User talk:SandyGeorgia

You are most welcome. I must get some discipline on board here and get through tons of backlogged stuff that accumulated while my computer was in repair. I will come back to that. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing for an offline conversation, Sandy. This "everything you write can be read by everyone who knows how to read" is not a problem-solving process that is working. Possible?PlanetCare (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are some sensitive discussions that must be held privately by necessity, but those are few and far between, and this is not one of them. I prefer that all communication on this matter remain transparent, as it relates to overall participation in Wikipedia by several members of WP:WikiProject Sanitation (who may have been misguided about the advocacy nature of that Project since its founding).

Wikipedia is not for Advocacy, is not a Battleground, and is not a place for Canvassing and Coordinated editing. If you are concerned about others reading what you write, please keep in mind that Wikipedia is a very public and highly viewed website, not a playground, and answering my query on your own talk page would have made it less visible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page you asked about, I just posted this: "Apologies that the above was not signed PlanetCare (me). I was on the Wikipedia App and didn't realize that four tildas would not result in my PlantCare signature. I follow articles that relate to the environment and did some readability edits to this page back in 2018. I take a strong interest in the "first impression read" because decision-makers looking for factual information may not get past the first paragraph and the photo. I added my unsolicited comment and hope that won't result in anyone backing out of the discussion." I favor transparency, but didn't immediately right this ship because I didn't want to "join in the fray." Still, better have the explanation come from me than having others keep making guesses. Thanks.

You brought up the topic of advocacy: If any of my edits have sounded like advocacy (on sanitation pages or anywhere else), I want to know about it. Please give me specifics. I'm a life-long academic (Organization Behavior), and feel drawn to objectivity and researched facts. My second career has been in the Menstrual Health space. I work with 1000's of women and girls in the slums of Ghana, thus my interest in the readability of information related to menstrual health. I thought the Menstrual Cycle piece came to a good conclusion, with your guiding hand. Graham lightened up a bit and I appreciated that. I'm a face-to-face problem-solver, and often have to take breaks from Wikipedia--long ones. No fun to get caught in the cross fire, but also no need to go away in a huff. Th is interesting and important work. Thanks for contacting me directly.PlanetCare (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing that, PlanetCare. This issue came about because of a conversation about Editor retention, which led me to see that other conversation; I need to follow up with your colleague about the kinds of editing practices that do not further retention of valued editors, so I wanted to clear this up first.

It is very hard for me to understand why three members from one WikiProject care so much about one silly image that they would behave in such a way as to chase off a long-time editor, so that is something to think about in terms of the big picture and collaborative editing. There are many aspects about how that WikiProject was founded and is operating that point towards advocacy editing rather than getting a full grip on what good editing practices are, but that is not an issue that I have specifically with you, and I will continue that discussion later with your colleague.

Yes, with your help and the collaborative effort of everyone, the Menstrual cycle article has turned into quite a fine article, and I thank you for your participation!! (One of my dear friends volunteered for years in Ghana and loved the people there.)

The remaining issues I have are with your colleague, who seems to place a strange value on what kind of editor they seek to retain, versus what kind of editor they don't mind seeing driven off. Your acknowledgment at Talk:Marine biology shows good faith, and I appreciate that. (PS, Graham didn't "lighten up"; Graham got back to the editor he is even after a rather despicable assault made on him in spite of the good work he has done. I question anyone who supports such attacks from two newly registered accounts.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the 2018 Pacific hurricane season

Would you be willing to take a look at the Timeline of the 2018 Pacific hurricane season? My main concerns are making sure all the important events are covered accurately and the prose is fine. Are there any tools that can add non-breaking spaces or does that have to be done manually? I can handle everything regarding images. I will add more images and alt text later. I haven't written a timeline article before and this one is a mesh of work from several people over a long time period. Noah^Talk 20:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

talk page watcher - disamb Puerto Escondido; you can make disambiguation links appear orange in gadgets in preferences. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hurricane Noah I don't think it can be said that I avoid helping the cyclone project people whenever they need it. But, over at WP:URFA/2020, we still have not marked Satisfactory or moved one single cyclone or hurricane article, even though I posted to the Project asking for help months ago. [6] I don't have unlimited time. How about we make a trade? You get hurricane editors to help us make sure all the older FAs are cleaned up to the point of being able to mark them "Satisfactory", say one a week, and I continue helping hurricane editors with their articles? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whitman

Hi Sandy, hope all is well. Many thanks for taking a look at Walt Whitman and Abraham Lincoln. I've had a chance to check out all the sources I wanted to (and many I didn't-- some literary scholars can write remarkably *bleh* prose!). I'm pretty happy with the content in the article so I'm curious-- do you think this is ready for FAC, or is the prose in need of literary intervention? Should I wait until ImaginesTigers has the time, or someone else engages? Not in any particular rush. All the best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, ImaginesTigers is worth the wait, but on the other hand, FACs are taking so long to get through these days, that I wonder if it might not be advisable to go ahead without them. I consider the article FAC ready, but I am neither a literary type nor a prose guru :) Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: - I thought it was a very strong article when I reviewed it for GA, and it's only gotten better since. I agree with Sandy that this looks FAC-able. Hog Farm _Talk 04:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Old FA

I'm thinking about my next FAR nomination at the end of the week, and with the rate limits being as they are, I want to try to get maximum effect. Torn between going for one of the old 2006 ones or a newer one. I'm really uncomfortable with the sourcing at FairTax, but wondered if you'd be willing to look at it as well, in case I'm overblowing the sources issues. Especially for the subject, I'm inclined to think the sourcing is not up to FA-level. There's just a lot of advocacy groups (Beacon Hill Institute and others), political consulting groups (Arduin, Laffer, & Moore and others), sources with titles like " "The U.S. Corporate Income Tax System: Once a World Leader, Now A Millstone Around the Neck of American Business"", significant usage of a guy who holds the fringey view that this is a Scientologist plot (Bartlett), and other stuff that just doesn't seem good for me. Just don't want to waste a FAR nom on something that's not as far gone as I'm worried it is. Hog Farm _Talk 04:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because you have nothing else on your plate right now, huh? :) :). It looks like a worthy FAR candidate to me. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She "bore her first husband three children" . . .

...so said our article on Ada Blackjack here. I seem you remember you having some concerns (to put it mildly) about such a formulation. Now rephrased.

Aside from her childbearing, she had a long but tragic life. She was called a a "female Robinson Crusoe", which lessens her ordeal, which was spent on an island north of Siberia far above the Arctic Circle instead of on a lush tropical island. Her article is worth a read (and more edits). Regards, Kablammo (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me at 'em; I'd bore a hole in the head of a husband who thinks his wife is only for "bearing him children". Yuk. I'm sorry, my friends I don't speak ... oops, don't go there, it'll get stuck in your head! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]