User talk:SandyGeorgia

About meTalk to meTo do listTools and other
useful thingsSome of
my workNice
thingsYukky
thingsArchives

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.

Medical sources

As someone who doesn't know a damn thing about medicine, I think it might be useful for some to look at the guidetoreference.org page, which lists about 1200 reference sources, generally recent ones, which can be useful. Anyone can get a free two-month trial membership in the site by asking for it. FWIW, I do intend at some point to getting around to adding those works to the relevant pages in Bibliography of encyclopedias and a yet to be created Bibliography of reference works, and then going through ARBA for the past few years for further updates. The downside is, honestly, I think that will take at least several months. A lot of those are somewhat out of date, granted, but a lot of them in general (I haven't checked the med page yet) also have webpages which presumably get updated fairly regularly. John Carter (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, glad you came by! I checked it out, but you have to be a subscriber, so I can't "see" anything in there. Someone like me, who has no university library access, is at a disadvantage. Really, as I just posted over to WP:ENB,[1] if we could just get students to use the PubMed search engine, and restrict to reviews, we'd get a much better result than we're getting now from students, and we'd all have more free time to actually write articles.

On a separate matter :) About that offer you made offsite re an FA ... Dude ! No, just no. For starters, just having an FA no longer means what it used to, since reviewing standards have gone down. Just look at the case of Hahc21, who had all kinds of "featured" content. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't mean as much to some as it does to most others, including me, but I saw a couple of voter guides which disqualified someone for arbitration because they weren't admins, and an FA is one of the ways to get to admin. Also, FWIW, although that site isn't our best friend, I don't think he is necessarily the least friendly one to us there. I've been over there for a while now, and I haven't seen anything of a grossly negative comment from him yet. Most of what I've seen from him there is no worse than a lot of things some admins and others have said there, or, sometimes, here. And I think that someone who described himself as a professional writer, which I think the person I think you mean has said he is, probably wouldn't need much more help than research, although I think in San Diego where he says he lives he probably has as good of access to most material as I do.

Also, if you wanted, I could forward to you the contents of the medical sections, as I do have the free subscription and e-mailed the listings to myself already. The one downside I've seen already, and this is having gone through only a few of the 60 or so lists they have, is that it looks to me like there might be a bit of overly detailed categorization involved. I've seen some works on plant diseases in both the "biology' and "agriculture" lists already. There are quite a few other databanks and bibliography sources in the few lists I've gone through so far too, which is only up to "biology" and not through bibliography and biography, and at least some of them are free. Some of them most people in medicine might already know, some might be a bit more focused and almost obsessive. I think that we have enough notability to establish a Bibliography of reference websites, which would include the website you referenced and at least a few others. I might start that before the much longer Bibliography of reference works, a lot of which are not that up to date. John Carter (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

After writing voter guides for several years, I've decided it's a waste of time. People just know who the good folks are, ya know? It's like porn: you can't define it, but you know it when you see it. And what we need in arbs are folks who are out there, in the trenches, engaged in article writing, regardless of assessment level of the article. (That's why I'm generally wary of the clerk-y types.)

That an FA is a route through RFA is just wrong on too many levels; all too often, "voters" at RFA don't even scrutinize the DYKs, GAs, FAs that are offered up as proof that one is a "content contributor". Again, just look at Hahc21.

If you were to forward me a couple of samples from guidetoreference.org on Tourette syndrome, I could evaluate how useful it might be. I'll email you so you have my email. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I regret to say that the Tourette syndrome pages are specifically separated. You got the whole bloody section sent to you, I'm afraid, all 1100+ in two separate e-mails, because their server only does 1000 per e-mail out. I suppose a search of the content should be able to indicate which mention Tourette's. John Carter (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Something beautiful for the holidays

• [2]
• [3]...Modernist (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal greetings

	Merry Christmas and best wishes for a happy, healthy and productive 2015!
	Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. - Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas! Hope you have a great New Year!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!!

I know I don't have flashy messages like the people above me but Merry Christmas! I wanted to thank you for all of your contributions during this time of giving and hope you have a great new year.--ZiaLater (talk) 06:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

New year

	Nollaig shona duit
	Best new year to my favourite crusader. You cant win them all Sandy, but god bless for trying. You have been missed. Ceoil (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear SandyGeorgia,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt

Bet you didn't see this coming. I've been attempting to clean up the 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt article because, simply put, it's a mess. It's very outdated and many of the sources are not great or biased. There is a lot of meat to it so I was wondering if you could assist.--ZiaLater (talk) 09:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@ZiaLater:, sorry for the delay, so busy ... I don't think you can rewrite that article without accessing several books. Like Silence of the Scorpion, and others ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I was going to look into that but I have been busy as well. A reply is better than none, so thank you!--ZiaLater (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

GAR noms

Hey Sandy. I don't know if you're active at the GA reassessments, but I'd like an opinion on Billion Dollar Babies and Blues for the Red Sun. Thanks in advance.--Retrohead (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Retrohead:, sorry for the delay, I've been quite busy! No, I have never gotten involved in the GA process, unless I've been drug there kicking and screaming. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your really helpful explanation here. It was one of the clearest I've seen and it really made the job easier. Thank you once again. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 22:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, and thank you, too! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Enamorada de Ti

I assume you pinged me for a copyedit. I have no problem doing it per se, but looking at the sourcing issues—well, I'm not sure I want to copyedit text that'll then be deleted over poor sourcing. Perhaps after the sourcing issues are dealt with you could ping me again? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey:, no, I wouldn't do that to you! It's not really feasible to copyedit that article accurately given the number of Spanish sources (unless you speak Spanish). I pinged you because you passed it GA (years ago), and I don't believe it is still GA. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I did do that, didn't I? I don't even remember the article. It would've been one of my first attempts at GA reviewing, so I wouldn't be surprised if I botched it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure it has changed, and GA is not FA! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Articlehistory

I wanted to fill you in on some minor technical changes to the articlehistory template, so you don't have to read through all the discussion on the talk page. The gist of it is that articlehistory has been very carefully rewritten in Lua, to make it faster and more robust. User:Mr. Stradivarius wrote the code, and he and I went through a zillion testcases in an exhaustive effort to make sure the new version produces results consistent with the old one. There are only a few changes, most of them improvements:

• The only significant difference in display is that the breakpoint for collapsing is three or more items. We can change this easily if needed.
• No more hardcoded limits: We can now use an unlimited number of actions and also otd, itn, etc.
• More consistent parameter names: It was confusing how some parameters were styled differently from others (we had |action2date= but |dykdate2=, for example). All the old parameters will still work, but functionality has also been added for all parameters to be styled like action parameters: dyk2date, otd2date, etc.
• Specific error messages: Any error that would have simply put the page into the error category now also outputs a specific red error message on the page itself.

The change went live last night. The new error category, Category:Article history templates with errors, is linked at the top of the template talk page. The new, tighter code has enabled us to catch about 50 pages that had bad data (mostly due to stray characters/vandalism in action dates or oldids). Once we get past the initial push of error fixing, we'll start discussing some suggested improvements. I'll ping you when we get to considering functional changes, so you don't have to wade through all the technical crap. Maralia (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Maralia-- you are such a dear! I saw that on my watchlist, and was dreading having to catch up on this. Your post is just what the doctor ordered, and I hope you know how much I appreciate all the work you continue to do! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Glad I could catch you before the panic set in :) I do have one situation for you to think about:

• a former FA that becomes GA gets the currentstatus "Former featured article/Current good article".
• a former FA that becomes GA then loses GA gets the currentstatus "Former featured article".

Do you see a case for changing the latter to "Former featured article/Delisted good article"? I am starting to think that I do, especially since so many "former FA" designations are truly historical (brilliant prose era). I don't want to descend too far down the rabbit hole, though. Let me know what you think. Maralia (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm biased on that count, so I'll leave that to you! I've never been in favor of all of that other crap (meaning, anything below FA) even being in part of the articlehistory template. Too much maintenance for processes that have no accountability ... if bots can do it, grand, but we tend to lose our bot operators :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Maralia, sample of my concern: two months, not touched by a reviewer. Although I worry that FAC and FAR are headed the same way ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hyalophagia

Thanks for the ping at Talk:Hyalophagia and for working with the student/'s contribution. Just letting you know I've reached out to the prof to make sure they went over the relevant material. I believe they have, based on past communications, and know they have the psych brochures, but it certainly doesn't hurt to check. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ryan (Wiki Ed):, indications that they have digested MEDMOS and MEDRS are, so far, not good ... but time will tell. (And the prof doesn't know how to use talk pages ... he is posting to student user pages.) It would be unfortunate for a student to take on hyalophagia, as there is next to nothing to be written about it in MEDRS sources as far as I can tell ... it will likely end up a redirect to pica (disorder). Will wait to see if the student has any real sources, but I haven't located any. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Pinging Ian here as well as he would be more able than I to provide guidance to the student regarding article selection. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

cool beans. While I have you both, we need to remind the student editing hyalophagia not to repeat info that belongs at pica (disorder); the student editing minor depressive disorder not to repeat info that belongs at mood disorder or major depressive disorder; and the student editing posttraumatic stress disorder already mentioned adding text that belongs in other articles (see talk on hypervigilance and arousal). Common student editing mistake: adding info to the wrong article, in the wrong place, without considering wikilinks or understanding overall article structure. Thx, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the prof of the class and students in question here. We have spent more time discussing psychology sourcing/formatting than the medical guidelines, but I will speak with students about these concerns. I last assigned a WP assignment two years ago; at that time "being bold" was a big emphasis. It was with that spirit that I asked students this past week to add one or two sentences directly to their target articles. For their next step, they will be staying to the talk pages of their respective articles and posting bibliographies and outlines there. Regarding me not knowing how to use talk pages, I posted comments on my students' user pages for ease of reading. ScottPKingPhD (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback ... I'm not following on the "ease of reading" issue, since posting to user pages isn't something you should do, and it may give your students the idea they should follow suit. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Re. the user pages, I'm using a modified version of this syllabus, provided by Wiki Edu, in my course page. You'll see that in their Week 3 content, it states "Research and list 3–5 articles on your Wikipedia user page that you will consider working on as your main project. Ask your instructor for comment." ScottPKingPhD (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)