User talk:SandyGeorgia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I prefer to keep conversations together and usually respond on my talk page, so watch the page for my reply.

To leave me a message, click here.

Keep up the good work![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For your great work on articles and in discussions. You are an example to us all. Please keep up the good work. John (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, John; most kind of you and the encouragement is appreciated. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Duck hunting[edit]

The WikiProject Medicine QuackStar

Your exceptional duck-hunting efforts on Wikipedia have not gone unnoticed; for all your hard work in defending the Wiki from the legions of badly edited quackery, I award you the WikiProject Medicine QuackStar.
Also, good hunting. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 09:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

You did a ton of work on the cannabis articles and preserving FA's over the past few months. So, I wanted to say:

Lol...nice job though. ;) Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 10:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Top medical editors[edit]

MedicineBarnstar.png The Medicine Barnstar
You were one of the top 10 medical contributors to Wikipedia in 2013. Many thanks for all your hard work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors![edit]

please help translate this message into the local language
Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg The Cure Award
In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

Charlotte's Web (cannabis)[edit]

Hi Sandy. I noticed your deletion, and your edit summary:

  • "Removed continued use of overquoting of emotionally laden material which creates POV, still plenty of same, sample only."

May I ask which policy justifies this deletion? Also, which other "plenty of same" are you referring to? I'd like to take a look at them and evaluate their status and framing. As you are aware, I seek to stick to properly sourced content, including opinions (very few), and have stayed away from including huge amounts of promotional and emotional potential content found in RS. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Have a look at edit summaries going back to your creation of the article; you will see that overquoting (particularly of emotionally laden or one-sided POV) has been an long-standing problem in that article ... do a search on my edit summaries. Then have a look at WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:LONGQUOTE. Quotes have been chosen in that article since its creation that present an emotional, rather than encyclopedic, tone. That is, the article has long had a problem of furthering POV with the overuse of emotionally laden quotes, specifically those related to laypersons or parents who have an impartial view of the value of the substance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah! I thought you were referring to existing content. I have usually agreed with your deletions of some of the previous quotes, but I'm not so sure this time. I don't think you should be the sole voice in this matter. WP:IMPARTIAL doesn't apply, since this is not a description of a dispute, improperly using Wikipedia's voice in a partial tone. We're documenting a governor's opinion, not "creating a POV", and that's what we do all the time. We are obligated to convey the POV found in the sources, and most RS which discuss CW are unequivocally favorable. So far you have succeeded in deleting many such mentions.
There is no question it's Scott's opinion, not Wikipedia's opinion. Besides, it's one relatively short quote in an article with very few such quotes. Most of the quotes we have are very balanced and even tend to downplay and dis CW and pot as a treatment. I fear your zeal is going a bit too far this time. Wikipedia editors must stay neutral, but their sources don't have to be neutral. The sources can go either way, and that's what the sources in this article do. Some are positive, while others are cautious and even negative. I don't see any policy-based reason for deleting this one quote explaining Governor Scott's motivation for signing the bill. It's a rather notable opinion which has no bearing on the scientific aspects of the matter. Those aspects get their due weight in abundance. I have no intention of including every governor's opinions, but since many sources singled out this quote, I felt it deserved mention. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Sandy, did you mean "specifically those related to laypersons or parents who may not have an impartial view of the value of the substance"? It doesn't seem to read right the other way. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


Hello. It appears you've finally left the nuthouse. Keep in touch. Gimmetrow 21:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Gimme! Curiously, just today in my personal searches on medical conditions, I happened across another mess of a Wikipedia medical (featured) article, and was just coming over to attempt to do something about it. I miss the good folks (like you :) but not the lack of governance and mob rule! I hope you are well. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Good to see you back. Would love to see AD updated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Based on your user page....[edit]

...I think that we are going to be friends. I joined, and have largely stayed involved with the goal of cleaning up medical misinformation on the site. In particular, the fluoroquinolone articles, which were highjacked by a group engaged in litigation against the manufacturers for over 2 years, motivated me to start editing in 2011. Levofloxacin is used for pneumonia, and early treatment is inversely correlated with survival. I sometimes wonder how many people read the pre-2012 version of the levo article, stopped taking their antibiotic, and died as a result.

The psychiatric drug articles have been another area of interest. The prozac article for example, didn't even list 8 of the 9 indications it is approved for until recently. Case reports of rare side effects, on the other hand, were covered in excrutiating detail. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, 98: nice to meet you, but I'm not around much anymore. Two years ago, I thought sustained attention to medical articles might make a difference (see Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive55#FAC delegate resignation). I no longer think that. Good luck here ... what went on in the cannabis suite was just one of the many last straws for me! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes yes, I hear you. I'll limit my response to avoid offending some people here but I think we are very much on the same page. Formerly 98 (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Hey, Formerly 98, here's today's example! Have you ever heard of long cough? Has anyone ever heard of long cough? Well, Wikipedia has for at least nine months.[1] Another apparently unwatched pharm article (which by the way, should have ALL of that uncited text removed, as it's been tagged for four long years). Daily example of pharm articles on Wikipedia (which has now been mirrored dozens of times on the internet). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I was reading somewhere lately about how some users (admins?) could see a list of unwatched pages. I wonder how many MED pages there are which are currently unwatched? (and - hi Sandy! good to see you back!) Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)