User:SandyGeorgia

Useful links

• email at User:Oversight
• Admins who speak Spanish
• Editor interaction
  • Intersect contribs
• RFA&B Report RFA Report
• Good copyright info from Choess and Moonriddengirl
  • More Copyvio help from Diannaa
    • Compatible licenses from Diannaa
• Ealdgyth cracks the whip
• Template messages
  • User talk warnings
  • Inline Templates
  • Sourcing templates
• Tools
  • Pubmed search engine
  • The Boghog PMID template (formerly Diberri)
  • ISBN finder
  • WorldCat
  • Book Sources
• Special Log, drop down User rights
• Show
  • Show 2
    • Show 3

es-4El nivel de este usuario corresponde al de un hablante casi nativo del español.

• My barnstars and other shiny things
• Some of my work

• Who is Sandy Georgia? - "Sandy is a complicated person in real life. She passes her time in simple surroundings, trying to deflect the worship of those who know her and use her gifts to help others. She has been hunted as a fugitive, cursed as a tomb-robber, and is renowned as a lover and duelist. She is a worshiped as a God in Honduras, but is an outlaw in Peru. No living man knows her real name, as she only whispers it into the ears of those she is about to kill. All love her and hate her, she is SandyGeorgia." -- Tim Vickers 17:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC) [1] [2]

• Subsequently, however, in order to, in total, and also—almost never needed and almost always redundant. How about this—found once on Wikipedia: He was mortally wounded and subsequently died. No kidding !!!! Overuse of however, is common on Wikipedia, but also and subsequently are fun, too; all of these can be indications of weak writing. User:Tony1/How to improve your writing has good information on these plagues of Wikipedia.

Greyzone: In the news

This article in The Gray Zone does a fine job of demonstrating why this site was deprecated on Wikipedia. Here is the full Request for comment that resulted in deprecation of the source as not reliable. The full Request for comment reveals that the majority of editors who found The Grayzone to not be reliable are not frequent editors of Venezuelan articles at all; many our long-standing followers of the reliable sources noticeboard, who entered convincing analyses independent of the Venezuelan issue. The article fails to point out several frequent editors of Venezuelan articles who did not share the majority opinion held by most independent Wikipedia editors. Some samples of problems with the reporting (there is more):

1. On Wikipedia, a small group of regime-change advocates and right-wing Venezuelan opposition supporters have blacklisted independent media outlets like The Grayzone on explicitly political grounds, violating the encyclopedia’s guidelines. The RSN discussion had discussion from the right, left and independent viewpoints. The discussion did not "violate" Wikipedia's guidelines; it upheld Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline.
2. The campaign to blacklist The Grayzone was initiated by Wikipedia editors who identify as Venezuelans and openly support the country’s right-wing, US-backed opposition. More correctly, the Wikipedia-wide Request for comment was started by an editor who often edits Venezuelan articles. Starting an RFC to solicit independent opinions is the correct thing to do when sources are questioned.
3. Together, this tiny handful of editors has successfully banned Wikipedia from citing The Grayzone, falsely claiming that the website publishes unreliable, false, or fabricated information. This Grayzone article reinforces that conclusion.
4. The Grayzone has never had to issue a major correction or retract a story. Here's one they can start with: [3]
5. Wikipedia maintains an official list of reliable sources. These are the news outlets that editors are allowed to cite in an article. This is an incorrect interpretation of Wikipedia's Reliable sources guideline.
6. There is no independent oversight of this process. False; anyone on Wikipedia can participate and the RFC is closed by a neutral admin.
7. An investigation of the editors behind the campaign to blacklist The Grayzone clearly shows that the majority are politically motivated users who exploit Wikipedia to push their sectarian agenda. Notice the number of editors who participated in the RFC and the numerous editors of Venezuelan topics who uphold The Grayzone as reliable but were not scrutinized by The Grayzone, and the majority of independent editors who aren't mentioned at all: distortion of the facts.
8. One editor "openly that they are Venezuelan": OH NOES !! Does The Grayzone propose that Venezuelans can't edit Venezuelan topics? Then doctors can't edit medical topics either. And, for those not in the know-- they are mistakes in the claimed list of which editors are Venezuelan, but we'll leave it to the author of the article to discover those.
9. The Grayzone singles out a socialist editor in an allegedly anti-Maduro stance ? LOL !!
10. With such a blatantly biased moderator, ... Facutal error-- no such thing. No one "moderated" this (or most) RFCs, and it is closed by a neutral and independent administrator.
11. The vast majority of the users who chimed in in the official Wikipedia survey and argued in support of blacklisting The Grayzone have shown clear political bias in their editing. Simply not true.
12. SandyGeorgia, a user that also constantly edits Venezuela-related articles ... Really? Good investigative journalism? Haven't edited them for several years now, and I took a four-year hiatus from Wikipedia in general. I do edit Venezuelan topics, and when I do, I do make a lot of edits to clean them up (manual of style, citations, prose, etc). By the way, I don't remember routinely encountering BobfromBrockley in Venezuelan article space.
13. This author is fond of the word "obsessive".
14. Neutrality is an administrator on the English Wikipedia, giving them special powers. Not a factual statement; Neutrality has no "special powers" in any RFC-- just another person opining. Not a regular editor of Venezuelan topics, either.

So, yes, it is this kind of reporting that got this publication deprecated.

Misc good stuff

Most reputable volunteer organisations screen their volunteers before accepting them. That makes it a lot easier to insure or indemnify them. Obvious personality disorders, histories of unsavory behavior, habits of propositioning other volunteers, or an unwillingness to comply with an organisation's basic behavioral expectations are all grounds for refusing or releasing a volunteer. Wikipedia doesn't roll like that; we take people with any (or all) of the above. ... This site persistently hosts a small number of people with frank personality disorders. A much larger fraction of the community is not frankly pathological, but lacks all reasonable sense of perspective. Unless that changes - and I don't see it changing - I'm not willing to compromise whatever pseudonymity I still enjoy. I admire the courage of people who edit under their real names, in the same way I admire the courage of people who do trick motorcycle jumps over flaming trucks, but that's not me. MastCell ^Talk 04:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC) [4]

Ignorance is infinite, while patience is not. Ultimately, you will lose patience with the unchecked flow of ignorance, at which point you'll be blocked for incivility. The goal is to accomplish as much as possible before that inevitability comes to pass. MastCell ^Talk 04:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC) [5]

... the more I see of Wikipedia from the vantage point of a semi-detached observer, the more certain I am that the trends I was pointing out a couple of years ago—an obsession with strict compliance over common sense, the increasing domination of policy-wonks, an accelerating decline in the number of editors actually active in content work of any kind, entrenched US west coast and south-east English cultural bias, and simultaneous (and contradictory) unhealthy fixations on the concepts of "anyone can edit" to the point where respected users argue for the unblocking of some of Wikipedia's most disruptive nutjobs because "anyone can edit" and of "disruption warrants blocking" to the point where generally non-problematic users are either blocked from editing or hounded off the site owing to minor breaches of etiquette or personal grudges—have come to dominate the internal workings of Wikipedia to the point where it's becoming impossible to get anything done unless one's a member of one or another privileged clique who'll circle the wagons for you ... While I may make the very occasional reappearance, I don't really see the point in dedicating substantial time to a system which is willfully ripping itself apart ... iridescent 14:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC) [6]

There is no such consensus, of course. Eric called this the most ridiculous block he'd ever seen. Brad stated that, in general, either warning or requesting evidence would be more appropriate than a block. Kww opined that there was no personal attack in Sandy's comment. And James suggested that Sandy did provide evidence for her accusation. Brad is the only one who mentioned a warning, and then in general terms and as one of several options. There is a consensus, but it's a consensus that this block was mistakenly applied. In that light, Mark's statement in the block log is unfortunate.

I don't mean to pile on as the block has already been lifted, but since the black mark will remain in Sandy's block log I'll add my view that this was an inappropriate block and should have been lifted without prejudice. I'd ask Mark to be a bit more circumspect in the future about what he writes in block/unblock statements, since they are effectively indelible. As block logs are generally not amended even to correct mis-statements, a link to this discussion will have to suffice when Sandy's block log is cited in the future. MastCell ^Talk 18:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC) [7]

Just pointing out that "Colin and the Videos" would be a good name for a band. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I find the thought that people who speak a certain language are getting their medical information primarily from Wikipedia deeply frightening. We are not competent for that task. We are competent to write a tertiary source that summarizes secondary sources. We shouldn't even be trying to be some kind of WebMD. – Levivich 18:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

---

A fool's guide to writing a featured article

Sandy (from Georgia) has realised there are advantages to working on the FAC page. She now has many friends and likes chocolates.

Your friends have now finished editing your prospective FA, it is all shiny and new and none of them can see any fault at all. You know you only have to nominate it and the accolades will come pouring in. Raul will probably weep with pleasure when he sees it, by-pass all comment and pass it immediately, while simultaneously catching his swooning side-kick Sandy (she is from Georgia, where they swoon all the time, remember Gone with the Wind).

You negotiate the tricky procedure (designed so any fool, except you, can understand it) of nominating. In your brief nomination announce that this is a self-nom and say why you think it should be a FA. You can mention any specific help you have received from other editors but try to avoid thanking all your friends, your mom and your dad, your Labrador and the neighbor (who in spite of not being the subject has been very supportive, and waived the rights to his 'Nam draft photo which you have not used). Now begins the great excitement, for a full forty-eight hours you sit by your screen - nothing happens. Is the site down? Has your computer frozen? Where is everybody? More to the point where are your friends? You check their user pages (they are not replying to email). You are met with a bombardment of Wiki-break templates. You are alone in a strange, empty, deserted and hostile place. Welcome to the FAC page.

While sweating nervously (perspiring gently if you are from Georgia) you repeatedly click your watchlist. Have you accidentally taken it off? - no, it is still there. Then suddenly it is at the top of the list someone has voted - you hurry over to the FAC page - God, the broad-band is slow today - is it support? No, it is "comment" - someone you have never heard of is helpfully pointing out that the references are not formatted according to the latest diktat from the MOS. Panic! WTF! What can I do? - relax - just post below "I am a complete blithering idiot, who has never been here before. I don't know what to do" (voters admire humility). Providing she has recovered from her swoon (remember she is from Georgia), Sandy will have spotted your pathetic plight and will advise you, send her a box of chocolates and she may even do it for you. First hurdle is over - the refs are now OK.

Your Serene Highness, I beseech thee to excuse my lèse-majesté, but in Georgia, those final hyphens would be endashes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Misc yukky stuff

If you saw a thread on Reddit claiming I am a paid government shill, please do read my denial. It may help you understand how and why Mr. Reddit got it wrong.

• No one that matters or with any knowledge of Wikipedia thinks you are a paid editor... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  
• :Agree completely. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• I can't say I'd ever thought you could possibly be a paid editor. Years ago, I learned to NOT try to edit something when you started editing, because you make so many small edits and typos that it's safer to wait til you're done... If you are a paid editor, you'd better be getting paid by the edit rather than by the amount of prose added... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oh good grief. I can't imagine any context in the wiki-world where anyone who understands the project could consider you a paid editor. Wow. Boy have they missed the mark. Risker (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• During the miserably cold winter, I remember being in the car one morning, hearing the news about Venezuela, and I thought to myself, "boy does Wikipedia need Sandy right now." And then there you were, doing what you do best. Hang in there and keep it up. You've been working those pages as long as I remember. Own? Pfft! Stewartship is a different matter. Victoria (tk) 01:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Exaggeration in health-related science news
• An Indian pharmacy journal article scraping text from Wikipedia without attribution: [8] Then future editors can cite that journal, unaware that is a mirror and not reliable. Another reason why our medical articles should respect MEDRS and have a prominent disclaimer at the top.[9]
• PMID 24276492 Evaluation of gastroenterology and hepatology articles on Wikipedia: Are they suitable as learning resources for medical students?
• Example of medically irresponsible text that stood for two years.
  • Example from Hallucination that stood for over a year, inserted by a student editor
  • Add list from Adrian J. Hunter
  • Entire suite at {{Cannabis}} prior to December 2013 gave unfounded, inaccurate medical info
  • Redback spider antivenom
• Not atypical for medical editing on Wikipedia: Plastic surgery advocacy
• Schizophrenia and {{Cannabis}}: [10]
• Vandalism that inserted inaccurate information at coprolalia stood for six months, undetected, unreverted. [11] (by definition, TS requires verbal tics).
• Nine months of long cough; will that kill ya? [12] Another Wikipedia pharm article, vandalism that has stood for nine months and is now mirrored on dozens of internet sites.