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.

Requesting a second look at Potential Copyright violations.[edit]

Hello, SandyGeorgia. I saw your discussion about the Intercostal nerve block article and wanted to request a second set of eyes to the articles, Bangaru Thalli (scheme), RNTCP, and Five-Year plans of India. I think that parts of the three articles are in violation of the rules regarding copyright, but I would like someone who is more informed in reporting the matter decide if they should be reported or not. Thank you for reading, Super Goku V (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking at all of that will take quite a bit of time Super Goku V; I will try to get on it tomorrow, but am pooped out for today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Not a problem and thank you for responding. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

Sheesh[edit]

Apropos of nothing in particular. Just sheesh. Mmmm. I'm trying to drum up funding to pay some experts to review Cancer pain. I'll let you know how it goes. Good to see you back. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really back ... between the medical mess that depresses me, and the awful 2014 Venezuelan protests, I can hardly stomach it here for extended periods. This is two years old; where's the improvement? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Only mass adoption of Wikipedia by scholars and experts (and even that won't be without its dramas - particularly in ideological areas) will fix this thing. And they won't touch it with a barge pole while anyone can overwrite anything with anything and they're expected to argue with Randy for weeks on end about how vaccines don't cause cancer. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I think Randy's detrimental effect on Wikipedia is overstated and it is time to retire him as an argument for defeatism. Fundamentalist skeptics believe that if only knowledge was exclusively disseminated by experts then the world would stop believing in stupid things and a new rational utopia would arise. But these are the same experts who a hundred years ago nearly universally supported eugenics or who a generation ago thought nothing of secretly removing organs from dead children without permission. Or even, who thought it a great idea to unleash 1500 first-year undergraduate students upon Wikipedia to add a random fact. So I'm unconvinced scholars are the right labour force for Wikipedia. Per WP:V we need the experts and scholars to continue writing their books and papers and publishers to act as a quality filter. There are a few academics or subject experts I know who edit Wikipedia well but they are rare. Being a Wikipedian is necessarily an intellectually humbling task as it is all about what other people have discovered or done or think. Some expertise helps for sure, no question. Some things are mindbogglingly hard to understand, though few have the talent to explain them to the general reader. I've linked this video before but think it is apt: Armstrong and Miller - Heterotic Super symmetry. -- Colin°Talk 21:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Have I explained my expert review plan to you? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I have heard it - sorry Anthony, I think your enthusiasm in looking for ways to improve things is great......but I know alot of experts. Many, many hold views that are unconventional and would argue against whatever consensus was. Some would be good, sure, but making some special uberclass of expert editors would be a disaster. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
No, no, no, no, no. Not a special class of editor. Oh no. No. But it's past my bedtime, so I won't try to clarify it now. I loved that video, by the way. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
This is speaking as someone who is a qualified doctor and medical specialist - but just like anyone else who adds content, I should be responsible for sourcing it to quality sources and that it is faithful to the source. This holds true of all of us and is a keystone of the project. Any tweaking of this with expert editor status could cause big problems. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
You, also, are missing the point. But you know what time it is over here and if you don't mind I'll reply when I've had a few hours sleep. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay - look, if you are in Sydney I should explain some stuff over some beers sometime...Privatemusings (talk · contribs) and Tony1 (talk · contribs) are also around so could be a hoot....ummmmm which video? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm in Perth. I'd love to buy you a beer the next time I'm over east, though. (I was referring to Colin's video - sorry. I'd just done an all-nighter and was confused.) I'll lay off the evangelising for experts now. If you are interested and get a chance, would you mind running your eyes over the argument section of The Emperor's New Drugs and telling me if it's clear? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
For what (little) it might be worth, I posted a message on Jimbo's talk page recently about some ideas I have regarding some things which I think might be useful to the various WF projects. One of them was a repetition of Anthonyhcole's idea. I'm not sure if I specifically said all this anywhere before, but I think it could be doable if we maybe put some of the "critical" articles dealing with medicine, money, and law a form of "expert pending changes" protection, making "expert pending changer" a specific right anyone could apply for like RfA or similar. Those who actually are experts, like working professionals in the field like Cas and NYB, could apply for the right and say they are working in the field, which most !voters would probably consider a plus, but so could, in some other areas, like fringe science and other fields, people like User:Dougweller, who may never have been a working professional in the field, but whose grasp of some of these topics is on the par with one, and more likely to adhere to neutrality as well. Granted, even that wouldn't be perfect, and there might occasionally be abuses requiring removal of the right through some process, but it would be a step toward Anthony's proposal which might be more likely to get approval. There is a lot of other stuff in the proposal, and I don't think anyone would really want to read it all, but maybe, if it is presented within a broader context with some other ideas many editors might upport, it might get more approval from some less knowledgeable editors as part of a bigger package containing things they might also support. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

2014 Venezuelan protests[edit]

Agreed its a dreadful article. Also wanted to bring to your attention that all these recent protest articles are sorted by timeline, which makes it a newsstory of tidbits. And I also agree with you that it makes the article dreadful, and in turn WP does so too as a non neutral collective of sources. They really need some guide to these ariticles, and monitoring.(Lihaas (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)).

I agree with the need for monitoring. I'm less certain we can make a clear set of guidelines for WP:RS for protest stories that will fit all circumstances since the reliability of a lot of sources can be so debatable for issues like these. Simonm223 (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
There are now thousands of reliable sources on this topic; the problem is they aren't being used, and the article isn't being written. It seems many editors are more interested in presenting POV than a comprehensive account based on reliable sources. No mention yet of the attempted rape of a student that fueled the initial protests? [1] No updates on deaths, injuries, arrests? Based on talk page commentary, apparently no understanding by most editors working on the article that the Venezuelan government stopped reporting the murder rate accurately years ago, and that statistics are gathered by reporters who camp out at the city morgue, recognizing that some bodies are "dumped" and never make it to the morgue. No mention of *why* Vivas opposes the current military? Ongoing inaccurate information about inflation, poverty, murder rate, etc ... simply because editors appear less interested in doing the research and presenting the abundance of reliable sources, then in putting forward POV. Hint on where to look for accurate poverty info, fire up google news starting with the keywords used here: [2] Why is Vivas against the current military? Try starting here for discussion of:

Vivas, one of the government's fiercest critics in the frequently vicious world of Venezuelan social media, rose to prominence in 2007 when he resigned as head of the Defence Ministry's engineering department rather than order his subalterns to swear to the Cuban-inspired oath "Fatherland, socialism or death."

All-in-all ... engaging an article where POV is the objective, rather than a well-written, comprehensive account, is a time sink. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, I was pretty much oblivious to this whole subject until I caught this interview today of Phil Gunson by Gian Ghomeshi. If you can't spare the time to listen to the whole thing, there's a capsule in the last minute. There's an interesting bit where Gunson relates the government's terminology: rather than call it propaganda, they refer to information "hegemony". He expands on how (he sees) the state effort to quash open discussion domestically as the motivation for shutting down access to the internet, to CNN Spanish (one of his outlets) and to intimidate the remaining independent news publishers in the country. Whether one believes him or not, it's an interesting listen. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
LeadSongDog, hey, I just saw this ... I haven't been able to play it yet (techno-idiot), but I don't think it will say anything I don't already know :) It has been shocking to me to watch for at least 15 years now, how little the world is aware of or cares about what has happened in Venezuela, and how grotesquely POV the entire suite of Venezuelan articles is on Wikipedia. With young students dying, it's hard not to be disgusted at the POV state of our articles. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

LeadSongDog, got it going finally on another computer ... there is way too much that Gunson doesn't say, that leads to minor inaccuracies, nuanced things, but he's generally got it right. For example, this media crackdown/censorship is NOT a Maduro thing ... everything he mentions has been going on since Chavez (and much more), at least 15 years. Maduro is just a follower of the Chavez/Castro model ... for the Venezuelan people, it is most frustrating that the world has ignored this situation for so many years, when they were once a staunch US ally. And now the students are fed up ... and the last time students in Táchira got fed up, that led to the overthrow of Venezuela's last dictatorship and the establishment of a democracy. Of course, back then, the people had free press, and the other side wasn't the only with arms. Gunson is a bit wrong to call it an "urban" thing ... think of Táchira as the Wild Wild West of Venezuela ... folks there are less urban, fiercely independent, and not fond of being pushed around. The military in Venezuela was once highly regarded and quite professional ... the question now is for how much longer they will accept being pushed around by superiors who are Cuban. Final 30 seconds ... anyone speculating what may happen next will end up looking foolish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

We'll, Ghomeshi has a pretty good following on the CBC and NPR, but people being people, it will go in one ear and out the other for most. What I'm wondering is whether or not CNN will try to get past the press controls. As a news organ, they've occasionally shown some spine, and that has paid off for them. WP can only reflect what is published elsewhere, so if sources are POV slanted, we will be too. Sucks, and there should be a way to deal with such cases (VPP perhaps?) As a rule though, "May you live in interesting times" remains a curse, at least for general populations if not elites. That said, the Aga Khan recently observed that most people faced with a hard choice between good democratic governance and reliable food for their families will take the latter. Reminded me of Peisistratos. LeadSongDog come howl! 12:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Re, CNN, they are pushing back hard, and in fact, what was done to CNN has somewhat awakened the international media to the whole issue of press freedom restrictions in Venezuela (Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc have always been on it, but the problem remained under-reported in the mainstream media, with Venezuelanalysis.com and Mark Weisbrot editorials pushing the state party line). It seems that it wasn't as significant to the international media/world when Chavez was shutting down all of the Venezuelan TV stations, but now that Maduro has tried the same with CNN and NTN24 (Colombia), suddenly they pay attention (irony alert). The problem remains that most international media organizations don't have "boots on the ground" in Venezuela now, so to really follow what is happening, one does have to be on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, etc-- and even then, you have to know Venezuela to know what you're watching and what is factual. And, to know what is going on with CNN, you have to watch CNN en español, where the Venezuela situation gets more airtime. It will be harder for the government to shut down CNN than it was for them to chase out Colombian TV or shut down Venezuelan stations-- now that the world is watching, I don't know if they will persist in the effort, but it doesn't matter much anyway, since the collectivos (motorcycle bands armed by chavistas, collaborating with them) have made the streets so unsafe that reporting is difficult anyway.

Re, "sources being POV slanted", no, that hasn't been the problem for the eight years I've been editing Wikipedia. Accurate and numerous reliable sources have been easily available; the problem was ownership on the articles, and mass reverts of anything reflecting mainstream reliable sources, with entire articles now reflecting the state party line ala Venezuelanalysis.com. I have been to ANI and other places many times, and plenty of people know this has gone on (I think some folks expected me to take it to arbitration, but seriously, with so many editors turning a blind eye, while this went on in front of their faces, I quit in disgust). I quit trying after one very active (and unsanctioned) editor accused me of using unreliable sources, after edits and list of sources that include the likes of New York Times, LA Times, CNN, The Economist, Wall Street Journal and other Spanish-language press of that caliber. In our Venezuelan suite of articles, mainstream international media was excluded, and the Venezuelan state party line is all we have. If you think it's discouraging to edit medical topics on Wikipedia, at least there we have some success. On Venezuelan articles, we have almost no factually accurate or neutral articles, and I've seen many instances where Wikipedia info is parroted in the press.

The other problem has been that few editors speak Spanish, can read Spanish-language sources, know Venezuela, so they weren't easily able to discern where the POV/ownership was happening.

Re, the choice between good democratic govt and reliable food for their families, the prospect now is for neither. The economy has been so destroyed by 15 years of corruption and inept management that it is unclear, not only what will become of the middle class, but ... I shudder to think of how the poor will survive and how the barrios can be rebuilt after the Bolivarian Revolution strategy of passing out arms to them, so they could kill each other and the wealthy in massive numbers. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! A gift from fellow Wikipedians.[edit]

You have been selected to receive a merchandise giveaway. We last contacted you on 2/19/2014. Please send us a message if you would like to claim your shirt. --JMatthews (WMF) (talk) 06:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, SandyGeorgia. Please check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 22:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

— Maile (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit war Celibacy[edit]

Unfortunatelly there is an edit war going on again, on celibacy...[3]. I don't feel that this thing is rigt place for it either, but I am not involved. My question, isn't it possible to merge it into an other article, please? Some people suggested other possibilities, like Sexual abstinence. Hafspajen (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I see the problem ... I am going to contact the admin who closed the AFD, as I have long felt that she blocked the wrong editor in that mess. There was an AFD; the editor who keeps removing the content is wrong to do so without revisiting the deletion discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I promise to stay out of the editing of that article from now on. I will only get involved in the discussion about the content. May I also remind you of the fact that it was not just me removing the content but also another user? In any case, I will try to stay out of the case from now on so this does not escalate further. Thanks for informing me and my apologies if I caused any disruption. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I avoided taking this to ANI because of the unpleasantry typically involved in calling attention to admin actions, but I suppose that you (and anyone who knows Wikipedia policy) can easily see that while the old block of the other editor, MalleusMaleficarum1486, was highly irregular in every aspect, your behavior in this matter is equally disturbing. The admin who closed the AFD and was involved blocked an editor who had ceased disruption, and then denied the block review without waiting for an independent admin. Most curious. It's curious to me that you weren't blocked-- I'm glad you've agreed to stay out. I hope the blocking admin will advise all of you of the proper procedure for revisiting an AFD-- without same, you need to respect the conclusion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I actually feel like there is some wisdom in keeping the material in the celibacy page after all, rather then removing it from there again. As far as I can see the material is still sourced and removal of sourced material is against the rules of this site, which I respect. There are also other ways to adding it, for example it could be included as a section in the article virginity perhaps? In any case, I will remove myself from this discussion altogether. The case has already been closed anyway and the community has spoken. I will respect that. And yes maybe a permanent ban for that user was a bit excessive, but I have no say in those matters. I hope we can keep it at this, and that my word will suffice. Thank you already. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, thanks for that! May I draw your attention to this little conversation [4] and that you, Mythic Writerlord, asked me for help? Otherwise I wouldn't have mady any further action. I am both astonished and disappointed on such a strange behaviour. I withdraw from any action regarding the content in question until further notice but I feel the need to express that it is not me who is editwarring on celibacy. --Turris Davidica (talk) 10:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • You really missunderstod me. It was not what I meant. I was not complaining about Mythic Writerlord at all. I was trying to find a solution. I feel myself that the solution is no good. Celibacy is a religious thing. Hafspajen (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Hafs, from your indenting, I can't tell if your response is aimed at Mythic or me ... I do understand your concern about the content, and hope Coffee will advise how to proceed considering there was an AFD. Separately, it is my own opinion that Mythic has some answering to do for his behavior in this matter, along with the irregular actions that resulted in another editor being blocked, while Mythic was not blocked. But then, that's why I'm not an admin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I have already answered myself. I have also not engaged in edit warring today, contrary to what you claim Sandy. I made a single edit on the celibacy page today. But Davidica and the other editor made more edits. If anything, they are the ones engaged in edit wars, not me. Now lets not allow this situation to spiral out of control any more. I have already said I would stay away from the issue. Let that be enough. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Sigh. The person I meant edit warring is Andrey Rublyov, who now made his third revert in 24 hour, not Mythic . Damn. I wish I could have stopped it by coming to some solution, before it went too long. Hafspajen (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I already reported Andrey earlier... Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Ooh, I am an idiot. Hafspajen (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen, I wish I could be of more help to you, but I just don't know the process for revisiting a controversial AFD close ... perhaps a talk page stalker will advise what's next, or Coffee will weigh in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I hope. Hafspajen (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
If you've spoken to the admin in question and are unsatisfied by the response, WP:DRV is a possible next step. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I think you should know that this article content debated above was re-created against several broader community consensus. Hafspajen (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Autism[edit]

Hey SandyGeorgia, welcome back to Wiki! Anyway I wanted to know because, in May 2013 (last year), the DSM-IV revised to its current manual DSM 5 and has consolidated Asperger's, PDD-NOS, and Autism into one label: Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Do you think it's worth mentioning in the lead? Let me know! ATC . Talk 04:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Also the hatnote on top uses the word "pervasive developmental disorders" but it is no longer recognized as the diagnostic term for ASD. I think it needs to be revised. See here: http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Autism%20Spectrum%20Disorder%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf ATC . Talk 06:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Journal access[edit]

Hey, SandyGeorgia. Regarding User talk:Flyer22/Archive 13#OCD ?, I've been meaning to tell you that I still don't have journal access. I am, however, slowly but surely working on the Vagina article; I don't think I'll need journal access for it, but I'll see. Hopefully, I will have a day where I fix up most of the article in one take. Flyer22 (talk) 16:41, 9 March 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)

¿Donde esta?[edit]

Hi Sandy, I noticed you haven't edited at all in 6 days and haven't posted on WT:MED in more than a month. Some editors have speculated that this is because of the RFC for the medical disclaimer you started and the fact that it wasn't adopted. Care to set the record straight? Jinkinson talk to me 00:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Cancer pain[edit]

I'd like this to be excellent, and would therefore really appreciate any thoughts you might have on how it could be improved. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Leopoldo López[edit]

Greetings SandyGeorgia,

I recently noticed an egregious BLP violation on the Czech page of Leopoldo López found here. The content violates Wikipedia's BLP policy and the source they are using is far from reliable. I tried fixing it but I was quickly reverted. Do you think you could help me out in trying to remove this information? I noticed you contributed significantly to Leopoldo Lopez's English page so I decided to come to you for help. Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.226.94 (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia! I just wanted to follow up and see if you had the time to take a look at the Czech page on Leopoldo López found here. Thanks, I hope to hear from you soon. 66.215.147.124 (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

JSTOR Survey (and an update)[edit]

Hi! Just a quick update that while JSTOR and The Wikipedia Library discuss expanding the partnership, they've gone ahead and extended the pilot access again, until May 31st. Thanks, JSTOR!

It would be really helpful for growing the program if you would fill out this short survey about your usage and experience with JSTOR:

SURVEY

Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail. :)[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, SandyGeorgia. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

--Mssemantics (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Ping[edit]

Sandy, I've emailed you. Tony (talk) 06:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Tony1; I recommend Colin, Jbmurray, Mike Christie or Moni3. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Derwick Associates[edit]

Hi! I've looked through the talk page of this article and find you seem to be one of the few erudite, experienced wikipedians that have edited. The page is undergoing a massive edit war. I have made significant contributions to the page and added a lot to the talk discussion in the last week, with warnings. The page is beset by sock puppets and PR folks. This company, which is only notable in RSs because of the accusations leveled against it, is wanting to be turned by some single purpose users into some kind of PR puffery page. They even tried to add 8,000 characters lifted from the company's website. Any help or moderation would be greatly appreciated. Please read the parts in talk about the findings of Reporters Without Borders. It's frightening27.122.12.79 (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation join the new Physiology Wikiproject![edit]

Physiology gives us an understanding of how and why things in the field of medicine happen. Together, let us jumpstart the project and get it going. Our energy is all it needs.

Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles relating to the field of physiology, the new WikiProject Physiology has been created. WikiProject Physiology is still in its infancy and needs your help. On behalf of a group of editors striving to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to come on board and participate in the betterment of physiology related articles. Help us to jumpstart this WikiProject.

  • Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
  • You can tag the talk pages of relevant articles with {{WikiProject Physiology|class=|importance=}} with your assessment of the article class and importance alongwith. Please note that WP:Physiology, WP:Physio, WP:Phy can be used interchangeably.
  • You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing physiology articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
  • We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
  • Why not try and strive to create a good article! Physiology related articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!
  • Your contributions to the WikiProject page, related categories and templates is also welcome.
  • To invite other editors to this WikiProject, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • To welcome editors of physiology articles, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.

Hoping for your cooperation! DiptanshuTalk 12:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Bolivarian propaganda article deletion #2[edit]

Hello again! I just wanted to thank you for your help on the Venezuelan pages again. However, the Bolivarian propaganda article is up for deletion again after your large contributions have been made to it. I had just recently discovered the article when it was put up for deletion after my edits. 10 edits before my first on the article, you and other users made substantial changes to the article. I just wanted to know your opinion on the 2nd request for deletion. Since I have just discovered the article, I plan to make substantial changes as well. Once again, thanks for your help on other Venezuelan articles and keeping A LOT of us in line.--Zfigueroa (talk) 23:08, 28 April 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

"Bolivarian propaganda" - Move[edit]

The article is up to be moved by Zozs. Please discuss what you think at Talk:Bolivarian propaganda#Move.--Zfigueroa (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

hey Sandy...[edit]

...just want to say "hi" from the past. good to know you're still around and they haven't driven you away for being objective and neutral. bestest r b-j talk 02:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.182.44 (talk)

Obvious agenda at work[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Denise_Donnelly There is an obvious agenda at work to remove all mentioning of involuntary celibacy from Wikipedia. Same people who were behind the deletion of merged content are behind this again. It's amazing some of you more rational members don't see what is going on. Can anything be done about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrey Rublyov (talkcontribs) 12:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Economic policy of the Nicolás Maduro government[edit]

I was wondering if you could check out the Economic policy of the Nicolás Maduro government article and make any needed changes to it. I just know you are very neutral editor and it is definitely needed for this article. Yo have also fixed a lot of stuff and you always do a good job at it too. Go ahead and add more since it is pretty bare as of now.--Zfigueroa (talk) 10:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change to Consensus for a unified approach to bias categories at Category:Antisemitism[edit]

Due to your involvement in the 2011 CFD that decided on a unified approach to bias categories, you may be interested in a current proposal to change that approach with regard to the Category:Antisemitism. Dlv999 (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Any new developments in the medical disclaimer initiative?[edit]

Hi Sandy, I was just curious, have there been any new developments in the attempt to get a disclaimer for medical Wikipedia articles? --Holdek (talk) 03:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Holdek, I saw your note here. I haven't seen any progress or even any serious discussion on this point in months. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the letting me know, WhatamIdoing. I may start an RFC related to this effort. --Holdek (talk) 06:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I got this note from Sandy a little while back. What do you think is the best approach to the RfC, Holdek? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:34, 24 July 2014‎ (UTC)
Hi Anthonyhcole.
My proposal would be more limited than the one Sandy made a couple of months ago. Instead of requesting comment on multiple specially-designed templates for medical articles from among which people would comment and give their opinions on (and which contributed to the previous RFC to ballooning into something unmanageable), I would instead propose that the notice "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," be located above all articles (or at least medical ones), since that's what appears on the Main Page anyway, or to have the link to the Medical disclaimer, which is currently located in tiny font below every article, moved to the top of the articles so that people are aware of it before reading the article (and make it at least normal-sized text).
Anyways these are my thoughts at the moment. I don't want to propose anything too radical so that the whole idea doesn't get too mired down with objections, and these are just moving important information that Wikipedia wants its readers to know anyway to more prominent places.
Please let me know the best place to continue this conversation (maybe here?). --Holdek (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I was a big supporter of the disclaimer in Sandy's RfC. Today I'm less sure, though. The turning point for me was this paper, which is the most rigorous study of the accuracy of medical content in WP I'm aware of. The authors found that Wikipedia was the most accurate among 11 sources examined in each of two subject areas, ahead of Britannica, WebMD, the NIMH website, Mayo Clinic, even a major psychiatry textbook. Admittedly the scope of that study was small, yet the authors wrote, "These findings largely parallel those of other recent studies of the quality of health information on Wikipedia", and cited eight other studies. In light of this kind of objective evidence of WP's quality, how can we justify a message that would encourage readers to look elsewhere?

It's weird, though. As a Wikipedian, my subjective experience of this place is that it's cruddy, and I wonder why anyone uses it. Yet both the scientific literature, and the opinions of my fellow academics, are consistently more positive than I'd expect. I think it's because we're the sausage makers. The errors we find stick in our minds; discussion boards draw our attention to WP's worst articles; we're exposed to all sorts of behind-the-scenes drama, most of which does not directly reduce article quality. We're probably also more likely to read articles about WP in the popular press, which I'm pretty sure are strongly biased toward reporting negative findings about WP. Collectively, these forces focus our attention on Wikipedia's weaknesses, distorting our perceptions of it's overall quality. Which is kind of a good thing, really – if there's one group of people you'd want to have focusing on WP's weaknesses, it's Wikipedians. But it means it takes considerable effort for us to step back, hit Random article a few times, and notice just how good most of our articles actually are. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 15:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback.
The study that you cited was limited to information about depression and schizophrenia. While it is encouraging, a more recent study on "entries in the areas of health, nutrition, medicine, and complementary and alternative medicine" states, "These findings together with those from other studies indicate that the information provided by Wikipedia is mostly of high quality but that significant errors and omissions are fairly common." While it appears that articles are improving, it's the second part of that sentence that is still problematic. And, there are several links to problems posted on Sandy's user page, as well as more here and here.
I personally do not believe that we should have a message necessarily encouraging readers to look elsewhere, only a message that reflects the fact that the vast majority of pages on Wikipedia at any given time can contain material written by anyone without being checked for accuracy first. I think it's the appropriate amount of disclosure, and as our reliability is founded on the reliable sources cited in our articles I'd prefer our readers to read Wikipedia as a general introduction to medical topics but then if necessary to pursue the actual references to be sure about things related to life-or death issues. Holdek (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Link to the earlier RfC: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/RFC on medical disclaimer
There have been many individual studies of the reliability of our health-related content.
Some have been well-designed and -conducted, others not so much. What's missing is a critical, systematic review of those studies collapsed above by a recognised expert in study design, to give us a useful overview of the current research. My feeling, after having looked at all and read most of those studies, is that nothing can be said with any confidence about the reliability of our medical offering, other than that it is imperfect - something that can be said about most online sources. Once the serious systematic review has been conducted, assuming it finds what I expect it will, we'll then need a very large, well-designed and -conducted study. Meanwhile, I think we should acknowledge that - using the same ontology we demand for any fact-claims in this encyclopedia - there is nothing we can reliably say about the reliability of our health-related content.
I agree that we should word the disclaimer so as not to drive readers away to other resources that may be just as poor (amazingly, there appears to be no good research into the reliability of all the major online health offerings). I would hope we can come up with wording that just gives readers due warning. What's "due" is something to discuss. (I like both of Holdek's suggestions - a link to the medical disclaimer at the top of each medical article and the implicit warning "Welcome to Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit" at the top.)
I think Sandy's page is as good a place as any for the initial discussion. It's watched by most active medical editors, as well as a great many GA and FA writers - the kind of crowd whose input would be most important at this early stage.
WMF Board members Jimmy and SJ both support a more prominent disclaimer, I think, and I'd appreciate their input at this stage, as well as the thoughts of the other board members - especially the other community representatives, Phoebe and Raystorm, if they have any thoughts on the prominence of our medical disclaimer. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, all ... I just saw all of this, but I'm not going to have enough free time to respond until Monday (28th) ... shortcut to what will be a long response is that a disclaimer is still unlikely to happen on a website where consensus is determined and affected by the uninformed, whose input is weighed the same as those familiar with the issues, so ... we still desperately need a BLP-type policy allowing us to shoot poorly sourced, unsourced, or inaccurate medical info on sight. We should care as much about medical misinfo as we do about BLP misinfo. (Look at the rest of my talkpage for the eggshell membrane garbage we recently ran on the mainpage ... one author, two primary sources, junk promoted by two studies from one author ... got through DYK ... and Wikipedia has been a rather shameless force in the promotion of medical cannabis.) When I have time, I'll read the info posted above, but I am MOST surprised that any study could find our articles on depression and schizophrenia valuable, yikes, that is just scary. A BLP-style policy would go a long ways towards protecting our readers from medical misinfo. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Wholehearted agreement, and maybe the LLP (Lives of Living People) approach might be the most effective tactic to take. This isn't really my field, but let me know if you think I can help. John Carter (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I was actually thinking about a BLP policy for medical info as well. But I think that it might run into more resistance than the two disclaimer ideas I posted above, since it involves a wholesale policy change. But I would support it personally. Holdek (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I think a modest proposal, along the lines of Holdek's, above (link to medical disclaimer and "anyone can edit this article" at the top), has a good chance of passing. It would have a better chance if the WMF board were to come out early in support. As for elevating WP:MEDRS - or its essence - to policy like WP:BLP, I'd be very interested to hear the board's thoughts on that. My fear is that we will have to wait for a confirmed overdose or death before they even comment on that proposal. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@Anthonyhcole: Have you run an RFC before? --Holdek (talk) 05:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Nothing like this. I initiated an open-ended discussion on categorisation of people once, which wasn't aiming for any consensus - just an airing of ideas. I'm travelling for the next few days but would be keen to collaborate with you and anyone else on drafting something once my feet touch the ground. Feel free to propose a draft here and get the discussion happening now, though, if you like. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I've never run one before. I'd like to collaborate with you on drafting one. I may also post a notice to the Medicine WikiProject to see if they have any opinions on the ideas posted here so far. As summary, the main proposals seem to be:
  1. Move the disclaimers from the bottom to the top of articles, and increase the font to a normal size
  2. Add the "Welcome...anyone can edit," notice to all pages, not just the main page
  3. Extending the BLP policy of deleting poorly-sourced, contentious content to medical articles
Some sort of combination of the above
I'll start writing a rough draft for proposal 1, my preferred one so far, and just let me know when you're back, or if I finish before then I'll just post it here. Holdek (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Small update: I've left a message at the Medicine WikiProject asking them to weigh in. --Holdek (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

First of all here is a systematic review looking at the quality of Wikipedia from 2014 [5]

Second Wikipedia is currently better than much of what is currently out their that contains "warnings" no more prominent than ours. I am of the opinion that it is a much better use of everyone times to try to "fix" Wikipedia than to try to convince people to use something else. We have an entire popular press that continually repeats how bad Wikipedia is. They can and have educated the world on this point and the world does not seem to care. Thus I shall try to continue to improve the medical content where people are reading it.

With respect to telling people to use the better sources out there. Exactly what are these better sources? WebMD is covered in advertising which is not good for peoples health. One of the reasons the US has such poor health outcomes IMO. ADAM hosted by the NIH is not particularly good (I could say more but will not in a public forum). Uptodate costs nearly $500 per account per year and is slow to Update. When I brought to their attention that they were still recommending activated protein C for sepsis a month after the Cochrane review found it worsened outcomes and Wikipedia was accurate they blew me off. Uptodate did not correct their article until the company and FDA pulled it more than six months after concerns were found.

The discuss about containing a more prominent warning has unfortunately has split medical editors.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Doc James, thanks for weighing in. As I wrote above, "I personally do not believe that we should have a message necessarily encouraging readers to look elsewhere, only a message that reflects the fact that the vast majority of pages on Wikipedia at any given time can contain material written by anyone without being checked for accuracy first. I think it's the appropriate amount of disclosure, and as our reliability is founded on the reliable sources cited in our articles I'd prefer our readers to read Wikipedia as a general introduction to medical topics but then if necessary to pursue the actual references to be sure about things related to life-or death issues." Holdek (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

Template:Did you know nominations/eggshell membrane[edit]

SandyGeorgia, can I ask you to take a look at this DYK and its eggshell membrane associated article? There are medical claims being made here, and I'd like someone who knows what they're doing taking a look at both. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Please fill out your JSTOR email[edit]

As one of the original 100 JSTOR account recipients, please fill out the very short email form you received just recently in order to renew your access. Even though you signed up before with WMF, we need you to sign up again with The Wikipedia Library for privacy reasons and because your prior access expired on July 15th. We do not have your email addresses now; we just used the Special:EmailUser feature, so if you didn't receive an email just contact me directly at jorlowitz@gmail.com. Thanks, and we're working as quickly as possible to get you your new access! Jake (Ocaasi) 19:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:JSTOR access[edit]

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior or User:Ocaasi sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.

YGM[edit]

I sent you an email. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)