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.

Translations and attribution[edit]

Hi Sandy,

Your comments at TS got me wondering about Virus, which has been translated into several languages. On the Spanish Wikipedia, attribution was given in an edit summary: "añadido apartado de "virus y vida" traducido de la wikipedia inglesa" and the Russian version has this Talk Page notice (in Russian of course):"This article incorporates text, translated from Virus Wikipedia articles section in English. The list of authors is on the page of the history of edits to the original source". Seems fair enough. Graham Beards (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Graham (and it is always so nice to hear from you!). This is reminding of the multiple issues I have with translation on Wikipedia ... it seems the Virus article was handled correctly, but I am hoping to hear from Moonriddengirl on how to stem these rippling issues. TS in Spanish is not correctly attributed, and I am of a mind to do something about these issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree that there is an issue. I think attribution in just an (hard to find) edit summary is not sufficient. This should be followed up, if you have the energy. Graham Beards (talk) 16:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I am working on it now, but as you know, I no longer have much interest in editing, and as soon as I'm done being irritated about this, I may give up (again). Maybe not ... as of now, I am quite inclined to pursue this off-Wiki if needed. I expect to see significant change from the medical group doing this, @Doc James:, depending on what Moonriddengirl says. Remember, I worked quite hard on our plagiarism dispatch, verbatim translations are a problem, and we have on top of that an ongoing problem with the integrity of our medical content. So we now have work I have authored involved in two of my three biggest Wiki pet peeves (copyright, dangerous medical content, and student editing). Thanks for the support, Graham. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Have been working on a copy and paste detection tool since 2012 which has now come to fruition here. Does not deal with translation copyright.
If you are creating a new article attribution must occur in the first edit summary. This is the same as the requirement when you split an article into two on a single language of WP.
We have started provide the url from the specific version in the initially edit summary. Are you proposing something further? Enforcing this low bar is hard enough... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Attribution is required in edit summary when articles are copied. I suggest we should also have a template on talk indicating the link copied from and the link translated to (Diffs).
  • I am also suggesting, first, better education (on all language Wikis, with more involvement from Those Higher Ups) about attribution and copyvio. Verbatim translation is copyvio. TS is largely my work; I'm willing to do something about it if Wiki Foundation or whatever isn't and ignores the concern. I have now documented on talk multiple problems.
  • I am suggesting second that whatever is the medical group involved in doing this, and wherever and however they are organized, they also need to be better educated about attribution, copyvio, and the dangers and disservice to our readers of translating articles in topic areas they are not familiar with and without consulting the original sources. (Generally, you may recall I have never been in favor of this effort for the very reasons I am discovering with TS).
  • Third, Doc, please stop doing this. Editors labor diligently for years over every word on topics they know well. Changing them to satisfy translators is quite off-putting, and has now cost us at least two editors I know of, three if I decide to sign off on TS. I went along with your changes because I thought you genuinely found those words above our readership level; realizing that you did this for translators has been a hard pill to swallow, and I've lost the energy to care about the now-awkward lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes I think a template on the talk pages would be good. I built one for this purpose a while ago but never really pushed its us.
"Verbatim translation is copyvio." only if it is not attributed and released under the same license
I nor the medical translation project has been involved with any translation of TS
I am not sure what is wrong with writing the leads of articles for those who may speak English as a second language. But seriously if you wish to revert the lead of TS back to what it was before not a big deal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Sandy, Look at James contribs. After editing Chalazion for an hour, James spent 17 minutes hacking about the lead of Tourette syndrome before moving on to reordering Antisocial personality disorder per MEDMOS (I weep). "simplfying" Waardenburg syndrome meant replacing "pigmentation anomalies" with "pigmentation changes" which is a serious change in meaning and a good example of dumbing down losing vital information. Then onto Trichotillomania for 15 minutes. Apparently "infants" is too complex a word in an article called Trichotillomania. I can barely pronounce Trichotillomania but learned the word "infants" as an infant and, oh, wait, the article used to have a pronunciation guide but that got removed. I don't frankly want to look any further. Arrogant trashing of carefully written text as James's whirlwind flits from one subject to another blessing each page. This is exactly why I left Wikipedia article writing. Best of luck Sandy. -- Colin°Talk 18:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Hey User:Colin I am well aware that you hate all that I do. You made this clear a few years ago.
While working on Chalazion I got the University of Iowa to release this image under an open license.[1] And they are happy to release further images upon request under a CC BY SA license.
I also made the lead a summary of the topic in question and added references to recent review articles[2]
I understand that you see all this as negative and I guess that is your right. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
With respect to trichotillomania I also added a summary of the DSM5 and a 2011 review [3].
The reason I did not continue with adding further details from the DSM5 to TS was I wanted to give Sandy a chance to comment on the initial changes. It has been made clear that my efforts are not wanted which is not a big deal. I am happy to move on to other stuff. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
James, you are dodging the point and personal attacks on Colin are not helping. You degraded the prose of a Featured Article without prior discussion and in contravention of policy (and this is not the first time). You know your writing skills need development. You should have copied the text into your sandbox to prepare a translator's copy. Causing hours of work for other editors does not make you popular. Almost every time I see one of your edits appear on my watchlist I know that I will need to correct the grammar, spelling or both. I have done this without comment or complaint. You should make more use of Talk Pages, I don't like your cavalier attitude. Graham Beards (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
While I do appreciate your correcting of my spelling and grammar. I do not consider my replies personal attacks against Colin. But I have crossed out what I presume you are referring to as agree it adds little.
But seriously Sandy did revert back to the prior version and we than discussed it on that talk page. Not sure how to get a "cavalier attitude" out of that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
James, I don't think you have the slightest concept of the difference between editing an article for a year, immersing yourself in the subject and sources, recruiting copy editors and friends to polish it, enduring the FA process, and.... your "cavalier" (as Graham puts it) edits for 15 minutes sandwiched between one subject and the next. Edits that cause serious editors to waste far more than 15 minutes fixing up your mistakes, arguing with you about what you got wrong, and so on. If this is what you are spending your time on WP doing, then I'd say you're a net negative and have been for some years. It's mindbogglingly arrogant to to think you, in a handful of minutes, are superior to all the superb editors who created this FA. I glanced again tonight at Epilepsy. It makes me so sad. Nearly every sentence is utterly awful and the only thing a reader will learn is that the writer didn't have a clue. But we had an expert come to fix it and you chased him away. I would most certainly not recommend anyone to read that article. I looked at a few other articles you've edited recently. It's like listening to someone short of breath. They can. Only say. A few words. At a time. Oh, I'm glad I shifted to pictures. At least nobody can trash your photograph. Sandy, be glad James has offered to move on to other stuff. -- Colin°Talk 20:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes I really have nothing to say to that. Colin you do take amazing pictures and I still frequently compliment you on your article on a ketogenic diet in talks I give. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

arbitrary break[edit]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Since trichotillomania has been pointed out, Doc, your edits there typify my concern over choppy prose. It doesn't matter much at trich, which has long been a crap article anyway, but prose deterioration does matter in FAs. Look at this in the trich lead of the version you edited, just as an example -- it is not prose; it is a list of factoids run together.

  1. The disorder may run in families.
  2. It occurs more commonly in those with obsessive compulsive disorder.
  3. Episodes of pulling may be triggered by anxiety.
  4. People usually acknowledge that they pull their hair.
  5. On examination broken hairs may be seen.
  6. Other conditions that may present similarly include body dysmorphic disorder, however in that condition people remove hair to try to improve what they see as a problem in how they look.
  7. Treatment is typically with cognitive behavioral therapy.

It is fine to introduce prose of that quality, without a narrative or flow, into a B- or C-class article, but if you will announce your aims before digging into an FA or GA, we will all get the job done faster, with more accuracy, and with less agida. TS has lost its narrative, and is now choppy. It is unlikely that I will now be inclined to repair it, since I'm now more concerned over attribution issues. What motivation has one to produce top content on Wikipedia when it can be damaged in so many different ways in the culture that is this place ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I should add that you did make an overall improvement at trich ... in particular by removing a lot of spam that had crept in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I write simple choppy prose in the lead on purpose. I understand that simple prose sounds choppy to many native reader but am going for greater understanding by a larger number of people. Agree it is at odds with what many on FAs are attempting. My apologies for not bringing the changes to the talk page first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the apology, Doc; appreciated. I am on now to a greater concern, highlighted by our discussion. Waiting to hear from Moonriddengirl on how to approach attribution or copyright concerns, and plan to pursue that as far as needed. It is not, and never has been, a good idea for people to be translating articles without a) knowledge of the topic, and b) consulting the sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
With respect to copyright, why do we not just create a template and put it on the talk page of all the articles that have been translated verbatim? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
That would solve some of the problems, but I am against verbatim translations anyway, and think it should be quite simply discouraged, period. For many many reasons. It is often done by google translate. Editors doing it may introduce errors unknowingly. We have now several FAs on Tourette's in other language wikis that are unlikely to be watched by anyone knowledgeable about the condition. I have always been of the opinion that no information is better than wrong information, so, no, I don't see the value in creating articles in the obscure languages you mention on TS talk. I have no way of knowing how wrong they are, nor do the translators, I suspect.

This is the culture of Wikipedia: more is better, even if pure crap. So with student editing, translators, DYK ... we further garbage, while, if we had no content, internet readers would be consulting sources of repute rather than the junk we churn out. As to Jytdog's statements on TS talk (an editor I enjoy working with who can turn an article's content around faster than a speeding bullet), I submit that there is quite a spread between editors who dedicate themselves to top quality in one topic vs. those who try to hold that finger in this dike of damage. Less than 1% of Wikipedia is featured, and some of that is garbage, too, but almost everything else in the 99% is suspect. And the culture here is to just keep on adding to it ... with (my other pet peeve) no warning to readers that they are reading content written at times by the infamous basement dwellers. This is dangerous to people's health. But that is another topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

We have Template:Copied and Template:Translated page already on EN WP as templates. Our license gives us the right to be attributed and to have the derivations licensed under the same license. It unfortunately does not give us the right to be well translated.
There was previously zero content online on most medical topics in the language Oriya before Subas Chandra Rout a retired physician translated 500 articles into that language. Oriya is spoken by about 40 million people.
That having referenced modern medical content in that language I see as a step forwards. There is NO sources of repute in many languages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Then, if he's that good and that needed, I'd rather see him creating original content in that language than translating content that is most often, statistically on Wikipedia, garbage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
He would still be translating from En sources. While I agree what I write is choppy and does not flow I disagree that it is garbage. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
You misunderstood; it was not my intent to say your content is garbage. I meant, when he is translating from, unless he is consulting the sources, it is likely that he is translating garbage or introducing subtle inaccuracies. It would be preferable if he consulted sources and wrote original content, translating directly from those sources. That is, he would have to immerse himself in the topic and sources before attempting to write content on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
He is currently / mostly just translating the leads of articles after they have been reviewed / rewritten by me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
ah, I see ... did not mean to call your work garbage, did not know this. It does lower the bewilderment of why you suddenly descended on TS ! Does he know how to attribute his translations correctly? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Not sure but will ask. I see "(ହାଇପରକାଲେମିଆ ଏକ ନୂଆ ବିଷୟ ଆରମ୍ଭ କରାଗଲା)" but their is no machine translation service in Oriya by Google or anyone else. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
So ... you have no way of verifying the quality of his content or any idea if he is translating your words correctly? And he is operating in a culture/language where other doctors may be quite literally using Wikipedia for medical advice? And yet we should have no medical disclaimer ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
No I have no idea. Each language community must verify itself. And each language community decides how prominent of a disclaimer they put up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl appears to be barely active; this is what I have found:

  1. Wikipedia:Translation#License_requirements
  2. Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Translating from other language Wikimedia projects
  3. Template:Translated page
  4. Template:Copied

which is pretty useless, because I would need to find the templates on the other-language Wiki. Would it be more expedient to send a DMCA takedown notice to the Wiki Foundation for every other language TS article, and let them sort their mess? Does a takedown notice by a Wikipedian breach No Legal Threats? IF so, how am I to locate all of these templates in all of these languages? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

arbitrary break 2[edit]

James, one thing I have on Commons is far more friends who have English as a second or third language. You insult them with your comment "I understand that simple prose sounds choppy to many native reader but I am going for a greater understanding by a larger number of people". Your intentions are well meaning, if arrogant, I don't doubt that, but you really need to appreciate your limitations better. Have you actually got any training in writing for non-native readers? Have you got consensus that en:wp should be primarily aimed at non-native readers? I thought that was what Simple English was for. Like the Good News Bible is aimed at non-native and young readers and uses a deliberately limited vocabulary. Crap prose is crap no matter what your first language is. The idea that we should make en:wp painful to read so that non-native readers find it easier is astonishing. You admit to actually making our text worse for native readers. To deliberately making FA/GA articles not flow? I suggest you have no competence in making prose readable and simple. "Epileptic seizures are episodes that can vary from..." is not a definition of seizures any more than writing "Bananas are objects that are variable in colour, firmness and size" in the lead paragraph. When you think you are "simplifying" you are actually removing so much information that what you write becomes empty meaningless and worthless. "Epilepsy that occurs as a result of other issues can be prevented" is meaningless and simply untrue on several levels. "Epilepsy becomes more common as people age" -- it hasn't become more common as I've aged!! It may be more common in older people, but that's quite a different thing. Please, do your dumbing down somewhere other than en:wp. -- Colin°Talk 22:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
The more you write unreasonable generalizations like this, the more you discredit yourself. At least in my eyes. Jytdog (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
On this point, I note that reading technical content in the languages I know/speak is much easier than reading the same in colloquial language. At least among the romance languages, the more technical the writing, the more likely the words are to be similar and recognizable. Just look at the word "premonitory" in each translation I checked-- almost invariably the same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
To answer this "Have you actually got any training in writing for non-native readers?" Yes I have.
I did not say "admit to actually making our text worse for native readers" IMO simplification makes it easier to understand for a wider audience / general audience.
Colin your efforts to try to convince me to leave Wikipedia are not appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Re-reading TS talk, it occurs to me we might all admit we're arrogant, and move on to other points. (OK, Graham is an exception, always has been :)

Anyway ... Doc. I can sympathize with how Colin feels about the epilepsy expert who left after encountering this, considering we still have crap content on epilepsy. As we (and Anthonyhcole) disagreed on the medical disclaimer topic, our content affects people's health, and we have an obligation greater than or equal to that of BLPs to get it right. That didn't happen at epilepsy, and I can understand how that trend troubles Colin. I'd guess he just wants this pattern not to be repeated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Am happy to see people point out errors in the epilepsy article. IMO things can be described by what they look like.
Colin wishes I leave en.wp and of course he is welcome to his opinion. If he wishes to force me off he should really take this to ANI or Arbcom though.
How would you paraphrase "However, preventive measures can be applied to the known causes of secondary epilepsy."[4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm really sorry to read the personal attacks by James and User:Jytdog. Neither of you it seems have actually read what I wrote (and in the case of Jytdog, actually read what James wrote on TS). Both just want to write generalisations like Colin hates me or Colin wants me to leave Wikipedia or make venomous (Jytdog's own word for his feelings) comments about people who put the soul into an article. I don't want James to leave Wikipedia. I want him to change his approach to editing articles and working with others and understand his big limitations. He can't write. He knows as much about Epilepsy as my dentist. He assumed he and he alone was God enough to improve the lead of TS in 15 minutes without having read the article first (it takes much longer to read properly) without having consulted the sources, without having thought hard about how the lead should summarise TS. He's wrongly assumed en:wp is aimed at non-native speakers (please cite policy and community consensus for that) yet is going around trashing articles on that assumption and with the misguided notion that. Writing tiny. Sentences. Is how. You. Speak. To the. Foreigners. James, if you had training on this, as you claim, please ask for your money back. I'd like to see you try your writing approach on our literary articles!
James, you write "things can be described by what they look like". That is not how we define a seizure and you'd know this if you consulted any textbook. Does an absence seizure have a visible manifestation? Is electricity the "sparky thing" or is there a better definition that is used by professionals? I'm reminded of Baldrick trying to quickly rewrite Johnson's dictionary and coming up with "Dog: not a cat". We don't attempt our own definitions. Professional bodies agonise in committees about how to define things. But James, A&E doctor, Wikipedia God, thinks he's got his own definition: episodes, like the TV shows.
As for "However, preventive measures can be applied to the known causes of secondary epilepsy.", I wouldn't paraphrase it. I wouldn't base my understanding of epilepsy on a WHO factsheet. You can't write serious major-disease articles based on a lay factsheet. The phrase you wrote "Epilepsy that occurs as a result of other issues" is not a description of secondary epilepsy. It is quite meaningless to the reader -- I can guess what you meant to write but that's because I know the subject and know your problems with writing. You have the barest smear of a concept of what you think it is about but that isn't enough to give you the ability to put it into your own words. You are trying to say "not idiopathic" but the reader isn't ready for that concept here. The words "other issues" doesn't make sense as what is it "other" to? And is "issues" a suitable word for medical conditions, trauma, infection, etc? It's a vague term that doesn't help the reader. Who knows, perhaps your making a political point and arguing Epilepsy can be prevented with government spending and the issues are lack of education or something. Who knows. It's been simplified to such an extent. The WHO sheet lists the very few forms of secondary epilepsy that can be reduced in prevalence: you can't actually prevent all head injury, eliminate birth injury, wipe out parasitic disease. So the concept of "prevention" only make sense at a public health level rather than an individual level. And there are many many forms of secondary epilepsy that aren't in that short list on the fact sheet. Like the countless genetic and congenital disorders that predispose to epilepsy. And we can't, at this point in our medical ability, prevent people getting strokes. Sure there are some drugs that reduce your risk. But shit happens and people get epilepsy. So epilepsy secondary to Tuberous Sclerosis, say, is no more preventable than juvenile absence epilepsy. Thus the idea that secondary epilepsy is, in general, preventable, doesn't in fact hold: it really depends on what it is secondary to. The whole idiopathic/secondary concept is probably too advanced for the lead, and in some ways merely reflects our lack of understanding about what causes some epilepsies.
Writing the lead for epilepsy requires working from the body and from the textbooks on the subject, and working out what are the key facts to get across. It requires knowing which definitions and terms are vital jargon and which could be substituted with other terms. And the ability write them in an engaging form with text that flows and guides the reader and... .makes them want to read the rest of the article. But your approach to writing is just to collect a series of factoids, to use journal papers and factsheets as sources rather than read textbooks, and to write such awful meaningless confusing sentences that no reader would continue. I am pleading with you to stop this style of editing. Slow down. Use your existing medical knowledge and spend time learning one subject for a month and write about that. Stop this flitting from one subject to another. And realise that your limitations with prose, with expressing yourself clearly, mean that what you write is generally weak and needs some polish -- so slow down and work with someone who can write to ensure that what you do write is a net positive. -- Colin°Talk 08:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Actually, thinking about your "How would you paraphrase "However, preventive measures can be applied to the known causes of secondary epilepsy."[5]" question some more, it highlights more than just the weak lay tertiary sources you are using. Your approach is that you've got some factoid in your source that you want to repeat in the article, and you need to paraphrase it for Wikipedia. It's not much better than the awful student assignments we fought against. Whereas my approach, and I'm sure also Sandy and Eubulides and Graham, and other fine writers of Featured Articles, is to read a variety of the best sources you can, online journals and books, fully understand the subject to the best of your ability, and then, based on ones own knowledge and understanding, figure out the best way to transfer, in writing, that knowledge of the subject to the reader. And then tagging some source references onto each paragraph becomes more an exercise in verifiability than in indicating where each of your short sentence factoids was lifted from. That, and the fact I would never consider spending my evenings dumbing down text in dozens of random medical articles, which is just a shocking act of intellectual vandalism. -- Colin°Talk 17:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Medical disclaimer[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/RFC on medical disclaimer

I would be supportive of a more prominent disclaimer at the bottom of medical, medication, and alt med articles. Not sure if that would be a sufficient compromise / sufficiently address your concerns. It could be placed by bot. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hallelujah! (OF course, though, I want it at the top :) Although that RFC was obliterated and destroyed by the disruptive editing of Werespielchequers, your support might have made a difference. Perhaps we can muster folks to try again, and re-construct the RFC in a tighter way, so WereSpiel can't again edit it into something unintelligible. Anthonyhcole, Tryptofish, Alanyst, Scott, NeilN, Alexbrn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, I'd certainly be happy to participate in another attempt at it.  — Scott talk 23:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
If we propose to have it go at the bottom I believe we could get support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Grumble, grumble, OK, but ... reread the RFC. IF we take HJ Mitchell's advice, the next RFC would ask one question only-- should medical content have some kind of disclaimer-- leaving form and content for a separate RFC. Sounds like a good suggestion to me. I will wait for others to weigh in from the old discussion, but it doesn't seem I should be the one to write the RFC. I suggest Trypotfish or Anthonyhcole draft it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Happy to sign up to the tattered old flag again.... Johnbod (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I've been involved in so many RfCs lately, many of them rather bloody, that I really cannot stomach crafting another one, sorry (but thanks for thinking of me!). If anyone would like me to help draft the disclaimer itself, I'll be happy to do that – just ping me. But I will enthusiastically support the proposal for the disclaimer. (I notice that editors commonly mistype my username as Trypotfish. Actually, I tried it in college, a long time ago, and I do support its legalization.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
This is totally off-topic, but early in my editing I attracted a troll who insisted on calling me Typofish. So I guess it stands to reason that typos are easy with my username. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

() Medical disclaimers should go at the TOP of the page, in any sane version of reality which incorporates a sense of moral obligation. I will support.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, Lingy-One (miss you :) Read HJ Mitchell's closing comments. Focus on one thing only, or the next RFC will fall into chaos as the last one did. First things first: should medical content have some kind of disclaimer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I have a very microscopic ability to restrain my opinions when I get committed to a position. Hence my lack of admin-ness (and in retrospect I say, "THANK GOD ALMIGHTY").  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Coulda told 'ya to give thanks on that one :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
As stated I do not support one at the top but would support one at the bottom as a compromise. Something similar to what they do on no-wp [6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello everybody. I like HJ Mitchell's one question at a time approach, too. Can I suggest we first ask whether there should be a "concise and prominent" disclaimer on all such articles. I won't waste my time on a disclaimer that is not noticed or read by most readers. A disclaimer buried at the bottom of the page among all the other small print virtually no one reads (or behind a link or in the left-hand column which no one reads) would be literally a waste of space and nothing more than legalistic ass-protecting or reputation managing - not protecting our readership, which is what interests me. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to spearhead the effort this time 'round, so after sufficient folks are involved and have opined, someone else will need to organize the effort, pulling together whatever useful info can be gleaned from the old RFC. My only strong concern is that it be organized and monitored in such a way that we don't have the kind of disruption brought on by Werespielchequer editing, and that every Tom, Dick and Harry can't add on something extra to dilute the whole thing and throw it into chaos. It needs one, tight, finding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Anthonyhcole what do you think about what no-wp does? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
It's not prominent. It's tucked away at the bottom, among all the other stuff no one reads. And I hope we'll be able to use fewer words. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes agree on the few words part. Would also be good to contain and invite to help fix issues. I guess the question is will we be able to reach a compromise. People come to us for content not warnings. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, we may find that the most concise warning to our readers involves telling them they can change the wording. I guess we'd discuss that in the following RFC. I want you to agree to "prominent" before I pursue this, though. If you're not on board with that, we'll end up with the same result as last time. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I guess the question is do you consider the one on wp-no prominent? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
No, I don't. It's tucked away at the bottom of the article, below the footnotes, among all the other small print virtually no one reads. A prominent disclaimer would be at the top of the article. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Well that was the proposal that did not pass before. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
With your support, and with the results of that Parkinsons disease expert review on the table, it has a much better chance of passing. What possible use is a warning that virtually no one reads? (That's a real, not rhetorical, question.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

My BMJ experience[edit]

Remember I was trying to get BMJ to review our medical articles? Do you want to hear how that went? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, please! My waning interest in all things Wikipedia is temporarily waxing, so get me while I care to pay attention-- that will probably go away any moment now :) But I am off for the day now, Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, mine's been waning significantly lately, but seeing you on my watchlist again has perked me up a bit. :) Let me collect my thoughts. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been sleeping. BMJ chose a stellar 5 reviewers: two top authors and 3 accomplished, mid-career researchers in Parkinsons disease. They did a meticulous review of Parkinsons disease (here) and found some serious problems in this Featured article. I fell ill and put the review on hold, and haven't been back to it yet. It's been so long now, I hope BMJ and their reviewers will be willing to pick it up again and sign off on it when I ask them next week.
In that review, the left column shows the reviewers' proposed changes, and their rationale/discussion is in the right hand column. This is one of our few medical featured articles, nominally the best of the best, and yet it is riddled with inaccuracies. This is why we need a prominent disclaimer on all our medical content. And why we need 20 more reviews like this - by genuine topic experts - to tell us how we're really doing, quality-wise.
I've learned a lot from this experience. When it's over, I'll write up a summary. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I am quite pleased that they chose this particular Featured article. For the same problems, they might also review Alzheimer's, Huntington's, and Multiple sclerosis. Garrondo was a diligent and committed editor, but English was not his first language, and he has not edited since 2013. It is unlikely that any of his content should still be featured, and I've pointed this out before. Without constant maintenance and updating, FAs quickly fall into disrepair. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
PS, I did not promote Parkinson's or Huntington's. I failed the first FAC of Alzheimer's, but promoted the second FAC a few months later; the other nominator (OrangeMarlin) also left Wikipedia (in a blaze of glory :). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I just got an email from one of the reviewers asking for an update. I apologised for the delay and responded:

With regard to this review, if you all think you could endorse an article that incorporates your current proposed changes (left column here: ), then I'd like to take your review to the Wikipedia editors, so they can fix the article. Once they've made the changes, I'll then get back to you for a final word on their fixes.

Would you all mind scanning that page I just linked to and telling me if you think it's ready? If you have any doubts at all about the article or the proposed changes, please speak up in the right hand column of that page (preferably) or here (email).

So, that'll be finished soon, hopefully. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Anthony, I'd like to help, but I am completely swamped in real life through the weekend ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
No worries. At the rate these folk work, it'll be weeks before I dump this on Talk:Parkinson's disease, and then it should be pretty straightforward - just incorporating their proposed changes. I'll probably do it myself if no one at WT:MED feels like it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

BMJ review and problems at WPMED and in FA process[edit]

There is a very serious problem in the Featured Article process since Raul and I left, which is that only half of the equation is semi-working. (Note the irony that I left based on a promise to Colin to return to medical editing.) FAC is promoting unworthy articles up the line, based on very scanty review (FAs are typically promoted now on three supports: in contrast, Tourette's received an unsurpassed 20+ supports in 24 hours after a year of collaboration and review involving everyone and the kitchen sink). We no longer see that kind of serious review and collaboratoin at FAC or at WPMED (FAs are now mostly promoted by quid pro quo reviews ... if you've already got several FAs, and a group of supportive friends, your FACs are likely to pass). Meanwhile, the other side of the equation (demotion of unworthy FAs), FAR, has gone moribund in the extreme. Scan down the columns at WP:FAS for a glance at how bad this problem is-- caused by a very small group of FA detractors who through self-interest, removed Raul as the FA director, so that the overall process is no longer working. We are now in the territory of "once an FA, always an FA", even as poorly written and researched articles fall into serious disrepair due to missing authors and watchers.

You could either submit Parkinson's to WP:FAR, or attempt to coerce the MED project into fixing it. I've tried. WPMED no longer has the interest or competence to promote or maintain FA-quality articles. Even if you bring this problem to the attention of WPMED, it is unlikely these articles can be restored to FA standard. I pointed this out about a year ago wrt Alzheimer's. Reading Alzheimer's last year caused my last (waxing) surge in improving Wikipedia content-- that didn't last for reasons related to the same cast of characters involved in removing Raul as FA director.

At this point, I'll provide some history of the Med project and the FA process, which Jytdog might be well served to review. Long long ago in another galaxy far away, we had a process of Med collaboration of the month, which worked to turn out top quality articles. We listed those articles at the WPMED page. There was an emphasis on quality, we attracted top-notch editors, and we collaborated to advance MEDRS, which became our saving grace. Most of the editors concerned about top quality in our content have moved on, and most of WTMED is now consumed with other issues. Like quantity over quality.

On another history item, when I first started editing in 2006, there was Not One Single well written neuropsychiatric article on Wikipedia. Autism and Asperger's were featured, and they were DREADFUL in the extreme (still are, since Eubulides left and they have not been updated-- they should be defeatured, too. Wikipedia:Featured article review/Autism, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome/archive1). There was no high quality content in the psychology realm (and there pretty much still is not: see this dismal list compared to Health and medicine). One of my goals in writing Tourette syndrome-- which involved years of work with Colin on MEDRS to make sure our medical guidelines worked for neuropsych conditions as well as they did for diseases-- was to provide a model for how our medical guidelines could be applied to DSM conditions. TS paved the way for improvement in other neuropsych articles, but we lost that momentum when we lost Eubulides, and when the focus of WPMED changed to quantity over quality.

So, do you think this degeneration of WPMED might irritate editors like Colin and me today ... ??? No matter what anyone else states, we would not have the strong MEDRS page we have today if not for Colin. This is what MEDRS looked like in 2006 when Colin first moved this content from the MED page to MEDRS and started work. @Casliber: @Graham Beards: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like a wonderful experience you all had, working together to create FAs.
In my work I have not cared much about the FA/GA process. What I see in that process is mostly people badge-collecting and creating drama over personal style preferences and infoboxes. It is stuff other people do, where I mostly see ugly behavior.
In the current dramah at the Tourette's article, not one new source was brought to the table; and if you look at the most-cited refs, they are near-to-very outdated. I look at what is not being discussed and what is being discussed, and think "yep, this is what FA is about". I reckon FA/GAs could serve a good purpose and but I rarely see it.
I remain grateful for the work that created and elevated MEDRS, including the battles against advocates that drove that work. Very much.
i agree very much that there is a lot of very bad quality content in WP (unsourced, badly sourced, failing NPOV in one way or another). I spend a lot of my effort trying to address that. Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Not one new source brought to the table, not so, Doc in fact is working from and relying on some less-than-best sources. Yes, agree that it is sad we are spending time discussing whether the lead should be dumbed down so translators will have an easier time: but that forced me to rework epidemiology, which was a wreck, so I'm harboring no grudge for the time spent. Drama? If there was some, you played a role. Why no newer reviews? Long topic. I am pretty busy IRL for the next few days, but will get back to you on that. Started some in my sandbox. (One area that needs to be better reworked in the article is Habit Reversal and CBIT.)

Jyt, you do a MOST valuable job of fighting fringe quackery on Wikipedia. One thing that having the bronze star can do is to put the quacks out of business. In the case of the Tourette's article, it put them out of business not only on Wikipedia, but pretty much off Wikipedia as well. It was a jungle out there before we had an FA quality article here, and the alt-fringe-nutcases had a field day. Same for autism, same for Asperger's ... oh my, who remembers that walled garden of sheer quackery on autism that Eubulides and I took on ... Since that is more in line with your interests (at least I think so), I hope you can be enticed to view FAs differently. More tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: the main purpose (the value of which outstrips all other aspects by an order of magnitude) of FAC is to provide some form of stable revision. Much of the problem in many conditions is the lack of consensus on them. Aspergers has even been dumped from DSM5, so not longer exists officially. I was not aware of the Parkinson's review above. Will take a look. The worry for me was that there would always be some sort of founder effect as the original workhorses moved away. I'd disagree with some of Sandy's comments above but agree we need to look at our medical articles. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes I agree that many of our articles have serious and substantial problems. If folks want to spend their time fine-tuning language that is great (really great) but it needs to be kept in perspective; i react strongly and negatively to high drama around that as some kind of absolute value. One value among many, sure. Am not going to say more here unless asked. Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
While I agree ADAM is a poor source, NINDS is a decent one.[7] No source of course is perfect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email)

Jytdog, you questioned the dates of most used citations in TS. See my summary of my latest tour through PubMed in my sandbox. I semi-annually (or more often at times) check PubMed for every recent review, and am usually dismayed to find that most of the literature for about the last five to eight years has been focused on a) the not very useful or practical but very profitable and sexy Deep brain stimulation, or b) the PANDAS controversy. The conclusions about the application of DBS in TS have not changed, it is potentially useful for an EXTREMELY small minority of people, and we say all we need to say about it in the article, but DBS dominates the research literature. $$$$$ Ditto for PANDAS.

I can typically scroll through five pages of reviews and find one or two overviews of the condition, read them, find them not better than the ones I've used. So the only reason for switching would be if I could find a top-notch review that is freely available (as a service to our readers), which they aren't. A freely available review that is as good as the ones I use has not surfaced, to my knowledge.

The Tourette Syndrome Association years ago stated a goal of making TS "irrelevant" (that is, get people to understand what it really looked like compared to the senationalized perception). They seem to have accomplished that, which makes it not a very attractive field for researchers. There's not a lot new to say about TS, and there's more money in other fields of research.

In my sandbox, there are a couple of things I need to track down. I do not have journal access ... there are two articles there I need to get hold of, but I really would like to have is a freely available review that is as excellent as those that I use-- from the heyday of TS research.

I also had this To Do list on my user page before I lost interest in Wikipedia last time ...

IF you have a particular review that is not freely available that you want me to look at, I'd love to have a copy. But I suspect that, as I often find, I can go through the exercise of updating the citations only so the dates will be more recent ... which is boring work. Busy all day tomorrow, Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Other problems at WPMED[edit]

Copied from Talk:Tourette syndrome
Or, as this policy was often alternately stated in FAC reviews (or at least was in the past), do not require readers to click on a wikilink to understand the lead ... if a term is used in the lead that is not commonly understood, use the link, but define it in parens. But the idea that we should aim at 7th grade is new since my tenure at FAC: we aimed for upper level high school If I Recall Correctly. Too many years ago to find those old conversations about reading level, though ... More tomorrow, busy day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Just checked WP:MEDMOS, and do not find that our recommendations have changed since I was last hyper-active here on Wiki, but that was a quick scan, and I may have missed something. The NIH has a very different audience than an online encyclopedia does. If someone proposes or has proposed a 7th grade reading level at MEDMOS, I would oppose. NIH has handouts that are given to a very different demographic than readers of an online encyclopedia. Has there been a change that I missed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
We have "The leads of articles, if not the entire article, should be written as simply as possible without introducing errors." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I see the problem. To be continued. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Doc, please hear what I am saying to you as a friend, because it is the same thing Colin is saying from a position of deeper concern and involvement (if for no other reason than I have been rather inactive of late). Jytdog, thank you for the post that called this to my attention: as you all know, I haven't been very active for a year.

The primary reason we have a significant MEDRS guideline today, which benefits editors who were not here during the years of struggle to get that guideline in place and in spite of significant opposition, is that Colin worked very hard to make sure that our guideline did not go beyond the wider project guideline of WP:RS.

@ Doc. In your unilateral MEDMOS edits over the last year to the writing style section,[8] [9] with no talk discussion (yet another indication of the changing character of WPMED) at MEDMOS that I can find, you have taken MEDMOS beyond and in contrast to what is stated in the project-wide pages of:

  1. WP:LEAD and
  2. Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable.

There is nothing in LEAD that discusses the order of content items in the lead, and yet you have been imposing your preference on medicine articles. In many cases (eg Tourette's), these changes rendered the lead out of compliance with FA requirements for the lead (now fixed).

Your wording at MEDMOS to write "as simply as possible" is not in line with the very guideline you link to, WP:TECHNICAL, which calls for "understandable" (not simple) language, adding the importance not to WP:OVERSIMPLIFY. We can't oversimplify leads to the point of inaccuracy, and that issue at Tourette's is where this all started.

Those edits to MEDMOS, as for as I can tell, are untilaterally yours and they do not reflect project-wide guidelines-- they are your personal preferences.

The concern that I have is that when WPMED goes beyond project-wide guidelines, our hard fought gains could be lost. We already see frequent complaints from the quacky fringe at ANI about MEDRS.

Since you unilaterally altered MEDMOS, I would request that you adjust those edits to be in line with project-wide guidelines. We don't have a prescribed order for items in the LEAD, and this is not Simple English Wikipedia. Please give LEAD and TECHNICAL a careful read, and adjust the changes you made to MEDMOS.

Jyt, this is an example of where a FAC experience could provide benefit via exposure to wider guidelines on Wikipedia (I say that because I noted a discussion on your talk page which indicates a glaring deficit of your basic understanding of WP:V and WP:RS relative to WP:PARITY. You may pretty much never use a source that is not a reliable source on Wikipedia. But you did. And that edit is still there. And that a medical editor who so effectively combats quackery would use a source that does not meet project policies (WP:V) and guideline (WP:RS) is a concern.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion was here in June 2015[10] and there was unanimous support for the added wording by the 5 editors involved. Your claim that their was "no talk discussion" is simply false.
With respect to the statement "imposing your preference on medicine articles", I am rewriting and referencing the leads of medical articles to make them a proper summary of the topic in question.[11][12] You make this sound like a bad thing.
With respect to the ordering of content in the lead, I have repeatedly said that you are more than welcome to reorder Tourette syndrome in whatever way you see fit. It is also reasonable to have the lead introduce content in a different order than the body of the text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Actually there were 5 in the discussion: 1 against & 4 in favour (including me). Johnbod (talk) 02:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
The guidance at Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_understandable#Write_one_level_down is not entirely consistent with Einstein's dictum on simplicity, but not far off either: it should have "elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience". LeadSongDog come howl! 20:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I supported James's addition of the following to WP:MEDMOS: "The leads of articles, if not the entire article, should be written as simply as possible without introducing errors." The quest for simplicity often leads authors - particularly in biomed - to ambiguity, which may cause the reader to misinterpret the text, so I've added "ambiguity" in this edit. It now reads

"The lead of an article, if not the entire article, should be written as simply as possible without introducing errors or ambiguity."

Perhaps we could consider using "clear" instead of "simple". --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
We should definitely be writing for a general audience, especially the lead. We could say "simply and clearly" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

{──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Sorry for the belated response. Are any of you understanding that an individual Wikiproject guideline cannot go beyond Wikipedia's general guidelines? And that the reason we got MEDRS accepted was that editors (like Colin) made sure we didn't overreach? And that if you do overreach, there is likely to be a backlash? Doc, I'm sorry I couldn't find the talk discussion when I looked, but nonetheless, MEDMOS is now at odds with both LEAD and the Technical writing guideline. (See WP:CONLEVEL.) So don't be surprised when editors continue to make claims at ANI about medical editors wrt MEDMOS and MEDRS.

Similarly, don't be surprised that WPMED alienates some of its finest founding members, like Colin, who understand the consequences. Doc, I am opposed to any change (that one included) that puts Med project guidelines out of sync with general guideline and policy pages. And I'm sorry to see that only five med editors is what it takes now to change a guideline. That is evidence of a dying project.

Meanwhile, it still remains true that Featured Articles must comply with Wikipedia guidelines before WikiProject guidelines that don't have broad consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, SandyGeorgia. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


I thought I was misinterpreting or misunderstanding the problems with FA and even Good articles in Project Med. Now I see that my observations match those of you, SandyGeorgia, indeed the Emperor has no clothes. Thanks for saying what you mean. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


I didn't find enough. I'm sorry, and best anyway. Ceoil (talk) 05:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia![edit]

Lawrence Alma-Tadema 06.jpeg Happy Saturnalia
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry![edit]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC) Lights ablaze.JPG

Happy Hogmanay![edit]

Hogmanay supermarket booze.jpg Happy Hogmanay!
Wishing you and yours a Happy Hogmanay. May the year ahead be productive and harmonious. --John (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

i have been dealing with a vandal for a while and i cant stop them[edit]

the page User:Melcous follows me making changes to all my contributions. i cite sources. the page erases my contributions it has gone on for days. and i believe it to be unhealthy to the environment. and if you look at their history i am not alone in this matter.

Talk:Raven's Home#Reparaphrasing_the_lead_section[edit]

Hi Sandy, I'm having a conflict with another user over WP:MOS#Layout/Television guidelines. Can you please respond and comment, considering you used to be one of the delegates for approving WP:FACs? Thank you. ATC . Talk 22:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of History of Rush for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article History of Rush is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Rush (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.