User talk:SandyGeorgia

Poor Man's Talk Back

Followup for @Neutralhomer: ... this discussion shows what happens when one tries to discuss anything with this editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More at ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to you post here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutralhomer, your offer to meatpuppet for Gerda in the Infobox wars is yet another indication that the arb case is either not understood or not taken seriously-- the number of editors colluding on the infobox situation was the basis of the problem to begin with, that led to the arbcase. (That personal attacks of that nature are becoming the norm, not dealt with anywhere, is no longer surprising.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has been taken to ArbCom for clarification and personally, I can't see how a user adding an infobox hurts anyone. It seems silly to prevent someone from adding something constructive (and infoboxes are constructive) to any Wikipedia page. It seems even sillier to prevent anyone from adding infoboxes for that editor. Regardless of what ArbCom says, it seems like this is a way to prevent an established and well-respected editor from editing.

I will await ArbCom's ruling on this one and proceed according to that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, still, you don't seem to be aware of or acknowledge the disruption caused to Wikipedia by editors colluding on technical issues. "I can't see how a user adding an infobox hurts anyone" indicates you may not be familiar with the case, or the issue that more editing by proxy is not what those involved in that case need. What they need is to curtail their attacks on those who disagree with them on the usefulness of infoboxes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding an infobox to a page is an "attack"?! What?! Explain to me how you came up with that theory. Are we now restricting people we disagree with? I don't agree with you, let's put some restrictions on you and vice versa? It's an infobox...come on! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The attack was by Montanabw on someone pointing out an infobox issue: this is characteristic of what has gone on throughout that case. Please focus: I don't really have time to bring you up to speed on an old case. I do have time to point out to you that suggesting that I will wade into that mess is not sound ... one would think admins would deal with the situation without more need for more editors to be drawn into the imbroglio and factions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you won't give me the short version of this "case", but you will tell me that I shouldn't take up this fight. That's the kind of answer that makes me want to. An infobox is not an attack, it is not a faction and it is not anything one should be restricted over. You have obviously forgotten why you are here, you are here to edit an encyclopedia, not put restrictions on people you clearly disagree with. You are not the Wikipedia Police Department, you are an editor. If you think you are anything more than that, please consult the "log out" link above. None of us should discourage an editor from expanding an article, as you are, over something one doesn't have the time to explain. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind taking the time to walk you through the case and the history if you would first read what is already on the page. Unless you are being deliberately obtuse, the attack is not hard to find. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutralhomer, please read through all of the pages associated with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes, to see what the fuss is about. Adding infoboxes is not an attack (and Sandy never said it was), but there are factions associated with adding/removing infoboxes, and it is the kind of thing several people were restricted over. A lot of people think that adding/removing infoboxes is a really big deal, and Gerda was one of several people who gained editing restrictions when the issue was taken before ArbCom. This is not Sandy unilaterally imposing editing restrictions, or even several editors imposing them - it is a major issue that was taken before ArbCom that has resulted multiple ArbCom-enforced editing restrictions. You may not find it a big deal to add an infobox, but a lot of people do. I hope this clears some things up. Dana boomer (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dana! I was beginning to wonder if I was speaking Spanish :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Dana: TL;DR, gimme the short version.

@Sandy: You were speaking, what I like to call, "round-about English". English that goes around in circles and doesn't really make a point, but uses big words. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? I gave you the short version above. So let me try again, with little words and short sentences. Some people like infoboxes. Some don't. They fight. They went to ArbCom. ArbCom told a bunch of people to knock it off. Including Gerda. </end of short sentences> Now, for some advice: if you want to get involved in the infobox issue, I suggest you get used to reading long pages, and drop TL;DR from your vocabulary. Dana boomer (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, seriously. ArbCom discussions all meld into one after awhile, I like short versions. Still doesn't explain why people don't like infoboxes and how that prevents someone from editing/expanding an article....or editing period in some cases.

I'll drop TL;DR from my vocabulary when you drop the attitude. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it was simple and able to be explained in a sentence, a paragraph, even a computer screen's-worth of text, it wouldn't be at ArbCom. To understand why some people/projects don't like infoboxes, you have to read their arguments - it has to do with appearance, necessity, breaking complicated ideas into little (sometimes oversimplified) chunks, etc. ArbCom doesn't rule on content though, they rule on conduct. And they ruled that several editors, including Gerda, had acted in such a way (tendentious editing, editing against consensus, WP:IDHT, etc.) as to necessitate sanctions. In Gerda's case, this included an injunction against adding infoboxes to any article she hadn't created. Also, per ArbCom policy, if an editor is restricted from doing something, other editors are prohibited for doing that something for them, as is currently being explained at the ArbCom clarifications page. But again, this whole paragraph that I have just written is way too simplistic (and I'm sure I'm going to hear about it from people who participated in the case). As I said above, if you want to understand disputes that end up at ArbCom, you're going to need to be able to read and digest long pages, because simple disputes that can be easily explained in non-TLDR fashion don't end up at ArbCom. And I would have seriously thought that an experienced editor such as yourself would not have to have this explained to him, several times, by several editors. Dana boomer (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One, I like bite-sized bits of information.

Two, I think ArbCom is waaay too full of themselves, always have, and they all have forgotten why they are here.

Three, anything can be explained in non-TLDR fashion if you take the time.

Four, when an infobox causes an ArbCom investigation, people are taking themselves waaay too seriously and have forgotten why they are here.

Five, I have Aspergers (and Dyslexic), I lose interest in something quickly if not explained fast (hence the bite-sized bits of information).

Six, stupid decisions by bureaucracy (like in DC) normally have to be explained several times, so that even the most experienced people (like in DC) can understand it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that does clarify why you'd perceive infoboxes as an unalloyed good. If you want some background, User:Geogre/Templates is well-balanced but you may find it a bit long; Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes is more easily read but also more polemical. Like most ARBCOM decisions, this isn't really "about" infoboxes (or dashes-versus-hyphens, or whatever triviality you like); it's about people's behavior making use of them. Gerda's behavior during the case made it clear that she was going to continue making and using infoboxes in ways that upset other productive editors, to the maximum extent possible without breaking the letter of the rules. It's a shame that these constraints hinder her editing: she's a talented and productive editor. But she would not be laboring under an onerous external restraint if she had shown internal restraint or better judgment. Choess (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom cases are hardly ever about what they appear on the face of it to be about, but that's by the by. Why do some people get so agitated about infoboxes? Some infoboxes are arguably useful and others are arguably a blot on the landscape. Pigsonthewing has much to answer for here, with his empty rhetoric about metadata. Eric Corbett 16:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not intending to throw too many of the aforementioned "big words" at Homer, but the entire infoboxes case was just a proxy for collusion among a group of like-minded editors (that is, all about cabalism, never really even about infoboxes).

In the name of "infoboxes", one group of editors who were roughly (but not exclusively) aligned around technical issues and around returning users breaching cleanstart and various socks disrupting FA pages, has been allowed to indiscriminately block, attack and insult their "perceived" "enemies"; chase off multiple productive editors, both those building content and those also engaged in technical editing; impose technical preferences well beyond the infobox issue; apply the same admin double standards that Malleus thought he was fighting against for years in ways that they seemed to think would silence their "perceived" "enemies" (and in several cases has), choosing to ignore personalization, battleground, and personal attacks among their own; create battlegrounds not only in content editing areas like infoboxes, but also on Wikipedia-space pages, in content review processes, and on dispute resolution pages; work together to preserve POV in articles; and .... well, the list goes on ... and the arbs didn't even get to address most of this, but not surprisingly, the signs of the extent of these issues and the editors involved are showing themselves since the case closed. As always, it is unlikely that the arbs were not aware of all that was going on-- but no one presented all the evidence.

So, for Neutralhomer, although you are not the first (and won't likely be the last) to offer to or to actually act as a proxy in the broader issues surrounding the infobox case, I hope you now understand why such conduct is viewed by the arbs as disruptive, and actually has been and remains a factor in battleground conduct based on factionalism (to wit, the attack which led to this discussion). Re Choess's comments about Gerda, I suspect that what got her noticed by the arbs, although many involved went undetected, is a never-ending defense (from a well-established editor) that began to sound one time too many like "I don't know nothin' 'bout birthin' babies". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, ArbCom cases are hardly ever about what they appear to be about. Eric Corbett

Time To Go

ANI diff

Sandy, I have watched the ANI thread regarding Wehwalt, Kww, Montanabw and Gerda and I see what's coming. It's the same witchhunt that you drummed up against Rlevse/Pumpkin Sky (before running him out a second time). You drove out an admin and an editor of FA quality articles and you are about to do the same to Wehwalt, Kww and the rest. You are on a powertrip of epic proportions and it time for you to go.

I took a look at your edits (last 1,000 made) and almost all were either WikiSpace or TalkPage edits. A small number were to articles and those were slicing and dicing them into tiny bite-sized pieces. You have forgotten why we are here, that's to create a free encyclopedia and to do it in a collaborative way. What you do is create drama and be snarky. That's not creating anything but an unhealthy enviroment for collaborative works.

So, I am asking that you retire. You aren't helping the project, you aren't helping the collaborative creation of articles, you aren't helping anything. You are helping good editors leave this project and that is something I won't stand for. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be mad at Sandy for complaining about the "good" editors at WP:ENB, FWIW, User:Neutralhomer. You may be on to something, because you know more than I do, but Sandy isn't always barking up the wrong tree. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take, for example, the thread above, where the project might really stand to find a new way to deal with student abuse. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Biosthmors: This isn't a student editor or someone from a school. These are editors who are have accounts, have been here for years, have created numerous Good and Featured Articles, 3 are admins, the other two have numerous different account rights (like autopatrolled, rollbacker, reviewer, etc.). These are good editors who do good work. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of some of the Rlevse/Pumpkin Sky issue. Sandy was bang on with that one. In this comment we have a former arbcom member stating he needs help uploading images to commons [1] and here he is threatening people with "Karma" [2]. Hum playing games I think. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc: During July of 2011, if I remember correctly, that's when the uploader got all messed up and didn't get fixed for months (and didn't get totally fixed until a couple weeks ago). Even I needed help uploading images and I have been here for 7 years. He does have a point about karma, it does get you in the end. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And this [3]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like PSky asked several questions to Nasnema and Nasnema evaded those questions. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the while trying to claim to be a new user... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not the smartest idea, but can you blame him? He gets run out on a rail, the only way to come back is to pose as a new editor. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Only warning"

Hello Homer. Because you said above that you don't like English that uses "big words", you "like bite-sized bits of information" and you "have Aspergers (and Dyslexic) [and] lose interest in something quickly if not explained fast (hence the bite-sized bits of information)", I will respond in bite-sized bits as I have time.

Since you seem concerned about creating a collaborative environment, let's first address your attempts at intimidation, for example of Anthonyhcole on his talk page, where you said you will "see to it that you don't come near Wikipedia for a very long time". As someone who has expressed the disdain for ArbCom that you did above, I'm not sure how you feel yourself empowered to do this, unless you have a direct line to Arsten's twitchy finger on his block button. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editcountitis and WBFANitis

Next, let's look at editcountitis and WBFANitis; then we'll move on the specifics of each editor you mention above. Three bite-sized points for you:

When I spent hours daily reading and processing FAC nomination pages for some extremely fine articles-- as well as many cookie-cutter, pedestrian-prose articles so prima donnas could get their stars they would then use to bang other editors over the head with as if they were somehow "special"-- I didn't notice anyone complaining that most of edits were to project space.
I think it's wonderful that some editors can churn out dozens of pedestrian-prose, cookie-cutter FAs, on topics which rarely get viewed, never get edited, and rarely need updating. This project needs all kinds, and those have a place. Of course, I wish the pedestrian prose wasn't passing FAC these days, but it is. Anyway. Some of the rest of us edit in areas where we aren't so fortunate. The articles we write need constant monitoring and updating, are hit by all kinds of whacky edits, and lately, are under assault by student editors. Sorry if you don't like the fact that, as the university term-end approaches in the US and students cram text into medical articles all at once so they can get their grade before Thanksgiving, the education program consumes the attention of medical editors. Them's the breaks. Maybe I should have been a ship, hurricane or coin editor.
You seem to be impressed that some folks can churn out dozens of cookie cutters. You don't seem to understand that in some topics, a dozen cookie cutters are not as hard to write or maintain as, say, one of the topics User:Moni3 wrote on, like Donner Party or the song "Amazing Grace", or one medical FA. Sorry, I'm not at all impressed by WP:WBFAN, and neither are most of the older, experienced, seasoned FA writers, who long expressed dismay that WBFAN was just another part of the reward culture.

You seem to not only have a bad case of editcountitis, but also a case of WBFANitis. Any questions so far? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Morality

I'm just perusing the talk page archives of Natalee Holloway and I came across this little gem from Talk:Natalee Holloway/Archive 4#Disappearance of Natalee Holloway: "I never remember an agreement, just your threats to oppose it based on your personal morality (aka nothing to do with Wikipedia). - User:AuburnPilot" I'm going to start collecting quotes like that. I was trying to explain the ethos here to someone yesterday. I told him it's not generally thought necessary to put a disclaimer about the unreliability of our medical content at the top of medical articles, which staggered him. Then I told him it's a generally accepted norm here that we don't care about the feelings of our subjects or readers - or each other for that matter. He thought it was sad. I'm not as angry as I used to be about it, I'm starting to find it interesting.

While I'm here: Thank you so much for all the effort you put in on this project. I am really pleased to see you so engaged these days. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of a disclaimer on our medical articles. With the addition to the normal POV-pushing and agenda-pushing by various researchers and corporations of the mess caused by student editing, there is no possibility we can ever keep up, and we should have a gigantic disclaimer on every article. After all, Wehwalt can install his own version of a threatening ownership on an FA; why can't we install a template on all medical content that warns everyone who hits Wikipedia first via Google that they are reading something written by RandyfromBoise? It wouldn't bother me at all; we can't keep up, we shouldn't pretend we can.

If you think that quote shows the dominant "morality" present on the Holloway article, I can only say that you ain't seen nothing yet. That's a long and deep and sordid story. What brings you to Holloway? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny! I just came here to mock them for this template:{{maintained|Wehwalt, AuburnPilot, Kww}}

Sorry I don't know how to point to it without putting it on your page. I saw Holloway mentioned on a talk page somewhere. I can't remember where. So, tell me a sordid story. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthonyhcole it usually becomes evident to anyone who follows there for any length of time, and I think it more effective to let people discover the depth and breadth of the issues on their own. It is enough to make one wonder about the ethics associated with some professions, but then in the medical realm, we have Otto Placik and his plastic surgery edits, so "first do no harm" is no exemption when it comes to Wikipedia! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've pretty much got the idea. Grrr. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I should commend your diligence ... or point out that it's not exactly rocket science :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you boot up the internet we should just show a disclaimer reading: "Pile of shit ahead." --Laser brain (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wikipedia:General disclaimer states that "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY", which is semantically equivalent if less emphatic. MastCell ^Talk 22:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes patrol medical articles using Recent changes/Medicine and can confidently assure you that anything could be in our higher-hanging fruit. As for Wikipedia's general and medical disclaimers, they may protect the Foundation from legal liability for somebody overdosing, neglecting symptoms, eschewing treatment, etc. due to what they read here (I'm not as sure as the WMF seems to be on that point) but I'm talking about moral not legal fault.

The prominence of a warning that appears behind a tiny-font link at the bottom of an article among a bunch of other tiny-font links is not commensurate with the seriousness of the potential harm. I know a lot of non-Wikipedians of widely-varying tech-savviness, and those at the more naive end of that spectrum - even the smart ones - have no idea that anyone can add whatever they like to our articles. None of them is ever likely to click the Disclaimer link. You may say, "Oh, smart people would never take anything we say seriously" but (a) I'm not so sure and (b) half our readers have a lower than average IQ. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Followup at ANI, at BLPN, and at Nikkimaria talk; [4] [5] I see the "sordid" part is becoming more clear, even without me having to say a thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh. Please don't make me read that review. I don't mind some kinds of sordid - but I haven't yet acquired a taste for fetid. This is whole saga is fetid. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ya think? No sympathy from me. I've dealt with it for seven years. Get tough! Here's another reason it's fetid: [6] I am reluctant to bring even an obvious SPI because of the spurious block from an involved admin after a simple question related to socking. That thread was a waste of everyone's time. At least Arsten didn't involve himself; maybe he's learning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I started reading the talk page: yep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medical disclaimer

After discussion on multiple talk pages, it was revealed that multiple other language Wikipedias do have medical disclaimers.

Wikipedia language	Number of articles	Template	Position in article
Chinese	732,000	zh:Template:Medical small	Top
Dutch	1,700,000	nl:Sjabloon:Disclaimer medisch lemma	Top
German	1,600,000	de:Wikipedia:Hinweis Gesundheitsthemen	Bottom
Indonesian	322,000	id:Templat:Penyangkalan-medis	Top
Norwegian	399,000	no:Mal:Helsenotis	Bottom
Portuguese	802,000	pt:Predefinição:Aviso médico	Section: Treatment
Turkish	220,000	tr:Şablon:TıpUyarı	Top

This proposed version for use on en.wikipedia emerged from discussion at User talk:Alanyst/sandbox/reliability disclaimer and several other on-Wiki talk pages and external websites:

I am planning to install it on Tourette syndrome (where I am the only significant contributor) unless a significant consensus against emerges. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overagainst

I was quite open that I was a novice on an FAR. Wehwalt asked me on the FAR page for what I wanted, the goalposts as he said. "I asked you to put down what you wanted done so we could talk about it." I then used an analysis of the 'Media coverage' section to explain my thinking on is wrong in the article, giving concrete examples. Several other sections have similar problems. Kww queried and I enlarged on what I said. I'm sorry if it was the wrong place but please understand that I was told there that I had not made my position clear there so I replied there. I have never had an objection to discussing things on the Talk page and have been doing so, all they had to say was let's take this to talk. Today I immediately took the issue of the refs and external links to the talk page.

At the start there were 3 saying there was no need for a FAR, 2 for, and the first uninvolved editor said the FAR was a waste of time. I did not think it a good idea to just leave things unanswered and maybe let the FAR be halted. Sorry if that was unnecessary I continued that longer than necessary and annoyed you, I can assure you it was no fun for me either. I am a complete novice at FAR which I made clear more than once. When experienced editors of FA like Wehwalt and Kww are asking me things on a FAR page or making an argument on a FAR page I took it to be OK to reply on that same FAR page. Answers take longer than questions. I understand you want peace from me on the FAR page. You supported the FAR when it was in danger of getting squashed (I thought it was anyway), so your wish is my command. Please feel free to contact me here or on my Talk for any reason.Overagainst (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overagainst, I realize you have acted in good faith, and that you didn't understand FAR. That is why I made the long post on talk. Now I think the best thing everyone can do is to let it alone for a bit, and not spread the discussion all over. Let the process work, please. It is a deliberative process, and the delegates do not act rashly in either direction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to shut up on the DoNH Talk page too?Overagainst (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what DoNH stands for, but Overagainst, I am not your keeper, and I really don't want to be drug any further into this mess. I made a post to try to help ALL of you stay on track, mostly because what you are all doing to the delegates is miserable, and I've been in those shoes. Please do not continue to expect anything from me; it appears at times that anything I may do to try to help on that page is destined to backfire. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DoNH Talk page = Talk:Disappearance of Natalee Holloway. Disappearance of Natalee Holloway is what the article is called now. I was not clear if you when you said "I think the best thing everyone can do is to let it alone for a bit, and not spread the discussion" you thought my participating in the discussions on Talk:Disappearance of Natalee Holloway was unhelpful to the FAR. But as you have obviously not been paying any attention to Talk:Disappearance of Natalee Holloway I was being obtuse. Adieu.Overagainst (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, sorry-- I have not looked at the article talk page. On the DoNH, I'mADork. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Today

Re my recent comments. I have never had much to do with admins, especially ones actively opposing what I was trying to do, and those I interacted with on the Natalee Holloway page ran rings round me with BLP caveats. So I took 2 months off and came back to the article when I initiated the FAR. About those comments today; frankly, I was intimidated by the complaints by an admin (who has popped up on the Talk and the FAR) about taking things to BLP noticeboard, (which I have done only once, ever) and worried my name was cropping up a lot in disputes there over the last couple of days. I panicked. However I see from the discussion at the admins notice board that you and Anthonyhcole can keep things above board. I also felt, after reading an edit summary about juvenile pretentiousness (which, though I'm old, I took to be about me) that I had made a bit of a fool of myself on some of that stuff. I just mentioned the issue of naming all 3 to give it an airing, and then got carried away as is my wont. In the event nobody thought there was a problem or the matter needed to be taken further so there is consensus for using the names of the trio, which is fine by me. My ideas for possible improvements to the 'Background section might include things like: she had got her driving licence, church affiliation (if Natalee was a churchgoer) could be added to the article. Also there could be a brief reference to what I believe her mother said about her not being particularly worldly for her years. Another possible addition is I believe she and the school group were from a state where they not old enough to to buy drinks, but they could do so in Aruba. The way the drinking is talked about currently in the article is completely over the top. There could be a mention that there was drinking by her group on their holiday (as if that is surprising), and then maybe something about her being bought a shot of 151-proof rum at the end of the night by van Der Sloot. She had a drink in a nightclub, not drunk though; her puzzled remark when she saw the brothers in the car rings true. Your approach to the way Natalee is portrayed seems right to me.Overagainst (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overagainst It is hard for me to know how to best answer you. This is complicated by the fact that I find it much more effective-- and that I have much more credibility on Wikipedia (Anthonyhcole came to this article and came to his conclusions without ever having had any contact with or feedback from me)-- because I don't take things like this backchannel to email, where I could speak more openly. Someday, I will issue you a Barnstar of Integrity for sticking with this in the face of the intimidation visited upon you from not one, but three, admins. Although I cannot stomach reading the talk page of Natalee Holloway (the misogyny and misrepresentation repulse me), I was aware that you were in there because I keep the page watchlisted, see edit summaries, and know that the same struggle has been going on for six years (just based on what I see in edit summaried).

I understand how you feel and what you are facing, and do not mean to make you feel worse by pointing out that you may not fully understand BLP policy. Again, your instincts about that article (that POV is used to create a BLP situation, whereby victims are re-victimized) are entirely correct, but you are, to put it bluntly, naïve in the ways of Wikipedia and the ways groups of editors can protect POV, and the effort that it takes to get it addressed. You remind me of me when I first came to Wikipedia and thought Hugo Chavez could be neutralized; it took me four years to realize that there were more of "them" than "us", and that Chavez would be dead before a neutral article was written. I was right. He's dead, and his article is still POV.

It seems to me that you thought that by pointing out what is obvious to anyone who knows the case, the right thing would be done. That isn't how it works in here. To work on an entrenched problem like the Holloway article, you have to really know and understand policy, and you have to be willing to go point-by-point, for years, arguing the case based on sources. There are sources that can be used to correct the POV in the article, but as far as I have been able to tell, your arguments have not been based on those sources. And some of your BLP arguments haven't been entirely correct, which has extended the case and impacted your credibility.

Based on your passion and persistence, you will be a force to be reckoned with in your future Wiki career. But laying out things that you think should happen in the article, arguing from a logical, common sense perspective, isn't going to get you anywhere in that article, and it is creating discussions that are long and unwieldy. Have you read the book I recommended on the FAR? The only way to begin to neutralize the Holloway article is to work on one point at a time. There are hundreds of things wrong with that article, but as long as the ratios of editors willing to change that are not in your favor, you cannot expect to make much progress. One thing at a time. I have already provided, I think, three samples on the FAR. Here's another: on May 10, Joran received part of the extorted money. He went to Peru. He killed the Peruvian on May 30. Why does our article not mention that it was the money he extorted from the Holloway family that allowed him to travel to Peru to kill? What do sources say about that? You have to argue the missing pieces from sources.

I could go on and on with examples, but I do not want to work on that article. The worst victimization of a victim that we could ever visit upon the mother of her dead child is to run an article on our mainpage on the dead girl's birthday when that article is slanted towards a negative characterization of the mother and her dead daughter. Wikipedia has already done the worst thing it can do to living people: anything else is irrelevant to me, and I imagine to the victims by now as well. We, at Wikipedia, should hang our heads in shame.

I'm sorry that I have discouraged you by having to point out where you have been a bit off on BLP policy. I do admire the work you've done. And I really do wish I didn't have to be involved any more there. I have little hope anything will ever change there, and I find it most frustrating to even have to think about how repulsive that article is. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the article is going to change, thanks to you. People are beginning to pay attention to what happens there now. I have had this problem before with a coven of editors protecting POV, when I tried to do some work on Murder of Meredith Kercher. I got nowhere and people were complaining about unwieldy posts on talk there too. The difference then was that an admin (SlimVirgin) was put on the page to ensure the facts and tone changed to reflect the Knox acquittal, and although he reverted me a few times, I got the message and was greatly aided by a really good book on the case that had just been published, and which I bought (duh), it was plain sailing. Unfortunately, I was re-convinced I was a master of persuasion and editing after that. I knew you had a good book from a couple of things you said before. I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with, and the best thing seems to be if I wait for you to take the lead.Overagainst (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OA, I'm afraid you might not be understanding. I am not going to "take the lead"; it's unlikely I'll even take a major role. If I see more abuse (of process, of admin tools, or of people), I may weigh in periodically. Or I may not. It is not a great book-- it is merely a bit better than what the article currently relies on (RECENTISM, FOX news and CNN, with slanting towards the Aruban/Dompig POV, painting the girls as trashy promiscuous drunks). If you want the article to change, you need to argue from sources. Do not expect or count on me to do that for you. SlimVirgin is a she, and she knows BLP as well as anyone; perhaps you can ask her to help you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I get the picture. Hopefully when the featured review re-starts I'll be able to be more constructive, and less obtrusive.Overagainst (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the spirit ... bite-size pieces. One point at a time, keep discussion always strictly based on sources. Forget about what makes sense and what you think should be obvious; just say what the sources say. And not with a wall of text. I'm glad you're not discouraged ... the ride you've had would have chased out a lesser person! Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

		The Bio-star
		Kudos for all your work this morning on hypothyroidism! --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you! I'd rather do that than watch the testosterone fest evolving at WP:ANI! I don't know if I've ever told you that I think you have the coolest username since my last favorite coolest user name (may you not end up where he did). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for what you do around here, again. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For the excellent work you do to keep Wikipedia high quality ( at least as much as you can ). And hold the line on quality over quantity. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some stroopwafels for you!

Just a snack, best enjoyed with a cup of warm coffee. JFW | T@lk 14:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

stickyprod-medrs

Sorry for not explaining what I meant more thoroughly when I suggested it, I was in a bit of a rush. My idea was to implement something analogous to how we handle new unsourced BLPs for medicine-related articles - a prod for medicine-related articles that fail our medical referencing guidelines that could only be removed if the article had been brought in to compliance with them, and would otherwise be userfied or deleted at the end of a seven day period. It seems like it would help address problems with shitty medical editing, both student and non-student related. If you agree that it sounds like a useful idea, I would be more than happy to write up and run a proposal for it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a wonderful idea; thank you very much for explaining it, for suggesting it, and for offering to work on it. There are many areas of Wikipedia I'm just not familiar with (like AFDs and prods and such) because most of my Wikitime has been spent working at the FA level. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once I'm back from thanksgiving, I'll write something up and run it by you and WT:MED. I'm not entirely sure we'll get it passed through the general community, but it really does seem a way to make it a lot easier for all y'all. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hi, Sandy, I didn't expect that certain editors would be happy with the closure, but you're going to have to heed it anyway. I've reverted your change and I don't expect to see you insist. If you want to start a brand new topic (not a subsection), either at ANI or somewhere else, that's up to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy - the editnotice was blanked by Wehwalt a few days ago, and no longer appears when editing the article. I agree it was pretty dubious, but it's gone now so probably not worth pursuing at AN/I. The more general question of page ownership is a valid one, but not one that's likely to be resolved constructively on AN/I. MastCell ^Talk 22:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both. Bbb23 a more appropriate place at this juncture is probably WP:AN, since it's no longer an "incident". MastCell, what does need to be resolved is whether something like that should keep happening on any other FA. I had never encountered such a thing, and didn't realize it could even be done until Overagainst brought that to attention. If that went on in an FA without even *me* knowing it, how many other FAs might have followed suit? We need further discussion and clarity not for this article, but for however many others might now realize they can do this, or have done this. Here we have the ability on Wikipedia for an admin to influence editing on an article s/he "owns", without the broader community even becoming aware of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's really no guidance on appropriate criteria for an editnotice (at least not that I could find here). I do agree with you that the editnotice in question was inappropriate on several levels. I generated this list of active editnotices using Special:Prefixindex. As you can see, there are a lot of them, but many are just page-specific notices describing discretionary sanctions (e.g. in the Israeli-Palestinian topic area). I suppose it would be an interesting project to go through and see what they all say, and what kinds of standards we have for editnotices. It would also be relatively easy to generate an intersection of Featured-Articles-with-editnotces if you're interested. MastCell ^Talk 23:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to see how many are on FAs, but it could still be too many to go through (many of them may be just things like date formatting). What I'm really after is guidance that can specifically be given at WT:FAC. There are always issues at FAs vis-à-vis WP:OWN#Featured articles, and this one crossed the line, but now that this one has come to light, others may begin something similar. I want to have clear guidance to the FA community about when an editnotice crosses the ownership line relative to the normal BS that goes on in FAs (I'm thinking, for example, of editing at the autism article, where I'm now realizing we could have saved loads of time by using an editnotice). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Demo of the Medicine box

Recent changes in WP:Medicine

Articles and their talkpages:

Not mainspace:

Following autism (source)
SandyGeorgia (source)

Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
99	1,109	11,506	38,487	18,935	935	71,071

List overview · Lists updated: 2015-07-15 · This box:

SandyGeorgia, above I have added the Medicine box to this page, you asked about. See the code; you can put it on any page. I also added {{clear}} below to prevent the box flowing into the next section.
Also I added two "personal" pages to follow (took autism example from your recent contributions). See the code, for the two options (link & textlabel). I can give more examples if you want to. -DePiep (talk) 06:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Favour

Sandy, I have a favour to ask of you: I'd like to get tutored in MEDMOS and MEDRS.. If you have time, I'd like to go there every single change that Kimmyfromtexas made to cholera, and understand what is OK, what's bad and has to be removed (and why), and what's a good addition. If you have the patience to go through this with me (perhaps on a subpage of my talk page) I think I'd end up knowing a lot more about medical articles and being in a better position to participate in conversations about them. I know this is a lot to ask, and it would be very time consuming for you, but there's no deadline -- and in any case I wouldn't be able to work on it at high speed as I have lots else going on. Let me know if you think this is something you could take on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After Thanksgiving? I have out-of-town family here, and am still trying to just get through my morning watchlist so I can get outta the house, and I've still a list of things I need to get back to. Ping me if I forget. Also, Mike, since you're ~~the only one~~ one of the few who listens ... JEEEEEEEEEZ !!! We need to get this under control. As soon as I saw the new board, my goal was to quickly put up three samples so we could figure out a more efficient way of dealing with these problems and get off on the right foot (getting header info, things like that). For every single incident now, we have talk scattered all over the Wikipedia, I'm constantly updating posts, edit conflicting, ... it's crazy making. I wanted to establish a system early on, which is why I took the time today ... Best to you, Happy Thanksgiving, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, after Thanksgiving. I'll put a page together with the first diff, and will post a question that you can answer, and we'll just go back and forth as we have time. Thanks! and enjoy Thanksgiving. Talk to you in a few days. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Sure. By the way, the Society and culture section still has elements of what should be in Prevention, History, a whole lot more. We will look closely later. It's a good example of why student "essays" sometimes go wrong. The student set out to write on one topic, rather than to write on a topic in the way the "encyclopedia" Wikipedia does, and put that all in one section. I'm not sure if Doc James will eventually get around to fixin' it up. The most likely scenario is that, because so many student edits hit us at once and we can't get to them, the incorrect work gets forgotten. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes was hoping that leaving the social and cultural section that would encourage the student to keep working on it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothyroidism help

Hi Sandy, I'm wrapping up the baseline edits of the hypothyroidism article addressing all of the citation needed templates, updating sources for verification purposes, and getting rid of the more questionable sources when possible. Once I wrap that up, I'd like to ask for your help in getting the article to at least GA status or featured perhaps. I would really appreciate your help given your expertise in that domain and I'd like to see what goes into the process of raising a B-classish article to GA+ level. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'm on board ... but my time is always difficult until the holidays are past. Glad you're doing this! I will check in when I can (surely not til after Thanksgiving weekend has passed). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

QOL followup

Note to self, from WP:ENI for followup:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cholera Article

Hi,

You asked about my plans to make further edits to the Cholera article. While I had not initially budgeted more time to work on the article, I am not closed off to the idea. However, I am a student, and final exam season is rapidly approaching. If I make further edits, it will be in a few weeks after exams are over and I have more time. Thank you for your advice!

Kimmyfromtexas (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

circadian rhythm

Hi Sandy -- I'm not keen on the changes you are making. This is not really a medical article -- it has medical relevance but the scope is much wider, and MEDRS should really only apply to the medical parts, -- mainly the "Human health" section. Also I fail to see the advantage of replacing primary sources with cn tags -- why not add a "primary" tag if you feel the source is inadequate. This is a pretty important article, and both Hordaland and I keep an eye on it. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HI, Looie496 ... note the difference in how I'm tagging general content from human health content. I'm tagging the sources on animal stuff; I'm dealing with the human health content differently. Please have a closer look; I'm all done now (sorry I just saw your message). I only remove primary sources on human health. Sorry, but we shouldn't allow Wikipedia to be used for researchers to advance their own pet theories by cobbling together primary sources, particularly when human health is concerned. There were some pretty damaging things cited to primary sources. I started out only to clean up citations per WP:CITEVAR (see the earliest versions of the article), but found health content with consequences while I was in there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]