User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch89

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

Contents

PumpkinSky CCI completed[edit]

See, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

As often as I get informed about this, one would think I discovered, opened or otherwise had something to do with the CCI. As I've said, my concerns are more related to his knowledge of sourcing (something a CCI doesn't look at), and his bringing his grudge about Raul to bear on FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, if I informed you too much. It is hard for me to tell when it is too much or too little. Geometry guy gave me some related thoughts that you may be interested in, ending on "notifications about notifications", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
For sourcing see Great Dismal Swamp maroons, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hologenome theory of evolution[edit]

Thanks for your hard work on this. I don't agree with everything that you've done, but where we disagree, I'm sure that we can come to a mutually satisfactory resolution. Among other points, I'm quite impressed with the work that you did digging up the PMCs that I missed, etc. etc. You're very serious about what you're doing. You've set me on a hard trail with some of your comments. I know several of the participants in the Hologenome debate on both sides, and some of the points raised stemmed from private communications with them several years ago. I've assumed that in the intervening years since they expressed to me their contrary opinions, they must have published them, but of course, that isn't necessarily so. There's some politics involved, and I'm trying very hard to be neutral. Anyhow, thanks again! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Question about the quotations. You removed my statement that they were condensed from Rosenberg et al. by which I meant that most of the quotes were exact up to the first comma, at which point I truncated the subordinate clauses following. I found it less distracting to do that than terminating each quote with ellipses. So without a clear statement that the quotations were condensed, should I add dot dot dot to each sentence? Or is that four dots? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Stigmatella ... I'm just in for the evening, and will be out all day tomorrow ... I'm unclear what you mean about removing quotes, will catch up after tomorrow ... do whatever you think best, don't worry about reverting anything I've done. I know nothing of the topic, was just trying to give you some pointers for learning your way around Wikipedia. On the things that aren't published, though, we can't include such on Wikipedia ... we need to source text to things that can be verified, WP:V. I'll check in with you later. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I found the article that I knew had to exist, given my conversation with the author a few years back. Main trouble finding it was my not remembering the author's last name correctly. But now I should have all the missing references that you wanted. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad you got more of that cited! The next issues with the article would be to wikify it (see WP:MOSLINK and WP:OVERLINK), add PMIDs and PMCs that are missing (I did a few samples), and there are still some WP:MSH issues (we don't repeat the article title in the section headings) and improper capitalizations within the article. I'll try to get over there some time to help you, no promises-- most of that you can probably do as well as I can! Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi SandyGeorgia, it's both flattering and a bit worrying that you've asked me to chip in: I'm not very confident about the details of MOS and about good writing. Am also falling behind with other editing on my todo list, but had a look over, picked up on a couple of points, and commented on the talk page. Hope that helps and isn't too much too fast, . . dave souza, talk 10:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Human rights in Argentina[edit]

Do you think there are any copyvio issues with this article? --Greenmaven (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow. 90% of the article is a verbatim copy of one government source, and there's more from another, which isn't copyvio but is still kinda insane. There's also smaller-scale copying from a non-PD source, which is copyvio. There are also a few Spanish-language sources I can't check and at least one broken link. That article needs some serious cleanup, and the GOCE tag isn't going to cut it. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Ugh, sorry, was busy elsewhere and neglected to catch up on this. Nikki, I'll go check the Spanish language sources now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I have just CSD'd the article. See the talk page for details. --Greenmaven (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Um. Much as I think this is a problem, I don't think it's CSD-able as copyvio, as US federal government sources are generally PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid the early edits will need to be revdel'd, which I can't do (admin) ... not sure how I can help? Or not, since they're PD? Don't know how to fix this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I removed the copyvio identified above, let me know if there's anything from the Spanish sources. The large-scale PD copying isn't a legal issue, so wouldn't warrant revdel. This is the last version without the PD dump, but it does have the copyvio. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikki for checking, and thanks Jack for asking before proceeding with ce this time ... wise move, saves time! I updated one dead Spanish link, couldn't find another, but there's not enough sourced from those sources to worry much ... the bigger problem is identified by Nikkimaria. Will leave it to you now, Jack ... glad you checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Willuconquer Only one edit in 2012 ... should be notified (but he's got a lot more articles, may need further investigation ... geeeez, copyvio is all I've done for three days now ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
In recent contributions I'm seeing interwiki translations and foreign-languages sources (neither of which I can check), but there's also at least one blatant copyvio from last year. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Even as early as the second edit in 2009 this article was base on COPYVIO. See Talk page. I therefore believe the entire article is worthy of deletion. This is unfortunate given the topic. --Greenmaven (talk) 03:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

See Nikkimaria's message above -- it's a PD source. I'm not sure how it's fixed now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Roe v. Wade FAR[edit]

Hi there Sandy, I hope you're doing well! I saw you were involved a bit at a prior FAR for this, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Roe v. Wade/archive1, so your comments in particular at the current FAR would probably be quite helpful. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 07:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Mauricio Wiesenthal[edit]

Hello Sandy. I don't read Spanish well enough to be sure, but the article Mauricio Wiesenthal appears to be mostly a translation of part of the biography page on a web site that appears to be his own. The relevant part begins with "Ha sido Profesor ...", five paragraphs from the top. The article was built almost entirely by one single-purpose editor. I can't tell whether there is copyvio here, or COI, or neither. Can you help, please? --Stfg (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I should be able to look in an hour or so ... will do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I've seen what you did there. Thank you. --Stfg (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Earth Microbiome Project[edit]

Hi again! I split this article out from Microbiome because it unbalanced Microbiome in its level of detail. It's really interesting how Microbiome languished as a stub for two years until I started adding substantive content. Now all of a sudden multiple authors have started contributed big sections and I find myself spending most of my time reorganizing and copy-editing. Next big project is to add the PMC and PMID references that User:Projectphobos neglected to add. Whew! I'm only just starting to appreciate the sort of work that you did for me on Hologenome theory of evolution!

Anyhow, Earth Microbiome Project is basically User:Axtian's work, and I've noticed that he/she doesn't seem to monitor his/her talk page. The picture on that page is going to be deleted unless proper copyright justification is added. Is there any other way to get in touch with Axtian than on the talk page? Thanks again for everything! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed it wasn't your work (ce needs throughout). I only catch these articles because I patrol User:AlexNewArtBot/MedicineSearchResult, to check for notability, copyvio, sourcing issues, tag Medicine articles, etc. I did a bit of basics, but don't have the time to do more there. You might see if Axtian has email activated? Go to his talk page, look on the left side of the page in the "Toolbox" window, and see if there's an "E-mail this user" link. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting[edit]

I thought you might find this bit of reportage interesting. Warning: it mentions PANDAS. MastCell Talk 00:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I've gotten inquiries (interesting that the media seems to want to find someone to say, "Yes, it's tics").
  1. The "arm flailing", "swung her arms across her body", "writhing" doesn't make one think right off of TS-related tics, but I haven't seen a video.
  2. See tourettism; there are all kinds of secondary (non-TS) causes of tics (things like carbon monoxide poisoning). If the NYT didn't talk to Jankovic (who is the guru on secondary causes of tics), they didn't do their job.
  3. It's most curious that this is happening near Rochester, but we see no mention of Kurlan, Mink, Perlmutter ... some of the world-class TS researchers and physicians happen to be in Rochester. Why aren't they quoted? "Neurologist in Buffalo"?
  4. PMID 20807070 is one of the most fascinating articles I've read in a very long time. It's tough going for the layfolk, but even though the PANDAS hypothesis isn't panning out, some really fascinating research has come out of it, about all of the mechanisms involved in the etiopathogenesis of tics. Particularly psychosocial stress and how it affects immunological mechanisms.
  5. "The story took off quickly, not just on the local and national news but on Facebook and autism blogs and sites devoted to mental health and environmental issues." Um, yea ... that's what happens. From the PMID above:

    The potential link between common childhood infections and lifelong neuropsychiatric disorders is among the most tantalizing and clinically relevant concepts in modern neuroscience ... The link may be most relevant in this group of disorders collectively described as PANDAS. Of concern, public awareness has outpaced our scientific knowledge base, with multiple magazine and newspaper articles and Internet chat rooms calling this issue to the public's attention. Compared with ~ 200 reports listed on Medline—many involving a single patient, and others reporting the same patients in different papers, with most of these reporting on subjects who do not meet the current PANDAS criteria—there are over 100,000 sites on the Internet where the possible Streptococcus–OCD–TD relationship is discussed. This gap between public interest in PANDAS and conclusive evidence supporting this link calls for increased scientific attention to the relationship between GAS and OCD/tics, particularly examining basic underlying cellular and immune mechanisms.

  6. Enter, PANDAS. Curiously, they come up with Rosario Trifiletti, a pediatric neurologist from Ramsey, N.J., when they've got world-renowned PANDAS experts right in Rochester. Something tells me they didn't hear what they wanted to hear from the Rochester docs, so they got a "true believer" on board. Swedo wasn't buying it. Local docs say "all nine of the girls he tested showed evidence of either strep exposure or exposure to the organism associated with pneumonia." What kid doesn't ??
  7. "... enough evidence to get them started on antibiotics and anti-inflammatories." Bingo ! Enter antibiotics, based on ... nothing ... contributing to antibiotic resistance that affects not only the kids that are incorrectly treated, but the rest of society. See PMID 19242249 and Medscape report of the Gabbay, Coffey study.
  8. " ... the girls he was treating were showing dramatic signs of improvement". Um, yea, well that happens with tic disorders. And with conversion disorder. Without antibiotics.
  9. Good doctor on board !! "McVige’s approach has been to offer them cognitive behavioral therapy, psychological counseling, antidepressants and exhaustive testing."
Well, the good news is that even Swedo didn't buy it, so there's no reason for it to show up on the PANDAS article. Now, back to the kitchen! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Happy International Women's Day[edit]

8marta.jpg Award for a great woman
On the internet no one knows if you're a dog, but I think you're of the female persuasion. Against kitchen slavery, and for women's writing: this award presented to a deserving woman. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Because I mentioned your name[edit]

Because I mentioned your name, it is only polite that I inform you, although it is mostly in passing, so no urgent need to read this, just FYI.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Giraffe spotcheck[edit]

I look over nearly every source have have available and did re-paraphasing when need. Can you do some looking over? LittleJerry (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Other aspects of close paraphrasing concerns regarding United States Education Program[edit]

Not sure if this has already been drawn to your attention, but you were mentioned at User talk:JMathewson (WMF)#User talk:Moonriddengirl aka User:Mdennis (WMF) suggested I contact you and rather more obliquely at User talk:Epistemophiliac#Is there a place where OAs are discussed?. Largely the same old same old, but there are some interesting implications as to the details of how the education program is (not) actually managed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Makoplasty[edit]

FYI I have renominated the above-captioned article (which you cleaned up) for deletion. Regards, Bongomatic 15:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

In a galaxy far, far away[edit]

Sandy, I am not familiar with this FAR/FARC malarky. Could you advise either here or at the review page if we are now awaiting "the featured article director or his delegates" to close the FAR, or if I should be declaring "keep" or "delist" under the FARC heading? Ben MacDui 15:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I dunno ... the delegates don't seem to follow FARs closely any more, so things seem to have changed since the days when Marskell and I prodded, poked, and kept each one moving forward, letting folks know where they stand and what's needed. Yes, you should be entering a declaration at this stage. I'll try to do same as soon as I have a chance to get over there, but for now, ski slopes beckon :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Clarification requested[edit]

Hi Sandy, you've you made some statements that I was at one time in charge of a WEP class that has given you "the most headaches". In another area you mentioned that it was a psychology class. It's been recommended that I contact you for clarification. I've never been approached about any problems in any of the classes I have supported. And I have never been in charge of any classes. Would you mind clarifying or providing some links or examples to support your statement? I appreciate your help. Thanks and Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 00:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

You are listed as the online ambassador for the courses of User:MTHarden. I don't believe I said you had ever been approached; what is clear is that this program (and some of its ambassadors) don't oversee their classes, professors, students, or articles. MTHarden's fall into those categories; a more engaged online ambassador, who understands copyvio and WP:MEDRS and the importance of engaging on talk would be useful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your response. While I was listed as one of three OAs for that class during the fall semester, along with a CA, I was far from in charge of that class. Online Ambassadors do not individually work in oversight of classes. The program was never designed to function in that manner. That said, we work alongside professors, Campus Ambassadors, and other Online Ambassadors to support courses and students. I actually worked with over 300 students during the fall semester. In this situation, my role included providing answers and direction when approached by students. We simply do not have the number of OAs available to function as a second instructor to the class or as individual tutors for hundreds of students. The responsibility of the CA includes reviewing the work prior to presentation on-wiki to ensure accuracy and appropriateness of content. This often doesn't happen exactly how we would wish. The role of the OA includes providing direction navigating through WP and serving as a buffer of sorts when editors or articles receive warnings. All individuals from the professor to CA to OA work together with the student in differing capacities. It is true that OAs do not oversee classes, professors, students, or articles. That is not our role. We help guide the student, but essentially, the students are responding to assignments given by their professors, with direct face-to-face support from Campus Ambassadors. We (OAs) also are often found engaging students on both talk pages and through email. Most often, students prefer discussing their articles and asking questions through email. I certainly do not shy away from either. We are not called to understand or comprehend the subject, just make sure the students have access to online materials and answers to their questions. Honestly, Sandy, I think the program would benefit from your involvement and sharing some of your ideas. When Tory Read asked me for referrals to additional individuals that could provide input, I recommended that she speak with you. While I may not always agree with your opinions, I believe that your opinion is valued and needs to be heard. I would much rather work with others, than against them. That said, I think making statements that I have personally been in charge of the single class that has given you the most headaches in the program is a bit much. In all sincerity, I would appreciate a retraction of your claims. Thanks and Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 01:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Physicians[edit]

Thanks for the message. I will work on the physician articles. One favor, since I cannot assess my own articles (I didn't know that was a policy but I see how it makes tons of sense), could you reassess them to start at whatever level you think they should be at? I will seek to get more sources for the article on Lopez Nussa; I agree a single source may indicate lack of notability. I will make that a priority. Could you name the ones that most attracted your attention as possibly falling into the potentially non-notable category so I work on those first? The naming conventions issue, I think I understand what you are saying but I am not sure when/how to apply it. Do you mean that the title cannot be, say, "Dr. Manuel de la Pila Iglesias", but the body of the article can occassionally contain "Dr. Pila"? Thanks very much for your comments. Mercy11 (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

One more thing, do you know what happened to the photo of Manuel de la Pila Iglesias? It was there this morning, but now it's gone. Thanks,Mercy11 (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC) <<<<< Never mind. It seems you mistakenly took out the "Dr." from the image name and that's what messed it up. If you also want to remove the qualifier "Dr." from the image name, I think that has to be done in the image itself. I wouln't know how to "move" an image the way we move article titles. Take care, Mercy11 (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Multiple REDIRECT Links[edit]

Hi, I was wandering if you might know how to fix the following:

Someone created an overly large number of links to the article Ponce School of Medicine. A "what links here" would show what I mean.

The following should not be redirecting to that article, because the school has never been known by those other names. However, I have no clue how to stop it (undo it):

The following are NOT OK:

  • Escuela medica de ponce (redirect page) ‎ (links)
  • Escuela medica de puerto rico (redirect page) ‎ (links)
  • Escuela de medicina de puerto rico (redirect page) ‎ (links)
  • Puerto rico medical school (redirect page) ‎ (links)
  • Puerto rico medicine (redirect page) ‎ (links)
  • Escuela de ponce (redirect page) ‎ (links)

The following links are ok:

  • Ponce school of medicine (redirect page) ‎ (links)
  • Ponce medical school (redirect page) ‎ (links)
  • Escuela de medicina de ponce (redirect page) ‎ (links)
  • Escuela de Medicina de Ponce (redirect page) ‎ (links)

Can you break the links of the bad (NOT OK) ones? Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

MEDA[edit]

Just FYI: basically all people and all organizations are considered "Low" priority for WPMED assessments, so you can fill in that parameter if you want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Come join the translation taskforce[edit]

We are making good progress. Need help improving the English article to get them ready for translation though. The articles we are working on are of top importance and widely read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MED/Translation_project --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

May Revolution[edit]

I have nominated the article May Revolution for FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/May Revolution/archive4. As you made a review of the article in the past, it would be useful if you could check it again, as it is an obscure topic outside of Argentina and previous nominatons did not atract enough reviewers. All comments are welcome. Cambalachero (talk) 01:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Just wanted to say thank you for starting a review of the Hawking article [1] - I'm looking forward to working with you :) And also thank you for your bump at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Stephan_Hawking - I've been having a little trouble attracting reviewers from that area :) By the way, if you can ping me a message on my talk page when you post a review that would be cool - I've got a fairly quiet week this week so should be able to get right to it… Cheers Fayedizard (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Have done a quick response to your review over at the page - thank you so much for getting involved :) As a quick side note - I notice that you've got an interest in medical articles? On that angle I might see If I can interest you in looking at dyslexia or down_syndrome? They are some of the most popular disability-related articles on the wiki, but they are sadly in need of attention - I've been hacking at them regularly over the last little while but I suspect I might be a little timid to make some of the more sweeping changes that they desperately need... Fayedizard (talk) 09:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Also - just to check, I've been working on the basis of inline comments to reviews, let me know if that doesn't work for you... Fayedizard (talk) 09:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
So as we're now off FAC :) It would be really really good if we could have a bit of a dialog for how you are looking for the article to change for it to gain FA standard. (I've added a bunch of clarifications and queries to some of the issues raised on the talk page...) The thing is - this is as much about the development of me as an editor as it is about the development of the article - you guys have got a sense what sort of rewrite an article might need to satisfy the criteria, and you've got that by working on many many many FAs - if you can give me a bit of time (probably much less than you've already spent on the article) to correspond a little about the direction it should be taken in then I'm much more likely to bring future articles to FA that are already up to scratch without any of the inefficiencies you've already talked about here... sound good? Fayedizard (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Removed these, added after close (please don't chop commentary from reviewers). You have youself a solid GA there-- sourced to reliable sources, decently written, but doesn't use the highest quality sources and isn't a compelling account of the man's life. It's not only that career and personal life are short: it's that you have to build the article from scratch from the high-quality sources. Retrofitting sources to the mediocre text that is there won't do it. Trying to honor what was there, which was piecemeal trivia added by editors over the years, won't get it to FA quality. The man deserves much more than what is there. Building an FA on a person like this will be a "labor of love", and won't be done from The Guardian or the BBC. Good luck ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and sorry I didn't spot the other changes – it's past my pyjamas time. Graham Colm (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, I wanted to give you a little bit of time before I came bothering you again… (and apologies for breaking up your commentry, I'd understood the 'inline or not' to be more or less 'I don't mind') Anyway - It's not so much that I'm trying to honour the editors who've gone before that is causing me problems - that would only be a problem for this particular article - the thing that's praying on my mind a little bit is this: if I were to take the article away and take a load of stuff out, and put a load of stuff back in - then I'm effectively just making random changes - because I've (demonstrably) not got a decent sense of the way that the FA criteria are interpreted, then I've also not got any real insight into why this article didn't make it…

So if I were to rewrite the article without any guidence, then I suspect that it would end up being futher away from the standard because I'll be viewing everything though my lens. Is it at all possible to open up a dialog on any of the clarifications I made before your reverted them? Or even is there someone you can recommend that does have a good sense of what makes an article FA able? If someone can show me how you experienced editors are interpreting the guidelines then I can start bringing you FA after FA after FA - otherwise it looks like the message I'm taking away from this is more or less that I should stick to faffing around on small articles rather than producing high quality content. Does that make sense?

Robert Degos[edit]

I need a better explanation why "Robert Degos" was removed.

I gave full references to all the material that was in the page I created (two main references: namely "Who named it" and a blurb freely available to the public from the Universite Paris Descartes) - "Degos disease" is in fact an entry in Wikipedia and so there was an internal link to it. The books section is in fact my own addition. If I forgot a quotation mark on the SCIENTIFIC explanation of the syndrome you could have added them WITHOUT removing the entire page.

Robert Degos is a famous French dermatologist, the material is all academic, in fact his entry is also necessary as it connects with other entries in Wikipedia (at least 4). You could have flagged what looked like "copyrighted material" but BEFORE removing it I would have appreciated that you INQUIRE first. (I am not a "newcomer" to wikipedia, I've already created many pages which have been translated into many languages).

Thanks,

JAR (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Removing WP:COPYVIO isn't something subject to "inquiry first", and providing a citation doesn't excuse or permit lifting wording from the source; the explanation for copyvio is on your talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Your answer is a tautology. My question was very precise. If it was the description of the syndrome (a very complicated one) that troubled you then a quotation mark would have sufficed (and my apologies for omitting/forgetting them). The rest was edited and rephrased and not taken verbatim. In any case, the description of Degos as "succeeding Prof X at the Hopital Saint Louis" is common knowledge (thus its wide circulation and availability on the website of the Universite Paris Descartes, it is certainly NOT "copyrighted material" from "Who named it"!!). In any case it was not even taken verbatim! The fact that I forgot to add quotation marks for the description of the syndrome happens all the time and that is precisely why we need your collaboration and continuous patrolling. JAR (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Help![edit]

Hey Sandy, hope all is well. I'm coming to you with this question because you seem to know what you're doing and you've been helpful in the past.

I've been trying to get more involved in Wiki editing and have started doing a bunch of New Page Patrolling. I would also like to help out w/ some of the backlogs, but I'm a bit confused about the process. For example, I go to the backlogged section of Articles w/ topics of unclear notability. I find pages tagged w/ this as far back as 2007 with no real movement or changes. What do I do then? Start a Talk section that will likely be ignored (as the page has barely been visited)? Mark it for deletion, even if it's not an area I'm sufficiently familiar with? Obviously, if I can just fix the page that's the way to go. But, if a page has had this type of tag for months or years and I agree it should be deleted, should I then just nominate it for deletion?

Thanks!JoelWhy (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

hey! As someone told me recently, new page patrol is mind-numbing, soul-crushing work. He was right :) On unclear notability, first you have to do the homework of figuring out if the article is notable (so you won't embarrass yourself by prodding or AFDing something obvious :) If you are sure they aren't notable, then see WP:PROD or WP:CSD, because quite often they will be copyvios. Some will be targets for a merge or redirect, some will need to go to AFD, some may be prodded, and copyvios or attack pages can be CSD'd. NPP is a hard place to work ... are you sure you want to start with notability? I've been following User:AlexNewArtBot/VenezuelaSearchResult and User:AlexNewArtBot/MedicineSearchResult-- perhaps you'll take up following new Venezuela articles? They're mostly useless sports stubs, for which I haven't yet investigated notability- I've no idea if most of those meet notability, and decided it was more work than I wanted to take on. If you pop some samples here when you're unsure, I'll try to help. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
On the occasions I've done it I've found NPP to be quite therapeutic. For instance, you have to do a little research before prodding or initiating an AfD, but the only requirement of a new article is that it makes a plausible case for the notability of its subject. If it doesn't then it can be CSD'd with a clear conscience. Malleus Fatuorum 17:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem is, in the medical realm, I'm not content to stop at that, and end up spending hours and days cleaning them up so they're not dangerously bad! But also in the hope that new editors will learn correct sourcing and organization of medical articles. And ... I found tons of copyvio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
NPP is a pretty broad-meshed net, just designed to catch the obvious problems really. But I remember doing much the same thing myself last year after I'd tagged Loutro, Messenia for speedy deletion, believing it to be the same place as Palaio Loutro (or it might have been the other way around). I spent hours poring over maps and checking sources. Malleus Fatuorum 17:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the input! I'm still learning the new page patrol ropes, but I think it's coming along. I frequently pass over some of the sport stubs pages because I'm not sure if the guy who plays for the Maracaibo AAA futbol team is notable, or if that's the equivalent of a Pee Wee Football club. ;)JoelWhy (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Karel Styblo[edit]

I have taken your advice and rewritten, in my own words, a short biography on Dr. Karel Styblo. I hope this will suffice for posting and will work to Wikify it. Thanks for your guidance on this topic. Thanks. --Anderton (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I've done some cleanup to conform with Wikipedia guidelines and policies, but you didn't cite any sources. Please review WP:V. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that I've watched what you've done on this article over the last few hours, and I'm pretty impressed. I've been following this article since its earlier incarnation as a pure copyvio. Still learning from you. :-) Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! The first two versions were copyvio from a non-reliable source (scienceheroes.com), but when I saw the third reincarnation tagged for notability,[2] and found reliable sources discussing how important the fellow was, I became fascinated with his story. I wish someone with journal access could locate the missing sources, so the article could be finished.
  1. PMID 1813098
  2. PMID 1687506
  3. doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2011-201054c.61
And, wow ... does Directly Observed Therapy – Short Course need work !!
I'm glad you're still around and still learning: the dismal work of patrolling new pages is made worthwhile by encountering A Few Good Editors. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Sandy, I have access to the last one (in Thorax). Would you like me to e-mail it to you? Dana boomer (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)I'll request the other two for you at wp:WRE. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! (Alternately, if they add little to nothing new, no need for me to get hold of them, or y'all could just add any small tidbits.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I can also get them for you, but it will take a few days before I have time to visit the university library. Seems like the others here will get them to you first. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Update at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#Dr._Karel_Styblo: It's held in the Royal Danish Library at Copenhagen University. Should be available internationally from them.LeadSongDog come howl! 19:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks ... ummmm ... I guess that means someone there needs to get it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
WRE has many helpful gnomes, but it's often helpful to seek out someone from that place to speed things along. As a rule, the userpage templates can be helpful, as can category:Wikipedians by alma mater and category:Wikipedians by location. But I've asked at Wikipedia_talk:Danish_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Request_for_assistance_at_the_Royal_Danish_Library Alternatively, many libraries have an "ask a librarian" link on their websites. I've always been fond of librarians, they're a breed apart. :-) LeadSongDog come howl! 22:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Sandy, I thought I still had your e-mail, but it seems to have gone AWOL. Would you mind sending me an e-mail so that I can attach the file in a return letter. Dana boomer (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I have a new gmail for my new post-FAC life and I still have my old one for old friends ... I'll email you from the old one :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, I visited the university library today, but didn't manage to retrieve the article. It seems that in 1991, the Bulletin of the International Union against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease merged with Tubercle to form the journal Tubercle and Lung Disease. I could retrieve articles from Tubercle and Lung Disease back to 1991, but did not have electronic access to the parent publications. The best I could do was find an obituary as the last entry in the year-end list published in the British Medical Journal for 1998, which I uploaded to my Google Docs account for you: British Medical Journal Obituaries for 1998. I don't think there is much in the obituary that you don't already know, except maybe the name of his wife. Possibly I can find paper editions of the Bulletin at the medical school library, but the catalog entry is a bit cryptic about the extent of their paper holdings, and it's a half-hour drive. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I just created John Crofton, but he was knighted, and I don't know how to handle that in titles, naming, etc. Guess I shoulda paid more attention over the years, but I left that to Dr Kiernan. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

As I tried to say on my talk page, I think it's down to how people would generally refer to him, as "John Crofton" or "Sir John Crofton". Alex Ferguson, who is almost invariably referred to as "Sir Alex", is another example. Malleus Fatuorum 18:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Hello! A BIG BIG THANK YOU!! The FARC of Kolkata was closed, and the article remains FA. Your help and guidance were instrumental. Thanks a ton, again. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You're most welcome-- I've owed you forever :) I apologize for running out of steam and dropping the ball there during my FAC "trial by fire"-- got kinda tired of whole FA business after how I was treated. But I'll bounce back ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
You better had lady! Malleus Fatuorum 17:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, we hope you bounce back ASAP.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Ibid and Op cit. referencing[edit]

I am against this kind of referencing but I cannot find a guideline which prohibits it. You have stated that it is not done here on Wikipedia. I wish that were true. Can you located a guideline I could use when other editors use it? Thanks Mugginsx (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The page is located at WP:IBID. :-) Regards, [natit citsejam] [klat] dE 18:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. It states it is "discouraged" that's all and many editors ignore that. Had to redo all of my references in an article not long ago because someone changed them to that method and they were soon all out of place. I wish there was some stronger language.Mugginsx (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Could you not have reverted them? As a side note, I've given you rollback because I think you can be trusted with it; if you would not like it, please let me know and I'll remove it. [natit citsejam] [klat] dE 19:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I will study the rights and responsibilities. Mugginsx (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Mugginsx, thank you for stopping by; perhaps you can answer some questions while you're here. You show up on almost every article written by Bearpatch (talk · contribs), who seems to be using Wikipedia for some sort of original geneological research or to promote family folklore, sometimes reverting or removing tags requesting citation or clarification. As one example, he uses IBID even after mentioning himself to someone else that it shouldn't be used. I'm concerned about the amount of original research he's doing, yet you seem to encourage him (Talk:James Rosebrugh Leaming) and he seems to be encountering problems with editors whose work I'm familiar with in a number of places (where I frequently see you co-editing in support of him). I'm not sure I share The ed17's view that you're ready for more permissions on Wikipedia: could you clarify your relationship with Bearpatch, and are you in a position to mentor him at all, or at least get the original, uncited geneological research to stop? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I have never had to justify my praising an article before but here goes. If you check my contributions you will find that I make a point to praise articles by many editors. I think it is part of being a good editor and can remember when editors did so for me many years ago and how good it felt. I found the article interesting and liked the templates used. I experimented with them in my sandbox. I have checked my contributions and I have edited on one article that the editor has contributed to. That was some time ago and it had to do with a template showing a shaded text by President Washington. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Rosbrugh&action=history I have had conversation with another editor on the talkpage of an article on an issue of biting the newbie that had to do with the editor and a sexually inappropriate remark made by another editor for which he apologized. That was not an article that I edited on and had nothing to do with the editor you mentioned. I know of no direct interaction with that editor. The other editor who I interacted with and who apologized I have had (up-to-that-point) good interaction with. A look at my articles should show no other interaction or similarity of articles. Does that answer your question. Incidentally, I do not approve of that type of referencing as I stated before and have had yet to deal with yet another article with the Op cit referencing since I asked you that question that does not involve either of those editors. I would like to see a discussion and participate in a discussion to promote a change in the guidelines AGAINST this type of referencing.Mugginsx (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Also my talk page remark you mentioned was dated March 30 - your editing on the article began on March 31. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Rosebrugh_Leaming&action=history and I have no edits on that article. I do not feel that I am experienced enough to mentor an editor. Mugginsx (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I saw a big todo at Talk:William de Warenne, 2nd Earl of Surrey, so hoped you might have some insight about that editor, since you had encountered him elsewhere and I found some of his editing at the Rosbrugh's (which I encountered via new page patrol of medicine articles) strange. On the ibid issue, it would be unusual for Wikipedia to elevate a guideline on a stylistic matter to policy-- I think our wording usually does the trick, but was surprised to find Bearpatch using ibid even after he had mentioned the guideline to another editor. Anyway, I spose I'll deal with the original research on the Rosbrugh articles alone! Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hannah Kempfer[edit]

Hi Sandy. I have all the reference materials I've been working from in front of me now and am in the process of revising Hannah Kempfer. I'm preparing a point-by-point response to your edit summaries that I will post to the talk page. If there are specific items you want to see referenced that aren't already marked, let me know as I currently have access to Kempfer's file in my library's special collections. Cheers, Gobōnobo + c 20:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I came across the article only because the fractured hip triggered it at Medicine New Page Patrol ... as far as I can tell, you've already addressed everything I noticed, and the article seems to be in fine shape. I'll probably unwatch, unless there's something of concern ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I think it's much better now. I appreciate the attention and help getting the references situated. Thanks, Gobōnobo + c 00:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Vincenzo Di Nicola[edit]

Hello SandyGeorgia, I can't seem to get across to the editor that Wikipedia is not for resumes, and that notability must be established using secondary sources. Do you have any ideas? Thank you, 66.168.247.159 (talk) 04:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

For that group, Wikipedia apparently is for resumes ... there's an entire virtual army in there, creating unsourced BLPs and CV on Wikipedia. It's the wave of the future on Wikipedia: WMF decided a long time ago they wanted more editors and more content, not better editors and reliable encyclopedic content. I'll look in in a day or so; since there's half a dozen of them, to one of me, hardly worth the headache (and an awful lot of work for someone who is practically without mention anywhere on the internet ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I did what cleanup I could, but that group of editors is editing as if their grades depended upon it, so I don't have great expectations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Sandy. 207.157.121.92 (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Foreign language citations?[edit]

I couldn't find a page discussing this in the Wiki help section. Is there a policy about using foreign language sources on the English wiki pages? Specifically, a source that I can't translate easily because it's not in one of the more common languages? I've been debating with an editor about whether a particular last name from the nation of Georgia is notable. She then found sources, but they're all in Georgian. I don't have any reason to think she's lying about what is said in the sources, but I'm curious to know if there's a general policy on this. Thanks again!JoelWhy (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hey JoelWhy, look at WP:NONENG: English sources are preferred where available, but non-English can be used. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The most promising new page I've seen[edit]

I thought you might be interested in providing some feedback at Talk:Prenatal care in the United States. A new student editor is asking about MOS issues and it's the best student article I've seen so far out of a few. Biosthmors (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. MastCell and Malleus have done a good job on addressing that. Biosthmors (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI the new editor asked me to give some feedback on the article, which I did here. But I'm no expert on medical articles, nor ever likely to be one. Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey[edit]

Peace dove.svg

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite


Hello SandyGeorgia. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.


You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

What is an assistant?
The survey doesn't include ANI, which is the source of many dispute resolution failures, so I decided not to submit answers-- the survey as formulated doesn't address the core dispute resolution problem on Wikipedia, which is abusive admins. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sandy. When the survey refers to an "assistant", it's a user who assists in dispute resolution. The term "mediator" didn't really seem to fit outside of mediation, so that's what we picked. ANI would fall under "Other noticeboards", but it doesn't really fall under the bracket of WP:DR, its sometimes used for dispute resolution, but isn't technically dispute resolution. That's why I didn't have it as a set option. Feel free to do the survey and select other noticeboards, and you can write about an experience you had at ANI. It's up to you, it'd be great if you could do the survey. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 22:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
As I said on my talk page, the symbolism of the dove flying out of the image is entirely consistent with my own experiences at AN/I, ArbCom and so on, but something you might like to think about. Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
BTW, there's another issue blown up at WP:AN (that you needn't be concerned about) that's reminded me of some of the good advice you've consistently given me, which looking back I don't think I really took sufficiently to heart. In the past I was rather inclined to the "well, if that's how you feel I'm off", but that's not really me at all in real life. I'm much more in the "well, if that's how you feel then you can fuck off" mould, so no more hearts on sleeves. Hope things are going well for you, as I've had no updates from Mattisse about your kitchen. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 00:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks for all your help! JoelWhy (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

HighBeam[edit]

Hi Sandy. Are you aware of Wikipedia:HighBeam? Sign-up page is Wikipedia:HighBeam/Applications. They have some medical journals in their library. Don't know which ones. And Raul has just opened Wikipedia:Requests for JSTOR access --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Missed that-- just now catching up on my talk. Ack! Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Lede image Major depressive disorder[edit]

Hi.

I see you are a frequent editor at Major depressive disorder and I would like to draw your attention to a discussion I have initiated on its Talk page in the light of the banned user RobvanderWaal's neutral post that this image is matter of fact one of mortality and sanctity, and not of sorrow, on van Gogh's own say so. I'm suggesting the editors should perhaps be rather using an image such as his Sorrow.

A physician Bailisk has replied to some medical issues that I have re-raised as well. I frankly worry about the quality of his contributions and would be grateful if a member of the community building this article might contribute.

Finally I intend to re-raise the question originally raised about this image as to whether it's really appropiate as the lede image. Granting that it apparently evokes the idea sorrow today in the viewer, why is it a lede image when in fact sorrow, anguish etc. feature only fleetingly in the article's description of symptoms.

RobavderWaal incidentally supported your position this year regarding Wikipedia's tiresome April 1st tomfoolery. That really is something we would like to see an end too.

Hope this isn't socking or something. Feel free to oppose me vigorously if that's your position!

Thank you. LHirsig (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

RobavderWaal incidentally supported your position this year regarding Wikipedia's tiresome April 1st tomfoolery. I don't know who RobavderWaal is, but I did not have a "position ... regarding Wikipedia's tiresome April 1st tomfoolery". I did have a position about DYK's puerile content ... fortunately DYK is not representative of all of Wikipedia, they have still quite a ways to go to clean up their act to something resembling encyclopedic content, and I have long been supportive of Today's Featured Article on April Fools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
RobvanderWaal (a pseudonym) is an Amsterdam art auctioneer who recently contributed a long edit to At Eternity's Gate discussing its provenance and pointing out that it is not a representation of sorrow but rather of mortality and sanctity. He went on to make a number of other significant edits on van Gogh and his period, including tidying up the article Amsterdam Impressionism, supplying stubs for important van Gogh paintings such as Tree Roots, and showing every sign of becoming a Wikipediholic, labouring long hours in his sandbox over a fascinating article about van Gogh's Hague studio. Earlier this week he posted neutrally at Major Depressive Disorder on At Eternity's Gate and got banned by a Welsh physician as a sock for his troubles.
I don't think he will be back :).
Thank you for your comment about April 1. We don't support any sort of April 1st tomfoolery. We think it elitist, cliquish and anglocentric. It's usually also sexist. This year's TFA effort was actually its reductio ad absurdam, the logical outcome of its cliquism, nevertheless contriving to remain phallocentric. The year before that it was simply nauseating.
Kind regards,
Leah - LHirsig (talk) 03:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
The logical outcome of editing psych articles is that one encounters lots of socking and kookery; it appears that admins are dealing with the socking. Allrighty then ... that image looks fine to me, the arguments against it look spurious, and the removal attempts strike me as obsessing on the trivial. Either I missed the phallocentric portion of pigeon photography, or you don't know the difference between TFA and DYK. I don't know who "we" is, but please don't enlighten me any further. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Rob wasn't editing the pyschology article but rather making an informative post on its talk page. He wouldn't have know that about editing psychology articles and neither did I. I momentarily confused the TFA with something else in the DYK. Apologies. Nevertheless my remarks about it being a reductio ad absurdam stand.
Thank you for your time and attention. LHirsig (talk) 09:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Just looked at your quotations heading your Talk page. I agree with them all and have made a note of them. Thank you. Apprecited. LHirsig (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Dan Leno[edit]

The article on Dan Leno has been nominated for Featured Article consideration here. Leno was a leading star of music hall, Victorian burlesque and pantomime. We would welcome your comments, if you have time. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Ss, I'm sorry I didn't get there-- I've been quite busy! I can't say I would have gotten there at any rate, but giving me a direct link always helps! Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dan Leno/archive1. It looks like things are well underway, and I prefer to stay away from Wehwalt/Alarbus territory to any extent I can, thanks to the really sick taste left in my mouth about what was done to FAC. But please do call on me if a FAC is stalled and you need my help. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of ACM computer science body of knowledge[edit]

Hi SandyGeorgia, You recently marked my article ACM computer science body of knowledge for speedy deletion due to concerns that the list of subjects given was under copyright by ACM, which I considered to be somewhat of an over-reaction e.g. similar articles such as ACM Computing Classification System similarly list ACM subject classifications without any formal copyright clearance. However I realise wikipedia needs to be very cautious on such issues. In any case, I have since confirmed with ACM copyright clearance that this usage in wikipedia is ok and have emailed this email correspondence to permissions-en at wikimedia.org several weeks ago, but have had no response. I have just submitted an undeletion request as well. What else do you suggest I do to get this article reinstated? This article was deleted before I could make a backup copy and as it represents around 72 hours work for the link list I would like to at least get a copy of it I can use as a basis to recreate the page. Thanks, Brianbjparker (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

If you wrote to OTRS, I think that's all you need to do ... they are volunteers, so you may need to wait. By the way, on the other articles, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Donner party[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Donner Party". Thank you. --Jswap (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Dealt with appropriately. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I just wanted to say thank you for your help. — Ched :  ?  21:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

That's some serious baiting and personalization over there ... wonder how many admins will bother to take notice ?? Courcelles, you watchlist here ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I noticed. As one of the article's primary contributors, that'd probably be considered too involved to block, no? --Moni3 (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd say what with the serious Malleus baiting going on over there, along with a seriously busted AGF-o-meter in evidence, hopefully some arbs will do the talking ... they seem to show up when Malleus is in trouble, so I hope they'll show when he's being baited? Yep, you should let someone else deal with it ... for some reason, the fellow also thinks I'm involved. Hmmmm ... calling Malleus "Fat" wasn't even a clever insult. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, he's only got 80-some edits to the project, and I do hate to see people blocked - but if I see one more shot like he's been taking - I'll pull the trigger myself. — Ched :  ?  21:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
And so, then he'll say you're involvd, since you've expressed an opinion. On the 80-some edits, he's been editing since 2006, should know better, and I assume you're also considering his IP edits? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I did see about 100 or so from that 66. one yes. Likely other IPs as well. I've never edited the Donner article; so I think it would be a pretty big stretch to consider me involved - but we'll see what shakes out. I'll stick around a bit longer. — Ched :  ?  21:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Wild charges[edit]

Please don't edit my text, your editing has left it difficult to understand. Please do not make comments like "mucking the talk page". Please do not level charges like disruption. Please see wp:CIVIL and wp:AGF. I may be forced to seek formal intervention. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You remind me so of another editor who used to target Moni3's and Malleus's articles, personalize discussion, not answer direct questions, edit Indian topics, and muck up talk pages. Nonetheless, please do read WP:TALK and do refrain from adding excessive markup to talk pages, and addressing individual editors in section headings at Talk:Donner Party. Formal intervention would be a good thing since you don't seem to understand requests to edit collaboratively. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Footballer notability[edit]

Hi there. The footballer articles you are tagging as non-notable are, in fact, quite notable - are you familiar with WP:NFOOTBALL? Regards, GiantSnowman 15:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I sure am ... which part of that guideline do you suggest those articles meet ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
"Players...who have represented their country in any officially sanctioned senior international competition" GiantSnowman 16:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Such as the Olympics, you mean? That's what it says. Just so I have this straight: in the medical realm, doctors and researchers who have made a huge difference in people's lives are not notable unless they meet WP:PROF, but any athlete playing any sport in any country gets an article because one website has some stats on that athlete? In the MilHist realm, people who died in the defense of "whatever" get no article unless they meet WP:SOLDIER, but any athlete playing any sport at any level gets an article. This is nonsense. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
No, it says "including the Olympics." And, unfortunately, you don't have it straight at all. These players have represented their country at senior international level, therefore they are notable. Where has the "any athlete playing any sport at any level" talk come from?! That is nonsense! GiantSnowman 17:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
The idea comes from what's in those articles (and many more like them). If you're basing notability on playing at senior international levels (e.g. Olympics), that is not established in most athelete articles-- particularly when the only link given is to some athlete database of stats. I don't see notability established. I shoulda nominated them for speedy deletion, but would prefer that notability be added. It's out of whack if we condone stubs on every person whose ever played with a ball or stick, while soldiers and doctors don't warrant articles unless they've actually done something notable-- and not even then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Under what criteria would they qualify for speedy deletion? The notability for footballers - and please bear in mind that's all I'm talking about, not other sports - was reached after numerous long, boring discussions between many editors. It's fair and appropriate. GiantSnowman 17:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't recall WP:NFOOTBALL saying that "any athlete playing any sport in any country gets an article because one website has some stats on that athlete". We regularly delete pages on footballers who play non-professionally or who haven't represented their country (like these Venezuelans it would appear, all of whom have made appearances for their country). The claim that "any athlete playing any sport at any level gets an article" is purely fallacious. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I see no one has addressed the inconsistency I raise, or the fact that all of those stubs are sourced to one obscure website of stats. I'd love to see a link to these "long boring discussions", and I'd love it even more if someone would explain why minor athletes are more notable than doctors, lawyers and soldiers. Or perhaps I'm talking to a wall. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
No-one's saying the articles need improving - they do. But the source used isn't "one obscure website of stats", it's one that is widely used by WP:FOOTBALL members as it's reliable. Trail through the WT:FOOTY threads, or the innumerable AfDs on non-notable footballers that have resulted in 'delete' for evidence of consensus. You think "doctors, lawyers and soldiers" are more notable than footballers? WP:POV. GiantSnowman 17:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
From my point of view, you're not talking to a wall at all, but at WP:FOOTY we tend to agree that a player who has represented his country in major competition is notable. I'm afraid I know nothing about PROF or SOLDIER, those notability guidelines are governed by their own projects I guess. I don't see anyone really claiming that a Venezuelan international footballer is more notable than a particular professor or soldier, I think I'm seeing someone saying that international footballers who have played for Venezuela are notable enough for an article, nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Could either of you explain how you are defining "major competitions", international level (for example in relation to the example of the Olympics, or I would think in the case of football/soccer, the World CUp, etc) or link me to one of these discussions; or read the notability requirments for professionals, soldiers, and other individuals who make a difference to the world? Alternately, feel free to just ignore me and not waste my time since it's the big picture that concerns me, and just delete the notability tags, since I'm busy enough dealing with articles on people who do things and don't warrant articles per our notability guidelines. The notability on those articles is lacking, particularly in relation to professionals like doctors, and people who die in the defense of their country like soldiers, but this is Wikipedia, and Wikipedia makes the internet suck, so if you don't want to pay attention to the issues, I don't really care-- delete the tags if you don't want to engage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
...and these people do merit an article per our notability guidelines, so what's the issue? Is it simply a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? I've not rmoved the tags because I agree the articles need improving; I strongly disagree that these articles are worth of deletion. GiantSnowman 18:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if anyone at FOOTY is denying that "people who die in the defense of their country like soldiers" deserve articles, but we still need to apply notability guidelines to them because otherwise we'd have about 20 million to write as a result of the First World War. I think we're just trying to say that an international footballer who has played for his country is notable enough for an article. If PROF and SOLDIER are different from that style then they need to be adjusted. You seem extraordinarily angry about something that seems nothing to do with the football articles, more to do with the PROF and SOLDIER issues you've noted. We have plenty of archives talking about notability etc of players, clubs, competitions etc. I don't know about the professors and soldiers, sorry. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
P.S. in general, representing your country as a footballer would include qualifying games for the World Cup, the European Championships, the African Cup of Nations, the Concembol tournaments,, the Olympics, etc, including appearances in the tournaments themselves. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
We all get frustrated with wikipedia time and again...this topic just happens to be one that many feel is an issue/problem with wikipedia. Sometimes it feels that sports figures are just getting articles because they end up on television, which I believe is not inherently notable. Don't get upset with Sandy. There does seem to be something wrong with the system itself, even if XXXX fits some wikipedia guideline concerning XXXXX. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not upset with anyone. I just don't know how SOLDIER and PROF determine their inclusivity criteria. At FOOTY we opt for professionals and those who have represented their country. Seems pretty uncontroversial to me, but of course, I'm used to it. It may seem odd to others than a Venezuelan who had played for his country should have an article here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The POV bias with notability[edit]

The same thing has happened in years past within the tropical cyclone project Sandy. It seems like a few innocuous trees in the undergrowth are tended while the forest remains mostly barren and/or on fire. For a while, articles on individual tropical depressions (which normally last short periods of time) were being created while other articles dealing with their formation and forecasting (i.e. the actual encyclopedia-type articles) were languishing...but a few of us have been trying to fix that issue since 2007. In the recent AFD of an article created about me by another editor, it was implied that hurricane specialists were more notable because they do international forecasts, while people who work at my national center of the NWS do exactly the same thing; supplying international forecasts. The difference is that hurricane specialists are on television fairly regularly, which instantly makes them notable for some reason even unknown to the notability page. I let the article get deleted...it wasn't worth the trouble. Hang in there. I understand the frustration. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

If there's an issue with "notability" for a particular project, wouldn't it best to discuss it there and try to change the consensus if that's what you're seeking to do? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I mentioned it here because it seems relevant here, even if other talk pages are better suited to address the issue. Sports figures get on TV...soldiers, doctors don't seem notable to wikipedia because they aren't on TV. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Sure. But the original beef seems to be about "non-notable" international footballers. The whole SOLDIER/PROF thing is entirely outwith a debate about footballer notability. If there's a more general forum for this kind of discussion which would help resolve this issue, then I'm happy to be pointed that way, as I'm sure all of the community at WP:FOOTY would be too. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
(Now "Mid low important" 21:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC), thanks to TRM) Steve Ball never played for England and seemed to have had one season of regular playing. (The only reference is a link to a database.) However, I thought that all Premier League players were automatically notable. (I'm drafting a short BLP about a musician and engineer named Steve Ball in my sandbox.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Here's an odd thought: Couldn't we say that technically a "soldier" does represent his country in an international contest? IJS. — Ched :  ?  19:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
It could be interpreted that way. I think some projects get around notability by using website content almost exclusively as sources. This would include sports figures and celebrities. Maybe if the encyclopedia insisted upon reliable published sources (paper or e-books, important journals instead of People magazine), some of these articles would be able to be deleted/not written at all. I'm taking this to a more relevant forum, where it is now being discussed. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
We don't just use "website content", many players who played pre-1990s have many paper sources. It's just natural than modern footballers and modern international foreign players are sourced by internet links. If there's a particular issue with the reliability of sources on these articles then that's a different discussion altogether. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I would imagine current footballers, leagues, etcetera, would also have paper or digital sources that would be more reliable/original than a website merely filled with statistics, likely published on an annual basis. I do understand the irony of my statement, concerning tropical cyclone rainfall usage within the tropical cyclone project being mainly from one website. The website isn't meant to establish notability, however. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Why you would believe that a modern footballer has more reliable coverage in paper than online is beyond me. But that's a misguided traditional approach to modern people. Of course, with our more senior footballers, we have only paper sources to rely on, and so we do. I think the articles recently tagged by Sandy were all "modern" footballers so we should (linguistically challenged) be able to provide at least to independent sources. You won't find paper sources for modern footballers that have just represented their country unless you go to Venezuela (for instance) and find one. I'm afraid I can't do that. So in the meantime, I guess we'll all have to do our best with what we have? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Busy now, will weigh in tomorrow hopefully, but no, the problem is not with soldiers and doctors, for whom our notability guidelines are reasonable and I nonetheless clean up tons of garbage each day with new page patrol. The problem is that these football stubs are doing nothing whatsoever to meet our general notability guidelines (at least two independent sources). They are nothing but stubs that will never be more than stubs because one stat website has data. That's not worthy of an encylopedia. Does it make me angry? No, but wasting time of discussions that will never go anywhere because gobs of folks will defend that status quo is irritating. I'd rather clean up articles on worthy doctors, soliders, and professionals, and there's plenty of that to be done; it just happens that I also have to plow through these silly stubs as they come up on Venezuela's new page patrol. Seriously, does any part of this Project emphasize quality over quantity? And the hurricanes and cyclones typically do have coverage in independent sources. (Rhetorical question since FAC was killed and the WMF pushes quantity via stupid university projects ... now that makes me angry, since it's our time they're wasting.) And PS, the hurricanes and cyclones typically do have coverage in independent sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

A fair point that since there are many tens of thousands of professional footballers, we'll inevitably be trying to catch up. We, as a project, are trying hard to provide notability-worthy references to every article in the project (as I'm sure many other projects are doing), we just have a lot of them to deal with. Our project (WP:FOOTBALL) certainly has an emphasis on quality, as of tonight, we have 65 featured articles, 144 featured lists and 309 good articles. Compare that with WP:TENNIS (for instance) who have 2 featured articles, 3 featured lists, and 7 good articles. So yes, we really do care about quality. I'm not sure who's "wasting time" or who the "gobs of folks" are, as far as I can see a number of stubs about Venezuelan international footballers have been created, and they'll be improved in due course. What this has to do with PROF/SOLDIER is unclear to me, but I will take the "two independent sources" into account (I honestly wasn't aware of that, mea culpa – can you point me to that at WP:N? I did a search on that page and couldn't find "two independent" or "more than one independent"... nope, forget that, I got it, "multiple"...) and hopefully we'll be able to educate our project members so that this kind of unpleasantness can be avoided in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Sandy - "mighty oaks from little acorns grow" and all that. As for the Venezuelan players - plenty of Google/Gnews hits.
Rambling - GNG says "the number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected." GiantSnowman 20:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Yep, just got that. I don't speak Spanish but a rough-and-ready Google search on each of these Venezuelans reveal multiple Spanish-language sources suggesting they've been talked about by Spanish-language sources.... I'd add them if I knew what they meant!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, same story here, and Google translate is an inexact art. We could make a request at WT:FOOTY for Spanish-speaking editors to have a look? It's worked previously with Turkish/Greek articles. GiantSnowman 20:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok, not a bad idea, I'll start a thread at FOOTY to request that new stubs etc are started with a couple of different sources, even if they're foreign language (WP:N allows that) so we don't need to defend the stubs for that particular reason. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
English-language sources are widely available for all the players, but they're more stats pages/profiles etc., which SG has a problem with. GiantSnowman 20:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, I've asked the question of the project to make sure we have the minimum of two sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Progress ... as far as I can tell, boatloads of stubs are being created on players that I doubt are notable, and I don't know why they're being created without indication of several sources. If you have a question on Spanish-language sources, please feel free to ping me. And by the way, this is not a criticism of soccer/football articles-- when I do new page patrol on Venezuela articles, I also get bios on baseball and basketball players who have touched Chavez soil. It mystifies me how one database can be used to justify notability, when doctors who have thousands of PubMed-indexed journal articles don't meet notability. We don't use related sources to meet notability; if you all will just add two sources so we know these stubs meet notability, it would be greatly appreciated. And I still wonder why the definition vis-a-vis major international competitions like the Olympics or the World Cup are being extended to any player in any country-level league, particularly when there is no demonstration that these articles meet general notability. Wikipedia has a clear bias, that atheletes (maybe musicians, too?) have lower notability standards than doctors, lawyers, soldiers, for example. And I think the doctors, lawyers and soldiers have got it right (that is, the specific guidelines there are more in line wiht our general notability requirements). We don't need more articles: we need better articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Athletes, musicians etc. have lower notability requirements because they are famous people widely reported on in the news. Whereas doctors, soldiers, lawyers are, generally, not famous or reported on in the news. It would be ridiculous to have comparative notability requirements for these two sets of people because they recieve such vastly different amounts of news coverage. Adam4267 (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
You don't see anything wrong with your logic? Anyway, as long as those writing athlete articles actually determine that they do meet notability, no problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
For the record I consider senior international footballers to be more or less universally notable (ignoring games where both sides are considered Microstates). But while she has probably chosen a bad example (Football League Two is possibly a better one), I agree with Sandy that NFOOTBALL is used too literally.

Even if we accept it being taken literally, what is harder to stomach is that it is used as a defence for poor practise, often on BLPs. The argument in favour of NFOOTBALL is that playing in certain games makes you (more or less) automatically notable. If so, surely it is not unreasonable to ask that in addition to statistical sourcing, we also source the article with some qualitative coverage of the match(es) (s)he has played in, and his/her involvement in it/them. —WFC— 17:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Now we're talking :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── When I create a stub on a player who has made his professional debut, I always try and include that, as in England especially it's readily available. With foreign internationals, however, it's much harder as I'm sure you can appreciate. GiantSnowman 17:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

To a point. I think there's a difference between being able to find a substantive source for a match we are asserting to be notable (a Google search for the player's name + the name of the team he played against, and adding it as an external link), and being able to make use of it (being able to read and translate a foreign language source, and use it as an inline citation). Given the extent of sourcing currently found in some articles on non-English-speaking players, even an emphasis on the former would be a fair step forward. —WFC— 18:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:Assume Good Faith[edit]

As I'm sure you are aware, this is an important part of Wikipedia. I can tell that you feel strongly about AS, but can you also bear in mind WP:TRUTH? You have accused me of being a sock puppet and also of edit warring, neither of which I have actually done. I provide sources and edit constructively, and I think User:Yobol made an honest mistake based on a pre-existing error in the article. Thanks. Sans culottes 03:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You have edit warred, you have misrepresented somewhat the text (even though I agree with the principle of what you're intending to say, you haven't gotten it right yet), I have not accused you of being a sock puppet, and when a newly registered editor has unusual knowledge about Wikipedia processes, it is not unexpected that queries will result as to previous accounts. Feel free to explain your previous Wikipedia experience. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Correcting a misguided edit is not edit warring. Again, WP:Assume Good Faith. Going over three revisions is edit warring. If you agree with what I'm saying, the good thing about Wikipedia is you can edit it to get it right. Or even talk to me in a non hostile/condescending tone. As for asking me to explain myself, Wikipedia users have the right to privacy. Thanks. Sans culottes 04:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, if this([3]) isn't accusing someone of being a sock puppet, I don't know what is. Sans culottes 04:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I suggest for starters a good read of WP:3RR about what edit warring is; when you've been reverted once, discuss on talk before reinstating. The text is still misrepresented (or was the last time I looked), and in the midst of edit warring, I'm not going to start changing text. You have a strange definition of accusing; returning editors are advised at WP:CLEANSTART to expect queries if patterns repeat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Well it looks like someone is set in their ways, which makes no difference to me. This will be my last word on your talk page other to tell you that I never even heard of WP:CLEANSTART until you just mentioned it; I had no reason to know about it as I have never encountered any issues on Wikipedia (although the fact that you know about this leads me to wonder…). If you think the ICD source is being misrepresented, by all means actually explain how you think this is the case. And I will leave you to think about what I originally suggested; WP:Assume Good Faith—acting like Fox News isn't exactly going to endear you to anyone, especially when your cause is to defend what is essentially a Fringe theory like Aspergers Syndrome. Sans culottes 05:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Alarbus (Jack Merridew)[edit]

Hi, Sandy. I noticed that over the last day or two, you have made posts at Truthkeeper88's talk page and Gimmetrow's talk page regarding Alarbus (Jack Merridew). My opinion is that if you think this user is socking right now, such as with an account called User:San culottes, it would be more apropos for you to file a WP:SPI than to spread rumours on user talk pages. I can say with pretty much 100% certainty that Jack is not editing right now, with the San culottes account or any other account. I also want to clarify my position: I am not in favour of Jack socking; I have never been in favour of it, and I have told him so many times. I am, however, strongly in favour of him continuing to edit here. While not all his behaviour has been stellar, my opinion is that the good outweighs the bad, by quite a bit. Regards, -- Dianna (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Now this is a most interesting post. You seem to know something I don't know, because my post to TK has absolutely nothing to do with Alarbus, and my post to Gimmetrow has nothing to do with socking, rather the extreme difficulties he encountered with Jack Merridew-- something I had forgotten until I started tracking down a few other sockmasters and came across some Merridew ANI threads by chance. Take a hike. After you read AGF, and lose the crystal ball. I don't really care how many more socks Jack Merridew creates, or whether he's editing or not, as long as he stays away from FAC and from me. I am however intrigued by your long-standing defense of his behaviors, which says plenty about you and your motivations. I don't know if you're pretentious, or just clueless, to think that Jack Merridew has been the only sock to pester TK, but next time before you open your mouth, engage brain and logic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I didn't know Alarbus was a JM sock. I'm not tuned in to WP as much as before and tend to miss a lot of the storms, though I do try to deal with the storms I see more directly now. So, if you want something looked at in the future, let me know, and I'll try to put in the hours it may take to figure it out. Sorry I wasn't there in the past. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, that was the same thing I was saying, Gimme ... that after so many years of dealing with so many sockmasters, they all tend to run together, and I had forgotten how much Merridew hounded you, and felt that I had failed to support you when Alarbus was wreaking so much havoc, didn't want you to think I was ignoring you-- I had just forgotten in the turmoil of watching FAC be destroyed by only five editors. It's disgusting that so many editors endorse unblocking of long-time committed sockmasters (and those who do that, do it constantly, one editor after another), forgetting that typically once a sockmaster always a sockmaster, and there's almost always disruption behind those who engage in socking. So curious how certain editors are always the same ole defenders of the sockmasters. Always, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
See also this, apparently the arbcom-authorized account, abandoned July 2011 and then used briefly starting April 2012. And AC didn't seem to do anything. Gimmetoo (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
When I repeatedly raised the issues about what was being done to FAC and inquired what the arbs knew (and now we know three of the <fill in your F adjective of choice> Five were editors who sock, and all of them seemed to have an agenda or a connection), one arb pretty much told me to put up or shut up, in a condescending tone that might better be reserved for socks, trolls, and other helpers of the Wikipedia. I plan to be much more discriminating in my arb votes this year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I plan to vote against the whole damn lot of 'em. Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Be careful what you wish for ... that approach might not be wise, depending on who's running. Time to start working on MastCell, Geometry guy, Slp1, Colin, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I had a long chat with Iridescent over a few beers back in February; they'd be crazy to consider volunteering for the time sink that is ArbCom. Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Given a focus on Asperger's, wouldn't M be a consideration? Gimmetoo (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but that would be too obvious. I considered several others, but concluded they'd be unlikely to call Asperger syndrome "fringe" (sheesh). Anyway, the focus now is on getting Sans culottes to edit collaboratively, regardless-- he did initially look like ILT because of the lit edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
"Edit collaboratively" = delete anything SandyGeorgia doesn't like off of their pet article, then stall and be completely obstinate about any changes and smear the editor I disagree with. You have turned into the kind of person that you warn against on your user page. Also it's "she" not "he". Sans culottes 22:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I see improvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't (also, still not a sock LOL). Sans culottes 22:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The discussion of whether you were a sock, and which, could have been shortened if you'd just answered the original query about why you were so knowledgeable of Wikipedia as a newly registered account. You don't have to answer that query, but you do have to accept that folks will check if your edits resemble those of a prolific sock, and you appear with an agenda and as someone uncommonly knowledgeable of Wikipedia. Some folks would inquire privately via email so you'd never even know there were inquiries ... I prefer to keep things on Wiki. I'm sorry for referring to you as a "he". I'm not sorry for my due diligence, or that meddling editors extended the discussion by assuming I was talking about someone else. I haven't been followed around so closely since my last puppy dog died! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
It's great to keep things on-wiki, Sandy, but the correct place for sockpuppet investigations is at SPI, not on Truthkeeper's talk page. Truthkeeper is not a check-user. Any by the way, the post on Gimme's page uses the word "sock" seven times, so it's disingenuous to now say that your "post to Gimmetrow has nothing to do with socking". Okay, I will not let the door hit me on the way out. :) -- Dianna (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Dianna, this one of the more chilling statements I've seen from an admin on a user's talkpage. Are you telling Sandy that she can't ask me about ItsLassieTime, that she can't post to my talk page at all? Please clarify - either here or at my talk. Furthermore, since my name has come up repeatedly under this header about Alarbus, it seems to me that you're perpetuating a situation that I have not interest in being involved with. Why? Truthkeeper (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
In a related note, I see the same fan club for Rlevse is gathering at Alarbus' page and I'm at such a loss as to how that's...really, he's a sock and making you look like fools and you're pining for his return. I'm really...I don't even know how to ask what that's all about. Have you all lost your senses? --Moni3 (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Dianna doesn't seem to know what she's talking about, is clearly stirring a pot, and is certainly not (based on experience) about to apologize for what she's done here, dragging a bunch of people into something that had nothing to do with them and then leveling charges and claims cooked up in someone's imagination. Oh, yes, let's encourage everyone to go underground and off-Wiki with perfectly reasonable requests, since that's where some folks are more comfortable. If Diannaa needs to clarify her mistaken interpretations of, well just about everything, and regains those senses, I hope she does it elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
"dragging ...people into something that had nothing to do with them." Uh huh… I know how that feels. Who knew Wikipedia had so much drama. Sans culottes 01:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Anyone who has ever been on the Internet? --Moni3 (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Disband teh ArbCom. They never get it right. Ever. Doc talk 05:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Maybe Diannaa is electable then! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Diannaa knows not what she does. IAR does not apply to this situation in any way. Nothing here will ever be actually improved by allowing "Jack" to run amok with sock accounts, unless the misguided off-wiki coordination continues. Sadly, it will. See Sock#Legit. See EDITWAR. See POINT. Most importantly, perhaps, see... DIVA. And just scuttle the hell out of me if I'm wrong. Doc talk 07:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Non-free sources in citations[edit]

Hi Sandy, I noticed you removed some citations at Autism spectrum disorders in the media because the sources required registration or paid subscriptions. I don't think I'm aware of a policy disallowing such sources--indeed, such a policy would greatly hamper our reliance on scholarly sources, and would throw the value of the Subscription required template into question. I unsuccessfully looked for such documentation. It's not addressed, for example, on WP:CITE, as far as I can see. I could see how a misreading of WP:ELREG might give you this impression, but that policy has a clear exception for citations. Furthermore, the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost essay seems to confirm that sources which don't allow free access are allowed. One of us is missing something. Is it me? --BDD (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Not so ... I don't remove sources because subscription is required. I do remove the template and the URL when PMID gets us where we need to go. Do you have an example of where you think I removed a citation because it required registration? I may have given a faulty edit summary ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I believe I misread the edit summaries, probably because I'm unfamiliar with PMIDs and just noticed there were fewer sources cited than before, but that must be from where you removed blogs. Sorry for the misunderstanding. --BDD (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Ah, ok ... yes, linking the PMID gets us to the article, and from there those who have access can link to the full text. On medical articles, the convention is to not link to a URL unless it's free full text, since we have PMIDs and DOIs that get us to where we can access the article via subscription. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)[edit]

Hi

I have added a book reference regarding Samuel Yochelson and Stanton Samenow there is also a 2004 academic review Yochelson draft doc but i was not too sure if it should be included. dolfrog (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for adding those citations ... as to citations in the History section, I've paid no attention to that and don't really have time to care ... my concern is more about information that impacts individuals and their medical decisions ... the History at the bottom can be wildly inaccurate, and that won't impact anyone's health as much as statements about efficacy, etc. I just don't have time to look into the History stuff, other than the one inquiry I put on talk about why one simple sentence has five citations (that's usually an indication that someone is pushing a POV, or promoting individual research, by padding up the citations). I'll be watching the article henceforth to make sure it isn't again padded up with primary research, but can't deal with whatever is in History for now. Thanks again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
My copy editing skills are next to Zero, so i will go back to just finding the supporting research. Some of article content does not always match the supporting reference, unfortunately my lack of copy editing skills as you have noticed, means that i am not always best able to make the corrections for the errors i find. dolfrog (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry-- my copyediting skills are as bad or worse than the next person! (AKA, My Prose Stinks.) Together, we can muddle through ... we could use inline comments, or we can just clean up after each other? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome[edit]

Hi - can you please attempt to find a better picture - here is a picture of my handicapped son playing a game is not really a correct infobox picture for a high profile article about as medical condition - and the subject in the picture clearly has not given his permission for its use in such a manner and although disabled and perhaps unable to comment, has personality rights - as I said at the start - please attempt to find a more correct identifying picture for the title - Asperger syndrome - regards - Youreallycan 21:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, BLP matters a lot to you, but if we had a better picture, what's his name (an editor whose name I forget now) would not have taken that picture of his son to begin with, and I think it's a bit extreme to claim BLP and minor issues when he intentionally framed it so that the boy's face can't be seen. Removing the image of an unidentifiable child is an extreme interpretation of BLP IMO, and we have no other images or we woulda used em. I'm not going to edit war over it, but seriously ... the child is completely unidentifiable. Intentionally. Done that way by his father. This is just silly, because we discussed your very concern at the time the father took the picture. File:Riboflavin penicillinamide.jpg. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I never mentioned BLP - personality rights/subject permission is a copyright issue - we just need a better picture thats all. - I will look around the web for one. - That picture is almost of zero value to readers - so its disputed and was removed - I can't see a good reason to have replaced it - unless any picture is better than no picture. - Youreallycan 21:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Disputed by ... you ... I guess. Whatever. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Its value was disputed by multiple users and previously removed by another user, User:ukexpat, not me. - Youreallycan 21:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Is two "multiple" now? Honestly, OK, I don't care. It's an extreme non-sensical application of "personality rights", but so what, not my problem. A lot of effort and discussion went into that image, considering we had nothing else, so if you can find something to replace it with, grand. I don't do images (one of the few wise decisions I've made in here). If not-- just another day on Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
"two multiple" - there was a couple of other users felt the same way in the original thread - blp_photo./caption - I do understand the issues with finding a picture that reflects the title well, a google image search reveals similar-ish images - perhaps a consensus will arise on the talkpage for replacement - personally I would prefer (considering policy and guideline sensitivity) that the infobox picture on such an article not be represented by a single living person, identifiable or not.Youreallycan 21:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Seriously, why am I taking time on this absurdity, but 1) you said it wasn't a BLP issue, but strangely, it comes from the BLP noticeboard, and 2) do you not find it strange that no one notified the talk page of an FA about a discussion related to that article? It's the first I've heard of this. Bad practice. Notifications are required everywhere else. Also, a big waste of time to have a bunch of zealots making decisions without input from those who where there when the image was taken, discussed and submitted. Whatever. It makes little difference to me, but I don't do images, and I doubt that anyone will replace that image. But you should consider notifying FA talk pages when you're removing images on absurd BLP claims. And you don't find it strange that most of the google images which you link also display individuals (most likely not free); how does one display AS without images of individuals, anyway? Discussion already was against putting an image of Hans Asperger, so what other options are there? That discussion had no notifications, three editors in favor of removing, and one editor against, so it troubles me a bit that you aren't representing the discussion accurately, and considering the lack of participation, one editor against, your faulty claim of original research (the boys father took the picture, look back at the discussions in archives) and the failure to notify, I don't really think you have consensus to remove the image. So, how about this: solve the problem you've created, and find us another image? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
"So, how about this: solve the problem you've created, and find us another image? " - A picture, any picture? - Youreallycan 21:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
You linked to a bunch on google, which probably aren't free, and that image showed a classic AS behavior ... you know how to find a free image that does that? I can't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) - Yes a talkpage note would in this case have been beneficial - the FA status of the article failed to be noticed - your historic information about the previous discussions would have been beneficial to the discussion - sometimes I notify article talkpages about reports but not always, I do always notify users whose edits are the subject of discussion - as I said earlier - and you are now inputting on the talkpage, so consensus may be to replace - but lets see - imo the picture is of limited benefit to the reader anyway. and here is a person with Asperger syndrome playing a game, as they do..." ...Youreallycan 21:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, I think knowing the history of that particular image would have changed the course of the discussion, and I see weak reasoning for removing it. But finding another image will solve everyone's issues. I don't see how any image can be more satisfactory than that one ... I have the same problem at Tourette syndrome-- you can't "show" tics in an image. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
What about this pic - a google return , I think we could use it as fair /non free use? Seems to me to reflect the isolation that sufferers feel without being identifiable? Youreallycan 22:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort, seriously, I appreciate it! But ... ugh !!! You have to think like an austism advocate (there are lots of them and they all come to the article) ... they don't identify with words like "isolation" or "sufferers". That's why finding an image was so hard, there was boatloads of discussion, resulting in Poindexter taking that picture and carefully making sure the face wasn't full-on. They want an image that identifies aspie traits in a positive manner (focusing on building, encyclopedias, some brainiac thing). And we now have only one image left in the article, because they also won't accept medication images, like I did at Tourette's. Or images of desperation or loneliness like at major depressive disorder. Maybe there's a free image of some famous Aspie, see List of people with autism spectrum disorders#Asperger.27s syndrome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I do agree with your interpretation that there is no clear consensus to remove the picture - its about even at the moment although if re-presented with the details of the original upload there may be an attainable consensus to include this picture - I am logging off but tomorrow I will look at the issue again - if the pics replaced I won't remove it again without a clear consensus. Youreallycan 22:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Not to worry-- I'm not arsed enough to restore it, since Asperger syndrome may not even exist as a diagnosis when DSM-5 goes through next year. It's just a minor irritation ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi - per your Request ...[edit]

Just FYI, I watchlisted the particular RfC you suggested at Project Medicine and made a couple of brief "votes"/comments. Best of luck, nice to finally meet you SandyGeorgia. Regards:Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus") (talk) 05:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Easter egg tree[edit]

Thank you for improving Easter egg tree. Would you do the same for Bach's cantata BWV 67? We have around 200 of his cantatas, many of them still red links, so improving one would improve many. Back to the tree: 1) how can be said in an encyclopedic way that the Saalfeld tree is special, unique, singular, outstanding, not typical? Many Germans decorate Easter egg trees, including myself, using an average number of eggs of 20 to 30 (my observation, I'm not a reliable source). 2) "Decoration" in the heading is ambiguous, there is the decoration of the tree and the decoration of the eggs. Is there a way to describe the former more precisely? I am lacking a word, "Hanging" seems not quite it ;) Thanks for offering your skills, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm already at the limit of my copyediting skills/prose command with what I did there (my prose stinks) ... the first line still troubles me, but I've no idea how to fix it. Tony1 is the guy for Bach's cantata ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Could you just answer the one question how to decently say that the Saalfeld tree it is not a (typical) but an extreme example? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
If you tell me what the sources say on that topic, I can help you try to paraphrase it to something (I got stalled because of the German sources). How do the sources describe it not being typical? (If they don't, it doesn't belong in the article anyway.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
(ec) The first line: I see the problem that it seems to be wanted (MOS) that the article name appears soon, as a definition. Otherwise one might say something like: It is a German Easter tradition to decorate trees and bushes with Easter eggs as an Easter egg tree (Ostereierbaum). Or: An Easter egg tree (Ostereierbaum) is a tree or bush decorated with Easter eggs, in a German Easter tradition. Or what? - I don't want to leave you troubled ;) - I will look into your question, but will be off now for several hours. For the moment take me as a source: 10,000 eggs on one tree IS unusual. - One more question as to removing the eggs: they would probably like to keep the eggs for a longer period but HAVE TO remove ... not to damage the tree. I will find the source for that - later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
One problem is the redundant wording in the first line, another is that the article is supposedly about Easter egg trees, but it's not-- it's about one tree. That that tree is highly unusual should come from sources. There are problems with the article I don't know how to fix-- prose is not my strong point, and I find the whole thing complicated, because the article is really about one family, and important sources are in German. Perhaps someone else will look in there ... out of my league. Whenever we see a statement like "trust me", for something that might not be in the sources, we've got a WP:V issue. I have no idea if it's unusual, but Easter egg trees are quite common in my part of the United States (not Pennsyvania or Dutch), so I'm unclear if all sources have been consulted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Back. The German article is only about one tree, English tries to be more general because the tradition is not so well known. I didn't say "trust me" (would be asking too much) but "for the moment take me as a source" because I had to leave. Now: ref #4 says "Decorating trees with colored eggs at Easter is a tradition in Germany -- though usually on a smaller scale." - I suggest to say about the Saalfeld tree "An exceptional example is ..." - what do you think? Pennsylvania is mentioned. I suggest to improve this seasonal article further next year, - the same way as I started one about the St Matthew Passion structure which serves a purpose now, but will hopefully grow to details on single movements next year. - I am in contact with Tony, just thought a different point of view might add a broader perspective. - Now I feel that at least a stub about Brahms Vier ernste Gesänge is needed until Sunday when Kathleen Ferrier will be remembered. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I started the songs, to match TFA 22 April, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

advice requested[edit]

Hi,

I'm contacting you because I've seen your comments about articles and the Education Program.

I've come across an inadequate GA review of a psychology article Joint attention that's part of the Education Program.

The entire GA review is: "Looks fine. The lead may be a liitle long. You may consider moving some of the more detailed information in the lead to lower sections to further improve it."

There was no response from the nominator and the article was passed. I'm not a medical person and I'm not able to access most of the sources, but I did point out problems I saw with the article.[4] And pointed out that it should follow WP:MEDRS and not source human info with animal sources. (19 of the citations are to animal articles.)

I also tagged the article which the reviewer reverted and then I reverted his revert.[5] He said he would accuse me of disruptive editing and he probably will, so I don't want to get into trouble.

My question: should I just forget this? (I admit that since it is an Education Program article, I think it should get a proper GA review.) Or should I attempt to review it myself according to Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles?

I'm not completely confident that I know enough to review this article (the WP:MEDRS part and what seems like OR and synth). What do you think? Do you think my points have any validity? Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Oopsie, I've been busy, and am sorry for missing this. These education projects are an ongoing nightmare. I see the GA failed. Really, checking for reviews or primary sources is just a matter of knowing your way around PubMed-- there's a link at the bottom of every abstract that tells you what kind of paper each is, and there's a link at the upper right that will take you to review articles on the search topic. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches is helpful; let me know if I can give you more info. Basically, we shouldn't be stringing together primary sources (original studies) to come to conclusions, which should come from secondary reviews (identified in Pubmed as a review, but not always identified correctly). There are very few occasions when we should use primary studies, although sometimes they are warranted or unavoidable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey guys - just a personal preference here, but I have MUCH better luck with Google Scholar than with PubMed, at lleast in MY area of expertise (rare lung cancers). Check it out if you like. Just a little tidbit of FYI. Caveat Emptor: I'm a relative newbie. Best of luck, and best regards:Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus") (talk) 05:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
With Google scholar, it's not always apparent if articles are secondary reviews, so you then have to take the title and search PubMed, which is a timesink. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Mysore FAR[edit]

Hi Sandy, can you please have a look at the FAR and comment? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I will try (struggle!) to find time for this next week. I peeked at the FAR, and the only thing I could add now is not to pin any hopes on the GOCE-- they are generally pretty useless, although it depends on who shows up. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Tuberculosis[edit]

I am working on getting this article to GA. Wondering if you are interested in helping as I see you where a major contributor in the past.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Doc ... Tim Vickers and I worked our arses off on that article several times, and because it's a popular topic, it always gets hit by unhelpful edits/editors. Are you sure it's worth the effort? It was featured, reviewed, defeatured after Tim Vickers became less active, and I fear that unless you have the time to watch it 24/7, it will be difficult to keep in shape. Tim was the brains behind the FAR-- I just did cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Sorry, the diacritics proposal is at WT:BLP#BLP diacritics guideline proposal discussion In ictu oculi (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Pontocerebellar hypoplasia and sources[edit]

Hello SandyGeorgia! I've been advised (off the wiki) to contact you with regard to a question concerning the article I posted in the subject link. It mentions its source as a Medical Journal called "The American Journal of Human Genetics" - and I'm not sure if the source is an actual published report, an outline, a synopsis, or whether the journal is even classed as a reputable source. I was told you might be able to help, so any assistance would be warmly appreciated. Thank you. MarkBurberry32|talk 23:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Mark ... I'm confused if I've answered the right question, because I don't see you as the editor of that article? At any rate, I've updated the citation there to include PubMed identifier, and added two new sources to establish notability of that topic, one of which is a secondary review. I've also added some links on talk there that explain medical sourcing guidelines on Wikipedia and how to work in PubMed: the article should be written mostly from the secondary review. You can tell what kind of source you're dealing with in PubMed by:
  1. Click on the PMID link
  2. Scroll down to the bottom where you see "Publication type" and expand it by clicking on the plus sign
  3. There you will find info like Review, comparative study, case report, etc.
Since I'm not sure if I'm answering the question you're asking, I'll give you more feedback after I hear from you ... Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sandy. Just to clarify, I'm not the editor of that article - I'm relatively new on Wikipedia (3 days), and I'm busying myself with tasks that I can manage. One of those is New Page Patrol, where this article came to my attention. I wasn't sure, looking at the source at the bottom, whether the Journal mentioned in it was valid as a reliable source, or whether others would be needed to back it up. I didn't tag it for needing other sources, but asked how I could verify whether it was reliable enough to be used (i.e, Peer reviewed material) - I asked in #wikipedia-en about it, and Demiurge1000 suggested I asked you for your opinion on whether it could be classed as reliable. Thank you for the assistance up to now though, as a learner, I appreciate any advice I can get. MarkBurberry32|talk 23:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome-- starting at New Page Patrol is a tough place to start! NPP is tough even on me ... one thing is whether sources are reliable; another thing is whether they are primary, secondary or tertiary sources, and how each of those types of sources can be used. The source that was there was a primary source-- a study unreviewed by secondary sources. Sometimes those may establish notability, sometimes not. In this case, the article is notable (I found a secondary review), the secondary review should have been used to cite that text (the text is cited incorrectly-- there is a secondary review that should be used), but as a New Page Patroller, you're not concerned as much with correct sourcing, as you are with establishing notability. If you're unsure, go to PubMed, enter the article name, and see what's there. Feel free to ask me anytime you need help. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Lady this & that[edit]

Don't ask me how I came across this, but in the John Crofton article that you recently edited, his wife is referred to as "Lady Eileen Crofton". This form ("Lady [forename] + [surname]) is reserved for the daughters of dukes, marquesses and earls, e.g. "Lady Jane Grey". The wife of a mere knight is correctly known as "Lady [surname]", thus "Lady Crofton". Since in this case the title is irrelevant you could just call her "Elaine Crofton". (I am hugely knowledgeable on the formalities of British titles, in addition to other less useful talents, so advice in this respect is always available.) I'm glad to see you're still active; if ever you need a review, please drop me a line. Brianboulton (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Brian ... I pinged Malleus's talk, asking someone to look at titles in that article, and the "Lady" came from the source. I'll take it out, but because it's in the source, someone might readd it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Callous Unemotional Traits edits[edit]

Hello,

I am the author that initially submitted the page on Callous and Unemotional Traits that you recently edited. I was unclear on what some of your comments meant, such as being overly reliant on primary sources, and asserting statements of fact, and was hoping you could explain how this is problematic, so that the page can be edited if necessary. The tone and structure of the article was taken from the pages of numerous other disorders such as schizophrenia and autism, which use almost entirely primary sources to explain the current level of understanding of the disorders. The article was written by a class of college students (of which I was the professor) who did extensive research and cross evaluation of citations to ensure accurate representation of published works on this topic, which certainly merits inclusion on Wikipedia. I can assure you that neither I nor any of my students wrote this with the intention of advocating a position on this topic. However, the potential inclusion of this disorder in the DSM is currently a highly relevant aspect of this topic, and the views presented here are merely representations of how this might influence the public understanding of CU traits.

As this disorder is on the verge of inclusion in the DSM-V and currently has no presence on Wikipedia other than this page, I strongly hope that the page is not recommended for deletion, and is rather edited to the point where it meets Wikipedia standards, if necessary.

As a first-time Wiki contributor, I hope this posting is not out of line, and that it is understood that it is written only with the hopes of clarification and edification from the recipient.

Thank you.

Sperrycogpsych (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's start by first reviewing your understanding of what a primary source is. What leads you to believe that autism uses "almost entirely primary sources to explain the current level of understanding"? Perhaps if we can sort out your misunderstanding there, we can move forward more quickly. Looking at just the first few sources in autism:
  • 1. Caronna PMID 18305076 a review; cited six times.
  • 2. APA, cited for the diagnostic criteria, twice (it's OK to use a primary source in that case).
  • 3. Levy PMID 19819542 a review, cited eight times.
  • 4. Johnson PMID 17967920 a review, cited four times.
  • 5. Abrahams PMID 18414403 a review, cited four times.
  • 6. Arndt PMID 15749245 a review, cited three times.
That is, in the first 27 citations, we find two are not review sources, and that appropriately cites the APA for the DSM criteria for the diagnosis. If you know of a primary source other than that in autism, please point it out.

By the way, per WP:MSH, the article needs to be moved to Callous and unemotional traits, and section headings adapted throughout to remove unnecessary uppercase (which I have done).

Also, the article is in no danger of being deleted: it meets notability. The problem is the inappropriate use of primary sources versus secondary reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I have just created a new list Callous-Unemotional Traits (CUT) 9 review articles. And you might also like to browse the Handbook of Psychopathy dolfrog (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Dolfrog ... I hadn't gotten around to following your lesson for doing that. Some of the other sources used are also reviews that don't turn up on that list, but most sources used are primary sources, and of more concern, they are used to assert strong conclusions that leads to POV. Since there are so many reviews, the article needs a rewrite to refocus on what reviews say about primary studies, but since most of the writing is from Frick, once that is done, I'm concerned about attributing those opinions to him. Dolfrog, I see you had to do insane amounts of work in there after a bot-precursor stripped the citations and then never replaced them ... I dropped that editor a note. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

so[edit]

Since we're presumably both interested in making sure that the fairly obvious problems of medical classes this semester don't reoccur, is there any chance we can cut the bullshit that has occurred on that page so far and get to cooperatively figuring out how to ensure that it doesn't reoccur? I've directly answered every question you've actually asked in good faith, and have no idea why you've reacted in the way you have other than a misguided assumption that I'm staff or something. Can we - in the interests of avoiding a recurrent clusterfuck - ignore the first 80% of that page and move forward? (And again, just as a note: I agree with you that it's a significant problem that classes editing medical articles don't understand our medical sourcing standards) Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I do see your tone has improved, I hope mine has, and I don't see any reason we can't put that behind us and forget about it to move forward ... unless, that is ... you're still believing the meddlesome comments from TheEd17, who found himself in the unfortunate position of covering up when a fellow editor called Bishonen (talk · contribs) a bitch, with subsequent interaction on the matter causing her to turn in her tools and pretty much leave Wikipedia. I hope his POV on that isn't what led to some of the history between us, and if so, I hope we can move on regardless. And I also think some of the problems there had to with board start-up issues. I appreciate that you took the time to try to sort this-- I have wanted to do so sooner with you, but since you removed my last post from your talk, I didn't think I was welcome there. Regards,SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I cut your last post from my talk because it was unclear who it was aimed at. I have no idea (and honestly don't really care) about the background between you and ed - and being unaware of it, it was unclear whether it was a barb aimed at him, or a barb aimed at me. Given some of your other communication to me at that point, I assumed it was a barb aimed at me. You are welcome to post on my talk page, I just remove things that look like personal barbs. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
It wasn't aimed at you (in fact, I wished you well); I've avoided trying to sort this sooner with you because he was likely to meddle. No, I didn't think you were staff after you cleared that up at AFD-- I'm more frustrated that I have no way of knowing who is, who's "in charge", and why those who are showing up there are being so heavy-handed and not answering queries, while claiming that a fairly slow board is giving them too much to keep up with (oh, my) ... those were not problems that you were part of. So, lets' move on, thanks for taking the time to sort this. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit]

Regarding Cla's offer to take up editing on behalf of people who will pay him, I'm pretty sure it's a stunt - a breaching experiment designed to make a mockery of the COI policy. I don't expect he'll get any serious offers. But I'm not sure what to do the next time he nominates an article at FAC, because everything he does there from now on is automatically suspect. This is particularly so if the article happens to fall outside his normal sphere of editing. I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on this, either on-wiki or off-, whichever you prefer. Raul654 (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It's possible you're right, but FAC can handle paid editing. I suspected an editor was being paid to promote, oh sometime last year or before, and I dug in and opposed, the articles got fixed, no worse for the wear. I'd go so far as to say that FAC reviewers should always consider it might be a factor, I certainly prefer knowing about it (which is why I'm not opposed to what Cla has done), but more strenuous checks for POV should be done. In the suite of articles that caught my eye, it happened to be an area I'm familiar with, so the POV and puffery jumped right out at me in the lead, so I dug in for a full review, and when I looked closer, I found a suite that appeared to be promotional, as in, that editor was being paid to create articles in a niche. I flagged the POV and other issues. That editor stopped. I think FAC can handle paid editing issues, as long as reviewers keep it in mind-- which they should be anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, then let me ask you a slightly different question - what if I were take money in exchange for putting certain featured articles on the main page? (Not that I would consider it. In the past, I've joked about it, but in reality I find the idea rather abhorrent -- a serious breach of the trust I've been given by the community) How, if at all, would that be different from what Cla is doing? Raul654 (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

(after ec) I think the reason that isn't a good analogy is that FACs are promoted based on consensus-- that is, it's the job of multiple reviewers to check the article. You work alone, because the community trusts you in that capacity, so if you were paid that could impact the trust you enjoy from the community.

But this does raise the whole sphere of what is making my editing miserable lately, which is how paid WMF staff processes are leading to bad content creation, sapping my (free, volunteer) time. I just don't see FAC as comparable to either of these scenarios, because of the way FAC works. Reviewers should always be checking for puffery, promotional articles, and POV. WMF is paying people all over the place, and those people are affecting article quality and editor retention; since WMF is heading that way, goose-gander applies. They created this dilemma, and it's not fair for the unpaid volunteers to pay the price and get nothing in return. And they are affecting consensus, but that can't happen at FAC, since delegates have discretion and don't have to promote even if proponents of paid editing take over and declare Support on unworthy articles-- that's why I say FAC can handle it. But WMF and a recent arb case are responsible for the decline in protest to COI and paid editing, and we can only hope now that FAC won't go that direction.

I emailed you the sample article I suspected long ago-- no need to make a public issue of it, since the article was well reviewed and puffery fixed, sources carefully checked, and I could be wrong about the possibility of paid editing being a factor there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to run to the library but I'll pop in with some thoughts I have on the subject (which may surprise some folks...) when I get back. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Okay, back. I've never understood what the buggabo is about getting paid for editing. We have plenty of editors here that push agendas relentlessly but it seems that actually getting paid for something is verboten. I've been approached several times about possibly writing articles for pay - generally the subjects aren't notable and I've turned them down. I have yet to accept a paid editing job, but I'm not going to rule it out - if the right circumstances were there why shouldn't I get paid. I would insist on sticking to the wikipedia policies - no puff pieces or anything. For that matter, Broad Ripple Park Carousel is sorta paid editing - I did not get paid for writing it up, but I did get contacted and worked closely with the museum to write it. I was clear with the museum folks that I would not excise any negative information I found (not that I found any!) and that I would adhere to wikipedia policies. I guess I did get "paid" - they bought me and my SO lunch when I went over to visit the carousel. I guess I'm very much in the camp of "judge the edits" not what led to the editing - if the edits are neutral and add information of use to the encyclopedia - what do I care if someone got paid for it? (Well - okay, maybe I care in that why can't *I* get paid too???). Ealdgyth - Talk 20:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
You jogged my memory-- I was asked to edit for pay once, too. It was long ago, I refused, but it was on a suite of articles where I most certainly was up against paid COI editors pushing a POV. If asked again, I'd still turn them down, but for reasons unrelated to the arguments for or against paid editing, having more to do with the content area. Wikipedia is no longer the place where we did what we did as selfless volunteers because we believed in free information and quality articles. It's a whole new world in here, with an increased profile leading more and more non-notables to put up articles, less editors to monitor, students editing for grades, WMF advocating for recruits, COI and POV pushers not shut down by the arbs-- all of which makes the years of doing what we did at FAC in the name of quality and with no self-interest look like naivete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I still enjoy adding to the sum of human knowledge/making it more accessible - but if I'm approached in the right situation I wouldn't turn down money either. Some of the work I've done has been to somewhat "push" an agenda - making not-well known episodes of history better known/better covered. Fairfax Harrison and Jersey Act are both examples of articles where I'm definitely "pushing" an agenda of getting information about a subject into one spot. I consider both of those "neutral" and well sourced so I don't think it's "bad pushing" but they were both written with an agenda in mind. So much the better if someone will help me pay for the many many hours/dollars I've got invested in books/articles/research... there is no way I could begin to recoup the amounts I've spent. Even on the carousel - the lunch did not begin to reimpurse me for my time, much less the research/etc I did for the article. If Cla can get something back for all the "free" editing he's done, so much the better for him. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Considering there are websites where one can hire a Wikipedia editor, I'd sure rather have someone who knows and is likely to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines get paid than some of what I've seen coming through New Page Patrol which is surely paid editing. The market is established, the arbs and WMF have furthered the trend: at least make it one where the better editors are the ones doing it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I've already been accused of being paid to write a featured article. Might as well actually be paid. But, I strongly believe that the WMF should head this off by paying productive editors directly, and thus removing the temptation toward bias, however subconscious. --Laser brain (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
ACK!! I don't trust the WMF to have the vaguest clue about what a "productive editor" is !!!! We at FAC know that info ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Taking the whole thing at face value (and as Raul says, one really shouldn't) if someone has a problem with the proposal it's essentially because they don't trust the FAC process. If the FAC process works well (which, IMNSHO, it does, more or less) then who cares WHY someone wrote the article. It's only if it works badly - is subject to manipulation and corruption - that these kinds of concerns come into play. So, indirectly, by being nauseated by Cla68's proposal, OrangeMike is really saying the FAC process is crap.

More generally, I do think that a lot of the objections to paid editing come down to a subconscious, unarticulated and probably mostly correct belief/insecurity that most Wikipedia editorial process are shit and can be easily manipulated. I don't think this applies to FAs but it most certainly does apply to the other 90% of Wikipedia. Seriously, if someone is paid to write an article, how could you tell? By the quality of the work? If anything, only if it's too well written and too well sourced.VolunteerMarek 21:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


Let me lay out the problem with paid editing as I see it:

  1. It's crazy to assume that in general people can edit neutrally while taking money from the subject they are writing about. It might be true about specific people writing on select topics, but the general case absolutely not true.
  2. Paid editors have far more incentive to push their particular bias into articles than do non-paid editors to counter it.
  3. In general, in order to correct bias in an article, you have to actually know something about the topic. If the subject is obscure (like some random company), unpaid editors have very little incentive to go out and learn something about it. Or to even edit on that topic. So non-neutral to that article would tend to go unnoticed.
  4. Paid editing is highly corrosive to a collegial editing environment. It creates the distinct possibility that that editor with whom you are disagreeing is not, in fact, a neutral editor but a paid shill.

Let me point out one specific example of paid editing in action. About two or three years back, it was revealed that Microsoft was paying people to edit the Office Open XML article. These paid editors edit warred to remove information critical of microsoft and OOXML. Looking at the article today it is apparent to me that even three years later the article has not been restored to neutrality. (There's very little mention of how microsoft gamed the standardization process, or how technically deficient the standard was prior to the ISO standarization process and that it remains as such today.) This article could be a case study in why paid editing is a disaster.

On a related note, during the FAC reform discussion (the discussion on the talk page before it got hijacked by Wehwalt and his band of merry sockpupet supporters) a number of people complained about a lack of substantive (that is to say, content-related) FAC reviews. This is something that I took seriously, and that I've been meaning to address. I think problem #3 above makes it all the more important that we address this soon and effectively. Raul654 (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

While I acknowledge the issues you describe, I fail to see how a paid editor would be more dangerous than one motivated by ideology (say, religion of nationalism). Therefore I don't see why money should be discriminated against, compared to other motivations. As VM said, we have checks and balances to ensure quality, and either they work for all articles, whatever the motivation of their creator, or they don't. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't make much sense to me to say we should tolerate one group of problematic editors because of the existence of another group of problematic editors. We can't prohibit people from imbibing ideology and then editing; we can prohibit them from taking money and then editing. (And sanction them when we catch them).
As VM said, we have checks and balances to ensure quality, and either they work for all articles, whatever the motivation of their creator, or they don't. - it's not an either-or proposition. Sometimes they work, and sometimes they don't. Air bags save [some] lives; that doesn't mean you should cut the brake lines on your car. Raul654 (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Since we accept that our editors will be compromised by ideology, I don't see why we should have problem with money. I see no proof (or even logic) that majority of paid editors would act against the project, compared to other group of editors. I propose a hypothesis that paid editors would be no different from regular ones with regards to neutrality and other issues; prove me wrong with real data (not anecdotal evidence) - or remove the "anyone can edit" from Wikipedia motto. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 15:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I accept all the problems raised, but personally I would love it if someone were to pay reasonably expert people to improve some of the very poor big-topic articles on the humanities that nobody can face really putting into shape, and I sometimes think that these will never get much better unless people are paid. All the much-debated objections that academics have to contributing to WP would I suspect melt away if there were some money in it. Not all paid editing need involve a partisan view. I doubt that many of the people ready to pay for articles are prepared to fund the vast amount of extra work needed to get an FA, though I might be wrong. Johnbod (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
personally I would love it if someone were to pay reasonably expert people to improve some of the very poor big-topic articles on the humanities that nobody can face really putting into shape - that sounds like something the NEA or a charitable non-profit might fund. And to be honest, I don't really see anything objectionable in that. (None of my above problems would seem to apply) But frankly, the vast, vast majority of paid editing is going to involve topics related to business interests who have financial interests that conflict with our goals of objectivity and neutrality. Raul654 (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I think VM hits the nail on the head, videlicet, that the objection to paid editing indicates an unacknowledged distrust by those who object in the reliability and validity of Wikipedia's administration to enforce Wikipedia's policies, especially NPOV. If volunteers had confidence in Wikipedia's processes, then why would you have any fear of having paid editors? Raul, you have been involved with this project a long time. Don't you find it disheartening after all this time to find that you can't say with confidence that Wikipedia's processes can effectively deal with POV editing, no matter what the source? Cla68 (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Don't you find it disheartening after all this time to find that you can't say with confidence that Wikipedia's processes can effectively deal with POV editing, no matter what the source? - How can you ask me that question after I just pointed to a paid editing case where Wikipedia's processes failed spectacularly? Raul654 (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
So, fix Wikipedia's administration, then you don't have to worry about what is motivating editors to edit. Cla68 (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
So you admit that the only way paid editing can work is to substantially change how Wikipedia operates? Raul654 (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
This article could be a case study in why paid editing is a disaster. - not really. It's a case study in why Wikipedia editorial policies are a disaster. The paid editing aspect of it appears to be incidental to the disaster in this instance. I could point you to a couple dozen articles that were more or less "razed to the ground" for reasons other than paid editing. Paid editing is just easy to pick on because by definition the person is not being - and more importantly, not PRETENDING - to act altruistically so they make for easy targets. But all in all it's small potatoes as far as problems go. And if it could be harnessed towards positive ends it wouldn't even be a problem to begin with.VolunteerMarek 01:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I am in the process of putting together a Wiki page about my boss. I'm not being paid to do this, exactly. I mean, I'm on salary, but this has absolutely ZERO to do with my job duties. I just thought she should have her own page (and that she meets Wiki notability requirements), so I brought my idea up the corporate ladder and was given permission to do so. I told them it would be written objectively and properly cited. I will also clearly disclose my COI on the page so that other editors vet the information. Beyond that, I told them I would keep an eye on the page to ensure it's not vandalized.

If I had been commissioned to do the page, I don't think it would change the final outcome. I would still strive to make it as objective as possible. I do find the idea of being paid to write articles distasteful and likely to lead to problems down the road, but I believe the only way to mitigate the damage is to require disclosure. Granted, some people will fail to disclose, create sockpuppets to verify articles, etc, etc. But, that's always been the case, now it's just being discussed more out in the open.JoelWhy (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. It's a bit like drug war problem, or prohibition. You can make something illegal, force people to hide what they do, waste resources on catching them, and never eliminate the problem, or you can welcome their creations and at the same time encourage them to be open (disclose COI), educate/mentor them, at a much cheaper cost to the community, and likely with improved quality of resulting articles. I know which scenario I prefer. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
JoelWhy, as a fellow editor who has struggled in vain to neutralize Hugo Chavez, I'm sure you're aware that paid editing is already a force on Wikipedia. Years ago, the "other side" approached me and asked me to edit for them, and my reply was, "why should I"? I offered to help educate them in how to edit Wikipedia, and pointed them to WikiProject Venezuela as a place to coordinate that effort, publicly, nothing behind closed doors. They didn't take me up on the offer. Lazy,complacent Venezuelans won't get involved and do the work themselves, and those that do are usually as tendentious and disruptive as the article owners. Venezuelans arrogantly think they can solve the problem by paying someone. Try the next sucker. Anyway, paid editing is already here, and difficult to combat. I'd rather see disclosed paid editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm rather in the camp of "I can't possibly know what your motivation was in writing this, and I'm only interested in the quality of what you've produced anyway", perhaps at least partly as a result of my Skinnerian background. I'm really struggling to see the logic in the position that money is a greater motivator than zealotry, for instance, and if push came to shove I'd far rather have more paid editors that nationalist/Irish republican/abortion/climate change/cold fusion ... zealots.
Oh, and while we're on the subject, I'll offer to undercut Cla68 and produce an FA for $750, payable in advance. Malleus Fatuorum 20:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Good point, Malleus. Money may create bias on the part of the author, but certainly no more than the bias created by ideology.JoelWhy (talk) 12:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Take Justin Bieber on Twitter to FA and we have a deal!! LOL. Well I've long though the foundation should raise funds to highlight some of the poorest articles of high importance and pay people to write them. Also having things up front is less likely for people to do anything sneaky. The core contest is being revived I think which is supposed have a prize..♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You've missed the revived WP:Core contest but despite very limited publicity I think the results have been impressive. Cunning Casliber has not said in advance what the prize(s) will be! Probably correctly, the WMF's legal advice is that paying for editing at all would expose them to a far greater degree of liability for errors anywhere in the content, & they won't go there. But that shouldn't stop them from funding research to highlight the weakest subject areas & popular important articles. If I knew any software billionaires (which I don't) I would encourage them, rather than donating to WMF, to set up a pocket foundation to pay academics to improve such articles. Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm really struggling to see the logic in the position that money is a greater motivator than zealotry, for instance - nobody is saying one is a greater or worse problem than the other. The point is that both are bad, but there's a lot more we can do about the former than the latter. Raul654 (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
There's absolutely nothing you can do about the former if you're dealing with a decent writer, and very little you can do about the latter in the face of overwhelming odds. But you raised a question above that I'd like to address. I would indeed be deeply shocked if any FAC director accepted money to put an article on the main page, or any FAC delegate accepted money to promote an article, or if any editor was paid to vote in a particular way in an AfD. That would simply be corrupt, which accepting payment for the effort of writing an article is not. Malleus Fatuorum 20:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and if it's true that "nobody is saying one is a greater or worse problem than the other" then let me be the first to say that zealotry is a far, far worse problem than paid editing. Malleus Fatuorum 20:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
'That would simply be corrupt, which accepting payment for the effort of writing an article is not. OK, but why are they different? That's what I was trying to get at with my above question. Why do you say that writing for pay not corrupt, but voting or choose main page articles for pay is correct? Raul654 (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Because millions of people are paid for writing stuff every day, it's a normal daily occupation, whereas accepting bribes is not. Corrupt: lacking in integrity, open to or involving bribery or other dishonest practices. Malleus Fatuorum 15:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you, but I'd add this: when publishing any serious scholarly work, it's generally considered unethical, if not corrupt, to fail to disclose payments which might represent a conflict of interest. One could argue (correctly) that Wikipedia often has little resemblance to a serious scholarly work, but that's not an argument against setting higher standards than we currently do. Of course, none of that would apply to disclosed conflicts of interest. MastCell Talk 20:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
... which is at the heart of the issue here. We all know that paid editing happens, and that nothing anyone can possibly do will eliminate it, if indeed it even makes sense to want to eliminate it. So, as you say, the only real issue is one of disclosure. Malleus Fatuorum 21:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes. This comment also says it well. Kablammo (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

OK AfD Question for you[edit]

[This "Polish Rapper "] Clearly fails WP:BAND, and WP:GNG to me. It has no sourcing, and contains original research. is AfD appropriate, or is BLP Prod appropriate? Do BLP rules apply to Bands/Rappers?Newmanoconnor (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

That's an article about a person, not a band, and it's unreferenced, therefore you should BLP softprod it. Malleus Fatuorum 20:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Ah, it was created before 18 March, so you can't. You could try AfD, but I doubt you'd get anywhere with that. Just have to put up with it I guess or fix what you can. Malleus Fatuorum 20:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Malleus! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, thats helpful analysis.Newmanoconnor (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Another question[edit]

You have stated to me that AfD's are for Notability,as if this is the only criteria to nominate something. WP:AFD states differently. Why?Newmanoconnor (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Where does it state differently? Pretty much the only reason something should ever end up on AfD is if it's not notable. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Not so. There have been several cases recently of BLPs being proposed for deletion for reasons other than notability, and one in particular because the subject of the article claimed that it was causing him stress. Malleus Fatuorum 00:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Under Nominating Articles for Deletion. section A, #2:
"The main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)"Newmanoconnor (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Newman: I'm glad you've popped in here for additional feedback, and encouraged to see you studying the relevant pages.

First, you may have misunderstood what I said (or I didn't state it clearly enough): after you made a post that suggested that you may have nominated an article at AFD to bring editor attention to result in improvement to a very poor first draft of an article, I mentioned to you that AFD is for determining notability rather than getting attention to article improvement. I didn't intend to exclude other possibilities.

Second, WP:RS and WP:V work together to inform WP:N (that is, an article has to meet notability based on reliable sources that make it verifiable), so those three accord with what I told you. With respect to WP:NOT, yes an article can be verifiable according to reliable sources, but still in breach WP:NOT and end up deleted or merged. At any rate, the nomination we were discussing did use reliable sources and was not in breach of WP:NOT.

Third, the issue arose because you nominated an article at AFD based on your statement that it used POV sources (by the way, whenever you tag an article POV, you should justify that on talk). Depending on who you ask <smile>, all sources are POV. I've seen folks claim (with a "straight face") that the New York Times is POV. Wikipedia asks that sources meet our reliability standards and are used appropriately (in the article you nominated, correct attribution of opinions was something that needed to be looked in to). In this case, the article used numerous reliable sources, along with some opinion pieces in its first version (and curiously, used sources from "both sides of the aisle", although I can't determine if there is cherry picking since I don't have access to most of those sources). I decided to sort out what was going on in there so I could determine if the opinion pieces were being used correctly, and see what was left in terms of sourcing if I removed or attributed the opinions. The question to evaluate at AFD is not whether the article is POV, but whether there are reliable sources that indicate notability can be met. The issue on that article was made more difficult by the need to use search terms other than the article title.

Anyway, the take home message is that an article can meet notability even if the earlier versions are POV (I can't fix the POV in that article without access to more sources-- I chunked in enough reliable sources for notability only). One thing you might do in cases where you're unsure if notability can be met is to tag the article with {{notability}}, keep it watchlisted, see if someone adds reliable sources or responds, and consider a merge proposal or a {{prod}} before heading to AFD. In this case, I was already on it, and could have saved you the trip to AFD. I hope this helps, regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Sandy, that is immensely helpful. I'm beginning to get a better view of what you've been trying to say. Thanks for taking the time to educate and not just admonish. I obviously need to reflect on how those three work together and pay attention to how a braoder base of editors nom for AfD, etc. I think you've done an amazing thing with that article and while it is still fairly POV, it certainly doesn't resemble what it was, I have asked to withdraw the nom on the AfD page. If you would be so kind as to do a non admin close, I would appreciate it.Newmanoconnor (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
You're most welcome, and I'm glad it was helpful (it's kinda embarrassing to end up waaaaaay the lead editor on a massively POV article, but that's the norm on Venezuela articles). I've never closed an AFD, have no clue what's involved, and have no interest in learning about adminly things ... perhaps one of my TPS will do the honors. (Also, it would be inappropriate for me to close an AFD where I have entered a declaration.) Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I think your input might be invaluable ...[edit]

... over here. You've done such a lot of stuff with Featured Articles, etc., and I'm sure you can put some importnat points into this discussion. Other FA specialists' input would also be invaluable. I think those who have extensive experience at the FA level would be able to give the discussion the best input, being (effectively) WikiExperts in what should and should not be included in articles. Pesky (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Is that the old "Verifiability vs Truth" issue, and dealing with 9/11. Ugh ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
It's kinda related to VnT, but it's more about removing apparently-reliably-sourced stuff which is quite clearly factually wrong (not "philosophically untrue", just plain wrong-in-reality!) Like not saying in the Dewey or Truman (or campaign) articles that this actually happened, just because some normally-reliable source made a mistake. (After all, no source is ever going to be completely infallible on everything ...). I didn't know anything about 9/11 having a link to this. I avpoid subjects like 9/11, like the plague! I quite understand if you feel there's nothing much you can say there, though. Pesky (talk) 09:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Query for TPS[edit]

Little Barrier Island? What am I missing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

A glitch? It seems implausible that an article with 91 edits and less than 1,000 visitors per month has nearly 4,000 watchers. The article's been second since the list was created in April 2010 (assuming there isn't an earlier version somewhere else), so someone hasn't recently decided to spam the page with watchers to get it higher up the table (although I can't see that being a particularly rewarding thing to do in any case). It doesn't fit with the trend of high-traffic pages. Richard_Evans_(British_author) is also a peculiarity. Nev1 (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Richard Evans (British author) apparently inherited Wikipedia:Introduction's watchers in August 2007. I suppose I should document these anomalies on the report's talk page.... --MZMcBride (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) When a page is moved, its watchers will have both the new title and the old title on their watchlist. This is particularly problematic with certain kinds of vandalism ("Legitimate page title" moved to "John Doe lives at 123 Salsbury Street", &c.).
In this case, Little Barrier Island's page move log gives a clue. You can see that the page used to live at Hauturu/Little Barrier Island. When you look at Hauturu/Little Barrier Island's log, you can see that this relatively obscure article inherited all of the Main Page's watchers in 2005. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Three posts in a row... in some cultures, we'd now be married. I forgot to mention that I did a visualization of the most-watched articles here. (I did a bit of minor editing of the list.) --MZMcBride (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The things one can learn from TPS! Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

if you ever somehow have a lot of extra time[edit]

... Wanna work on medicinal mushrooms with me? It has some, uh, "pretty big" medical sourcing problems. It's been on my to-do list for a very long time, I just don't even know where to start with it. If you ever feel like taking on such a project collaboratively, drop me a note. I know it's a bit funny to ask you if you want to work on an article with me given the recent edu program stuff, but, well, just look at it :p, it's frightening... Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Kevin, have you encountered Casliber (talk · contribs) on mushrooms? He is Mr Mushroom on Wikipedia, and he's also a physician, so if you can get him (the expert) on board for content issues, I'll help with the rest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
(TPS comment) User:Sasata is also big into mushrooms - and he recently took Psilocybin to FA. He's a biochemist/microbiologist with access to a lot of sources, so could quite possibly be of some help on the medicinal mushroom article. Dana boomer (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, my ... how on earth did I forget Sasata ... sigh ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

re: Sebastián Barclay[edit]

Hello. I wanted to let you know I contested the PROD on this article. This person is a professional footballer with several years of experience in the Americas. He is not a super-star, and really never lived up to his early promise, but I've fleshed out his career a little bit and added some references (they're not the best quality as my Spanish comprehension is not very good). If you still think the article is non-notable, please feel free to send it to AfD. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 02:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I removed one blog source, and another personal website that was posting someone else's press releases (not third-party, possible copyvio, not a reliable source). The first source merely mentions his name. Doesn't look notable to me, but I've accepted the fact that on Wikipedia playing in one match makes athletes more notable than doctors, military or lawyers that have a lifetime of significant achievements. If he has "several years of experience in the Americas", there must be reliably sourced mentions of him, but we can't use blogs and personal websites to source WP:BLPs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with your removal of that content, and I'll try to find better sourcing for that material. Jogurney (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

CBT[edit]

Per your suggestion, I took a crack at Cognitive behavioral therapy. Might want to take a look and make sure I didn't butcher it too badly - I know next to nil about the subject. You may feel free to leave another suggestion for me (or smack me in the face) at your earliest opportunity :-)

Best regards: Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus") (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Douglas Lynch?[edit]

Why did you change both of the "Doug Lynch" articles to "Douglas Lynch"? Although that maybe the people's full birth names, but that is certainly not how the hockey player is known, and his hockey records and other references all call him "Doug Lynch". I can't speak for sure about the academic guy, but again just checking the links on his page showed that he is also known as "Doug", not "Douglas". While the first sentence of most biography pages list their full birth names, the articles themselves should be named for the common name of the person (ie. Bill Gates' article is not called "William Henry Gates III"). Please revert those changes. Greg Salter (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I lost a long response when my battery died, back later tonight to retype. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
What Greg Salter said. —KRM (Communicate!) 22:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the delay; was out all afternoon, and found another mess when I returned to editing. Sooo ... there's quite a mess in there. We had three Douglas Lynch's, no dab page, not a single one of them correctly cited, and in no case do we have a comparison to the Bill/William Gates scenario, since his named is based on sources. The hockey player had *one* source cited, that mentioned his name in passing (I've noticed there is a shocking laxness about citing and establishing notability on athlete articles). The Barbados fellow had paragraph after parapraph of uncited, unencyclopedic text on a BLP. And the academic was created under a COI scenario, and almost wholly cited to self (again, laxness in citation and establishing notability frequently noted on athletes and academics), with one source saying Doug, second saying Douglas, third saying Douglas E (so I opted for the more complete, since there was no agreement). So, on this problem (the hockey player), since there is only one source cited in the entire article, on what do you all base the notion that Doug is the more common, used name? One source does not equate to a Bill Clinton, Bill Gates scenario. Correctly citing articles and setting up the dab pages etc. will help avoid these problems. There's quite a bit to be sorted now (where should the main Doug Lynch redirect, for example), and whether this fellow is Doug or Douglas isn't one of the bigger problems for now. I'd be glad to help sort it all if someone can add sources so we can get it right this time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Wow, that's one of the most uppity responses I've seen in a while. So let me get this straight... a few articles had no real reason to rename them, but you went ahead with that major step and it did anyway, since you said there was almost no references showing their names WEREN'T Douglas. You took a MAJOR step in renaming articles written and updated by others, then bitched about it ("shocking laxness"), but you couldn't do a 5 second Google search on your own before you took that step? Well here you go, references that Google showed up on the first page of results from some little known sources like the CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/sports/story/2001/05/27/memorialcup010527.html), the NHL (http://www.nhl.com/ice/player.htm?id=8469495), the Edmonton Oilers (http://oilers.nhl.com/club/player.htm?id=8469495), the Western Hockey League (http://www.whl.ca/roster/list/team/30/season/214), and the Red Deer Rebels (http://www.reddeerrebels.com/roster/show/id/4051). I Googled the academic guy and guess what? Lots of articles referring to him as Doug, including his own employer (University of Pennsylvania) and ABC News. So, how about your revert your changes, and next time think before you rename. In fact, I'm almost certain Wikipedia guidelines expressly state that you must talk about this on the Talk page before you go and rename existing articles. Greg Salter (talk) 06:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Progress ... five sources that no one could be bothered to add to the article when creating or updating it (it's everywhere, unsourced BLPs, dubious notability, lax sourcing standards-- nothing particular to these fellows, so please don't take it personally). I might not know my proper place on Wikipedia ... perhaps it's to follow folks around sourcing articles when no one else could be bothered? OK, so if you'd like to focus on solving the problem instead of personalizing issues, we still have it. On the other Douglas Lynch, his "own employer" didn't even know if he had a PhD or not when they hired him, and his article was created with dubious notability (although he's notable now!) based on self, his bio from his employer is now gone, and his notability was pretty much established after that (missing) bio was deleted as inaccurate. We still have three Douglas Lynch's which started out with marginal sourcing, and the way we sort such messes is by focusing on sources (the way we avoid them to begin with is by sourcing articles correctly). So, are you here just to complain, or do you have something to say about how the trio should be sorted with correct dab pages, redirects, etc ? If you are only concerned about one hockey player-- rather than sorting the whole mess-- well, that might be called uppity, no? Big picture: we have three Douglas Lynch and two or three Doug Lynch (sources offline on Barbados fellow). We had no dab pages, we had dubious sourcing, we have to define redirects. How would like to resolve all three, including redirects, dabs, etc? Right now Doug Lynch points to the Douglas Lynch dab page, which makes sense to me, since we have two notable Doug and Douglas Lynchs. The original Douglas Lynch article is pointing at the Barbados fellow, who seems to be the least known of the three ... and the academic fellow got, and is going to get, more mention in reliable sources now than he ever got before his dubious article was created. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Moving the discussion[edit]

Look, SG, I'm not a big time contributor around here, but I've been around enough that I know you're an important editor who knew more about Wikipedia back when I joined than I will ever know. So it's with some trepidation that I post this, but I just have to say that I really resent your tone in your post. Now, in the big scheme of things, my hurt feelings are chickenfeed compared to the apparent mess that you're looking at, so perhaps I shouldn't bother. But you should recognize that I was writing not only in good faith, but was not guilty of (most) of what you were accusing me of. Yes, I used vulgarity in an edit summary; [6] I was reacting to what I thought was another case of wikilawyering, where something good was being shot down because someone just thought they could--and that does happen. But I immediately recognized that perhaps I had overreacted, and, moments later, I approached the editor in question with complete civility.[7] And in point of fact, he acknowledged that he did act precipitously, without really having a good understanding of the issue (which is what we apparently shared in common).

Now as to your comment that these do not constitute an aesthetic improvement, clearly, by definition, this is a matter of opinion. Mine was based upon just one article, Illinois, where it simply replaced an already extant table. But I will say, not knowing the first thing about FAs, that I am pleased to learn that the Supreme Authority on FAs (I swear that is not meant sarcastically) is pro-prose. I have a pet peeve about the use of bulleted lists in articles (my current target is Quad Cities) and other such stuff; if it can be written out as text, I tend to think it's more encyclopedic. But this rule cannot be absolute, and I would be hard pressed to believe even you would not agree; what encyclopedia lacks tables? And I just thought this one was better than what had been there.

Finally, and most reluctantly, I want to address the condescending manner which you took with me regarding policy. There was, in my opinion, absolutely no justification for you to quote WP:V, WP:RS, WP:3RR, or WP:OWN. I know 'em all, and I certainly did not violate any of them, neither in my actions nor even the spirit thereof. I edited Illinois exactly once, and my comments right before your post criticizing me made clear (albeit without citing policies) that I understand the need to have accurate information. But even without the post, nothing I said would indicate that I felt otherwise.

Frankly, I am terrified that posting this will get me placed on some blacklist. But I really felt that you were out of line. I understand that you have huge responsibilities, and don't have time for this, but I've never before been so insulted by anyone with a username, and I just couldn't hold these thoughts in. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you think posting "bullshit" to another good faith editor (who was correct, by the way) was the right way to approach this? You may find that a bit of humility will hold you in good stead on a website where everyone can see everything you've written. Whatever you're reacting to, even if you think it's "wikilawyering" try to take a higher road. The previous editor indicated it wasn't a reliable source, and it clearly isn't. If you take the time to read and contemplate, you might learn something, and editing will be more fun. Now, if you'll pardon me, there's a massive cleanup that needs attending to; this isn't really the place to discuss those templates-- that place is ANI or TFD. I don't keep blacklists, by the way. It takes a sustained amount of Really Negative Stuff to earn a spot in my long-term memory. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I didn't come here to discuss the templates; I thought that since my beef was with your interaction with me, that this was a more appropriate venue (if I was wrong, I gladly yield to your view). And as I indicated, I recognized my error in my edit summary, and acted upon that recognition, well before you took me to task. And while you were right to still point out that error; I was questioning why you were accusing me of edit warring and owning an article. No, you didn't use profanity, but there are lots of people more insulted by the bad faith of false accusations than by the exclamation of a schoolyard profanity.
And, incidentally, the reason I questioned the sourcing concern was because the information inserted by the table was the same as the information that had existed before the template was added. Did I jump to conclusions? Sure, we all do on occasion. But I owned up to it moments later, which is (in my book) still more civil than falsely accusing someone of edit warring and other such. HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
It sounds like you learned from this that you can avoid future problems by studying the situation before calling "bullshit" on another editor (particularly in an edit summary, where the comment will endure and can't be struck). The editor removed a non-reliable source. You reverted (to re-add a non-reliable source) without first discussing on article or user talk. It's encouraging that you later (quickly?) recognized the error, all good faith editors make mistakes, and acknowledged that your reaction was because you thought you had encountered a wikilawyer, but the reason I pointed you to 3RR is that 3RR is not a license to revert, even if he had been a "wikilawyer" you still gotta AGF and respond collegially, and I reminded you to take care in edit summary accusations. If someone says a source is not reliable, a reasonable thing to do is ask before reinstating the text. It's coincidental in this case that you say the data matched (it doesn't in most cases I've checked). Perhaps you could go help remove some of those templates? I've been working on them all night, and there are still about a hundred to go. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
The situations regarding Andorra and Afghanistan are not probably complicated, but I am falling asleep at the keyboard and cannot hope to figure out the proper way to deal with them, since those templates were inserted some time ago. I leave those to you. HuskyHuskie (talk) 06:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Husky ... I see no direction forward has yet gained consensus at ANI ... perhaps since it was a good faith messup, folks are just hoping that Max will db-author delete them all so that a huge TFD discussion doesn't have to happen. If we don't hear something soon from Max, I guess an AFD may have to go forward. (I just noticed you helped out in the effort to remove them from articles-- thank you!!!) I think that's all we can do for now, Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

FAC foreign language source checks[edit]

Hi Sandy, I've taken the liberty of adding your name to User:Simon Burchell/FAC foreign language reviewers, a rough-and-ready page I've set up in response to the ongoing discussion at FAC. Feel free to do whatever you want with the page, including moving it to somewhere more appropriate. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)