on TFA until we know the exact day of the eruption, and I have never proposed a TFA otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo, but you have popped in to FAC whenever and wherever you are needed, and I thank you for that! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I may be part of the issue. I'm one of the WikiCup contest editors who sends stuff through FAC, I've nominated several of my FACs for TFA, and my FAR involvement has been more delisting and less fixing. I hope I'm not being toxic to the process. If I am being toxic, I will end my FAC involvement after I get a couple claimed reviews out of the way and my current one closes. I don't want to be the one to break FAC forever. Hog Farm _Talk 16:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Cow, Hog Farm!! WHEN am I going to convince you to stop being so judgmental of yourself! Your FAC and FAR and URFA and WikiCup participation fits in to none of these descriptions. Stop It :) We're having this discussion because YOU started doing source reviews (thank you), and YOU kept URFA going while my computer was out for repair! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cups[edit]

Could you possibly leave some comments for the "Cups" FAC? You were close to supporting it a few months ago. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 04:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Hi. I know we aren’t probably on good terms right now, but I want to thank you for everything you done to help me with throughout my time on Wikipedia. You truly do inspire me to never give up and do my best. 💫💫💫 The Ultimate Boss (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is very kind of you, The Ultimate Boss. I saw your message above re Cups, but I am still struggling to catch up after my computer was out for repair for three weeks. I will get to it as I am able, Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

that is totally fine. The nomination is dedicated to my love one who passed away from covid. I really want this article to be FA before I graduate high school in June and head to college in the summer. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheat code[edit]

Copied from Talk:Menstrual cycle

This page has gotten really big. If you are struggling with finding the right spot to insert your comment, I recommend trying a new tool, especially if your name starts with "Sandy" and ends with "Georgia". Just click this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Menstrual_cycle?dtenable=1 and then see if you get [reply] buttons after each signature. Click one of those and see if you like the mini-editor.

This is a one-time secret code, so it will go away if you reload the page (click the "Talk" tab at the top) and won't appear on any other pages. Ping me (which is easy in the tool's visual mode) or stop by my talk page if you want to have this set up in your account for all talk pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: Best thing since sliced bread. Know at least one editor— who likes to reply to every post even when they have nothing to say— we will regret giving it to. My computer has been stalled in TX FedEx warehouse since last Wednesday; this saves clicks. Cannot see what advanced button does. To whom do I send love letters? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The advanced button is to write an edit summary and to watch/unwatch the page. FemkeMilene (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There may eventually be some other stuff in the Advanced space. (If you click on the "Advanced ▿" and nothing happens, then ping me, and I'll go file a bug report for you.) The designer has some ideas about how to make our lives easier. Imagine, for example, pinging people by default, without having to type their names, and then there's a "Actually, this time, don't bother pinging anyone" button in the Advanced space.

Love letters go to the mw:Editing team. I know the PM will see anything you post at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project, and you can reach the designer at User talk:JKlein (WMF).

If you want to make this happen everywhere, instead of just on this page/when you click that link, then your options are to wait until the Beta Feature gets out (next week, I hope, but there are no guarantees), to manually add the secret code to the end of the talk page's URL (and reload) every time you want to use it, or to copy the "Happiness" lines at the top of m:User:Whatamidoing (WMF)/global.js into either your own /global.js file at Meta-Wiki (which will enable it at all the wikis), or into your /common.js file here (e.g., User:SandyGeorgia/common.js) (will only work here at the English Wikipedia). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, WhatamIdoing! I installed it to my common.js file as that gives me the control to remove it if it doesn't work out for me, now that my computer has finally returned from FedEx hell. So far, I am still thinking it will really address a lot of the problems I have typing. Having this note here will remind me to send those love letters once I have used it more ... thank you so much! I really like the way it shows me, right here, a preview, as that might help with my other typing issues! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The live preview is awesome. You might also try the visual mode. It doesn't have a separate preview, but it does have a button for making links and pinging people, which is handy when you can't quite remember how to spell someone's name or don't want to type a long link. You can switch from visual to source, but not always the other way around. (The visual mode won't take any text containing templates or tables, so if you try to switch then, you'll get an error message and stay in the wikitext source mode.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing but I can type something with markup easily and even add links from the visual mode, and then switch back to source with one click to preview ... still a win-win. I am liking it a lot. The biggest problem I have with it is ... changing 15-year-old habits. I forget it’s there !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It usually takes people about two weeks (assuming more or less daily use) to get used to a change. I suspect that in a few days you'll forget less often. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To anyone else reading this, WAID had installed this at Talk:Menstrual cycle; you won't see this option unless you install (as I did), or go over to Talk:Menstrual cycle to see it in action there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's available in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures now. You can revert the user script, and just turn on the Beta Feature. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ummmm ... WhatamIdoing (ye who is familiar with the terminology), I don't know which of those beta feature options to turn on :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Discussion tools", because mw:Naming things is hard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, had I been smart enough to do this first, I might have noticed that name! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Medical FAs[edit]

Hi Sandy,

In reply to this comment you made, I just wanted to say, even though I was part of the group expressing concerns about the image, that I do appreciate the fact that a medical article is being featured today, and I appreciate the work you, Ajpolino, and anyone else involved put in to make that happen. As with venturing into any corner of Wikipedia that's gotten a little dusty, it seems there are some unsettled questions to work through, but I hope future medical TFAs go more smoothly and I look forward to seeing them. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe someone can say that to the article's author or on the article talk page. I am embarrassed to see how this has unfolded and have no intention of continuing to press medical editors to engage in masochism. (I don't aim that at you-- some of the comments by others have been so insensitive, unjust, unkind, and off-putting.) Why would any medical editor want to engage ever again? There is more of this baloney on the article talk page, too. So this is why medical editors prefer to stop at the GA level-- to not have to deal with this? Honestly, the implication at TFA talk that this insensitivity was intentional, for shock value? Thanks for reaching out ... I do appreciate it. But So Done With Everything I Have Been Working Towards For a Year. I don't see "unsettling questions"; I see one unfortunate kerfuffle, amid all of the difficulties that is mainpage scheduling, being elevated to faux outrage ala "think of the children". Amazingly, around an article that is written to "think of the children in Africa". Mainpage complaints are easy; thanking people for good work is rarer. And perhaps this has me so steamed because I feel personally responsible for encouraging medical editors to engage in territory where the only return is a) reviewers ignoring medical FACs, followed by b) mainpage criticism. I won't be encouraging them any more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sdkb, thanks for the note. I'll just pop in since I was pinged to say I'm not at all offended by the hubbub. As I alluded to at Talk:Main page I picked the image to highlight Buruli ulcer, a page that has "ulcer" in the name. Presumably visitors to that page won't be too shocked to see a big ulcer. I've never engaged much with the main page, and so the image's effect on the main page truly didn't cross my mind. The ongoing discussion there regarding the types of images that are suitable for the main page is interesting, but not a conversation I have much to add to. Either way, I enjoyed putting together the Buruli ulcer article. My enjoyment is not diminished in any way by folks expressing their distaste for images of wounds. And hopefully I'll have time to polish up some more medical articles going forward. Thanks again, and I'll see you around. Ajpolino (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ajpolino being Ajpolino :) So sensible and so much more patient than I am. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add my commiserations about what happened and to thank you for fighting your corner. Sure, I am squeamish about some things in life, but I consider that my problem, not something that others should have to worry about. The word "snowflake" kept coming to mind. Really when there are people in the world suffering from this awful disease, I find it distasteful that there are readers who are complaining about their own minor discomfort when getting a glimpse of the reality; they should rather swallow hard and appreciate that they have learnt something important about the world. I think that one major problem is that those making the effort to comment are naturally predominantly those who object. It was noticeable that rather a low proportion of those commenting were the regulars at Errors, presumably because they had no strong feelings. I expected better from the Wikipedia community. Jmchutchinson (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jmchutchinson; glad to see there are some sensible people in here :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for intruding on this discussion. I also want to extend my apologies for the TFA situation today. I do think the image concerns have merit, but ideally, it would have been better (at least in my opinion) to have this type of discussion prior to the article running on the main page. I think the pixelated/lower resolution idea could have been at least a good compromise. I think the recent TFA discussions have been interesting, if rather annoying and disappointing, as I have seen a few conversations on what is considered "appropriate" for a TFA. I know this may seem silly, but I also think it is important/relevant that an average reader is likely unaware of what a featured article as I have seen people think it is a completely random article picked for the front page and they do not have any knowledge on the processes behind it. Anyway, apologies for the long message. I think this is a nuanced issue that is worthy further discussion, but I wish things were done differently. I really hope this does not discouraged editors from pursuing medical topics (or any other topics) in the FAC/TFA spaces. Aoba47 (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input, Aoba47; you are always so thoughtful. It is unfortunate that anything on the mainpage generates a big to-do that rarely solves anything. I'm not sure how to solve this one, but I'm pretty sure it won't happen again :) Whatever *it* was ... Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In completely honesty, I'm a little worried about about one of my articles that is running as TFA in late April. If there was such a strong reaction to an ulcer, I can only imagine what kind of feedback a Van Dorn battle flag lead image is going to get, based on the history of that flag. Hog Farm _Talk 01:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hear ya. And if I had not gotten two other editors to juggle their requested TFAs to accommodate my request for July, I would be asking for it to be pulled. Who wants to go through this? Bottom line; FA participants had best get more involved in what goes on at main page talk, as the Coords are left defenseless to a howling mob. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern, Hog Farm. You have done a great job with the article. It is a shame as these articles provide ways for people to learn more about topics like history and medicine. I think some people mistakingly believe a TFA spot somehow celebrates or validates the subject matter so there may be some minor complaints about that. But I do not believe it will escalate into anything this major (at least I hope it will not). I really appreciate the TFA as it is a great way to learn about different things, but I know there have been similar hesitations with editors not wanting their articles on the front page. Aoba47 (talk) 01:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Hog Farm that reminds me ... you peer reviewed the Buruli article. Were you grossed out? Because I had someone basically call me a liar at Talk:Main page for saying I never imagined such a kerfuffle over this.
Do you think you should ask the TFA Coords if you should switch the image ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funny thing is, I actually did the nomination as is a couple weeks ago, not thinking that anyone paid that much attention to TFA anymore and the image would be fine - there's also no good alternative really. But now that I saw what happened here, I'm a little skittish - ulcers make people argue. Confederate flags get people indeffed. My hope is that that particular flag is so obscure to be unrecognizable, which is what I was thinking when I nominated it. I personally thought that the ulcer image was a little yucky, but not terrible. I've seen way worse things growing up on a farm. Personally, I'm okay with both the flag and the ulcer images. I like to have the mindset of when I nominated it that "it's historical, and not the main one, so nobody will get angry". I just don't want to see a kerfuffle over this, because I'm a little worried some random admin is gonna look at the flag, look at my articles I've written (four CSA unit FAs) and be like "WP:NOTHERE, block indef, revoke TPA". Hog Farm _Talk 01:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope an admin would never have that kind of extreme response, but I understand your point. It is sad to me because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (or at least it is supposed to be) and a lot of topics can be uncomfortable. It would be disappointing if anyone made the very large large between you writing an article on the CSA to claiming you support it in any way. I would actually hope that the increase in discussion on race would make your work on these types of articles seem more valuable. For a bit of unsolicited advice, you could always start a discussion about it on the TFA talk page as hopefully a preemptive discussion would give more time and space to a more relaxed tone. But, that is not absolutely necessary either. I would be curious on how this incident would impact the TFA. Aoba47 (talk) 03:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the original post to the MP talk :I can't wait to read the complaints about the FA picture. -- Veggies (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC). Troll got what troll wanted. Primergrey (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So true, but there are other things going on such that people are not digging in and supporting the process and the Coords so that the trolls can achieve their desired outcome ... this should be broadly explored ... if only I had 36 hours a day. Some may recall that a bunch of trolls brought down FAC; we are seeing a repeat at TFA of the very same factors, and it begins to look like maybe some people want to chase out the Coords so others can take over. A sad repeat of history, but what goes around comes around. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Following up, it seems that the Buruli ulcer was viewed by about 72,000 readers while the main page was hit by about 6 million. There seems to have been zero reaction on the article's talk page and all I can find out in the general Internet is a short thread on Reddit. My impression is that what we had there was just a few complaints which could and should have been ignored. Complaints naturally arise in cases of extreme content but the numbers should be weighed against the much larger number of non-complaining readers. It's like freaking out about a small number of ill-effects for mass treatments such as vaccines, when there are millions of cases without problem. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson: Well, yes to all of that, and of course, seasoned editors know all of this, while one troll and a small group of loud but mostly inexperienced complainers turned it into a kerfuffle. I bit my tongue when one of them mentioned there was overwhelming consensus against my view, since that editor didn't have a good command of the math in terms of the tens of thousands viewing the article who had no issue :)
Anyway, I don't get this bothered about one-offs; it's the big picture at the main page and in the FA processes that has me concerned. (For background, it was impossible to get FA reviewers to even look at the Buruli FAC, which is a different problem I have been railing about, but part of the bigger picture.)
There are overall trends occurring on the mainpage that are making the job the TFA Coords have to do near impossible. So, at a time that FAC is already in considerable decline, we risk losing FA writers and Coordinators in the process = Not A Good Thing, making it harder and harder to put quality and diversity on the main page. For a long time, I have been meaning to type up an analysis of issues affecting FAs at the main page; I have other pressing things to do today and tomorrow, but will make that a priority. Stay tuned ... the overall theme is "a few complaints which could and should have been ignored" has become quite an issue. Why would anyone want to write an FA and have to go through this, and why-oh-why would anyone want to be a TFA Coord, which is beginning to look like quite a miserable experience. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think ignoring is an actionable solution, simply because people don't take nicely to offensive or vulgar material does not me we must submit and cover-up history or real-world issues. When you see something that makes you cringe and you get weird muscle tension? I'm not a fan of medicinal content (no offense) that every time I saw the image it made me want to snap my legs in half in revolt. However, I kept my yaps shut because I knew other images on the subject would be useless, especially the graph of why it happens that took its place. Real-world example, during TFA time of The Origami King someone tried to start a discussion here and considering the fact that the last discussion on this took four months, I started a response, thought for a second, and then closed the page. A group of 15 people no longer have the say in consensus when 55 thousand are now watching. P anini ^🥪 12:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

fac[edit]

Hey, SandyGeorgia -- the review was closed so I didn't want to respond there, but I have zero urgency over this. It really was just a matter of "I should really try to understand the FA process better, which of my articles would be a reasonable candidate?" Marjorie Paxson was one I created and took both to DYK and GA, so I thought that one might be worth pursuing. I'll give your essay a read, and thanks! —valereee (talk) 13:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee the article is close, and if you work first on the commentary on the FAC, then bring it to PR pre-FAC, I think you'll make it. Glad to help; just add it to the FAC PR sidebar when you're ready, best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Your responses were most appreciated. I am immensely grateful. Guettarda (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome. I must get some discipline on board here and get through tons of backlogged stuff that accumulated while my computer was in repair. I will come back to that. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing for an offline conversation, Sandy. This "everything you write can be read by everyone who knows how to read" is not a problem-solving process that is working. Possible?PlanetCare (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are some sensitive discussions that must be held privately by necessity, but those are few and far between, and this is not one of them. I prefer that all communication on this matter remain transparent, as it relates to overall participation in Wikipedia by several members of WP:WikiProject Sanitation (who may have been misguided about the advocacy nature of that Project since its founding).

Wikipedia is not for Advocacy, is not a Battleground, and is not a place for Canvassing and Coordinated editing. If you are concerned about others reading what you write, please keep in mind that Wikipedia is a very public and highly viewed website, not a playground, and answering my query on your own talk page would have made it less visible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page you asked about, I just posted this: "Apologies that the above was not signed PlanetCare (me). I was on the Wikipedia App and didn't realize that four tildas would not result in my PlantCare signature. I follow articles that relate to the environment and did some readability edits to this page back in 2018. I take a strong interest in the "first impression read" because decision-makers looking for factual information may not get past the first paragraph and the photo. I added my unsolicited comment and hope that won't result in anyone backing out of the discussion." I favor transparency, but didn't immediately right this ship because I didn't want to "join in the fray." Still, better have the explanation come from me than having others keep making guesses. Thanks.

You brought up the topic of advocacy: If any of my edits have sounded like advocacy (on sanitation pages or anywhere else), I want to know about it. Please give me specifics. I'm a life-long academic (Organization Behavior), and feel drawn to objectivity and researched facts. My second career has been in the Menstrual Health space. I work with 1000's of women and girls in the slums of Ghana, thus my interest in the readability of information related to menstrual health. I thought the Menstrual Cycle piece came to a good conclusion, with your guiding hand. Graham lightened up a bit and I appreciated that. I'm a face-to-face problem-solver, and often have to take breaks from Wikipedia--long ones. No fun to get caught in the cross fire, but also no need to go away in a huff. Th is interesting and important work. Thanks for contacting me directly.PlanetCare (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing that, PlanetCare. This issue came about because of a conversation about Editor retention, which led me to see that other conversation; I need to follow up with your colleague about the kinds of editing practices that do not further retention of valued editors, so I wanted to clear this up first.

It is very hard for me to understand why three members from one WikiProject care so much about one silly image that they would behave in such a way as to chase off a long-time editor, so that is something to think about in terms of the big picture and collaborative editing. There are many aspects about how that WikiProject was founded and is operating that point towards advocacy editing rather than getting a full grip on what good editing practices are, but that is not an issue that I have specifically with you, and I will continue that discussion later with your colleague.

Yes, with your help and the collaborative effort of everyone, the Menstrual cycle article has turned into quite a fine article, and I thank you for your participation!! (One of my dear friends volunteered for years in Ghana and loved the people there.)

The remaining issues I have are with your colleague, who seems to place a strange value on what kind of editor they seek to retain, versus what kind of editor they don't mind seeing driven off. Your acknowledgment at Talk:Marine biology shows good faith, and I appreciate that. (PS, Graham didn't "lighten up"; Graham got back to the editor he is even after a rather despicable assault made on him in spite of the good work he has done. I question anyone who supports such attacks from two newly registered accounts.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By "lightened up" I was referring to his making light of my dangling participle instead of attacking me for it (which I was braced for).PlanetCare (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The colleague you mention wasn't alone. A bunch of us were leading and organizing that effort, and we had a goal of bringing people on board for the long term. We reminded science writers: Your opinion is not OK. Advocacy is not OK. Subjectivity is not OK. I follow only pages that I worked on, so if you can point me to places where advocacy is happening....I want to know the specifics, please.PlanetCare (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I remember the dangling participle; you are right, that was funny :)

I am not aware if you are working on menstruation (I haven't checked the history). That is an example of an article that has lost its way and veered off into Advocacy, while the article's medical content is in very bad shape. It appears that getting awareness images in to the lead, and UNDUE coverage of sanitary products and their images in to the article (while medical content suffers), are more important concerns than knowing how to write good medical content. Issues of reliability of sources, Manual of Style, and due weight don't seem to have become part of the skillset.

More specifically, read the very first early statements when the WikiProject was founded. It was advocacy; and those statements remain today. Some of the issues occurring at your talk colleague's talk page probably stem from an unclear understanding of advocacy vs. working in a collaborative environment towards encyclopedic content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting conversation. User:PlanetCare has a great way with words and explains everything so well and in a non confrontational manner. I wish my writing was as clear. I will try to keep my response here as short as possible and succinct (I have been told I write too long on talk pages and that adds to confusion and misunderstandings). So here goes:

Like User:PlanetCare I would also prefer a direct one on one conversation for this one which I do think touches on sensitive issues. I think we could have cleared up a few misunderstandings in a couple of e-mails rather than lots of talk page writing. But I respect your wish to do it on talk pages instead. (my last attempt at clarifying a misunderstanding by use of direct e-mail with someone else went horribly wrong, so I've learnt my lesson)
WikiProject Sanitation was founded 7 years ago by User:Doc_James and myself. I am well aware that there is no place for advocacy on Wikipedia, and so is/was he. In the lead it says "The WikiProject Sanitation aims to manage and help in curation of Wikipedia's article that touch on sanitation-related topics." I am going to have another read over the project description but at first glance I didn't see any "advocacy" statements. If they are still there, please do let me know and I will remove them. If there is anything wrong with the objectives of that project, the way they are currently written, please point them out on the talk page of the project and I will be happy to amend. Thank you.
For the Wikipedia article menstruation I agree with you 100% that it is not in good shape at the moment and that it needs improvement. I have said the same on the talk page of menstrual cycle here. No response there yet but I hope that when people are finished with menstrual cycle they will move across and tackle the other one. We can then use the talk page to discuss which images etc. should be included. I think a lot of content on menstrual hygiene can be moved to the sub-article. I mentioned the use of an image on tampon here. Looking forward to more discussions on the talk pages there.
I am currently more active in WikiProject Climate Change than in WikiProject Sanitation. I can imagine that people might perceive that one also to touch on advocacy. If that is your view, let's please discuss it (perhaps best on its talk page).
I have no intentions of driving off any editors, whether long term experienced people or people who are new and have only made a few edits so far. I treat them all equally. One never knows which newbie will later on become a prolific editor and which newbie won't hang around. We were all newbies at one stage. However, I do object to aggressive, impolite or just unfriendly language on talk pages, no matter who uses it, and feel that we all need to lead by example to make participation in Wikipedia as inviting as possible for everyone (I've started a discussion that here, happy to continue there).
As to the most recent posts on the talk page of marine biology, let me ask the question: which other editor (newbie or not) would dare to comment on the image in the lead, after seeing snipes such as "Gosh, impressive... truly a serendipitous coincidence, a precisely-timed IP intervention exquitiously tuned to EMsmile's position. And just at the time you wake up!" and "Now, as though on cue, an editor with little background on Wikipedia has arrived, grandly echoing your position and authoritatively claiming they speak for all marine biologists.".
I do understand the policy of WP:Canvassing but it can also be used to dismiss opinions of other editors simply by saying "you know/support Person X. Therefore, if you have the same opinion as Person X then your opinion is irrelevant and you should just shut up and go away." I still hope that we get more editors interested in improving the article marine biology (overall, not just the image in the lead) and will continue to use appropriate notifications in an attempt to do so. It's not just the picture, there are more aspects that need improvement. Nevertheless, I think the language used there on the talk page is inappropriate and is basically gate keeper / ownership type behaviour (that's just my own personal opinion).
Just to summarise: my only intention is to make the content on Wikipedia better and to ensure we can all do so in a friendly, calm and supportive working environment. Misunderstandings do happen. Let's try to clear them up and move on. EMsmile (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two things @EMsmile.

First, you have three independent editors raising unrelated concerns about your behavior in three different areas on your talk page. That should be cause for some serious reflection.

Second, something was revealed in the way you went after Fowler & fowler at the Teahouse, and the way you denied PlanetCare’s post to marine biology, and the way you supported ~~two~~ three new accounts in their attack on Graham along with spreading that dispute unnecessarily. These three things combined don’t impress me.

That you would then think that anyone would want to get involved with this kind of behavior, to work together at improving menstruation, further indicates to me that you are missing the big picture as to how editing on a collaborative project is intended to work. You are in no position to talk about editor retention considering these three separate issues AND three separate editors raising them. Long posts on my talk page are no indication that you are getting it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that specific. Knowing that, I can at least keep asking questions to keep movement toward more balance and depth. I've already chimed in on the question of whether "Menstruation" and "Menstrual health" should be separated out. I'm not the person to add medical content, but you have the network for that. I'm learning as I go, and appreciate your patience while I catch on. BTW: I just called a liar for my tilde problem. Gotta shake that one off.PlanetCare (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem you have there, PC, is that when there is a pattern, it is natural to raise concerns. Had it been only you not noticing you were not logged in (which is different than a tilde problem), you would not be as suspect as in a case when three editors show at once. You would also be less suspect if EMsmile had raised the concern with you (noticing, as I had, that you were signed out), rather than denying any connection and me being the one to stumble upon this by coincidence after going to EMsmile’s page on a completely unrelated matter, and the query having to come to me. My basic question remains: why on earth such concern about images when (as in the example of menstruation) entire articles are a mess ? It’s about priorities relative to encyclopedic content. Just food for thought. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: I was writing my short comment before I read the EVSmile long-ish comment. Despite, what Epiplagic thinks, we aren't in cahoots with each other. We work independently. We are both working on Climate Change pages, and once in a while I do a throwback to sanitation. Epipelagic is unconvinced. What can you do?PlanetCare (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See my response directly above. My general advice goes like this. I have gobs of Wikifriends and talk page watchers. What characterizes the people that I consider friends is that they don’t follow me to disputes to back me up, because that kind of editing behavior is unacceptable, and backfires besides. If they did follow me to disputes to support me, they wouldn’t be considered my friends, because I don’t want to be associated with coordinated editing or people who behave that way. Again, just food for thought, more for your colleague than for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whitman[edit]

Hi Sandy, hope all is well. Many thanks for taking a look at Walt Whitman and Abraham Lincoln. I've had a chance to check out all the sources I wanted to (and many I didn't-- some literary scholars can write remarkably *bleh* prose!). I'm pretty happy with the content in the article so I'm curious-- do you think this is ready for FAC, or is the prose in need of literary intervention? Should I wait until ImaginesTigers has the time, or someone else engages? Not in any particular rush. All the best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, ImaginesTigers is worth the wait, but on the other hand, FACs are taking so long to get through these days, that I wonder if it might not be advisable to go ahead without them. I consider the article FAC ready, but I am neither a literary type nor a prose guru :) Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: - I thought it was a very strong article when I reviewed it for GA, and it's only gotten better since. I agree with Sandy that this looks FAC-able. Hog Farm _Talk 04:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She "bore her first husband three children" . . .[edit]

...so said our article on Ada Blackjack here. I seem you remember you having some concerns (to put it mildly) about such a formulation. Now rephrased.

Aside from her childbearing, she had a long but tragic life. She was called a a "female Robinson Crusoe", which lessens her ordeal, which was spent on an island north of Siberia far above the Arctic Circle instead of on a lush tropical island. Her article is worth a read (and more edits). Regards, Kablammo (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me at 'em; I'd bore a hole in the head of a husband who thinks his wife is only for "bearing him children". Yuk. I'm sorry my friend I don't speak ... oops, don't go there, it'll get stuck in your head! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]