User talk:SandyGeorgia

FACs needing feedback ; view • edit
Weise's law	Review it now

To do

edit

About me

Talk to me

To do list

Tools and other
useful things

Some of
my work

Nice
things

Yukky
things

Med protection: same mission, new venue

Hey there, per my post last week, I've moved the med protection discussion to User:Ajpolino/Med protection, where we can conspire more slowly and freely. I'll probably investigate the protected pages slowly and annotate the tables there. Feel free to do the same if you're interested! Hoping we can knock a few more off the list over time. I hope all is well on your end! Ajpolino (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajpolino: - If you ever run into something like that where you're involved and need an uninvolved admin to remove protection, I'm willing to do that and trust your judgment. Hog Farm _Talk 16:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ajpolino; sincerely appreciate your efforts! I have been swamped, but have your subpage watchlisted now. My sense so far is that established editors cause more issues on most articles I watch than IPs do, but that when university terms are ending, we may need to re-semi some articles if students don't read talkpages. Please ping me whenever you need my attention; my to-do list is still a mile long. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

learning more about the FA process

Greetings SandyGeorgia, I was reading User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving_excellence_through_featured_content#Advice_for_FA_aspirants, and it reminded me that I saw multiple medical articles were upcoming at FAR per Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Newsletter/April 2021. I wondered if engaging at FAR / the talk pages of those articles (in relation to the featured article criteria) might also have value. I ask because I would like DVT to meet the FAC per Wikipedia:Peer review/Deep vein thrombosis/archive4, thank you. Biosthmors (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there, Biosthmors; I hope you are well! I don't know how I missed adding Deep vein thrombosis to Template:FAC peer review sidebar (except that I have been up to my eyeballs in a big garden project for more than two weeks now), which I have just done. On the articles which need to be submitted to FAR, any kind of engagement would be wonderful ... I will shortly submit Alzheimer's disease to FAR as it is so badly outdated. RE preparing DVT for FAC, I will try to kick in next week to help, hopefully after the garden is finally all in good order and ready for spring! We have a team of medical editors who are excellent in prepping for FAC, and I will ping to the peer review after I have had a chance to look in. If I forget to get to it by next week, please pester me here to remind me. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Things are going well, thank you! I read about your encounter with the tree. I'm sorry to hear about that happening, but quite glad to see you were well cared for! Regarding the FAC prep steps, that sounds like a great plan, thank you. As for gardening, that's great to hear you're ready for spring! I'm happy to have 12 tomato plants in the ground. The Kalmia latifolia has been blooming and the fragrant Rhododendron alabamense just started blooming. I planted several juvenile trees this year: American beech, blackjack oak, pawpaw (Asimina triloba), shagbark hickory, and pecan so far. The aphids had their way with the Lonicera sempervirens like they usually do earlier in the year, which stops it from blooming. I hope it starts blooming again for the ruby-throated hummingbirds soon! I've also started a few Campsis radicans vines up trees that I hope will make the hummingbirds happy one day. Happy Spring! Biosthmors (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Biosthmors, I too was excited to see you bring DVT to peer review! I hope to help out with the FAC prep -- I took my first trip through FAC just a few months ago with Buruli ulcer -- I'll just need a week or two to carve out some time. On another note, I'm completely enchanted by trumpet vines, and used to put quite a bit of thought into what I should plant to attract the hummingbirds. But then last year, we bought a string of outdoor lights with colored plastic covers, and those stupid lights attracted more hummingbirds than any flower I've ever planted. So while they're glorious little creatures, maybe not the brightest most discriminating little guys. All that to say, if your trumpet vines don't bloom (god forbid), I'll send you the link to the plastic lights. I think we got them at Target. Happy spring indeed! Ajpolino (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Random talk page watcher) - Good luck with the pecan trees, Biosthmors. My parents have a bunch and those things lose limbs like crazy. My main advice on trees - don't plant hedgeapple trees in your yard. Big pain to clean up after. Think large annual crops of sticky green fruit the size of a softball. Hog Farm _Talk 04:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Ajpolino on getting Buruli ulcer up to FA status! And thanks for the tip about the plastic lights, haha. We do keep some feeders up as well, but in an ideal world the garden would always be blooming with something that could feed them. If I had to pick just one flower, Salvia guaranitica has been a good one for hummingbirds, but it does require moist soil in my experience. Thanks Hog Farm on the tip regarding hedgeapple. I'll avoid those! Biosthmors (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Sandy I stay busy with medical school and being a father and husband, but the peer review for DVT is still open in case you would like to comment or round up people to comment. At this time I unfortunately can't promise to address comments quickly, but I do plan to get around to all feedback that is left for the article! Best wishes. Biosthmors (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am so glad to hear that you haven't given up on me ... and apologize for my negligence and absence. I am traveling on Monday, and up to my eyeballs in work between now and then to be able to get out of town, but I really really hope to be able to get over there soon. Ditto for the other article Ajpolino mentioned ... Trisomy I can't remember which. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Biosthmors: - I don't know much about medical stuff, but I'd be willing to do a lay review when DVT goes to FAC. Probably too busy right now to comment at the PR, though. Hog Farm _Talk 02:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marjorie Paxson PR

Wikipedia:Peer review/Marjorie Paxson/archive1 — just FYI that you said you intended to comment on the PR and it's still open. I'm sure valeree would appreciate any input! (t · c) buidhe 21:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Buidhe; I keep saying things will settle down in real life and I will return to my normal level of activity, but that hasn't happened yet. I am hoping I can start catching up tomorrow, and the reminder here is very helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Mays

Just wanted to let you know that I nominated Willie Mays for FAC status again! Per your recommendation from last time, I had the article copyedited by the Guild of Copyeditors, so hopefully the prose is better now! Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sometime in the coming months when you have enough time, could you go through the Mays article and let me know what would need to be fixed for you to support its promotion to FA? The most recent review closed because no one had given any supports; I am thinking that a lot of people just didn't have time to look through such a long article. This way, you can look at it whenever you get a chance, instead of having to do so within a certain amount of time. Let me know! Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - June 2021

Issue 12—June 2021

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter

No newsletter last month means a double issue this month. Enjoy:

**Newly recognized content**
Menstrual cycle saved at FAR thanks to the efforts of Graham Beards and others. Tetrasomy X nom. Vaticidalprophet, reviewed by JackFromReedsburg XYYY syndrome nom. Vaticidalprophet, reviewed by MeegsC CT scan nom. Iflaq, reviewed by Bibeyjj Imprinted brain hypothesis nom. Vaticidalprophet, reviewed by Lee Vilenski Diaphragmatic rupture nom. Aeschylus, reviewed by Bibeyjj Pentasomy X nom. Vaticidalprophet, reviewed by Bibeyjj Shellfish allergy nom. David notMD, reviewed by CommanderWaterford Sophie Jamal nom. Vaticidalprophet, reviewed by Premeditated Chaos Mihran Kassabian nom. Larry Hockett, reviewed by Amitchell125 Northwestern Memorial Hospital nom. Andrew nyr, reviewed by Sammi Brie

**Nominated for review**
Trisomy X nom. Vaticidalprophet, under review by Epicgenius Hepatic hydrothorax nom. Aeschylus Tetrasomy X and Deep vein thrombosis are both listed for peer review to prepare for FAC. Please contribute. Upcoming FARs: Alzheimer's disease, Major depressive disorder, Acute myeloid leukemia, Autism. Contribute to discussions at their talk pages.

News from around the site

The Medicine collaboration of the month is back with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Please head to its talk page to coordinate improvements.

Discussions of interest

The redesign of the {{Authority control}} template continues. Contribute here.
Please consider looking over edit-protected medicine pages to consider whether some could have protection levels safely lowered.

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

Thanks, Ajpolino (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 10 reviews between January and March 2021. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste `{{WPMILHIST Review alerts}}` to your user space

Peacemaker67, my apologies for the late response-- I have just now seen this. Thank you, and your fellow coords, so much ! Working with MILHIST is always a pleasure. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dementia with Lewy bodies scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Dementia with Lewy bodies article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 21, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 21, 2021, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and the many you kindly mentioned, today for Dementia with Lewy bodies, introduced: "Who did not love Robin Williams? So, if you think you know what condition Robin Williams had when he died, there will be a quiz at the end of this article, where you will learn more new terms than you ever wanted to know. Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) has been a two-year collaboration involving medical editors working with FAC's own art cabal. Research and factoids chunked in by me; copyediting and prose smoothing mainly by Outriggr with considerable help from Ceoil and Yomangani; oversight, clarity and copyediting added by fellow medical editor, co-nom Colin; and medical feedback added from Adrian J. Hunter, Casliber, LeadSongDog and Doc James. They should all be co-noms! Sourcing is up to MEDRS standards, with the latest secondary reviews incorporated, and RexxS provided an accessibility review." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Job! If only I had the mental compacity to take on a project as big and serious as this. Your work is appreciated. Panini!^🥪 16:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Panini; I appreciate the encouragement, as medical content is fersure not easy to write. As is customary for medical content, it has been a problem at WP:ERRORS. What can one do. I do wish people would get involved before mainpage day, so one does not have to spend an entire miserable day fighting vandals while also discussing with the good guys. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Save that stuff: [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was exciting. Curious to see what comes up when Trisomy X runs... On the bright side I didn't see anyone take issue with the picture! So that's good. Anyway, I hope you're still doing well. Time to think about what your next multi-year FA project will be 😉 Ajpolino (talk) 01:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajpolino: - The "taking issue with the picture" happened, just not while it was on the main page thank goodness. Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/July 21, 2021. I even would up commenting in that mess briefly. I'm rapidly losing all desire to ever participate in the TFA process again. Hog Farm _Talk 01:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can say that again. But I have not lost hope, and am trying to explain the problem. But then … those damn rabbits eating my milkweed … SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it's worth, my feeling on the matter is that keeping up the main page is a distinct task with a distinct cadre of folks who enjoy engaging with it. Personally, I've never much looked at the main page. Even before I started editing, I don't recall using the main page as a launching point. So while I was pleased when they chose to highlight Buruli ulcer for the day, I wasn't much bothered by their editorial decisions on how to highlight it. I'll let the main page-interested folks manage it how they will. It doesn't really affect my editing here. That said, I'm glad someone likes to manage the main page. Clearly being featured there still gives an article a substantial bump in pageviews, for whatever that's worth. Ajpolino (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ack … I am so far behind, and have failed to participate, as I most certainly should, at Trisomy X. Well … you will appreciate, perhaps, that my new pollinator garden is being overtaken by four plagues … rabbits, Japanese beetles, invasive and noxious creeping bellflower, and invasive horsetail weed. All I wanted was to create a nice space for pollinators, and all I’ve gotten in return is work, work, and more work. FAC is hard enough, that I wish TFA would not be so much unnecessary agida. I have a hard time maintaining interest in Wikipedia with so much negativity. Best, always, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajpolino, Colin, Floquenbeam, Graham Beards, Hog Farm, Jimfbleak, Panini!, and WhatamIdoing:

DLB did get as many hits at TFA (81,000) as Buruli ulcer (72,000, which was also beat up while on the main page-- what a way to encourage medical editors, something that had been my mission, along with overall scrutiny of the FA pool for TFA via WP:URFA/2020). Best I can tell, DLB was the most viewed TFA so far this month (Buruli ulcer was also one of the top viewed TFAs the month it ran). But even at that, these numbers are considerably down from what TFAs got historically, just as FAC participation is at all time lows. Me thinks the problems at FAC stem from the problems at TFA, fueled by the attitudes at WP:ERRORS. Why would anyone work so hard on an FA for several years, to have to go through such an unpleasant day at TFA, for so few hits? I am coming to the conclusion that FAC may not be worth the effort-- or at least that some real attitude adjustments are needed at ERRORS. Both Buruli and DLB went through a kerfuffle over NOT AN ERROR at all; considerable consensus building that went on over long periods of time and on multiple pages is disregarded, and unilateral edits are made. On its TFA, Buruli ulcer was unjustly criticized by a few vocal mainpage followers, the socking and gratuitous personal attacks endured during the Menstrual cycle FAR still have me disengaged from editing, and with DLB, years of hard work again turned into a miserable day at TFA. The typical mainpage day vandalism is bad enough, but having experienced editors make unilateral changes because they "suspect" an ERROR, after years went into consensus building and agonizing over and around every word, is not a good experience. My hopes of encouraging more medical editors to submit to this process may have been misplaced. I continue to think that WP:URFA/2020 is a valuable effort (thanks Hog Farm for keeping that moving as I have been too dejected to edit), because it results in article improvement regardless of the TFA situation. Well, anyway, a few IPs caught some rather embarrassing typos in DLB, and I have made the post-TFA repair edits ... please see Talk:Dementia with Lewy bodies#TFA. Once that is settled, I think I'll go back to my butterflies and milkweed. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to ping Wehwalt and Gog the Mild, who also have a stake in overall functioning of the FA process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I forgot to ping Guerillero, who is a constant voice of reason. Anything that can be done to minimize the GOTCHA that has overtaken ERRORS, along with the misplaced notion that there is some "mainpage standard" that other processes adhere to,[6] and restore a sense of consensus building and respect for the work that went into articles pre-TFA, would be a good thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I for one think it's worth it, but then again the content I bring is not crazy enough to warrant having to check every second for constant vandalism. The Origami King had 47,000 views and Paper Mario 32,000 (I dont want to be known as the Paper Mario guy so I'm moving on from this series for now).

I see a lot of IPs edit the article because they make grammatical changes that the believe are better, but mostly amount to being useless. Due to these being too frequent I leave them as they are and some other IP reverts it with conflicting opinions. Some IP also had it in their heart to go and plop a massive image of what could possibly be the worst vandalism I have come across from that was successful; some people saw it on Twitter and were quick to point it out. Its degrading to the hard work I put into it (it's not years like you do, but drafting an article from scratch for three months is still a hearty task) but I pull through it for personal satisfaction. That feeling is not the same for everyone, though, and can be frustrating to see people bicker over it. If there was a way to fix it I would be hands down. Panini!^🥪 14:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've written a couple of draft TFA blurbs, and greatly enjoy that process. But I pity those who have to do the scheduling - there's so many competing interests that somebody's about bound to get upset. My main dislike of sending FAs I've worked on through that process is that there's no telling what'll happen on ERRORS and other places. A couple months ago, a TFA of "mine" about a Confederate army unit ran, with a CSA flag for the main image. There was no blow-up, but I spent the whole time in great concern that there was gonna be one over the image (which was the most representative for that article). Or the DLB article had to deal with a row over a minor bit of phrasing that wasn't incorrect, just not liked. To me, FAR and FAC are usually collegial, collaborative processes, while TFA (not the standard selection or blurb process, but the last-minute commentary on said articles) often feels like more of a St Scholastica Day riot to me. I just don't usually have the energy for that. I greatly enjoy improving content through the FA process, but some parts are generally places where I won't spend much time. Hog Farm _Talk 16:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, ask your ag buddies about battling horsetail weed if you want an indication of what kind of mood I’ve been in lately :). I finally got in a new pollinator garden, mostly done, when I discovered horsetail weed came in the mulch, and creeping bellflower came with a plant. So just when I thought I was semi-done, I am up to my eyeballs in highly invasive and noxious intrusions. Anyway …

Several things could make ERRORS less noxious (my plant word of the day). First, if it isn’t an ERROR, take it to talk and respect consensus. There is something akin to ownership that is happening at ERRORS, ala panic … we must fix it now, no time to think about if it really IS an error, or just a normal consensual process that should evolve on talk. It strikes me that Guerillero and Floquenbeam get that, but they still have to deal with OHMYGOD panic at ERRORS. So discouraging to have jumped through so many hoops for so many months or years, to create an FA and then hit a new, and sometimes uninformed, wall at ERRORS. Second, ERRORS people, review TFAs in advance; the Coords are making it as easy as they can. There are very few true “errors”, and FAR can handle the rare quality issues. It could help if those who are advocating for pulling TFAs would think about the effects of such drastic calls, and whether it really matters to our readers in the long run, and what is the most constructive approach to article quality. No, it is not an “emergency”, and please define “emergency”. Third, everyone … WP:FAR and WP:URFA/2020 are that-a-way. Use them; it’s not like we haven’t tried out best to get those moving (in fact, rather successfully last time I checked). Fourth, if we truly believed there was some sort of “mainpage standard of quality”, well then neither ITN nor OTD nor DYK would be on the mainpage at all. Some folks are deceiving themselves about the role of ERRORS and the quality standard on the mainpage. I could give scores of examples, but some of the readers here may remember a recent FAC where I demonstrated an extreme level of POV that had existed in the article for quite a few years. Before I pointed that out, the article had run four times in that POV state at OTD. Similar examples exist on the mainpage Every Single Day. Lowering the temperature, and pretense, at ERRORS would go a long way towards reinvigorating FAC.

Back to my noxious weed digging … SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard bad stories about horsetails, and am grateful they aren't in my area (we get to deal with Johnsongrass, pigweed, and jimsonweed, the latter of which looks like it was bred in hell). As an example of how low the other main page stuff is often, I just checked ERRORS, and apparently one of the OTD articles didn't have a lead. And the last time I used ERRORS was to note that a DYK article duplicated another one that had existed for years. I just don't get why that's the bar for other main page stuff, while TFA is held to such a higher and more objective standard at there. Hog Farm _Talk 17:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't just the IPs and newbie accounts that make "grammatical changes that they believe are better, but mostly amount to being useless". I can understand non-Wikipedians coming across the page that day and spotting a "mistake" they want to fix, but why on earth would a regular established Wikipedian think that main-page-day was the optimal time to copyedit? I'm guessing it is an ego thing. I'm puzzled about the purpose of WP:ERRORS. Is it linked from the main page? Do IPs and newbies get directed to it if they try to fix or want to point out a problem? I can't find that so assume instead it is a forum for Wikipedians to point out issues at the least convenient moment and have a discussion somewhere that editors who actually helped write the article are excluded. I didn't know of its existence till I got a ping, and to be honest, I'm quite happy to go back to not knowing its existence, based on my experience of one editor there.

I'm sure this is a perennial question, but is the benefit of allowing "anyone to edit" the featured article on main page day outweighed by the costs? It seems most people in the world know they can edit Wikipedia. The sorts of edits one gets on the day do seem to be of little to no value. The current main page (Hurricane Emily (1993)) is semi-protected so we seem to fail for even some weather article. -- Colin°^Talk 17:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, I think (but could be wrong) that ERRORS serves a purpose in getting the TFA blurb fixed by an admin when it truly has errors, because the blurb is always semi-protected on mainpage day. I may be wrong about that, and the more knowledgeable will correct me. I suspect that the problem is that not all editors who frequent ERRORS have a good understanding of the limits of that purpose, and instead propose to change TFA, while simultaneously and erroneously stating that “errors” aren’t allowed in other processes (DYK, ITN, OTD), which is a fallacy. The changes they advocate for TFA are generally unhelpful, while readers, editors and articles would be better served by more involvement at WP:FAR, WP:FAC, WP:URFA/2020 and WP:TFA/R. I am pretty sure the most notable function of ERRORS of late has been to discourage the TFA Coords— what an impossible job! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All FAs and to a lesser extent GAs have a "stable version" of sorts (which is state at promotion), which makes it much much easier to compare and rectify problematic edits I feel. Still, I am 50/50 about IPs editing FAs. Anyway...re weeds, have moved back into an old house and now have...Anredera cordifolia (Madeira vine)...ugh. It has these goddamn tubers that you have to bag up and place in waste. Too risky for compost. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, spent my day digging and hauling tubers in bags to store behind the house, so I could gradually add them to the garbage. Then covering spots left in garden with layers of newspapers, then dirt, then mulch. Knowing I still may have to resort to the dreaded chemicals next year, which don't work on this stuff anyway. I am miserable and quite unhappy :( :(. Two different IPs fixed some rather embarrassing typos at DLB that dozens of us failed to see, so I'm good with them, and wish they would become regular editors! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed this. I have been on my work computer and haven't logged into my real account in a bit. WP:ERRORS is a terrible mistake that masquerades as a good idea. The problem is that one complaint and one admin can overturn months of consensus on a whim, for FAs and FLs. I do think it is useful for OTD and DYK. Mainpage readyness criteria is the invention of a small number of people who hang around ERRORS and gatekeep the main page --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Guerillero .. that has been my impression. And what is really odd is how randomly changes are employed, as some articles are left alone regardless of their condition. To change this ERRORS ownership problem, we need more FA regulars to get involved at both TFA/R and in watching ERRORS. It is just crazy that someone thinks a carefully chosen word is an error, so it goes away after months of discussion … SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticing now that the user who brought this up was User:Sca, and the negative impressions all make sense now. Okay, back to work. Panini!^🥪 13:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Chess

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Converting Wikipedia:Student assignments into an actual guideline. I was hoping you'd check out my preliminary ideas given that you frequently post on the education noticeboard and deal with student editors. Chess (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Noincludes in FACs

Sandy, I noticed you added a <noinclude> to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Code of Hammurabi/archive1 to avoid transclusion issues when it was on the main FAC page. Do you recall if you did this to any other FACs? I ask because I use the archives to extract the FAC reviewing data, and if it hadn't been for the resulting odd look of the FAC I wouldn't have noticed and would have missed recording some of the reviews on that FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mike … I am fairly certain that is the only one I did (because it was so extreme), but I will go back and check my contribs from the same day as soon as I have a free moment, and let you know. I did add a noinclude on one very long FAR. If I did any other FACs, it would have been in the same time frame as when that one FAC was stalling the entire page. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No need to check if you think that was the only one -- and in any case you wouldn't have noincluded any supports, so I probably wouldn't have missed any reviewers anyway. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I remember Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Love for Sale (Bilal album)/archive1 being no-included at one point, but checking through the page history it looks like it was eventually removed. Hog Farm _Talk 13:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - July 2021

Issue 12—June 2021

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter

**Newly recognized content**
Trisomy X nom. Vaticidalprophet, reviewed by Epicgenius

**Nominated for review**
Trisomy X nom. Vaticidalprophet CYP4F2 nom. Maxim Masiutin Hepatic hydrothorax nom. Aeschylus Vitamin B6 nom. David notMD Transmission of COVID-19 nom. Almaty Deep vein thrombosis is listed for peer review to prepare for FAC. Please contribute. Alzheimer's disease is at featured article review.

News from around the site

Lung cancer will feature on the Main Page as Today's Featured Article on August 4th. Anything you can do to improve/update the article before then would be a big help to the many readers likely to see the page on that date.
The Books namespace will be deprecated and its contents deleted. All books have been moved to subpages of Wikipedia:Books/archive so that they can be undeleted upon request after the namespace is gone. There are around two dozen medicine-related books (14 tagged with WP:MED). If you wish to keep any, you are welcome to move it to your userspace.

Discussions of interest

An ongoing discussion at WP:MEDRS considers the first few sentences of the MEDRS lead.

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

Thanks, Ajpolino (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Been a while!

Hi there, Sandy. It’s been so long. How are you doing?

I come to you today with a request. Flask, a first-time FAC nominator, has put an incredible amount of work into bringing The Great Gatsby to FAC. As one of the most well-known novels ever written, I've put in a lot of work to guide him through the process. As a result, I think the article's in a great shape (certainly better than my first nomination was). That said, I think there's a chance it’s going to be archived. It’s really saddening to me, but is more-or-less what's expected with literary articles (and why I think bringing them to FAC is a bad use of my time). Would you—or anyone you think would be suitable—be willing to review the nomination? I don't want to see all that hard work go to waste or—more significantly—potentially lose a very talented and resourceful literary editor from FAC. If you don't have the time, I totally understand, but being able to point me to someone else who might assist would be appreciated. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 17:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was wondering about the same thing ("How are you doing?") Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ImaginesTigers: - I'm willing to provide a review if I'm considered "suitable". Hog Farm _Talk 20:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: I have never considered you anything but immensely suitable for any task! Thank you so much. I really do appreciate it. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 20:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ImaginesTigers, Hog Farm, and Jo-Jo Eumerus: thanks for inquiring, dear friends. Wandering through to combat vandalism on DLB at TFA, but as to “how am I doing” … well, just one thing after another, but things always get better eventually! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He, I rushed over to give my thoughts until I noticed that it already passed and this conversation is two months old. Alright bye. Panini!^🥪 13:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WT:MEDRS discussion referenced at Intersex

Hi SandyGeorgia, in edit (which I'm not sure I oppose at all) you cited a WT:MEDRS discussion. Is there a particular discussion that you're referring to? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking as I am traveling and on a very bad connection … look for the section on that page on American Journal of Health Behavior … towards the bottom … SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response, and safe travels! FYI, the source at Intersex is from American Journal of Human Biology, not 'of Health Behavior'. It is still just a letter (or two), so perhaps your RS concerns are still valid? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult editing … I thought I could edit from where I am, but there are connectivity issues … did I get the wrong source? Will check in a moment. In that instance, though, two he-said, she-said letters (opinions) back and forth that are very old don’t seem very useful … there must be newer and better info? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, i see the problem, there, will inquire of Headbomb at WT:MEDRS why both journals use same doi code … SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you!

		The Instructor's Barnstar
		This Barnstar is awarded to Wikipedians who have performed stellar work in the area of instruction & help for other editors. I just read your essay on achieving excellence through featured content and found it very useful. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and expertise for others! {{u\|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - August 2021

Issue 12—August 2021

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter

**Newly recognized content**
Nothing this month Please help review articles when you have time.

**Nominated for review**
Trisomy X nom. Vaticidalprophet Hepatic hydrothorax nom. Aeschylus Vitamin B6 nom. David notMD Transmission of COVID-19 nom. Almaty, under review by Aircorn Atul Gawande nom. BennyOnTheLoose C. Edmund Kells nom. Larry Hockett Clarence Lushbaugh nom. Tpdwkouaa, under review by Larry Hockett Slipping rib syndrome nom. TheRibinator Charles Lester Leonard nom. Larry Hockett, under review by Dracophyllum Subglottic stenosis nom. aeschylus Deep vein thrombosis is listed for peer review to prepare for FAC. Please contribute. Alzheimer's disease is a featured article removal candidate.

News from around the site

We have a bit of a backlog of good article nominations. Please help improve these articles by reviewing one if you have time. Instructions here.
WP:URFA/2020 is reviewing and updating FAs that were promoted long ago. Several medicine-related FAs are on the list. Noting current work below. Feel free to jump in and help wherever you're interested:
- Acute myeloid leukemia (promoted in 2006) is getting a thorough update led by Tom (LT) and Spicy. Help is welcome.
- Influenza (promoted in 2006) was updated by Velayinosu and is awaiting review.
- Lung cancer (promoted in 2007) was updated by Axl, Graham Beards, and JenOttawa in preparation for a now-aborted run as WP:TFA.
- Autism (2007 promotion) and Major depressive disorder (2008 promotion) have requests for featured article reviews on their talk pages.
- I believe the oldest unreviewed medicine-related FAs are Michael Woodruff (2006 promotion), Bacteria (2006 promotion), and Coeliac disease (2008 promotion). These are likely to receive some attention soon.

Discussions of interest

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

Thanks, Ajpolino (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Dinosaur

Hi Sandy, long time no talk! I have a habit of checking random talk pages to make sure their archives are in order and that all appropriate messages are available. Thanks to a news story I went and checked out the dinosaur talk page and noticed that it wasn't being archived properly. It turned out to be because of your edit back in November that put the archiving code within the talk banner holder. Once I moved it back out, ... hey presto, the archive bot started working again! The archiving instructions and indexing templates don't need to be in a banner holder because they don't display any content. Graham87 08:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graham, thought worth noting that I recently discovered this solution separately on Talk:India and have updated the bot use case instructions. CMD (talk) 09:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately SG that was because of your edit as well. Are there any other places where you may have inadvertently caused this? I'll try running the edit summary search tool/look in your contribs to find out, but you've made a lot of edits. Graham87 11:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this was mentioned at User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch112#BannerShell and auto archive bot instructions. Graham87 11:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out there were quite a few more, per an edit summary search on your edits for "banners". I've gone and fixed them ... resulting in a very late night for me, under the circumstances. Graham87 15:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through all your edits in the talk namespace from early January when you were alerted about this problem to around the time of this edit (which I assume was a good cut-off time), fixed a couple of other archiving issues, and added {{archive}} to any archives without headers I noticed along the way. Graham87 14:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested

In the past, you mentioned that Category:City population templates where faulty. I agree with most of the issues you raised in here. I've started a discussion here. Catchpoke (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo DiCaprio

Hello. Almost two years ago, I nominated this article for FAC where you, originally intending to do a MoS review, pointed out some prose issues. I recently returned to editing after nine months of inactivity. So I've been trying to tighten the prose a bit more since yesterday with the intention of probably giving it another go. Anyway, if and when you have time, I would appreciate some feedback from you. FrB.TG (talk) 11:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paint It Black nominated for FAC

Hi SandyGeorgia! Paint It Black has now been nominated at FAC. If you have the time, would you be willing to take a look at it? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for your efforts

		The Medicine Barnstar
		Awarded for your continuous efforts in adding to articles on medical topics. Awarded by Cdjp1 on 25 August 2021

Hello

Hello again. Apologies for this random message. I hope it is not too much of an annoyance. I just wanted to check in and see how you are doing. I hope you are staying safe and doing well. Aoba47 (talk) 23:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tumbling Dice PR

Hi SandyGeorgia, I was wondering if you may be able to take a look at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tumbling Dice/archive4 and offer any feedback? I'd love to take "Tumbling Dice" to FA soon. If not, no worries. Thank you for your time. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - September 2021

Issue 15—September 2021

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter

**Newly recognized content**
Charles Lester Leonard nom. Larry Hockett, reviewed by Dracophyllum Clarence Lushbaugh nom. Tpdwkouaa, reviewed by Larry Hockett Elmer Ernest Southard nom. EricEnfermero, reviewed by Khazar2

**Nominated for review**
Trisomy X nom. Vaticidalprophet Atul Gawande nom. BennyOnTheLoose C. Edmund Kells nom. Larry Hockett, under review by AryKun Slipping rib syndrome nom. TheRibinator Body image disturbance nom. Srobodao84 Vitamin B6 nom. David notMD Deep vein thrombosis is listed for peer review to prepare for FAC. Please contribute. Body image disturbance is listed for peer review. Please contribute.

News from around the site

Vaticidalprophet, our reigning expert on chromosomal disorders, has retired (temporarily, we hope)

Discussions of interest

A discussion considers merging the functionality of {{find medical sources}} into {{Talk header}} with a manually applied parameter.

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

Thanks, Ajpolino (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - September 2021

Issue 15—September 2021

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter

**Newly recognized content**
Charles Lester Leonard nom. Larry Hockett, reviewed by Dracophyllum Clarence Lushbaugh nom. Tpdwkouaa, reviewed by Larry Hockett Elmer Ernest Southard nom. EricEnfermero, reviewed by Khazar2

**Nominated for review**
Trisomy X nom. Vaticidalprophet Atul Gawande nom. BennyOnTheLoose C. Edmund Kells nom. Larry Hockett, under review by AryKun Slipping rib syndrome nom. TheRibinator Body image disturbance nom. Srobodao84 Vitamin B6 nom. David notMD Deep vein thrombosis is listed for peer review to prepare for FAC. Please contribute. Body image disturbance is listed for peer review. Please contribute.

News from around the site

Vaticidalprophet, our reigning expert on chromosomal disorders, has retired (temporarily, we hope)

Discussions of interest

A discussion considers merging the functionality of {{find medical sources}} into {{Talk header}} with a manually applied parameter.

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

Thanks, Ajpolino (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About recent revert of Glucomannan

What do you mean by RIOS review. thanksMedhekp (talk) 12:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Medhekp, I think you're asking about this edit. SandyGeorgia recommended that you read the review article by Ríos-Hoyo and Gutiérrez-Salmeán (it's already cited in the article). The difference between "tentative evidence in favor" and "no good evidence in favor" is largely marketing. Do you want the reader to believe that there is a small chance that it will work, or that it probably doesn't do much? It's sort of like saying "50% of cancer patients die within five years" vs "50% of cancer patients survive at least five years". It's the same thing, but one phrasing will be preferred by the sales team. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping this here

I wonder how wrong the sentence about coprolalia is in Profanity#Research. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

quite wrong … I may find time to catch up next week … SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being called disruptive at British Empire FAR

Many months ago you removed a comment at this FAR with the talk page comment "Note, I have removed a Keep declaration and reminded the editor who entered it to do so without casting asperions. I will be opening an WP:ANI if anyone else continues to cast aspersions on this FAR. WP:SPI is that-a-way. WP:FOC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)". Thanks a lot for your help then. Discussion was quiet there for a while, but resumed in recent weeks. The same user made three more comments of a similar nature directed at me, "To my mind, this shows that the review was never about reviewing the state of the article but one editor being disruptive to make a WP:POINT", "This is a clear case of one editor abusing process and not making a constructive contribution" and "Appreciate you gave it as much slack as you could, it does kinda stick in the craw that a disruptive editor gets a win and overall there is no benefit to the encyclopedia. I still maintain the negative comments were ill-informed.". Apparently Jr8825 has also been branded disruptive on the talk page. It's quite demoralizing to be referred to this way. I thought it would be best if I didn't respond to him and let you.--Quality posts here (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I am barely editing, and if you want me to address something in the limited time I have, diffs would help. Also, if you provide diffs, it is more likely that my talk page stalkers will help in my absence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I actually found four examples:

Thanks for your swift reply.--Quality posts here (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are edits by Wee curry monster. What does Sandy have to do with it? (t · c) buidhe 19:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She removed his comments on that FAR in the past and posted a warning against future similar comments on the talk page (Note, I have removed a Keep declaration and reminded the editor who entered it to do so without casting asperions. I will be opening an WP:ANI if anyone else continues to cast aspersions on this FAR. WP:SPI is that-a-way. WP:FOC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)"). As a neutral party and former coordinator, I thought it was a very helpful intervention. I tried responding to this user's allegations earlier in the FAR and it didn't go well.--Quality posts here (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when it comes to someone who is being rude you have some options: ignore it, report to an admin or take it to ANI or possibly arbcom. There's not much Sandy can do to intervene in this situation. (t · c) buidhe 21:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I shall take it to ANI then. It's not something I've done before and will have to read up on that process. Maybe I will do it tomorrow. Thanks for your help buidhe.--Quality posts here (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Quality posts here: I'd personally just ignore it unless things escalate. Probably best here to just move on (also, I don't think #4 was intended to be referring to you, rather Z1720 who proposed the requested move of the article). Everyone gets a little testy sometimes, and ANI is likely to just escalate the issue. Hog Farm _Talk 23:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ignore it then. We might all get testy sometimes, but we don't let it affect our comments to that degree. He was the only one in the FAR behaving that way.--Quality posts here (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe, with surely the best of intentions, asked what I have to do with it. Well, here's what I have to do with it. The FAC/FAR/TFA Coordinators cannot police civility on nomination pages as that could open them up to charges of favoritism or bias. Since they have to stay neutral, there is very little they can do when they see misbehavior on nominations. Hence it is incumbent upon others to deal with misbehavior when they see it.

I saw the posts a year ago on that FAR by Wee Curry Monster where they failed to focus on content, and personalized discussion. I warned them it was inappropriate and that I would take them to ANI if casting of aspersions continued. [7] [8] [9] [10] Now, it is possible the Wee Curry Monster thought I was referring only to accusations of sockpuppetry, so I will point out that I was referring more broadly to casting of aspersions and personalizing rather than focusing on content.

Quality posts here, Hog Farm gives you good advice about ANI turning things into more of a circus, so best to ignore it. On the other hand, this has gone on too long, and WCM has no business continuing to refer to someone as "disruptive". The first step at WP:ANI is to discuss with the user in question to attempt to resolve issues. I will leave a note to WCM that their behavior is being discussed here. Hopefully, that will be enough to get this to stop, and to get them back to focusing on content. That is a difficult enough FAR without behavior issues making things even harder for @FAR coordinators: . WCM, please focus on content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]