User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch99

Chartered Psychologist

Hi SandyG. Someone whispered to me that you might be interested in this and so, as a long-standing BPS member myself, I thought I'd mention that it's covered in British Psychological Society: "... following the receipt of a royal charter in 1965, the society became the keeper of the Register of Chartered Psychologists. The register was the means by which the Society could regulate the professional practice of psychology. Regulation included the awarding of practising certificates and the conduct of disciplinary proceedings. The register ceased to be when statutory regulation of psychologists began on 1 July 2009. The profession is now regulated by the Health and Care Professions Council." Regards, Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Eric Corbett also provided a link, and offered to write a stub; the link he gave makes it all sound rather ... goofy ... so I'll leave it to you and Eric as to whether a separate article is needed, but at least now I know where to find info for the Simon Baron-Cohen situation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, Eric, I had an inkling, lol. I tend to keep a safe distance these days. Well "goofy" or not, until 2009 that is how the whole profession was officially governed. But I suspect that any stub/prospective article might have too much overlap with the British Psychological Society article - and that's not a very big article itself. The BPS is still the only professional body for psychologists in the UK. I'll have a quick look at Simon Baron-Cohen in a while. Cheers. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that the chartered psychologist issue should be redirected to/included in the BPS article, no matter what your opinion of me is. Eric Corbett 18:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks both for the help-- could we then at least get a sub-head at the BPS article, so I'd have a place to link to? Martinevans123, you won't find anything as of now at Simon Baron-Cohen-- if you have a look at the talk page, you'll see the issues I've been having, so I've finally in desperation removed all of the original research so the article can be rebuilt. One of the things I removed was the mention of a "charter psych" because a) the SPA kept providing sources that don't verify text, and b) I had no idea if "charter psych" was worth me doing the research. That article needs to be rebuilt now that I've gutted it of five years worth of original research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, Sandy, I will try to do that. Happy New Year, Eric. I have a very high opinion of your editing and a very low opinion of the things you sometimes say. But I'm sure we can agree on this one. Few , if any, professional accreditations enjoy their own article, I think, especially those which are now essentially historical. Evenso, as the BPS site says, a CPsychol still "reflects the highest standard of psychological knowledge and expertise" in the UK and still requires an annual demonstration of continuing professional development (CPD). I can recommend the monthly Psychologist magazine as a very good read for anyone with an interest. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I will keep my distance and let you get on with it then. Eric Corbett 19:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Cluster headache

Sandy, your edit is not lost, just press back button (or backspace) and then save it. I was trying to edit only sections to avoid edit conflicts. If there is a problem, just save your version I will redo my edit later. Lesion (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Nah, I lost it-- hit the wrong button or something when trying to resolve edit conflict. I should be done soon, then the real experts need to dig in, because the prose is terrible, the sourcing is terrible, it's repetitive, redundant, wordy, editorializes, you name it. Give me half an hour? I am not good at solving edit conflicts, for some reason that escapes me after all these years. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The page should have been stored in your history... sorry about that anyway. In my experience best thing to do is to section edit to avoid conflicts in first place. I'm not an expert on headaches, but I would like to learn more. Have to agree that this article is pretty poor. Maybe it would be easier to deal with things on one main article (headache) ? Lesion (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I was section editing-- I have never been able to understand why one sometimes gets edit conflicts even when section editing. Anyway, doesn't matter now ! Not sure about moving to one article-- cluster headaches are not migraines are not other kinds of headaches, etc ... Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I have just realized that my edit that caused the edit conflict is now gone from the article too, not sure what happened here =D I'll go into the article history and put it back in while preserving other changes. Lesion (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

We're a circus :) I just saw that Bennett (Cochrane) was already there ... bedtime! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that was it. I will also remove the unsupported content about changing gender predilection. Lesion (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Too busy for me :-) Moved on to tinnitus. What a disaster that was. Now a little less so. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Jmh649 I have a busy weekend, but am going to attempt some progress at cluster headache today, then will look at tinnitus. Would you come back to CH next week, to do the doc work on it? I can only get so far ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

hi Sandy

Thanks for the message and tidy-ups on the page. I'm finding citing different pages of the same source frustrating. Is there a better way to do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amousey (talk • contribs) 18:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Amousey ... I'll move this to and respond on your talk, to keep everything in one place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Intercostal nerve block

SandyGeorgia, I noticed some discussion of sourcing in this DYK nomination, and it occurred to me that this might actually turn out to be a MEDRS issue. Can you please take a look and see if there are issues along that line here? I didn't want to call for a new reviewer until we had someone experienced in medical sourcing look it over. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, the article is quite developed, and that topic looks pretty well over my head, so I'll ping Jmh649 and Jfdwolff to see if they'll have a look. Thanks for remembering and for asking! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Press mention

Hey Sandy, you have a press mention in the Daily Dot, regarding the medical disclaimer RfC. Good luck with the initiative. Andreas JN466 07:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Btw, here is an example of a medical hoax on Wikipedia entering the medical literature: Glucojasinogen --Andreas JN466 07:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Note that the article is also on Mashable. Andreas JN466 07:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

ANI for SBC and Minsk closed

Hi Sandy, Minsk has agreed to avoid editing the SBC article and will instead be using the Talk page. As they appear to be sticking to their word so far I've closed the ANI thread as needing no further action. If further trouble happens please let me know and I'll try to handle. Zad68 18:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems to holding for now, although I wouldn't be at all surprised if another account surfaced. Thanks for the attention, Zad68-- I know admins are overworked (like all of us) these days! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

DSM-V and Rett syndrome

Do you know if Rett syndrome has been left out of the autism spectrum in the current edition? Our Autism spectrum currently says the DSM-5 "redefined the autism spectrum to encompass the previous (DSM-IV-TR) diagnoses of autism, Asperger syndrome, pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS), childhood disintegrative disorder, and Rett syndrome." --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Damn - will try and log in later via library and take a look in DSM 5......Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

update: See here, which states "Rett syndrome is a discrete neurologic disorder and is not a subdiagnosis under ASD, although patients with Rett syndrome may have ASD". I can't find Rett syndrome listed in the index. Only in the changes section, where it says:

Autism spectrum disorder is a new DSM-5 disorder encompassing the previous DSM-IV autistic disorder (autism), Asperger’s disorder, childhood disintegrative disorder, Rett’s disorder, and pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified. It is characterized by deficits in two core domains: 1) deficits in social communication and social interaction and 2) restricted repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, and activities.

Hmm, so there we have it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Casliber and Anthonyhcole, so ... there is but one example of why we have serious problems in the autism suite of articles. Regardless of how one feels about DSM5, the updates need to be done. First, the autism articles have not been maintained up to date since Eubulides (who wrote them), left years ago. All I have been able to do since Eubulides left is keep out bad edits, but not reflect new sources. Second, even the versions he wrote have some issues, including primary sources (we are still giving undue emphasis to Simon Baron-Cohen based on primary sources). Third, every new review I've read lately does place more emphasis on environmental factors (per the frustration Anthony expressed on one talk page). Fourth, the DSM5 updates haven't been done. In the case of Asperger syndrome, I went through and more or less updated for DSM5, and I think that article is sorta good now because WHO/ICD10 still recognize Asperger's, so we have an argument that the current text can stay. But what we have at autism is no longer good, because what used to be autism per DSM5 is now what we have at autism spectrum, and the whole suite needs to be redone in a way that reflects the DSM5 change while respecting ICD10. I don't have either the journal access, or a copy of DSM5, nr the in-depth knowledge of autism to be able to rewrite those articles to the extent needed-- all I have been able to do since Eubulides left is keep out bad edits. But autism should not be a Featured article in its current outdated state. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Cas. Sandy, the whole autism suite is a problem but way out of my league. We need the professions and scholars to step up here. Ugh. Oh god. Cas, would you feel at all comfortable appealing through a letter to the editor of a relevant journal for help? I'll fully understand if you don't, but I have to ask. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not know of anyone who can fill Eubulides' shoes here, and even if we are able to find a new contributor, it can take quite a bit of time to bring folks up to speed on the differences between editing Wikipedia and other medical writing. I don't know how we are going to be able to keep that bronze star on autism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Bobvancleef38

I am not familiar with that person nor did I ever write anything about love-shyness here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Unsigned posts

Damn, I'm sorry. I will always sign them from now on. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Trouble with an editor

This fellow here, he's been more then a little to me and other users lately. He just sent me the following message, which I cannot say I am very fond of. He's been warned before and he is disrupting discussions with personal attacks and strawman arguments. Can anything be done about this? Mythic Writerlord (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I've left another message there,[1] but my experience on Wikipedia indicates that it is unlikely that anything will be done about this sort of conduct, which is increasingly common and accepted in here. The best thing you can do is ignore it and hope others will eventually notice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I've left messages for both editors with my thoughts on Wikipedia civility, as I thought both editors could use it. Zad68 14:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Zad. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Version A link syntax

Hi Sandy,

"High-quality sources" links to its target via the redirect, Wikipedia:MEDRS. So depending on a reader's browser, mousing over the link produces mouse-over text "Wikipedia:MEDRS", gobbledegook to most readers. You could make the mouse-over text informative by piping the link directly to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine).

I guess this would be a trivial enough change that you could make it mid-RfC? Goes for you too, WereSpielChequers.

Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 16:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Both fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Bad content

Hey Sandy, if you're looking for examples of bad content, have a browse through the history of cluster headache, from last July and backwards. Yecch! — Scott • talk 16:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Scott Martin; I'd be most appreciative if you did that work and presented the diffs and issues on the talk page of the RFC, where I will work it in to the examples on the RFC. IRL COI makes that one too hard for me to research, and reading it will disturb me (BTDT kind of pain with family members, don't want to go there again :)) And thanks for everything! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, tough times. Well, I'm happy to; I'll get back to you. And, it's been a pleasure - I'm enjoying working towards something to hopefully produce some positive change in this project, which is sorely lacking in ethics in many areas. — Scott • talk 16:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

[2] Please be gentle there, Scott, and try to educate them on the talk page - if that isn't happening already. Though the edits they're making are inappropriate and must be ripped out on sight for now, it's possible something about that work can be (very cautiously and full of caveats per WP:MEDRS) mentioned. It's bedtime here and I have just noticed this so don't have time to look carefully. I'll try to get to it tomorrow.

I love this quote from the forum: "oh, and it looks like my changes showed up right away... That's sorta scarry that anyone can make changes to those docs on wikipedia." Should we point them to the RFC? Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that's just lovely. I'd add a {{recruiting}} tag to talk. I'll watchlist. Ugh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I've registered for the forum, but haven't received confirmation yet. I'll try engage them there. 'Night. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Well. I read this last night and immediately thought "aha, that explains a lot!". After going through their thread I immediately unblocked ThatHurtsMyHead and reached out to them by leaving him a detailed message - it seems to have gone down quite well. See this post on the forum where he's copied it across. Hopefully we won't be seeing any more disruption on that article from well-meaning but inexperienced editors. — Scott • talk 11:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh my, that is going to require some sustained attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Five hours in, still have 20 sources to check, and this article makes my head hurt and my butt hurt. Terrible, repetitive prose, boatloads of primary sources, outdated reviews, and a general mess all-round. So, I'm only making a preliminary pass at this stage, so Anthony and others can go at it more later. Twenty more sources to get through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

{Yawn). I've just completed my daily obeisance at the little shrine I've built to you. I'll get some breakfast and take a look. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Big mess in there ! All I did was flag sources. You're on! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Holy moly, you really went for it! I had a brief poke around the article's history last night to look for particular content issues but actually found it quite overwhelming - my ability to distinguish bad medical content is pretty much limited to spotting uncited original research and obvious quack stuff. On the other hand, you might appreciate this post on that cluster headaches forum:

On CH.com I just read a post (titled LSD) where a person is saying "A friend told me he read about it in Wikipedia (!) as a way to stop attacks for 3 months, and thought I should look into it."

A perfect example of normal people in the real world taking our content seriously.... — Scott • talk 11:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

That post is here: [3] (that is, we have clusterbusters.com and clusterheadaches.com). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Scott Martin, it used to be the case that whenever a rash of new accounts showed up on a medical condition, one could easily find the message board support group forum where the recruiting occurred. Now, with so many Wikipedia hits, mentions and mirrors, it's much harder to find them. (In fact, how did you find that, Anthonyhcole?)

Scott, I'm off for the day, won't be able to get any work done on the CH article today, but you might want to mine the search engine at the cluster(nospace)headaches(nospace).com message board forum for hits on Wikipedia (can't link you there-- it's blacklisted, no surprise, tons of hits to Wikipedia, most likely not good) for more examples of misinfo on Wikipedia or of how dangerous Wikipedia can be. CH is precisely the kind of article where, yea, people take our content seriously and make life-altering decisions based on it, and the kind of topic that flies under the radar of most editors, but certainly not of people suffering in pain. With such acute pain, there is the same kind of desperation one saw in autism parents who firmly believed vaccines had caused their child's autism, or PANDAS had caused their child's tics, and would resort to things like chelation therapy, which killed children. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It was 4 terms from one of the newbies' edits in Google, and that forum was the top result - but I can't remember which terms. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Sandy - there really is a pile of it... I imagine that pretty much any forum for (self-diagnosed or otherwise) sufferers of a medical condition is pretty much the same. Incidentally, a post there led me to Neural therapy - that's a pretty, um, special article. — Scott • talk 22:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yikes yes! I'm having a go at cleaning-up Neural therapy; it was indeed ... special. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Alexbrn, just looked, nice cleanup. Scott Martin, it's not possible to keep up with all the bad content in here. When you fix one, you find three more. Disclaimer! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I've semi'ed Neural therapy for 3 months and am happy to semi any more that have been heavily degraded or bombarded. Probably better if I have an editor rather than an admin hat on for the psych ones I s'pose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Next

• Case in point: big issues at Psilocybin; see talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• "please reassure me I don't have to check all the shroomy articles for MEDRS" Actually, I'd like you to check them all, if it helps to make the articles better! p.s. the trainwreck that is Medicinal mushrooms isn't my doing :) Sasata (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I know the medicinal mushrooms article is better than it used to be... but I'm still so tempted to just stub the whole thing. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hah! I too was going (with a weary sigh) to mention Medicinal mushrooms (and Polysaccharide-K and maybe the ongoing new article spree). Checking back on how bad the PSK-boosting was I stumbled into Cancer immunotherapy#Natural products -- which brings us right back to the topic of bad medical content: check-out the bogus cancer cure info I removed from there. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Um, I was busy IRL for only a day-and-a-half, but that was enough to really fall behind; I need time to catch up, but we still have a problem with the whole psilocybin situation. I owe Sasata a response, but am still working through the sources and finding how many other articles we have that reflect this problem. It is beyond just cluster headache (those folks did us a favor by bringing this to our attention), and I'm not sure where to coordinate the discussion (it's an issue of MEDRS v UNDUE, because we have studies of ... seriously ... nine patients, not reflected in any broad overviews of the condition, or interviews conducted with no kind of control getting brief mention in secondary reviews in the psychedelic literature but not in broader reviews about the conditions -- and we have similar in several articles).

I will need most of today to catch up with all of you here, but I am reminded of the situation where a class wanted to insert evolutionary considerations in numerous articles about conditions based on specific low-impact evolutionary reviews, when those theories had gained no traction in the broader literature about those conditions. In those cases, Jfdwolff was able to provide information about the dubious quality of the low-impact journals, and demonstrate that the theories had gained no traction outside of those narrow reviews ... so, we are going to need to look at all the places where we are claiming psilocybin has effect on X condition, based on very weak secondary reviews, small studies, low-impact journals, etc. MEDRS does not tell us we must include something that may be UNDUE just because it's in a secondary review-- MEDRS tells us to access the quality of the evidence. I'm still looking for one overview of OCD that mentions psilocybin treatment (haven't found it), and as far as I can tell, the significance of those psilo studies (even on cluster headache) is not whether the treatment is effective (we just don't have the evidence to be saying that), but what the response to psilocybin can reveal about underlying causes. I guess, considering this info is in several articles, the discussion may need to be coordinated at WT:MED, but I want to finish reading the sources.

Alexbrn, is neural therapy dealt with? Kevin Gorman, long time no see!

Jmh649, I see you dealt with obsessive-compulsive disorder, but the problem is also at mydriasis, based on the reviews I've read so far, I think even the mention of psilo we now have at cluster headache may be undue, also at Olney's lesions, placebo-controlled study, psychedelic therapy, and psychedelic mushroom. I haven't gotten close to finding all occurrences yet-- would appreciate help.

Separately to Sasata, I owe you an apology-- a sincere one :) I will catch up over there once I've read all the sources, but one of the reviews is not flagged in PubMed as a review; that sometimes happens, but I failed to pick it up this time. When I saw so much text cited to something that I didn't recognize as a review, plus old reviews, plus a primary source, combined with "vetted at FAC", my "nothing is ever vetted at FAC" adequately lately red flags went off. For many years, "vetted at FAC", has meant that if we're lucky, three or four editors looked at the article, and not necessarily the issues raised. I apologize for being ridiculously over-snippy with you about promising a FAR because I thought you had used primary sources-- I still believe we have an UNDUE problem, but we don't have a FAR issue-- we have a content dispute in an area over which reasonable people can disagree, and I have every expectation that we'll sort through it and consensus will emerge. Of course, the concern surfaced because we saw how this information is being used on a support group message board,[4] and the sources I've read so far are very clear that they are talking about psilo administration in a very controlled environment-- our text isn't conveying that, and we have internet folk doing what worries us most-- using Wikipedia as a source for treatment decisions.

My sincere apologies, Sasata for a very poor attitude towards one of our best contributors. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Neural therapy is now okay so far as I am concerned. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I never disappear forever! The holidays are just always exceptionally busy for me - this is one of the first times in weeks I haven't had three dozen family members around at the same time. Cleanup of residual crap from fall semester medical classes is slated to occupy my third week of January, btw. It feels weird that I've gotten to the point of actually scheduling Wikipedia committments.... Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Sandy. I was a bit miffed with your MEDRS tagging, as I've worked hard on the article to bring it into (and keep it in) good shape. I thought after the GA review by Looie496, the rigorous peer review, feedback from WP:MED members specifically about MEDRS issues before FAC, and finally the FAC grilling by you (a good grilling, I'm not complaining!), that the article was MEDRS complaint. Moving on ... "I'm still looking for one overview of OCD that mentions psilocybin treatment". How's this? I've removed two of the primary sources you had previously tagged.

Re: "the sources I've read so far are very clear that they are talking about psilo administration in a very controlled environment-- our text isn't conveying that"

please note the presence of these statements already in the article:

• "the authors note, however, that the safety of the drug "cannot be generalized to situations in which psilocybin is used recreationally or administered under less controlled conditions."[27]"
• "Although other researchers have described instances of psychedelic drug usage leading to new psychological understandings and personal insights,[111] it is not known whether these experimental results can be generalized to larger populations.[110]"
• "The pilot study found that, when administered by trained professionals in a medical setting,"

I'm happy to discuss further improvements. Sasata (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Getting better, Sasata, that helps ... one of the several reasons that my FAR response was so ridiculous is that I know you can be trusted to deal with anything that comes up. Let me finish reading some more sources, then will get back to you ... not sure where, though, because again, we have issues in multiple places ... let me see what all I find as I read. And thank you for the gracious acceptance of my apology. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Sasata, I apologize for multiple, conflicting responses (this is why I need to catch up :) I've now looked carefully at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3181958/ and it confirms my concern. There was a study of nine patients. We've heard nothing of this in serious OCD reviews. The source you list has one sentence about it, and that sentence says ... pretty much nothing. Compare that to the rest of what the source discusses, and you may see my concern that we are giving this UNDUE attention, even if mentioned in secondary reviews. I have as yet found nothing from a serious OCD review that looks at this study, and reporting a treatment option based on nine patients gives me serious pause. In some of the literature, it is specifically pointed out that these reactions may give us clue to etiology, but we're using the sources in ways that are causing people to experiment with psilo for treatment-- the source you listed does not ease my concern-- it increases it, since the review pointedly has nothing to review ... it is one sentence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• One has to understand the context behind the study... "The first clinical study of psilocybin approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) since 1970". I imagine they were lucky to get n=9 approved for what has been such a controversial drug. I agree that mentioning psilocybin in the OCD article would be undue, but it is not undue in the psilocybin article (indeed, if the study were not mentioned, that would be a failing of WIAFA 1b "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". I'm not sure why the 2010 Kellner review is not a "serious OCD review"; is there a helpfile to help me determine whether a secondary source is "serious" or not? Regarding "and reporting a treatment option" we are not reporting a treatment option, we are summarizing the results of study, and I think the article makes that clear. Sasata (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, that's the direction I'm heading (that is, what we might say at psilocybin is different than what we might say at cluster headache, obsessive-compulsive disorder, mydriasis, Olney's lesions, and then placebo-controlled study, psychedelic therapy and psychedelic mushroom. I'm concerned that we don't have good evidence/reviews to be saying anything in the individual conditions that is not UNDUE, and even at psilocybin, I'm worried that there are some things in the sources that we aren't making clear. But let me catch up and summarize before I continue wasting your time ... I got distracted by a refrigerator repairperson, and have made no progress since my last post.

  Oh, by serious review, I mean that review doesn't actually "review" that nine-patient study-- it only mentions it in passing, in one sentence, and makes no attempt to even analyze the strengths, weaknesses, methodology-- anything we would normally see in a good review. Although it isn't really appropriate for us to "original research" the primary study, I haven't yet read the primary study and don't even yet know what measure of symptom severity they used ... I'm pretty well familiar with OCD research because of the overlap with Tourette syndrome, I've never seen mention of psilo in OCD reviews, and I'm wondering (in the absence of a review that discusses the methodology) what the methodology was ... it would be optimal if we could find a review that actually reviews the psilo work. More later, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Sasata, my apologies again that it is taking me so long to catch up ... I cannot find the mention of psilo in Halker 2010 ???

• Halker R, Vargas B, Dodick DW. (2010). "Cluster headache: diagnosis and treatment". Seminars in Neurology 30 (2): 175–85. doi:10.1055/s-0030-1249226. PMID 20352587. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see it in there either; I've replaced this source with the 2011 Sun-Edelstein review. Sasata (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)The only mention in Kellner2010 was "Marked decreases of symptoms were observed shortly after single-dose exposures to the psychedelic drug psilocybin in patients with OCD.", with a citation to Moreno2006. That source certainly could not have supported the assertion made.LeadSongDog come howl! 21:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I am (ever so) slowly working my way through all the sources and finding, yes, we have issues here. I haven't yet gotten hold of the original study of nine OCD patients, but I did find mention that they were evaluated using the Yale-Brown scale (good), but it is unclear to me if the review is saying those results didn't endure.

I'd like to pull it all together in one place where we can all work towards consensus, which as mentioned above, is likely to be something different wrt what can be said at psilocybin and what should be said in articles about the conditions, considering due weight. I'm still concerned that we're giving undue weight everywhere. Most of what the review sources say amounts to ... old studies were done that showed <something> useful about cause and mechanism, but more studies are needed to determine if it was the associated process and psychotherapeutic setting, or actually the psychedelic that produced the effect.

But I'd also like to get my tree down ... I will try to put it all together in one place by tonight or tomorrow am. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Spanish translation check?

SandyGeorgia, I recalled your offer regarding Spanish sources, and was hoping you would have time to look at the DYK nomination for Template:Did you know nominations/Prince of Wales F.C., or rather the translation of the two Spanish language sources, FN2 and FN6, for the article. It seems to me that the article text is making claims that the sources do not support, at least in the case of FN6—does it really support the statement that there were reports of the team withdrawing for the 1939–40 season? I've already had the creator tone down the FN2 claims (the article had said that players left Prince of Wales to form Jubilee), but I'm not sure that what's left doesn't overreach still.

The article has other issues, which I can handle since the sources are in English, but these I can't with surety, lacking sufficient knowledge of the language. (Google translate, and even looking up individual words in online Spanish–English dictionaries, can only get you so far.) Thanks for any help you can give. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

GERAC

Hi SG, you said at WT:MED that you voted to delete GERAC because it was a WP:COATRACK. GERAC was the first major study to find that sham and verum acu were equivalent (which many, though not all, subsequent trials have also found). What do you believe is coatrack-ish about the article? thanks, Middle 8 (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you're not going to reply, which is fine. Nobody else seems to be able to answer this question either, least of all the originator of the argument, cf. the bottom of this discussion: Talk:German_acupuncture_trials#Threaded_discussion. The coatrack notion was based on a misreading of GERAC and sources therein. Cheers. --Middle 8 (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Middle 8 When you're referencing discussions that happened in November, links are helpful. I've looked at the article (which has significantly improved since the mid-November versions which were problematic), have tried to decipher or sort out some of the bad grammar and redundant prose, and still believe there is nothing said there that wouldn't be better incorporated into a Society and culture section of the main acupuncture article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

ICNB

Hi. I just want to let you know that in this article – Intercostal nerve block – I've spent a lot of effort. I mainly used the ′Lennard′ source, but I used some other sources from Google Books as well. I typed ′Intecostal nerve block′ in Google Books search and than I read some of the books' content and interpreted in the article with mentioning the source used in referenced. I had known the original books' pages, but I forgot to insert them. As for many sections I've used one book or other online source, I didn't want to get the articles' section overcrowded with only single reference so I avoided repeating the same references in some places. I have never inserted plagiarisms or close-parapharasings in any Wikipedia article, and those accusations bother me. I was originally planning to add 30% more content, improve the article to meet the GA criteria, and propose it, but your tagging the article with various templates majorly demoralised me for doing so. However, do you have any suggestions of how can I still improve the sourcing and content so the GA criteria is met? I mainly agree some that some books openly advocate this specific procedure, and I think that is the point of your referral of them as primary sources? Furthermore, I am open to remove or change the assertions based on MedCentral and some other clinics' citations. Also, can you tell me why is wrong using “” over "" as a quotation marks? If you're replying me here, please give me a note on my talk page. Thanks in advance! Alex ^{discussion ★} 20:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Aleksa Lukic, your final question seems to refer to the use of curly quotes over straight quotes (see WP:MOSQUOTE. Since curly quotes are not generated by Wiki software, they are sometimes a tipoff to copyvio; the reason I mentioned that a close paraphrasing check is needed on the DYK is that the "voice" changes in the article, there are no page numbers supplied for verification, and the language in the article is at odds with your writing style. At any rate, a copyvio check is routinely requested at DYK.

As to getting the article to GA standard, a first step in the right direction would be adding page numbers on the book sources and removing the non-MEDRS sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I did it! I have provided the page numbers for the entire literature I used, and I have also removed the inappropriate medical sources. Please take a look at the page now, and tell me what do you think? You said that would be the first step. Then, what's the second step? Cheers, Alex ^{discussion ★} 05:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Marijuana WP:RM close

In reverting Red Slash's edit, you cited "non-admin close, best have that reviewed" in your edit summary. Since you've asked for that to be done, could you initiate the process, please? I'm not sure how that would be done, especially as I was the nom and agreed with the outcome. You appear to be the one who's not satisfied. Msnicki (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I have raised the issue of the controversial close here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Wrong venue. To question the outcome of a WP:Requested move debate, you should request a WP:Move review. Msnicki (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I see that now, but considering there are only a handful of admins in here, doing all the work, and that I've already raised it at ANI, I'm disinclined to take it to yet another venue. I do wish you had mentioned WP:Move review earlier ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

An insulting, bizarre, parodic redirect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mythic_Writerlord made the following redirect -https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Not_getting_any&redirect=no Shouldn't something like this be against the rules? Does it break any rules and, if so, which ones?

Also, there seems to be an organized effort to take down the incel article from an influential blog http://theroguefeminist.tumblr.com/post/73004902766/this-may-be-a-very-weird-question-but-there-is-an MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

MalleusMaleficarum1486, Sorry, I've been busy-- looking now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

MalleusMaleficarum1586, I have raised the issue of the redirect here; I will look next at the recruiting, but I want to point out to you that the excessive volume of your posts on the AFD is not working in your favor. Admins who close AFDs are accustomed to recruiting and pile-ons by newly registered users and IPs. It will serve you better if you let uninvolved users decide how to best handle that redirect, and I will next have a look at the recruiting issue you've pointed out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I see Jinkinson already added that URL to the AFD. Malleus, please trust the closing admin to sort out the recruiting issues; it happens all the time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

PANDAS

Hi, I wish to invite you to participate on a discussion which I have started on the PANDAS talk page. And the fact that we might have somewhat differing views might help the discussion and resulting article contributions be even better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PANDAS "a variety of sources, including more readable sources?"

Generally I take the view that even though review articles may be our gold standard, they're not the only game in town. Cool Nerd (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

German acupuncture trials

Thanks for coming to a controversial article and mading the werds write [5]. Good old fashioned editing helps improve WP for readers. Best wishes. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Aviation articles

Hi Sandy I notice you were trying to bring Draft:Aeromobil up to scratch. There are some very useful templates at Template:WPAVIATION creator which will result in standardised articles which will meet WP:AVIATION standards. Good editting and have fun. Pete--Petebutt (talk) 05:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Petebutt, I was only there trying to address the copyvio issues so it could be moved to Aeromobil-- I already spent more time on it than I should have! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

clarification request

Re [6] -- "agida"? NE Ent 03:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, dear ... sometimes I do that ... turns out it's not an English word, but a leftover from my time in Italy.[7] Think of it more or less as general agitation, angst, irritation, bother, something like that. The idea being to be more straightforward and direct to have less hassle. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I think "agita" is a sufficiently close English equivalent to be a true, rather than a false friend. Choess (talk) 05:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

And thank you to you, too ... I mix up my languages often in spoken communication ... have words or phrases from Spanish or Italian that I don't know in English, or don't know they aren't English. Makes me look even dumber than ... I usually look. But then, personaggio is such a great word! Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

F

Also should include Anthonyhcole, Littleolive oil, and Neutron inits favour. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations!

On what, you ask? On getting mentioned in The Daily Dot: [8] All the fame of Essjay and none of the false credentials.

Also, as long as I'm here: you said you had a COI with regard to the James Heilman article, and that you would therefore not edit it. Does this mean you know Doc James in real life or something? Jinkinson talk to me 23:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

QOL followup

Note to self, from WP:ENI for followup:

• Migraine Specific Quality of Life
• Asthma Life Impact Scale
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Living with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (LCOPD) questionnaire
• The Quality of Life Assessment of Growth Hormone Deficiency in Adults Measure
• Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

A G major for you!

Thank you for your quick and efficient work on "The sight of a touch, or the scent of a sound"!! It's pretty obvious that some editors have more neural connections than others... Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Martinevans123 what a nice message! And we deserve a decent article, considering the amount of info available! Thank you! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Here is some nutritious protein to keep you going in your hard labors. You're an inspiration to less motivated editors ;-)

Lesion (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

very kind of you ... ah-choo! Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think you are supposed to eat the skin... Lesion (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Sandy I recall you (and possibly also @Jmh649:?) have a copy of the DSM-V? Would you mind looking up "Olfactory reference syndrome" for me and seeing how it is classified? If possible, I would really appreciate also a straight copypaste of the content to Talk:Olfactory Reference Syndrome or somewhere else so I can reference it in the article... Many thanks if either of you can help with this. Lesion (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Email me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Will do, many thanks, Lesion (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Lesion, I actually do not have a copy of DSM5; I only have a photocopy of the Motor Disorder chapter. If I did have a copy of the whole book, I'da fixed up quite a few articles by now! By the way, you have to take great care with paraphrasing when using DSM in our articles; the APA guards their copyright seriously, so take care not to replicate all of the criteria for a given condition, and take extra care with paraphrasing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Understood, don't word too closely. In this particular case, there is very little content on the page I am working on (olfactory reference syndrome) because it only mentions it in relation to another condition (Taijin kyofusho)... but I thought it needed to be updated because the article was previously talking about "upcoming plans in the DSM-5". Lesion (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Funny you should say, because I have ended up directly quoting from the DSM editions. I think there is no copyvio as long as we make clear it is a direct quote by using quotation marks and a reference. Lesion (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

That may last for a while, but if you quote too much, they will come after us-- someone explained to me once that they don't like having enough info "out there" that diagnoses can be based upon them by people who don't own the DSM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting... Lesion (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 March 9#DSM Complaint .28Ticket:2010030910040817.29; they're about due to roll through here again. In the last bout, even though one of my articles was absolutely clean, I got the big fat COPYVIO tag on it until the investigation was completed.[9] As they say in investment banking, "the risk is yours". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that interesting insight. It seems, somewhat ironically, that psychiatry as a profession is pathologically paranoid, jealously guarding its secrets. Since that copyvio case related specifically to reproduction of diagnostic criteria, hopefully these text quotes will be ok. Actually they are are indirect quotes via 2 review papers, so if they complain to use they must also complain to those authors I would imagine... Lesion (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't say for sure, but my suspicion is that the motivation is more financial than pathological ... why would they want professionals to be able to avoid purchasing the DSM because they could find everything they needed online? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Re paranoia, I was also referring to the ink blot images thing we were just reminded of. Like ICD, I would want my classification to be used all over the world by everyone, and therefore facilitate open access to it. But then, I will never be rich =/ Lesion (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

29 authors....

Hi Sandy, regarding (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_L._Hauser&diff=592034160&oldid=592034022 this edit summary], in life sciences, being 28th on a paper with 29 authors is actually a prestigious place. With so many authors, this must be a collaboration between at least 2 different groups, probably more. The group leader signs last, if there are more than one, the most important one will be 29th, the 2nd important one 28th, and so on. It's a bit Byzantine, I know... --Randykitty (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

ah, ha ... Randykitty, thanks for letting me know ... and thanks for helping in the cleanup there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Stephen L. Hauser. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Status?

This c.e. idea seems to have stalled out. Any ideas?— Maile (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Maile66; yes, more than the holiday slowdown. But, since I've had the article watchlisted, the troubling issues seem to have subsided. Would you consider now asking Eric Corbett to have a look at the copyediting needs, to prepare the article for FAC? It seems worthwhile at this point, since the problems have subsided. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes to Eric - I would be happy if he would contribute his time and talent. Whatever others may have intended to contribute does not seem to have materialized. As an FYI if it is significant, this one achieved GA, passed DYK and is in the holding area for Jan 26 DYK. And this one is awaiting FLC. I had not intended to nominate at FLC, but it was pointed out to me that list had to be FLC in order for the 3 of them to eventually be FT, which I'd like. — Maile (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, did you mean for ME to ask Eric, or were you going to? I've never had any dealings with him. — Maile (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

No need ... he follows my talk and will see the ping. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. We shall see what happens.— Maile (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• My overwhelming impression is the text is rather bitty, and contains quite a bit of unnecessary detail. For instance, "In April, the 3rd Infantry Division was sent for more training", and "The German Gran Sasso raid on September 12 rescued Mussolini and returned him to power", from the Anzio and Mainland invasion sections respectively. But what do either tell us about Audie Murphy? Nothing. Eric Corbett 00:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Eric, SandyGeorgia made the same observations as you on the talk page. Do what you think needs doing to raise it to FAC level. — Maile (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Sandy, I'm now back on my own. Eric has dropped out, and so has Dr. Blofeld who had started edting it. Next idea? — Maile (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Hi, Maile66. First, thanks to Eric Corbett for doing as much as he could, and kudos to you for continuing to maintain your patience and good cheer in spite of everything/everyone that article has attracted. It has needed a competent copyeditor like Eric for a very long time (and still does, unfortunately). After three days of taking deep breaths and staying away from the Wikipedia, I am now caught up again and will begin repairing some things that were messed up in there, hopefully today or tomorrow, and hopefully while maintaining my tact and good cheer as you have. I hope that there was a lesson learned about the value of using the article talk page correctly ??? Blofeld should know a) how to cut-and-paste correctly (which I now need to go fix), and b) how to engage on article talk before undertaking the kind of work he did, particularly on articles that are on the main page and being worked up to FAC. But, whatevs. More later, still catching up, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Eric is a brilliant copyeditor and writer, clearly, but I don't think Sandy you realize that there are other talented editors here who can improve articles in a short space of time. You clump me in with the "every Tom Dick and Harry" I guess. No editor likes to have to explain every edit they make. The article wasn't on the main page at the time and I had no idea anybody other than Maile had an interest in the article. No doubt you'll continue to scold me Sandy, but the article is still in trouble and both myself and Eric dislike working on articles which are battlegrounds and where every edit is under scrutiny. The fact that reverts and the talk page discussion has chased potential editors away proves to me that it's not as important as you might think. I could get what needs to be done initially completed in a few hours before further improvements and copyediting take place. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

So, I see my message about using the article talk page is not getting through. Perhaps you could take a fresh look at my messages to you in a week or so, and perhaps by then the message will come through more clearly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It isn't Sandy, you're right, and I won't change my opinion on that. All the discussion that needed to take place for me was on Eric's talk page in believing that Maile was working alone, and it seemed that the chief article writer was happy for me to edit it and split, that was all I needed. If it had been George Bush or Gandhi or somebody I might have said something on the talk page first. I didn't expect Audie Murphy to really have a legion of people who cared that much about me editing it, especially given the way the article was organized. And I seriously couldn't look at the article and imagine that preparation was all it needed for a FAC in the near future.. It needs some large-scale changes, which I think any good editor here would agree with.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

And so, Dr. Blofeld proceeds, without, yet or still, a single edit to the talk page for discussion of his editing plans, in spite of a post there from me outlining and questioning work needed. Unless we count the Copied Template you placed on talk, which was incorrectly employed, and links to an edit which isn't a copy-paste, and if you're going to copy-paste, did I not ask you to read WP:CWW and learn to do it correctly?

If I were to brand this kind of editing behavior, it would be hard to avoid using words like narcissism. Have you no concept? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Well if I'm narcissistic, then you're quite possibly the most arrogant, haughty, and stubborn person I've ever met on the internet Sandy. I vaguely remember receiving that impression of you previously when you were your usual unsympathetic self and you said you told your husband and he agreed that you were "haughty" I believe! Wikipedia needs such narcissistic and arrogant people right, after all, what person in their right mind would edit wikipedia for free and have to put up with such hostility :-]? Unfortunately we don't come across each other very often and have to go through the usual process of re-aquaintance. OK. I'm a naughty boy for splitting without formal approval and for not adding a template. How shall I take my punishment, am I going to be spanked by matron?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The two of you are a match made in heaven. "You've seen The Odd Couple, you've seen... something else like The Odd Couple, now see Sandy and the Doctor, coming soon (in fact, right now!) to a computer screen near you." Enough of this lovey-dovey talk, you two... (And stop making me think of Sandy looking like Matron, Dr B, it's most unfair of you to ruin my mental image of Sandy like that!) Bencherlite^Talk 19:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you can teach Blofeld how to spell haughty the way my husband spells it ... I'm not holding my breath, though :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

"Horty"? I bet Sandy and I wouldn't be as mismatched as Burt Lancaster and Rita Hayworth in Seperate Tables!! No harm done, I'll try to make an effort with copy attribution and you too Sandy in future... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there any way, asking as nicely as possible, that you would consider leaving the article alone? There has been a long enough history of disruption that to finally get to a point of stability from which work could proceed was a huge accomplishment. It was clear what needed to be done, and it could have been done with the kind of collaboration that Maile66 has worked towards for so long, without someone barging in to reupset the apple cart. And you've left numerous errors, inconsistencies, cleanup needs, and problems in the article that will now have to be sorted out all over again. I am asking you, please, after having watched what Maile66 has been through for many months now, to please let someone else work on that article. Pruning it from where it was would have been less hard than now correcting all of the issues you have introduced will be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Sandy, I can see right through you. I'm not going to be treated like some pathetic lame donkey. If you think I've actually degraded the Audie Murphy article with my editing you really have problems. None of the minor glitches which I've apparently created present a greater problem than the article had originally. I don't know how anybody else here tolerates you, you're insufferable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't think anyone should ever wear a shoe that doesn't fit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

In your case it's a hat, which is 100 times too big for your actual head.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you can apply your verbal sparring skills to your article content? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has its fair share of cretins which probably deserve to be treated like this but I'm really not one of them. Your comments yesterday came across as provocative and trolling. I acknowledged that I should have attributed the content, but to pick on minor issues which were generally fairly easy to sort out copying books over in relation to what I did overall was mean-spirited. It really is about time you and I buried the hatchet and learn to at least have an ounce of respect for each other. I feel certain that you've formed an opinion of me back in 2007 when I was inexperienced with FA and editing or whatever and still have an outdated view of me. The fact that you seem to believe I have little experience with citing books in itself illustrates how ignorant you are. I wasn't even given a chance to fix the bibliography myself. I've always shown appreciation in your efforts to promote FAs on here and for a few years you were a crucial part of the process. I just don't get why you have to frequently assume this lofty air and turn your nose up at virtually everybody and be so mean-spirited with people. You have all of these technical abilities on here, but if you lack basic AGF and communication skills with editors who are obviously working in good faith then they're pretty pointless. Enough is enough, any tips talk page stalkers on how to approach Sandy? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Dr.B.

I'm one of those talk page stalkers. What was interesting to me about your comment, is that I read it wrong at first and thought it was from Sandy to you, rather than vice versa. It seems to fit either way. --Hordaland (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, if you are able to set aside the notion of an "ax needing to be buried" and focus on this issue, that may be a faster path to understanding. Perhaps as editing has evolved, you are better able to see a different perspective on your edits, or that will become clear to you?

Some history. For months now, since he asked for my help, I have watched that article, attempting to understand the source of disruption, encouraging better and more focused talk page usage without the long off-topic rants, and waiting either to understand where the disruption was coming from or for it to end so the real work of improving the article could begin. I envisioned needing to engage dispute resolution, and was pleasantly surprised to observe that Maile66's manner of handling things helped avoid that. Months ago, the talk page was such a wreck that it was difficult to sort out the source of the issues, and the only thing that was clear to me was that the article was nowhere near FA ready. But from months of observation, one thing is clear, and that has been Maile66's conduct no matter what has hit him; he has just kept plugging away, and for that, he deserves help. He took my advice on using the talk page better, and since the issues have subsided, I next encouraged him to move forward by asking Eric Corbett to get involved. In the previous environment, I would not have done that to Eric.

Now, with that background, two issues: 1) editing in a way that will reignite old issues is the least desirable outcome considering the stability the page is currently enjoying, and 2) please take careful note of Maile66's reaction to me pointing out the consequences of his failure to use the talk page to discuss article plans. Contrast, please, his reaction to yours. (For context, I'll add that Maile66 got his "scolding" from me via email, and he knew I stayed away for three days, taking deep breaths over my disappointment in the setback that resulted partly from his failure to engage the article talk page after I recommended bringing in Eric. Maile took his lumps-- he didn't react defensively.)

I asked you two things: please read WP:CWW, and please use the talk page. Your very next steps indicated that you most decidedly did not read CWW, you plowed ahead with the same mistakes, you dove right back into the article without further talk page consultation (so that many things now need to be fixed, and I hope that won't result in old issues being reignited), and you continued discussing article issues on user talk. On the CWW issue, yes, I was probably snarkier than need be, because I believe an editor who has the longevity you have should know how to copy within Wikipedia by now.

So, would it be possible for you to view this issue as a result of your reaction to a current situation, and nothing to do with any old interaction (and you overestimate my memory of old FAs by the way ... it takes quite a lot of negativity to stand out amid the thousands of FAs I was involved in).

And I hope you can now understand my pleas to let Maile66 work; he knows what might reignite edit wars, he knows the sources, and he was and is willing to listen to Eric's and your advice on things that the article needs, but he needs to go about in a way that won't upset the apple cart. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

"If the re-user is the sole contributor of the text at the other page, attribution is not necessary". OK, I'm with you.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Thanks for your work on cannabis-related articles. =) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Biosthmors! And a Happy New Year to you, too! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the New Year's wishes - all the best to you as well. I am going to go do the peer review monthly maintenance, then on to the FA stats if no one else has done them yet ;-) Take care, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Medical disclaimer/ Popular pages

Hi Sandy! You more or less have my proxy on the disclaimer rfc - let me know if I should turn up & vote. I can't see that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Popular_pages is linked anywhere on the main project page, which it should be. Very useful as one method for targeting where improvement is needed. Carlos Finlay was a google doodle in December. All the best Johnbod (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Johnbod; it seems that the popular page link is there, but buried in the poor page design (which has been troubling me for quite some time now, but what the heck). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the Rfc

Thank you for guiding the discussion on the disclaimer. It's an important discussion and we're (as in the anyone that's ever used Wikipedia) lucky to have someone like you willing to take on the tough challenges. Ian Furst (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Ian Furst, thanks for the kind note! I fixed your typo-- I hope it's not "ucky" :) :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Sauna health claims

An Austin Rose called "Teasing Georgia"

I've done some initial toning down and hiding from view, but the health section of this article is sourced to a raft of individual pubmed articles and could use someone who knows their way around medical sourcing. Hoping either you or a talk page stalker can find the time to apply a scalpel. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

How about that sauna, Georgia ...? I was the editor who asked Yngvadottir for some help with that one... well if you dare, you'll see... Hafspajen (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I had a look days ago, and was so discouraged by the amount of work needed that I went away and hid under a rock. I am off for the remainder of the day, but will try to engage when I have a LONG spell of free time and am in an exceptionally optimistic mood :) :) No promises that those two events will coincide! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Can't say that I don't understand.. It was freaking me out too... Hafspajen (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen and Yngvadottir, I removed the most offensive, and there is MUCH more that needs to be addressed, but I cannot take the time to work on an article with list-defined refs ... it means having to separately remove each citation after removing the text, and that ends right there the "exceptionally good mood". I hate those things. And that article is awful-- there is also a ridiculous list of links in See also, and extensive use of commercial sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, and just preserve your "exceptionally good mood". Hafspajen (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Gawd ... looking at bad articles like that is just depressing. But excuse my manners ... thank you ever so much for the most lovely rose! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Groan ...[10], [11] Hafspajen (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The whole article is a wreck, rife with trivia, galleries, the works. But, when I tired to search PubMed for secondary reviews, I quickly ran into problems with terminology ... it isn't always "sauna". So, some of that safety stuff can surely be sourced to reviews. I want to focus on removing claims that it is safe when we don't have that sourced to reviews-- I'm less worried about leaving the info indicating when it is harmful, since we don't want people getting hurt based on our advice ... you might be able to find secondary reviews for some of what is left. Do you know how to search PubMed for secondary reviews? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

..Well, it is, isn't it. But you are doing great progress... But those galleries, well - I kind of liked those... Hafspajen (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC) ^{(also I am known for my support of those)}

I found you some good sources, and several of them have free full text. (You can usually round up someone to send you others-- I don't have journal access). There are more pictures there than legitimate text ... it would make a nice coloring book for the children who were being treated in hospital for sauna burns :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

.* Well done. Ugh, no.. no sauna burns pictures. Sauna is a nice thing, used properly. (I say) Hope your good mood survived! Hafspajen (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Think about it

You might think about participating in this survey. I think you would bring important perspectives to it. Wadewitz (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

FAC Review request

Hi Sandy, I've got a favor to ask, provided you have end up with enough time to spare.

My recent Amph FAC was archived because it lacked enough completed reviews at the time it closed. Since you're arguably the most FA-savvy WP:MED editor, I was wondering if you could review the amphetamine FAC when I renominate it in a week or so. I think your input would go a long way in helping to improve/promote the article to FA status. I know you've got a lot on your plate already, so no worries if you don't have the time to do this.

Regards, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 04:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Seppi, I don't think renominating it is going to be the best way forward. It seems apparent to me (I could be wrong) that other medical editors aren't engaging the FAC for the same reasons I didn't ... I don't know the topic well enough, and I hesitate to approach a drug-related FAC when I'm not really familiar. I suggest that rather than re-nominating, you try to coax out of other medical editors at WT:MED more blunt feedback on why they haven't engaged in spite of your repeated efforts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I managed to get Axl and Anypodetos to review it, but they weren't able to finish at the time the FAC closed. At present, I've been able to get 3 WP:MED or WP:PHARM editors to do technical reviews of the article, but only 1 finished by the time it closed. I should probably get a WP:CHEM editors feedback too I suppose. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 18:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Punctuation

Thanks for correcting this one. I'm assuming you are correct! I'm American, but have lived in Europe most of my adult life, so my rules for punctuation are all screwed up, with American influences, British influences, and Danish ones as well. What is the proper thing to do here? I know the British and American rules are different. What do APA and MLA say? -- Brangifer (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help!

Thank you for helping edit the 2014 Venezuelan Protests. I am wondering if you could continue to contribute to the article since other users and I have been stuck in a stalemate over point of view and reverts. Hopefully you can help bring a fresh start to this article if you choose to do so!

Thank you! --Zfigueroa (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Zfigueroa; I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but fixing the POV on any Venezuelan article is not possible on Wikipedia-- every article written about Venezuela is POV except for a very small number I've been able to maintain to standard.

Although I'm in one of my I-can't-stand-the-rampant-POV-and-dangerous-inaccuracies-on-Wikipedia phases, and I have decided to stay away for a while (mostly problems on medical articles have kept me away), I peeked in yesterday just to see how badly the Venezuelan situation is being reported, and was not surprised to find the usual-- well, perhaps a bit more blatantly POV than usual, but within the realm of the expected for Wikipedia.

I will try to weigh in as I find the time and patience, but unless you can bring the attention of more knowledgeable and experienced editors, I don't hold out much hope for neutralizing any Venezuelan article. That the POV article actually claims that the protests were started by machado and lopez and that the murder rate in Venezuela is fueled by drug wars, with narry a mention of the murder in front of her five-year-old daughter of Monica Spear, is outrageous. Such is Wikipedia; if you want to fix those articles, you will need the involvement of many editors who know policy, have access and time to reflect reliable sources, and know the history and story of what is happening there. In my experience, most people outside of Venezuela don't know the facts, and don't much care either. Best of luck to you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Zfigueroa, I did what little I could, but I'm outta here. I have no interest in working on POV articles while people are being murdered every day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It is fine you did good. I'm just doing this for my family's sake. They have to close their air vents when the tear gas comes out every now and then. I know myself how tough it is so thanks for you work. It takes a lot of effort.

--Zfigueroa (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Zfigueroa, are you getting the full picture now? By the way, it would be much easier on our readers and other editors if you would use English-language sources when they are available. In this case, they are running a few hours behind El Universal, but they are available. The POV will be more apparent to all if they can read the sources :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It's just so much is reported from English-language sources. Venezuelans love CNN for covering some of their stories but they don't like how they don't pick up all the details. That's why many use social media to report things so the world can see because most English-speaking sources do not cover everything.

--Zfigueroa (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but Wikipedia prefers English-language sources when they are available. If our readers (and other editors) can't read the sources, they can't help much with the editing, and also can't see how pervasive the POV is. And almost everything of relevance has been covered by English-language sources. It would help other editors if you used them ... I speak fluent Spanish, but I've encountered few other editors on Venezuela articles who do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Venezuelan protest: Ruling

Hi Sandy, just came to point out that the term "ruling party" is also used to describe the political party in power at any given time,, but I don't mind the edit. Thanks for all your work on that article, its a real handful. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 17:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

But since he is described in the same sentence as "President", it's obvious he's in prower ... so I just thought it strange wording ... I do appreciate the clarification, because "ruling" was weird in the context of that sentence. Trying to catch up, not sure how much I can get done today ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

2014 Venezuelan protests

You reverted LlegóelBigotee, after they attempted to fix what appears to be an article duplication. ?? Werieth (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I studied and studied that edit to try to figure out what it was, and gave up. I hope it's sorted now? Since that editor didn't go to talk, I interpreted from the edit summary that s/he had confused a Wiki mirror, and was saying the entire article was copyvio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks Werieth, I think it's fixed now-- it took me a bit to figure out what it was. I'm in between errands, so haven't had time to see if something was dropped in the interim. Thanks for letting me know ... ping Simonm223 so he will look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Potential POV by editor Mrm7171

Hi SandyGeorgia. I was referred to you by Drmies. I and other editors have been having problems with Mrm7171 who I believe is using Wikipedia to promote I/O psychology. I asked Drmies for advice, and he said he doesn't know enough about the topic to have an opinion. He recommended that I ask you. He also recommended that I file a WP:RFC/U. The first step is to notify the editor in question on their talk page about concerns with his/her behavior, which I have done, and then ask other editors to comment there too.

Among other issues, for the past 3 months, Mrm7171 has been inserting mention of I/O psychology in article after article. In some cases it makes sense (e.g., workplace aggression), but in other cases it does not (occupational medicine). Here's a partial list.

Human factors/ergonomics, NIOSH, workplace aggression, employment testing, work design, HR consulting, recruitment, occupational safety and health, work life balance, stress, health psychology, organizational behavior, Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment and Health, Epidemiology, environmental health, noise control, occupational health nursing, occupational medicine, occupational disease.

Yesterday Mrm7171 and I had an exchange on NIOSH Education and Research Centers. You can see in the history and talk page that he inserted I/O psychology as a program NIOSH supports. I explained with references that they do not. After twice deleting the mention I gave up. What is in the article now is factually correct, but it seems really odd to mention 2 out of the 17 schools that have ERCs only to be able to mention I/O psychology in the article.

Thanks in advance. Psyc12 (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Psyc12, if you plan to approach venues of dispute resolution, like an WP:RFCU, you will need to become well versed at presenting a problem briefly and with diffs, so editors seeking to help don't have to do all the legwork to sort out what is going on.

Gathering some links to begin to sort out what you are referencing ...

1. Discussion at Drmies talk: [12]
2. Mrm7171 contribs: [13]
3. Article talk discussion: [14]
4. What is I/O psychology ?
5. Diffs to the problematic edits and text?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Good advice. Thanks. Psyc12 (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia. Apologies for having to respond on your talk page and being introduced in this manner. I am very uncomfortable psyc12 making these ongoing claims with no evidence and on various editor's talk pages like this and have now noted this with administrator Drmies. I have also commented on psyc12's spurious accusations on my own talk page. Please feel free to respond there instead. My editing in all of the many articles I have worked on, is based entirely on reliable sources and from a NPOV and attempts to represent a 'worldwide view' wherever possible. What may help is if you could describe the policy how all editors should be guided when placing article links in the 'see also' section of another article? I couldn't find any guidance on this issue?Mrm7171 (talk) 05:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Freedom from Want (painting)/1‎

Although you have a longstanding disinterest in all things related to GA, I am notifying you so as not to appear to be WP:CANVASSing in a biased. As someone who took an interest in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell)/archive2, you may have an interest in Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Freedom from Want (painting)/1‎.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm in a mess with 2014 Venezuelan Protests

I know this should be expected on an article with so much controversy, but I am being drilled hard by socialist users. I had much of my work deleted because they said it was biased sources even though...

Wikipedia states: Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

This neutral POV will not be able to be maintained if these two keep vandalizing my work.

I know you said that you are busy, but could you at least find any other users that can keep this page relevant and not the Communist Manifesto?

I told them multiple times they should be allowed to put their work, even if it is biased. However, they have struck me and held me down.

Anything helps, but these two are stubborn and are censoring my work.

Thanks for your help, --Zfigueroa (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Please just discuss these things on the talk page of the article. And it doesn't matter that he and I are socialists. I can note you are anti-Maduro but that also doesn't matter here.--Communist-USSR (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Zf, I've already done more than I have time for. I can find moments to peek in, but I don't have time for sustained improvements. Honestly, every news outlet in the whole blooming world is covering this-- there's really no need to resort to lapatilla. As I said earlier, write text from the high quality English-language sources available, and things might go more smoothly. There are now multiple thousands of good, high quality sources available (although admittedly, El Universal and others on the ground are a day or so ahead of the others, who have limited boots on the ground). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

On a related point: You have done wonderful work on articles like Leopoldo López Mendoza. Thanks for keeping a cool head... bobrayner (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but ... basically, I just walk away when the POV editing in here gets too disgusting, and people are dying. I hope you don't give up ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/The Emperor's New Drugs

SandyGeorgia, I just noticed this nomination had been promoted into the prep area, and the claim in it seemed to be quite strong, and perhaps not fully justified by the article (I haven't checked the sources), so I moved it to a later prep as a precautionary measure. There may well be MEDRS issues involved even beyond the hook claims, so since you've offered to take a look at such nominations, I'm going to take you up on it. The sooner you can look at it, the better: it has been promoted, and I'm reluctant to unpromote it without having something to point at as being clearly wrong. Thanks for any help you can give. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I did ask Orlady to take a look at the hook, and she's revised it. The hook is still in a prep area that's due to end up on the main page in a little over six hours. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK can be so indecipherable to us mere mortals :) :) I eventually found a queue page, where I see:

• ... that the book The Emperor's New Drugs suggests that antidepressants may be nothing but a very powerful placebo?

which seems innocent enough. I'm sorry for not spending more time on that one, Blue, but I'm a bit disgusted at Wikipedia of late. I appreciate that Orlady did it for you ... you can also always ping WT:MED if I'm in a waning-Wiki phase. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

There are grounds for that belief so knowing what I know of the book (I have a copy but have not done more than browse it very briefly), the hook is valid. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Cas ... that was pretty much what I thought. (I'm wondering why the TOC left my talk page while I had dinner?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

That's... weird. I don't see anything on your talkpage that should disable your TOC. That said, I went ahead and force enabled it with the magicword I put at the top of your talk page - feel free to remove of course. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Kevin Gorman ... 'tis a mystery! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

MMR vaccine controversy

This total revert in particular steamrolled both a compromise and an unrelated edit, and you made no attempt to discuss either revert on the talk page. It followed this total revert. Elvey (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Elvey, please have a look at WP:DTTR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:OR. "Steamrolled a compromise"? Not so.[15] Good luck there, regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Please have a look at WP:DTTR, and WP:TTR yourself. They're both essays. Please have a look at WP:SYNTH and WP:OR yourself; you'll see that WP:SYNTH is PART OF WP:OR. Neither is relevant to this discussion, which is about edit warring. Surely you are not referring readers to [16] because you are Enric Naval, and so you weren't edit warring because you were discussing? That's the only explanation I can come up with, farfetched as it is. It has no comments from SandyGeorgia on it. It does show me linking to WP:OR. Re. "If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors." - it looks like some part got through as you have since posted to the talk page.  :-) --Elvey (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Elvey, please use article talk and refrain from bringing your pleasantries to my talk page, thank you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Psoriasis

Hi Sandy, any interest in reviewing Psoriasis for GA status? Idk if you've done reviews, but I imagine you have given your experience with Wikipedia. Let me know =) TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Yay? Nay? Undecided? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, TylerDurden8823-- I'm sorry for the delay, I'm discouraged at Wikipedia these days. I have never been involved at the GA level ... don't think I even know the criteria well. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean you're discouraged at Wikipedia these days? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

See my link in response to Anthonyhcole two sections down. I have edited primarily in three areas of Wikipedia: medicine, Venezuela, and the featured article process. Medicine-- problems not solvable, and student edits will start hitting soon. Venezuela-- POV rampant and unaddressed after eight years of editing. Entire FA process in decline. Anyway, for your purposes, I've never done GA reviews, so can't really help there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

No, no, I totally understand about the GA review thing, Jfd is helping me with that as is LT, I just wanted to know why you're discouraged at Wikipedia. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Request

Could you please take a quick look at the sourcing and the claims drawn from the sources at amphetamine? I have been helping to copyedit for FA and I wonder if it is a little too pro-Adderall in tone. A second opinion here or there or anywhere would be appreciated. Thank you for anything you can do. --John (talk) 12:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I have most, if not all, of the paywalled sources hosted here: https://sites.google.com/site/seppilurvespancakes/home/wikicontent

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 12:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

2014 Venezuelan Protests infobox

I was wondering if you could look at the changes I made to the info box on the article and see if it's better. I showed sources for the causes of the protests and updated a few things. Thanks for you help on the article! --Zfigueroa (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss with this user WP:FORUMSHOP. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Get a grip, SDS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Zf, I haven't looked at the article; I do not support an infobox for this application, as there is simply NO WAY an infobox can convey the nuance of these events. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Disclaimer

Despite everything, you seem to be keeping your temper admirably. Happy New Year! - Pointillist (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Sheesh. Well, I think the only consensus that can come out of that RFC is that ... I don't know how to design an RFC :) Thanks for the note ... I was just thinking of some hair pulling since it's become so hard to keep up with, and I'm pretty sure a followup will be needed. Pity the poor admin who has to close it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Keep going - even if it requires another RFC down the road. The issue is of genuine importance and your efforts are much appreciated. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Pointillist and FiachraByrne ... policies and guidelines don't change overnight, but little by little. Happy New Year! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I just stumbled across this paper Can Internet Information on Vertebroplasty be a Reliable Means of Patient Self-education? (marketing blub here)and thought about your disclaimer initiative. Unfortunately I don't have access to the article at the moment so I can't tell whether it is genuinely relevant, I'm therefore dumping it on your doorstep and walking away! Cheers - Pointillist (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Question. The RfC closed with the closer, basically, saying there was no clear consensus established on a lot of points, partially I think because of the number of disparate views involved. Any ideas how you might want to proceed from here? I have recently finished a rather longish opinion piece I seriously doubt anyone would really want to read, but one of the things I mention is maybe getting some sort of "pro and con" column or forum to show up regularly in the Signpost or elsewhere. This might be one of the better topics for use in such a format. Anyway, I support the idea in principle and in practice, although I can see a few problems, particularly given the number of options, in the implementation. John Carter (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks John, I saw that at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/RFC on medical disclaimer. Besides that the closer, HJ Mitchell was correct in his assessment of the mess, and there was no other way to close it, I will be eternally grateful to WereSpielChequers for his/her role in trashing what consensus we had in the preparation for the RFC and making any useful outcome in any direction impossible. I recognize that I might have been more forceful in keeping out tangential proposals from the beginning, but whatevs. I have no idea how to proceed best now, because there is no way to prevent everyone and his/her brother/sister from adding on their own ideas, which is what cratered this one in spite of ample discussion before the RFC was launched. I'm sick of Wikipedia and its dangerous medical inaccuracies, so will leave the next steps to someone with a stronger stomach than mine. Best regards to you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Since you mentioned me ... I don't think WSC's contribution was the sole factor in muddying the waters; perhaps it didn't help, but there were multiple conversations about different versions happening there, and (lacking the gift of telepathy, which would aid greatly in closing RfCs!) there's no way I can tell whether they support their preferred version and oppose all others, oppose some others, support other with an order of preference, or something else altogether. My recommendation is to have an RfC with a single question: should we have a medical disclaimer on articles? Just yes or no. No "only if it's blue" or "only if it's at the bottom". All questions over appearance, wording, placement, and anything else should be matters for later discussions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell, thanks for having the courage to wade in and close that mess! We'll agree to disagree on WSC's role :) You may have identified a way forward, but I've no longer got the stomach for it ... it just troubles the heck out of me that folks don't see the dangers lurking in our medical content. Thanks again! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I think HJM more or less said what I was thinking better than I did. For somewhat complex ideas like this one, involving a lot of options, maybe the best way to go would be to have some sort of general discussion on the broad topic involving those both in favor of the proposal and opposed to it in a separate widely-seen place, also allowing some commentary from readers. The Signpost might be a good place for that. Then, after that issue of the Signpost is outdated, or perhaps after the multiple issues of the Signpost reflecting all the significant views, post a single, basic, RfC on tyhe broad topic in general, more or less with a single "yes-no-neutral" choice under discussion. Then, perhaps after winning general approval, maybe follow the same sort of format for the various other major issues related to the topic. John Carter (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I haven't been much of a fan of the Signpost, since their turn towards increased editorializing, so don't hold out much hope for that approach-- if someone else wants to try that, grand, but my depressing conclusion following the RFC is that there are three kinds of editors in this discussion: 1) medical editors who get it and are alarmed and disgusted; 2) medical editors who get it but believe if they edit like heck as fast as they can and as much as they can, they can fix it all; 3) and non-medical editors who will never understand how bad the situation is. I don't think this will be fixed until we have a medical equivalent of the Seigenthaler controversy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Speaking on my own history of dealing with all sorts of articles on religion and how history and other topics, I think I would say that people like the now-departed User:History2007 would say the same things about topics at the intersection of religion and history. Both he and I would probably qualify as being in your group #2, and both found out how wrong we were. At this point, honestly, I don't personally hold out much more hope for our religion and history content than you do for the medical content. And regarding at least a few topics, like clerical misconduct and the dangers of some cult-like groups, some might even be as important as some of the bs medicine conduct we have and have had. And I also pretty much agree with you about the few ways I can see about how that situation might change. But, even though I basically agree we need a few controversies that get a lot of public attention, enough to generate the foundation taking some required action, at the same time, I kind of dread the possibility of us having such controversies, primarily for the benefit of those who might be victimized by it.

But, trying to get back to something kind of positive, if not you, can you think of anyone else who might be capable of and maybe interested in writing a piece for mass consumption about the (I think painfully obvious) advantages of such things? John Carter (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The best writer on this stuff is Colin; I shouldn't speak for him, but I suspect he's as discouraged as I am. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Sandy pinged me. I don't know what the solution is. On the topic of disclaimers I see reasonable people making valid arguments on both sides. It is a big unknown. We do know that people are rubbish at reading and responding to warnings they see every day and who are intelligent enough to grasp: nurses and doctors who smoke or eat and drink too much? And people with prejudices (i.e., all of us in some way) react paradoxically to facts. Wouldn't we love a banner on the Dail Mail saying "This paper is full of shit". Or warnings above specific columnists saying "This author has no real qualifications, is gullible and writes with more confidence than is justified." Perhaps all we can hope for is that WP is better than some of the alternatives showing up on Google. I'm fairly discouraged about the wisdom of the crowd: there are limits to what the crowd is good at doing but I don't know if anyone has worked out what they are. I think WMF give too much to the crowd to decide, with fairly predicable and non-optimal results. It always amazes me how few medical editors there are. Its one reason why undergrad student editing in this area has such a terrible impact. But why has WP not attracted more qualified editors to this sphere? I think that's a question the WMF should be seeking the resolve. -- Colin°^Talk 11:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is probably the difference between what we say we want to be and some of the trashier columnists, tv shows, yellow journalism papers, and other sources. We are at least trying to pass ourselves off as an encyclopedia. Granted, it may well be that medical encyclopedias are somewhat outdated in lots of cases, given the occasional problems of developments since printing, but we shouldn't have those problems. I remember Anthonyhcole talking about an independent foundation which has qualified medics reviewing at least some of our articles, and that should help a lot on those articles, but we have a lot more articles on medicine, broadly construed, than that group deals with. And I definitely would love to see the Foundation doing more in a visible way on this idea. Still, though I wonder whether we might not, perhaps reasonably, either use the Signpost itself or maybe have it or other widely read pages provide some sort of background information for the broader community, considering at this point they are the ones who decide this, and then maybe later have them take part in a simple, single-issue, "yes-no-undecided" !vote on such disclaimers, either specifically medical or maybe also including law and matters of personal finance, two other generally problematic areas which much the same problems. Would you, User:Colin, as the one Sandy suggested might be one of the best people to prevent some such preliminary summary of the issues involved, or maybe a more clear "pro" or "con" statement, which might give the community some more evidence to use in making a decision? John Carter (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Sandy likes to flatter me. Is there any "evidence to use in making a decision" or are both sides just guessing? I don't think that a simple yes/no vote would change much. The "yes" was complicated but the "no" vote in the RfC was simple and pretty strongly supported. People can be reluctant to support something they don't know the details of and the "slippery slope" would be used as an argument by some. Opening out to disclaimers on a wider range of topics is pretty likely to receive a strong no. It is one of those "perennial suggestions" that saying "no" to has become mantra for WP. So I'm afraid I think that, imperfect though it may have been, the RfC showed the community has no strong wish for medical disclaimers at present. -- Colin°^Talk 15:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

This thread seems to be a new RfC, which may or may not be a good idea. To add my 2cents, I think that adding just a medical disclaimer to just medical articles is a non-starter. Think of the discussions about which articles do or do not have medical content; it would be a never-ending war!

But wasn't it you, Sandy, who suggested moving all the disclaimers to the top of all pages? That might get support. Something like this, though size, texts, etc. would be matters for discussion:

--Hordaland (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did try that suggestion, and I thought it solved all objections, but, yea ... I've no stomach for trying again yet. Maybe someone else can be the next messenger who gets shot. I think it a practical solution. What do I know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Requesting a second look at Potential Copyright violations.

Hello, SandyGeorgia. I saw your discussion about the Intercostal nerve block article and wanted to request a second set of eyes to the articles, Bangaru Thalli (scheme), RNTCP, and Five-Year plans of India. I think that parts of the three articles are in violation of the rules regarding copyright, but I would like someone who is more informed in reporting the matter decide if they should be reported or not. Thank you for reading, Super Goku V (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking at all of that will take quite a bit of time Super Goku V; I will try to get on it tomorrow, but am pooped out for today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem and thank you for responding. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Sheesh

Apropos of nothing in particular. Just sheesh. Mmmm. I'm trying to drum up funding to pay some experts to review Cancer pain. I'll let you know how it goes. Good to see you back. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really back ... between the medical mess that depresses me, and the awful 2014 Venezuelan protests, I can hardly stomach it here for extended periods. This is two years old; where's the improvement? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Only mass adoption of Wikipedia by scholars and experts (and even that won't be without its dramas - particularly in ideological areas) will fix this thing. And they won't touch it with a barge pole while anyone can overwrite anything with anything and they're expected to argue with Randy for weeks on end about how vaccines don't cause cancer. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I think Randy's detrimental effect on Wikipedia is overstated and it is time to retire him as an argument for defeatism. Fundamentalist skeptics believe that if only knowledge was exclusively disseminated by experts then the world would stop believing in stupid things and a new rational utopia would arise. But these are the same experts who a hundred years ago nearly universally supported eugenics or who a generation ago thought nothing of secretly removing organs from dead children without permission. Or even, who thought it a great idea to unleash 1500 first-year undergraduate students upon Wikipedia to add a random fact. So I'm unconvinced scholars are the right labour force for Wikipedia. Per WP:V we need the experts and scholars to continue writing their books and papers and publishers to act as a quality filter. There are a few academics or subject experts I know who edit Wikipedia well but they are rare. Being a Wikipedian is necessarily an intellectually humbling task as it is all about what other people have discovered or done or think. Some expertise helps for sure, no question. Some things are mindbogglingly hard to understand, though few have the talent to explain them to the general reader. I've linked this video before but think it is apt: Armstrong and Miller - Heterotic Super symmetry. -- Colin°^Talk 21:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Have I explained my expert review plan to you? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I have heard it - sorry Anthony, I think your enthusiasm in looking for ways to improve things is great......but I know alot of experts. Many, many hold views that are unconventional and would argue against whatever consensus was. Some would be good, sure, but making some special uberclass of expert editors would be a disaster. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, no. Not a special class of editor. Oh no. No. But it's past my bedtime, so I won't try to clarify it now. I loved that video, by the way. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

This is speaking as someone who is a qualified doctor and medical specialist - but just like anyone else who adds content, I should be responsible for sourcing it to quality sources and that it is faithful to the source. This holds true of all of us and is a keystone of the project. Any tweaking of this with expert editor status could cause big problems. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You, also, are missing the point. But you know what time it is over here and if you don't mind I'll reply when I've had a few hours sleep. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay - look, if you are in Sydney I should explain some stuff over some beers sometime...Privatemusings (talk · contribs) and Tony1 (talk · contribs) are also around so could be a hoot....ummmmm which video? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm in Perth. I'd love to buy you a beer the next time I'm over east, though. (I was referring to Colin's video - sorry. I'd just done an all-nighter and was confused.) I'll lay off the evangelising for experts now. If you are interested and get a chance, would you mind running your eyes over the argument section of The Emperor's New Drugs and telling me if it's clear? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

For what (little) it might be worth, I posted a message on Jimbo's talk page recently about some ideas I have regarding some things which I think might be useful to the various WF projects. One of them was a repetition of Anthonyhcole's idea. I'm not sure if I specifically said all this anywhere before, but I think it could be doable if we maybe put some of the "critical" articles dealing with medicine, money, and law a form of "expert pending changes" protection, making "expert pending changer" a specific right anyone could apply for like RfA or similar. Those who actually are experts, like working professionals in the field like Cas and NYB, could apply for the right and say they are working in the field, which most !voters would probably consider a plus, but so could, in some other areas, like fringe science and other fields, people like User:Dougweller, who may never have been a working professional in the field, but whose grasp of some of these topics is on the par with one, and more likely to adhere to neutrality as well. Granted, even that wouldn't be perfect, and there might occasionally be abuses requiring removal of the right through some process, but it would be a step toward Anthony's proposal which might be more likely to get approval. There is a lot of other stuff in the proposal, and I don't think anyone would really want to read it all, but maybe, if it is presented within a broader context with some other ideas many editors might upport, it might get more approval from some less knowledgeable editors as part of a bigger package containing things they might also support. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

2014 Venezuelan protests

Agreed its a dreadful article. Also wanted to bring to your attention that all these recent protest articles are sorted by timeline, which makes it a newsstory of tidbits. And I also agree with you that it makes the article dreadful, and in turn WP does so too as a non neutral collective of sources. They really need some guide to these ariticles, and monitoring.(Lihaas (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)).

I agree with the need for monitoring. I'm less certain we can make a clear set of guidelines for WP:RS for protest stories that will fit all circumstances since the reliability of a lot of sources can be so debatable for issues like these. Simonm223 (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

There are now thousands of reliable sources on this topic; the problem is they aren't being used, and the article isn't being written. It seems many editors are more interested in presenting POV than a comprehensive account based on reliable sources. No mention yet of the attempted rape of a student that fueled the initial protests? [17] No updates on deaths, injuries, arrests? Based on talk page commentary, apparently no understanding by most editors working on the article that the Venezuelan government stopped reporting the murder rate accurately years ago, and that statistics are gathered by reporters who camp out at the city morgue, recognizing that some bodies are "dumped" and never make it to the morgue. No mention of *why* Vivas opposes the current military? Ongoing inaccurate information about inflation, poverty, murder rate, etc ... simply because editors appear less interested in doing the research and presenting the abundance of reliable sources, then in putting forward POV. Hint on where to look for accurate poverty info, fire up google news starting with the keywords used here: [18] Why is Vivas against the current military? Try starting here for discussion of:

Vivas, one of the government's fiercest critics in the frequently vicious world of Venezuelan social media, rose to prominence in 2007 when he resigned as head of the Defence Ministry's engineering department rather than order his subalterns to swear to the Cuban-inspired oath "Fatherland, socialism or death."

All-in-all ... engaging an article where POV is the objective, rather than a well-written, comprehensive account, is a time sink. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, I was pretty much oblivious to this whole subject until I caught this interview today of Phil Gunson by Gian Ghomeshi. If you can't spare the time to listen to the whole thing, there's a capsule in the last minute. There's an interesting bit where Gunson relates the government's terminology: rather than call it propaganda, they refer to information "hegemony". He expands on how (he sees) the state effort to quash open discussion domestically as the motivation for shutting down access to the internet, to CNN Spanish (one of his outlets) and to intimidate the remaining independent news publishers in the country. Whether one believes him or not, it's an interesting listen. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

LeadSongDog, hey, I just saw this ... I haven't been able to play it yet (techno-idiot), but I don't think it will say anything I don't already know :) It has been shocking to me to watch for at least 15 years now, how little the world is aware of or cares about what has happened in Venezuela, and how grotesquely POV the entire suite of Venezuelan articles is on Wikipedia. With young students dying, it's hard not to be disgusted at the POV state of our articles. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

LeadSongDog, got it going finally on another computer ... there is way too much that Gunson doesn't say, that leads to minor inaccuracies, nuanced things, but he's generally got it right. For example, this media crackdown/censorship is NOT a Maduro thing ... everything he mentions has been going on since Chavez (and much more), at least 15 years. Maduro is just a follower of the Chavez/Castro model ... for the Venezuelan people, it is most frustrating that the world has ignored this situation for so many years, when they were once a staunch US ally. And now the students are fed up ... and the last time students in Táchira got fed up, that led to the overthrow of Venezuela's last dictatorship and the establishment of a democracy. Of course, back then, the people had free press, and the other side wasn't the only with arms. Gunson is a bit wrong to call it an "urban" thing ... think of Táchira as the Wild Wild West of Venezuela ... folks there are less urban, fiercely independent, and not fond of being pushed around. The military in Venezuela was once highly regarded and quite professional ... the question now is for how much longer they will accept being pushed around by superiors who are Cuban. Final 30 seconds ... anyone speculating what may happen next will end up looking foolish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

We'll, Ghomeshi has a pretty good following on the CBC and NPR, but people being people, it will go in one ear and out the other for most. What I'm wondering is whether or not CNN will try to get past the press controls. As a news organ, they've occasionally shown some spine, and that has paid off for them. WP can only reflect what is published elsewhere, so if sources are POV slanted, we will be too. Sucks, and there should be a way to deal with such cases (VPP perhaps?) As a rule though, "May you live in interesting times" remains a curse, at least for general populations if not elites. That said, the Aga Khan recently observed that most people faced with a hard choice between good democratic governance and reliable food for their families will take the latter. Reminded me of Peisistratos. LeadSongDog come howl! 12:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Re, CNN, they are pushing back hard, and in fact, what was done to CNN has somewhat awakened the international media to the whole issue of press freedom restrictions in Venezuela (Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc have always been on it, but the problem remained under-reported in the mainstream media, with Venezuelanalysis.com and Mark Weisbrot editorials pushing the state party line). It seems that it wasn't as significant to the international media/world when Chavez was shutting down all of the Venezuelan TV stations, but now that Maduro has tried the same with CNN and NTN24 (Colombia), suddenly they pay attention (irony alert). The problem remains that most international media organizations don't have "boots on the ground" in Venezuela now, so to really follow what is happening, one does have to be on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, etc-- and even then, you have to know Venezuela to know what you're watching and what is factual. And, to know what is going on with CNN, you have to watch CNN en español, where the Venezuela situation gets more airtime. It will be harder for the government to shut down CNN than it was for them to chase out Colombian TV or shut down Venezuelan stations-- now that the world is watching, I don't know if they will persist in the effort, but it doesn't matter much anyway, since the collectivos (motorcycle bands armed by chavistas, collaborating with them) have made the streets so unsafe that reporting is difficult anyway.

Re, "sources being POV slanted", no, that hasn't been the problem for the eight years I've been editing Wikipedia. Accurate and numerous reliable sources have been easily available; the problem was ownership on the articles, and mass reverts of anything reflecting mainstream reliable sources, with entire articles now reflecting the state party line ala Venezuelanalysis.com. I have been to ANI and other places many times, and plenty of people know this has gone on (I think some folks expected me to take it to arbitration, but seriously, with so many editors turning a blind eye, while this went on in front of their faces, I quit in disgust). I quit trying after one very active (and unsanctioned) editor accused me of using unreliable sources, after edits and list of sources that include the likes of New York Times, LA Times, CNN, The Economist, Wall Street Journal and other Spanish-language press of that caliber. In our Venezuelan suite of articles, mainstream international media was excluded, and the Venezuelan state party line is all we have. If you think it's discouraging to edit medical topics on Wikipedia, at least there we have some success. On Venezuelan articles, we have almost no factually accurate or neutral articles, and I've seen many instances where Wikipedia info is parroted in the press.

The other problem has been that few editors speak Spanish, can read Spanish-language sources, know Venezuela, so they weren't easily able to discern where the POV/ownership was happening.

Re, the choice between good democratic govt and reliable food for their families, the prospect now is for neither. The economy has been so destroyed by 15 years of corruption and inept management that it is unclear, not only what will become of the middle class, but ... I shudder to think of how the poor will survive and how the barrios can be rebuilt after the Bolivarian Revolution strategy of passing out arms to them, so they could kill each other and the wealthy in massive numbers. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! A gift from fellow Wikipedians.

You have been selected to receive a merchandise giveaway. We last contacted you on 2/19/2014. Please send us a message if you would like to claim your shirt. --JMatthews (WMF) (talk) 06:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, SandyGeorgia. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 22:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Maile (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit war Celibacy

Unfortunatelly there is an edit war going on again, on celibacy...[19]. I don't feel that this thing is rigt place for it either, but I am not involved. My question, isn't it possible to merge it into an other article, please? Some people suggested other possibilities, like Sexual abstinence. Hafspajen (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I see the problem ... I am going to contact the admin who closed the AFD, as I have long felt that she blocked the wrong editor in that mess. There was an AFD; the editor who keeps removing the content is wrong to do so without revisiting the deletion discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I promise to stay out of the editing of that article from now on. I will only get involved in the discussion about the content. May I also remind you of the fact that it was not just me removing the content but also another user? In any case, I will try to stay out of the case from now on so this does not escalate further. Thanks for informing me and my apologies if I caused any disruption. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I avoided taking this to ANI because of the unpleasantry typically involved in calling attention to admin actions, but I suppose that you (and anyone who knows Wikipedia policy) can easily see that while the old block of the other editor, MalleusMaleficarum1486, was highly irregular in every aspect, your behavior in this matter is equally disturbing. The admin who closed the AFD and was involved blocked an editor who had ceased disruption, and then denied the block review without waiting for an independent admin. Most curious. It's curious to me that you weren't blocked-- I'm glad you've agreed to stay out. I hope the blocking admin will advise all of you of the proper procedure for revisiting an AFD-- without same, you need to respect the conclusion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination)
• Talk discussion
• Curious block and improper block review (Malleus ceased disruption as soon as he was warned, was blocked several days later, and the same involved admin-- who closed the AFD and made the block days later-- also reviewed the block rather than waiting for an independent admin).

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I actually feel like there is some wisdom in keeping the material in the celibacy page after all, rather then removing it from there again. As far as I can see the material is still sourced and removal of sourced material is against the rules of this site, which I respect. There are also other ways to adding it, for example it could be included as a section in the article virginity perhaps? In any case, I will remove myself from this discussion altogether. The case has already been closed anyway and the community has spoken. I will respect that. And yes maybe a permanent ban for that user was a bit excessive, but I have no say in those matters. I hope we can keep it at this, and that my word will suffice. Thank you already. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, thanks for that! May I draw your attention to this little conversation [20] and that you, Mythic Writerlord, asked me for help? Otherwise I wouldn't have mady any further action. I am both astonished and disappointed on such a strange behaviour. I withdraw from any action regarding the content in question until further notice but I feel the need to express that it is not me who is editwarring on celibacy. --Turris Davidica (talk) 10:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• You really missunderstod me. It was not what I meant. I was not complaining about Mythic Writerlord at all. I was trying to find a solution. I feel myself that the solution is no good. Celibacy is a religious thing. Hafspajen (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hafs, from your indenting, I can't tell if your response is aimed at Mythic or me ... I do understand your concern about the content, and hope Coffee will advise how to proceed considering there was an AFD. Separately, it is my own opinion that Mythic has some answering to do for his behavior in this matter, along with the irregular actions that resulted in another editor being blocked, while Mythic was not blocked. But then, that's why I'm not an admin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I have already answered myself. I have also not engaged in edit warring today, contrary to what you claim Sandy. I made a single edit on the celibacy page today. But Davidica and the other editor made more edits. If anything, they are the ones engaged in edit wars, not me. Now lets not allow this situation to spiral out of control any more. I have already said I would stay away from the issue. Let that be enough. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. The person I meant edit warring is Andrey Rublyov, who now made his third revert in 24 hour, not Mythic . Damn. I wish I could have stopped it by coming to some solution, before it went too long. Hafspajen (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I already reported Andrey earlier... Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Ooh, I am an idiot. Hafspajen (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen, I wish I could be of more help to you, but I just don't know the process for revisiting a controversial AFD close ... perhaps a talk page stalker will advise what's next, or Coffee will weigh in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I hope. Hafspajen (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

If you've spoken to the admin in question and are unsatisfied by the response, WP:DRV is a possible next step. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you should know that this article content debated above was re-created against several broader community consensus. Hafspajen (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Autism

Hey SandyGeorgia, welcome back to Wiki! Anyway I wanted to know because, in May 2013 (last year), the DSM-IV revised to its current manual DSM 5 and has consolidated Asperger's, PDD-NOS, and Autism into one label: Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Do you think it's worth mentioning in the lead? Let me know! ATC ^{. Talk} 04:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Also the hatnote on top uses the word "pervasive developmental disorders" but it is no longer recognized as the diagnostic term for ASD. I think it needs to be revised. See here: http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Autism%20Spectrum%20Disorder%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf ATC ^{. Talk} 06:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Journal access

Hey, SandyGeorgia. Regarding User talk:Flyer22/Archive 13#OCD ?, I've been meaning to tell you that I still don't have journal access. I am, however, slowly but surely working on the Vagina article; I don't think I'll need journal access for it, but I'll see. Hopefully, I will have a day where I fix up most of the article in one take. Flyer22 (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

¿Donde esta?

Hi Sandy, I noticed you haven't edited at all in 6 days and haven't posted on WT:MED in more than a month. Some editors have speculated that this is because of the RFC for the medical disclaimer you started and the fact that it wasn't adopted. Care to set the record straight? Jinkinson talk to me 00:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Cancer pain

I'd like this to be excellent, and would therefore really appreciate any thoughts you might have on how it could be improved. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)