User talk:SandyGeorgia

Hallmark

Thanks for helping out with Hallmark of Hall of Fame movie Front of the Classs. I couldn't get the image to work for me, but it's there now and that's what counts. Also thanks for finding more sources and filling the blanks, such as summaries and plots. That's not my kind of thing. I was surprised no other user took the time to make a movie link, when Front of the Class was first announced. Especially since there's so much information out there now for Hallmark movies.

Your help is really appriciated. GiantTiger001 (talk) 07:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ack! Thanks for the reminder that I was interrupted by Wikidrahmaz just as I was intending to expand that article from the sources. And thanks for getting the ball rolling. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Combine all WMF and Education program posts

Combining all of these under one header, since I haven't caught up on pending work and responses here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Medical sources handout/paragraph

Sandy, if/when you create the sentences or handout or whatever it's going to be on sourcing, could you ping me? The students on the course I am working with (Wikipedia:United States Education Program/Courses/Psychology of Language (Kyle Chambers)) are having some trouble with correctly identifying secondary sources, according to a more experienced editor I'm talking to. I think your notes would be helpful. On the plus side, they seem to have been instructed to post notes to the article talk page offering to fix problems -- I've seen this note on several talk pages, almost identically phrased: "If anyone has any comments on the material that I have added or any more material that they believe should be added please comment on the talk page and I will be more than glad to take into account any comments". Let's hope they are as good as their word. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assessing psychology articles in the education program

Sandy, I don't know if you saw the note I posted to the education noticeboard about assessing student articles, but I thought I'd check to see if you would be interested in assessing a couple of articles in the psychology area that you've been dealing with. You expressed some concern about whether the metric we're using for quality is good enough, so you may not want to participate on that basis, but if you're interested, you'd be a big help, because you'd be a lot more accurate than I would in assessing the quality of the sources used for these articles. It's a fairly quick process to assess an article, especially if it's short. I know you've had trouble with the pscyhology classes and these metrics are intended to help answer the questions you've been raising about whether the EP is a net negative to Wikipedia. If you're interested, the relevant link is here; it should be self-explanatory but ask if you have questions. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, I cracked my elbow and the pain is keeping me from working ... what is your timing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no deadline, though it would be useful to have them done by mid-July, when the working group meets to talk about the education program. We have three volunteers working on it now, and I think we'll eventually get to all of them, so if you would like to reserve a couple for your assessment take a look at that page and just put your name after "Reviewer:" under "Reviewer 1" (or "2" or "3") with {{user|SandyGeorgia}} and they'll be there when your elbow recovers. (Sorry to hear you hurt it.) I think LiAnna is going to add two sample articles from every single class, and she hasn't done all of them yet, so the classes you've been working with may not yet be represented. We haven't created the "burden" assessment yet -- we're not really happy with any of the ideas we came up with for measuring negative impact, but we'll probably go with some form of questionnaire -- I'll ping you again when that goes up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

Sandy, I've emailed for advice on an interwiki matter. Tony (talk) 06:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't responded because I'm still gob-smacked, and don't like to comment privately on such matters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi. Are you aware of this? I'd appreciate your thoughts, if you're interested. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read the discussions with Iri ... concerned. Much goes wrong in here even with the best of intentions, and that one seems ripe for incidents. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more. That's why I'm spamming it everywhere. The intention is obviously benign – an entity with a cheque account that can pay the minimal expenses involved in outreach to professional and scholarly organisations, NGOs, etc. – but it needs concerned eyes on it to make sure it doesn't morph into something nobody intended. Nothing is cut in stone at the moment. The discussion on Iridescent's talk page is a fair summary but some points not raised there are being discussed at m:WT:MED and m:WT:MED/Bylaws. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Burden of education program

Sandy, I know you were concerned that some of the students editing under the education program were more trouble than they are worth. This is something it's been difficult to measure, so in response to some of the discussion at the recent education program RfC I created a burden analysis page. Would you be willing to cast a sceptical eye over it and let me know what you think?

Some of the results bear out your comments from this spring -- the worst performing class is a psychology class from Kentucky, which I believe is part of the Association for Psychological Science's Wikipedia Initiative, and I recall you being particularly critical of some of the medical article edits. For some of the edits I went to WP:MED to get a second opinion; you can see those discussions here. Any feedback you have time for would be very helpful.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two things I know significantly more than squit about

One is computing and the other is psychology; pretty much everything else I've written about here I've learned about on the job so to speak. I've done a few early steam-driven computers and I might do more, perhaps even branch out into transistorised computers eventually, but I'd really like to tackle a serious psychology topic, and I keep coming back to cognitive dissonance. I just looked through the article again and it seemed full of the kind of stuff I might have written as an undergraduate, with references to individual papers that had caught my eye. One of my own favourite undergraduate essays was on the application of Fourier transformations to the understanding of brain waves, which now I look back on it I didn't even really understand myself, and my tutor certainly didn't. But I digress.

Do you think it would be possible to move an article like cognitive dissonance more towards what an encyclopedia article ought to look like without being blocked for 3RR/disruption/whatever? Perhaps even GA? Bearing in mind that my impatience with idiocy is legendary? What's held me back in the past is a lack of access to sources, but now that some who may be sympathetic to my cause are being offered free access to JStor things might become easier.

If you were to seriously look at working on cognitive dissonance where would you start? My initial impression is that I'd start by rewriting the whole fucking thing. But I know you to be more of a diplomat than I'll ever be, so perhaps you may have a better idea. Malleus Fatuorum 02:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the contribs history; there is a student at work, so no doubt the entire thing needs rewriting. Whether you can get it done without interference depends on which psych editors are watching it-- there aren't many of them who know how Wikipedia articles are supposed to be rewritten, and some of them dig in to preserve their pet theories. Do you really want to spend your time on that? At best, you'd have to wait for the student to finish, because the entire WMF is behind allowing poor student edits to stand. By the way, I haven't heard back on my JSTOR email ... has anyone? We should follow up to find out if our emails were even received, and when we should expect an answer ... what if they were "lost in the mail"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That explains why it looks like an undergraduate essay then, so I suppose I'll have to leave it be, at least for now. BTW, I did myself down a little with my introduction; I know a hell of a lot about ferrets as well, another article I'd just love to take a scythe to, and 17th-century English witchcraft ... and I'm sure there must be other stuff I know about as well. :-) I'll look around for another psychology article in need of a little bit of TLC. Malleus Fatuorum 02:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with stepping back from articles where students are active. The WMF keep repeating the mantra that this is the "encyclopaedia anyone can edit" which is as much a lie as the "sum of all human knowledge" bullshit. They use that claim to explain their unwillingness to implement controls on profs using WP for homework assignments. This is an encyclopaedia, not homework. We've now got the ridiculous situation where one of our top article writers is prevented from writing a featured-quality psychology article, because it is currently someone's homework. The students are all over the popular psychology topics like cockroaches so it is impossible to avoid them. From the discussion on Malleus's talk page, it appears the student has been told to write an academic essay from primary sources. So the longer this student carries on doing this, the more it wastes their time and the less useful the article becomes to our readers. Does it surprise anyone to look at the prof's contribution history to realise the problem here. It would be wonderful if someone wrote a top quality popular psychology article because we could at least point the students at it and say "Look! This is how you do it." -- Colin°^Talk 09:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the professor has told them to write essays on Wikipedia, then she's not getting the point of how Wikipedia is supposed to present information. That's an entirely different issue than students editing for school or pleasure. I will take a look. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'll take a look? Fuchs it is WAAAAAYYYY too big of a problem for even a dozen editors to deal with, a group could spend their Wikicareers trying to address article damage done by student editing, the WMF employees (the truly guilty in all of this mess) will scream "BITE" if you deal with student articles in the same way we would deal with any other editor's articles, you can never tell which articles are student edited because they don't tag the talk pages, you'll spend hours dealing with plagiarism alone, you need journal access to correct their faulty text ... there is so much more ... I despair. I truly despair. Add to that the WMF funding and institutionalizing pro-Chavez editing, and there aren't many ways one can turn for enjoyable editing without encountering WMF incompetence leaving a truly negative impact on the quality of this website. Yes, if Malleus were to write one good psych article, it may show the way ... but no, it wouldn't, because the profs and students do not engage the encyclopedia in any way-- they don't look. And Malleus might get peeved and get blocked if he really got in there and saw how truly bad it is. I'm glad you'll take a look, but I have a sneaking suspicion that one of the few editors who has enough gravitas on this site to get WMF to pay attention to the problem is Raul654 (he got us JSTOR, he makes things happen). I don't think it's possible to move PAID employees off of the position of damage that has been done here ... they have access to millions of dollars of DONATED money, and that keeps them employed, keeps our psych articles underrepresented at WP:FA, and now, thanks to their use of our donated funds, will also guarantee that the entire suite of Chavez articles remain POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"they don't look" -- that is indeed the problem and you will note I said that we'd point them at the example of how to do it. I repeatedly see students writing material on WP that we already have, but they write it in the wrong place because they've been told to expand a stub or a redirect into a GA. So yes, they don't look. But also, with psych articles, if they did look, it would set a very bad example to them. Perhaps that's because it isn't a hard science so the articles are littered with discussions of the crazy experiments psychologists think up rather than actualy explaining how our minds work with the same level of confidence we can explain how blood cells work. Colin°^Talk 15:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My experience of class-assigned art history articles is that they are often pretty poor, and sometimes need wholesale reverting, but I have never experienced any resistance from the volunteer "Camus Diplomatic Corps" to me doing so, let alone from WMF employees. Students tend to do their diff & submit that, sometimes entirely removing the pre-existing content, but neither they nor anyone else seems much to care about what happens afterwards. Anyway, WMF are now "narrowing their focus" as you will have seen, which will I think mean leaving the college programme to shift for itself, with a little cash for expenses. The WMF staff stick pretty rigidly to the "section 230" policy of leaving content well alone in my experience. I don't say that's a good thing. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not sure what you are referring to with "narrowing their focus", but I suspect it means they've realized that they aren't getting any editor retention from a program where students are only editing for a grade, and they can for sure get real editor retention by advancing programs that recruit folks with a committed political POV-- now those are the types of editors who will stick around to advance a cause (not just editing for a grade), and growing the ranks of editors is what WMF really wants. Maybe they realized they aren't getting that from student editing. I guess the real fools here aren't the WMF employees, but those who donate money to the WMF. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that is http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Sue_Gardner/Narrowing_focus, this year's big thing from WMF, board-driven I think. Specifically on the college programme, you may have missed this update. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Johnbod, yes I had missed those. I find Sue Gardner's writing about as informative as The Signpost. But yes, it seems that my hunch about what was going on was correct-- they are now directing grant money towards areas that will increase editorship better than the education programs did (anything is better than nothing, and get some POV warriors on board, empower them with money and collaborative editing as a group, and they will stick around). It's possible that they are so incompetent that they don't even realize they are funding institutionalized POV. They will get committed editors this way, and dealing with the editors they are now recruiting will result in even more damage to content. Welcome institutionalized, funded POV (which is the same as we were getting from the education program, but now we are paying to get committed POV warriors instead of those editing only one article one term for a grade). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Her writing style really grates with me. What does "execute on" mean for instance? But I see she doesn't really accept the point you're making SandyG: "Aside from supporting Wikimedia's continuing growth in unique visitors and pageviews, we've achieved important successes through our work .... and a global education program with thousands of students contributing high-value content as course assignments." Malleus Fatuorum 15:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a gem. I mean Really, Sue? Who are you kidding? Or, who are you ignoring? Or, how much are you getting paid to push this BS? Will Jimbo turn over in his virtual grave when he comes to and realizes where donated dollars went to institutionalize POV on Wikipedia? I will admit that as a strategy, the current focus on granting Wikimedia Chapters around the world is much more likely to keep WMF employees in their jobs-- it will increase editorship. And POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

←(ec) I've sent an email to the professor who was running the class. Finals are upon us so I don't think there's much concern about more issues there, but I recommended that she more clearly distinguish between essay and encyclopedia writing to her students and pointed out WP:PSTS and WP:MEDRS as useful links. Malleus, I can only beseech you to be patient in explaining things to such users in the future; it's unfortunate that a misunderstanding on the teacher's part can trickle down to the students (of course they're going to pay attention to the prof, they want a good grade.)

The matter of exposing new editors to featured content and the years of accumulated wisdom and grit from trying to create those articles, I think, is a more general problem that I have no idea how to solve in a world of 3+ million articles and people entering from every nook and cranny of a Google search. I know when I started editing I probably tried to reinvent the wheel on a couple of articles. It's mostly a matter of whether you wise up or get repulsed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: you guys may not be aware of this piece of propaganda. And see the "Education program metrics" section on my talk page. It appears that the "Our data shows that students improve Wikipedia articles an average of 64 percent" statement is based on an analysis that didn't check for plagiarism nor specific guidelines like MEDRS. The plagiarism-detection and fixing-up-student-edits issues are absolutely huge. Because you can probably count on one hand the number of medical editors with decent access to a wide selection of sources. The best I have been able to do is use Google Scholar to find snippets of the inserted text inside paywalled journals, but I'm unable to read the journal articles as I have better things to spend $30 on than three sheets of A4 paper. And if they plagiarise their student textbook then essentially nobody other than the prof probably has the ability to check it. So these students expand unwatched stubs and redirects (how many folk watchlist a redirect) and the plagiarism and other issues go undetected and unfixed. We need to shift the burden of plagiarism-detection onto the profs and other teaching staff because we simply don't have the resources to do it, even if we had the inclination. Colin°^Talk 16:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course; we only have to consider SOPA to know that copyvio isn't one of WMF's concerns. And, we know that the WMF staff is replete with folks who don't know anything about actual editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a doozie; find the hidden student gem, and save that one for the Annals of Student Editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Classroom

FYI, I have some good news about that neuroscience class and WP:MEDRS. I'm in contact, and I will be writing up some advice about how to do things next Fall term to make everyone happier. =) Biosthmors (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is most encouraging, Bio ... but what about the legions of other classes? I hope your info will address more than that one class (although it is particularly problematic, it is not unique). I had plans long ago to write something up, but instead I gave up in despair and went to my garden all spring, summer and fall. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do hope to scale up from one class to more than one for Spring semester, and I put any thing I see that comes up that is an eye-sore at User talk:Biosthmors/Intro Neuro to hopefully transmit to future "generations". Who knows, maybe it will become a Wikipedia guidance essay. Or used by me to lecture classes before, or assigned by professors as required reading (and quizzable). We'll see! Feel free to share any random points that pop up and frustrate you there in "What's missing?" Best. Biosthmors (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do already mention a lot about secondary sources, etc. at the main user course page. Biosthmors (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self: five hours today on cleanup, and I have barely scratched the surface, and realize I won't be able to fix most of the problems without a whole lot of journal articles that I don't have. What's troubling is that I'm making these articles look good, and they look better than they did before, but before they were accurate-- now they are not. No information is better than wrong information in medicine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True... give me one to work on/tell me (hopefully without using too much more of your time) the main things you see that are wrong? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I left lists at Talk:Palilalia and Talk:Echopraxia, but they are incomplete and working on them now may not be productive. Lots of missing info on sources, and I fear those students will never return to fill in the missing info. Completely wrong focus on both as they used old sources or sources not specific to the topics, resulting in just about no mention of main condition in which these occur (Tourette syndrome). Lots of queries about where they got some info that is wrong as far as I know. Much more to do, not sure if starting now is the best idea, maybe wait and see if they return to answer questions? I've got to run ... busy day now. I've not even started on Jumping Frenchmen of Maine, and I can't remember now the fourth article I need to fix. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I haven't made much headway in clean-up, but I did make a note of your recent post, FYI. Thanks for putting it there. Good idea. Biosthmors (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology student edits

You and/or some of your talk page stalkers may be interested in yet another strand of discussion about edits made by psychology undergraduates as part of an education program, this time at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#New editors making huge edits. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

customized probation to deal with problematic classes?

Hi Sandy - this idea isn't entirely thought out yet, so I figured I would solicit your feedback here rather than bringing it to EN/B yet. How would you feel about a customized community probation that dealt with classroom assignments that worked on articles covered by WP:MEDRS that said something like "If more than XX% of student editors in a particular class make mainspace edits on articles that are covered by the aegis of WP:MEDRS that substantially fail to meet the requirements of WP:MEDRS, the edits from all students in that particular class will be forcibly sandboxed until they can be independently reviewed by Wikipedians experienced with applying WP:MEDRS?" I understand the significant problem that exists here, I just want to find a way to deal with it that fixes the problematic classes, without punishing the non-problematic ones. (I think a similar clause about "If more than XX% of student editors in a particular class violate our copyright policies, the entire classes edits will be rolled back" would also likely be a good idea.) Obviously we'd have to figure out exact wording of the terms of the probation and then get community agreement to it, but do you think this could be a viable compromise path forward? Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it might help, but it still seems kind of backwards. First, there has been no class I've encountered that hasn't been problematic (to varying degrees), so the burden seems to be backwards (sandbox all of 'em, bring out what is salvageable). Second, it adds a whole 'nother dimension to the burden on established editors-- that is, we have to now check every article written by the class to see if the percentage that fail to meet requirements is met. So, instead of me having to fix two or three articles per problematic class, I would be tasked with checking up to 40 articles !!! So, I think Slim's proposal is more in the right direction-- sandbox them to begin with, bring out what is salvageable. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about a change to the text to make it clear that it's not placing any requirement on established editors to conduct such reviews, just requiring that the content stays sandboxed until such reviews are done? (Which may mean it's sandboxed indefinitely.) I'm just trying to come up with a mechanic that targets problematic classes, while allowing high performing classes to continue to function unimpeded. I haven't reviewed many medrs covered classes; if they are truly all bad, then I would consider supporting forcibly sandboxing all of 'em. I just know of a high enough number of non-medrs covered classes that perform at a high level that I don't want to support a general EP-wide forcible sandbox. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I do see your point re: figuring out XX% being a pain in the ass for MEDRS covered classes. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you're trying to accomplish is in the correct direction; the problems in medical articles are occurring because the profs are completely unaware of MEDRS, the sourcing is inadequate, and the undergrad students are simply not up to the task of writing medical content for an encyclopedia. Generally, a problematic class results in every article being problematic. So your intent/direction is right. Yes, if they were forcibly sandboxed it would help ... but no one but the medical editors would know which of these classes needed to be put on that probation, so the burden on medical editors to identify the problematic profs would still be there. What would help MUCH more are two things: 1) educate the profs on MEDRS, and 2) get the students to post to talk so we can guide their edits, point them to adequate sources, make sure the content they are adding belongs in the article they are editing, etc. They are students at universities, and so should have better access to sources than, for example, I do. If I knew someone wanted to write on topic X, I could say-- go get this source, which is high quality, recent, compliant with MEDRS, and from there, you can write an article. Instead, they're getting whatever (usually faulty) sources they can find, and trying to generate meaningful content from often bad sources.

On another matter, I had a friend look at the law articles you suggested. He found several grammatical errors-- not a big deal-- and generally felt that the articles were decent quality. He did comment two things, though: 1) he noticed that every article had a) an editor, b) a copyeditor, and c) a reviewer (a good setup), and 2) he said he couldn't address whether the articles were adequately writtten for a general audience. He understood them because he's a lawyer, but said there may be problems with general audience comprehension (that is, encyclopedic tone aimed at laypersons). He also added that he wasn't surprised that they were better than what I'm seeing in medical articles, since they are written after all by law students. And he said that one reason that class's choice of articles probably worked out well is that case reports follow an established structure which lends itself to an encyclopedic format. Hope that helps, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are written by students at the graduate school of information, generally people getting master's degrees in information science - not law students (and not always grad students - I've taken both his classes.) It is still definitely the case that they articles written by primarily graduate students are going to be better in quality than undergrad articles though, that's been a pretty consistent finding throughout the ed program, so it is still a point. Re: point (1) from your friend - they do indeed all have that, it's built in to his assignment design. I've somehow lost a link to his full instructional design, but you can get the gist of it from this page. I think it works quite well, and have been encouraging new professors I encounter to adopt it. And re: point (2) - he has a point there, too. Not all of the articles are written in a way that is as appropriate for a general audience as they should be. That said, I feel like they're certainly of a quality that is worthwhile for Wikipedia to have - they're not perfect, but pretty damn good, and I suspect better than an average Wikipedia article. (And his classes have produced a ton of content - I think at this point they've written a majority of case summaries about American internet law that exist on Wikipedia, or at least a huge chunk of them.) His class is definitely on the higher end of successful as far as GEP classes go, I just wanted to show it to y'all to make sure that it's clear to everyone that even though there are unsuccessful classes, there are highly successful ones too.

I'd like to come up with a solution that allows his class - and classes like his - to continue to function in the way they have been, that at the same time limits the harm caused by the subset of classes that do not represent a net benefit to Wikipedia. (I don't think slim's current proposal does this, which is why I can't agree with it.) I do agree with you that my idea in this section as I originally presented it is probably unworkable. Thanks for your feedback on it, and I'll try to come up with a more workable idea. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your response has me pondering ... I'm pretty sure some of my most problematic classes may also be grad students. I wonder if medical encyclopedic writing is just ... harder. Most interesting is how really poor their basic writing skills are ... anyway, nice ideas coming out! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I do think that part of it is that it is just harder, partly because MEDRS is a standard that is both significantly more serious than RS, and significantly different than what students are used to, and partly because medical writing is just harder. I've been discouraging everyone in a medrs-covered area who has contacted me at Berkeley from participating in the program, because I think that their success rate is inevitably going to be significantly lower than the success rate of general classes, at least until we come up with a better approach to them. Re: general writing skills... I've had some term papers turned in to me that would make you cry :). Sometimes it seems like the average person is a way below average writer, heh. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we could get one good medical class to do it right, it just might show the way. If the prof would engage, understand WP:MEDMOS (speaking of an established structure, like law case reports-- MEDMOS has an established structure that students rarely follow), choose appropriate topics for expansion, and use MEDRS-compliant sources ... we might show how it should be done. Were you and BIO going to do something in SF early next year? I was considering joining you depending on my travel plans ... although I'd have to give Berkeley the big axe :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually not sure who BIO is offhand, so I probably wasn't planning on it, but would be definitely up for something :) is BIO another bay area wikipedian involved in education issues who I haven't encountered yet? If so, it'd be greatly appreciated if you introduced the two of us. If you're ever in the bay area, let me know if you have some free time. I'd love to meet up with you for drinks or something, and brainstorm about some of this stuff in person. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I got the wrong person then. I encountered a conversation somewhere recently where Biosthmors mentioned to another editor something about helping direct a class in the Bay Area ... I can't recall who the other editor was. BIO will surely pop in here (see his earlier posts in this section); if not, give him a ring! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, ooh, more bay area stuff I can help out with! If there's a medical class going on nearby, I'd love to help out with them. I'll poke Bio, thanks. And seriously, if you end up in the bay at some point, poke me on my talk and let's get drinks or something. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JSTOR

Hi there. You're one of the first 100 people to sign up for a free JSTOR account via the requests page. We're ready to start handing out accounts, if you'd still like one.

JSTOR will provide you access via an email invitation, so to get your account, please email me (swallingwikimedia.org) with...

the subject line "JSTOR"
your English Wikipedia username
your preferred email address for a JSTOR account

The above information will be given to JSTOR to provide you with your account, but will otherwise remain private. Please do so by November 30th or drop me a message to say you don't want/need an account any longer. If you don't meet that deadline, we will assume you have lost interest, and will provide an account to the next person in the rather long waitlist.

Thank you! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your 2012 ArbCom elections guide

Your latest effort now is a bit Zen. :D Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You said that 42,000 bites ago! User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes2012. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can see that---while short of the "your thoughts are my thoughts" of the Vulcan mind meld---your guide was informative and influential again this year, at least on mine.

On a personal note, I was cheered to see you writing a guide again.

~~The~~ (01:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)) Other guide writers neglected to discuss the Featured-Article red guards, and that is really inexcusable. Victims should have champions and advocates, and you should not have to expose the problems of the last year in your guide. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I discussed it briefly, and Coren I think sort of got what I was getting at before he deleted his guide.

--Rs chen 7754 01:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's dismal that I had to re-visit that sad little affair, but a) some folk still haven't dropped the stick and are still battlegrounding it all over the Wikipedia; and b) it came home to roost in multiple candidates. It's not good to have to revisit such drahmaz, but some folks don't seem to have any self awareness or awareness of community sentiment ... and a really strange version of the events was being replayed in multiple places. oh, well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kiefer, what is this? On second thought, I don't want to know-- that code is just humiliating, and the instructions are gibberish! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Euclidean algorithm. Take off your shoes, for you are on holy ground!

You forgot to update my divisor from 15 to 16, so that the next person's remainder was the same as mine and so it overwrote mine. In short, you disappeared my guide! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Sorry ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing the guide, Sandy. I always value your thoughts. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Fuchs, now that you're here, can you explain to me concerns that you've been somewhat inactive? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A change in jobs, a death in the family, a move, a documentary film project that's finally nearing completion, and a Kickstarter, mostly. I've maintained a presence on the mailing lists, primarily since that is far easier to keep track of and respond to while on-the-go. Things have finally settled down in about the past month and I'm expecting to fully return to onwiki-editing after the holidays; I've certainly got a mound of sources and a big to-do list that isn't going to sort itself. I can certainly understand people's apprehension that I haven't been active, because most of the appeals and audit subcommittee stuff never touches the wiki directly unless there are big announcements to make; it's perfectly valid for people to judge based on the contributions they can see. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what a Kickstarter is, but a move with a change in jobs with a death in the family is a boatload of stress and requires a lot of time and adjustment. I am so sorry for your loss. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As to Kickstarter, it's all about convincing strangers to give you money. Surprisingly, that's more tiresome than it sounds and isn't something I'll be keen on doing in the future :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For fun...

And because I'm a geekette - User:Ealdgyth/2012 Arb Guide consolidation chart. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more interesting if you added a version that takes out the non-contenders (no support) and the for sures (NYB and NW, no opposes), leaving those who are actually "in the race". By the way, this year's RFC disallowed those things from the template, in case you didn't know. They can be misleading ... there are problems there (like the non-disclosures we mentioned elsewhere, and the fact that some of those guides are written by folks who don't follow ... well, anything ... or don't include any reasonable rationale). The "uninitiated" might give equal weight to all guides and vote according to a tally. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's why I don't link it from my guide nor am I really putting bells and whistles on it. I did it mainly to see if my brain's tally of who was pretty much a shoe in or a shoe out was the same as the actual guides... I might work it over after voting is finished and try to figure out who did the best on predicting, but I doubt I'll have the energy with the holidays coming up. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have no plan to figure highly on the "best at predicting" this year: I don't care what the rest of the community thinks, I'm not supporting candidates we don't know enough about just because we don't have eight good candidates. So I don't expect to be a good predictor this year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I saw this, because I was mulling over putting one together. Thanks, now I don’t need to. --SPhilbrick (Talk) 18:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FAC, FAR and TFAR

Opinion on FAC

Hi Sandy... I was surprised to see your post at WT:ACN where you commented that you like my suggestions. Given those comments, I'm hoping that you won't mind if I ask you to give me some feedback on the comments I made at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Asymmetric hydrogenation/archive1. I haven't done much FA reviewing and I know you have vast experience, and I'd value developing my skills in this area. Many Thanks, EdChem (talk) 13:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you were surprised; I vaguely recall we may have had differences in some discussion somewhere sometime, but you always express yourself well and your posts show considerable thought. That is an excellent FAC review; we could use more of you in there! I like the "non-exhaustive" (since FAC is not PR, and that's a good way to put it), and I like that you first commended the work before giving some precise examples of the problems in a way that should help the writer improve. Thanks for helping out, Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy, and thanks for your response. You are correct that we have clashed in the past - which isn't a problem, I respect that others may have views different from mine - and I am really glad to hear that my impression of how you viewed me is mistaken. I like to think of myself as thoughtful and at least somewhat erudite, so it is gratifying to receive compliments from an unexpected source. On the FAC, I'm glad to hear that you see it as both appropriate and helpful. The candidature was archived shortly after I commented, however, so can you tell me if I (effectively) added the final straw that killed the nomination? I hoped the contributor would see it and think about my suggestions, but I do understand that delegates have the responsibility to manage nominations. Also, I didn't mention things I knew would still need consideration (such as the references, I am *sure* there would be decent review articles on asymetric hydrogenation as it is an area that has received Nobel Prize recognition) and I wonder if I should have stated explicitly that these would need consideration either by me or other reviewers before the article could be promoted? Kind Regards, EdChem (talk) 07:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ed. I only remember you as "thoughtful and erudite"; it takes a serious amount of prolonged and obnoxious behavior to earn a negative spot in my limited brain cells!

No, it is unlikely that your feedback was a "final straw" because there was enough valid opposition to close the FAC before your declaration. Quite the opposite; you added a good deal more constructive criticism that will help the editor and the article improve. Constructive feedback such as yours helps the delegates feel less bad when they have to archive a nomination: closing a nomination is always hard on a delegate, but it's even worse when it has to be done without good feedback. To give further suggestions for improvement, you can list issues on the article's talk page; it is easier to bring an ill-prepared article to standard outside of the visibility that a FAC brings and without the time pressure. That path can even lead to collaboration with a new partner, which in turn can lead to future FAs! Another thing you might do is watchlist Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Asymmetric hydrogenation/archive2 so that you can opine should it come up again. (Nominators are supposed to check with previous opposers before re-nominating, but they don't always do that.)

By the way, I mentioned on WT:FAC that you might be able to help copyedit periodic table and there is another chem FAC up now: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ununseptium/archive1 . Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Willard Gibbs

Hi. Since you said you were unwatching the Willard Gibbs FAC discussion for now, I thought I should point out here that I asked for some clarification on your request for a copyedit.[1] Cheers, - Eb.hoop (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Eb.hoop; it's helpful to provide links when referencing discussions elsewhere.

One thing that you can do when a prose concern is raised is to look for items throughout the text similar to the concern raised and correct them wherever they are found-- do not just correct those listed, but look for more of same. Generally, such an approach helps the nominator become a better FA writer, holds down the length of the FAC page, and helps avoid having FAC turn into a line-by-line peer review.
A second suggestion is to go to WP:FA, look for articles similar to your nomination, click on the contribs and search for effective copyeditors who have an interest in topics in your realm. Most FA nominators have a group of folks they collaborate with to help address individual strengths and weaknesses.
Third, get suggestions from the FAC community. Your FAC has been set back by three Supports that haven't fully engaged the criteria, which makes it even harder on you-- the nominator-- to understand the criteria or figure out who to contact for a copyedit. I can give you some names, but whether folks are willing to take on an article that needs a thorough copyedit is hard to say. WP:PRV has a list of folks by subject area, but not all of those listed are talented at copyediting. You might approach Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs), Sarastro1 (talk · contribs), Sasata (talk · contribs), Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Carcharoth (talk · contribs), Bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs) ... well, that is not an exhaustive list, but it should give you a start.

In general terms, though, the fastest route to the bronze star when a FAC grows lengthy because the nomination appeared underprepared at FAC is to withdraw and resubmit. Many reviewers are reluctant to engage in lengthy FACs. Good luck-- you have a very nice start, and the article will likely gain the star with a bit more work from editors who understand the FA standards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

God of War FAC

I've left a couple of responses. --JDC808 ♫ 23:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars FAC

I've taken care of the "samples" and worked on the article a bit more. :) Best, --Khanassassin ☪ 16:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further progress at the FAC. :) Best, --Khanassassin ☪ 17:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Hawking

The students that I added are all significant figures in the fields. You might not know but I know, because I am a working physicist. Moreover, they all have their own Wikipedia pages. I think that is enough for the significance. Moreover, on their wikipedia websites, one can find that Stephen Hawking is their PhD advisor. What kind of source do you want? Do you want me to dig out all the PhD thesis or CV for you? If you believe the sources are unreliable, then you might as well remove all the notable students from their supervisor's webpage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eltonjohn007 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of source do I want? A reliable source. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so it doesn't matter what those articles say (unless you can find reliable sources in them). A user-submitted data site is not a reliable source. Please see WP:RS; that's the kind of source that we need for this data, this article, and all text. One doesn't need to be a working physicist to source an article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Information

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 10:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Civility versus Encyclopedia-pillars

I had trouble thinking of an appropriate response to inter alia Fluffer's statement that Wikipedia does not cotton to copyright infringers.

On this topic, your lamentations and calls for renewing encyclopedia-writing have been as welcome as Jeremiah's prophetic message, which had fewer diffs.

19:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your requested paper

Hi Sandy, A while back you were seeking a paper on Dr. Karel Styblo. I just [got word from Doc Taxon that it's in hand, if you'd say where you want it sent. Cheers, LeadSongDog come howl! 15:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for remembering! Should I email you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Better if you have de:user talk:Doc_Taxon email you directly, I think. I'm sure you'll get more from the paper than I would :-) LeadSongDog come howl! 16:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again ! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime :-) LeadSongDog come howl! 17:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Styblo bulletin

Hi! I sent you the whole Styblo bulletin today. Have fun with it ... -- Doc Taxon (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, thank you ... such an interesting character, worthy of a great article (I came across him when doing new page patrol). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you're welcome ... -- Doc Taxon (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Merging the articles Applied behavior analysis and Behavior modification

Hi SandyGeorgia,
I replied to what you said on the WikiProject page.
Some books say ABA is a form behavior modification. Others say ABA and behavior modification are forms of behavior therapy, others say ABA is a form of behavior analysis, and others say behavior modification is an old term for ABA.
If Positive behavior support is a form of ABA that just focuses on positive reinforcement than how does that differ from behavior modification? Is it that journals refer to behavior modification as a synonym for behavior therapy?
How can we straighten this out?
Because if a leading psychologist (who worked with Lovaas, the biggest authority on autism to date) said in an interview on Fox News that "Behavior modification is what we used to call it in the old days" and a speech therapist I've spoken to in the past also said that it used to be called behavior mod, then aren't they the same thing?
Also see here: [2]. Lovaas' 1987 study (using ABA) was approved by the U.S. Surgen General as most effective for autism in 1999. The study said it was called behavior modification and nothing about the word ABA.
ATC^{. Talk} 21:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia,

I found a journal explaining the controversy over the terms.

See here: [3].

It states as follows: "A New Science? [section] Perhaps there is a tendency to draw pejorative contrasts between PBS and ABA in order to bolster claims about the status of PBS as a new and distinct science or discipline (e.g., Bambara et al., 1994; E. Carr, 1997; E. Carr et al., 2002; Knoster et al., 2003; Sisson, 1992). There may be disagreement among PBS leaders on this point. On the one hand, for example, Horner (2000) stated that 'Positive behavior support is not a new approach. … [It is] the application of behavior analysis to the social problems created by such behaviors as self-injury' (p. 97). He further stated, 'There is no difference in theory or science between positive behavior support and behavior modification. These are the same approach with different names. If any difference exists, it is in the acceptance [by PBS] of much larger outcomes and the need to deliver the global technology that will deliver these outcomes' (p. 99). Other writers have referred to PBS as an 'extension' of applied behavior analysis (e.g., Turnbull et al., 2002, p. 377).

ATC^{. Talk} 21:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite helpful, ATC; you have turned into such a research hound! But, that isn't necessarily enough for a determination of what the best article name is. Have you posted this new info over to the WP:MED discussion? If they are one and the same, then a discussion has to be had about what is the best name to use, per WP:MEDMOS. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx SandyGeorgia! And yes, WP:MED is where you replied to my comment! :) But I will take this up to WP:MEDMOS. Thanks! ATC^{. Talk} 22:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, ATC, I meant that you should add this info to the original post at WT:MED, where more folks will see it. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I already did. Read the update at WT:MED. ATC^{. Talk} 08:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, should I erase the section I wrote in WP:MEDMOS? Thanks! ATC^{. Talk} 08:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, SandyGeorgia. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 16:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know, since I rarely check email. The perennial answer is as it has always been: no. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's too bad. I hope you'll reconsider at some point in the future; we could certainly use your help. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 02:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that's another invitation to RfA? Only the most anodyne of editors has any chance there, and you're certainly not that Sandy. Not saying that's a bad thing of course, just saying. Malleus Fatuorum 13:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, are your ears ringing? You should be over reading the WP:ENB; we talk about real Wikipedians over there :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just got dragged into an ANI report that had absolutely nothing to do with me, because I'm a poor role model apparently, so my ears are always ringing. Malleus Fatuorum 13:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go look. I think there's a drug for that ear thingie. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the post by Warden? Wow. Some folks can say anything anytime anywhere in here. While the rest of us ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was, yes. I met Sitush briefly back in February, and now suddenly I'm at the heart of everything that's wrong with Wikipedia's treatment of Indian cast articles, none of which I've ever edited. It's really hard to square the lack of reaction to Warden's comments with a block for using the word "sycophantic". Malleus Fatuorum 13:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well ... you're not alone ... I have a hard time squaring a lot of the things that are said to me and about me, particularly relative to what those folks get away with in here ... but Malleus, really ... they are not worth worrying about. They always say more about the person delivering the comment than the target; why don't you just consider such posts ammunition in your favor? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not bothered about Warden's comments, although no doubt some will find them credible. I've been reconsidering lately what it is I really want to do here, apart from writing articles on crucially important topics such as Malkin Tower of course. An early idea I had was to produce model articles in areas such as 17th-century English witchcraft trials for instance, and usher them through GA/FA in the hope that others would use them as templates for their own articles, but that doesn't seem to work. I probably need to get back into reviewing, as that seems to be where you get most bangs for your buck. I probably also ought to do what Ealdgyth has done, focus on or two topic areas and pretty much ignore everything else. Malleus Fatuorum 14:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that by reviewing articles you can "teach 'em to fish" (if only more would do that, instead of doing the work themselves), getting more "bang for the buck", hopefully resulting in more quality FA writers and reviewers. Ripple effect. Only if they're paying attention, though. But you can also make a difference by writing an article in a topic area that shows how it can be done ... before I wrote TS, there wasn't a single quality article in the neurobiological condition range ... now we have several, and MEDMOS and MEDRS are the norm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(stalking) Funny you should mention witchcraft and reviewing in the same breath, MF. It would seem an opportune time for you to return to reviewing, as a number of old hands have recently, by what seems like benign witchcraft, returned to the FAC fold in some shape or form, e.g. Sandy, Maralia, Ealdgyth, Karanacs and Tim Riley. Aside from just livening things up a bit, it all helps keep FAC standards at a decent level, so by all means join in the fun... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty impressive roll call. I need to think about what, if anything, I want to do here. There's a definite limit to the number of times I'm prepared to shrug off being called an incivil and uncollaborative cunt, and in fact not even a Wikipedian. I've not been enjoying my participation here for some time now, which seems to make it rather pointless from my perspective. Malleus Fatuorum 22:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had actually intended to do more but I'm currently attempting to list as much of my father's railroad ... err.. crap... on eBay as I can while eBay's being kind enough to have a "no listing fees" sale until the 16th. Good timing ... I need to get rid of literally boxes of stuff. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the railroad, my father might be interested in buying some of it... he's kind of obsessed with the railways. Have a link? :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly photos - http://www.ebay.com/sch/petermccue/m.html?item=221164890654&viewitem=&rt=nc&_trksid=p4340.l2562 - but some maps and other ephemera. Now... back to listing... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a really small world. A lot of those images, like this one, were taken very near to where I live. This one was actually taken in the town I live now. Did your father take all of these photographs? I sent an email to a local museum that could be interested in them; I can't imagine there are a plethora of Upper Peninsula railroad images floating around. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, these are images dad collected - some from another collector and some from other sources. He was always interested in the UP - and I have tons of images ... but he got at least one collection from an older railfan at some point (I think it was actually three or four over the years). THe photos he took are sitting in a couple of boxes and I have no idea what to do with them, honestly. Probably will hold on to them and let my son deal with them when I die... along with my horse files and the medieval history stuff. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool. My dad does the same thing; I'll probably have to deal with his stuff someday too. :-) I'll let you know if/when I get a response from the museum curator—if they are interested in purchasing some of the UP images, perhaps I can put you in touch. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya

Hi Sandy, I noticed that you removed this source that I added a few days ago, stating that you believed it to be a primary source. It is actually listed on pubmed as a review article. You can tell if a pubmed abstract is a secondary source by clicking on the 'publication types, mesh terms' hyper text link. I understand and agree with your reasoning that it is unsuitable for a general overview article and such in depth content (delving into the mechanisms of cannabis related schizophrenia) is better suited for the 'causes of schizophrenia' article and I have moved it over there. I hope that this is okay?--MrADHD | T@1k? 15:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oopsie. Too many tabs open at once. That means I mistyped a PMID and missed a different source I meant to remove. Hang on, I'll go back and doublecheck all. But you're saying you've readded that at the Causes article anyway, so leaving it out of the main article is OK? I need to figure out which source I meant to remove as primary in place of that one ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I had a look, and trying to figure out which primary source PMID I typed in incorrectly after the fact is going to be too difficult (meaning there is still some primary source in there somewhere, but I'm sure it's not the only one). If you're happy with that text being in the Causes article, so am I; if you want me to re-add it to the main article, I will also, but keeping that article focused and of a reasonable length for an overview has always been a chore. I do know how to determine if an article is a review on Pubmed (in fact, that abstract even says so in the second line). By the way, if you are adding citations, please stick with the established style in the article. We went to vcite long ago because the article is so slow to load (it is overburdened by numerous sources and really should be rewritten to the most recent, highest quality sources). Also, the style used is the Diberri format; by plugging in a PMID, you can get a citation template, then just change the cite to vcite before adding. Sorry for my mistake! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Sandy. :) Okay, I will try and use the vcite. I am not familiar with it but if all it means is adding a v before 'cite' - vcite - then I don't think it will be too complicated to work with. :-) On second thoughts, I may add a source for schizophrenia resulting from cannabis being due to use during adolescence as I feel the distinction is important and of note to our readers. Thank you for the link, I am familiar with it.--MrADHD | T@1k? 18:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I brought up the Diberri format because a lot of the newer citations in that article used an author format different than the Diberri format. Featured articles should have a consistent citation style, so using Diberri will keep us all on the same page. If you want to add back in a sentence on that, fine; I constantly struggle to keep that article trimmed, and think it's not going to be long before someone takes it to WP:FAR and says it's time to rewrite the whole thing from the most recent high quality reviews, instead of a patchwork of hundreds of reviews of varying ages. Sorry again for my mistake, and thanks for bringing it to my attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re TFAR

Hi there, Sandy, you raise important points! I generally try to make time to read over the articles a day or two before commenting at TFAR itself. :) — Cirt (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

three revert concept

I've been reading through the policies and I cannot find what your process is for dealing with a person or group of people who repeatedly post the same inaccurate information. Are you saying that after three tries, the made up facts are considered true? I don't get this.

Some articles that were cited by me and by previous readers have been marked "unreliable medical citation." These are articles from peer reviewed journals. What makes them unreliable?

Also I don't really understand where I need to go to find out whether you replied to me. It seems like your whole process is set up for people who have the time to figure out how to game the system and is unfriendly to factual corrections.DemonTigerMom (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond on your talk to keep the conversation together. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WMF noticeboard

Weren't you instrumental in getting the Education noticeboard up and running? I think we should have a WMF noticeboard, that way users can express their desires for specific actions (non-Education program related) that could conceivably be addressed. I guess a central concern there will be whether or not certain things violate the WMF interpretation of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wasn't involved in the set up oF ENB ... I was one of the first to find, need and post to the board, though. The initial reaction was to shut down anyone criticizing anything about the program. WMF staff pretty much silenced us and moved our posts to talk. I unwatched. Then months later, when I peeked in again, I found Slim raising exactly the same issues several of us had been raising for months, so I joined in again. I'm unclear on the focus of this new board you propose. Generally, I think there are too many dispute resolution boards, and that has stretched resources and has led to diluted resolution. I'm not sure anything can be done about the fact that WMF doesn't care about copyvio. There was only one thing that worked in the past, and her name was Moonriddengirl-- they hired away to a job unrelated to copyvio, and now copyvio gets little attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I created Wikipedia:Visual editor the other day because it is a WMF activity. If someone wants an update on the Visual editor, or an update on RTCE, then I think they should be able to go to the WMF noticeboard to get a reply from either knowledgeable Wikipedians or WMF people about WMF activities. I imagine it should exist to serve as a place where Wikipedians could communicate to the WMF from a bottom-up approach. I think it would encourage effective understanding, transparency, and (I hope) positive results. Biosthmors (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

Only just spotted this and that, quite by accident! Sorry for not replying till now. --Dweller (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Featured material reviewers

Do you think some kind of register of editors who can be asked to do a review might work, with some kind of frequency indicated? For example, I'd be happy to be called on for an article that desperately needs review (FAC or FARC), as selected by the delegates, every two weeks or so. Worst case scenario is that I sometimes say I can't do it. --Dweller (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about a register, since that would sort of imply anyone can sign up, and not everyone is a good reviewer. I used to have that register in my head, and I used to ping topic experts when review was needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I get that. Fair enough. --Dweller (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YGM

Ping. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help with possible tendentious editing

Hi SandyGeorgia, I am not sure if you are an admin, and am not sure how to check (I am not new here, just new to needing help with other editors). I noticed that you have been trying to help ParkSehJik understand collaborative editing and policy at wikipedia. Perhaps you can help here [4]. If I am incorrectly labeling Park's edits as tendentious, then I will gladly apologize publicly to him/her. However, I have been editing controversial articles for years with no issues, so I feel that I am being fair in my assessment. If you have time, will you please let me know what you think. Regards, Puhlaa (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Puhlaa: I'm not an admin, but any editor can address/speak to the issues occurring with ParkSehJik. I don't have time to weigh in to yet another one; dealing with the posts he's making on multiple pages is keeping most of the medical editors quite busy right now. My advice to you is that editors who engage in the kinds of editing behaviors that Park is engaging in eventually take care of themselves, so try not to let it bother you too much, and keep your own house in order lest issues escalate to higher realms of dispute resolution. There is no need to "label" him, and if you avoid labeling him, you won't have to apologize if you're wrong. Let his editing behavior speak for itself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply and advice :) I have another question for you, if you can help I would appreciate it. ParkSehJik put a 3RR warning on my talkpage that was completely unjustified IMO (see my talkpage if you want details [5] ). I really pride myself on having edited controversial articles for 2 years with no 'issues'! I hope this 'good record' will benefit me, as you say, if things were ever to escalate to DR. I am wondering if his unjustified 'warning' will show-up anywhere on my 'permanent record' and if so, how can I appeal this? Thanks Puhlaa (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is no. Someone could find it in your talk page history, but 3RR warnings are common. You can remove or archive the 3RR warning. A word about 3RR warnings-- they are a necessary evil, and many good editors get them. The issue is that, should an editor violate 3RR, you are supposed to have notified them first of the 3RR rule before reporting them for admin action. So, even if someone just thinks you might be escalating towards 3RR, they might issue you a warning just to cover that base. Don't worry about it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Puhlaa (talk) 04:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A question about a comment in your voter guide

I had a question about a comment you made in passing in your voter guide, but I decided to defer bringing it up until after the election. In your introduction, you wrote that you resigned as FA delegate "in February 2012 so I could focus more on my area of editing interest (medical articles) after Wikimedia Foundation efforts furthered programs that have caused deterioration in the quality of Wikipedia's medical content." Either I have forgotten, or I never knew, what your concern was in this regard. Could I ask you to briefly explain or let me have a link? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Sandy, but I suspect you'll find your answers in her recent comments here. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll take a look at that page tomorrow. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's more than that, NYB; I'll try to type up something later today that won't require 50 typo corrections. I bet you're glad those elections are over! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]