User talk:SandyGeorgia: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:38, 7 March 2014

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 100 as User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch99 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

About me

Talk to me

To do list

Tools and other
useful things

Some of
my work

Nice
things

Yukky
things

Requesting a second look at Potential Copyright violations.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Not a problem and thank you for responding. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer

Despite everything, you seem to be keeping your temper admirably. Happy New Year! - Pointillist (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh. Well, I think the only consensus that can come out of that RFC is that ... I don't know how to design an RFC :) Thanks for the note ... I was just thinking of some hair pulling since it's become so hard to keep up with, and I'm pretty sure a followup will be needed. Pity the poor admin who has to close it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep going - even if it requires another RFC down the road. The issue is of genuine importance and your efforts are much appreciated. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pointillist and FiachraByrne ... policies and guidelines don't change overnight, but little by little. Happy New Year! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just stumbled across this paper Can Internet Information on Vertebroplasty be a Reliable Means of Patient Self-education? (marketing blub here)and thought about your disclaimer initiative. Unfortunately I don't have access to the article at the moment so I can't tell whether it is genuinely relevant, I'm therefore dumping it on your doorstep and walking away! Cheers - Pointillist (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question. The RfC closed with the closer, basically, saying there was no clear consensus established on a lot of points, partially I think because of the number of disparate views involved. Any ideas how you might want to proceed from here? I have recently finished a rather longish opinion piece I seriously doubt anyone would really want to read, but one of the things I mention is maybe getting some sort of "pro and con" column or forum to show up regularly in the Signpost or elsewhere. This might be one of the better topics for use in such a format. Anyway, I support the idea in principle and in practice, although I can see a few problems, particularly given the number of options, in the implementation. John Carter (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks John, I saw that at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/RFC on medical disclaimer. Besides that the closer, HJ Mitchell was correct in his assessment of the mess, and there was no other way to close it, I will be eternally grateful to WereSpielChequers for his/her role in trashing what consensus we had in the preparation for the RFC and making any useful outcome in any direction impossible. I recognize that I might have been more forceful in keeping out tangential proposals from the beginning, but whatevs. I have no idea how to proceed best now, because there is no way to prevent everyone and his/her brother/sister from adding on their own ideas, which is what cratered this one in spite of ample discussion before the RFC was launched. I'm sick of Wikipedia and its dangerous medical inaccuracies, so will leave the next steps to someone with a stronger stomach than mine. Best regards to you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you mentioned me ... I don't think WSC's contribution was the sole factor in muddying the waters; perhaps it didn't help, but there were multiple conversations about different versions happening there, and (lacking the gift of telepathy, which would aid greatly in closing RfCs!) there's no way I can tell whether they support their preferred version and oppose all others, oppose some others, support other with an order of preference, or something else altogether. My recommendation is to have an RfC with a single question: should we have a medical disclaimer on articles? Just yes or no. No "only if it's blue" or "only if it's at the bottom". All questions over appearance, wording, placement, and anything else should be matters for later discussions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell, thanks for having the courage to wade in and close that mess! We'll agree to disagree on WSC's role :) You may have identified a way forward, but I've no longer got the stomach for it ... it just troubles the heck out of me that folks don't see the dangers lurking in our medical content. Thanks again! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I think HJM more or less said what I was thinking better than I did. For somewhat complex ideas like this one, involving a lot of options, maybe the best way to go would be to have some sort of general discussion on the broad topic involving those both in favor of the proposal and opposed to it in a separate widely-seen place, also allowing some commentary from readers. The Signpost might be a good place for that. Then, after that issue of the Signpost is outdated, or perhaps after the multiple issues of the Signpost reflecting all the significant views, post a single, basic, RfC on tyhe broad topic in general, more or less with a single "yes-no-neutral" choice under discussion. Then, perhaps after winning general approval, maybe follow the same sort of format for the various other major issues related to the topic. John Carter (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been much of a fan of the Signpost, since their turn towards increased editorializing, so don't hold out much hope for that approach-- if someone else wants to try that, grand, but my depressing conclusion following the RFC is that there are three kinds of editors in this discussion: 1) medical editors who get it and are alarmed and disgusted; 2) medical editors who get it but believe if they edit like heck as fast as they can and as much as they can, they can fix it all; 3) and non-medical editors who will never understand how bad the situation is. I don't think this will be fixed until we have a medical equivalent of the Seigenthaler controversy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking on my own history of dealing with all sorts of articles on religion and how history and other topics, I think I would say that people like the now-departed User:History2007 would say the same things about topics at the intersection of religion and history. Both he and I would probably qualify as being in your group #2, and both found out how wrong we were. At this point, honestly, I don't personally hold out much more hope for our religion and history content than you do for the medical content. And regarding at least a few topics, like clerical misconduct and the dangers of some cult-like groups, some might even be as important as some of the bs medicine conduct we have and have had. And I also pretty much agree with you about the few ways I can see about how that situation might change. But, even though I basically agree we need a few controversies that get a lot of public attention, enough to generate the foundation taking some required action, at the same time, I kind of dread the possibility of us having such controversies, primarily for the benefit of those who might be victimized by it.

But, trying to get back to something kind of positive, if not you, can you think of anyone else who might be capable of and maybe interested in writing a piece for mass consumption about the (I think painfully obvious) advantages of such things? John Carter (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The best writer on this stuff is Colin; I shouldn't speak for him, but I suspect he's as discouraged as I am. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy pinged me. I don't know what the solution is. On the topic of disclaimers I see reasonable people making valid arguments on both sides. It is a big unknown. We do know that people are rubbish at reading and responding to warnings they see every day and who are intelligent enough to grasp: nurses and doctors who smoke or eat and drink too much? And people with prejudices (i.e., all of us in some way) react paradoxically to facts. Wouldn't we love a banner on the Dail Mail saying "This paper is full of shit". Or warnings above specific columnists saying "This author has no real qualifications, is gullible and writes with more confidence than is justified." Perhaps all we can hope for is that WP is better than some of the alternatives showing up on Google. I'm fairly discouraged about the wisdom of the crowd: there are limits to what the crowd is good at doing but I don't know if anyone has worked out what they are. I think WMF give too much to the crowd to decide, with fairly predicable and non-optimal results. It always amazes me how few medical editors there are. Its one reason why undergrad student editing in this area has such a terrible impact. But why has WP not attracted more qualified editors to this sphere? I think that's a question the WMF should be seeking the resolve. -- Colin°^Talk 11:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem here is probably the difference between what we say we want to be and some of the trashier columnists, tv shows, yellow journalism papers, and other sources. We are at least trying to pass ourselves off as an encyclopedia. Granted, it may well be that medical encyclopedias are somewhat outdated in lots of cases, given the occasional problems of developments since printing, but we shouldn't have those problems. I remember Anthonyhcole talking about an independent foundation which has qualified medics reviewing at least some of our articles, and that should help a lot on those articles, but we have a lot more articles on medicine, broadly construed, than that group deals with. And I definitely would love to see the Foundation doing more in a visible way on this idea. Still, though I wonder whether we might not, perhaps reasonably, either use the Signpost itself or maybe have it or other widely read pages provide some sort of background information for the broader community, considering at this point they are the ones who decide this, and then maybe later have them take part in a simple, single-issue, "yes-no-undecided" !vote on such disclaimers, either specifically medical or maybe also including law and matters of personal finance, two other generally problematic areas which much the same problems. Would you, User:Colin, as the one Sandy suggested might be one of the best people to prevent some such preliminary summary of the issues involved, or maybe a more clear "pro" or "con" statement, which might give the community some more evidence to use in making a decision? John Carter (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy likes to flatter me. Is there any "evidence to use in making a decision" or are both sides just guessing? I don't think that a simple yes/no vote would change much. The "yes" was complicated but the "no" vote in the RfC was simple and pretty strongly supported. People can be reluctant to support something they don't know the details of and the "slippery slope" would be used as an argument by some. Opening out to disclaimers on a wider range of topics is pretty likely to receive a strong no. It is one of those "perennial suggestions" that saying "no" to has become mantra for WP. So I'm afraid I think that, imperfect though it may have been, the RfC showed the community has no strong wish for medical disclaimers at present. -- Colin°^Talk 15:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This thread seems to be a new RfC, which may or may not be a good idea. To add my 2cents, I think that adding just a medical disclaimer to just medical articles is a non-starter. Think of the discussions about which articles do or do not have medical content; it would be a never-ending war!

But wasn't it you, Sandy, who suggested moving all the disclaimers to the top of all pages? That might get support. Something like this, though size, texts, etc. would be matters for discussion:

--Hordaland (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did try that suggestion, and I thought it solved all objections, but, yea ... I've no stomach for trying again yet. Maybe someone else can be the next messenger who gets shot. I think it a practical solution. What do I know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work!

	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)[reply]

Thank you, John; most kind of you and the encouragement is appreciated. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duck hunting

The WikiProject Medicine QuackStar

Quack!

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 2¢ | Maintained) 09:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 2¢ | Maintained) 10:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Psoriasis

Hi Sandy, any interest in reviewing Psoriasis for GA status? Idk if you've done reviews, but I imagine you have given your experience with Wikipedia. Let me know =) TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yay? Nay? Undecided? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, TylerDurden8823-- I'm sorry for the delay, I'm discouraged at Wikipedia these days. I have never been involved at the GA level ... don't think I even know the criteria well. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean you're discouraged at Wikipedia these days? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See my link in response to Anthonyhcole two sections down. I have edited primarily in three areas of Wikipedia: medicine, Venezuela, and the featured article process. Medicine-- problems not solvable, and student edits will start hitting soon. Venezuela-- POV rampant and unaddressed after eight years of editing. Entire FA process in decline. Anyway, for your purposes, I've never done GA reviews, so can't really help there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, I totally understand about the GA review thing, Jfd is helping me with that as is LT, I just wanted to know why you're discouraged at Wikipedia. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Could you please take a quick look at the sourcing and the claims drawn from the sources at amphetamine? I have been helping to copyedit for FA and I wonder if it is a little too pro-Adderall in tone. A second opinion here or there or anywhere would be appreciated. Thank you for anything you can do. --John (talk) 12:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have most, if not all, of the paywalled sources hosted here: https://sites.google.com/site/seppilurvespancakes/home/wikicontent

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 12:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Have I explained my expert review plan to you? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

2014 Venezuelan protests

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)).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you! A gift from fellow Wikipedians.

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)[reply]

You've got mail!

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)[reply]

2014 Venezuelan Protests infobox

I was wondering if you could look at the changes I made to the info box on the article and see if it's better. I showed sources for the causes of the protests and updated a few things. Thanks for you help on the article! --Zfigueroa (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss with this user WP:FORUMSHOP. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Get a grip, SDS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zf, I haven't looked at the article; I do not support an infobox for this application, as there is simply NO WAY an infobox can convey the nuance of these events. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MMR vaccine controversy

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
This total revert in particular steamrolled both a compromise and an unrelated edit, and you made no attempt to discuss either revert on the talk page. It followed this total revert. Elvey (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Elvey, please have a look at WP:DTTR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:OR. "Steamrolled a compromise"? Not so.[3] Good luck there, regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

Unfortunatelly there is an edit war going on again, on celibacy...[4]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination)
Talk discussion
Curious block and improper block review (Malleus ceased disruption as soon as he was warned, was blocked several days later, and the same involved admin-- who closed the AFD and made the block days later-- also reviewed the block rather than waiting for an independent admin).

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@@ Line 163: / Line 163: @@
 :::*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. [[User:Hafspajen|Hafspajen]] ([[User talk: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.  [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mythic Writerlord|Mythic Writerlord]] ([[User talk:Mythic Writerlord|talk]]) 20:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)