User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch114

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old FA[edit]

I'm thinking about my next FAR nomination at the end of the week, and with the rate limits being as they are, I want to try to get maximum effect. Torn between going for one of the old 2006 ones or a newer one. I'm really uncomfortable with the sourcing at FairTax, but wondered if you'd be willing to look at it as well, in case I'm overblowing the sources issues. Especially for the subject, I'm inclined to think the sourcing is not up to FA-level. There's just a lot of advocacy groups (Beacon Hill Institute and others), political consulting groups (Arduin, Laffer, & Moore and others), sources with titles like " "The U.S. Corporate Income Tax System: Once a World Leader, Now A Millstone Around the Neck of American Business"", significant usage of a guy who holds the fringey view that this is a Scientologist plot (Bartlett), and other stuff that just doesn't seem good for me. Just don't want to waste a FAR nom on something that's not as far gone as I'm worried it is. Hog Farm Talk 04:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because you have nothing else on your plate right now, huh?  :) :). It looks like a worthy FAR candidate to me. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, nvm Buidhe beat me to it while I was stuck at the DMV trying to get my license renewed. Hog Farm Talk 23:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've emailed you[edit]

About something external to WP that you might be interested in. I know you prefer not to email, but you'll see why. :-) Tony (talk) 06:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating! So much we have lost ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the Night peer review[edit]

Z1720 told me to seek some reviewers for the "For the Night" peer review. I was wondering if you could leave some comments? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 06:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - April 2021[edit]

Issue 11—April 2021


WikiProject Medicine Newsletter


Here is what's happening around the project:

Newly recognized content

Influenza removed from the featured article review list thanks largely to Velayinosu's work.
Friedreich's ataxia nom. Akrasia25, reviewed by Ajpolino
Kivu Ebola epidemic nom. Ozzie10aaaa, reviewed by Casliber






Nominated for review

Mihran Kassabian nom. Larry Hockett
Sophie Jamal nom. Vaticidalprophet
Northwestern Memorial Hospital nom. Andrew nyr
XXYY syndrome nom. Vaticidalprophet
CT scan nom. Iflaq
Tetrasomy Xnom. Vaticidalprophet
Menstrual cycle Undergoing FAR, contribute at talk.
Upcoming FARs: Alzheimer's disease, Major depressive disorder, Acute myeloid leukemia, Autism. Contribute to discussions at their talk pages.

News from around the site

Discussions of interest

  • Template:Authority control is getting a redesign. Contribute to the discussion here.
  • A large discussion is reconsidering deprecating the aliases for some citation template parameters.
  • Please look over edit-protected medicine pages to consider whether some could have protection levels safely lowered.

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) 02:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

R. A. B. Mynors[edit]

Hello SandyGeorgia, I hope you are doing fine. I'm contacting you because you contributed to the peer review on R. A. B. Mynors. I'd like to ask whether you'd be willing to add a review to the article's FAC page. Best wishes and thanks for your comments on the article so far, Modussiccandi (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologises[edit]

I've been out of practice with FAR these days. I thought it was still one week. Honestly I've been out of doing these reviews due to thinking these reviews have been going overboard. I honestly think 20+ reviews are excessive. GamerPro64 00:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; I understand. We do seem to have a few that are running too long and we should try to wrap them up. Sorry if I seemed short, the good and bad thing about spring is that one can toil all day in the garden, and come in very tired (but happy :) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS, here is a reminder of busier times at FAR :0. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Barging in to this conversation now, but I find it interesting that two of the ones from the link Sandy just posted (Talbot Tagora and Delrina) just recently exited a second FAR trip. Hog Farm Talk 02:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I’ve seen too many of these more than once. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry![edit]

Whoops, premature clicking + slow computer = occasional accidental rollback. Misclick. Sincerest apologies. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, Eddie891; I misclicked on rollback so often myself that I finally had to disable it! I don’t even think twice when that happens to others anymore. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've had to add a "confirm rollback" option on mobile, after some very bad incidents involving a touch screen with poor sensitivity. Hog Farm Talk 05:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Just discovered User:MusikAnimal/confirmationRollback which allows the same feature on desktop. I've got the same issue as Eddie where pages load slowly and I start impatiently clicking before the links have all settled into their final positions. Now with the confirmation blurb I can impatiently click away! Ajpolino (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TFA-related question[edit]

Hello again. Apologies for the random message, but I have a quick question about the the TFA requests. I am just a little surprised that some of the requests have been active for almost a month. Is that a normal occurrence for the TFA? I have been somewhat active in this space, but I do not know the time in which these requests are normally addressed. This is not meant to be a criticism agains the TFA editors as they do a lot of wonderful work there, but it was just something that I had noticed recently and wanted further information. I hope you are doing well and staying safe. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 I got too busy in the garden and forgot to answer you ... and it’s a long answer, and now too tired ! TLDR, there used to be hundreds of requests, now there are so few that no one engages the page. And we used to have ongoing scheduling, but now it’s only once a month, so entries drag for a full month. Longer answer involves ... the FA process used to have a director who kept things moving; now we have three separate processes that don’t help each other or the big picture. It is what it is, as no one seems eager to do anything about it. At least FAR is working again :0. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. I hope that everything is going well with your garden. It reminds me that I need to be a lot better with housework in general. That is a real shame, but I suspected the answer would be something similar to that. It would be ideally if the three separate processes were less separate and more integrated, but I am not entirely sure how that could be changed in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 03:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My garden is always a pleasure, but I forget that I’m not so young anymore ... and by the time I quit, I find myself much more exhausted than I realized! I hope you are well, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you![edit]

Hi there.

Thank you so much for your friendly 'welcome to Wikipedia' message on my Talk page. Also, thanks for the helpful resources that you have shared with me too. They will certainly come in handy.

LAficionado (talk) 02:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

War of the Fifth Coalition rescue[edit]

The Article Rescue Barnstar
Many thanks for your work to help rescue War of the Fifth Coalition at WP:FAR. What a great example of collaboration and Wikipedia at its best! - Dumelow (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Dumelow, most kind of you, and thanks for the efforts to salvage older FAs! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Toolserver listing of FAs needing cleanup[edit]

Big jump in articles needing cleanup in the past week. Mostly new CS1 errors (apparently anything beyond a numeral for a volume value is an "error" now), which makes it a lot harder to find to problematic ones in that method. Hog Farm Talk 14:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hmmmmm ... probably certain individuals messing with citation templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Using_volume=_with_cite_book. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria I don't even know how you stand to keep up or read any of it. It just makes me want to stop editing or go back entirely to manual citation methods. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the Mynors FAC[edit]

Hi SandyGeorgia, I wasn't sure whether you'd seen my ping so I thought I'd contact you here. I wanted to let you know that I've re-nominated R. A. B. Mynors at FAC. I know you said you wanted to have someone with relevant subject expertise review the article before posting a review yourself. There have been now been reviews form Ceoil and GenQuon who've worked on adjacent topics. I've also had a separate peer review with Llywrch who comes closest to being an expert on the topic (though he hasn't added a review.) Anyway, I just wanted to give you a heads-up in case you hadn't got the ping. Thanks for your help with the article so far and best, Modussiccandi (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On my list ... a bit behind today, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FAR[edit]

From the beginning I thought the Barbauld article would be a heavy lift and the Emma J. Clery material needs to be independently evaluated, which isn't possible without the book. The edit conflicts today annoyed me, because getting anything done here isn't easy these days and losing material adds to the frustration, but honestly there's a lot to do on that article - more than I have the energy or strength for. That said I've learned my lesson and won't comment on any other FARs. I've added some sources to the "Further reading" section at Make Way for Ducklings but won't be able to rewrite. That one is definitely not up to FAC standards. I'm unwatching FAR and sorry for the long screeds making the page overly long. At least we have good documentation explaining the various issues :) Victoria (tk) 00:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Victoriaearle since there are few things that leave me as frustrated as losing citation cleanup to edit conflicts, I fully empathize. And it troubles me that I noticed that article so long ago, and no one lifted a finger, until you started to buckle down to get it done, and got edit conflicts. I don't blame you for giving up. I'm just unsure now what I should do with the rest of Awadewit's articles, as you were my best hope :) Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm never happy with the result when I rush through, especially something like this that requires lots of searching for and reading sources. If it were up to me I'd put the others on the back burner for a while, until life gets back to a semblance of normal and it's easier to get to libraries (not yet on my go to list). In the meantime, have you considered leaving a message on her page? I'm sure there are watchers there and maybe a working group could be put together, possibly only for issues such as citation clean up. That would be a start. It might be an issue of chipping at them a bit at a time instead of a more traditional FAR. But I'm brainstorming and realized how very unfamiliar I am with how FAR works, so feel free to ignore. Victoria (tk) 23:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for William Lyon Mackenzie[edit]

Thanks for your help with the William Lyon Mackenzie article in March, specifically for your comments at the second PR. I have nominated the article for featured article status and I hope you will comment on the nomination here. Thanks again for your help preparing this article. Z1720 (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FA reviews[edit]

Like I told Gog a couple days ago, if you see a FAC that needs a review, ping me over there and I'll try to do one. I can do a handful a week. I'm currently only at a 8.6 reviews/nomination on the most recent update of the FA stats tool, and I'd like to try to get that above 10.0. Hog Farm Talk 02:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm will do ... I haven't been able to keep up lately myself because so busy IRL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm would you mind having a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shoom/archive1? Ceoil has always been a great collaborator, and I have not had time to do the review justice. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Doesn't seem to be a subject I'm familiar with, but I'll try to take a look at that. Hog Farm Talk 22:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article history[edit]

Hi Sandy, hope that you're well. We talked previously at a venue about ArticleHistory being used more often, but I can't remember where we last talked about it was. I remember you put quite a list up of what is and isn't included there... I'm hoping this is jogging your memory about somewhere! I am thinking about seeing if I can get peer reviews that are autoclosed to be included within ArticleHistory automatically. Could you point me to that venue so I can first update myself where the discussion is at? Thanks, Tom (LT) (talk) 05:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tom (LT), (talk page stalker) Template:Article history already has pretty thorough documentation where everything is listed. It includes: all featured content processes, good article review/reassessment, PR, Wikiproject peer reviews and ACR, WP:GOCE, good and featured topics, ALL deletion processes, TFA/TFL, OTD, ITN, DYK, OTD, etc. I don't think it's necessary for all of these to get included in ArticleHistory automatically but I would try for the most common and relevant ones. (t · c) buidhe 10:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Buidhe for your reply, I found the information I was looking for in the links you provided :). Tom (LT) (talk) 01:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tom (LT) I am terribly behind and struggling to catch up ... did you get everything you needed? Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did! Tom (LT) (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the 2018 Pacific hurricane season[edit]

Would you be willing to take a look at the Timeline of the 2018 Pacific hurricane season? My main concerns are making sure all the important events are covered accurately and the prose is fine. Are there any tools that can add non-breaking spaces or does that have to be done manually? I can handle everything regarding images. I will add more images and alt text later. I haven't written a timeline article before and this one is a mesh of work from several people over a long time period. NoahTalk 20:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

talk page watcher - disamb Puerto Escondido; you can make disambiguation links appear orange in gadgets in preferences. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Hurricane Noah I don't think it can be said that I avoid helping the cyclone project people whenever they need it. But, over at WP:URFA/2020, we still have not marked Satisfactory or moved one single cyclone or hurricane article, even though I posted to the Project asking for help months ago. [1] I don't have unlimited time. How about we make a trade? You get hurricane editors to help us make sure all the older FAs are cleaned up to the point of being able to mark them "Satisfactory", say one a week, and I continue helping hurricane editors with their articles? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Is an article being riddled with dead links reason for a FAR? As I take the criteria, if it can't be checked for accuracy, it is unreliable for the FA standards. Many others disagree with me. NoahTalk 14:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure whether that reasoning is correct, as we do accept off-line sources. Having loads of dead links is a red flag however, which indicates that the article hasn't been maintained. I assume it's not possible to restore the links with IABot (go to the history of the page, and click fix dead links in the right top corner)? FemkeMilene (talk) 08:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I concur - dead links in and of themselves are not a very good FAR reason. If they are a sign that the article wasn't maintained then you can have a reason for FAR. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hurricane Noah. I would not bring an article to FAR only because of dead links, but I suspect you know that and are actually asking a bigger question. WP:DEADREF gives the necessary guidance and tells us to wait at least 24 months. I suspect you may be referring to a bigger, underlying issue? If there are hurricane/cyclone sources that were web only, were not archived, no other sources exists ... what is to be done? And if that is the case, there could be a genuine problem, as often I see that small local online newspapers are used, and some of that content could be lost. That would not mean the article was no longer FA though. Can you give more specifics about your concerns? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problems have been resolved. Someone found a suitable replacement for the sources. NoahTalk 22:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A relief for all ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I am working on writing out a subsection for tropical cyclone intensity now that the semester is dying down. I know most of the other editors have been tied up with college right now, which is likely why the article is still "eh". I had my last midterm today and have finals on Monday for the courses I am in. What do you think about the plan for the subsection? Any thoughts on what has been written out thus far? I know I need to dedicate a few sentences to the Dvorak method since it is the most important way of assessing intensity. NoahTalk 00:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help with FAC nomination for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered[edit]

SandyGeorgia Hi. Having been one of the users that contributed to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered's peer review earlier in the year, I was wondering if you would help contribute in reviewing the article for its FAC nomination? It has been open for a few days but I've received no responses from any editors. It would be really appreciated if you could give any feedback and help move the article further towards reaching FA standard. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rockstar San Diego PR[edit]

Hey! I was hoping to hear back from you regarding the Rockstar San Diego peer review. You said that you were going through other PRs first so I didn't want to constantly annoy you with asking for an update, but I see you closed the PR just now. The article was GOCE'd during this time as well. If you have the time, do you mind going over your critique points again? Do you think the article is in the ballpark of FA-readiness? Regards, IceWelder [✉] 18:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was so far behind and did not notice ... l would you rather I reopen the PR before commenting? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right here is fine. IceWelder [✉] 19:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, after a bit (busy now) ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:IceWelder, catching up with this now. I see I had promised to circle back, yet never made it, and I apologize for that. WP:OVERLINKing has been addressed,

If you can address the sourcing and these prose redundancies, you are probably as ready as you can be for FAC, but be aware that the problem at FAC these days is a serious shortage of reviewers, and if you haven't followed all the advice in my essay, and previously engaged FAC to establish yourself as a serious participant and reviewer, you will likely have a hard time getting reviewers to engage. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! See these edits. To reply to your individual points:
  • I rephrased this sentence a bit to hopefully make more sense. Unfortunately, the source is not as detailed as you would like. It reads:

For a while, he tried to cash in on Medellín’s growing tech industry by establishing game development opportunities here and for Colombia at large. It worked for a while, until lack of help from the local government and technical talent — specifically in programming, Angel says — slowed progress.

  • All GameSpot articles are staff-written. Their authors are denoted as "Members" because they no longer work for the site, some longer than the current profile system exists. User-generated content (blogs and forum posts) is always indicated as such. Good to know that this could come up in the FAC, though.
  • I reduced the number of occurrences of "later" to five, either by exchanging it for alternatives ("eventually", etc.) or rewording the phrase. In other instances, the "later" feels natural, e.g. in "later that year" or "three days later".
I will be reading your essay again in the near future. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 10:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fad diet ref Khaw2016[edit]

Would you consider restoring this ref to Fad diet? Your given reason for removing it was predatory journal, but the multiple uses of the reference do not appear to be used in support of fringe or non-NPOV content. David notMD (talk) 09:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David notMD, if you had supplied the link, I would have replied sooner. [2] I don't know why we would use a predatory journal to cite basic facts, which should be available elsewhere, so I'm just not following your thinking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I may get around to rectifying the citations needed without that ref. I've edited the article sporadically in the past, but I am not the editor that originally added that ref. David notMD (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FAC for William Lyon Mackenzie[edit]

Hi Sandy, you asked to be notified when independent reviewers had gone through William Lyon Mackenzie. Two editors have supported its FAC; instead of a ping, I'm posting this message here. I hope you will comment on the FAC here. Thanks! (SG's talk page lurkers are also invited to comment on the FAC.) Z1720 (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On it tomorrow, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Micro-feedback on FA reviews[edit]

I've been trying to get back into more active FAC review mode and began with these two about two topics that interest me. Is there something that needs to be improved on these reviews? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St Kilda[edit]

I have left a longer explanation of the changes I made last week at the FAR page but otherwise not done anything new or added any further comment. Any suggestions as to what else could/should be done welcome. Ben MacDui 15:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page help[edit]

Hello again. Apologies for this random message. I would greatly appreciate help with the "Endless Night" (The Lion King song) talk page. The page was recently moved since another article about a different "Endless Night" song was recently created, but this caused an issue with the archived peer review. I am not entirely sure how I can fix this. And if possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could merge the peer review with the talk page header. Apologies again for this request. I hope you have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47, I can't get to it right this moment, but will do ... the peer review should not have needed any adjustments, but will look as soon as I have a free moment. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shoom[edit]

Hi Sandy, You planning to make any further comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shoom/archive1, or can we go through it with an eye to closing? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Punk rock/archive2[edit]

You participated in the first FAR on "punk rock" article, so I invite you to Wikipedia:Featured article review/Punk rock/archive2

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - June 2021[edit]

Issue 12—June 2021


WikiProject Medicine Newsletter


No newsletter last month means a double issue this month. Enjoy:

Newly recognized content

Menstrual cycle saved at FAR thanks to the efforts of Graham Beards and others.
Tetrasomy X nom. Vaticidalprophet, reviewed by JackFromReedsburg
XYYY syndrome nom. Vaticidalprophet, reviewed by MeegsC
CT scan nom. Iflaq, reviewed by Bibeyjj
Imprinted brain hypothesis nom. Vaticidalprophet, reviewed by Lee Vilenski
Diaphragmatic rupture nom. Aeschylus, reviewed by Bibeyjj
Pentasomy X nom. Vaticidalprophet, reviewed by Bibeyjj
Shellfish allergy nom. David notMD, reviewed by CommanderWaterford
Sophie Jamal nom. Vaticidalprophet, reviewed by Premeditated Chaos
Mihran Kassabian nom. Larry Hockett, reviewed by Amitchell125
Northwestern Memorial Hospital nom. Andrew nyr, reviewed by Sammi Brie

Nominated for review

Trisomy X nom. Vaticidalprophet, under review by Epicgenius
Hepatic hydrothorax nom. Aeschylus
Tetrasomy X and Deep vein thrombosis are both listed for peer review to prepare for FAC. Please contribute.
Upcoming FARs: Alzheimer's disease, Major depressive disorder, Acute myeloid leukemia, Autism. Contribute to discussions at their talk pages.





News from around the site

Discussions of interest

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.

Thanks, Ajpolino (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dementia with Lewy bodies scheduled for TFA[edit]

This is to let you know that the Dementia with Lewy bodies article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 21, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 21, 2021, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and the many you kindly mentioned, today for Dementia with Lewy bodies, introduced: "Who did not love Robin Williams? So, if you think you know what condition Robin Williams had when he died, there will be a quiz at the end of this article, where you will learn more new terms than you ever wanted to know. Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) has been a two-year collaboration involving medical editors working with FAC's own art cabal. Research and factoids chunked in by me; copyediting and prose smoothing mainly by Outriggr with considerable help from Ceoil and Yomangani; oversight, clarity and copyediting added by fellow medical editor, co-nom Colin; and medical feedback added from Adrian J. Hunter, Casliber, LeadSongDog and Doc James. They should all be co-noms! Sourcing is up to MEDRS standards, with the latest secondary reviews incorporated, and RexxS provided an accessibility review." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Job! If only I had the mental compacity to take on a project as big and serious as this. Your work is appreciated. Panini!🥪 16:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Panini; I appreciate the encouragement, as medical content is fersure not easy to write. As is customary for medical content, it has been a problem at WP:ERRORS. What can one do. I do wish people would get involved before mainpage day, so one does not have to spend an entire miserable day fighting vandals while also discussing with the good guys. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Save that stuff: [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was exciting. Curious to see what comes up when Trisomy X runs... On the bright side I didn't see anyone take issue with the picture! So that's good. Anyway, I hope you're still doing well. Time to think about what your next multi-year FA project will be 😉 Ajpolino (talk) 01:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajpolino: - The "taking issue with the picture" happened, just not while it was on the main page thank goodness. Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/July 21, 2021. I even would up commenting in that mess briefly. I'm rapidly losing all desire to ever participate in the TFA process again. Hog Farm Talk 01:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can say that again. But I have not lost hope, and am trying to explain the problem. But then … those damn rabbits eating my milkweed … SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever it's worth, my feeling on the matter is that keeping up the main page is a distinct task with a distinct cadre of folks who enjoy engaging with it. Personally, I've never much looked at the main page. Even before I started editing, I don't recall using the main page as a launching point. So while I was pleased when they chose to highlight Buruli ulcer for the day, I wasn't much bothered by their editorial decisions on how to highlight it. I'll let the main page-interested folks manage it how they will. It doesn't really affect my editing here. That said, I'm glad someone likes to manage the main page. Clearly being featured there still gives an article a substantial bump in pageviews, for whatever that's worth. Ajpolino (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ack … I am so far behind, and have failed to participate, as I most certainly should, at Trisomy X. Well … you will appreciate, perhaps, that my new pollinator garden is being overtaken by four plagues … rabbits, Japanese beetles, invasive and noxious creeping bellflower, and invasive horsetail weed. All I wanted was to create a nice space for pollinators, and all I’ve gotten in return is work, work, and more work. FAC is hard enough, that I wish TFA would not be so much unnecessary agida. I have a hard time maintaining interest in Wikipedia with so much negativity. Best, always, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajpolino, Colin, Floquenbeam, Graham Beards, Hog Farm, Jimfbleak, Panini!, and WhatamIdoing:

DLB did get as many hits at TFA (81,000) as Buruli ulcer (72,000, which was also beat up while on the main page-- what a way to encourage medical editors, something that had been my mission, along with overall scrutiny of the FA pool for TFA via WP:URFA/2020). Best I can tell, DLB was the most viewed TFA so far this month (Buruli ulcer was also one of the top viewed TFAs the month it ran). But even at that, these numbers are considerably down from what TFAs got historically, just as FAC participation is at all time lows. Me thinks the problems at FAC stem from the problems at TFA, fueled by the attitudes at WP:ERRORS. Why would anyone work so hard on an FA for several years, to have to go through such an unpleasant day at TFA, for so few hits? I am coming to the conclusion that FAC may not be worth the effort-- or at least that some real attitude adjustments are needed at ERRORS. Both Buruli and DLB went through a kerfuffle over NOT AN ERROR at all; considerable consensus building that went on over long periods of time and on multiple pages is disregarded, and unilateral edits are made. On its TFA, Buruli ulcer was unjustly criticized by a few vocal mainpage followers, the socking and gratuitous personal attacks endured during the Menstrual cycle FAR still have me disengaged from editing, and with DLB, years of hard work again turned into a miserable day at TFA. The typical mainpage day vandalism is bad enough, but having experienced editors make unilateral changes because they "suspect" an ERROR, after years went into consensus building and agonizing over and around every word, is not a good experience. My hopes of encouraging more medical editors to submit to this process may have been misplaced. I continue to think that WP:URFA/2020 is a valuable effort (thanks Hog Farm for keeping that moving as I have been too dejected to edit), because it results in article improvement regardless of the TFA situation. Well, anyway, a few IPs caught some rather embarrassing typos in DLB, and I have made the post-TFA repair edits ... please see Talk:Dementia with Lewy bodies#TFA. Once that is settled, I think I'll go back to my butterflies and milkweed. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to ping Wehwalt and Gog the Mild, who also have a stake in overall functioning of the FA process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I forgot to ping Guerillero, who is a constant voice of reason. Anything that can be done to minimize the GOTCHA that has overtaken ERRORS, along with the misplaced notion that there is some "mainpage standard" that other processes adhere to,[4] and restore a sense of consensus building and respect for the work that went into articles pre-TFA, would be a good thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I for one think it's worth it, but then again the content I bring is not crazy enough to warrant having to check every second for constant vandalism. The Origami King had 47,000 views and Paper Mario 32,000 (I dont want to be known as the Paper Mario guy so I'm moving on from this series for now).

I see a lot of IPs edit the article because they make grammatical changes that the believe are better, but mostly amount to being useless. Due to these being too frequent I leave them as they are and some other IP reverts it with conflicting opinions. Some IP also had it in their heart to go and plop a massive image of what could possibly be the worst vandalism I have come across from that was successful; some people saw it on Twitter and were quick to point it out. Its degrading to the hard work I put into it (it's not years like you do, but drafting an article from scratch for three months is still a hearty task) but I pull through it for personal satisfaction. That feeling is not the same for everyone, though, and can be frustrating to see people bicker over it. If there was a way to fix it I would be hands down. Panini!🥪 14:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've written a couple of draft TFA blurbs, and greatly enjoy that process. But I pity those who have to do the scheduling - there's so many competing interests that somebody's about bound to get upset. My main dislike of sending FAs I've worked on through that process is that there's no telling what'll happen on ERRORS and other places. A couple months ago, a TFA of "mine" about a Confederate army unit ran, with a CSA flag for the main image. There was no blow-up, but I spent the whole time in great concern that there was gonna be one over the image (which was the most representative for that article). Or the DLB article had to deal with a row over a minor bit of phrasing that wasn't incorrect, just not liked. To me, FAR and FAC are usually collegial, collaborative processes, while TFA (not the standard selection or blurb process, but the last-minute commentary on said articles) often feels like more of a St Scholastica Day riot to me. I just don't usually have the energy for that. I greatly enjoy improving content through the FA process, but some parts are generally places where I won't spend much time. Hog Farm Talk 16:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm, ask your ag buddies about battling horsetail weed if you want an indication of what kind of mood I’ve been in lately :). I finally got in a new pollinator garden, mostly done, when I discovered horsetail weed came in the mulch, and creeping bellflower came with a plant. So just when I thought I was semi-done, I am up to my eyeballs in highly invasive and noxious intrusions. Anyway …
Several things could make ERRORS less noxious (my plant word of the day). First, if it isn’t an ERROR, take it to talk and respect consensus. There is something akin to ownership that is happening at ERRORS, ala panic … we must fix it now, no time to think about if it really IS an error, or just a normal consensual process that should evolve on talk. It strikes me that Guerillero and Floquenbeam get that, but they still have to deal with OHMYGOD panic at ERRORS. So discouraging to have jumped through so many hoops for so many months or years, to create an FA and then hit a new, and sometimes uninformed, wall at ERRORS. Second, ERRORS people, review TFAs in advance; the Coords are making it as easy as they can. There are very few true “errors”, and FAR can handle the rare quality issues. It could help if those who are advocating for pulling TFAs would think about the effects of such drastic calls, and whether it really matters to our readers in the long run, and what is the most constructive approach to article quality. No, it is not an “emergency”, and please define “emergency”. Third, everyone … WP:FAR and WP:URFA/2020 are that-a-way. Use them; it’s not like we haven’t tried out best to get those moving (in fact, rather successfully last time I checked). Fourth, if we truly believed there was some sort of “mainpage standard of quality”, well then neither ITN nor OTD nor DYK would be on the mainpage at all. Some folks are deceiving themselves about the role of ERRORS and the quality standard on the mainpage. I could give scores of examples, but some of the readers here may remember a recent FAC where I demonstrated an extreme level of POV that had existed in the article for quite a few years. Before I pointed that out, the article had run four times in that POV state at OTD. Similar examples exist on the mainpage Every Single Day. Lowering the temperature, and pretense, at ERRORS would go a long way towards reinvigorating FAC.
Back to my noxious weed digging … SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard bad stories about horsetails, and am grateful they aren't in my area (we get to deal with Johnsongrass, pigweed, and jimsonweed, the latter of which looks like it was bred in hell). As an example of how low the other main page stuff is often, I just checked ERRORS, and apparently one of the OTD articles didn't have a lead. And the last time I used ERRORS was to note that a DYK article duplicated another one that had existed for years. I just don't get why that's the bar for other main page stuff, while TFA is held to such a higher and more objective standard at there. Hog Farm Talk 17:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't just the IPs and newbie accounts that make "grammatical changes that they believe are better, but mostly amount to being useless". I can understand non-Wikipedians coming across the page that day and spotting a "mistake" they want to fix, but why on earth would a regular established Wikipedian think that main-page-day was the optimal time to copyedit? I'm guessing it is an ego thing. I'm puzzled about the purpose of WP:ERRORS. Is it linked from the main page? Do IPs and newbies get directed to it if they try to fix or want to point out a problem? I can't find that so assume instead it is a forum for Wikipedians to point out issues at the least convenient moment and have a discussion somewhere that editors who actually helped write the article are excluded. I didn't know of its existence till I got a ping, and to be honest, I'm quite happy to go back to not knowing its existence, based on my experience of one editor there.

I'm sure this is a perennial question, but is the benefit of allowing "anyone to edit" the featured article on main page day outweighed by the costs? It seems most people in the world know they can edit Wikipedia. The sorts of edits one gets on the day do seem to be of little to no value. The current main page (Hurricane Emily (1993)) is semi-protected so we seem to fail for even some weather article. -- Colin°Talk 17:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, I think (but could be wrong) that ERRORS serves a purpose in getting the TFA blurb fixed by an admin when it truly has errors, because the blurb is always semi-protected on mainpage day. I may be wrong about that, and the more knowledgeable will correct me. I suspect that the problem is that not all editors who frequent ERRORS have a good understanding of the limits of that purpose, and instead propose to change TFA, while simultaneously and erroneously stating that “errors” aren’t allowed in other processes (DYK, ITN, OTD), which is a fallacy. The changes they advocate for TFA are generally unhelpful, while readers, editors and articles would be better served by more involvement at WP:FAR, WP:FAC, WP:URFA/2020 and WP:TFA/R. I am pretty sure the most notable function of ERRORS of late has been to discourage the TFA Coords— what an impossible job! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All FAs and to a lesser extent GAs have a "stable version" of sorts (which is state at promotion), which makes it much much easier to compare and rectify problematic edits I feel. Still, I am 50/50 about IPs editing FAs. Anyway...re weeds, have moved back into an old house and now have...Anredera cordifolia (Madeira vine)...ugh. It has these goddamn tubers that you have to bag up and place in waste. Too risky for compost. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, spent my day digging and hauling tubers in bags to store behind the house, so I could gradually add them to the garbage. Then covering spots left in garden with layers of newspapers, then dirt, then mulch. Knowing I still may have to resort to the dreaded chemicals next year, which don't work on this stuff anyway. I am miserable and quite unhappy :( :(. Two different IPs fixed some rather embarrassing typos at DLB that dozens of us failed to see, so I'm good with them, and wish they would become regular editors! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed this. I have been on my work computer and haven't logged into my real account in a bit. WP:ERRORS is a terrible mistake that masquerades as a good idea. The problem is that one complaint and one admin can overturn months of consensus on a whim, for FAs and FLs. I do think it is useful for OTD and DYK. Mainpage readyness criteria is the invention of a small number of people who hang around ERRORS and gatekeep the main page --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Guerillero .. that has been my impression. And what is really odd is how randomly changes are employed, as some articles are left alone regardless of their condition. To change this ERRORS ownership problem, we need more FA regulars to get involved at both TFA/R and in watching ERRORS. It is just crazy that someone thinks a carefully chosen word is an error, so it goes away after months of discussion … SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticing now that the user who brought this up was User:Sca, and the negative impressions all make sense now. Okay, back to work. Panini!🥪 13:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noincludes in FACs[edit]

Sandy, I noticed you added a <noinclude> to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Code of Hammurabi/archive1 to avoid transclusion issues when it was on the main FAC page. Do you recall if you did this to any other FACs? I ask because I use the archives to extract the FAC reviewing data, and if it hadn't been for the resulting odd look of the FAC I wouldn't have noticed and would have missed recording some of the reviews on that FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mike … I am fairly certain that is the only one I did (because it was so extreme), but I will go back and check my contribs from the same day as soon as I have a free moment, and let you know. I did add a noinclude on one very long FAR. If I did any other FACs, it would have been in the same time frame as when that one FAC was stalling the entire page. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No need to check if you think that was the only one -- and in any case you wouldn't have noincluded any supports, so I probably wouldn't have missed any reviewers anyway. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I remember Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Love for Sale (Bilal album)/archive1 being no-included at one point, but checking through the page history it looks like it was eventually removed. Hog Farm Talk 13:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - July 2021[edit]

Issue 12—June 2021


WikiProject Medicine Newsletter



Newly recognized content

Trisomy X nom. Vaticidalprophet, reviewed by Epicgenius







Nominated for review

Trisomy X nom. Vaticidalprophet
CYP4F2 nom. Maxim Masiutin
Hepatic hydrothorax nom. Aeschylus
Vitamin B6 nom. David notMD
Transmission of COVID-19 nom. Almaty
Deep vein thrombosis is listed for peer review to prepare for FAC. Please contribute.
Alzheimer's disease is at featured article review.

News from around the site

  • Lung cancer will feature on the Main Page as Today's Featured Article on August 4th. Anything you can do to improve/update the article before then would be a big help to the many readers likely to see the page on that date.
  • The Books namespace will be deprecated and its contents deleted. All books have been moved to subpages of Wikipedia:Books/archive so that they can be undeleted upon request after the namespace is gone. There are around two dozen medicine-related books (14 tagged with WP:MED). If you wish to keep any, you are welcome to move it to your userspace.

Discussions of interest

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.

Thanks, Ajpolino (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Been a while![edit]

Hi there, Sandy. It’s been so long. How are you doing?

I come to you today with a request. Flask, a first-time FAC nominator, has put an incredible amount of work into bringing The Great Gatsby to FAC. As one of the most well-known novels ever written, I've put in a lot of work to guide him through the process. As a result, I think the article's in a great shape (certainly better than my first nomination was). That said, I think there's a chance it’s going to be archived. It’s really saddening to me, but is more-or-less what's expected with literary articles (and why I think bringing them to FAC is a bad use of my time). Would you—or anyone you think would be suitable—be willing to review the nomination? I don't want to see all that hard work go to waste or—more significantly—potentially lose a very talented and resourceful literary editor from FAC. If you don't have the time, I totally understand, but being able to point me to someone else who might assist would be appreciated. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 17:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was wondering about the same thing ("How are you doing?") Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ImaginesTigers: - I'm willing to provide a review if I'm considered "suitable". Hog Farm Talk 20:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: I have never considered you anything but immensely suitable for any task! Thank you so much. I really do appreciate it. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 20:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ImaginesTigers, Hog Farm, and Jo-Jo Eumerus: thanks for inquiring, dear friends. Wandering through to combat vandalism on DLB at TFA, but as to “how am I doing” … well, just one thing after another, but things always get better eventually! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He, I rushed over to give my thoughts until I noticed that it already passed and this conversation is two months old. Alright bye. Panini!🥪 13:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WT:MEDRS discussion referenced at Intersex[edit]

Hi SandyGeorgia, in edit (which I'm not sure I oppose at all) you cited a WT:MEDRS discussion. Is there a particular discussion that you're referring to? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking as I am traveling and on a very bad connection … look for the section on that page on American Journal of Health Behavior … towards the bottom … SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response, and safe travels! FYI, the source at Intersex is from American Journal of Human Biology, not 'of Health Behavior'. It is still just a letter (or two), so perhaps your RS concerns are still valid? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult editing … I thought I could edit from where I am, but there are connectivity issues … did I get the wrong source? Will check in a moment. In that instance, though, two he-said, she-said letters (opinions) back and forth that are very old don’t seem very useful … there must be newer and better info? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, i see the problem, there, will inquire of Headbomb at WT:MEDRS why both journals use same doi code … SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - September 2021[edit]

Issue 15—September 2021


WikiProject Medicine Newsletter



Newly recognized content

Charles Lester Leonard nom. Larry Hockett, reviewed by Dracophyllum
Clarence Lushbaugh nom. Tpdwkouaa, reviewed by Larry Hockett
Elmer Ernest Southard nom. EricEnfermero, reviewed by Khazar2







Nominated for review

Trisomy X nom. Vaticidalprophet
Atul Gawande nom. BennyOnTheLoose
C. Edmund Kells nom. Larry Hockett, under review by AryKun
Slipping rib syndrome nom. TheRibinator
Body image disturbance nom. Srobodao84
Vitamin B6 nom. David notMD
Deep vein thrombosis is listed for peer review to prepare for FAC. Please contribute.
Body image disturbance is listed for peer review. Please contribute.

News from around the site

  • Vaticidalprophet, our reigning expert on chromosomal disorders, has retired (temporarily, we hope)

Discussions of interest

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.

Thanks, Ajpolino (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - August 2021[edit]

Issue 12—August 2021


WikiProject Medicine Newsletter



Newly recognized content

Nothing this month
Please help review articles when you have time.











Nominated for review

Trisomy X nom. Vaticidalprophet
Hepatic hydrothorax nom. Aeschylus
Vitamin B6 nom. David notMD
Transmission of COVID-19 nom. Almaty, under review by Aircorn
Atul Gawande nom. BennyOnTheLoose
C. Edmund Kells nom. Larry Hockett
Clarence Lushbaugh nom. Tpdwkouaa, under review by Larry Hockett
Slipping rib syndrome nom. TheRibinator
Charles Lester Leonard nom. Larry Hockett, under review by Dracophyllum
Subglottic stenosis nom. aeschylus
Deep vein thrombosis is listed for peer review to prepare for FAC. Please contribute.
Alzheimer's disease is a featured article removal candidate.

News from around the site

Discussions of interest

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.

Thanks, Ajpolino (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paint It Black nominated for FAC[edit]

Hi SandyGeorgia! Paint It Black has now been nominated at FAC. If you have the time, would you be willing to take a look at it? --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About recent revert of Glucomannan[edit]

What do you mean by RIOS review. thanksMedhekp (talk) 12:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Medhekp, I think you're asking about this edit. SandyGeorgia recommended that you read the review article by Ríos-Hoyo and Gutiérrez-Salmeán (it's already cited in the article). The difference between "tentative evidence in favor" and "no good evidence in favor" is largely marketing. Do you want the reader to believe that there is a small chance that it will work, or that it probably doesn't do much? It's sort of like saying "50% of cancer patients die within five years" vs "50% of cancer patients survive at least five years". It's the same thing, but one phrasing will be preferred by the sales team. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping this here[edit]

I wonder how wrong the sentence about coprolalia is in Profanity#Research. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

quite wrong … I may find time to catch up next week … SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, it is quite hard to find good, recent MEDRS sources on coprolalia. Here's what I did ... let me know if that suffices, best I could do, because the article is not particularly well organized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting the errors out, and also for putting accurate information in. That should help defend the article against re-introduction of errors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

changes in Parkinson's disease[edit]

Hello,

This is regarding the changes I made to the article Parkinson's disease that was reverted by you. You said in your edit summary "the way to do this correctly is to find one Parkinson’s source that says this, rather than to cobble together a point via synthesis", and I have done the same. I found a source that says it : [5]

This is from David Gorski, who is reputable source.

Now that I have found a source kindly consider restoring my version by using the source I provided.

Thank you!2409:4042:4D46:AD2:D843:CEC:E2E1:175F (talk) 06:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, comments and requests such as this should go on the article's Talk page not User pages. If you haven't read our policy on sources for medical articles, please do. Regards, Graham Beards (talk) 09:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Graham. IP2409, I have listed on article talk some starting places for you, but you will need to become familiar with Wikipedia’s sourcing policies for medical content if you want to see your edits stand; the source you have listed is a non-starter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marjorie Paxson PR[edit]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Marjorie Paxson/archive1 — just FYI that you said you intended to comment on the PR and it's still open. I'm sure valeree would appreciate any input! (t · c) buidhe 21:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Buidhe; I keep saying things will settle down in real life and I will return to my normal level of activity, but that hasn't happened yet. I am hoping I can start catching up tomorrow, and the reminder here is very helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Mays[edit]

Just wanted to let you know that I nominated Willie Mays for FAC status again! Per your recommendation from last time, I had the article copyedited by the Guild of Copyeditors, so hopefully the prose is better now! Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sometime in the coming months when you have enough time, could you go through the Mays article and let me know what would need to be fixed for you to support its promotion to FA? The most recent review closed because no one had given any supports; I am thinking that a lot of people just didn't have time to look through such a long article. This way, you can look at it whenever you get a chance, instead of having to do so within a certain amount of time. Let me know! Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Chess[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Converting Wikipedia:Student assignments into an actual guideline. I was hoping you'd check out my preliminary ideas given that you frequently post on the education noticeboard and deal with student editors. Chess (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

If you are interested[edit]

In the past, you mentioned that Category:City population templates where faulty. I agree with most of the issues you raised in here. I've started a discussion here. Catchpoke (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - September 2021[edit]

Issue 15—September 2021


WikiProject Medicine Newsletter



Newly recognized content

Charles Lester Leonard nom. Larry Hockett, reviewed by Dracophyllum
Clarence Lushbaugh nom. Tpdwkouaa, reviewed by Larry Hockett
Elmer Ernest Southard nom. EricEnfermero, reviewed by Khazar2







Nominated for review

Trisomy X nom. Vaticidalprophet
Atul Gawande nom. BennyOnTheLoose
C. Edmund Kells nom. Larry Hockett, under review by AryKun
Slipping rib syndrome nom. TheRibinator
Body image disturbance nom. Srobodao84
Vitamin B6 nom. David notMD
Deep vein thrombosis is listed for peer review to prepare for FAC. Please contribute.
Body image disturbance is listed for peer review. Please contribute.

News from around the site

  • Vaticidalprophet, our reigning expert on chromosomal disorders, has retired (temporarily, we hope)

Discussions of interest

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.

Thanks, Ajpolino (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being called disruptive at British Empire FAR[edit]

Many months ago you removed a comment at this FAR with the talk page comment "Note, I have removed a Keep declaration and reminded the editor who entered it to do so without casting asperions. I will be opening an WP:ANI if anyone else continues to cast aspersions on this FAR. WP:SPI is that-a-way. WP:FOC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)". Thanks a lot for your help then. Discussion was quiet there for a while, but resumed in recent weeks. The same user made three more comments of a similar nature directed at me, "To my mind, this shows that the review was never about reviewing the state of the article but one editor being disruptive to make a WP:POINT", "This is a clear case of one editor abusing process and not making a constructive contribution" and "Appreciate you gave it as much slack as you could, it does kinda stick in the craw that a disruptive editor gets a win and overall there is no benefit to the encyclopedia. I still maintain the negative comments were ill-informed.". Apparently Jr8825 has also been branded disruptive on the talk page. It's quite demoralizing to be referred to this way. I thought it would be best if I didn't respond to him and let you.--Quality posts here (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I am barely editing, and if you want me to address something in the limited time I have, diffs would help. Also, if you provide diffs, it is more likely that my talk page stalkers will help in my absence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I actually found four examples:
  1. "To my mind, this shows that the review was never about reviewing the state of the article but one editor being disruptive to make a WP:POINT"
  2. "I realise that we are not supposed to comment on editors but this is a clear case of one editor abusing process and not making a constructive contribution."
  3. "it does kinda stick in the craw that a disruptive editor gets a win and overall there is no benefit to the encyclopedia."
  4. "It still didn't stop the proposer from voting delist anyway. Still I'm sure dragging the quality of the encyclopedia down a notch has made someone's day."
Thanks for your swift reply.--Quality posts here (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These are edits by Wee curry monster. What does Sandy have to do with it? (t · c) buidhe 19:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She removed his comments on that FAR in the past and posted a warning against future similar comments on the talk page (Note, I have removed a Keep declaration and reminded the editor who entered it to do so without casting asperions. I will be opening an WP:ANI if anyone else continues to cast aspersions on this FAR. WP:SPI is that-a-way. WP:FOC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)"). As a neutral party and former coordinator, I thought it was a very helpful intervention. I tried responding to this user's allegations earlier in the FAR and it didn't go well.--Quality posts here (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when it comes to someone who is being rude you have some options: ignore it, report to an admin or take it to ANI or possibly arbcom. There's not much Sandy can do to intervene in this situation. (t · c) buidhe 21:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I shall take it to ANI then. It's not something I've done before and will have to read up on that process. Maybe I will do it tomorrow. Thanks for your help buidhe.--Quality posts here (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Quality posts here: I'd personally just ignore it unless things escalate. Probably best here to just move on (also, I don't think #4 was intended to be referring to you, rather Z1720 who proposed the requested move of the article). Everyone gets a little testy sometimes, and ANI is likely to just escalate the issue. Hog Farm Talk 23:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ignore it then. We might all get testy sometimes, but we don't let it affect our comments to that degree. He was the only one in the FAR behaving that way.--Quality posts here (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe, with surely the best of intentions, asked what I have to do with it. Well, here's what I have to do with it. The FAC/FAR/TFA Coordinators cannot police civility on nomination pages as that could open them up to charges of favoritism or bias. Since they have to stay neutral, there is very little they can do when they see misbehavior on nominations. Hence it is incumbent upon others to deal with misbehavior when they see it.

I saw the posts a year ago on that FAR by Wee Curry Monster where they failed to focus on content, and personalized discussion. I warned them it was inappropriate and that I would take them to ANI if casting of aspersions continued. [6] [7] [8] [9] Now, it is possible that Wee Curry Monster thought I was referring only to accusations of sockpuppetry, so I will point out that I was referring more broadly to casting of aspersions, and personalizing rather than focusing on content.

Quality posts here, Hog Farm gives you good advice about ANI turning things into more of a circus, so best to ignore it. On the other hand, this has gone on too long, and WCM has no business continuing to refer to someone as "disruptive". The first step at WP:ANI is to discuss with the user in question to attempt to resolve issues. I will leave a note to WCM that their behavior is being discussed here. Hopefully, that will be enough to get this to stop, and to get them back to focusing on content. That is a difficult enough FAR without behavioral issues making things even harder for @WP:FAR coordinators: . WCM, please focus on content and refrain from casting aspersions, personalizing discussions, or making accusations of sockpuppetry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Take me to ANI if you wish, I have nothing further to say on the matter. WCMemail 18:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personal note on the James Joyce article[edit]

Hi Sandy, I had come on by to first thank you about being gracious on the Joyce issue. I think it was an accidental oversight from the FARC team. The oversight did allow me to take on this unexpected challenge, which I had just chanced on, and I was glad for the opportunity to learn so much taking it on. And, thanks also for being open to the value of my edits. I'd worked hard to be respectful of what was there, but as mentioned, I found myself having to fill in a lot of gaps in the latter half of his life. I had also wanted to emphasize that I'm good with you editing whatever you see fit. (Admittedly, I have some commitments to some of the citations and footnotes...I like leading readers to interesting sources...but Wikipedia is dynamic...and, well, the equivalent to continental drift happens. I suppose the Joyce article felt like the equivalent of India squishing into Asia, and the new article looking somewhat like the Himalayas?)

I was also going to once more suggest that if you'd like, you consider finishing the lead, as I think that ensures that the tone of the article preserves the flavor of what you created. Unfortunately, I saw that your ability to write is currently limited by your accident, which may get in the way of much active editing. So for now, I'll just sit on the lead for a bit and see if anything unfolds. If it doesn't, I'll add the material to fill in what was added.

I do hope that your injury is something that will improve with time and care. As an aside, I did notice this: When you pinged me and the rest of the FARC team regarding the article, it became very clear to me, looking from the outside, that you are a much respected and valued member of that community. I hope all that is going on won't diminish your role too much, which seems to be something you enjoy and others appreciate. Wtfiv (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wtfiv … you have done fine work … sorry I disappeared, but the Moderna COVID booster has knocked me over … my fever is finally gone, but I still feel like a truck hit me, so I will catch up with you in a day or so … I still have considerable brain fog. There are others who will be better at finishing the lead than me (my prose is not stellar), but not to worry … leads can always be worked on last … once Ceoil, Victoriaearle and Kablammo have been through, I am sure they will all have suggestions about the lead, and working on it now could be premature. It is just wonderful to have you on board, sorry for my malaise-induced brevity, I did see that you have cleaned up all the MOS trivialities I mentioned, more as I am better … SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like it has been a challenging few months. I hope it that the booster is the end of the health issues for a while. It sounds like you remain committed to the community, too, which I think others appreciate. Wishing you the best. Wtfiv (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I remember receiving two Moderna shots and the second knocked me out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Jo-Jo! I originally had Johnson, and was fine, but hubby had Moderna, and was also fine. So I was unprepared for how Moderna knocked me over. I was typing away, getting more and more jittery and fatigued, until I finally realized a truck had hit me in slow motion :) Always something ... Thank you Wtfiv for the well wishes ... I am going to catch up on a few other matters (I missed some pressing things on my talk during my recent absence), and then peek in on James Joyce probably tomorrow. Not worried, as you seem to have it well in hand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil, Victoriaearle, and Wtfiv: would any of you object if I move all of the FAR process discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article review/James Joyce/archive2#James Joyce FARC closure? to the talk page of that FAR, leaving a link, so that the actual FAR can focus on concerns to be resolved? I understand that Wtfiv was concerned about the process, but things are actually moving along quite well, and Wtfiv’s work is headed towards being rewarded with the saved star, so the entire discussion in that section about how the process works might be better moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/James Joyce/archive2 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would be helpful, its hard to see wood from trees with all the meta discussion. ps, was distracted this afternoon with other Paddy stuff, looking again now. Ceoil (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy please move. Though I will add one more point that I think is relevant to FAR and FAN difference. Wtfiv (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, will do shortly … Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done, now for a very belated breakfast before I continue with the remaining notifications that were never done <grrrr ... > ... four days after I raised the problem ... Wtfiv, it is stuff like this that keeps me from getting caught up. Ever. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate edit summaries[edit]

Hello. Thank you for removing the unnecessary underlining from Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India. However, I don't think you need to write edit summaries like these when correcting such MoS breaches. I personally consider the few edits made by Adarsh Pattanayak (talk · contribs) to be in good faith, if slightly misguided. Please don't use the summary as an outlet for frustration. Thank you. Nutez (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback (it’s a good thing I said “what the heck” instead of WTF). I was astounded that such an edit stood for four months, which is an indication that article is not well watched. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly understandable reaction; however, I don't think that multiple exclamation points, sheesh, gosh, amazing, etc. should be used with such abandon in edit summaries. Nutez (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I heard you and will work to suppress my amazement going forward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FAR for Yosemite[edit]

I have nominated Yosemite National Park for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 07:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As an FYI[edit]

...the long overdue process for getting Armament of the Iowa-class battleship to FAR/C has begun, after many long hours of thought I've elected to start with an AFD citing deconsolidation grounds (no other class has a list of its weapon systems organized into one separate article). Depending on consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armament of the Iowa-class battleship, the next step will either be salvage, deletion, merging, or the official listing at FAR/C. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Glad to see you survived, and so sorry to hear you got hurt! Hopefully, editing on site will help take you "back" to the good olde days, as it were :) TomStar81 (Talk) 18:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for your efforts[edit]

The Medicine Barnstar
Awarded for your continuous efforts in adding to articles on medical topics. Awarded by Cdjp1 on 25 August 2021

Cdjp1, I am just now reading through my entire talk page after my extended absence most of the year, and want to apologize for a very belated thank you! And now, off to archives :) Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you![edit]

The Instructor's Barnstar
This Barnstar is awarded to Wikipedians who have performed stellar work in the area of instruction & help for other editors.
I just read your essay on achieving excellence through featured content and found it very useful. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and expertise for others! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sdkb, I am just now reading through my entire talk page after my extended absence most of the year, and want to apologize for a very belated thank you! And now, off to archives :) Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from the Military History Project[edit]

 Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 10 reviews between January and March 2021. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Peacemaker67, my apologies for the late response-- I have just now seen this. Thank you, and your fellow coords, so much ! Working with MILHIST is always a pleasure. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Med protection: same mission, new venue[edit]

Hey there, per my post last week, I've moved the med protection discussion to User:Ajpolino/Med protection, where we can conspire more slowly and freely. I'll probably investigate the protected pages slowly and annotate the tables there. Feel free to do the same if you're interested! Hoping we can knock a few more off the list over time. I hope all is well on your end! Ajpolino (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajpolino: - If you ever run into something like that where you're involved and need an uninvolved admin to remove protection, I'm willing to do that and trust your judgment. Hog Farm Talk 16:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ajpolino; sincerely appreciate your efforts! I have been swamped, but have your subpage watchlisted now. My sense so far is that established editors cause more issues on most articles I watch than IPs do, but that when university terms are ending, we may need to re-semi some articles if students don't read talkpages. Please ping me whenever you need my attention; my to-do list is still a mile long. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo DiCaprio[edit]

Hello. Almost two years ago, I nominated this article for FAC where you, originally intending to do a MoS review, pointed out some prose issues. I recently returned to editing after nine months of inactivity. So I've been trying to tighten the prose a bit more since yesterday with the intention of probably giving it another go. Anyway, if and when you have time, I would appreciate some feedback from you. FrB.TG (talk) 11:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You![edit]

Thanks for your help at WHH. And, I just checked out the Clapton/Pavoratti link. I love that! Ave Maria! Hoppyh (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hoppyh! Sorry for the late response, and I'm glad you enjoyed the music. I am very sorry I am not able to do more to help out there, but I don't want my feedback to trigger a sock problem that goes back ten years, so I hope you are able bring it over the line, and apologize for how frustrating my limited engagement must be. All the best, and thanks so much for the effort, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hush yourself. You have been quite helpful! Hoppyh (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Dinosaur[edit]

Hi Sandy, long time no talk! I have a habit of checking random talk pages to make sure their archives are in order and that all appropriate messages are available. Thanks to a news story I went and checked out the dinosaur talk page and noticed that it wasn't being archived properly. It turned out to be because of your edit back in November that put the archiving code within the talk banner holder. Once I moved it back out, ... hey presto, the archive bot started working again! The archiving instructions and indexing templates don't need to be in a banner holder because they don't display any content. Graham87 08:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graham, thought worth noting that I recently discovered this solution separately on Talk:India and have updated the bot use case instructions. CMD (talk) 09:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately SG that was because of your edit as well. Are there any other places where you may have inadvertently caused this? I'll try running the edit summary search tool/look in your contribs to find out, but you've made a lot of edits. Graham87 11:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, this was mentioned at User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch112#BannerShell and auto archive bot instructions. Graham87 11:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out there were quite a few more, per an edit summary search on your edits for "banners". I've gone and fixed them ... resulting in a very late night for me, under the circumstances. Graham87 15:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through all your edits in the talk namespace from early January when you were alerted about this problem to around the time of this edit (which I assume was a good cut-off time), fixed a couple of other archiving issues, and added {{archive}} to any archives without headers I noticed along the way. Graham87 14:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Graham87! I am just now sorting through my talk page, after having taken the better part of this year away from Wikipedia because of much unpleasant dysfunction; during that time, I mostly didn't even read my talk page, and lots got lost. I am sincerely sorry that you had to do this cleanup after my edits. (On the other hand, I am glad it was you and not One of the Many Unpleasant People who caused me to exit.) Thank you ever so much for bailing me out of my negligence, and if I understand correctly going forward, I am not supposed to add autoarchives to banner shells (which I haven't done since the first notice). All the best, and thank you again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy, no worries at all; I thought you might have been having lots of craziness going on. Indeed, you're correct, autoarchives don't go in banner shells. Graham87 05:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tumbling Dice PR[edit]

Hi SandyGeorgia, I was wondering if you may be able to take a look at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tumbling Dice/archive4 and offer any feedback? I'd love to take "Tumbling Dice" to FA soon. If not, no worries. Thank you for your time. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:TheSandDoctor; my apologies for the belated response. I see this is still at PR, and I will try to get there soon. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

learning more about the FA process[edit]

Greetings SandyGeorgia, I was reading User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving_excellence_through_featured_content#Advice_for_FA_aspirants, and it reminded me that I saw multiple medical articles were upcoming at FAR per Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Newsletter/April 2021. I wondered if engaging at FAR / the talk pages of those articles (in relation to the featured article criteria) might also have value. I ask because I would like DVT to meet the FAC per Wikipedia:Peer review/Deep vein thrombosis/archive4, thank you. Biosthmors (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there, Biosthmors; I hope you are well! I don't know how I missed adding Deep vein thrombosis to Template:FAC peer review sidebar (except that I have been up to my eyeballs in a big garden project for more than two weeks now), which I have just done. On the articles which need to be submitted to FAR, any kind of engagement would be wonderful ... I will shortly submit Alzheimer's disease to FAR as it is so badly outdated. RE preparing DVT for FAC, I will try to kick in next week to help, hopefully after the garden is finally all in good order and ready for spring! We have a team of medical editors who are excellent in prepping for FAC, and I will ping to the peer review after I have had a chance to look in. If I forget to get to it by next week, please pester me here to remind me. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Things are going well, thank you! I read about your encounter with the tree. I'm sorry to hear about that happening, but quite glad to see you were well cared for! Regarding the FAC prep steps, that sounds like a great plan, thank you. As for gardening, that's great to hear you're ready for spring! I'm happy to have 12 tomato plants in the ground. The Kalmia latifolia has been blooming and the fragrant Rhododendron alabamense just started blooming. I planted several juvenile trees this year: American beech, blackjack oak, pawpaw (Asimina triloba), shagbark hickory, and pecan so far. The aphids had their way with the Lonicera sempervirens like they usually do earlier in the year, which stops it from blooming. I hope it starts blooming again for the ruby-throated hummingbirds soon! I've also started a few Campsis radicans vines up trees that I hope will make the hummingbirds happy one day. Happy Spring! Biosthmors (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Biosthmors, I too was excited to see you bring DVT to peer review! I hope to help out with the FAC prep -- I took my first trip through FAC just a few months ago with Buruli ulcer -- I'll just need a week or two to carve out some time. On another note, I'm completely enchanted by trumpet vines, and used to put quite a bit of thought into what I should plant to attract the hummingbirds. But then last year, we bought a string of outdoor lights with colored plastic covers, and those stupid lights attracted more hummingbirds than any flower I've ever planted. So while they're glorious little creatures, maybe not the brightest most discriminating little guys. All that to say, if your trumpet vines don't bloom (god forbid), I'll send you the link to the plastic lights. I think we got them at Target. Happy spring indeed! Ajpolino (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Random talk page watcher) - Good luck with the pecan trees, Biosthmors. My parents have a bunch and those things lose limbs like crazy. My main advice on trees - don't plant hedgeapple trees in your yard. Big pain to clean up after. Think large annual crops of sticky green fruit the size of a softball. Hog Farm Talk 04:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations Ajpolino on getting Buruli ulcer up to FA status! And thanks for the tip about the plastic lights, haha. We do keep some feeders up as well, but in an ideal world the garden would always be blooming with something that could feed them. If I had to pick just one flower, Salvia guaranitica has been a good one for hummingbirds, but it does require moist soil in my experience. Thanks Hog Farm on the tip regarding hedgeapple. I'll avoid those! Biosthmors (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Sandy I stay busy with medical school and being a father and husband, but the peer review for DVT is still open in case you would like to comment or round up people to comment. At this time I unfortunately can't promise to address comments quickly, but I do plan to get around to all feedback that is left for the article! Best wishes. Biosthmors (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am so glad to hear that you haven't given up on me ... and apologize for my negligence and absence. I am traveling on Monday, and up to my eyeballs in work between now and then to be able to get out of town, but I really really hope to be able to get over there soon. Ditto for the other article Ajpolino mentioned ... Trisomy I can't remember which. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Biosthmors: - I don't know much about medical stuff, but I'd be willing to do a lay review when DVT goes to FAC. Probably too busy right now to comment at the PR, though. Hog Farm Talk 02:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Biosthmors:, I see you got good feedback at the PR that closed last month, and I once again apologize for my negligence (I took most of the middle part of the year off from Wikipedia, sanity check time because of so much dysfunction in here). If you would like me to re-engage, I might have more time over the holidays. Where do things stand? Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following-up! I still need to address User:Jfdwolff's comments. Then I should look at the 2021 review published in the Lancet and the new 2021 ACCP guidelines. I will let you know if I start another peer review, which might happen before January. And no need to apologize. I understand the need to take breaks around here. Best wishes and thanks again! Biosthmors (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Biosthmors; I will archive this for now then (trying to prioritize my backlog), and count on you to pop in here again when you need feedback. All the bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Williams suicide[edit]

Hi Sandy, I don't know if you saw, but we are actually trying to propose an RFC to rewrite the "committed suicide" sentences to avoid contentious terms. But what I wanted to ask you about was the wording of the sentence in the lead where his suicide is attributed to Lewy body disease. I'm not sure if we should write that "medical experts and his autopsy, attributed his suicide to his struggle with Lewy body disease", because most sources don't seem to directly attribute his suicide to LBD. I found an article that might be helpful if you are able to access it: Talk:Robin Williams#New article about his cause of death. Sorry if you didn't want to be brought back to this subject. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kolya Butternut; my apologies for my belated response, but this topic is one of several that make me inclined to run the opposite direction of Wikipedia as fast as my feet will carry me. I just looked in there, and see it is still going on; I despair. The wording is just not that hard, and the discussion goes round and round in circles; I am really not interested. If someone mucks up the DLB wording, then I'm interested. The autopsy said one thing, his wife said another, the terminology is confusing, and LBD experts had to clarify what means what. I do wish Robin Williams could be brought to a higher standard overall, but with ongoing disagreement over something that should not be that hard, I am completely put off from engaging the article at all.
I did read a response on talk from WhatamIdoing that I want to reinforce. It is abundantly clear that Susan (Williams's wife) hoped to clear up the notion that he killed himself because he was depressed. Dementia with Lewy bodies is a very complex neuropsychiatric condition that involves anxiety, paranoia, delusions, hallucinations, declining cognition, medication reactions, apathy ... along with depression ... so it is obvious why she has felt the need for this clarification, and the article needs to avoid oversimplying to the cliche of suicide by depression in the presence of a severe neuropsychiatric condition ... there is SO much more going on with the Lewy body dementias. Those portions are my only interest: I am uninterested in the amount of contentious debate surrounding one term ("committed suicide"), and I easily solved that at both dementia with Lewy bodies and Lewy body dementias.
Please don't ping me to this article unless someone messes up the DLB/LBD text; I find that the dysfunction on Wikipedia has become so intolerable, that revisiting this page just puts me over the want-to-leave-for-good edge. Thanks, and I hope you are well, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some music[edit]

Glad to see you continuing to dig into these issues that have piled up at FAC. The influx and breadth of your comments makes me think you the situation might be stressing you out. I have the perfect remedy; two wildly different, yet equally as calming pieces: [10] and [11]. Thank you for all you do—even when we disagree, I always appreciate your well-thought and honest opinions. Aza24 (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How very nice of you, Aza24! On my way home from a lovely day, out to a dedication event very important to my husband, and after a fine Italian dinner, that is the perfect after-dinner music for the long car ride home! And thank you for expressing concern about stress; the FAC business actually doesn’t stress me at all. We can only try, but it’s Wikipedia, and you just can’t even hope to lead horses to water. Other sorts of things in here do stress me out, but that is not one of them … but it’s very nice of you to care. And I don’t get fussed that so many of us may have disagreements— only find the aggressive personal attackers (who can’t separate discussion of data from personal issues) somewhat irritating, but have BTDT for years with same :) :) You take good care, and thanks for the lovely end to a very nice day for me … SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24 I came back for your music :). I can listen to anything all day long and type responses regarding the reward culture at FAC without it stressing me (problems in FA processing are not going to change the world), but when template editors make automatic changes that affect huge swaths of medical articles— as in, stuff that actually has an impact on real people in real life and really matters— now that makes me mad enough to quit editing, again. [12]. So thanks for the musical respite. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like that particular change was the result of a small group of dedicated editors—I've seen a lot like that (WP:VIT comes to mind). They are good-intentioned, but can never achieve real consensus because the areas the participate in receive so little input. Then things like this happen where they enact changes that affect everyone, when with a wider input things would have gone differently. Glad the music could help... Aza24 (talk) 05:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Woke up to find more of same, issue not fixed yet, and the editors who write medical content have to have a big ‘ole useless discussion with those who design templates and destroy 15 years of effort. No energy to be the one to put together a community-wide RFC; would rather stop editing. Again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aza24 progress was made ! And I got to enjoy good music all the while. Thanks again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Progress on Wikipedia?? Don't get me excited now... we only just had a sock run for Admin-ship after all :) Aza24 (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Email[edit]

Just wanted to let you know that I replied to your email. (It's been reported than certain email clients enjoy banishing my responses to the spam folder, so if you don't see it at first that's probably why.) Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FA and such[edit]

Sorry for spamming your talk page Sandy but I wanted to tell your talk page watchers about the contest I am running over the next 6 months. There are up to 4 maps available for up to 40 hours of my time a piece for reviewing old FAs and writing a new FA about a Core article. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You. Are. Awesome :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Guerillero I am going through my talk, trying to catch up with old posts, and am reminded that this is frightful (and likely to get worse in the next few hours). Where Are You ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... I have been thinking about that. I said a week ago that I wasn't going to run, but there are not enough people for me to vote for. If asked I will run, but looking at some of the guide writers I am going to get slammed. My activity dropped way off when I left the WikiCup in April, so that is a negative. Also, as I did last year, I refuse to give people the answers that they want to hear to most of the questions and will instead shoot straight. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think I'd slam you. I might not be full-throated support, but it wouldn't be the instant "NOOOO!" that a couple of current candidates are. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ya know … if you do get slammed for giving straight answers, well, you can come out with your held high high. I’d rather know what I’m voting for, than vote for a clever weasel and be disappointed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Groundskeeper[edit]

Hi Sandy, I just you asked who the groundskeeper was. The term is a continuation of my metaphor in the article's talk when I got started. (It was the first interaction where I met Victoria, which turned out to be a pleasure.) I wanted to make sure the James Joyce article was without a groundskeeper before I stepped in, as I know feelings can get hurt and conflicts can arise if there is an editor who has a primary interest in the article. With Joyce, there was a sense of abandonment- still in good shape but needing weeding- which let me know I could go forward. (I didn't realize at that time that the European half of the garden, as opposed to the Irish half, needed a lot more love and care, as well as new plantings.) I was pleased to see Victoria show up in talk and her being willing to let me keep going. (I would've stopped had she not been open to continuing.)

After I had gotten pretty far, I got the ping from you that you had been the primary contributor to the article and had colleagues that could've helped. Yes, to be specific, you were the groundskeeper. Just as I groundskeep a couple of articles (in collaboration with a couple of other gardners) as well. But its not personal, its just the delicate act of trying to work in Wikipedia according to my strengths but not tread on other's art. That's my preferential style. I felt badly that I had created an environment where at first you were concerned that I could ruin the article. I think your response is fair, and I encountered similar before. Hence, why I like abandoned articles best. I appreciate that Victoria and Coeil gave me support for what I was doing. (I know the article is watched, so I assume silence is a kind of support.) And, I appreciate too that by the time I wrapped up the editing, it looked like there was some trust for what I was doing from you. It felt like a greenlight. (Though getting caught up in the FAC-like process so early in my editing was uncomfortable. It was partly a side-effect of my trying to communicate to you that I would work with you as you see fit. I dislike the FAC process and was grateful you allowed me to just focus on cleaning the article up to the best of my ability, and then you helping me clean up what I missed.) If that trust hadn't been developed, I would've been good to my word and allowed my work to be reverted, even though it has a labor of love. (I learned a lot by just doing the work, which is a reward in its own right.) And by the end, you worked with me and helped do that final cleanup edit that absolutely requires a different set of eyes.
I appreciate your support on the Joan article too. This one is delicate because it has a committed editor, but I can also see that it needs a bit more fertilizer and pruning, and so I am trying to gently negotiate being allowed to see if my weeding and cleanup can be done with getting in the way. Your support helped make that possible, and I'm hoping my contribution to the article will also be worthwhile. Working in the Joan "garden" is very different as the commitments will come from some other directions. As you know, some editors have already stepped back from even mild pruning. We'll see.
Turning to the personal. I am so sorry to hear about your niece. It brought back memories of a sad holiday season of tears visiting a friend in the hospital who had gone into a coma from a stroke and was eventually let go.
I know this is a long answer to a short question. But as I think you know, the wall of words is part of my style. Thanks for your patience at all points. And, as I said, I appreciate your trust- once earned (I think)- as well! And I'm glad I've had the opportunity to get to know you as an editor. Wtfiv (talk) 03:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know, and no worries about length, because … me and my verbosity are infamous :) I appreciate that you cared to take the time to explain.
You may have misunderstood some of the terminology, though, and I can see how that might have left an awkward feeling for you, or concern that I mistrusted you (which was never the case). I have never added content to the article nor do I feel qualified to. My comment about primary contributor was only in the context of the stats tools and how notifications are supposed to be done at FAR. I only figure high in edit count on many FAs because of the cleanup work I do on citations or MOS, even when I’ve added no content. I wasn’t concerned that you might “ruin the article”; I was worried that the article wouldn’t survive FAR because notifications weren’t done, when I knew there were many people out there who would help, and I was surprised months in to find none of them on the FAR page. Oddly, at that point (months in), Ceoil and Victoriaearle didn’t show on the FAR page, so I thought they, too, had been left out, until I pinged and they answered. When I thought no one but you was working on it, because those who could hadn’t been notified, I feared the work could be derailed.
Well, the good news is it wasn’t, you did a fabulous job, and all’s well that ends well, and I hope you feel the satisfaction you deserve in having made such an important rescue. Joan of Arc is an equally important rescue, so you’re turning into one of my heroes. For that very reason, it was important to me to know whether there was some awkwardness between us, and I hope we have that all cleared up.
I’ve not only enjoyed getting to know you, but also seeing your work and your style, which I’m glad to know more about. Your kind words about my step-niece are most appreciated. I’ve been typing away on Wikipedia to avoid the pain, as it was such a terrible thing after all she survived, and I’m sorry you also have a sad holiday story; I suspect Thanksgiving will never feel the same. Please keep up your excellent work, and if you ever need anything where I might be able to help, please don’t hesitate to ask. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS, Wtfiv, Joyce last ran at WP:TFA in 2004 (!!!!) so you might pick an important date and approach WP:TFA/R about re-running it. The Coords are most amenable to re-running older FAs, and it would be great to showcase your rescue. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Your work is clearly respected in this corner of Wikipedia, and, as mentioned, I think we get a sense of how each other interact. I appreciate working with you, . I think we will in the future, as I think I enjoy FAR better than FAC. And I will indeed be reaching out (e.g., once Joan seems ready for your review, if that is even possible.) I never thought about showcasing Joyce. Maybe we can do it for Bloomsday, 2022 if all goes well? For now, though, I know that the working through Wikipedia is still being with the personal, and perhaps an important way of expressing what you feel through doing something positive socially where you can: your "working through" via a sharing of your talents, which is also a form of giving, which I know this community is grateful for. Wtfiv (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wtfiv, such kind words! If there is a particular date you want to aim for, it’s good to get it listed in advance at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending, so other editors, and the Coords, know what’s in the pipeline (as the mainpage content has to be varied). Joyce would be a great addition to the mainpage, as we don’t get a lot of articles of that scope at TFA, and there are fewer and fewer literature articles of late. I hope you’re able to do great stuff at Joan of Arc as well … Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wtfiv that was an impressive set of edits (to incorporate Quinn) you just made at Joyce. All the different dates (because of the Vanity Fair archive), plus knowing how to set up the ref formatting with harvnbs or sfns, is beyond the skill set of many editors, so a very usable source ends up parked in Further reading. Nice job! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Kablammo deserves the credit. I cleaned up the references, taking it that Kablammo liked the resource and integrated it into the text. Working with Kablammo is great, as Kablammo let me know I understood and I could figure that in the working relationship. (Though Kablammo may have a better place for the reference.) One thing I try to do is keep "further reading" to a minimum or eliminate it. It seems to me to be one of those places that risk expanding into a form of list of self-advertised readings. (Somewhat like the list of authors influenced by Joyce, which came off more as an advertisement for the authors than anything about Joyce.) For the most part, my own thought is that if it is worth reading, it is usually worth citing. But, of course, that's flexible, based on the commitment of the editors working on the article.
With Joyce, there's a holding area where we can put in a long-term request right? I'll get on it in a bit. Wtfiv (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wtfiv Watch out for that Kablammo! As the nicest, kindest, and most humble editor on the 'pedia, he could lead you down the wrong paths and who knows where you might end up :) Yes, you can put the long-term request at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS, if you are a Monty Python fan, or just love good music, you can head to User talk:Kablammo for a good time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Georgia is RACIST??!?!?1?! *(cops called)* *(gone wrong)*[edit]

Hopefully this edit summary isn't taken out of context by other people as I just did on my watchlist. Just thought it was silly :) Panini!🥪 14:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was the message the vandal had put across more talk pages than I could deal with … got quick attention, didn’t it :). How are you? Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing swell. Recently I've been pitching in opinions and details at ANI because I've been taking a break from direct content creation. I've had a couple reverts (nothing too big though), but overall I'm having a good time there. Panini!🥪 15:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would think it would be demoralizing too spend too much time there … so much … ugh factor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

A quick note to express my sincere gratitude for your support on Alzheimer's disease. The student editors have benefited immensely from your expertise and guidance. They have had precisely the kind of editing experience I hope all my students will have: one that includes rich collaboration with other, more experienced editors within the community. Many thanks! Mcbrarian (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mcbrarian! They seem to be an outstanding group. One of the reasons it is working is that they actually and thoroughly engage on talk, listen to suggestions, and seem committed to ending with a good result-- a first in my experience with student editors! That article badly needed an update, and they have made a sizeable dent. My next hope is that they will be convinced to stay around after their course ends, and that the entire AZ article can be brought back to something decent, considering it was once a Featured article. I will barnstar them after the course ends. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The students in this program tend to be high achievers so it does not surprise me that you've had such a great experience. They really care about the work they are doing. They will be pleased to have earned a barnstar! Thanks again! Mcbrarian (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping FAs up to date[edit]

So, it's the time of the year again where I usually keep all my recognized content up to date. With each additional item the amount of work increases every year. One of the less pleasant aspects of writing featured articles. I see that WP:URFA works on five year lapses, right? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but realistically, we aren't even able (yet) to seriously work on the 2010–2015 group as we are trying to get the oldest of the old resolved first. It's good to have the 2010 to 2015 group for the benefit of @WP:TFA coordinators , where they can at least see which editors are still maintaining old FAs that may not yet have run TFA, but other than that, those haven't yet received a lot of indepth examination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And some day in the future the not-FA Lake Tauca will need a major overhaul - in its current form it awkwardly lumps Central Andean Pluvial Event together with Lake Tauca proper, which in turn needs to be merged with Lake Minchin as geologists have mixed up the two concepts to the point that with any given source you are never certain which stage it is talking about. Too bad that Lake Pocoyu hasn't caught on. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I feel for you, Jo-Jo! Medical FAs need constant updating, and almost all are now in jeopardy of delisting, while niche articles on relatively obscure topics that get few page views are beginning to predominate what was once Wikipedia's best work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do hope that the next iteration of the WP:core contest will draw some medical editors. That's one of the main group of articles I was hoping to attract last time. Wrote a python script determining the median source age, to be able to appreciate updates in medical/other scientific articles. Previous metrics that were highlighted were number of citations / prose length. Femke (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know when it happens (I don't keep up with contests), and I'll see which article and set of editors can be badgered :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of UAAP Final Four results[edit]

List of UAAP Final Four results should be sent to FAR. 126.125.94.52 (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FAR is for Featured articles; that is a Featured list. You could post your request to Wikipedia talk:Featured list removal candidates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your ping[edit]

Sandy, assuming that Eplee is indeed WP:BKFIP, Special:contributions/173.87.170.14 can't be the same person. The geolocation is the wrong continent.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. So, I guess we shall entertain the queries, again. Thanks, Bbb23. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But Bbb23 I thought the point was that BKFIP often travelled around, and had many different locations? Well, I engaged on talk; perhaps you will watch for any telltale behaviors. Thx for the help, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He has traveled, but (1) I've never heard of him traveling to the US and (2) generally he uses English IPs. Anything is possible, but without further technical proof, I think it would be unfair to assume this IP is a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks; I thought we had determined in the earlier iteration that it was, but movin' on! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You lost me; did I miss something? What "earlier iteration"?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Back here starting at 21:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC) ... but looking at it now, there never was any kind of check, so I may have over interpreted ... at any rate, I have over-responded on article talk (for the third time now) so time will tell. Every time this happened before, it was CU'd to BKFIP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There were checks, but I of course cannot see the results. Drmies did say "BKF's IPs are located very differently, and these edits are different as well." But I don't know what he meant precisely. I'm just giving you my opinion based on my own experience, which is long-term, albeit not recent. You could ask Drmies or Ponyo. BKFIP is a weird case because the usual prohibition against a checkuser disclosing IPs is - I dunno the right word - bent? twisted? non-conforming? Heh. Don't forget that a checkuser can see not just which IPs an account is using but the user agents as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Bbb23, I’m not too worried, because time will tell. Appreciate all the help, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But, I am REALLY ticced off that because of that mess, I forgot to vote for the arbs. Got involved in those damn responses, and missed the close of voting … SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to say too much but yes, the Best Known for IPs don't point to the region of that editor. I think that's all I can say. And they made some weird juvenile edits that are just not like Best Known For at all. There's Arb election? I didn't realize so I guess I'm not running, haha. Drmies (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Drmies. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dst[edit]

It doesn't help when trying to find a definition 2604:3D09:A484:B300:6479:BCA8:F4B7:F203 (talk) 02:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the fourth line of the article, that says:

Notice of FAR[edit]

I have nominated J. K. Rowling for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. ––FormalDude talk 22:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to take part in a survey about medical topics on Wikipedia[edit]

Dear fellow editor,

I am Piotr Konieczny, a sociologist of new media at Hanyang University (and User:Piotrus on Wikipedia). I would like to better understand Wikipedia's volunteers who edit medical topics, many associated with the WikiProject Medicine, and known to create some of the highest quality content on Wikipedia. I hope that the lessons I can learn from you that I will present to the academic audience will benefit both the WikiProject Medicine (improving your understanding of yourself and helping to promote it and attract new volunteers) and the wider world of medical volunteering and academia. Open access copy of the resulting research will be made available at WikiProject's Medicine upon the completion of the project.

All questions are optional. The survey is divided into 4 parts: 1 - Brief description of yourself; 2 - Questions about your volunteering; 3 - Questions about WikiProject Medicine and 4 - Questions about Wikipedia's coverage of medical topics.

Please note that by filling out this questionnaire, you consent to participate in this research. The survey is anonymous and all personal details relevant to your experience will be kept private and will not be transferred to any third party.

I appreciate your support of this research and thank you in advance for taking the time to participate and share your experiences! If you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me at my Wikipedia user page or through my email listed on the survey page (or by Wikipedia email this user function).

The survey is accessible through the LINK HERE.

Piotr Konieczny
Associate Professor
Hanyang University
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Division of labour[edit]

More than happy to split the load with any manual updates needed for URFA if it's implemented into article histories, but in the meantime—my current project is on the backboiler due to a few books I need being stranded in an office currently locked down for covid restrictions, so I have more time on my hands than I anticipated. Bearing in mind that my judgment of prose standards isn't strong enough that I'm confident in judging FARCs on it, is there anything in your remit that could benefit from a few extra man-hours? Conscious of how you often seem to have more you'd like done than you're able to do in a sitting so I thought I'd offer a hand. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 18:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OH my gosh, there is so much. I'm not that familiar with your strengths; are you up for some pre-FAR reviewing? If so, I'll spell out priorities, re, what we most need at URFA/2020.
As to when we get to the articlehistory project, when I view a messed up AH (most of them are), I try to fix all that I see while I'm in there. I go for the standard format that Gimmetrow originally set up, because I think if the info is laid out more clearly, more people will understand how the template works. So, I put a blank line between each event, I re-order the events (current bots drop them in out of order), and I always end up checking DYKs and incorporating ITNs and OTDs in to articlehistory (the current OTD bot does not add them to AH unless they were already there, and re-doing them is dreadful work, as the event number conventions are different between how the OTD bot adds them and how AH needs them), and then I make the final lines (after all numbered events) head off with the current status, followed by maindate, and then followed by all other single event dates. And then, I link in edit summary to the Signpost article that Gimme, Kirill and I wrote back when we started cleaning up talk pages, hoping to educate more editors! Here is a sample (notice what a mess it is to merge in OTD becauswe you have to edit every single blooming date line, and sometimes there are a dozen of them): [13] ... actually, for samples, just pull up my contribs and ctrl-f on Taming talk page clutter ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For pre-FAR reviewing, I'm happy to look at things like sourcing, breadth, stability, etc, whatever the priorities are. As to the latter point, do you want me to go through the already-satisfactory entries at the URFA project and clean up those histories? ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 19:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you are willing to do some reviewing, that is probably more important than cleaning up AH at this point. Also, anything already at URFA that I already reviewed (which is a good number of those marked satisfactory) has already had an AH cleanup by moi :) If you have time to pitch in with pre-reviewing at URFA, I'll lay out what we most need in a new post. Next up, sit tight while I type! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and yes, while you are in any article, do go ahead and clean up the talk page and the AH if that is needed! Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pitching in at URFA[edit]

Thanks for the offer to help, Grapple X. I am pinging in the other most active URFA collaborators, in case they disagree with me about where and how we can most use your help, or if they want to add anything to my advice. @Hog Farm, Buidhe, and Z1720: Buidhe went wild all day yesterday, reviewing a gazillion of articles listed at WP:URFA/2020 and listing them at WP:FARGIVEN, but I am thinking you might help in a different area-- getting more of the satisfactory moved off the list to "FAR not needed", since that is where we need new, independent eyes. We feel demoralized and demotivated when we have lots of delistings, but few keeps, simply because we are lacking reviewers :) Here's a sample of how to do that:

At URFA/2020, have a look at the 2007 list Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020#2007 (I picked that one for starters as it already has a lot of double satisfactory-marked articles that are needing their third review, but you can also feel free to move on from there). To more easily find those that already have two "satisfactory" marks, you can click on the final column to sort it. I haven't been able to figure out why it doesn't sort with complete accuracy, but it's good enough to show you those that already have two "Satisfactory" marks.

If you are unsure of your reviewing skills, or what level we are using for "satisfactory", you can play it safe as you start by only tackling those that experienced reviewers have already looked at. Skip anything you don't feel confident about. While you're glancing at that, note how some of us note "Satisfactory with notes", adding a link to notes, which for standardization, should generally use a section heading indicating URFA 2020.

If you focus on those that already have been checked by experienced editors, you should be safe in applying the third mark, or alternately, adding notes of issues you find to article talk. Each of us has different strengths, and check for different things. For example, Buidhe is very focused on scholarly sources, while I do a ton of MOS nitpicking, resolving of MOS:SANDWICH, and run all the scripts listed in the "Scripts and tools" section of Template:FA sidebar, along with some basic prose checking, so as you gain experience, you will know better what things each of us may miss, or what things you like to doublecheck. (I have a bit of advantage of being involved in the FA process since 2006, so I know what things the original nominators were and weren't good at, some history on many of the FAs, and what to look for :) But until you develop a feel for what to look for, you should be safe with those that already have two solid satisfactory marks.

If you enter a third satisfactory, you sign it, and move it to the kept section. That would get us a long ways towards moving some off the list, which will make us all feel better about the effort-- we like the keeps and saves, and don't want the process to seem like "all about defeaturing" :) All of us will be watching over you, so post any questions to the talk page at URFA/2020 if you are unsure about anything.

Should you additionally want to do more than this, the biggest logjam we have is that each of us can only make one nomination per week at WP:FAR, and at that rate, it will take forever to get through them, so if you want to pick a weekly article from WP:FARGIVEN to nominate, that would be glorious. BUT ... ping me for suggestions first; I wouldn't want you to walk into some ... what word to use ... articles more delicate than others where you might end up attacked? If you decide to do this, give me a potential list you might nominate, so I can steer you away from any that could end up being too difficult for a new FAR nominator. (See the entire thread above this one, where I was very worried that might happen to Wtfiv and fortunately it didn't :) And THANK YOU SO MUCH !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confident in the other criteria but prose strength which is usually where my own projects tend to stall out, but the nature of the threefold sign-off means I should have no qualms about being the sole arbiter of anything. I'll have a check through the 2007 list to see what can be finished off. And don't worry about whether listing something at FAR would prove contentious; I didn't come up the Lagan in a bubble this morning, I'm okay to take some flak so if you have articles in mind for review I can adopt a nomination in need. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 19:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's good to know :) I have had to save some necks re FAR noms! Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Grapple X, we aren't looking for perfection-- just those that don't need a FAR vs those that do, although similarly, we shouldn't prematurely mark anything "Satisfactory" if it has wonky stuff, which can range from just entering a note, to adding a notice given to WP:FARGIVEN (that's the difference between Note and Notice given ... Notice given really needs to go to FAR, while Notes just need some straightening up prior to marking satisfactory). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My intention was to sign off anything I was happy with, and to leave a talk page notice for anything I wasn't, signing off on it if the issues were addressed. Already making a start now—medieval cuisine is the intersection of my two favourite things so I'm diving in there. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 20:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this is standard practice or not, but I also sometimes start out with items as a note where I think there is a decent chance of quick improvements, and don't add it to the noticed list unless there's been a month or so with no action. Hog Farm Talk 20:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's good practice (if you remember to check back in :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Grapple X: The above editors have given great advice. I want to emphasise that we need editors who are willing to nominate at FAR; in my experience, an editor is more likely to step forward to improve an FA once it is nominated at FAR. Editors are limited to 5 nominations, so the regulars are often at their limit. If you need someone to review an article to mark as Satisfactory, please ping me. If you want me to outline my URFA/2020 review process in more detail, or have any questions, please ping me below or on my talk page. Z1720 (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History of Minnesota[edit]

You asked if I'd reconsider my participation in Wikipedia in order to address problems with History of Minnesota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Have you seen the contents of my user page lately?

As an admin, I'm sure you've seen all the behavioral issues that people have on Wikipedia. It's not hard to find my behavioral problems, either. I don't know if I can be rehabilitated into a "good" editor... or even a "good" person at other areas in my life outside Wikipedia. And even if I managed to fix the problems with History of Minnesota, who's to say I should take any pride in that? Who's to say that it's any benefit to society?

I'm not closing the door completely on this request to resume active editing, but it'll probably take me a lot of convincing. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 01:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Sandy nor I are admins but personally I think that your content contributions are likely to be valuable in the long run. No one can totally avoid making a mistake but so long as you leave good content work behind at least that's something you can point to as an achievement. (t · c) buidhe 02:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Utermohlen[edit]

Um, in between the 150,000 other things you have going at the moment, it might be worth keeping a half eye on this. The article is the first the (quite receptive and friendly) nominator has brought, with this being the article's 2nd FAC. Am starting an extensive look over, so no heavy lifting needed, just maybe shout if any claims re Alzheimer's seem misleading or off. Ceoil (talk) 07:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, Ceoil … I must, Must, MUST do a few other things I promised first, but will look in as soon as I can. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil it is so short that I was able to have a look. It needs a lot more development before it’s ready for FAC; there is untapped potential in the sources, and other sources on Google Scholar, and the prose isn’t there. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Grand. This FAC will at least accelerate more extensive use of the sources, will do a c/e, and am thinking a PR might be in order. Much appreciated once again. Ceoil (talk) 05:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is SandyGeorgia's inappropriate edit summaries. Thank you. I'm letting you know as it doesn't look like the thread starter is going to. Nil Einne (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh golly gee darn, thanks for letting me know Nil Einne. It appears that WP:FAR is not the only place where Nutez does not comply with notification requirements; the problem at FAR is that failure to notify means the FAR is then delayed until several weeks after the notifications are done. Odd that Nutez kept editing, but didn’t do the notifications there either, per the instructions, and as requested by Nikkimaria, the FAR Coord.
On the positive side (progress on Wikipedia), try to imagine the misogyny that existed back in 2012 that allowed an admin to cover up Bishonen being called a bitch with further reference to her as a witch with flying monkeys, while I was separately accused of hate mongering because I notified of a now-blocked serial offender falsifying sources. I suspect (or hope) that everyone involved in those behaviors has matured a bit over the years, and doubt they would engage in (or get away with) similar statements about female editors today. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My response: [14] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Io, Saturnalia![edit]

Io, Saturnalia!
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Christmas![edit]

Season's Greetings
Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Kings (Bramantino) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas![edit]

Hello SandyGeorgia: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Season's Greetings[edit]

Season's Greetings
Here's wishing you a marvellous holiday and the best of 2022 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holidays[edit]

Nollaig shona duit
To Sandy, wising you and yours the very best for the holiday season and new year. Ceoil (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Merry Christmas![edit]

Hallacas y pan de jamón
I believe it isn't late yet to send this :) Stay safe, I hope you are able to spend time with your love ones. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! NoonIcarus (talk) 19:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays[edit]

 Season's greetings!
I hope this holiday season is safe, festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2022 will be safe, healthy, successful and rewarding...keep hope alive....Modernist Modernist (talk) 00:15, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new era[edit]

Your friend Bishzilla and all her socks wish you a happy and healthy new Jurassic era! Bishonen | tålk 12:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for your support and comments on the Italian War of 1521–1526 FARC, and Happy New Year! Amitchell125 (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

For the hours spent at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Tornado/archive2. JBchrch talk 16:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merchandise giveaway nomination[edit]

A t-shirt!
A token of thanks
Hi SandyGeorgia! I've nominated you to receive a gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up on Fort Saskatchewan's peer review[edit]

Happy holidays!

In October 2020, you provided this amazing peer review for Fort Saskatchewan. I was finally able to spend a solid chunk of time working through it, and I think I made some headway. I just posted a new peer review request, and would be very grateful if I could take you up on that offer for you to send it off to some Canadian editors you know.

Thanks for your time, and take care!

CplKlinger (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SandyGeorgia/arch114&oldid=1192748133"