User talk:SandyGeorgia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I prefer to keep conversations together and usually respond on my talk page, so watch the page for my reply.

To leave me a message, click here.

Something beautiful for the holidays[edit]

New year[edit]

Angelos Akotanos - Saint Anne with the Virgin - 15th century.jpg
Nollaig shona duit
RozdestvoHristovo RublevBlagSoborMK.jpg
Best new year to my favourite crusader. You cant win them all Sandy, but god bless for trying. You have been missed. Ceoil (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Manual of Style - invitation to comment[edit]

Subsequent to my posting on Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria I have sand-boxed and revised the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics/sandbox pages. Can I ask you to comment on this page, as I know you would need to refer to it when doing a FA review. What needs to be done to the the page to make it easier to use? Maths has 25 FAs what needs to be done to MOS/Mathematic to make them more achievable?-- Clem Rutter (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For your work with students on Anorexia nervosa. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Stuartyeates, nice timing and deeply appreciated :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I just came here for exactly the same reason. Alright, *checks list of barnstars* it looks like you haven't received one of these in a while. :-)

Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
For your tireless effort in helping student editors contribute to Wikipedia. Sunrise (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Why thanks so much, Sunrise; the encouragement is most welcome! Some day, I may get lucky and a student will stick around to help with the heavy lifting :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Stable wikipedia[edit]

Here. You have done stellar work on peer review processes here. I would be interested in your view. Peter Damian (talk) 08:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Peter Damian, but I'm not sure I want to get involved in a back-and-forth at Talk Jimbo. With declining resources in here, I would suggest focusing discussion of a stable Wikipedia on BLPs ... one example that came to light in this week's review of the (probably half) of FAs currently on the books that are deficient is Mariah Carey. That article passed FAR in 2007 at 5418 words, and is now at 11976; in other words, it has more unreviewed than vetted content. I haven't glanced at it yet to see how dismal it might be, but can assume the typical Wikipedia quality of content about a living person is now wearing a bronze star. Scan down the list on that page and some of the other data on the page, and you will get a sense of how many potential and identified problems we have with the FA pool; in as many as half of the FAs, there may not be a place to "freeze". Also, FA has become a one-way street (once an FA, always an FA) since 2010, when FAR fell off the map. How many fingers do we have to plug all of these holes ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I think (given that my proposal is not meant to be invasive, and would leave the current 'anyone can edit' version highly visible) that a different approach would be needed for BLP, namely identification, perhaps privately to the WMF. Peter Damian (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
By 'one way street', you mean numbers going down, yes? Wouldn't that be an ideal opportunity to showcase the demoted ones? Note that an FA would not be the same as my proposed SA, which would have a different editorial process. Peter Damian (talk) 11:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

B-P House[edit]

Hi Sandy,

thanks for the warm welcome back here. Not that I'm now going to dig into WP again as I did before, but some small editing couldn't go amiss. So, I've had a look at the referencing of B-P House, and cleaned it up. Obviously I removed the single pinetree ref, as the remark (B-P painting copy also in Geneva office) was not really a valuable contribution. Have a look at what I did, and if you have new recommendations, feel free to drop me some more hints.

PS. Essentially, the PineTree information is really good and valuable. It's main problem is that it is grabbed from all over (including WP as you point out), so the work is not to question the info itself, but to find good refs for them.

Regards, Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC).

Kim Kardashian's butt[edit]

Thank you for sharing that with us. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement 20:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

If Kim Kardashian ever comes up at FAC, I'll have to oppose on 1b, comprehensive; there's no image of her butt. I am relying on the the great one to remedy that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, you could add it. We'll need to craft some accompanying text though. Level I or II heading for the section? Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement 21:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe we can entice back User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back or User:Moni3 to craft the text: they rule in this content area. Or maybe DMacks will view my user page and contribute to the effort; he demonstrated quite the facility with words over at Drmies talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I've got a 750 mm telephoto lens and will work on getting a copyright-free image. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement 21:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Not so fast, Sandy. Medical issues are your domain; I can only envision a liberal use of phrases like "severe spinal deformity" and "extensive gluteal protrusion." Just make sure to make Kim Kardashian's cocktail table a redirect. [3] Эlcobbola talk 21:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Take a look[edit]

Ok, I think you can go take a look at the article now if you like.--ZiaLater (talk) 05:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome[edit]

Hi SandyGeorgia,Thank you for the welcome to Wikipedia and for your immensely helpful links and guidance. Greatly appreciated! Autumnstorm19 (talk) 04:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Everyone can have a bad day[edit]


This kitten will curl up in your lap and make any bad day a good one

Fiddle Faddle 08:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Robert Walker[edit]

You were patient on Robert Walker's talk page and tried to be sympathetic to an editor whom you thought was still learning how to use talk pages. Patience and sympathy are virtues, but he isn't an inexperienced editor who is learning. He is an editor with a history of excessively long posts to talk pages, who has in the past been taken to ANI for his talk page behavior. I don't think that he is interested in working on a non-controversial article to learn. He decides what he wants to work on; he isn't working to learn because he is working to express his views. I have tried to help him learn in the past, and he hasn't benefited from learning. Thank you for trying. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, we have to strive for patience regardless. Sorry I can't follow up further, but I will be traveling. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Robert McClenon: I have found that relentless and persistent (tautology?) politeness achieves one of two outcomes, compliance or WP:ROPE. There is a time when one may express the fact that one's patience is exhausted, and do so with clarity and continued politeness. I tried hard with DMRRT on their talk page, and, if I recall, on mine, and elsewhere, too. They, too, were long winded. Eventually other people determined that indeffing them was the right approach, but way after I expressed my expiry of patience. Fiddle Faddle 16:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Quick request[edit]

Hi there, Sandy, per WP:POLEMIC would you please remove mention of me? Many thanks, and enjoy, petrarchan47คุ 03:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I totally understand[edit]

I read through Ozzie11aaaa's recent edits to understand why you were (reasonably) upset with him. Even I, with no involvement in the project, am a little irked by his, to say bluntly, useless comments. He usually writes "good information" or "agreed", what is the point? I tried telling him that he should think if his comment is truly helpful, but he just banned me from his talk page. Oh well, I guess you'll have to put up with it, since I don't believe there is a policy for those kind of edits. Best of luck.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

How much content experience should an admin have?[edit]

SandyGeorgia, this is about citing something you said five years ago. I'm in some sort of debate with WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs) about whether a technical copyright expert could be an admin regardless of content experience. You can read the discussion by scrolling up from How much content experience should an admin have? on the Administrators' noticeboard. I'm contacting you because five years ago I curated something you said...

  • "adminship is a big deal and does create a semi-permanent class of superusers, so candidates should take this process with the importance it deserves.... Yes, I disagree with NOBIGDEAL" – SandyGeorgia (here)

...and I might want to reference it to support my point of view in the current discussion. However, I'd like to check you still have this sentiment, and if so whether I'm citing it in the best way. Any feedback would be helpful, thanks - Pointillist (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Pointillist, I don't think you need to bother. I understand your position; I don't agree with it. It's okay. You're not required to agree with me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Sandy's on holiday (contribs). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

PR request[edit]

Hello. I noticed your name at the archeology project, and I was hoping that you might be interested and willing to take a look at Wikipedia:Peer review/Chetro Ketl/archive1. I've put lots of work into this article during the last three months, but I still feel it could use more feedback. Are you interested? RO(talk) 19:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Writing help needed[edit]

Hi Sandy. I have done a lot of work on the article Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge, and would like to see it have a shot at FAC, because its 20 year anniversary is coming up this year. Although it had recently been through the GOCE after a long wait, you expressed a few weeks ago that it was still not up to par. I asked for help from RHM22, who is busy outside of Wikipedia at the moment, and Dr. Blofeld, who often helps me on such articles, but is not right now. What other options does someone like me, a pretty good researcher and technical editor, but not a great writer, have to get this job done? Are there only a few editors who are good enough, and must be begged to help over and over again? What would you do in my situation? BollyJeff | talk 16:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

GA Review of Parent Management Training[edit]

Check the talk page of Parent Management Training

The article was failed and needs some work and/or defense.

It's an article that I know you worked hard on.Tadamsmar (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you![edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


  • I can kinda help sometimes. Let me know. • Lingzhi(talk) 09:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Best thing right now would be to take a look at one or both of the two oldest and see whether you think they meet FA criteria. They need outside eyes to judge....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey Casliber. I'm actually happier when I' m fixing things than when I am asking others to fix them• Lingzhi(talk) 09:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Those two are possibly close to being kept.....actually all five have had work so if any of those pique your interest, take a look and fix away....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp[edit]

When an article such as Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp is demoted from class=FA, should it be left as class=??? or should it have some other class instead? I will look for your answer right here.--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Usually ???, as it requires a new assessment, but if you want to reassess it yourself that's fine too. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Request for Clarification[edit]

Thank you for the invitation to engage in a dialog re: the editing of the Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation page. I am fairly new to editing Wikipedia and initially created my account for the purpose of editing the page. I am a subject matter expert as a result of working for a medical device company, but am not paid to promote any product or write Wikipedia content. I discovered the page to contain misleading information and wished to correct it. Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation is a technology category that is in the public domain (all CES tech that I’m aware of is out of patent), so there are no companies or private interests that control or exclusively benefit from Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation, and those companies that do make CES devices are very small, unlike the giant pharmaceutical companies that produce competing products. Indeed, one of the obstacles that CES companies have faced is the overwhelming influence of competitors that often use well-placed, influential surrogates to disseminate misinformation about CES.

Following is my assessment of content on the page that is grossly misleading:

There is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not CES with alternating current is safe and effective for treating depression.[6]

[6] Kavirajan HC, Lueck K, Chuang K. Alternating current cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) for depression. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jul 8;7:CD010521. Review. PMID 25000907

This extremely misleading statement is supported (in citation) by a published literature review, not a clinical trial, and the publisher of this review is a small undergraduate teaching college within the University of Bristol.

In a 2010 literature review, published in a much more respected journal, Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, the conclusion is reached: “To date, whether used alone or in conjunction with pharmaceutical agents, CES has been shown to be an effective and economical therapy for mild to moderate depression.”

J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv. 2010 Nov;48(11):37-42. doi: 10.3928/02793695-20100701-01. Epub 2010 Jul 22.Cranial electrotherapy stimulation for the treatment of depression. 

Gunther M1, Phillips KD.

More importantly, there are at least two well-controlled clinical trials that have been published in respected peer-reviewed journals that provide statistically significant evidence of CES safety and effectiveness in treating depression:

Krupitsky et al. The administration of transcranial electric treatment for affective disturbances therapy in alcoholic patients. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 27:1-6, 1991

J Affect Disord. 2014 Aug;164:171-7. A Clinical Trial of Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation for Anxiety and Comorbid Depression, doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2014.04.029. Epub 2014 Apr 21.

I attempted to add this evidence to the page, yet it was repeatedly deleted.

Critics of CES research may point to the fact that subject sizes for most studies are not large when compared with drug studies, but CES study subject sizes are typical of non-invasive medical device studies. Drug studies need to be much larger because drug therapy is a chemical intervention and causes much more serious side effects. Critics may also point to the fact that CES studies examine varying patient populations and that device brands used in the studies have slight variance in electrical output. Varying patient populations are more representative of the real world, and the variance in output of different device brands is too small to skew data. The three most important aspects of studies – quality of controls, statistical significance and rigorous peer review – are soundly met in the studies listed above. In short, the Effectiveness section of this page should not be allowed to mislead the reader into thinking that there is a complete lack of evidence when in fact there is sufficient evidence

Another sentence on the page which, left alone, is very misleading:

The exact mechanism of action of CES is unclear.[9]  

9. Rosa MA, Lisanby SH (2012). "Somatic treatments for mood disorders". Neuropsychopharmacology 37 (1): 102–16. doi:10.1038/npp.2011.225. PMC 3238088.PMID 21976043.

The author of the source (Dr. Lisanby) has a documented conflict of interest with CES. Dr. Lisanby recused herself from the 2012 FDA Panel on CES Reclassification as a result of having a conflict of interest – she has financial ties to Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, a competing technology. Interestingly, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation is listed in the See Also section of the Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation page, along with Trancranial Direct Current Stimulation, another competing technology. In short, Dr. Lisanby’s review is an inappropriate citation for a statement which misleads readers into thinking that the way CES works is a complete mystery. It is not a mystery.

The mechanism of action of most brain related interventions, whether drug or device, are never completely clear, because the brain is so complex and imaging is only beginning to tell the whole story. But the way CES works is by no means a complete mystery. There is very strong evidence, published in respected journals, that CES stimulates the production of serotonin and other neurochemicals responsible for reducing and eliminating depression, anxiety and insomnia:

Liss. S. and B. Liss. Physiological and therapeutic effects of high frequency electircal pulses. Integrative physilogical and behavioral science 31:88-94, 1996

Shealy et al. Cerebralspinal fluid and plasma neurochemicals: response to cranial electrical stimulation. J. Neurol. Orthop. Med. Surg. 18: 94-97, 1996

Shealy et al. Depression: a diagnostic, neruochemical, profile & threapy with cranial electrical stimulation. J. Neurol. Orthop. Med. Surg. 10: 319-321, 1989

2005Gilula MF, Kirsch DL. (2005). Cranial electrotherapy stimulation review: a safer alternative to psychopharmaceuticals in the treatment of depression.Journal of Neurotherapy, 9(2), 2005.doi:10.1300/J184v09n02_02

Kennerly, Richard. QEEG analysis of cranial electrotherapy: a pilot study. Journal of Neurotherapy (8)2, 2004.

My efforts to provide this research have been met with repeated deletion.

The page as it stands right now seems intentionally designed to make readers think that Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation is a risky, unproven technology. Not only is there sufficient evidence, but CES is prescribed by thousands of doctors, many at the top of the psychiatric field. The New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation recently approved the device for use in its 11 hospitals – including Bellevue, Jacobi and Metropolitan Hospitals. The page should reflect the scientific evidence and broad clinical support the technology has behind it.


ColumbiaLion212 (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)ColumbiaLion212

Tunisian Arabic[edit]

Dear User,

Tunisian Arabic is nominated for GA Status. Please review this work and adjust it if he involves several deficiencies.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 12:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


Hi SG. I don't know whether you saw the recent ping on my talkpage, but you may have an interest in this SPI. Feel free to comment there or not, as the mood take you. Yunshui  08:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Yunshui ... no, I did not see the ping, as I'm not editing now, but someone emailed me to look at this issue. You may note in this discussion that I pointed out recently that Dennis Brown would not-- indeed, did not-- recognize Mattisse even when she was posting right under his nose in the very same discussion, [4] so I wouldn't be holding up on SPI based on his scanty "evidence". I agree the duck is quacking, but I can't put my finger on it. On a quick glance, I don't see a single indication of Mattisse in that user; not that Mattisse might not have changed her tune, but I don't see any evidence there that will suffice for an SPI, and I don't see any edits that remind me of her. Please email me if you need more info, as I'm not editing now ... I will be happy to fill you in privately on more of her tells. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Sandy, appreciate the input. Yunshui  07:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

My latest FAC[edit]

This is my latest FAC. Pleas post comments if necessary. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Man Down (song)/archive1[edit]

Hi Sandy. After a really long break from WP, I involved myself in this FAC as a reviewer. I feel that it's not yet of FA standard. Laserbrain was the first to oppose. The nominator is now wondering what's taking it that long after having 5 supports and 2 opposes. Though I perfectly understand that FAC is not about votes. Can you possibly take a look? Many thanks and cheers. --Efe (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the out-of-nowhere dropping of message. You were at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Irreplaceable. And I thought I'd give you a message. Thanks again. --Efe (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)