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.

There you are!

Hey, there you are! I'm delighted to see you! Bishonen | talk 22:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC).

I am always delighted to "see" you, dear Bishonen. Regardless, though, of how I miss interacting with my dearest friends here, I can only approach Wikipedia sporadically by firmly holding my nose against the stench of psychopathy and piss-poor content. I am not really here, just bothered (again) at how shoddy Wikipedia articles are. [1] I may have lost my yahoo password, so now use gmail. I hope you are well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Glad to see your name around, Sandy. Hoping all is well with you and your family. ceranthor 20:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Ceranthor, how are things with you? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, dear, Ceranthor, my edit summary was one letter off ... instead of re, I got ew ... nothing personal, just my usual typos~ 02:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

No worries. I was in Cuba until two days ago, so I didn't even see it. Things are fine; not great, not bad. Thanks for checking in. ceranthor 13:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

What did you find in Cuba? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey

Hi Sandy. Remember me? I used to be User:Jinkinson here. I'm that guy you had to keep reminding to follow MEDRS and stuff. I hope you stick around and keep improving medical articles. Every morning (there's a halo...) 18:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Everymorning, of course I remember you! I watched your editing improve and improve ... hope you are well! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Things

Yesterday was like the old days, but then its also stark as to how little has changed. You vocalised many thing I was stretching to say, but a very well made point was about null sets - diffs are suited to proving rather than disproving. Diffs are a particularly aggressive way to argue, dredging up old conversations so you can go gotya, and reinforce an adversarial, battleground mentality. And its compulsory apparently, on pain of a block! A sane person would run the hell away from this. For example you have done this. Ceoil (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, Ceoil, just because it is nuts in here, here's my the copyvio free of the latest love song with dear hubby ... happens that a very close personal friend wrote it. [2] I hope you and LizKafka are well. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

You go girl!

You are right on. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 19:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The New York Times was a major source supporting the content on Prostate Cancer screening. So weird. Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 21:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Prostate

You have brought a lot of emotion into this. A lot of our content in WP, everywhere in WP, needs updating and this is true for this topic as well. That is a valid thing to bring up always. But your stressing over and over that there is a bias here is pure bullshit and you have exhausted most of the sympathy I have for your situation.

The evidence is overwhelming that free use of PSA led to procedures that caused many men a lot of harm and wasted a great deal of money and time.

Things perhaps swung too far back against PSA but what actually happened in the era before the recommendations changed is simply reality.

We do not have good science to distinguish aggressive PC from indolent; PSA has been part of the problem leading to harm and waste.

Your behavior here has been awful and your editing here is more than awful since you are driving your own bias into the content and ignoring sources opposing what you wish were true.

As you know, people in your situation hammering our articles about autism is exactly why MEDRS was created. I understand that you actually lived through that and worked through it - something I respect enormously.

But if you cannot edit neutrally and behave in a way that honors what we try to do here, please stay away from this topic. Jytdog (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Jyt. Since we go way back, I think it advisable to avoid claiming "respect" while coming to my talk page to lodge easily verified false claims about my editing. You know I have scarcely been editing content, so claiming bias in my editing (along with respect) means I gotta call bullshit on an old friend. If you want to claim biased editing, provide a diff, and we'll go head-to-head on sources.

Don't patronize me or pull sexist overemotional overwrought woman editor claims on me-- I have been around here much too long to let that sort of thing get to me. That I don't do Gender Cop doesn't mean I don't recognize the issue when I see it.

I am sorry to hear that poor medical content in Wikipedia is not a concern for you; it is for me. It has always been a concern for me, and not just in prostate cancer. But you know this; nothing new. Our content is frequently dangerously wrong. And when it's medical, my opinion is that it matters more than on daisies, and I think it should be fixed as quickly as we are able (not by cursory runs through the lead by editors who aren't fully up on the content area).

Whenever multiple recent secondary reviews are ignored, based on no consensus or valid reasoning, bias results in any content area. But in the medical content area, that can create a deadly problem.

I have not driven ANY content into the articles, as I have scarcely edited them, and you know that quite well, because you have been around for my editing when I do undertake to fix an article. If I were editing this suite of articles (or I should say, if I had the time to edit them), I would have fixed the problems in a day. It is not hard to reflect controversy among multiple sources by including all the valid sources. As things stand now, weeks go by, and the articles aren't substantially changing.

I am sorry that I have exhausted you; your exhaustion could be addressed by perhaps stepping back from a topic that tires you? This topic does not tire me, because I understand it, and have spent two months now immersed in recent secondary reviews (which I can only access when I am actually at the hospital, and is part of what makes it hard for me to edit). I know it is hard to find yourself at a disagreement with someone who knows our guidelines, policies and medical editing as well as you do, but I usually manage to remain civil and polite, even with extenuating life circumstances. So please, let's keep it that way.

Jyt, you accused me of a specific poor edit summary on article talk, and have not yet answered my query about what the problem with an edit summary of "bias" is.[3] Yes, I could have entered a longer edit summary explaining why it was bias, but the post itself did that.[4] Please explain the problem with that edit summary; I would like to understand what the issue is. If you cannot, then please do not lodge unnecessarily emotional claims on talk. When I am trying to edit from an iPad (which will happen when I am sitting in a hospital waiting room), my edit summaries will be brief. They will never, though, say "fuck you". What is your objection to an edit summary of "bias" in a post that is explaining bias? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

References

I am not going to engage with this. I gave you my view, you will do as you will.

I have been reading the sources but have stayed away from editing so far, as what is going is a train wreck, and you are the engine driving it. Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you know as well as I do that your statements are not true. Perhaps you can focus on dealing with the editors who aren't editing competently. Or worry, as I do, that we have almost no one who can or does edit competently.

Meanwhile, for the third time, you have not backed up your false claims about my editing, or retracted your statements that amount to calling me an overwrought woman because my husband has cancer, and you must know you have no valid reason to treat me that way. Here are my six edits to the article:

1. 2012 guidelines, updated, completely wrong content. [5]
2. Still biased, but I did not edit, I tagged. And when my legitimate and justified tag was removed, I have not yet reinstated it. Restraint on board. [6]
3. Removed commercial sources, left text, tagged. You object? You can revert me and reinstate the commercial sources. [7]
4. For all your complaints about PSA screening, here is where you then should be working, Jytdog. [8]
5. Doc James removed text yesterday which indicates that he may be editing too quickly again, since I had just supplied a source. Explained on talk.[9] Reinstated, but rewrote to conform with source I had just provided on talk. Yet your complaint is with me, because I am relentlessly pointing out that Doc James edits too fast, without an in-depth understanding of the article. [10]
6. Corrected someone else's too close paraphrasing. You object? [11]

So, I have spoken up about some really bad articles, and some other editors are making really bad edits. That is somehow my fault? Shoot the messenger much?

Jyt, please ... what has happened to you? You are here basically attacking me for doing exactly what we are supposed to do on Wikipedia-- discuss controversial content on talk. And you were once a superbly helpful editor. Yes, this place can make people nuts-- but really? You know what I am going to do... calmly and politely point out when you are wrong, and then go back to being able to be friends. Can you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I made two more edits yesterday:

7. Minor MOS correction: [12]

8. Filled out a citation: [13]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't write here lightly. I have no desire to harm you or write things that aren't true as I see them. I spoke plainly, which is what I do.

Again, articles get out-dated. Claiming there is bias is just bullshit. My saying that you are not in a place to be working on this neutrally has nothing to do with your being a woman - it would be true of anybody going through a personal crisis around something. That you even brought that makes me want to engage with you even less at this time. I will not be replying here further. Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

allrighty then carry on as you will, but I feel pretty badly for you that these verifiably false claims are the best you can offer for collegial behavior ... and that you indicate no willingness to engage correctly on talk or consider sources that do not agree with your personal views. Not everyone is an enemy, Jyt. Take care there, I hope you will reconsider not your POV on this article, but your approach to collegial editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

More than 10 days later, without having engaged on talk to answer query about edit summaries, Jytdog, you are spreading your dispute to unrelated pages: [14] WP:LEAD is the place for discussions about leads, not interpersonal issues that you have so far refused to discuss. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• If you continue abusing the talk pages of the prostate articles as soap boxes and chat forums, I will seek a topic ban. I am now completely out of patience. Jytdog (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Jytdog, I urge you to step back and regain some perspective. You are unilaterally closing off active and helpful discussions on talk. Being hot-headed rarely ends well, can cloud judgment, and I value you as an editor in here. Perhaps you will think about your approach overnight, and reconsider? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
    • My talk post removed;[15] Jytdog, your interpretation was twice corrected: [16] [17] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

In August 2017, with the USPSTF backing off of its flawed recommendations, and with two other posters saying the same then as I said in early 2018,[18] Jytdog nonetheless reinstated the outdated text,[19] and re-added it again in February 2018.[20] The conversation then was quite emotional, with a poster saying to Jytdog, "have a heart you cold blooded murder".[21] This sheds new light on who is reacting emotionally or rationally since I highlighted these outdated articles. Yikes. So, put it aside, and work to fix it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

So you are starting to "keep score" here. Please be aware that if you don't use this soon, it will violate USERPAGE via WP:POLEMIC.

If you do bring a case, I will be able to bring plenty of diffs in response. Why you want to waste time on something that will distract us both from editing and most likely lead to a temporary TBAN on prostate for you and an IBAN between us, I don't know.

I do appreciate it that you have made the claim of "bias" in the prostate articles less and less frequently.

The wave of disruption generated by your initial storming-in has died down and I will start improving those articles soon, starting at the sub-articles. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, you think so differently than I do. What I would like to see happen is that a) you discuss, talk resolve with me rather than continue to threaten me; b) answer my question about why you object to my edit summaries; c) otherwise, stop spreading that claim to other pages like LEAD; d) get back to having a collegial relationship with me. We can ill afford to lose a single medical editor in here. I hope, once again, you will consider all of this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Why you want to waste time on abusing a good editor? If you are unable to communicate in a pleasant manner (I'm referring to the whole saga, not just this page), it would be highly desirable for you to find something else to worry about. Wikipedia is not your sole responsibility and if you can't do the job in a helpful way, please leave it to others. Johnuniq (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Johnuniq. Why do you ask fake questions? Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I am sympathetic towards what you do because I know that you have no idea how you come across. There's not much that can be done about that at Wikipedia but you might give some fleeting thought to it for real life. Johnuniq (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

That was a nonanswer to a real question but whatever. It is nice that you say you are sympathetic toward me. Jytdog (talk) 04:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

But Jyt, aside then from Johnuniq's point, your intended message was lost because of the way you came across, and we were talking at cross-purposes for weeks. I pondered for days why you would respond to a reasonable post (NYT is not a MEDRS) in the way you did, checked out socking probability (my best guess at the time), and could only conclude that maybe Wikipedia had turned you into a hardened meanie (it will do that :). Only yesterday did I understand what your point was. I can't stand gender-based anything, but underneath it all, prostate cancer is still a very real men's health problem, that Wikipedia has neglected. On the simple reality that one in six will deal with it, it should be an area that we prioritize. Thank you, too, for weighing in Johnuiq. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

If you go back and look at the discussion you opened at WT:MED about this, you will see that me and Doc James and others tried to respond respectfully but resisting or just stepping around the claims of bias, and two of our most tendentious and poorest editors responded emotionally there, specifically to the claims of bias, and both ran right over and made a hot mess of the articles and their talk pages. I came very close to finally seeking an indefinite block for QuackGuru based on what he was doing spurred by your goading (he too is attracted to drama and claims of bias, and ever since James got fired from the WMF board a couple of years ago, has become erratic and has increasingly turned his berserker tactics on mainstream medical topics) but fortunately he has calmed down. And yes the wash is coming out with Barbara at ANI.

There is no way that I was going to become active on the topic with those two running amok, continually goaded by your ongoing claims of bias and urgency.

I cannot imagine other competent editors had much interest in entering into that mess either. The subject matter is hard and nuanced editing is required; that sort of editing is very difficult in the atmosphere you have been creating, not to mention the layers of unpleasantness (including people being very aware of what you - who we all care about - are living through and your bringing your emotion over that into arguments about content). Not something most people want to get involved with, however important the subject matter.

Your behavior has been counter-productive to your goals of getting the articles improved.

Because the subject matter is important and because I saw the cycle not ending anytime soon, I finally posted here, addressing you about your behavior (and not going into the distraction of the effects it was having on others). Yes I am blunt sometimes. I do know how that can come across. I should have found a way to say it less bluntly/confrontationally. I appreciate that you have been toning it down.

I am looking forward to the ruckus settling so we can work on improving the articles. Jytdog (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I saw what was happening with other editors, acknowledged that above with my comment, "So, I have spoken up about some really bad articles, and some other editors are making really bad edits," and I point out that the personal parts were on a user talk page (Anthonyhcole). I suspect that problematic editors would have behaved same no matter how I had presented the issue, but now that I have context, I understand and accept your criticism. I did find myself in strange company, and that (more than anything you said), caused me to refrain from editing the articles, and turn instead to trying, on talk, to get that sort of editing to stop (e.g. massive and premature RFCs).

A problem with your bluntness is that all I saw in the first post was a vague insinuation about Barbara's "weirdness", that I had no context for, so it just looked you had turned mean. And then, I thought that meanness was now to be directed at me, for reasons unknown, but what felt like an accusation that I was behaving "like a girl" in a time when ... well, d'oh.

Where we likely disagree, is that IMO @Doc James: had an equal negative impact on this suite of articles as other editors mentioned. In general, I think he tries to do too much, and should slow down. His typical editing pattern is to come across one source, that he uses to edit in one sentence, without taking the overall picture into account. But this suite cannot be effectively piecemeal edited; getting the nuanced parts of what the heck do physicians do about prostate cancer screening amid the controversy is important. Wikipedia had glossed it over to, "doesn't work, don't do anything", and it's a significant topic in terms of men's health. (As I have now discovered, since that's how we ended up with prostate cancer beyond the cure stage :( I don't need to point out anything about your revert of me, because that is already above, but to me, the bias felt like two editors were insisting on using (almost exclusively) an outdated government source when we have so much better. My concern about bias was not so much a gender-based issue: it is bias in sources, caused by over focus on USPSTF. I got the impression that Doc and you were married to the USPSTF as THE defining source, even though they had to back down from their earlier stance. That is why I suggested using a model for writing as this gov't source, because it shows how all parts of the controversy can be included and discussed neutrally. I hoped it would give the two of you an alternate, yet still government, viewpoint. When Doc (too typically) leaves something like this in an article,:

• A 2018 review recommended against primary care screening for prostate cancer with DRE due to the lack of evidence of the effectiveness of the practice.[23] If a digital exam suggests anomalies, a PSA screening is then performed. If an elevated PSA level is found, a digital exam is then performed.[2]

IMO it causes equal damage to that which came from the others. In practice today, doctors (GPs and specialists alike) are recommending biopsies based on DRE. If that were not the case, my husband's cancer would still be undetected, since GP completely ignored doubling than tripling of PSA. We have to write a complete article, not just drop in individual sentences that leave our readers more confused. What on earth can we conclude from those two contradictory sentences?

I am glad we're talking; this feels more like the Jyt I used to know. With crap out there like the vaccine controversy, Lyme controversy, and Morgellons, we need all the good editing help we can get in here. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

We can deal with content at the relevant articles and their talk pages. Hopefully without drama, just looking at refs and what they say. Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Break

If it was just the USPSTF that made the recommendations against PSA screening maybe you would have a point Sandy. But it isn't and I am not seeing this acknowledged. We actually have a lot of sources that make this statement. With respect to the currency of the USPSTF should we use the current statement (which is 2012) or the draft? Or both? I often wait for the draft to be finalized. In this case you wanted to use the draft which I am also okay with. Was using the current version outdated or wrong? Not really.

I am not interested in having a battle with you over this. I am also not willing to allow Wikipedia to be tilted entirely towards the position of someone with a financial conflict of interest. This test may have helped your loved one in retrospect, sure. However if it was applied broadly it will also harm potentially equal or greater numbers. Screening is very much epidemiology. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Your response again highlights only one position -- that is, the outdated USPSTF position -- while ignoring others. (Since the draft is what is in use in practice your question concerns me. I hope you realize that, but I am beginning to wonder if you do-- it is possible that you rarely deal with PSA testing or prostate cancer in practice, much less relative to US Medicare payments.)

In this response, you have -- either deliberately or intentionally or through carelessness or through misreading -- misrepresented my edits, so please have a look at the actual edits and the responses they got:

In this text which you reverted, I had replaced the USPSTF as a sole (outdated) position, with FIVE (updated) positions, which included not only the USPSTF, but also organizations and groups that actually deal with prostate cancer:

1. The American College of Physicians,
2. American Cancer Society,
3. American Urological Association,
4. US Preventive Services Task Force, and
5. American Society of Clinical Oncology

You misstate the facts or have not paid attention to what my actual edits were (I will accept Jyt's criticism of how I presented my concerns). Please review my edits and understand what I actually wanted to use. You reverted my edit (apparently in haste without understanding), to again preference only one group-- the USPSTF. That, @Doc James: is why I am stating bias. (In this edit, @Jytdog: did the same thing.)

And I am not seeing you acknowledge that you are prioritizing one position, by one group that has no oncologists or urologists, while excluding the positions taken by those who actually deal with prostates and cancer and practice in the field. When all is said and done, I hope you will come around to understanding what you are doing here, how it biases the articles, and make sure it is corrected. I offered a well-written government source as a model that covers the entire controversy, without ignoring the fact that doctors still have to do something in practice to detect and treat prostate cancer. This model shows it can be done, comprehensively and neutrally.

You will have to deal with these problems, whether or not you are interested, if we end up with bias, because that is a breach of a core policy. Please recognize what you are doing when you preference one organization/group over many others.

With respect to, "Wikipedia to be tilted entirely towards the position of someone with a financial conflict of interest", your response is either disingenuous, careless, obtuse, or a reflection of too hasty reading and posting. I have not suggested tilting the article entirely towards Catalona. I have suggested that the article needs to reflect ALL sources, and that Catalona is one that explains the dilemma well, and I have provided multiple other recent secondary reviews on talk that have so far been ignored. Perhaps that is only because people are waiting for the bad editing to die down; time will tell.

More significantly, your response here did not even address my main concern about your editing; that you have not apparently even tried to understand my position or the sources shows again my concern. You edit too fast, you leave behind errors, you don't take the time to address the whole when you insert a piece, and I am concerned that the focus of your editing efforts at en.wikipedia is not aimed at improving our medical articles as much as it is aimed at two other projects (translation and that little box thingie). If you are losing interest in improving articles here, then at least please do not revert editors who do insert updated and comprehensive information.

Will you please try to slow down and take the time to understand the problem here? I replaced the outdated USPSTF position, with the updated USPSTF position PLUS FOUR other associations, and that you reverted that, which is not only biased-- it is extremely unhelpful to our readers.

I hope we can all start reading to hear, and that these articles will eventually be corrected, as they are important articles for men's health. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

This text you added "providing supportive information for decision-making about PSA screening" is unclear. IMO this is clearer "Informed decision making is recommended when it comes to screening." and better reflects the source in question. You will notice that I did not remove the reference in question.

Are you saying the "draft" is the "current version"? Or that you feel the "current version" is oudated? That the USPSTF has a draft for a new version indicates they feel it needs updating aswell but it does not mean they have already updated it.

Catalona expresses a position on the debate yes. And a somewhat lop sided opinion at that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Your text says the same thing mine said. Doc, please don't try to go in circles with me. You REMOVED the fact that pretty much everyone who counts is in on informed decision making between patient and physician, while leaving your preference for USPSTF. Do you disagree that our readers deserve to know where physicians and physician associations stand on the matter? Why did you remove the other four?

I am saying that Medicare pays for PSA screening; the 2012 guideline is outdated. The 2012 USPSTF guideline has a significant place in the history of prostate cancer. The text and sources I added reflected current practice.

Just as lopsided as the USPSTF 2012 was. Whether you want to claim that Catalona's positions are finance-based (I prefer to think he understands that the USPSTF caused prostate cancer to be detected at a later, incurable stage, hence his motive is altruistic, not financial, but not ours to know or say), there are nonetheless other sources saying the same, and we are neglecting them. The bigger question is why you are so tied to one group, USPSTF, which does not have any member who practices in urology or oncology.

And I still hope you will slow down, listen to others, and recognize that you cannot continue to address articles by plopping your preferences in to the leads and ignoring the overall picture. Prostate cancer is a controversial and nuanced topic; your editing style led to the problems there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Wishing you the best...

	Wishing you the best...
	So sorry to hear you're having medical issues. Will make an offering to Aesculapius in hopes that things improve soon. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

And if you need a shoulder to whine on, from someone that's been through the whole spouse-with-cancer-thing, I'm always around. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Ealdgyth dear ... I will fill you in when I am able, but for now, I have to give myself some safe spaces ... I compartmentalize my grief :) How are you? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

We are slowly chugging along. I totally understand about the safe spaces thing - hubby had some very minor surgery in January (nothing scary, outpaitent, etc) and even after 12 years, I had a very very hard time dealing with the doctors/hospitals/etc. I almost feel like I have PTSD from dealing with the first husband's cancer and death - I certainly had some panic attacks in January dealing with what was minor surgery. Take your time, but if you need a shoulder, its available. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Glad to have a sister. Never knew the question “how are you?” Could be used in such thoughtful, and thoughtless, ways. Such a big difference between “how are YOU”, and “how ARE you”, and times when it would be nice if people would stop asking (how many times can you tell the same story), and just bake the damn casserole already! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

FAC...

Actually reviewing is a lot different than it used to be. And opposing is harder - see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jill Valentine/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jill Valentine/archive2 for examples. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

out of control. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

having Catholic Church nightmares just reading it :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for not replying on FAC talk, and also I've meant to stop by here to welcome you back but haven't gotten around to it. Needless to say, it's great to see you again. Victoriaearle (tk) 16:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Victoria ... I hope you are doing OK there ... Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

knock knock

Of course I've sorta seen what's been going on.. I dearly wish I could help, but all medical discussions are far better off without my blinding lack of knowledge arcing around the forum. So sorry... in better news, Outriggr seems to be back... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Good luck

Hi Sandy. I'm very sorry to hear about your husband's health issues. I would drop off a casserole if I could! Take care, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Awwww, that is so very nice of you! Did you see my note about breastfeeding? I did a double-take when I saw you mention that it was an FA, and wondered when that had happened :) It's so kind of you to stop by and send us well wishes ... hope you are well, too. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I got your note, and refactored mine. Good catch :) Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Back in

@NeilN:, I am back home now, sooner than expected, but since things are quiet, I am hoping we can leave it that way for now, and resume discussion in a few days. I hope that is agreeable to you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course, whenever you want. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: I have to be at the hospital with my husband tomorrow (prostate cancer), so will check in with you on Wednesday. By then, hopefully things will be completely calm. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

PS, I have spent most of today working towards cleaning up the mess left from the parties on that SPI, and still have more of that to get done today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

All right; good wishes to your husband. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, @NeilN: we had an incredibly positive day, with good findings. Back in. Over at WT:FAR, the mess with the socked FAs unfolds.

The main things I mostly wanted to point out in that post on Lingzhi's page were:

1. The statement, "just restoring those two specific pages makes one believe that [he] knew all along that DCGeist was editing with two accounts," had little to do with an SPI, and was just casting of aspersions. People are human, they have pride, and that statement stood for a long time. If I had been thinking more clearly, I would have put up stronger evidence to try to get the case closed sooner. I am also pretty sure that if I said something like that, someone would be standing by to block me (reference the history of my unjustified block log).
2. Again, people are human. Other editors trying to cheer a friend is not the same as enabling; there wasn't a rush to ANI or anything like that. At the point you mentioned "enablers", no one was really talking about the block or the behavior, just the overall changes in Wikipedia and the sadness of what had happened. A lot of people feel pretty duped by the socking.
3. And, when we've known someone for more than 10 years, we hope we know how to cheer them after a bad time ...
4. And, in those "olden days", there was often a lot of restoring of user pages going on (heck a whole ton of us would be blocked today for what went on at The Fat Man's user page), and ...
5. Sometimes, people who focus mostly on writing quality content don't really stay on top of what is viewed as Very Egregious Behavior, which really does change from one year to the next in here.

All of this was raised to try to help calm the situation, cheer a good editor who was clearly upset over the SPI revelations and being included in the socking allegation. We like him and hope we can continue to enjoy his significant and valuable contributions. The "art cabal" on Wikipedia produces amazing content, but their ranks have been weakened over the years because of the usual Wikipedia stuff, and that makes folks sad. I hope this doesn't muddy the waters or inflame the situation again. Just my thoughts about why I weighed in there, and also weighed in at Lingzhi's. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

BMJ

"Prostate cancer now kills more people than breast cancer: cause for alarm?"

References

Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 06:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Barbara. I have been aware of this headline since my fast immersion into the world of prostate cancer, and am glad this blogger did the age adjustments rather than spout meaningless data. It is the age factor that makes prostate cancer a big issue with respect to Medicare, which is related to the importance of the role played in the US by the USPSTF. Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Came up at ANI...

Reese Witherspoon…doesn’t appear to reflect our best work...FAR? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

First indication to look for problems is that nominator hasn't edited since 2012. Just scanning the page, two things jump out right away:

1. A boatload of one-sentence paragraphs or one-sentence sections-- probably stuff dropped in carelessly since no one is watching.
2. A boatload of seemingly bland sentences followed by a long string of citations ... why?
3. Bare url to youtube in the citations.

So, yes ... stuff seems to have been carelessly dropped in. Whether or not it could survive FAR would depend on whether there are also a lot of unreliable sources or prose problems. But possibly, it could be a FAR save. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Curiously, in 10 years, the readable prose has hardly changed. Did she stop having a life? If little happened, again, could be a FAR save. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Clarification of wording of Barbara's topic ban

Sandstein has closed the User:Barbara (WVS) ANI discussion with a topic ban worded "is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from medical articles". Following discussion with Sandstein regarding the scope of that topic ban (User_talk:Sandstein#What_the_topic_ban_covers), it is felt that further wording is required. Therefore it is proposed that the wording of the topic ban is amended to read:

"By consensus of the community, Barbara (WVS) (talk · contribs), also editing as Bfpage (talk · contribs), is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed, and is also banned from interacting with Flyer22 (talk · contribs) (WP:IBAN)."

As you took place in the discussion, please visit Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_for_clarification_of_scope_of_topic_ban to give your views. SilkTork (talk) 08:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Osmosis concerns

User talk:Jimbo Wales#Osmosis: Wikipedia medical articles hijacked by paid editors working for private foundation

Mentioned you. I see that, for medical articles, Wikipedia is no longer primarily a collaboratively edited text & image encyclopaedia, but a platform for documentaries created by a private third party. Videos which Wikipedians have no ability to edit, nor our readers any ability to verify facts against sources. This is not Wikipedia. -- Colin°^Talk 11:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)