There's a name I haven't seen popping up on my watchlist in a while. Good to see you around again! (I know, there's a certain level of irony that I'm the one saying this... ;) Opabinia regalis ( talk) 21:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I know you're not really around, but if you do stick your head in over the next few days, your knowledge would be greatly appreciated at this medical DYK, where we're a bit unclear! Harrias talk 08:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
You were involved in one of the prior WP:FAC or WP:PR discussions about Emily Ratajkowski. The current discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive4 needs more discussants. In my prior successful FACs, success has been largely based on guidance at FAC in reshaping the content that I have nominated. I would appreciate discussants interested in giving guidance such guidance.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I am taking one last run at getting Emily Ratajkowski promoted to WP:FA in time for a 25th birthday WP:TFA on June 7th. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3 needs discussants. Since you were a Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive2 participant, I am hoping you might give some comments.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm editor-in-chief of
Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, and we're about to consider a snapshot of the Cerebellum article for publication in this journal:
Wikiversity Journal of Medicine/Cerebellum. This would make it easier for external sources to use and cite this work, and after we've advanced the journal these publications will be searchable in
PubMed as well. Since you have been one of the most active contributors to this article, we would like to include you in the "author" list, but we want these to be the authors' real names. If you approve, you may edit
that article to change your username to your real name, or include it in a reply to me. Otherwise, you will be attributed by a link to
the history page of the Wikipedia article. Also, the work has undergone peer review, and I'd appreciate if you could have a look into the peer review comments, and help amending the mentioned issues before publication in the journal:
/Cerebellum#Peer review. You may also check at
its history to see what corrections have already been made by other authors.
Best regards,
Mikael Häggström (
talk) 12:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
The Covent Garden article has been scheduled to appear on the main page at the end of this month on the 30th. Shortly after it was scheduled, a FAR was opened by User:Scott: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Covent Garden/archive1. I am looking at addressing his concerns, though they are vague, and he appears unwilling to expand on his concerns. As you were involved in the FAC in 2011 ( Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Covent Garden/archive1) would you mind looking at the review, and providing some guidance as to how to proceed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
If you are free and interested, please do visit this and leave some constructive suggestions and comments. Having said that, you are free to ignore this if you wish to. Regards, Pavanjandhyala ( talk) 05:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
When I reverted your necessary {{ citation needed}} on the Jamie Grace article, I wrote "already tagged with previous". If you looked at the previous sentence, it read, "Grace graduated from college on May 12, 2012 from Point University", and that was tagged correctly with a citation needed template. The next sentence was simply indicating what type of degree she apparently earned. You tagged that statement. I assume that if a reference can corroborate the institution, it will corroborate. I'm sorry if that seems pedantic, but that was my opinion. I simply merged the two sentences so that the section reads, "Grace graduated from college on May 12, 2012 from Point University with a bachelor's degree in children's ministry." It carries one citation needed template.
As for WP:AGF. You might want to read it, because you didn't assume that I knew what I was doing when I reverted you. You clearly didn't understand what I wrote. You also didn't follow WP:BRD. Instead you suggested I should "understand cn on wiki". My advice to you is that you should try to understand English in general. Cheers. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 03:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
But, there was quite a problem there with non- reliable sources, and I noticed that her Tourette syndrome was not cited; per WP:BLP and WP:MEDRS, it is important that it be cited, and per NPOV and WP:MEDMOS, it is important to use neutral language in describing medical conditions.
You may not have noticed that the date of her degree is not in the citation given; here is one sample only of how you might do further work on the article to bring the rest of the citations up to snuff (I also removed a bit of redundant prose). I don't actively edit as much as I used to, but there is quite a bit of text in that article that could be/should be correctly cited. WP:INTEGRITY is helpful in understanding citation placement.
You may not be aware that you should not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia, but even more so, not in edit summaries, where they stay in history and cannot be redacted. Saying that anyone has a literacy problem, or needs to understand English, is typically construed as a personal attack on Wikipedia; saying it to a very experienced editor doesn't leave a great impression. If there is anything I can do to help with the TS aspect of Jamie Grace, please let me know, and thanks again for keeping that article in order! Best regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello Sandy Georgia. My name is Kelly Braswell. I have just been diagnosed with Late Stage Lyme Disease and Morgellons. Unfortunately, I was diagnosed 5 years too late, and as a consequence, the Bacteria associated with Lyme and Morgellons has entered my brain, nervous system and joints and I now have Epilepsy with Gran Mal and Focal Seizures, Chronic Daily Migraines, Fibromyalgia and Dementia. All of this is quite challenging, as I have a child with chronic, life threatening health problems. The reason I was diagnosed so late was because I also presented with the strange fibers associated with Morgellons, which, at the time, was considered delusional yet is is now known to be a real disease. If I had received timely treatment, my prognosis would have been very hopeful. Now, I am told that Late Stage Lyme Disease is in most cases incurable. Last Spring, I attended a medical conference held by the Charles E Holman Foundation with numerous doctors and researchers from around the world presenting detailed medical studies proving the existence of Morgellons as a real medical disease associated with the same Bacteria as Lyme Disease. These illnesses have, and will continue to debilitate me (and my family). Every day I experience the needle like pricks and emerging fibers. All of these fibers emerge following the needle like pricks, which means I can predict when and where the fibers will emerge beforehand and therefore show my doctors and (finally!) my Lyme/Morgellons Specialist. Obviously, this means my illness is not delusional and the fibers are not implanted. Because many people view Wikipedia as a valid, reliable source of information, writing for Wikipedia is a huge responsibility, as the information presented has a huge impact on society, either positive or negative. I am asking the Morgellons editor(s) for Wikipedia to please consider my words; hear my story; and thoughtfully consider if a revision is the right thing to do. At the end of our lifetime we realize we have left a legacy. Ultimately our legacy is the culmination of all of the decisions we make. As writers, we are blessed to leave a permanent legacy impacting countless lives. As we take our last breath, we realize it is not the image we created that matters, but rather how we genuinely contributed to the lives of our loved ones as well as the lives of the greater good. Our decisions can either help or harm. Many times, our best decisions are our most difficult ones. Please examine your heart as well as the most recent existing medical literature and reconsider if a revision is necessary. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Kelly Braswell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.209.114 ( talk) 16:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
It sounds like you have done much investigation, but I am wondering if you have tried the mainstream, proven treatments for Morgellons-- namely, olanzapine, risperidone or pimozide? I have read the literature, experienced similar suffering up close and personal, have watched money being thrown at quackery by people who will not even try the proven most effective treatments, and hope you will be encouraged that the good science that goes in to Wikipedia articles can be your best guidance. BEst regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks guys for your kind supportive comments. I know this is a controversial subject. We are sttill learning about Morgellons, and this strange newly emerging disease does seem so hard to believe. I encourage you to google Morgellons 2016 and the names of Some of the presenters- Middleveen, Stricker'Savely, Eva Sapi, Eboni Cornish, Robert C Bransfield, Carston Nicholas.. Read their studies. Morgellons is linked to Lyme disease and the bacteria Borellia Burgdorferi. Brie strange fibers a our own collagen and keratin and the colors are from our melanin. Please keep an open mind. Much research has been done since the CDC study. Remember when AIDS was so controversial and it took Rock Hudson's amazing courage to come out and ultimately validate the disease. The Morgellons Conference was eye opening and validating. I will be in a documentary soon- they taped me and interviewed me throughout the Conference and I am currently collaborating on a book with another author I met at the conference. You will be hearing a lot about Morgellons in the not to distant future. Zumbagirl2327 ( talk) 03:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
It is possible to get many things/anything published, and the internet has been a force in promoting dubious information about Delusional parasitosis, Morgellons and Lyme disease. Wikipedia strives for reliability, and our first obligation in medical information should be an avoidance of harm. Until and unless the quality of the information you would like to see included rises to the level required by an encyclopedia, the information can't be included on Wikipedia.
I hope you are able to understand that this is not a reliable medical source; in fact, it is a source with a known point of view. I hope you are also able to see the benefit to your health, and others, of having a source of reliable information available for contrast with other information that may proliferate via the internet. I am always intrigued that people who are supportive of unproven theories often turn out to be the same individuals who have never tried the proven therapies. Wishing you well, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Good afternoon Sandy Georgia. I am so appreciative of your continued correspondence. I apologize for the delay (kids etc. have kept me busy). Your last message finally resonated- a light went on in my brain when you used the expressions "Reliable Resources," "Avoidance of Harm/Harm Reduction" and the truth that anyone can publish any study on the Internet, even if it is dubious. My undergraduate and graduate studies placed heavy emphasis on not only creating highly controlled clinical studies which left little room for error or bias, I was also highly trained in examining studies closely for potential flaws and later went on to work for the UT Houston Health Science Center as a Research Assistant analyzing diagnostic tests used in Houston area schools to determine if these tests were both reliable and accurate. As of date, there are not enough studies regarding Morgellons to warrant a complete revision of the definition of Morgellons. And I do see Wikipedia 's side regarding Harm Reduction. Although I can make a good argument for the existence of Morgellons as a real physical illness with physical causes, I also see that it has grown to become a "disease of the Internet/media," thanks to sensationalistic articles and documentaries like The History Channel's Ancient Aliens. The Internet is both a blessing and a curse, and Morgellons is extremely rare and the last thing we want is for people with either mental illness or skin conditions to self diagnose. This illness is so rare. In my situation, I had never heard of the disease when I presented with the unusual symptoms. Because I am of sound mind, and doctors, nurses and family members have seen these fibers emerge, I am one of the rare individuals who has this illness (which I believe will be renamed at a later date, due to Morgellon's association with Delusions of Parasitosis. I am currently part of a global study on this fiber disease associated with Lyme. I was asked to participate, although 1,000's have asked to be in this study. They hand picked only 49 subjects, despite the mass interest. I declined participation in the study until I was told these facts. My best guess is that I am a good representation of a Morgellons patient with true symptoms and a sound, logical mindset. An ER doctor once told me "I'll believe in Morgellons when I see it." I suppose all of us inherently feel this way. It is such an unusual disease. And very rare. And I do now understand why Wikipedia, in the best interest to the general public, cannot make any revisions on its definition of Morgellons. Thank you Sandy Georgia for your patient and honest correspondence with me. You didn't have to reply, but you took the time to help me understand a little bit about how Wikipedia operates. I will study more, so that my responses are appropriate and in alignment with the site's standards. And yes, I do believe that the site does strive to look out for the greater good. Thank you Sandy Georgia for helping me better understand. Have a great day, and I look forward to continued discussions with you, should either of us receive new information on this highly controversial subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zumbagirl2327 ( talk • contribs) 19:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick response. I am not a part of the research team. I don't know the specifics of why they chose me, or why they chose to keep the sample group small. All I can tell you is my hypothesis, based on years of graduate and undergraduate work. There will be a research team who will design the study. I am assuming the study will be a double blind placebo, meaning there will be patients who tested positive for all criteria for Lyme and Morgellons and there will be a group who tested negative for everything. This will be the control group. The research team will not interact but rather give instructions to the doctors/researchers. . Because it is a double blind placebo, the doctors/researchers won't know who has tested positive or negative or who is receiving treatment etc. And vice versa on the patients' side. They will evaluate them with no prior bias. By the way, I must say this is turning out to be a very thorough study. I am receiving volumes of Fed Ex materials requesting very detailed samples and information. Perhaps they are keeping the sample group small because they want a thorough analysis. Morgellons does not receive government funding. I believe we will someday be recognized by the government and they will understand the need to provide funding for more research Keep in mind I am only speculating, and hoping for a brighter future for all of those who suffer from Lyme, and those who suffer from Lyme with the Co-infection of Morgellons. By the way, in response to a previous editor, yes, there is a reality based diagnosis for Morgellons. It is a diagnosis for Lyme with emerging skin fibers, which are now believed to be our own keratin and collagen, with our melanin, which explains the color changes. Lol what A relief. For those conspiracy theorists, this disease is simple, yet complicated. we have Lyme. We are trying to figure out why a very small percentage of people with Lyme develop the skin fibers. There is so much to learn, and so much research is needed. I doubt there will be a specific cure in our lifetime. I have gone into remission through the use of specific supplements I personally researched as well as important lifestyle changes. I let things go over the summer (kids and their activities and needs) but I have been supplementing and training now for a month since they started school and I am starting to have "Good Days". At the Morgellons Conference last April, I had the opportunity to listen to the doctors/ researchers describe the great lengths they went through to truly honor the Scientific Method. For example, one study sent their samples to 7 different labs in which they had no affiliation with in order to ensure accurate lab results. Bottom Line: As a skeptic who has been trained to look for every possible flaw in a research study, I am excited to be a part of this study, and I will definitely keep you posted, as I am delivered the findings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zumbagirl2327 ( talk • contribs) 03:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I have nominated Backmasking for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Sandy,
Your comments at TS got me wondering about Virus, which has been translated into several languages. On the Spanish Wikipedia, attribution was given in an edit summary: "añadido apartado de "virus y vida" traducido de la wikipedia inglesa" and the Russian version has this Talk Page notice (in Russian of course):"This article incorporates text, translated from Virus Wikipedia articles section in English. The list of authors is on the page of the history of edits to the original source". Seems fair enough. Graham Beards ( talk) 14:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Since trichotillomania has been pointed out, Doc, your edits there typify my concern over choppy prose. It doesn't matter much at trich, which has long been a crap article anyway, but prose deterioration does matter in FAs. Look at this in the trich lead of the version you edited, just as an example -- it is not prose; it is a list of factoids run together.
It is fine to introduce prose of that quality, without a narrative or flow, into a B- or C-class article, but if you will announce your aims before digging into an FA or GA, we will all get the job done faster, with more accuracy, and with less agida. TS has lost its narrative, and is now choppy. It is unlikely that I will now be inclined to repair it, since I'm now more concerned over attribution issues. What motivation has one to produce top content on Wikipedia when it can be damaged in so many different ways in the culture that is this place ... SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
This is the culture of Wikipedia: more is better, even if pure crap. So with student editing, translators, DYK ... we further garbage, while, if we had no content, internet readers would be consulting sources of repute rather than the junk we churn out. As to Jytdog's statements on TS talk (an editor I enjoy working with who can turn an article's content around faster than a speeding bullet), I submit that there is quite a spread between editors who dedicate themselves to top quality in one topic vs. those who try to hold that finger in this dike of damage. Less than 1% of Wikipedia is featured, and some of that is garbage, too, but almost everything else in the 99% is suspect. And the culture here is to just keep on adding to it ... with (my other pet peeve) no warning to readers that they are reading content written at times by the infamous basement dwellers. This is dangerous to people's health. But that is another topic. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl appears to be barely active; this is what I have found:
which is pretty useless, because I would need to find the templates on the other-language Wiki. Would it be more expedient to send a DMCA takedown notice to the Wiki Foundation for every other language TS article, and let them sort their mess? Does a takedown notice by a Wikipedian breach No Legal Threats? IF so, how am I to locate all of these templates in all of these languages? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Anyway ... Doc. I can sympathize with how Colin feels about the epilepsy expert who left after encountering this, considering we still have crap content on epilepsy. As we (and Anthonyhcole) disagreed on the medical disclaimer topic, our content affects people's health, and we have an obligation greater than or equal to that of BLPs to get it right. That didn't happen at epilepsy, and I can understand how that trend troubles Colin. I'd guess he just wants this pattern not to be repeated. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I would be supportive of a more prominent disclaimer at the bottom of medical, medication, and alt med articles. Not sure if that would be a sufficient compromise / sufficiently address your concerns. It could be placed by bot. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
( ←) Medical disclaimers should go at the TOP of the page, in any sane version of reality which incorporates a sense of moral obligation. I will support. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not going to spearhead the effort this time 'round, so after sufficient folks are involved and have opined, someone else will need to organize the effort, pulling together whatever useful info can be gleaned from the old RFC. My only strong concern is that it be organized and monitored in such a way that we don't have the kind of disruption brought on by Werespielchequer editing, and that every Tom, Dick and Harry can't add on something extra to dilute the whole thing and throw it into chaos. It needs one, tight, finding. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Remember I was trying to get BMJ to review our medical articles? Do you want to hear how that went? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 15:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I just got an email from one of the reviewers asking for an update. I apologised for the delay and responded:
With regard to this review, if you all think you could endorse an article that incorporates your current proposed changes (left column here: /info/en/?search=User:Anthonyhcole/sandbox ), then I'd like to take your review to the Wikipedia editors, so they can fix the article. Once they've made the changes, I'll then get back to you for a final word on their fixes.
Would you all mind scanning that page I just linked to and telling me if you think it's ready? If you have any doubts at all about the article or the proposed changes, please speak up in the right hand column of that page (preferably) or here (email).
So, that'll be finished soon, hopefully. Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 16:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
There is a very serious problem in the Featured Article process since Raul and I left, which is that only half of the equation is semi-working. (Note the irony that I left based on a promise to Colin to return to medical editing.) FAC is promoting unworthy articles up the line, based on very scanty review (FAs are typically promoted now on three supports: in contrast, Tourette's received an unsurpassed 20+ supports in 24 hours after a year of collaboration and review involving everyone and the kitchen sink). We no longer see that kind of serious review and collaboratoin at FAC or at WPMED (FAs are now mostly promoted by quid pro quo reviews ... if you've already got several FAs, and a group of supportive friends, your FACs are likely to pass). Meanwhile, the other side of the equation (demotion of unworthy FAs), FAR, has gone moribund in the extreme. Scan down the columns at WP:FAS for a glance at how bad this problem is-- caused by a very small group of FA detractors who through self-interest, removed Raul as the FA director, so that the overall process is no longer working. We are now in the territory of "once an FA, always an FA", even as poorly written and researched articles fall into serious disrepair due to missing authors and watchers.
You could either submit Parkinson's to WP:FAR, or attempt to coerce the MED project into fixing it. I've tried. WPMED no longer has the interest or competence to promote or maintain FA-quality articles. Even if you bring this problem to the attention of WPMED, it is unlikely these articles can be restored to FA standard. I pointed this out about a year ago wrt Alzheimer's. Reading Alzheimer's last year caused my last (waxing) surge in improving Wikipedia content-- that didn't last for reasons related to the same cast of characters involved in removing Raul as FA director.
At this point, I'll provide some history of the Med project and the FA process, which Jytdog might be well served to review. Long long ago in another galaxy far away, we had a process of Med collaboration of the month, which worked to turn out top quality articles. We listed those articles at the WPMED page. There was an emphasis on quality, we attracted top-notch editors, and we collaborated to advance MEDRS, which became our saving grace. Most of the editors concerned about top quality in our content have moved on, and most of WTMED is now consumed with other issues. Like quantity over quality.
On another history item, when I first started editing in 2006, there was Not One Single well written neuropsychiatric article on Wikipedia. Autism and Asperger's were featured, and they were DREADFUL in the extreme (still are, since Eubulides left and they have not been updated-- they should be defeatured, too. Wikipedia:Featured article review/Autism, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome/archive1). There was no high quality content in the psychology realm (and there pretty much still is not: see this dismal list compared to Health and medicine). One of my goals in writing Tourette syndrome-- which involved years of work with Colin on MEDRS to make sure our medical guidelines worked for neuropsych conditions as well as they did for diseases-- was to provide a model for how our medical guidelines could be applied to DSM conditions. TS paved the way for improvement in other neuropsych articles, but we lost that momentum when we lost Eubulides, and when the focus of WPMED changed to quantity over quality.
So, do you think this degeneration of WPMED might irritate editors like Colin and me today ... ??? No matter what anyone else states, we would not have the strong MEDRS page we have today if not for Colin. This is what MEDRS looked like in 2006 when Colin first moved this content from the MED page to MEDRS and started work. @ Casliber: @ Graham Beards: SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Jyt, you do a MOST valuable job of fighting fringe quackery on Wikipedia. One thing that having the bronze star can do is to put the quacks out of business. In the case of the Tourette's article, it put them out of business not only on Wikipedia, but pretty much off Wikipedia as well. It was a jungle out there before we had an FA quality article here, and the alt-fringe-nutcases had a field day. Same for autism, same for Asperger's ... oh my, who remembers that walled garden of sheer quackery on autism that Eubulides and I took on ... Since that is more in line with your interests (at least I think so), I hope you can be enticed to view FAs differently. More tomorrow. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog, you questioned the dates of most used citations in TS. See my summary of my latest tour through PubMed in my sandbox. I semi-annually (or more often at times) check PubMed for every recent review, and am usually dismayed to find that most of the literature for about the last five to eight years has been focused on a) the not very useful or practical but very profitable and sexy Deep brain stimulation, or b) the PANDAS controversy. The conclusions about the application of DBS in TS have not changed, it is potentially useful for an EXTREMELY small minority of people, and we say all we need to say about it in the article, but DBS dominates the research literature. $$$$$ Ditto for PANDAS.
I can typically scroll through five pages of reviews and find one or two overviews of the condition, read them, find them not better than the ones I've used. So the only reason for switching would be if I could find a top-notch review that is freely available (as a service to our readers), which they aren't. A freely available review that is as good as the ones I use has not surfaced, to my knowledge.
The Tourette Syndrome Association years ago stated a goal of making TS "irrelevant" (that is, get people to understand what it really looked like compared to the senationalized perception). They seem to have accomplished that, which makes it not a very attractive field for researchers. There's not a lot new to say about TS, and there's more money in other fields of research.
In my sandbox, there are a couple of things I need to track down. I do not have journal access ... there are two articles there I need to get hold of, but I really would like to have is a freely available review that is as excellent as those that I use-- from the heyday of TS research.
I also had this To Do list on my user page before I lost interest in Wikipedia last time ...
IF you have a particular review that is not freely available that you want me to look at, I'd love to have a copy. But I suspect that, as I often find, I can go through the exercise of updating the citations only so the dates will be more recent ... which is boring work. Busy all day tomorrow, Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Doc, please hear what I am saying to you as a friend, because it is the same thing Colin is saying from a position of deeper concern and involvement (if for no other reason than I have been rather inactive of late). Jytdog, thank you for the post that called this to my attention: as you all know, I haven't been very active for a year.
The primary reason we have a significant MEDRS guideline today, which benefits editors who were not here during the years of struggle to get that guideline in place and in spite of significant opposition, is that Colin worked very hard to make sure that our guideline did not go beyond the wider project guideline of WP:RS.
@ Doc. In your unilateral MEDMOS edits over the last year to the writing style section, [9] [10] with no talk discussion (yet another indication of the changing character of WPMED) at MEDMOS that I can find, you have taken MEDMOS beyond and in contrast to what is stated in the project-wide pages of:
There is nothing in LEAD that discusses the order of content items in the lead, and yet you have been imposing your preference on medicine articles. In many cases (eg Tourette's), these changes rendered the lead out of compliance with FA requirements for the lead (now fixed).
Your wording at MEDMOS to write "as simply as possible" is not in line with the very guideline you link to, WP:TECHNICAL, which calls for "understandable" (not simple) language, adding the importance not to WP:OVERSIMPLIFY. We can't oversimplify leads to the point of inaccuracy, and that issue at Tourette's is where this all started.
Those edits to MEDMOS, as for as I can tell, are untilaterally yours and they do not reflect project-wide guidelines-- they are your personal preferences.
The concern that I have is that when WPMED goes beyond project-wide guidelines, our hard fought gains could be lost. We already see frequent complaints from the quacky fringe at ANI about MEDRS.
Since you unilaterally altered MEDMOS, I would request that you adjust those edits to be in line with project-wide guidelines. We don't have a prescribed order for items in the LEAD, and this is not Simple English Wikipedia. Please give LEAD and TECHNICAL a careful read, and adjust the changes you made to MEDMOS.
Jyt, this is an example of where a FAC experience could provide benefit via exposure to wider guidelines on Wikipedia (I say that because I noted a discussion on your talk page which indicates a glaring deficit of your basic understanding of WP:V and WP:RS relative to WP:PARITY. You may pretty much never use a source that is not a reliable source on Wikipedia. But you did. And that edit is still there. And that a medical editor who so effectively combats quackery would use a source that does not meet project policies (WP:V) and guideline (WP:RS) is a concern.) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
"The lead of an article, if not the entire article, should be written as simply as possible without introducing errors or ambiguity."
{
Sorry for the belated response. Are any of you understanding that an individual Wikiproject guideline cannot go beyond Wikipedia's general guidelines? And that the reason we got MEDRS accepted was that editors (like Colin) made sure we didn't overreach? And that if you do overreach, there is likely to be a backlash? Doc, I'm sorry I couldn't find the talk discussion when I looked, but nonetheless, MEDMOS is now at odds with both LEAD and the Technical writing guideline. (See WP:CONLEVEL.) So don't be surprised when editors continue to make claims at ANI about medical editors wrt MEDMOS and MEDRS.
Similarly, don't be surprised that WPMED alienates some of its finest founding members, like Colin, who understand the consequences. Doc, I am opposed to any change (that one included) that puts Med project guidelines out of sync with general guideline and policy pages. And I'm sorry to see that only five med editors is what it takes now to change a guideline. That is evidence of a dying project.
Meanwhile, it still remains true that Featured Articles must comply with Wikipedia guidelines before WikiProject guidelines that don't have broad consensus. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, SandyGeorgia. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I thought I was misinterpreting or misunderstanding the problems with FA and even Good articles in Project Med. Now I see that my observations match those of you, SandyGeorgia, indeed the Emperor has no clothes. Thanks for saying what you mean. Best Regards,
I didn't find enough. I'm sorry, and best anyway. Ceoil ( talk) 05:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Saturnalia | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours!
FWiW Bzuk (
talk) 01:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Hogmanay! | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy Hogmanay. May the year ahead be productive and harmonious. -- John ( talk) 21:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC) |
the page User:Melcous follows me making changes to all my contributions. i cite sources. the page erases my contributions it has gone on for days. and i believe it to be unhealthy to the environment. and if you look at their history i am not alone in this matter.
Hi Sandy, I'm having a conflict with another user over WP:MOS#Layout/Television guidelines. Can you please respond and comment, considering you used to be one of the delegates for approving WP:FACs? Thank you. ATC . Talk 22:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article History of Rush is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Rush (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
![]() ![]() Contest details: create biographical articles for women of any country or occupation in the world:
| ||
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
-- Jamez42 ( talk) 19:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font>
tags, which are causing
Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.
You are encouraged to change
[[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]])
→
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)to
[[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]])
→
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)Respectfully, Anomalocaris ( talk) 09:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, SandyGeorgia. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Saturnalia | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free and you not often get distracted by dice-playing. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC) |
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 17:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018! |
Hello SandyGeorgia, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and best wishes in all things! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
There's a name I haven't seen popping up on my watchlist in a while. Good to see you around again! (I know, there's a certain level of irony that I'm the one saying this... ;) Opabinia regalis ( talk) 21:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I know you're not really around, but if you do stick your head in over the next few days, your knowledge would be greatly appreciated at this medical DYK, where we're a bit unclear! Harrias talk 08:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
You were involved in one of the prior WP:FAC or WP:PR discussions about Emily Ratajkowski. The current discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive4 needs more discussants. In my prior successful FACs, success has been largely based on guidance at FAC in reshaping the content that I have nominated. I would appreciate discussants interested in giving guidance such guidance.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I am taking one last run at getting Emily Ratajkowski promoted to WP:FA in time for a 25th birthday WP:TFA on June 7th. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3 needs discussants. Since you were a Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive2 participant, I am hoping you might give some comments.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm editor-in-chief of
Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, and we're about to consider a snapshot of the Cerebellum article for publication in this journal:
Wikiversity Journal of Medicine/Cerebellum. This would make it easier for external sources to use and cite this work, and after we've advanced the journal these publications will be searchable in
PubMed as well. Since you have been one of the most active contributors to this article, we would like to include you in the "author" list, but we want these to be the authors' real names. If you approve, you may edit
that article to change your username to your real name, or include it in a reply to me. Otherwise, you will be attributed by a link to
the history page of the Wikipedia article. Also, the work has undergone peer review, and I'd appreciate if you could have a look into the peer review comments, and help amending the mentioned issues before publication in the journal:
/Cerebellum#Peer review. You may also check at
its history to see what corrections have already been made by other authors.
Best regards,
Mikael Häggström (
talk) 12:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
The Covent Garden article has been scheduled to appear on the main page at the end of this month on the 30th. Shortly after it was scheduled, a FAR was opened by User:Scott: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Covent Garden/archive1. I am looking at addressing his concerns, though they are vague, and he appears unwilling to expand on his concerns. As you were involved in the FAC in 2011 ( Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Covent Garden/archive1) would you mind looking at the review, and providing some guidance as to how to proceed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
If you are free and interested, please do visit this and leave some constructive suggestions and comments. Having said that, you are free to ignore this if you wish to. Regards, Pavanjandhyala ( talk) 05:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
When I reverted your necessary {{ citation needed}} on the Jamie Grace article, I wrote "already tagged with previous". If you looked at the previous sentence, it read, "Grace graduated from college on May 12, 2012 from Point University", and that was tagged correctly with a citation needed template. The next sentence was simply indicating what type of degree she apparently earned. You tagged that statement. I assume that if a reference can corroborate the institution, it will corroborate. I'm sorry if that seems pedantic, but that was my opinion. I simply merged the two sentences so that the section reads, "Grace graduated from college on May 12, 2012 from Point University with a bachelor's degree in children's ministry." It carries one citation needed template.
As for WP:AGF. You might want to read it, because you didn't assume that I knew what I was doing when I reverted you. You clearly didn't understand what I wrote. You also didn't follow WP:BRD. Instead you suggested I should "understand cn on wiki". My advice to you is that you should try to understand English in general. Cheers. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 03:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
But, there was quite a problem there with non- reliable sources, and I noticed that her Tourette syndrome was not cited; per WP:BLP and WP:MEDRS, it is important that it be cited, and per NPOV and WP:MEDMOS, it is important to use neutral language in describing medical conditions.
You may not have noticed that the date of her degree is not in the citation given; here is one sample only of how you might do further work on the article to bring the rest of the citations up to snuff (I also removed a bit of redundant prose). I don't actively edit as much as I used to, but there is quite a bit of text in that article that could be/should be correctly cited. WP:INTEGRITY is helpful in understanding citation placement.
You may not be aware that you should not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia, but even more so, not in edit summaries, where they stay in history and cannot be redacted. Saying that anyone has a literacy problem, or needs to understand English, is typically construed as a personal attack on Wikipedia; saying it to a very experienced editor doesn't leave a great impression. If there is anything I can do to help with the TS aspect of Jamie Grace, please let me know, and thanks again for keeping that article in order! Best regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello Sandy Georgia. My name is Kelly Braswell. I have just been diagnosed with Late Stage Lyme Disease and Morgellons. Unfortunately, I was diagnosed 5 years too late, and as a consequence, the Bacteria associated with Lyme and Morgellons has entered my brain, nervous system and joints and I now have Epilepsy with Gran Mal and Focal Seizures, Chronic Daily Migraines, Fibromyalgia and Dementia. All of this is quite challenging, as I have a child with chronic, life threatening health problems. The reason I was diagnosed so late was because I also presented with the strange fibers associated with Morgellons, which, at the time, was considered delusional yet is is now known to be a real disease. If I had received timely treatment, my prognosis would have been very hopeful. Now, I am told that Late Stage Lyme Disease is in most cases incurable. Last Spring, I attended a medical conference held by the Charles E Holman Foundation with numerous doctors and researchers from around the world presenting detailed medical studies proving the existence of Morgellons as a real medical disease associated with the same Bacteria as Lyme Disease. These illnesses have, and will continue to debilitate me (and my family). Every day I experience the needle like pricks and emerging fibers. All of these fibers emerge following the needle like pricks, which means I can predict when and where the fibers will emerge beforehand and therefore show my doctors and (finally!) my Lyme/Morgellons Specialist. Obviously, this means my illness is not delusional and the fibers are not implanted. Because many people view Wikipedia as a valid, reliable source of information, writing for Wikipedia is a huge responsibility, as the information presented has a huge impact on society, either positive or negative. I am asking the Morgellons editor(s) for Wikipedia to please consider my words; hear my story; and thoughtfully consider if a revision is the right thing to do. At the end of our lifetime we realize we have left a legacy. Ultimately our legacy is the culmination of all of the decisions we make. As writers, we are blessed to leave a permanent legacy impacting countless lives. As we take our last breath, we realize it is not the image we created that matters, but rather how we genuinely contributed to the lives of our loved ones as well as the lives of the greater good. Our decisions can either help or harm. Many times, our best decisions are our most difficult ones. Please examine your heart as well as the most recent existing medical literature and reconsider if a revision is necessary. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Kelly Braswell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.209.114 ( talk) 16:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
It sounds like you have done much investigation, but I am wondering if you have tried the mainstream, proven treatments for Morgellons-- namely, olanzapine, risperidone or pimozide? I have read the literature, experienced similar suffering up close and personal, have watched money being thrown at quackery by people who will not even try the proven most effective treatments, and hope you will be encouraged that the good science that goes in to Wikipedia articles can be your best guidance. BEst regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks guys for your kind supportive comments. I know this is a controversial subject. We are sttill learning about Morgellons, and this strange newly emerging disease does seem so hard to believe. I encourage you to google Morgellons 2016 and the names of Some of the presenters- Middleveen, Stricker'Savely, Eva Sapi, Eboni Cornish, Robert C Bransfield, Carston Nicholas.. Read their studies. Morgellons is linked to Lyme disease and the bacteria Borellia Burgdorferi. Brie strange fibers a our own collagen and keratin and the colors are from our melanin. Please keep an open mind. Much research has been done since the CDC study. Remember when AIDS was so controversial and it took Rock Hudson's amazing courage to come out and ultimately validate the disease. The Morgellons Conference was eye opening and validating. I will be in a documentary soon- they taped me and interviewed me throughout the Conference and I am currently collaborating on a book with another author I met at the conference. You will be hearing a lot about Morgellons in the not to distant future. Zumbagirl2327 ( talk) 03:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
It is possible to get many things/anything published, and the internet has been a force in promoting dubious information about Delusional parasitosis, Morgellons and Lyme disease. Wikipedia strives for reliability, and our first obligation in medical information should be an avoidance of harm. Until and unless the quality of the information you would like to see included rises to the level required by an encyclopedia, the information can't be included on Wikipedia.
I hope you are able to understand that this is not a reliable medical source; in fact, it is a source with a known point of view. I hope you are also able to see the benefit to your health, and others, of having a source of reliable information available for contrast with other information that may proliferate via the internet. I am always intrigued that people who are supportive of unproven theories often turn out to be the same individuals who have never tried the proven therapies. Wishing you well, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Good afternoon Sandy Georgia. I am so appreciative of your continued correspondence. I apologize for the delay (kids etc. have kept me busy). Your last message finally resonated- a light went on in my brain when you used the expressions "Reliable Resources," "Avoidance of Harm/Harm Reduction" and the truth that anyone can publish any study on the Internet, even if it is dubious. My undergraduate and graduate studies placed heavy emphasis on not only creating highly controlled clinical studies which left little room for error or bias, I was also highly trained in examining studies closely for potential flaws and later went on to work for the UT Houston Health Science Center as a Research Assistant analyzing diagnostic tests used in Houston area schools to determine if these tests were both reliable and accurate. As of date, there are not enough studies regarding Morgellons to warrant a complete revision of the definition of Morgellons. And I do see Wikipedia 's side regarding Harm Reduction. Although I can make a good argument for the existence of Morgellons as a real physical illness with physical causes, I also see that it has grown to become a "disease of the Internet/media," thanks to sensationalistic articles and documentaries like The History Channel's Ancient Aliens. The Internet is both a blessing and a curse, and Morgellons is extremely rare and the last thing we want is for people with either mental illness or skin conditions to self diagnose. This illness is so rare. In my situation, I had never heard of the disease when I presented with the unusual symptoms. Because I am of sound mind, and doctors, nurses and family members have seen these fibers emerge, I am one of the rare individuals who has this illness (which I believe will be renamed at a later date, due to Morgellon's association with Delusions of Parasitosis. I am currently part of a global study on this fiber disease associated with Lyme. I was asked to participate, although 1,000's have asked to be in this study. They hand picked only 49 subjects, despite the mass interest. I declined participation in the study until I was told these facts. My best guess is that I am a good representation of a Morgellons patient with true symptoms and a sound, logical mindset. An ER doctor once told me "I'll believe in Morgellons when I see it." I suppose all of us inherently feel this way. It is such an unusual disease. And very rare. And I do now understand why Wikipedia, in the best interest to the general public, cannot make any revisions on its definition of Morgellons. Thank you Sandy Georgia for your patient and honest correspondence with me. You didn't have to reply, but you took the time to help me understand a little bit about how Wikipedia operates. I will study more, so that my responses are appropriate and in alignment with the site's standards. And yes, I do believe that the site does strive to look out for the greater good. Thank you Sandy Georgia for helping me better understand. Have a great day, and I look forward to continued discussions with you, should either of us receive new information on this highly controversial subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zumbagirl2327 ( talk • contribs) 19:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick response. I am not a part of the research team. I don't know the specifics of why they chose me, or why they chose to keep the sample group small. All I can tell you is my hypothesis, based on years of graduate and undergraduate work. There will be a research team who will design the study. I am assuming the study will be a double blind placebo, meaning there will be patients who tested positive for all criteria for Lyme and Morgellons and there will be a group who tested negative for everything. This will be the control group. The research team will not interact but rather give instructions to the doctors/researchers. . Because it is a double blind placebo, the doctors/researchers won't know who has tested positive or negative or who is receiving treatment etc. And vice versa on the patients' side. They will evaluate them with no prior bias. By the way, I must say this is turning out to be a very thorough study. I am receiving volumes of Fed Ex materials requesting very detailed samples and information. Perhaps they are keeping the sample group small because they want a thorough analysis. Morgellons does not receive government funding. I believe we will someday be recognized by the government and they will understand the need to provide funding for more research Keep in mind I am only speculating, and hoping for a brighter future for all of those who suffer from Lyme, and those who suffer from Lyme with the Co-infection of Morgellons. By the way, in response to a previous editor, yes, there is a reality based diagnosis for Morgellons. It is a diagnosis for Lyme with emerging skin fibers, which are now believed to be our own keratin and collagen, with our melanin, which explains the color changes. Lol what A relief. For those conspiracy theorists, this disease is simple, yet complicated. we have Lyme. We are trying to figure out why a very small percentage of people with Lyme develop the skin fibers. There is so much to learn, and so much research is needed. I doubt there will be a specific cure in our lifetime. I have gone into remission through the use of specific supplements I personally researched as well as important lifestyle changes. I let things go over the summer (kids and their activities and needs) but I have been supplementing and training now for a month since they started school and I am starting to have "Good Days". At the Morgellons Conference last April, I had the opportunity to listen to the doctors/ researchers describe the great lengths they went through to truly honor the Scientific Method. For example, one study sent their samples to 7 different labs in which they had no affiliation with in order to ensure accurate lab results. Bottom Line: As a skeptic who has been trained to look for every possible flaw in a research study, I am excited to be a part of this study, and I will definitely keep you posted, as I am delivered the findings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zumbagirl2327 ( talk • contribs) 03:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I have nominated Backmasking for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Sandy,
Your comments at TS got me wondering about Virus, which has been translated into several languages. On the Spanish Wikipedia, attribution was given in an edit summary: "añadido apartado de "virus y vida" traducido de la wikipedia inglesa" and the Russian version has this Talk Page notice (in Russian of course):"This article incorporates text, translated from Virus Wikipedia articles section in English. The list of authors is on the page of the history of edits to the original source". Seems fair enough. Graham Beards ( talk) 14:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Since trichotillomania has been pointed out, Doc, your edits there typify my concern over choppy prose. It doesn't matter much at trich, which has long been a crap article anyway, but prose deterioration does matter in FAs. Look at this in the trich lead of the version you edited, just as an example -- it is not prose; it is a list of factoids run together.
It is fine to introduce prose of that quality, without a narrative or flow, into a B- or C-class article, but if you will announce your aims before digging into an FA or GA, we will all get the job done faster, with more accuracy, and with less agida. TS has lost its narrative, and is now choppy. It is unlikely that I will now be inclined to repair it, since I'm now more concerned over attribution issues. What motivation has one to produce top content on Wikipedia when it can be damaged in so many different ways in the culture that is this place ... SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
This is the culture of Wikipedia: more is better, even if pure crap. So with student editing, translators, DYK ... we further garbage, while, if we had no content, internet readers would be consulting sources of repute rather than the junk we churn out. As to Jytdog's statements on TS talk (an editor I enjoy working with who can turn an article's content around faster than a speeding bullet), I submit that there is quite a spread between editors who dedicate themselves to top quality in one topic vs. those who try to hold that finger in this dike of damage. Less than 1% of Wikipedia is featured, and some of that is garbage, too, but almost everything else in the 99% is suspect. And the culture here is to just keep on adding to it ... with (my other pet peeve) no warning to readers that they are reading content written at times by the infamous basement dwellers. This is dangerous to people's health. But that is another topic. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl appears to be barely active; this is what I have found:
which is pretty useless, because I would need to find the templates on the other-language Wiki. Would it be more expedient to send a DMCA takedown notice to the Wiki Foundation for every other language TS article, and let them sort their mess? Does a takedown notice by a Wikipedian breach No Legal Threats? IF so, how am I to locate all of these templates in all of these languages? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Anyway ... Doc. I can sympathize with how Colin feels about the epilepsy expert who left after encountering this, considering we still have crap content on epilepsy. As we (and Anthonyhcole) disagreed on the medical disclaimer topic, our content affects people's health, and we have an obligation greater than or equal to that of BLPs to get it right. That didn't happen at epilepsy, and I can understand how that trend troubles Colin. I'd guess he just wants this pattern not to be repeated. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I would be supportive of a more prominent disclaimer at the bottom of medical, medication, and alt med articles. Not sure if that would be a sufficient compromise / sufficiently address your concerns. It could be placed by bot. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
( ←) Medical disclaimers should go at the TOP of the page, in any sane version of reality which incorporates a sense of moral obligation. I will support. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not going to spearhead the effort this time 'round, so after sufficient folks are involved and have opined, someone else will need to organize the effort, pulling together whatever useful info can be gleaned from the old RFC. My only strong concern is that it be organized and monitored in such a way that we don't have the kind of disruption brought on by Werespielchequer editing, and that every Tom, Dick and Harry can't add on something extra to dilute the whole thing and throw it into chaos. It needs one, tight, finding. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Remember I was trying to get BMJ to review our medical articles? Do you want to hear how that went? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 15:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I just got an email from one of the reviewers asking for an update. I apologised for the delay and responded:
With regard to this review, if you all think you could endorse an article that incorporates your current proposed changes (left column here: /info/en/?search=User:Anthonyhcole/sandbox ), then I'd like to take your review to the Wikipedia editors, so they can fix the article. Once they've made the changes, I'll then get back to you for a final word on their fixes.
Would you all mind scanning that page I just linked to and telling me if you think it's ready? If you have any doubts at all about the article or the proposed changes, please speak up in the right hand column of that page (preferably) or here (email).
So, that'll be finished soon, hopefully. Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 16:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
There is a very serious problem in the Featured Article process since Raul and I left, which is that only half of the equation is semi-working. (Note the irony that I left based on a promise to Colin to return to medical editing.) FAC is promoting unworthy articles up the line, based on very scanty review (FAs are typically promoted now on three supports: in contrast, Tourette's received an unsurpassed 20+ supports in 24 hours after a year of collaboration and review involving everyone and the kitchen sink). We no longer see that kind of serious review and collaboratoin at FAC or at WPMED (FAs are now mostly promoted by quid pro quo reviews ... if you've already got several FAs, and a group of supportive friends, your FACs are likely to pass). Meanwhile, the other side of the equation (demotion of unworthy FAs), FAR, has gone moribund in the extreme. Scan down the columns at WP:FAS for a glance at how bad this problem is-- caused by a very small group of FA detractors who through self-interest, removed Raul as the FA director, so that the overall process is no longer working. We are now in the territory of "once an FA, always an FA", even as poorly written and researched articles fall into serious disrepair due to missing authors and watchers.
You could either submit Parkinson's to WP:FAR, or attempt to coerce the MED project into fixing it. I've tried. WPMED no longer has the interest or competence to promote or maintain FA-quality articles. Even if you bring this problem to the attention of WPMED, it is unlikely these articles can be restored to FA standard. I pointed this out about a year ago wrt Alzheimer's. Reading Alzheimer's last year caused my last (waxing) surge in improving Wikipedia content-- that didn't last for reasons related to the same cast of characters involved in removing Raul as FA director.
At this point, I'll provide some history of the Med project and the FA process, which Jytdog might be well served to review. Long long ago in another galaxy far away, we had a process of Med collaboration of the month, which worked to turn out top quality articles. We listed those articles at the WPMED page. There was an emphasis on quality, we attracted top-notch editors, and we collaborated to advance MEDRS, which became our saving grace. Most of the editors concerned about top quality in our content have moved on, and most of WTMED is now consumed with other issues. Like quantity over quality.
On another history item, when I first started editing in 2006, there was Not One Single well written neuropsychiatric article on Wikipedia. Autism and Asperger's were featured, and they were DREADFUL in the extreme (still are, since Eubulides left and they have not been updated-- they should be defeatured, too. Wikipedia:Featured article review/Autism, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome/archive1). There was no high quality content in the psychology realm (and there pretty much still is not: see this dismal list compared to Health and medicine). One of my goals in writing Tourette syndrome-- which involved years of work with Colin on MEDRS to make sure our medical guidelines worked for neuropsych conditions as well as they did for diseases-- was to provide a model for how our medical guidelines could be applied to DSM conditions. TS paved the way for improvement in other neuropsych articles, but we lost that momentum when we lost Eubulides, and when the focus of WPMED changed to quantity over quality.
So, do you think this degeneration of WPMED might irritate editors like Colin and me today ... ??? No matter what anyone else states, we would not have the strong MEDRS page we have today if not for Colin. This is what MEDRS looked like in 2006 when Colin first moved this content from the MED page to MEDRS and started work. @ Casliber: @ Graham Beards: SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Jyt, you do a MOST valuable job of fighting fringe quackery on Wikipedia. One thing that having the bronze star can do is to put the quacks out of business. In the case of the Tourette's article, it put them out of business not only on Wikipedia, but pretty much off Wikipedia as well. It was a jungle out there before we had an FA quality article here, and the alt-fringe-nutcases had a field day. Same for autism, same for Asperger's ... oh my, who remembers that walled garden of sheer quackery on autism that Eubulides and I took on ... Since that is more in line with your interests (at least I think so), I hope you can be enticed to view FAs differently. More tomorrow. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog, you questioned the dates of most used citations in TS. See my summary of my latest tour through PubMed in my sandbox. I semi-annually (or more often at times) check PubMed for every recent review, and am usually dismayed to find that most of the literature for about the last five to eight years has been focused on a) the not very useful or practical but very profitable and sexy Deep brain stimulation, or b) the PANDAS controversy. The conclusions about the application of DBS in TS have not changed, it is potentially useful for an EXTREMELY small minority of people, and we say all we need to say about it in the article, but DBS dominates the research literature. $$$$$ Ditto for PANDAS.
I can typically scroll through five pages of reviews and find one or two overviews of the condition, read them, find them not better than the ones I've used. So the only reason for switching would be if I could find a top-notch review that is freely available (as a service to our readers), which they aren't. A freely available review that is as good as the ones I use has not surfaced, to my knowledge.
The Tourette Syndrome Association years ago stated a goal of making TS "irrelevant" (that is, get people to understand what it really looked like compared to the senationalized perception). They seem to have accomplished that, which makes it not a very attractive field for researchers. There's not a lot new to say about TS, and there's more money in other fields of research.
In my sandbox, there are a couple of things I need to track down. I do not have journal access ... there are two articles there I need to get hold of, but I really would like to have is a freely available review that is as excellent as those that I use-- from the heyday of TS research.
I also had this To Do list on my user page before I lost interest in Wikipedia last time ...
IF you have a particular review that is not freely available that you want me to look at, I'd love to have a copy. But I suspect that, as I often find, I can go through the exercise of updating the citations only so the dates will be more recent ... which is boring work. Busy all day tomorrow, Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Doc, please hear what I am saying to you as a friend, because it is the same thing Colin is saying from a position of deeper concern and involvement (if for no other reason than I have been rather inactive of late). Jytdog, thank you for the post that called this to my attention: as you all know, I haven't been very active for a year.
The primary reason we have a significant MEDRS guideline today, which benefits editors who were not here during the years of struggle to get that guideline in place and in spite of significant opposition, is that Colin worked very hard to make sure that our guideline did not go beyond the wider project guideline of WP:RS.
@ Doc. In your unilateral MEDMOS edits over the last year to the writing style section, [9] [10] with no talk discussion (yet another indication of the changing character of WPMED) at MEDMOS that I can find, you have taken MEDMOS beyond and in contrast to what is stated in the project-wide pages of:
There is nothing in LEAD that discusses the order of content items in the lead, and yet you have been imposing your preference on medicine articles. In many cases (eg Tourette's), these changes rendered the lead out of compliance with FA requirements for the lead (now fixed).
Your wording at MEDMOS to write "as simply as possible" is not in line with the very guideline you link to, WP:TECHNICAL, which calls for "understandable" (not simple) language, adding the importance not to WP:OVERSIMPLIFY. We can't oversimplify leads to the point of inaccuracy, and that issue at Tourette's is where this all started.
Those edits to MEDMOS, as for as I can tell, are untilaterally yours and they do not reflect project-wide guidelines-- they are your personal preferences.
The concern that I have is that when WPMED goes beyond project-wide guidelines, our hard fought gains could be lost. We already see frequent complaints from the quacky fringe at ANI about MEDRS.
Since you unilaterally altered MEDMOS, I would request that you adjust those edits to be in line with project-wide guidelines. We don't have a prescribed order for items in the LEAD, and this is not Simple English Wikipedia. Please give LEAD and TECHNICAL a careful read, and adjust the changes you made to MEDMOS.
Jyt, this is an example of where a FAC experience could provide benefit via exposure to wider guidelines on Wikipedia (I say that because I noted a discussion on your talk page which indicates a glaring deficit of your basic understanding of WP:V and WP:RS relative to WP:PARITY. You may pretty much never use a source that is not a reliable source on Wikipedia. But you did. And that edit is still there. And that a medical editor who so effectively combats quackery would use a source that does not meet project policies (WP:V) and guideline (WP:RS) is a concern.) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
"The lead of an article, if not the entire article, should be written as simply as possible without introducing errors or ambiguity."
{
Sorry for the belated response. Are any of you understanding that an individual Wikiproject guideline cannot go beyond Wikipedia's general guidelines? And that the reason we got MEDRS accepted was that editors (like Colin) made sure we didn't overreach? And that if you do overreach, there is likely to be a backlash? Doc, I'm sorry I couldn't find the talk discussion when I looked, but nonetheless, MEDMOS is now at odds with both LEAD and the Technical writing guideline. (See WP:CONLEVEL.) So don't be surprised when editors continue to make claims at ANI about medical editors wrt MEDMOS and MEDRS.
Similarly, don't be surprised that WPMED alienates some of its finest founding members, like Colin, who understand the consequences. Doc, I am opposed to any change (that one included) that puts Med project guidelines out of sync with general guideline and policy pages. And I'm sorry to see that only five med editors is what it takes now to change a guideline. That is evidence of a dying project.
Meanwhile, it still remains true that Featured Articles must comply with Wikipedia guidelines before WikiProject guidelines that don't have broad consensus. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, SandyGeorgia. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I thought I was misinterpreting or misunderstanding the problems with FA and even Good articles in Project Med. Now I see that my observations match those of you, SandyGeorgia, indeed the Emperor has no clothes. Thanks for saying what you mean. Best Regards,
I didn't find enough. I'm sorry, and best anyway. Ceoil ( talk) 05:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Saturnalia | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours!
FWiW Bzuk (
talk) 01:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Hogmanay! | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy Hogmanay. May the year ahead be productive and harmonious. -- John ( talk) 21:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC) |
the page User:Melcous follows me making changes to all my contributions. i cite sources. the page erases my contributions it has gone on for days. and i believe it to be unhealthy to the environment. and if you look at their history i am not alone in this matter.
Hi Sandy, I'm having a conflict with another user over WP:MOS#Layout/Television guidelines. Can you please respond and comment, considering you used to be one of the delegates for approving WP:FACs? Thank you. ATC . Talk 22:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article History of Rush is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Rush (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
![]() ![]() Contest details: create biographical articles for women of any country or occupation in the world:
| ||
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
-- Jamez42 ( talk) 19:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font>
tags, which are causing
Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.
You are encouraged to change
[[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]])
→
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)to
[[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]])
→
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)Respectfully, Anomalocaris ( talk) 09:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, SandyGeorgia. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Saturnalia | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free and you not often get distracted by dice-playing. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC) |
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 17:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018! |
Hello SandyGeorgia, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and best wishes in all things! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)