User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch108

Failed logins

If you can say, what was the last arb case where you ran into this? Qwirkle (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Hang on, will have to find the diffs where I posted about it ... SandyGeorgia (Talk)

here SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Somehow the idea that this is merely random seems a bit forced. Qwirkle (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Right. Last time it co-occurred with persistent vandalism to the case pages ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested input

Hi Sandy, Jo-Jo Eumerus has requested your Venezuela-specific eye to look at Talk:Guillermo Trujillo Durán/GA1, which I nominated. Jo-Jo apparently pinged you, so if you read this first you know you can ignore the ping, too. Kingsif (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that ... have been quite in the middle of something ... promise to get to it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

There's no rush, I have some space to improve citations before it moves anywhere :) Kingsif (talk) 04:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Medical pricing

Hi Sandy, I hatted your back and forth with DGG on the Arbitration Case Request page. If you would like to "appeal" his refusal to recuse you can email arbcom-l for the opinion of the whole committee. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Guerillero; I was (and remain) uncertain how one handles those things on case request pages, and eventually moved it to talk myself. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

If you would like more information, here is the information in ArbPol. I would email the mailing list to peruse this --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Guerillero:, thanks so much; I probably should have tried to find such information earlier, but I only discovered the conflict so late in the process, that I wasn't sure how to handle it expeditiously. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

I wanted to come here personally and say thank you. I am still a bit beaten down by all of this, so your response really did encourage me. Did you ever run afoul of Jytdog personally? Or is that an invasive question? Don't answer if I have overstepped! It has no impact on my genuine gratitude. Again, thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Jen (is it ok to call you that?). I'm glad that you are feeling some relief, and am sorry you had to have such experiences. On the up side, I would say that 14 years ago, I had a seriously nasty experience with a (later desysopped) abusive admin, and it formed my identity as a Wikipedia editor. I have seen very few editors on Wikipedia with that ability to be that nasty, and that brutalized other editors with such nonchalance. That experience made me determined to try to never treat others like that, to speak up for those who are abused, and to most of all, be patient, as the wheels turn very slowly in here. As to my experiences with Jytdog, I think the less said, the better ... even if an editor is site banned, there is a very good probability that they will still be among us and we will still have to deal with the fallout in our daily editing. In some cases, they will always still be with us. This is an arbcase with many moving pieces, and rest assured that the arbs will do all they can to uphold policy and promote a collegial editing environment. But remember also that this is the internet, and not all things are within our, or the arbs, control. Sometimes on Wikipedia you just have to accept that there's a lot of scary stuff in here. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Just bumbling through to reiterate my thanks for your support at my recent FAC. Even got brave and nommed it for TFA on May 18th. Please stay safe & well everyone. Shearonink (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello SG,

I've responded in the comments section. Let's see if we can do anything specific. Separately, all I see for the name is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine

Thanks for your understanding,

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

A belated introduction

Hi there. I've seen your posts across various pages grieving the loss of focus on producing high-quality articles among the medicine and molecular biology folks; I completely agree, and would love to help reverse that trend. To that end, if you have advice/criticism for me as you see me bumbling through Chagas disease, et al. I'm all ears (or, eyes, I suppose). I should have a bit more time than usual over the next few weeks, so I'm hoping to finish up the update at Chagas disease, and help out at Dengue fever if it's still needed. My interests are primarily in microbiology, metabolism, and cell biology (probably in that order) so if there's anywhere else you feel I could be useful, just point the way.

On an unrelated note, I just saw the note at the top of this page about pings. I'm sure I've been the guilty pinger a few times at Talk:Chagas disease, a page you're almost certainly watching. My apologies. I'll be more aware going forward. Also I was tickled to see a quote from Tim on your user page. I've had the good fortune to know Tim in real life, and seeing the work he did here was the impetus for me to get involved in editing. Small world. Anyway, I hope all is well on your end. Happy editing. Ajpolino (talk) 23:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ajpolino: you are helping reverse the trend; the work happening over at Chagas disease is quite impressive, and I've only had to peek in every few days or so and make sure citations are consistent. I'm confident the article will be able to keep its star, and you and SpicyMilkBoy will be able to claim the save, and move on to restoring other FAs. That cheers me so. Don't worry too much about the pings; I am getting better at figuring out how to live with arthritic fingers, but you can tell by the number of typos which computer or device I'm on, and what kind of day I'm having. Sometimes my typing is dreadful and I feel for anyone who is trying to post after or around me. Oh, how I miss Tim! And any friend of Tim is a friend of mine. That post on my userpage remains the funniest reminder of him to this day, and helps keep my husband in line, too! Please do send him my greetings … we did such good work in his day. Take care, stay well, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, I've been otherwise occupied for a few days. It looks like things are wrapping up at Chagas disease for now! Thanks for all of your help there. I'm not sure I've got the stomach for Huntington's disease, but otherwise ping me if you need a hand somewhere! The Chagas work has pushed me to finally embark on a long-dreamed pet project to clean up the WHO Neglected Tropical Disease articles. So I'll see you at Dengue fever if it still needs some polish. All the best! Ajpolino (talk) 06:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Kudos to you both for your work, Yes, Dengue fever does need some updating— glad you can help, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Amylophagia

Hi Sandy. I wonder why you deleted almost the whole article on Amylophagia? For example the "management" paragraph had citations. Do you think "management" (which is also a poor choice of title for the paragprah) of Amylophagia is offtopic to amylophagia? I have decided try to reword some off the article as "it is often observed in black pregnant women" comes off as prejudiced and insensitive. It is not a fact that necessarily holds up the test of time, so it would better to refer to it as past tense, "it has been observed", as it may not still be the case in the future. It's alaso phenomenon that occurs worldwide and only in America is where this focus on black people come in, so I thought that should be made more clear. Also is it even relevant? I dont know, something about that sentence just rubbed me the wrong way. I'm not even black, so I risk coming off as a social justice warrior, but it definitely reads unprofessional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThisUsernameAvailable? (talk • contribs) 09:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) ThisUsernameAvailable?, This is the article as SandyGeorgia left it, which says nothing whatsoever about "black pregnant women". You may want to actually check the article history before you start attacking people as "prejudiced and insensitive". ‑ Iridescent 09:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Iridescent Hi Iridescent, I was merely keen to discuss the edit I've made to the article when I wrote about that. I did not mean accuse anyone of anything. Sorry if it came off that way. What I meant was that the statement was prejudiced and insensitive, not Sandy, nor did I think that it was her that wrote that. But I'll admit that I didn't realize it was not in the page until the last person that edited from just an IP. When I checked the history I must've read the pregnant part and autofilled "black" because that's how I first saw it when I stumbled upon the page. The only thing that was specifically directed at Sandy was why she deleted so much content on that page that actually had citations under the motivation removing "off-topic and things without references". — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThisUsernameAvailable? (talk • contribs) 09:57, April 11, 2020 (UTC)

@ThisUsernameAvailable?: welcome to Wikipedia; you can sign your posts by entering four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after them.

It you look at this edit, you will see who added the word "black". If you look at this source (which is linked in Further reading at the bottom of the article) you will see that it allegedly does more commonly affect African American women in the rural south. I would not have added the "black" content because the source listed is not a secondary review.

The same source will explain to you why I removed most of the off-topic content when I last edited the article five years ago (and unwatched it). Amylophagia "is a particular expression of the more general phenomenon of pica". On Wikipedia, we use Wikilinks to other articles to avoid duplicating information that more correctly belongs elsewhere. There are times when content is duplicated, but this is not one of them, because there are (or were at the time) no secondary reliable sources discussing this one aspect of pica in isolation. You will see that Pica (disorder) is linked in amylophagia. The content I deleted was a) offtopic because it duplicated what was already covered at Pica, and b) not cited to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. At the time I last edited the article, five years ago, there were no sources for expanding the article other than stating what it is, as a definition of the term, since the sources that discuss it are discussing Pica in general, of which amylophagia is one type, found in black rural Southern women.

The source listed in Further reading is only a case report, and can't really be used for expanding the article, as we use secondary reviews for most medical content. If you are interested in expanding the topic, you will need to locate secondary reviews that cover amylophagia itself, not pica disorder. If you have any other article questions, those are better discussed on article talk, but I no longer have the article watchlisted and don't really have time now to help you edit it. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

PS, there are so many different manifestations of the pica eating disorder, that it would make little practical sense to duplicate Management of the disorder across each manifestation. That would be akin to duplicating the entire Management of Tourette syndrome across the articles coprolalia, echolalia, palilalia, etcetera ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Check in/out/shake it all about

Don't worry if you don't see me around. Estoy harta. Yomangani^talk 22:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Imaginate ... espero que no fue el DYK … I coulda told ya what that was like. Cuidate, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Double reversions

Why don't you merely delete the part that you don't like and explain why? MaynardClark (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Simply because, history has proven that a) edit warring will ensue, and b) no amount of discussion gets through the wall. And, it's more complex than that: the RFC advised taking it in steps. Thanks for asking, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

echo notifications

I appreciate there is an ongoing point of contention regarding pinging. But given that (a) they're never mandatory (talk page notifications continue to be the standard mechanism for notifying others; echo notifications are not substitutes when notification is required); (b) you hate them; and (c) there's no expectation that they be used for a party to an arbitration case in any submitted evidence, analysis, or proposal (parties are expected to read the case pages), I suggest it's not necessary to mention the restriction on pinging the other editor. In my opinion, it comes across as belabouring an issue unnecessarily. I know there are communication issues which may make you feel aggrieved, and I'm sorry that your interactions have degraded to this point. It's just a suggestion to take a small step on the path towards a more cordial future. isaacl (talk) 04:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Isaacl: I will take your advice to remove the mention of pinging then (next), but since I do not know the processes, and did not know how or if I am supposed to notify in this situation, it was not a matter of lack of cordiality as much as wanting to be sure that I indicated to others that no notifications had been done. At the rate false allegations of harassment are flying, I don't dare even go near their talk page now. Thanks for helping out, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I've trimmed all adjectives, as they are rarely helpful; if you have any other advice, I'm all ears. Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks; that explanation helps. In this particular situation, I think additions to the workshop page are pretty noticeable right now, particularly under the temporary injunctions section which is rarely used. Should the arbitrators want to hear more from other parties, I presume either the clerks or they will deal with any required notifications. Thanks very much for your consideration!

On a separate note, I am a bit curious: given your dislike of echo notifications, it seems unusual that you use them so much. I'm not a big fan of them either and almost never use them, but they can be helpful in specific situations. I appreciate you may be trying to ward off accusations of failing to keep others abreast of new proposals or something else of significance. But to take this conversation as an example: since your post was the second one, it wasn't going to get lost in a crowd of other posts. As I started the conversation and didn't specifically request a notification, it's reasonable to assume that I'll be looking for your reply without needing a ping. (Fortunately, although my watchlist feels big to me, it isn't so sizeable that I need pings to find replies. Except last summer when a certain event generated so much discussion that my watchlist became useless.) Have you considered easing up on your use of echo notifications? Again, just a suggestion; I understand if you have a different point of view on sending pings. isaacl (talk) 05:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I didn't think I used them much, because I never use them with editors I know well enough to know their pattern (in terms of what discussions they follow, whether they return to or watch discussions, etc.) The problem is that, since the advent of the pingie-thing (during a time I was mostly absent because of the WPMED issues chasing me off of Wikipedia), one now never knows if one has to ping a certain editor or not. Particularly if you don't know the editor well. Some people expect to be pinged even back to talk; everyone's use of pings seems to be different. And I've observed that others use the reply-link to ping every reply they make, anywhere. Previously, one had to use them with James because he doesn't keep up with discussions, because he is everywhere (his "don't ping me" thing only started with me 10 days ago). He must get hundreds of pings a day, with all the articles he follows, so I understand his frustration, but not sure why he aimed it only at me, since it is not at all customary for him to get back to an ongoing conversation. It is astonishing how many of the problems at WPMED are being exacerbated by the echo system and how different editors use it. I'd love to never ping again, but don't know if that's practical anymore, since people have come to depend on it. What I dislike about this echo system is that I spend so much of my time asking editors if they prefer to be pinged or not, having seen others harassed about it. But it's not practical to try to remember who wants pings and who doesn't.

Thanks for asking these questions; I've been noticing your helpful tone and input everywhere I read since returning to Wikipedia last November. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I hear you on the conundrum. The areas where I edit (not that there are much of those anymore) are less busy I think and so most editors I encounter aren't expecting pings. I suppose my anti-collaborative behaviour is expecting editors to do things the old-school way and follow conversations without pings. Personally, I think it's not practical to expect to be pinged reliably, given that some want them and others don't. I always forget that putting a user name in the edit summary causes a ping, so didn't think about the reply-link script contributing to a rise in notifications. It may well be causing a gradual shift in expectations. Thank you for your kind words; I appreciate it. isaacl (talk) 06:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

It's funny, after Iridescent taught me about the echo system, I experimented with using it more and more, but after this conversation, I may take a whole new approach, and use it never! Lower the expectation right there :) Off to bed, be well, stay safe, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with everything isaacl said here; because Echo behaves differently for every user depending on how they have their preferences configured, you can never assume that any given message is generating a ping to any given editor, nor whether if a ping is generated it will come in as an immediately-visible online notification, or as an email to an account that's possibly only checked once a month. If you need to be sure someone sees something, old-fashioned "post on their talk page" is still the only on-wiki method where proof of sending can be considered proof of delivery. (To add to the above about mentions in edit summaries, because MediaWiki is a clumsily-assembled fudge, if you mention someone in a comment and in the edit summary—as I've done here—that will generate two notifications.) ‑ Iridescent 07:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration evidence without diffs on WPMED issues

Sorry about that. My name was ping'ed from that article. I did not see the instructions and had to guess what it was about. Feel free to disregard my comments (except the general complaint about WikiProjects and the "balkanization" of Wikipedia).
--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 10:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

Hi Sandy, have you come across a the user Onetwothreeip before? They have a notable record of WP:ICANTHEARYOU, on top of that basically only editing contentious things. They've now turned their attention to whether Juan Guaidó is acting/president/disputed - sorry to drag you into this, really, (see attempt at discussion with them here) - but if you have any experience handling the user, or if you know someone who has, it would be appreciated. Kingsif (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

On my way out to do errands (gasp-- something one never does anymore); ping me if I forget to look later, pls? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Have fun in the outside :) Kingsif (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

It was a dud ... put the wrong pickup date on my online grocery order! So, have to go out again in an hour ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Two trips for the price of one? Damn, groceries... I may have been living off of pizza over here... Kingsif (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Canned white chicken chili here :) At least they agreed to go ahead and pull my order, instead of making me wait a week, as I had incorrectly indicated ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Chicken chili sounds nice... canned, though? Ah well, at least they worked around the mistake instead of sticking to bureaucracy. Kingsif (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I took a quick look. Based on that editor's topics, and previous warnings, they are headed for dispute resolution. My best advice for you is to not become part of that dispute resolution, as in, the Guaido talk page has already become personalized, and in some cases, it's best to just walk away (there's a saying about that in Spanish). We have seen Guaido become the cause-de-jour many times over the last year, and this usually passes. On Wikipedia, bad things quite often happen to good people, but it you are patient enough, WP:ROPE usually addresses such problems, albeit slowly. I'm not weighing in there, because it's precisely for having to deal with the de-jour editors-- who typically don't speak Spanish, don't know the sources, don't know the politics, and don't know the background-- that I backed out (also after the "paid editing" bullroar). I look at it this way: it doesn't matter much what label Guaido has, since China is about to massacre all of what's left of Venezuelans anyway :( So don't sweat the little stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it, and your comments - we do miss you over at Venezuela topics, but I completely understand the distance. I do worry about the different medical reports coming out of the country, but there's very little to do. :( Hope to work with you again soon. Kingsif (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I try to avoid seeing the medical reports; there is only so much one can handle, and it will be a massacre. They will lie about the numbers anyway, and most bodies will be tossed into the ocean or off the cliffs around Petare. We will never know all of the suffering. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

:( What a sad thought (To add to the wanting-to-vomit feeling I got from reading your ousting of a paid Venezuela editor in 2014 - I thought this new crisis might be a good time to read up on the signs to look for, just in case, but it's not exactly bedroom reading!) Kingsif (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Yea, that one was a weird surprise. Just imagine that, back then, I had never heard of Derwick (head in sand much?), and that paid editor came to our attention because he first appeared on a medical topic, e-cigs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

And I see you're still keeping Derwick clean! I'm just here waiting for the edit wars over 'Russia sent medical equipment' vs. 'Maduro said that, but none of the doctors have seen it'... another thing I'll try to avoid, I assure you. Medical topics are their own contentious spot, I've learned. Kingsif (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

??? I haven't touched Derwick for a long time; attorneys on board, so I only cleaned it up enough to hopefully help avoid charges being leveled at older editors. And yes, for me, the intersection of Venezuela with medicine with Russia/Cuba/China ... not a good place to go. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia! I haven't come across editor Kingsif before. Is there anything you could tell me that might help on this issue? Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I doubt it; what would you like to know? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Inquiry about two sources

Greetings,

are you perchance knowledgeable about whether El Ancasti and El Esquiú are reliable sources for tourism-related information? I wanted to know if I can use them to source certain aspects of Cerro Blanco (volcano), as as it's on my "send to FAC" shortlist and apparently the Campo de Piedra Pomez part of the field is an often discussed tourist attraction. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Will look shortly, Jo-Jo-- in the middle of a big edit. Since I am a bit swamped please ping me if I forget ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I'm back. In its favor, El Ancasti has a print version, offers a real address, is not a commercial tourism site, and has a Contact us page. To its detriment, there is no About Us page or anything I can find to indicate journalistic credentials or oversight. It has an article, El Ancasti, that mentions an interesting lawsuit. So, in terms of tourism information for your volanco purposes, I would use it cautiously for very basic information, taking care to avoid any advertising-related local puffery.

El Esquiú is from the same region, so they must be competitors. They both say "Diario de Catamarca", which is odd. It's affiliated with a radio station, includes a "citizen report" section (so take care with self-published, non-expert-- make sure anything you use is journalistic, not citizen report), its odd that there is a phone number but no address given, and its also odd how much its pages (eg contact page) look just like El Ancasti's ... ??? El Ancasti's Facebook link is dead, while El Esquiu is not-- I am wondering if one bought the other, or took over the other, or something?

I guess I'm overall less comfortable with El Esquiu than El Ancasti, but again, depends on what you are using it to source. If you can assure yourself that you are sourcing basic info (this volcano is a tourism site with several hotels and interesting hiking paths) versus potential puffery (this is rated the best hiking trail in Argentina, with 100,000 visitors per month), I guess these will do, as they are not commercial. Someone still could challenge them, though, for not having any About page indicating journalistic oversight or credentials.

PS, if you bring this up to FAC and I'm busy or not around (highly likely), please save this diff to my response. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. To whit, these two articles are two I was considering. It seems like they are only so-so sources; I am tempted to park them in time for FAC and ask there if someone thinks they should be used (I figure that FAC participants are the most qualified to say whether the sources are FA standard). It won't be anywhere soon - there are 7 articles I want to send to FAC in the future (the bolded items in the box at User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus) and given the tempo of FAC I wouldn't be surprised if it won't be before 2021. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I think we can safely say that, if you park those sources at FAC's doorstep, you will get nothing except ... a referral back to Jo-Jo or SG, who speak Spanish :) :) We're it, especially now that Yomangani has left the building (see above). Both of those articles look usable to me for the limited territory of describing tourism information in volanco articles, as long as you don't use them for controversial items or specific data-- only generalities. It is true that neither source has an About us page, but I hope you'd be using them to source information that wouldn't be problematic, considering what I outline above. Another editor who speaks Spanish and might be willing to review this discussion is Seraphimblade. Another shortcut to forestall problems at FAC is to ask Ealdgyth and Nikkimaria to peek in to this discussion now, rather than when at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Except Ealdgyth speaks NO Spanish. I have some very very limited Latin (i.e. I can sorta fake it with enough time and some books and a bit of Google Translate). So I'd just throw it back to Sandy... --Ealdgyth (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Jo-Jo-- told 'ya so! Thanks, Ealdgyth. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Jo-Jo, here's another factor you can argue at FAC. Different quality of sources are required for different kinds of text (eg MEDRS). More than a decade ago, there was a internet-related FAC, where the nominator argued that (at that time) the most authoritative sources on the topic were blogs by industry experts, and we accepted that. I think you can argue that the quality of sources needed to back tourism info (as long as you are sticking to generalities) is a bit below the kinds of sources we would normally demand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

If I remember right (always a big if) Maunus is another Spanish-speaker who might be pesterable into having a look. ‑ Iridescent 19:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Although the Venezuelan editors generally are inexperienced with FAC sourcing standards, I can ping them in to see if they have any knowledge of these sources: @ReyHahn, Jamez42, ZiaLater, and Kingsif: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about those sources, though at a glance El Ancasti looks reliable. I came to say that El Ancasti has a Wikipedia page, and El Esquiú.com has one on es.Wiki, in case this could be helpful. Kingsif (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Sandy. I haven't heard about neither of the outlets before, but I took a look at them.

At a glance ([1][2][3]), El Ancasti appears to be an impartial and objective source. I can't find a specific section about tourism, and as such I can't measure its reliability in this scope. Looking at similar articles ([4][5][6]), El Esquiú also appears to be impartial and objective, but it doesn't seem to have a section about tourism either. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I will try to take a look tomorrow. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

(Hopefully quickie) question about an article

Hey,

since Coropuna's FAC will probably complete soon, it is time for me to find another article for there. I was wondering if any of Huaynaputina, Mount Takahe, Uturuncu and Cerro Blanco (volcano) is ready to be sent to FAC. I am not asking for detailed reviews, just a quick "this looks ready to me" or "I see some issues that indicate this needs some pre-FAC work" and since you are (or were) one of the seasoned FAC people I was wondering if you had an opinion. Thanks! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Jo-Jo, still getting through my morning watchlist, and you may have noticed I am quite consumed by That Other Thing. I promise to get to this later today, post-caffeination. If I forget please ping me! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, I think take the shorter one, Mount Takahe, for two reasons. First, FAC is seriously stalled and in need of something that can get through quickly; you don't want a long FAC that is going to sit there for another two months. Second, Takahe has some of the same sorts of issues that Coropuna had (use of hyphens, some copyedit needs, etc), but it's short enough that I think I can help you tune it up. I can't do it all at once, because of That Other Thing, but I can promise to pop in with ideas once or twice a day, if you keep pinging me and reminding me. They all have some of the issues Coropuna had, but the shorter one should be fixable quickly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again, although I was sure that the hyphens are now in order. I'll be doing a copyedit there on my own at first. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Jo-Jo, under normal circumstances, I would pop over there now to lend a hand, but I've got my hands full. Could you ping me when it is ready for me to have a look? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Iridescent: Iri, are you able to lend a hand at copyediting Mount Takahe pre-FAC? Two of my favorite writers and copyeditors (Outriggr and Yomangani-- who speaks Spanish) are not available now. If you can do a basic run-through while I am busy with That Other Thing, I should be able to pop in for a quick look at MOS-y stuff only. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I've done my rewrite. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll have a look when I get a solid block of free time. One thing that jumps out on a very quick skim is "where does the name come from?". The name of the volcano refers to the takahe, a flightless nearly extinct bird from New Zealand seems a bit of a non sequitur since the volcano doesn't seem to have any connection to New Zealand (as far as I can make out the area in question was mapped by the US, not a British or Aus/NZ survey). ‑ Iridescent 15:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that I should have expanded on. The source says Mount Takahe was named by members of the 1957-1958 Marie Byrd Land Traverse party, who, in December 1957, were the first people to visit the mountain. The takahe is a nearly extinct flightless bird native to New Zealand, and its name was applied as a nickname to the U.S. Navy LC-47 aircraft that resupplied the traverse party, I've added some of this information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Poke. I am not sure if it's time yet, but since the evidence phase on the Arb case closed perhaps it is ... if not, feel free to tell me so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: thanks for the poke, and do feel free to poke me as often as necessary, considering the heat elsewhere that I am dealing with. My intent is to catch up on real-life this morning (that is, pay the bills, wash the dishes, do the laundry, do some outdoor maintenance :) and then get over to your article. Should things heat up on the other front and lead me to forget, do ping the heck out of me! Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Affiliative behavior

Hello,

do you know where should affiliative behavior at Oxytocin_(medication)#Research be redirected to? Thank you! Woundful (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality and sources

And you thought a 20-legged octopus was bad! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia. Sadly, my situation has prevented me from putting in the time I've wanted for the ArbCom. Regarding your removal of "Neutrality and sources" [7] from the workshop page. I'll certainly be adding it to the workshop, as I believe we have plenty of evidence that neutrality is fundamental to the problems. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

And that is true wiki-wide, Ronz. j/s ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The more I dug in, the more problems I have found, and I will not have the time to detail how much POV has been introduced in the recent trend of neglecting policy. I have decided to backburner those problems, because if the conduct problems can be addressed, the content problems will eventually work themselves out. There just isn't time or space to deal with this 20-legged octopus, and one has to prioritize. Even with the relaxed word limits, it just isn't possible to cover everything, so I am choosing to neglect some content issues for now, hoping they will work out over the longer term. I can reintroduce that as a principle if someone else provides the relevant evidence. I just don't have space, and am running out of time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

And Ronz, my POV concerns extend well beyond drug pricing to prioritizing of sources where COI exist. You should present your evidence of POV on drug pricing; that is not and has never been my main concern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hipal:, well that got re-introduced after all because of other party 11th-hour evidence, although I did not have time to fully develop my examples of how medical content is POV because of choice of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Caught some Harv warning issues...

at Bath School disaster. Realized that the 2 books in the Further reading section were engendering Harv warnings courtesy of the fabulous "'User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'" script. Can you check my fixes to make sure they're not crap? It's been a long day, I'm feeling sad, and my brain's a little foggy. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 04:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

This version appears to display correctly for me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Shearonink don't be sad; it's not you, and it has made a lot of us sad and angry. On April 20, something changed. There is a long discussion here, that then got sent here. People I trust on this (SarahSV) say the "fix" isn't a fix, so I have not known what to do. I am sure it concerns you because of the May 18 TFA, but only people who have Ucucha's script installed see those errors. I wish I knew what to tell you ... I did install the recommended fix to my common file, but I believe Sarah is saying that means I will miss some other kinds of errors. With the fix, I am seeing no errors at the Bath article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Jo-Jo Eumerus and Sandy Georgia for the replies, muchly appreciated. Shearonink (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Sandy, I currently have User:Smith609/citations.js installed (like this), and it seems to be working. It will show false warnings if citation templates are in External links and other sections, although the script writers are fixing that apparently and it may be fixed by now. The old one, User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js, should be disabled or removed. If false warnings appear, we now have to add ref=none. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much, SarahSV! Because of That Other Thing, I did not have time to engage, but I knew you'd sort it out. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

SarahSV so the Ucucha script no longer works right? Sad. Shearonink (talk) 03:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but you can replace it with another, as Sarah explains. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Shearonink, it still works, but it's doing odd things because the citation templates were changed to make ref=harv the default. So if you move a citation from Works cited (or whatever you call it) into Further reading, and it no longer has a corresponding {{sfn}} short citation, you'll get a warning/error message even if you remove ref=harv. With the new script, you don't get those warnings, or at least not so much. If you do, write ref=none. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

All this talk of coding & scripts makes my head hurt lol. Thanks for the tips - Shearonink (talk) 03:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Ha! Better get used to it. We are at the mercy of the people who fiddle with citation templates, but they don't have to communicate with us. That is why, for more than a decade, I used a manual citation style at Tourette syndrome, only recently switching it over, and since incurring .. citation issues! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Shearonink, I made a mistake earlier. Ignore the script I suggested; it was the wrong one. Instead add this to your common.js: importScript('User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js. Like this. And remove or disable Ucucha's. I'm sorry for the error! I hope you didn't waste time trying to figure it out. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

SarahSV Forgive my confusion but...I am pretty sure that is already what I have on my common.js page... so all is well. lol I think. Shearonink (talk) 05:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Habit cough

FYI my recent edits to the opening definition of this article were partly based on this guideline (which I should have cited). It states that habit cough is not properly a synonym for an unexplained/undiagnosed cough, nor a cough in connection with a tic disorder (as suggested by the term "tic cough"). Instead, if behavior therapy is effective after respiratory issues and motor disorders have been excluded, then a habit cough is indicated. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 06:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, IP73, thanks for popping in. Irwin et al was the 2006 guideline, but now we have the 2015 guideline, which switched everything up and appears to be somewhat contentious, based on the subsequent editorial from the lead author. How to sort all of that out in the article is tricky, and I am only about a quarter of the way through in a complete rewrite. It was, fortunately, your addition of motor disorder that brought the article to my attention: since I created the article motor disorder, I get a notification whenever it is linked, and I also wrote Tourette syndrome and most of the tic disorder suite. I am working towards working all of that back in, but still have lots of work to do. Have you had a chance to look at all of the new sources I am using? Thanks for kicking off this work, and if you can give me another day or two to finish, we can then engage at Talk:Habit cough towards finishing. Particularly, I am concerned now if we should have two separate articles, per the new guideline (habit cough which is now tic cough, and somatic cough disorder, which was psychogenic cough). After I get all of the text in, I will be consulting at WT:MED as to how we should best sort that, considering there is some contention in the literature. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

IP72, further discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Habit cough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 21, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that is all the notifications corrected. Thanks for notifying me about this. I think this deserves a  Self-trout. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz:, pulling out one of my favorite sayings: "If that's the worst that happens here, we're in good shape"! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Cochrane comments

Thank you for the comments and corrections, I will be more attentive to this in the future.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BDD user (talk • contribs)

Moved from User:SandyGeorgia. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Autism talk page

Just FYI but but this edit removed your comments at the Autism talk page. 81.111.119.153 (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Yep, not going to try to continue to dealing with that ... that editor is looking to be a few posts short of a full NOTHERE block, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The Curious Case of S T C Jones

hey, noticed that you had a very similar exchange with "S T C Jones" o n Deborah Birx. so they've done some nice work on Moncef Slaoui, but unfortunately they can't seem to grasp MOS:DATEFORMAT and the like (most worrying is they seem to think a random wedding photographer's blog is RS...) Can't figure out if it's a syntax prob, or somebody just can't take fair criticism, or if i'm really at fault here... it may interest you to check out the brief exchange i had with them on their talk page—or not ×_× Kingoflettuce (talk) 10:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kingoflettuce:, I am at a loss about what to recommend here. It does appear that our encounters were very similar ... and just ... odd. I can't put a finger on it, but something is off there. I wish I could tell you what to do next-- the only thing I can say is that the mdy/dmy thing is easy to fix with a script. If that had been all they messed up at Deborah Birx, I would have just fixed the dates by running the script, but I just couldn't figure out what they were up to, changing date style, changing citation style, introducing odd headings, and I could see no improvement. Just don't know what to do here: I find it very uncomfortable to edit around editors like that, and usually just unwatch, as I did Birx. Please do ping me if I can be of any help in the future. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Australasian Antarctic Expedition

Thank you for your part in bringing Australasian Antarctic Expedition to the Main page today, in memory of Brian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Medicine proposed decision

Hi Sandy, the Medicine proposed decision was posted --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sandy

Thanks for your very kind words. Also interesting stories about Taylor Swift and TV sets. I hope you are doing well!! I am doing fine: trying to get out for a walk each day and enjoying the spring flowers. --Slp1 (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

So good to "see" you again; I had the impression you were gone for a long time, but it could have been because I was gone for a long time. I am loathe to admit that I am enjoying our stay-at-home time. As an extremely social extrovert, happiest when dressing for a party, doing hair and fingernails, surrounded by crowds of people, and always talking too much, I have found the quiet time to be an odd and lovely experience-- love being shut in with my pooch and my hubby, and puttering around the house and garden together-- not sure I want to go back to the old normal. We are lucky to live in an area where we can walk a lot. I am also acutely aware of enjoying every single minute; at our age, one of us could wake up with a fever tomorrow, and we never see each other again. Aware that every minute could be out last together. That knowledge makes life somehow even better. We had the most wonderful experience today … a friend turned 70, and of course, couldn't have a party … so his wife arranged a surprise drive-by caravan. We all met, formed a caravan of decorated cars, got out squirt guns, the firemen came along with sirens, and we drove by his house and roasted him and threw stuff out the windows at him … best birthday party I ever went to … didn't even have to put make-up on! I hope you are well, along with all of your loved ones. Fine work on that ANI. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The party sounds amazing!! It is amazing what human ingenuity can do to make a joyful celebration - when the normal ways are not possible. I am doing okay... working at home but taking time each day to walk and rest and enjoy the coming spring. And yes, for me as for you, there are have been advantages. I have had a crazy year and the forced slowdown was definitely good for my health!!! Yes, I have had a long break from WP, probably around the same timing as you. I keep thinking of getting back into it more regularly, but then I don't! But maybe if this goes on for longer, I will have run out of other things to do!Slp1 (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Slp1:, I have kept meaning to get back to you, but That Other Thing has been consuming. I hope you are well, and should I disappear again (which is highly probable), please keep in touch via email! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Dimple Kapadia

Hi there, Sandy, I'm writing to you because I remember you being incredibly helpful in the past (although I'm pretty sure you don't remember me) and thought maybe you could give me some guidance here. I started this FAC nomination almost a month ago, and I find it quite upsetting that it's been generating so little interest on FAC; only one review in a month (excluding image review and two short comments). I was under the impression that FAC is probably much less vivid than it used to be years ago, but I see that other nominations are being taken notice of. It was suggested to me that I invite editors from some relevant Wikiprojects and nothing has come out of it. Can you think of something that would attract more reviewers to stop by and have a look at it? Any idea or help would be appreciated. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 02:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Shshshsh: FAC is incredibly slow, for a huge number of reasons I won't get into right now, but it's not just you ... lots of things have gone wrong in there over the years, and it is now all adding up. I will go review your FAC as soon as I have a free moment (it may be a few days); if I forget please do pop over here and remind me. Meanwhile, it would be grand it you'd glance at the nomination for Dementia with Lewy bodies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, you said I should remind you if you forget. :) I would have looked at your FAC but it's so distant from my area of work that I would rather have others review it. I'm quite frustrated by what's going on in my FAC, though. While other editors who have reviewed the article supported it, user:Fowler&fowler, who I'm sure you are acquainted with, is opposing it without even reviewing (admittedly) based on literally one word, which is supported by sources but he thinks it's unlikely to be true. You can see it on the FAC itself - I started a sort of query on the FAC talk page. I would really appreciate if you could weigh in on the issue or just review the article as you intended. I'd appreciate that. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Shshshsh I am at a loss for what to do here. You have been given very good info at WT:FAC to simply state your case and let the Coords sort it out; continuing to argue never bodes well for a FAC, the Coords are capable of deciding these matters, and it always dismays me to see suggestions that reviewers should be taken to ANI, because precisely what plagues FAC these days is a lack of reviewers! IF you disagree with a reviewer, state your case and move on-- leave it to the capable coords. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. The other reviews were helpful, constructive, and positive. The reason for the ANI suggestion is exactly the lack of all these in the user's comments. There's a great difference between reviewers who read the article and offer constructive comments, be they critical, negative or harsh, and then agenda-driven non-reviewers who waste time. I had to actually deal with someone focusing on one line at most and when their POV was not accepted, they opposed the nomination citing a mean-spirited remark. If that was not enough, they started a long wall of empty messages so as to give the impression that some true commentary was being posted, when really these were just empty blocks of text meant to disrupt the process. As I see, this sentiment is shared by many prolific editors, some of whom went as far as to suggest that I ignore this user (!) because his/her comments provide nothing actionable anyway. If so many people think so about a user's contribution (or lack thereof) to the FAC process, then someone should do something about it. FAC is better off with zero reviewers than a user who appears to be one but is really, totally not. Anyway, I do hope the Coords really read through the heavy walls of text. Thank you for your message though, as long as I can remember, you've always been nice, fair and altogether kind human being. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

DS Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

I obviously know that you're aware but just filing the appropriate paperwork on all the people who were originally listed as parties in the case request. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Barkeep49; you seem to have acquired a job for life :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry

Hi Sandy, just a note to apologize for having archived part of your page. I was looking for something and clicked "archive" by mistake. Sorry for the intrusion! SarahSV ^(talk) 03:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

SarahSV, no problem-- that's the kind of thing my fingers do all the time! (We may be looking for the same thing, and I can't find it. I believe it was deleted, and I believe the circumstances were different. Do you have any feedback?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Dementia with Lewy bodies

Congratulations Sandy, you've earned another FA star. Really good work. -- Colin°^Talk 09:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia/Response to Trypto diffs

Sandy, per WP:POLEMIC, please tag that page for WP:U1. Thank you! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Noting that if you wish to have the page history preserved, per WP:POLEMIC, you can simply replace the contents with {{subst:Courtesy blanked}}. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

As long as the pagename remains, there would be a significant chance of me taking it to WP:MfD. To keep the page history, there would have to be a valid reason for keeping it, per POLEMIC. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:POLEMIC is about "Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing", and says that "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." How did we get from diffs that were used in a timely manner and are a permanent record at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine to "attacking other editors"? Why would we delete evidence that is part of an arbcase record, but was not subst'd to that page directly? The only record of the evidence is in userspace, so I don't understand how deleting it is helpful, since it is used there, but is entered as a link not a subst. I can understand courtesy blanking it, but not removing it entirely from a record where it was entered, since the exact text was not all entered there, rather included only as a link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

It's an old Arbcom principle first articulated at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#Evidence sub-pages in user space that one does not keep userspace subpages containing evidence for an Arbcom case. Not sure whether it's still applicable, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus; it is odd that none of the arbs or clerks indicated that when specifically asked.[8] The other odd thing is that finding relates to drafts later submittted to evidence, but I submitted the link as the evidence. Communication from the arbs in this case was not stellar, and they were specifically asked this question, and did not indicate the content had to be subst'd to the case pages, or copied to the case pages. I suppose courtesy blanking seems the best option to resolve this dilemma. Do they think every participant knows every old finding (even one 10 years old), and one wonders why they didn't answer the question or address this at the time it was raised on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Speaking as a former arb, and clerk, it is important that there be a complete record of every case. Thus it is necessary that all submitted evidence be preserved. (The point of the "principle" linked to above was to deal with "drafts" in userspace, intended to be used for submission of evidence. That is not the case here. The userpage is not a draft of evidence, rather it is the evidence.) Paul August ☎ 20:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Paul August for always paying attention; I thought that was the point, too :) Years ago, I prepared evidence in a sub-page, and later deleted the sub-page because the evidence (draft) was transferred to the evidence page. In this case, the evidence is in the link, and not on the main page-- which was seemingly endorsed by the responses on the case talk page. [9] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Preserving it as part of the ArbCom case evidence is a misunderstanding of present-day policy. The Climate Change decision is very clear about that: evidence is what is presented on case pages. The bottom line is either plan on using it in some sort of dispute resolution against me, in a timely manner, or expect me to regard it as a violation of WP:POLEMIC. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

And as for this, just now: [10], there was no word limit on the workshop page, and the workshop page is not the evidence phase of a case. It's not evidence. It's a grudge page aimed at me. It's upsetting to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC) Modified. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Could you please engage your AGF while on my talk page? No one is talking about word limits (to my knowledge), I am working to understand how to handle this (considering contradictory and incomplete information), and you accusing me of "a grudge" is a personal attack. And, as you well know, that evidence ended up on the Workshop page as a result of your 11th hour post to the Evidence page, just as it closed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Although I don't think I'm making a personal attack in any of this, I'm striking it anyway. Please think of that strike as me making an effort to be sensitive to your feelings. I would hope that you, in turn, would be sensitive to mine. I looked back at the discussion section here, and it reminds me that administrators and Arbs can still access deleted materials. And it also would be subject to WP:REFUND. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Arb response: [11]. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

(after ec) I understand all of that. The issue is, we are in this dilemma because neither the arbs nor the clerks responded to a case talk page question-- and that happened throughout this case. I would like to hear from them-- which seems a more relevant way of approaching this than for us to be at odds over something they should have resolved earlier, as in six weeks ago when the question was raised on Evidence talk. There are multiple referred pages in this case, and I am concerned not only about the arbs failure to adequately communicate throughout this case, but also about what happens to all of the referred pages-- which they allowed to stand-- if we have to start deleting them. The case ends up gutted. And perhaps it is too late, but the arbs need to be responsible for these pronounced communication issues; I hope you will be patient until we hear from them. I will be doing the six-hour drive to my cabin tomorrow, which means I can make limited iPhone/iPad hotspot posts, but nothing that involves significant typing-- that does not mean I am ignoring this, but I hope the arbs will take responsibility for the ongoing confusion, rather than having us solve it for them. One arb has responded, and it is quite concerning that Bradv consistently seemed to be doing all the heavy lifting, while the rest of the committee appeared to not even be reading, much less responding. Please allow 24 hours for them to engage and take responsibility if their intent is to gut all the case evidence via all the referred pages, which they initially allowed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, if there's one thing that we agree upon about the case, it's that we both are rather dissatisfied with how it went. I'm pretty sure that Bradv's answer is the one that you will also get from other current Arbs, because that really is current practice when the evidence is focused on another editor. But sure, please take your time, no problem. I was planning to give you time anyway. As for the other userspace pages that were used in the case, such as the compilations of data about drug prices, I'm sure that nobody has any objection to keeping them as they are. The issue arises only when the userpage is about another editor (and WP:POLEMIC's reference to use in a timely manner is about whether it is going to be used in the near future, not about whether it was used in a timely way in the past.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

well, yes ... arbcom functioning here was ... best not described. I am not worried about what happens with that page: I am worried if they gut all the referred links. There are referred links about edit warring, about the embarrassing debacle at dyslexia-- if your page is deleted, will there be a steady stream of evidence removed? What I want is just for the rest of the arbs to pay attention and engage what was an important case that was completely punted. Usually, if no "side" is happy, that could indicate a reasonable outcome. But in this case, we are all saying the same thing-- they just didn't even read. I am hoping more than Bradv will give a darn here. I will follow as I can from the car tomorrow, but deal with it over the weekend once I am settled in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Trypto I plan to take advantage of a nice weather day to get some work done around the cabin, and just maybe some of the arbs will have bothered to respond by the time I finish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

About [12], it's fine to point to it from the workshop page, but I still think it should be transferred to the evidence page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm glad that we seem to have found a good solution to this. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

long day, too tired to type, i am as yet unclear if david is transferring or if he will authorize me to do it ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

No worries. My advice is to ask him for permission to do it yourself, at his own talk page, so you can do it the way that you want. He'll either say yes or offer to have him or a clerk do it. If you do it, say in the edit summary that he gave you permission, so the clerks don't misconstrue it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

mañana ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Resolved: evidence added to arb pages. [13] [14] [15] [16]

Oh, thank goodness...

But it's been at least 6 years since I supported the arb who seems to have no clue. ARGH! --Ealdgyth (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

And if you ever figure out what this comment is referring to... let me know. I can't find any comment by DGG on any evidence by Br (I'm assuming BlueRaspberry is meant here, but it's very unclear...) --Ealdgyth (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I suppose I had best be silent on that matter :). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Geeeeeez, Ealdgyth, 70 articles at FAC! I came to the cabin with every good intention of reviewing like crazy, but dear hubby forgot the charger cord, and I can't do a lot of iPad and the crappy computer I have here ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm promoting now... I got called away last weekend to deal with some stuff that had been put off too long with the pandemic, and then while we were out, we loaded another horse trailer and truck load from the storage at the old town. Then that had to be unloaded and sorted into the garage/house/workshop/basement. We're down to the last load, so the hubby and offspring are going back down tomorrow and doing a quick load and turn in the last storage unit ... then we'll be ALL IN ONE PLACE for the first time since 2015, when we started filling storage units in prepping to move. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, Ealdgyth dear ... I see you are not fully back on board yet, but I wanted to make sure you saw at WT:FAC that Mike Christie recently collapsed one of the ugliest discussions at FAC I can recall seeing in a very long time. Wow. Some of those people are why I avoid engaging more actively. My instincts are still to protect reviewers, as we desperately need them, and to see nominators making some of the kinds of statements made on that page makes my head spin. I still intend to do more active reviewing, but the ArbCase was a serious distraction ... and it's hard to edit from the connection/computer I have at the cabin during the summer ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

In theory, the new computer arrives Wednesday. If it ever leaves Cologne.. I think it's having a high time drinking Rhine wine and has no intention of ever coming to the snowy North Woods. Hubby goes back to doctor next Tuesday and likely will go back to work then. We just got all the seeds/plants into the ground for the garden... but it's going to be boiling here today and tomorrow and then we get visited by the remains of Christobel Tuesday through Thursday. I should be more together after the hubby gets back to work... (on the plus side, we now have ALL of our stuff at the new house... nothing is lurking in other states ... so in theory I can put my hands on any book I need. In practice, there's a huge pile of boxes in our garage that rivals a small house or shipping container so ... yeah, I've got my work cut our for me.) I'm ready for a break? It'll be nice to have a new computer .. since the old one was from 2010. (Yes, Macs last that long) --Ealdgyth (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'm glad that stayed collapsed. Do start reviewing again if you can -- I think we're pretty close to a critical mass of regular reviewers that could really speed up the turnaround. 70 at FAC doesn't bother me; it's the time it takes to promote or archive, and having just had a quick look at my stats spreadsheet I can tell you that the average stay at FAC for May was almost twice that for April, so I think it's at least partly the effect of the pandemic. I might do a graph of average time at FAC over the years, by month; it would be easy to do and might be interesting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I am actually not at all convinced it's the pandemic. I suspect it is multiple factors, one of which is that very ugliness referenced. I actually have an optimistic view that FAC can turn itself around if the participation of some of those generating that kind of ugliness towards reviewers is minimized. It is MOST offputting. And, the decline in reviewing in my case was not related to the pandemic, but to the arbcase ... Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

And on that note, mentioning that I still have to finish my reviews for Guerillero, Ceoil and Jo-Jo Eumerus now that the arbcase has closed, but I am at the cabin on a crappy computer. Just letting them and Airborne84 know that I am not ignoring them ... just that every keystroke from the computer I have at the cabin is torture on my arthritic hands. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Had another look at the data and realized I made a mistake, and the May durations don't seem much different from April. I'll put a graph together this week but I agree it looks like there hasn't been much change due to the pandemic, or at least I can't yet see it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Take all of the time you need, Sandy. I am working on an expanded background section for Wehwalt --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Certainly no rush SandyGeorgia. The article I mentioned is a few days to a week away from renomination. Still finishing peer review. I'll note below (without ping thingy) when it's nominated. :) Many thanks! Airborne84 (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Venezuela light star

	Defense of information neutrality
	For not being afraid to get your hands dirty when defending the Neutral point of view and adding a light of truth that is so necessary at the moment in Venezuela. I would like to grant you this humble acknowledgement. --Wilfredor (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Wilfredor: thank you much for such kindness! And my apologies for the long delay in responding, as I've been quite busy elsewhere. Saludos, y que estés bien, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Np, thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Wilfredor. Small world! (we know each other from Commons). --Colin°^Talk 09:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Colin What are you doing here? --Wilfredor (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

He’s looking for arepas. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Wilfredor, I've known Sandy for years, but concerning medical topics, not Venezuela. I've never had Arepas. Do you have a recommended recipe to make them and what to have with them? -- Colin°^Talk 14:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Colin, It is better not to know the arepas, I have been trying to stop eating them for years so as not to get fat--Wilfredor (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)]

OK, OK, I'll explain it myself! Colin, the way to make arepas is to buy Harina P.A.N. and follow the YouTube! Or this one. You can buy arepas almost everywhere in the world now, because of the Venezuelan diaspora. I like them best filled with chicken avocado, but the easiest fill is perico-- scrambled eggs with garlic, onion, tomato. Very easy. Heat oil, saute some garlic 30 seconds until flavor released, add chopped onion, saute until almost transparent, then add lots of chopped roma tomato, cook until good and flavorful, then add the eggs to scramble. Some people put bell peppers, but I hate bell peppers. Youtube. There you have it-- the entire extent of my culinary skill. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I've ordered some of that flour off of ebay. Should arrive on Saturday. I also see your scrambled eggs are called perico and look much tastier than the plain scrambled eggs I have on toast. I'll try that too. -- Colin°^Talk 10:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Colin:, well ? Did ya do it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes indeed. And I met Wilfredor on a Commons Photographer's Zoom meetup this evening. The arepas worked out well -- I followed one of the recipes that suggested putting them in the oven afterwards. I made two batches of four each, which is what fitted my frying pan. We also made your Venezuelan scrambled eggs to go inside. It was so filling and the weather so hot I had to have a little siesta afterwards. Of course it tastes a bit of sweetcorn. I think we will be having that again. Thanks for that. I feel a little bit more connected to you guys now. -- Colin°^Talk 21:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

This was an interesting experience to know you @Colin: I had many emotions because so many years ago that we only knew each other by messages in commons, it was something strange at the same time because I had a fire emergency in my building that forced me to leave (But it was a drill). Btw, the recipe for making arepas from Georgia seems to be very correct, I don't know if you are from Venezuela but I think you know very well how to find a good seasoning. The arepa dough should be well kneaded with enough water and a little touch of salt. They can be thin or fat arepas, it all depends on the tastes. In my case I prefer them quite thin in shape and with the toasted outer layer, so when I open them, I remove the inside and set it aside and start eating the toasted outer layer with the filling. I know it is not the correct way to do it but there is some freedom in the way of eating them. By the way, I have no idea why but Perico means parakeet. Wilfredor 15:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Wilfredo, I read somewhere that the name perico comes from the green in the bell peppers, being like the green of a parrot.

I am so disgusted by what has been allowed to happen in medical editing, that I am thinking of proposing another collaboration for you two!

Venezuela Aid Live is pretty much done, except for needing an update to address what happened a year later with the funds raised. I am thinking of finishing that off and taking it to FAC. Any interest ? Colin and Wilfredo, you could watchlist it, wait for me to finish the updates, and then give it a serious going over with an eye to whether it's FAC worthy. Almost all of the sources are news media, but that's the nature of the beast ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I am very very interested, I`m going to take a look at it and maybe I will be a bit slow at the beginning because I am afraid of making a English mistake. It would also be a break from the Spanish Wikipedia, which is controlled by employees of the Maduro administration. --Wilfredor (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Wilfredor:, sorry for the delayed response (I have been quite busy) ... on revisiting that article, I see it is in worse shape than I thought, and not even at GA standard. It would take a lot more work for me to bring it to where it needs to be ... Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry, I was also busy making a checkuser demand for a group of users paid by the Venezuelan government to edit. When it is finished, I will send you the link. Please don't hesitate to send me homework :) --Wilfredor (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Your hard work is appreciated...

Sandy, I really do hesitate to bring this up but it's been bothering me for some weeks now as I watch you go through the misery that you and Colin have faced over your insistence that Wikipedia use only current and accurate sources for our medical articles. I am tempted to lay out the reasons why I only very seldom edit medical articles any longer but I will not discuss most of it here. However, I will say that eventually one grows tired of having everything they add "adjusted", with the final straw having the term "infant" corrected to read "baby" in one of my edits. But while my work was constantly "adjusted" for accuracy the Osmosis film on breastfeeding which contained several egregious errors was left up for four months after they were pointed out, and only then removed because I again questioned why it was still not removed. [17] I bring this up mainly because an editor at the med pricing discussion said they had found no evidence of difficulties caused by this editor. I am suggesting that perhaps others also know better than to speak out against this editor because it will result in hounding and a lack of support for their complaint. One has to wonder how it was that that film was left up for four months when any number of editors could/should have removed it - that is not the way that this place is supposed to work. That is giving one editor far too much authority. BTW, that awful Osmosis breastfeeding film is currently still advertised on the web with no changes for accuracy. If that doesn't say something about the integrity of the editors of the Osmosis film series I don't know what would. Gandydancer (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey there, good to hear from you. On the "misery that [Colin and I] have faced over [our] insistence that Wikipedia use only current and accurate sources", I think it to be actually a much broader problem than that, although I understand what you mean. I would describe it much more simply: I believe policy should be followed (not just sourcing policy), and am concerned that while policy is ignored, guidelines are applied as if they were policy. There is almost no understanding in the current WPMED environment of basic Wikipedia policy, while MEDMOS and MEDRS (guidelines) are misapplied as if they were policy. Obviously, for the people who helped build the Project and write those pages, this is hard to see. I fear that many of our newer medical editors don't have any understanding of WP P&G 101-- that's scary-- and yet use MEDRS to chase off any one they disagree with, in very unsavory ways. The bullying and the cult-like environment became unbearable to anyone with scruples. I understand your broader concern about what is happening to the quality of medical content, but I'm not sure it's wise now-- or will be in the future-- for me to comment on those problems any further; let's just hope the arbs can find a way to address them (although what that might be escapes me). As to "an editor at the med pricing discussion said they had found no evidence of difficulties caused by this editor", the amount of partisan non-evidence-based attempts at ignoring the evidence (which they could not refute) while destroying reputations was quite shocking. This is what has been done to Colin for years. I was a chicken and stayed out. When I came back in, it was done to me, too. I hope and presume the arbs will take some steps to adjust the fact that egregious charges were leveled without evidence, either in the case, or in the future, because that is not supposed to happen. I knew better than to speak up for many years, but thought that recent Arb decisions had lowered the bullying factor in WPMED, so that it would be safe to edit again. I do believe I was shown wrong on that assumption, but I also believe that the good news is that most of the unsavory smears did not come from medical editors. I suspect this did happen because the evidence is overwhelming, and the people who did further this hounding demonstrated the very reason so many of us were forced to stay silent for so long-- watching the attempts to destroy reputations unfold, when they had no evidence-- was shocking. It's good to hear from you! But if you didn't speak up during the case, we have to accept that the arbs can only base their decision on what is on the pages. Best regards, keep that Harbor in order up there! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I’m on the road but will try to weigh in here with my pessimism tomorrow...--Ealdgyth (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

And there is plenty to be pessimistic about (even for a Pollyanna like me :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Sandy, you need to understand why I could not speak out about my concerns - why it's hard to have even done it here on your talk page. Even on my own talk page I speak with my best WP friends in code that only we understand. Without documentation everything that I might report is hardly more than gossip. Plus the fact that I actually, all things considered, like Doc James. The most important medical things for me here on Wikipedia are giving good sound information for pregnant and nursing mothers and Doc James totally backs me up in that area. Same thing with Ozzie, who is about the nicest person one could ever meet and who worked cheek to jowl with me on the West Africa Ebola article. I feel that the best I can do is to support you and Colin because I'm no more than a fly or an ant that watches what is going on. If you can explain your position more fully I'm all ears. Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gandydancer: You are right not to have spoken up: we have seen Colin's reputation destroyed, and now two attempts (unconstrained by evidence) to do the same to me.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions;" as I've said several times, we don't have any bad faith WPMED actors here, but the damage to content is there nonetheless, and that's what matters. Ozzie may be nice, but following around an "elite" editor to reinforce their edits is meatpuppetry. And worse, we have a cult-like "you scratch my back, I scratch yours" taking over WPMED (which allowed unnecessary bullying to grow and fester), which is quite alarming. It should be noted that I don't have WikiFriends who behave that way-- you will see none of my people following me to articles or to the AtbCase. One is known by the company they keep, and I don't keep that kind of company.

On "gossip" v "documentation", the reason I asked for extended word limits was that I knew the trends and problems would be hard to show without a lot of evidence. I hope there is enough on the case pages now that one doesn't have to worry about the "gossip" factor. (Although a lack of evidence didn't stop two people from throwing accusations at me :)

I think this recent example shows what we are all facing in all medical content: condensed a bit (to the point of complete inaccuracy, and obviously for ease of translation), and then the obvious correction made (which does not take a psychiatrist to understand). This sort of careless editing has impacted every article I used to watch.

I think my other biggest concern is summarized in the lack of understanding of core policies, and the double standard employed in inserting POV when WPMEDF finds it convenient, while calling non-policy-based editing "innovation". The problem with this "innovation" notion is where this leads if we apply the same logic to fringe topics, quackery, trolls, and POV pushers (as we routinely haul them before ANI to topic ban them per alleged MEDRS breaches). Let's look at the editing behaviors we label as POV-pushing. At morgellons: but it just hasn't been well researched, even if there are no secondary reviews, and no credible evidence that morgellons is different than delusional parasitosis, it's still important and we will discover this in the future (the same logic being applied to the importance of drug pricing, when there are no secondary sources). POV pusher is banned; med editor is called "innovative". MMR Vaccine controversy: But I can google and find two sources that say that vaccines cause autism, so I can put that in the lead (this is the same logic that is applied at Simvastatin, where James literally googled and found two sources that supported his text, although the broader evidence and body of literature does not). Chronic Lyme disease: but I have a patient leaflet that tells me to take months of antibiotics, because that cures what I have (same logic being applied at Prostate cancer suite to use one less than authoritative source to introduce POV, and with the introduction of marginal information to every FA lead I used to monitor, based on patient leaflets like NIH, WHO, etc). None of these examples would fly as we haul people off to ANI to have them banned for pushing quackery, and yet the same behaviors, by the same editors we believe hold a "thin blue line" are being labeled as "innovation". What is being called "innovation" here is routine poor use of sources, policy violations, and POV pushing.

Now, my position/question is, how do we get James to slow down and engage, discuss, understand, reflect policy, listen to editors who know the literature in a given field better than he might? The only obvious way I can see to do that is to stop the meat puppetry and coordinated editing and cult-like support of one editor. James is able to edit so fast, so much, everywhere, making many mistakes, because other editors enable that behavior. If we saw these same behaviors in other editors, we would be frequently citing WP:CIR; why are we allowing the number of issues I diff in my Evidence and on the Workshop pages to impact important medical content? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Sandy, I really do appreciate that you understand why I did not post at the discussion. Next you mention Ozzie following around an "elite" editor. Yes, we all know very well that no matter what James says Ozzie will be right there to support him. This is so much the norm that I find it hard to believe that anyone gives much weight to Ozzie's approvals. I for one do not question Ozzie's sincerity and take his posts in good faith. As far as the "cult-like behavior", that is why I no longer work on anything connected to medicine. It seems that I was blacklisted long ago. It is however ironic that it seems that we are on opposite sides of what is acceptable to include in some of our articles and what is pseudoscience. For example, I have chronic lyme disease and it really does make me angry when I am told that my symptoms are all in my head. I would like to see current information rather than wait years and years for reviews. And finally, as to James and his cult, I wish I knew what can be done. This is typical corporate behavior and it happens to every endeavor that grows to the size that WP has grown. Sandy, are familiar with Esalen? I spent several months there in the 90s as a "work scholar", as we called ourselves. I remember one conversation with fellow peeps when we were discussing some sort of management issue. I remember that I said, "but this is Esalen!", meaning the Esalen community would be above pettiness, spite, etc. One of the other peeps laughed and said I needed to get the stars out of my eyes and explained to me that every sort of negative corporate behavior existed there as well. What strange circumstances for the life lessons that we all must learn... I doubt that Esalen ever again retrieved the freshness they had in the 60s before they became a money-making endeavor. I do remember sitting by the pool one day and a woman who had been at Esalen way back then said to me in sorrow, "it's gone, it's gone." Gandydancer (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gandydancer: The problem with "nice guy" Ozzie is that, yes, his unqualified supports (that are often based on no understanding or even reading of the underlying issue) ARE being taken seriously, and ARE affecting content-- across the board. I evidenced many examples on the Evidence page where Ozzie shows up to "agree w/Doc James", and James declares two-to-one "consensus", case closed. And it mystifies me that James can so blatantly exempt Dyslexia (which is riddled with errors and poor sources) from MEDRS when it suits him, to see an Ozzie article promoted to GA (with errors constantly mentioned on talk, that are not addressed and are allowed to pass into archives without being addressed-- This Is A Very Bad Thing!) And actually, no, we aren't on different sides of controversial topics: IMO MEDRS is used as a bludgeon to keep out alternate viewpoints. And it is used as a bludgeon in ways never intended by the crafters. And that has made the crafters unhappy. Some med editors are so afraid of even neutrally exploring chronic Lyme or morgellons that they have extended MEDRS as if it can be used to eliminate whatever ... they don't like. And have used it to divide into Good Guys vs. Bad Guys, where the Good Guys get to bully because, don'tchaknow, they are defending a "thin blue line". No, I don't know Esalen, but I do know that MEDRS is being used to support a cult of WPMED in ways that were never intended, and I sometimes wonder if it's not just a power thing, or the fact that it is so much easier for them to REVERT PER MEDRS, and know that the denizens of ANI will call them heroes for holding the line against quackery-- while they promote their own style of quackery. Why are they so afraid of encyclopedic coverage of Chronic Lyme, and yet so unafraid of pushing POV on, for example, prostate cancer? Look at the sloppiness here ... Oh my gosh, we might link to a film about Morgellons, how dreadful ! So they nix it without even seeing it. And no one would have questioned that. The other thing I don't understand is a body of medical editors who seem to have no damn compassion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Sandy, I had no idea that we were in so much agreement. It is my impression that user:WhatamIdoing shares some of the same feelings. Sandy, you know some years ago I read the notes of when they put MDRS together. I know MastCell was there, WAID was there, and I think Colin was there too. I have long believed that when three or more people get together to discuss something the whole becomes more than the parts and a sort of magic can happen. Reading those pages I was aware that I was in the presence of a sort of a higher level of intelligence and understanding. From these lofty thoughts it is hard to come down to the nitty-gritty realities of where we are today. As I said, for the most part I no longer post on medical articles. I also no longer post on some environmental articles because I am reminded that MDRS now applies to honey bees and other bugs. Which of course is not true (though I can assure you they are working on it). I appreciate your posts and will spend some time in reviewing what you have to say. Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you've got it :) We used to be in the presence of some of WPMED's greatest minds-- like Colin and MastCell. It is a sad loss. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I feel like we don't have as many people who care about writing now. To name some examples from the above, one can write that the symptoms of CLD very likely aren't caused by an ongoing Borrelia infection, and still not write that it's all in their heads (because it isn't). One can write that some pesticides kill some insects (duh?) without implying that they kill humans. It's surprising how often the facts aren't really in question, and an accurate statement could be written without too much effort, but instead we get editors trying to make the article reflect their ideology.

Basically everyone who turns up at Multiple chemical sensitivity pushes for the article to declare either that MCS is widely recognized and definitely proven to be caused entirely by the nasty chemical industry, or that Science Says™ that it's just made-up nonsense and these people just need a good stiff dose of reality. Meanwhile, the actual, everyday healthcare profession (none of whom seem to be interested in Wikipedia's article) has taken an entirely different approach, in which they avoid even speculating on the cause and just try to make it possible for the affected person to be able to live and breathe and function as well as possible (a completely counter-intuitive and shocking goal that no true Wikipedian would ever expect, I know). I believe that gaps like the one between these two polarized sides can be addressed through writing a decent article The symptoms are real. The original cause is unknown. Avoiding triggers is usually helpful. There are appears to be some neurological involvement (so maybe this one is "all in your head", but we could say the same thing about a stroke). It doesn't sound that hard, right? But what I see is mostly just editors kicking out the other guy's POV and stuffing in their own.

Since this conversation hasn't yet met the minimum standards for pandemic-related content, I will tell you that food-supply disruption has taught me that I very much prefer unsalted natural peanut butter. I had been buying it freshly ground in the store, and didn't know that it was unsalted. Now I need to figure out how to use up a pound of salted creamy natural peanut butter. I'm thinking that it will go in muffins.

I also offer you the following non-pandemic health trivia: lots of lab test results have been wrong for years. I give you one guess whether these errors have a disproportionate effect on women. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

The MCS thing is precisely what we see with morgellons on Wikipedia. The real professionals stopped worrying about what it was, and started focusing on how to help the people who have "it". What we see on Wikipedia is just plain ole lack of compassion and unprofessional treatment of a medical phenom, no matter what we call it. It makes my brain hurt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Gandydancer for your kind words. I agree with WhatamIdoing totally about caring about writing and Sandy about lack of compassion. I'd add in a lack of respect, editors seem to very quick escalate into accusations of trolling and bad faith editing, or editors who should be working together are edit warring over citation style or some other trivia. But, getting back on topic, WhatamIdoing, I suggest you make satay chicken with the peanut butter. Your Biotin story reminds me of Valproate#History, though that was a very positive discovery. --Colin°^Talk 09:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Bang bang chicken - BBC Food

(talk page stalker) In a similar vein, I was going to suggest bang-bang chicken[18]. Though (inevitably?) looking at our own article on bang bang chicken it appears suspiciously like a hoax! Alexbrn (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Now I just want to step in here and say that y'all need to be nice to Alex for a little while. Someone just slapped him with a totally unprovoked recommendation that he undergo WP:RFA.

That article on bang bang chicken needs some work. Chicken was a luxury dish before the 20th century because infectious diseases meant that a household couldn't raise enough to eat it every day, not because a labor-rich country couldn't find someone to cut up meat. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

If I was looking for a good English source on Chinese food, I'd turn to the inestimable Fuchsia Dunlop, whose Szechuan cookery book I treasure. I'm pretty sure bang-bang chicken has nothing to do with the "rhythmic, almost musical quality" of the sound of a chicken being smashed to pieces! Alexbrn (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I would support, and I rarely do! all I could find was someone asking about his naughty bits. Alex, the next time someone asks, you can tell them that you do know someone who raised her two sons in LatinAmerica, where said ritual was uncommon, and both of them whacked it as soon as they turned 18, blaming me for the pain endured. So much for my Earth Mother phase.

By the way, y'all carry on with your food stuff, but know that I Don't Do Food! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

PS, Alex, go review dementia with Lewy bodies at FAC! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm always good for chocolate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Alexbrn, we had some leftover roast chicken so was I inspired by your recipe post. Photo uploaded. A we ate outside in our lockdown garden. It was very tasty, thanks! -- Colin°^Talk 07:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Here we are all gathered together and all this talk of food has made me HUNGRY. (Plus, being locked away for so long it seems that I am also starved for friendship.) So I know!, let's have a party! We will honor Sandy, so she need not cook anything since she doesn't know how to cook anyway, but my daughter Jane wants her to choose a menu item from Solorzano's Mexican Restaurant right here in Maine (!)[19]. Plus, I called my daughter Judy in Florida and she wants to offer a tasty veggie tray. I haven't decided what food I will bring though I will bring margaritas for certain. What will you bring? Gandydancer (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm always good for chocolate! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

haggis

Wrapped chocolates seems a bit more pandemic-friendly that a buffet of finger foods and dips. If we are having an international meal, I could bring haggis which is wonderful, but will have to smuggle it into the US because you guys have a ban on imports of the real thing. -- Colin°^Talk 16:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

One of my Christmas presents was a candy bar made of dark chocolate and almond butter. On the one hand, my waistline needs no further encouragement in its expansionist plans. On the other hand, it's on sale this month. I don't know how this will play out. SandyGeorgia, tell me about your favorite chocolate? The picture you posted is one of the best in that line, I think, but I'd have to do a proper side-by-side taste test to choose between it and their 70%. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Not to worry Colin, germs do not grow in Cyberland. Anyway, the idea was not necessarily international - I thought perhaps Sandy would find something that was similar to the wonderful foods she may have eaten in South America at my daughter's cafe. If not, the restaurant could come up with something similar, I am sure. Now as for the haggis, that would be very delicious, but how about saving that for the next party when we could have a real Burns supper? You could read the poem and Sandy, who doesn't cook, could perhaps make the tatties? If she wants to really get into the spirit of things she could perhaps try making some cock-a-leekie soup, which does not sound too difficult? Gosh, now I'm really getting excited about our next party and we haven't even had this one yet... Gandydancer (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Getting into the "spirit of things" on Burns Night involves some of this fine stuff, and Sandy is welcome to buy some for us all if she doesn't feel up to cooking! I am a bit concerned that if we wait that long, when me and Sandy have our indef ban on editing all content related to medicine, broadly construed, then talking about Burns will cause some illiterate admin to spoil the party with their block button.

I do like a fine chocolate, though I'm also fond of some guilty pleasures like a Wispa or a Flake. There's something about aerated chocolate that tastes good. -- Colin°^Talk 08:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Too late in life admittedly, but I have recently got into haricot beans in a big way - so I might bring a simple stew of haricot beans. As my family has observed, it's perfect lockdown food as the recipe I use is prodigiously garlic-y (two whole heads for 500g of beans), but there's no need to worry about getting up-close and personal with strangers afterwards. Also, it's very high-fibre, with all that follows ... Alexbrn (talk) 08:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Cullen skink is another good food for social distancing. I suppose we should be grateful they haven't figured out how to transmit smell over the internet. -- Colin°^Talk 10:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Six-hour drive to the cabin, and dear hubby forget the charger cord to the good computer, so here on crap computer. But I have plenty of chocolate. Haggis! Colin, are you Scottish? (So am I.) WAID, there is no such thing as bad chocolate, but I am partial to Italian chocolates (Perugina, Baci). I had the most interesting Vietnamese chocolate once, a gift from a friend, but I can't say what it was because I couldn't read anything on the box. But what a delicacy ... tiny round balls of exquisiteness dusted in cocoa powder. Gandy, food in Argentina was horrible, and in Venezuela, wonderful, but very different from Mexican food-- which I also like. Would type more but this computer has awful touchpad, and I just had to fight to answer FAC queries ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

OOps, forgot Alex, with his high-fibre reminder of his Big Mess at Colon Cleansing, which led to the infamous Drmies men will be boys thread ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

What can I say. I like the Bristol sound too. (I like Belgian and Swiss chocolate best--but here in the US, and on my salary, I can't afford to be a connoisseur.) Drmies (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Re "there is no such thing as bad chocolate" where's that "Dubious, discuss" template? I have only been to the US once (Boston business trip) and on someone's office desk was a bowl of little Hershey bars, which they offered around. Yuk. I mean, if you are going to consume fat and sugar in a bar, you should be selective in making the experience worthwhile. Yes, I am Scottish. Were you actually born in Scotland, or claiming via some ancestor? -- Colin°^Talk 08:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

iPad typing ... Scottish ancestry. We were bad. Have our own castle or some such thing. Hershey’s workS in a pinch. But if you can find no hidden chocolate in the house, then it’s time for Nocello. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Colin, when you find outright errors, you're supposed to remove them, not just add the {{dubious}} template. For anyone who doubts the existence of bad chocolate, I submit http://www.salmiyuck.com/search/label/chocolate as undeniable evidence.

SandyGeorgia (and anyone else), would you do work-me a favor and click https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SandyGeorgia?dtenable=1#Your_hard_work_is_appreciated... to reply somewhere on this page (and ping me)? I'm very curious whether it's any easier on your fingers. It's a plain old wikitext box. I should go pester the devs to turn on the one with the search feature for adding links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Oooh. I can reply. However your hyperlink's "..." didn't get included in the URL and so the # section jump didn't work. Let me try this link. Ah, that works. But I'm unable to fix your link for you, since I'm stuck in this little box. Hmm, looking at the preview, I'm not supposed to sign? I can see the advantage, but also then I'll forget to sign if I use the [Edit] box. And I'm old-school and like to put a -- at the end. Colin°^Talk 07:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Now I notice the URL I tried didn't have the magic dtenable=1 parameter. There's only a Reply button, not an Amend or Fix button. So I have to still go back up to the top, click edit, and then find my text to amend it. I've fixed it, but now I've got to sign this, just when I was getting used to not having to sign. -- Colin°^Talk 07:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Colin, if you add the usual four tildes, then it will detect the possibility of a duplicate signature and remove the automatic one. I find that this tool is particularly handy in long sections like this one.

There's talk of an "Amend" or "Fix" button. I don't think it will happen soon, but it will probably happen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there a way of turning this tool on? -- Colin°^Talk 17:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing:, whatever you and Colin see, that I am supposed to see, I am not seeing. Clicking on your link or Colin's link takes me only to this page-- I'm not getting it. But since you are working on making editing easier on my arthritic fingers, I'll give you the whole picture. Since the hazardous hammock incident, where a big tree fell on me and tried to make me die, my brain healed, but my body did not. I can type best at my desktop computer, with a real keypad and mouse, but my back cannot handle sitting at the desk for more than an hour at a time. You can tell when I am at my laptop, as I have fewer typos. During the RFC formulation, I had to do so much typing that I could not sit that long, so I used my laptop. On the laptop, the touchpad is what kills my fingers; I eventually get so tired that I make many typos (that plus my essential tremor). The easiest way to browse and read and make short edits is on my iPad, where the touchscreen doesn't hurt my fingers. But I can't type well on the iPad, so I make tons of typos-- and I am unable to figure out why the iPad often won't let me go back and correct typos, so I just post typos and all, knowing I will have to go back and correct them on real computer. Not sure if any of that is useful, but that's my story! And why I am eternally grateful to anyone (like Mdaniels5757 [20]) who fixes my obvious typos for me! For example, last night I made that brief post to the arb case from my iPad. I could see the error, but couldn't backspace to fix it, so left it for the next day. And hope I have to say nothing else about the imminent demise of the Medicine Project. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

This only works on desktop, not mobile. (Also, if you're editing via the mobile site, then watch out for talk pages with ===Level 3=== section headings above your comment, as it's been counting the section numbers wrong. Matma Rex, who is on the editing team, is fixing that, but I don't know which WP:THURSDAY it will get here.)

Do you use keyboard shortcuts to avoid the trackpad?

Colin, you can't turn it on here yet. Maybe in another week or two, if I'm lucky. If you want to see the next-next thing, then try https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg_gebruiker:Whatamidoing_(WMF)?dtvisual=1 Switch to "visual" mode and add a link (⌘K on a Mac, or click the chain-link-looking icon in the little toolbar above the box). ⌘-Return (or its equivalent on whatever desktop OS you're using) will click the big blue button to post your comment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

FA Question

Hi Sandy, I have been working on The Minute Man over the past 5 months and I put it up as a FAC. I was wondering if you, or one of your talk page watchers, could look over it and tell me how far I am from it passing? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Guerillero, I would be honored. I will probably get to it tomorrow, as I am on my way to buy a new device ... grrrrrrrrrr ... I just cannot seem to get out from under computer issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I am still getting my new computer setup going, but perhaps Ceoil would have a look in here, since it's a sculpture. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Would be delighted as this is right up my street, and have and attachment to MA. Feel free Guerillero to revert at will. Ceoil (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Thank you! Best of luck with your computer troubles --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Guerillero: I am out of lost password hell, having reinstated everything now, and working to catch up ... will get there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your copy edits and review. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Guerillero: not done yet, but I didn't want to get in Ceoil's way ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Quarter Million Award for Dementia with Lewy bodies

	The Quarter Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Dementia with Lewy bodies (estimated annual readership: 392,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Reidgreg:, how very kind of you-- thank you! I had never heard of that award, so looked it up, and I must say it's ironic to receive an award based on an essay from someone who hounded me out of FAC :) Could you tell me where one locates the "estimated annual readership" number? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Last year's stats at Pageviews Analysis with 408,266 views for Dementia with Lewy bodies, 1,489,925 for Tourette syndrome and 2,917,904 for Ketogenic diet. -- Colin°^Talk 14:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Colin. You (and all TPS) need to go here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I finally found the “last year” button ... so I have a millionaire! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm looking for how I collect my commission. I must be owed a bit since 2010. -- Colin°^Talk 16:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Do these things pay? (On that one, you can literally see the exact dates each time a celebrity stumbled across it and tweeted a link to their fans.) ‑ Iridescent 18:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I dunno; did you get yours (award or money)? How come I supposedly got one of these awards for Tourette syndrome (according to the page), but I never got it? Should we start passing them out? You know how much I want to honor TCO (cough ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I never got one, not that I care any more than I care about the equally meaningless WP:FOUR award; as I've long said, I think the whole concept of "core topic" is a red herring, and from Wikipedia's viewpoint, the obscure niche topics are more important than the million-view pages. (If the Wikipedia page on Paris is terrible, I can easily find what I need somewhere else; if the Wikipedia page on Pithole, Pennsylvania is terrible, I'm likely not to find the information I need.) For what it's worth, you did get presented with the award for Tourette Syndrome at the time. ‑ Iridescent 21:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The trick is to pick an obscure niche topic that gets millions of page views! -- Colin°^Talk 09:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The closest I got there are 1257 Samalas eruption and African humid period, for perspective. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Re 1m views; you could do what I do; find a 15th c painting where the dress is above the ankles and somehow pretend, hey, its art! Ceoil (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

And now you've nerd-sniped me into drafting an article for the only railroad that actually reached Pithole. Well done. Choess (talk) 03:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Belated congrads on the promotion!!! As said before, it was a fine example of a core editor skillfully pulling in a wider team so that the whole is far better than the parts. Next one pls! Ceoil (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Ceoil ... and thanks for your part! I can't promise a next ... priorities must be established! I need to catch up on FAR, catch up on FAC reviewing, and then decide what's next. FAC is broken, and I don't see a lot of hope that it will get fixed. (Recent discussions there as bad as ever, and indications the new crop don't understand what went wrong, much less how to turn things around.) WP:MED is broken, but I see a glimmer of hope it can turn around, but that will take years. There just are not enough good medical writers, who know how to put together top content, left around. Trust & Safety is a danger to the site. So, one must decide what's next ... all the bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Atom FAR

Thanks for doing the notifications. I had no idea who to notify. Kurzon (talk) 07:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kurzon: no problem. For future reference, you notify the WikiProjects listed on article count, and the top contibutors per the article statistics. Sometimes people complain they weren't notified, and then we have to extend the time allowed. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

You're in the "news"

Wikipedia formally censors The Grayzone as regime-change advocates monopolize editing mentions you a few times, and has a link to your user page. Hegsareta (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Trying to decide whether to prepare a response, since that article so perfectly demonstrates why they were deprecated. Not sure it is worth it, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Done: [21] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I see they have amazing readership (NOT). [22]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• You know, I'm honestly surprised I couldn't see my username in that article. Maybe they found some of my recent comments on how the US is not handling Venezuela well and figured that it didn't fit their argument and Bob Brockley was a better target? Kingsif (talk) 07:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

TPS alert: FAR notifications

Here is a template listing Featured articles (and notification dates and details) for which a Featured article review is needed.

According to the FAR instructions, after waiting five to seven days to see if anyone engages to address the issues, anyone can bring an article to FAR, subject to a) no more than one nomination every two weeks; and b) no more than four nominations on the page at one time, unless permission for more is given by a FAR coordinator.

Since Wikipedia has certainly hundreds (and possibly thousands) of outdated Featured articles, please add this template to your talk page, and nominate articles as you feel comfortable and as they become eligible. Also, if you notify any talk pages of FAs that have fallen below standards, please add the article to this template. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

	The Minute Man
	Thank you for your assistance with getting The Minute Man to featured article status. I could not have done it without your help. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Guerillero: my pleasure and congratulations! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Rerum Germanicarum libri tres

Hello! Sorry for bothering you, but if you have time, can you help me with the article? I see that someone started translated it from Russian to English but didn't finish it. I decided to finish the translation, because Russian article is really good. Can you read it, and correct the spelling mistakes if there are any? Thanks a lot! Chichiguy (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

That looks like something Gerda Arendt might be able to help with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for thinking of me. Unfortunately the German source which I cold help with is offline. I'd ask Project:Russia if someone can help with that language. I knew someone for Russian questions but he was banned. (I knew somone for Polish but he gave up ...) The English sources look decent, though. Good luck, and if you have specific questions, try me, but I'm busy RL these days. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

S Marshall any interest ? I am unfamiliar with the topic, the language and the editor requesting help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't speak Russian. Ymblanter does?—S Marshall T/C 18:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I speak Russian, but what is the point? To check the accuracy of sources?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The sources seem to be not in Russian.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I thought the sources were German? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I thought the challenge was to finish translating the Russian-language article into English. My German's OK, I'll look at it.—S Marshall T/C 18:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Your guess is as good as mine ... I am unsure how this landed on my talk page ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• That's a raw machine translation of the Russian-language Wikipedia article (verify), so WP:MACHINETRANSLATION applies. I'll just drop it directly into draft space.—S Marshall T/C 19:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• ah ha ... thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

	TYVM
	Am in the middle of something else but just wanted to say how much I appreciate all your help on getting Bath School disaster to WP:FA. You're awesome. Now go have an awesome weekend. Cheers! Shearonink (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Shearonink: My pleasure, and thank you for restoring a Former featured article! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

TPS phoning Germany

Talk page stalkers and @Nikkimaria and WhatamIdoing: see the third sentence at this section of the Germany article. My iPad is turning the year range, 919–1024, to a phone number. Putting nowiki tags around it does not solve it. 919–1024. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

That's a "feature" of mobile Safari, rather than anything we're doing here. Not sure if we can do anything about it other than reworking the sentence to get rid of the offending range... Nikkimaria (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I see it is not happening on my regular computer with different browser. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

If it's possible to fix that, then it would probably be by adding some sort of metadata (probably via a template). WP:VPT or WT:ACCESS would be the places to ask for ideas. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to both, will post at VPT when I have time, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

RFC at VPT: [23] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Notice

I see sockpuppet-like behaviour by a very new user: [24]. Not sure how to pursue aqctions though. -DePiep (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not familiar enough with the personaggio to identify ... wish I could help! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

DePiep preparing an ANI now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, reverting cannot go on. There is no "incorrect" content angle then? -DePiep (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I do not know ... I have not time to investigate content, only behavioral, and there has been no feedback from WT:MED ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

This afternoon

Hello SandyG: It turns out I have a couple of hours this afternoon, until 6 PM eastern time US. If you'd like we can have a discussion on my user talk page. I mean the discussion you had mentioned at WT:FAC. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

RfA Noms

I found the following noms/co-noms by you:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Laser brain
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Happyme22
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jbmurray
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GrahamColm
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Steve
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dabomb87
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Slp1
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gimmetrow
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Moni3

Plus whatever bonus points are deserved for recommending Risker to their eventual nomination. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Upcoming FAC Nomination

Hello SandyGeorgia. I have an upcoming article, Hyborian War, a play-by-mail/email game started in 1985 (that's still active!) now finishing with peer review that I'll repost for its second FA nomination try in about a week. I saw you've reviewed some retro games at FAC like Space Invaders. Would you mind reviewing Hyborian War when its ready? I'm a bit concerned that it may sit unreviewed given it's a niche area. Thank you kindly for your time. Airborne84 (talk) 04:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia. The peer review is done for Hyborian War and its nomination at the FAC page is here. If you get time in the coming week or two, I would greatly appreciate your review. Thank you kindly for your time. Airborne84 (talk) 01:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia. Happily, my nomination for Hyborian War has a passing image review and two supports. But the nomination seems to have stalled. If you have some time and the inclination, I'd greatly appreciate your review. I understand you're dealing with backlogs at FAR and perhaps other places as well, so I'd also be willing to help out wherever you think is best for a bit if needed (for a fair review, not a passing one, of course). Best regards, Airborne84. Airborne84 (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Airborne84: I've been dealing with "one of everything", that has me most discouraged, and it feels like all I do is put out fires, but I do still intend to try to get over there ... Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks SandyGeorgia. I do appreciate it. I've got about two weeks before I turn into a pumpkin IRL, so to speak, for a while. You seem fantastically busy; let me know how I can help before then. Airborne84 (talk) 03:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

And if I might add, whether you are able to make it over there or not, I appreciate what you do for Wikipedia. Airborne84 (talk) 03:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Really appreciate your time going over and giving it a good, hard look. Will work with Gog the Mild, make adjustments, and advise when ready. Thanks again! Airborne84 (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia. I've addressed your comments at the Hyborian War FAC nomination and Gog the Mild and I have both gone back through the article to address your broader remarks. Ready for your relook! Thank you for your time on this! Airborne84 (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

got it ... bedtime here ... I will try to get over there tomorrow, but if I forget (it happens :) please send me a new message here ... bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I think I addressed your last comments adequately at the FAC nom for Hyborian War. If not, please advise. If so, I can't thank you enough for your review. The article is much improved and stands a much better chance of getting promoted due to your efforts. Thank you! Airborne84 (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Airborne84:, I'm sorry I took so long to get to it-- the idea was for me to do that before you went to FAC, not after :) Now you can return the favor and go over to WP:FAR and enter some Keep/Delist declarations on articles that are in the FARC phase :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

You got it SandyGeorgia! Airborne84 (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine closed

An arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles. Any uninvolved administrator may apply sanctions as an arbitration enforcement action to users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
• CFCF is reminded to avoid casting aspersions and similar conduct in the future.
• Doc James is prohibited from making any edits relating to pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing in the article namespace.
• QuackGuru is indefinitely topic-banned from articles relating to medicine, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine closed

FAC mentorship?

Hello, hope you're doing well... I recently nominated Complete blood count for GA, and the reviewer recommended that I consider a FAC nomination. I'm interested, but this is new territory for me and I'm sure the article has a long way to go. I'm wondering, if you have the time, if you would be interested in assisting with preparing the article for FAC. I'm still working on it - it needs a proper copyedit, there are a couple of things that need expanding on, and I know I will have to add the locations for all the publishers and whatnot... but I think it would be helpful to have an experienced FA writer look over it to point out other issues. I learned a lot from working with you on the Chagas disease FAR. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

it will be my pleasure. I have a bit of catching up to do still, post-Arbcom, but will watchlist and weigh in as I find time. If I am slow, do not hesitate to ping me. One thing you will have to consider to get through FAC these days is Page nos for all book sources, and page ranges on long journal articles. Have a look at the citations at dementia with Lewy bodies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I've included page numbers for all the books. Will have to see how long some of the articles are, and read through the FAC discussion to see what qualifies as "long"... it's been a while since I've looked at all of them. I really appreciate your help :) Spicy (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

It is in very good shape. Some notes ... bear with me (iPad typing). There is some bolded text in tables I don’t understand. And you will need to sync your page ranges to one style ... that is, if you do 55–6 In text, you shouldn’t then do 234–249 in reference. See WP:MOSNUM, pick one consistent style. More tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

It is in very good shape - that means a lot coming from you! The page ranges are just an oversight, I'll go through and fix those, probably tomorrow as I've spent too much time on WP today and have to do some stuff around the house. Re. tables- yeah, I have a number of questions about those, which are probably better addressed on the talk page of the article. Thanks again for taking a look at the article. Spicy (talk) 00:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Will join article talk tomorrow, Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Spicy now that I'm caught up, you're next ... just letting you know I have not forgotten you, but I wanted to get that list up in the hope that others will work on it, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE: Spicy I see you're down to three inlines to resolve, so I'm taking a moment to give you some next step ideas.

1. A significant thing you could start doing right away is to head over to WP:FAC and make your presence known. This will be your first FAC nomination, and although there is no quid-pro-quo reviewing requirement at FAC (as there is at DYK), it doesn't hurt to a) have experience at how articles are reviewed at FAC, and b) let FAC regulars get a sense that you are quite the competent editor. FAC is seriously backlogged, and it could take the article as long as two months to get through, so regulars there will seriously take note of your participation in reviewing other articles, appreciate it, and that could increase the chances that you will get more reviewers to engage. You don't have to Support or Oppose if you don't feel confident yet ... just entering comments is helpful. The criteria are at WP:WIAFA, and this old Dispatch may help.
2. When you feel ready, you might consider whether you want to make a post to WT:MED BEFORE you approach FAC, to have other medical editors take a look. Most of the recent medical FAC submissions were submitted without having done that, and the articles were ill-prepared. Your article is not ill-prepared, and it's your decision whether you need pre-WPMED review. Alternately, having WhatamIdoing run through now would be good.
3. While I consider No. 2 an optional step for you, I feel this step is essential. You should have at least one non-medical editor at least read through-- not necessarily a serious review, just a read-through for jargon and comprehensibility for the non-medical type-- to make sure the medical jargon is not too dense. When you are ready for that, I suggest either Ceoil, Gog the Mild or maybe Iridescent would do it. I won't ping them in until you've finished addressing the inlines and say you are ready, unless you tell me to go ahead on that.
4. It can also be helpful to get a pre-review on the images to have that out of the way: perhaps Nikkimaria would look at Complete blood count now since you are close to FAC-ready?
5. And finally, just before you do go to FAC, I'll post for you a list of "please do not do these things". Which are mostly things I doubt you would do anyway. The medicine project a few years back had a disastrous FAC because the nominator became very combative. It's important to keep in mind that FAC is seriously backlogged, and yet the bronze star depends on the willingness of unpaid volunteers to comb through your work. There is a way to agree and disagree that is less off-putting, and it's important to appreciate their work. More on that later.

More importantly, you should be thinking about RFA, as should Ajpolino. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Yikes, I'm not even sure what I'd do with the admin bit. Block... people? Anyway, inspired by our happy times at Chagas disease, I'm working on Buruli ulcer now. Hopefully that can be the next med-related FAC after Spicy's. Glad to see this coming together! Looking forward to seeing it hit the FAC page! Ajpolino (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ajpolino: admins don't have to block people. There are many other useful things they do, and you could be an admin of the User:Barkeep49 variety, who is more concerned with listening, being fair, finding appropriate solutions to problems, weighing all evidence, and fairly adjudicating disputes. Fact is, having passed RFA means people take you more seriously, and if you wait too long to submit to the torturous process, you end up with enough enemies that you can't pass. So you should be thinking that direction. We do not have enough content-driven admins, who seriously investigate disputes before weighing in, in the vein of one of my RFA nominees, User:Slp1. We need more like you.

Let me know when Buruli ulcer is ready for a look; Wikipedia has been very discouraging of late, but you know if I'm still around, I'll help in any way I can. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Some images are missing alt text, and some would benefit from being scaled up. I don't have OTRS access to verify File:Model_A_COULTER_COUNTER_from_Advertisement.jpg, but other than that the only image with potential licensing issues is File:Romanovsky.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you ever so much, Nikki! @RexxS: might you do the favor at looking at the missing alt text at complete blood count before Spicy heads to FAC? Sphilbrick are you able to answer the query from Nikki above related to OTRS? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, Assuming you are asking about File:Model_A_COULTER_COUNTER_from_Advertisement.jpg, I looked at the old TRS ticket and it looks fine, meeting met someone who appears to be the copyright holder has provided an appropriate license. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I've done the alt text as best I could. When the captions are well made, it's sometimes unnecessary to add more as alt text, so "See caption" will suffice. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I've had a look at c:COM:Russia and it looks like the relevant criterion would be The work was originally published anonymously or under a pseudonym before January 1, 1943 and the name of the author did not become known during 50 years after publication. The source linked to on Commons ([25]) just says Photos from Sokolov`s family archive and doesn't name the photographer, and I was not able to find a name for the photographer on Google. Is that good enough to say that the photographer is anonymous? (Otherwise I'd have to figure out who they are and when they died). If not, there is a CC-BY-4.0 image from Wellcome Trust that could be used instead. Spicy (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

That's sufficient to say it's anonymous, but what would be the image's status in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Romanowsky died in 1921, so the image was evidently taken before then, and PD-US states the image has to have been published before 1925. Do I need to track down when it was first published, or is it safe to assume that it was probably published at some point during his lifetime? Spicy (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Quick reply, posting at work... thank you again for all the advice! I believe the hemoglobinometer image was the only one missing alt text - I've tried to fix that. Some of the existing alt text could maybe stand to be improved - I'm not an expert on that. Will look at the licensing on the Romanowsky image later, and I have no clue about the OTRS stuff either. As I said on the talk page, I'm still pretty far from being ready for the pre-review phase... need to add content about point of care testing which is currently not covered at all, improve the description of the mechanical stuff and add discussion of some minor techniques such as radiofrequency and cytochemistry, hopefully find some more content about screening and quality control/general laboratory techniques from a global perspective, and go through the history section again and survey the literature to see if the coverage is comprehensive... as for RFA, that's very flattering but I just had my first birthday on Wikipedia a few days ago and I hardly feel like I know what I'm doing with the minor hats I've collected so far, so I don't think I'm anywhere near being ready for the big one. But I do agree that Ajpolino should go for it. :) Thanks, Spicy (talk) 14:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Ideally, Jfdwolff or Casliber would look through the CBC article. They both have more FAC experience than I do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but JFW has not been very active, and we can count on Cas to review when it hits FAC ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Question

Hello,

I'm reaching out as you were very nice and helpful when I started with the two insulin articles I made and I'm looking for some help regarding something else. I started a discussion regarding the ATC code navigation templates as a whole on the WP:PHARM talk page as that's the project listed at the one template I had specifically in mind (this one) - but I'm not sure if this is the correct place, if there's a better place, how to get people involved, etc. What I don't want to do is just go and change dozens of templates names (or create dozens of redirects, etc) if I'm not sure that it's acceptable and with no discussion - but I'm not really sure how much discussion is needed or how to get people to discuss. I'm also not sure, if people think they should be changed, if there's a way to automate the renamings, and automatically update all the articles to the new template names. Any advice you can give is appreciated (and I will watch this page for your reply). Thanks, bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, again! I am uncertain in that area. The person who probably can best help with this is RexxS. One issue is that I think you have to have template Editor rights to be able to do anything with templates, but RexxS might weigh in here. If he cannot answer the question, we’ll find someone who can ... saludos, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I assumed that since I was able to edit the template that moving it would be no problem for me - but if there is a specific right involved then hopefully RexxS can weigh in or provide more information. Thanks! bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

It looks like I am wrong ... see Wikipedia:Template editor. More later when not on my iPad. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez and Sandy: On the first point, the right thing to do for now is to continue the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology #ATC code templates and explore the pros and cons to get some consensus before doing any renaming. I'm normally a big fan of bold edits, but not for edits that are done on a large scale, which really should be discussed beforehand. As for the the Template Editor permission, you only need that to edit highly-used and high-visibility templates (which have protection), so you should be fine to edit the ATC series. To automate renamings, you'd need to ask a bot operator at WP:Bot requests to run a bot to do the renamings, but you'd almost certainly need to provide them with a list of the mappings from the current name to the new name, and the effort to produce and check that list might be comparable to just doing the renamings yourself once there's consensus. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:MED Newsletter: July 2020

Issue 2—July 2020

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter

A happy Juneteenth, Canada day, and July 4th to all. During tumultuous times, at least the newsletter returns. The newsletter remains experimental; if you have ideas, suggestions, or criticisms, please post them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Newsletter. With that, here's what is happening this month:

Newly recognized content

Mary Carson Breckinridge nom. JECason, reviewed by 1namesake1 Complete blood count nom. Spicy, reviewed by Tom (LT) Joseph Ray Watkins nom. Doug Coldwell, reviewed by Ajpolino

Nominated for review

Huntington's disease is a Featured article removal candidate DNA repair nom. for FAR; some medical info needs checking Prostate nom. Tom (LT) Niacin nom. David notMD, under review by Ajpolino Willis J. Potts nom. Larry Hockett Pantothenic acid nom. David notMD, under review by HaEr48 Dimple nom. MonkeyStolen234 Atul Gawande nom. Vrrajkum, under review by BennyOnTheLoose Buruli ulcer nom. Ajpolino Louise Bourgeois Boursier nom. Doug Coldwell

News from around the site

• Calling all reviewers! A rush of good article nominations has filled the WP:GAN#MED queue. Anyone can review a nomination against the good article criteria; see the instructions here for details. If you have questions about reviewing or would like some supervision as you get started, feel free to post at WT:GAN or my talk page. Happy reviewing!
• The arbitration committee is hosting a large anti-harrassment RfC. Feedback from a broad swath of the community would be helpful.

Discussions of interest

• A question regarding incorporating machine-readable disease codes into more medical articles is still ongoing at at VPP
• More eyes are needed to review some class-created medical pages; list at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#List.

For a list of ongoing discussions in WP:MED-tagged articles, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Discussions
Also, a reminder to see Article Alerts for a list of medicine-related AfDs, CfDs, merge discussions, and more!

Let's hook some new editors

An experienced user (right) entices a new user to contribute productively. The new user remains unaware of the hook embedded within until it's too late.

According to at least one metric (scroll to the bottom of this signpost article for a brief explanation) total edit levels are higher than they've been in a decade. By another metric they've at least substantially spiked over the last few months. The encyclopedia, and of course WikiProject Medicine, can only survive if we continue to rope in new editors to fill in for us as we lose the time, interest, or ability to improve the encyclopedia. We all know that this work can be time-consuming and frustrating, but hopefully we can put aside our frustrations to help guide and recruit the talent that will ensure the project's continued success.

This may be a good time to remind yourself of the Wikipedia introduction pages, which have recently been improved. Help:Introduction provides a streamlined starting point, while Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia provides a more comprehensive reference guide. The Wikipedia:Teahouse remains unnaturally quick at responding to questions, and is always a good place to direct new editors. The classic {{Welcome}} template has recently received a trimming, plus a few WikiProject Medicine-specific welcome templates are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Resources#Templates. When in doubt, you can always point an unsure user to WT:MED and we can all try to lend a hand. If you come across introductory resources that remain unclear, outdated, or conflicting please post at Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee to bring it to the attention of interested editors.

Discuss this issue

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

Ajpolino (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

FAC discussion

Hello again. Thank you for taking the time to fully explain your points, and I apologize again for my knee jerk reaction. It is important to have mature and nuanced discussions on these issues because they need to be handled better and more strongly on the FAC level. I have done a few peer reviews recently, and I very much enjoyed the process and it really does help to improve the article. I fully support any way to invigorate the peer review system. I always feel rather uncomfortable opposing a FAC, but it really is for the nominator's benefit so I should not have that feeling. I hope that I have not diverted any attention in the FAC talk page thread away from the true focus. I apologize if that is the case, and I hope it fosters a healthy level of discussion. Apologies for rambling, and I hope you are doing well. Aoba47 (talk) 23:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Aoba47: no need to apologize! You conducted yourself better than I did :) Just keep reminding yourself that “Oppose early, oppose often” is the kindest fastest route to the bronze star :). Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

You should give yourself more credit for starting the conversation. I agree that “Oppose early, oppose often” is definitely the best method, and I will keep that in mind for the future. Aoba47 (talk) 02:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Aoba47:, I just read through the entire FAC, and saw how incredibly patient you were ... well done. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. It made me think of the first time I edited on Wikipedia and did a FAC nomination. Looking back on those moments would be interesting lol. Regardless of that, I still should have opposed and requested the nominator withdraw and do a peer review instead since there was already questions about the sourcing prior to my comments and I noticed sourcing issues throughout the course of my review. I think you've mentioned it on the FAC talk page, but it is true that sources really should be examined closely right at the start of a FAC as that is the foundation of the article. Thank you for your patience with you. I've certainly had some less than stellar moments on Wikipedia, but I'm still learning and trying my best ><. Aoba47 (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The worst feeling is when a really dreadful FA appears at WP:FAR, and you look back and find out you supported ;). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Or looking back at an old FA you either worked on or supported after finding new sources/information or something you forgot to bring up at the time lol. Aoba47 (talk) 03:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

FAR instructions

Featured article review Talk notices given
Diocletianic Persecution 2020-05-03 Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky 2020-05-22 Underwater diving 2020-09-15 Józef Piłsudski 2020-09-25, 2021-08-07 The Supremes 2020-11-02 Supernatural (season 1) 2020-11-02 Supernatural (season 2) 2020-11-02 Kahaani 2020-11-18 2023-02-25 Major depressive disorder 2020-11-20 2022-08-18 Death of Ian Tomlinson 2020-11-21 India 2020-11-29 and 2023-11-28 1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash 2020-11-30 Tumbler Ridge 2020-12-26 Glacier National Park (U.S.) 2020-12-30 Ivan Bagramyan 2021-02-21 Bird 2021-02-21 Hamilton, Ontario 2021-02-22 Comet Hyakutake 2021-02-22 Mary Wollstonecraft 2021-03-03 Postage stamps of Ireland 2021-03-11, 2023-03-25 The Joy of Sect 2021-04-08 The World Ends with You 2021-04-23 Defense of the Ancients 2021-06-10 Dwarf planet 2021-08-14 E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial 2021-09-26 Robert Garran 2021-10-09 Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia 2021-11-27 Hurricane Edith (1971) 2021-12-04 Meteorological history of Hurricane Jeanne 2021-12-05 Meteorological history of Hurricane Gordon 2021-12-05 Hurricane Dean 2021-12-05 Meteorological history of Hurricane Wilma 2021-12-05 Meteorological history of Hurricane Ivan 2021-12-05 Effects of Hurricane Ivan in the Lesser Antilles and South America 2021-12-05 Tropical Storm Bonnie (2004) 2021-12-05 Tropical Storm Henri (2003) 2021-12-05 Tropical Storm Edouard (2002) 2021-12-05 Hurricane Fabian 2021-12-05 Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Maryland and Washington, D.C. 2021-12-06 Hurricane Erika (1997) 2021-12-06 Hurricane Isabel 2021-12-06 Hurricane Kenna 2021-12-06 Typhoon Pongsona 2021-12-07 Hubble Space Telescope 2022-01-08 Dürer's Rhinoceros 2022-02-04 Io (moon) 2022-02-13 Solar eclipse 2022-04-30 Manchester 2022-05-12 Transformers (film) 2022-06-05 Slate industry in Wales 2022-07-05 Working [26] Schizophrenia 2022-08-18 Amanita muscaria 2022-08-26 Battle of Corydon 2022-10-10 White Deer Hole Creek 2022-10-22 Work ongoing December 2022 Mayan languages 2022-11-19 Sentence spacing 2022-11-19 Indigenous people of the Everglades region 2022-11-21 First-move advantage in chess 2022-11-21 Restoration of the Everglades 2022-11-22 King Arthur 2022-11-22 Stephen Crane 2022-11-22 Mark Kerry 2022-12-01 California Gold Rush 2022-12-02 Harry McNish Noticed 2022-12-03 History of Lithuania (1219–1295) 2022-12-03 Władysław II Jagiełło 2022-12-03 David I of Scotland 2022-12-03 Coeliac disease 2022-12-03 Metabolism 2022-12-03 Palace of Queluz 2022-12-04 Northern bald ibis 2022-12-09 Hippocampus 2022-12-09 Cane toad 2022-12-09 Sun 2022-12-09 and 2024-05-10 Boeing 777 2022-12-09 Second Crusade 2022-12-09 Delichon 2022-12-10 Rock martin 2022-12-10 Lion 2022-12-10 Victoria Cross for New Zealand 2023-01-01 Work ongoing January 2023 Bengali language movement 2023-01-15 Pre-dreadnought battleship 2023-01-21 USS New Jersey (BB-62) 2023-01-23 West Wycombe Park 2023-01-25 Holkham Hall 2023-01-25 Redshift 2023-01-26 Angkor Wat 2023-01-28 Jack Sheppard 2023-02-02 Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna of Russia 2023-02-12 Guy Fawkes Night 2023-02-14 Marcus Trescothick 2023-02-22 Moe Berg 2023-03-10 Falaise Pocket 2023-03-29 James Nesbitt 2023-03-29 The Slave Community 2023-04-14 Johnstown Inclined Plane 2023-04-23 Dengue fever 2023-04-30 Wood Badge 2023-05-15 Shoshone National Forest 2023-05-16 Hurricane Claudette (2003) 2023-05-16 Cleveland 2023-05-16 Buildings and architecture of Bristol 2023-05-20 Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition 2023-05-24 Oregon State Capitol 2023-06-02 Surrender of Japan 2023-06-30 Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 2023-07-14 Felice Beato 2023-08-04 Augustus 2023-08-08 Caspar David Friedrich 2023-08-13 Jocelin of Glasgow 2023-11-01 Hydrogen 2023-11-01 Letters Written in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark 2023-11-14 Ancient Egypt 2023-11-18 Taiwanese indigenous peoples 2023-11-27 Acetic acid 2023-12-8 Eric Brewer (ice hockey) 2024-01-02 White dwarf 2024-01-26 Adelaide Anne Procter 2024-01-30 Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve 2024-02-13 PowerBook 100 2024-02-23 Gwoyeu Romatzyh 2024-02-23 Helium 2024-03-25 Ocean sunfish 2024-03-31 Boston 2024-04-15 Bernard Quatermass 2024-05-09
Find more: Unreviewed featured articles

Given the pilup in the notices given template (and we're only hitting the tip of the iceberg of deficient FAs), how likely do you think it is that editors at FAC talk would support relaxing the requirement further to be, say one week between noms and six or eight allowed at one time? I don't have any experience drafting proposals of this nature, but I would certainly support any relaxation that you proposed. The previous proposal was at least effective in increasing the number of FARs ongoing at once. As you can tell by looking at the history,[27] it appears we currently have more FARs ongoing than anytime since 2015, and maybe even earlier than that. Thanks for all the great stuff you do, buidhe 07:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Buidhe ... I would approach this differently. I don't see it helpful to relax the number and timing of submissions from any one person, because preferable is to get more people to engage and value the entire process. If we relax the submissions, we end up with a handful of people doing all the work, and that (at FAR) can lead to bad feelings. Also, one goal is to save as many stars as possible, and I'm finding that keeping up with four at a time is enough for me. What I can do instead-- and have been planning to do-- is make an update post to WT:FAC, asking for more participation and feedback. The biggest change has been not so much because of the relaxed limits, but IMO because of the template where we track which articles need FAR, and I'd draw attention to that, asking people to give notices, watch the template, nominate what they can, and participate in the Keep/Delist declarations. But I've been waiting for a drama-free moment to do that ... Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Nikkimaria do you have any thoughts, as I contemplate an update post to wt:fac? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

As you note, the major issue is lack of reviewer engagement, which applies not only at FAR but elsewhere as well; relaxing the requirements and correspondingly increasing the number of noms without increasing the number of engaged reviewers wouldn't help. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

It would be ideal if we could improve participation and get more people working on it. I am just not as optimistic as you that we can make it happen :/ buidhe 17:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, slow and steady wins the race :) In the instance of FAR, it can be important not to move too fast, as that can just alienate people. We have already made good progress ... give it time. We need to assure that we can save stars when appropriate. I will put together a post to WT:FAC tomorrow or the next day, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: per usual, things are too heated at WT:FAC to get anyone's attention to anything substantive. I'll try in a week or so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)