User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch100

Leopoldo López

Greetings SandyGeorgia,

I recently noticed an egregious BLP violation on the Czech page of Leopoldo López found here. The content violates Wikipedia's BLP policy and the source they are using is far from reliable. I tried fixing it but I was quickly reverted. Do you think you could help me out in trying to remove this information? I noticed you contributed significantly to Leopoldo Lopez's English page so I decided to come to you for help. Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.226.94 (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia! I just wanted to follow up and see if you had the time to take a look at the Czech page on Leopoldo López found here. Thanks, I hope to hear from you soon. 66.215.147.124 (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

JSTOR Survey (and an update)

Hi! Just a quick update that while JSTOR and The Wikipedia Library discuss expanding the partnership, they've gone ahead and extended the pilot access again, until May 31st. Thanks, JSTOR!

It would be really helpful for growing the program if you would fill out this short survey about your usage and experience with JSTOR:

SURVEY

Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail. :)

Hello, SandyGeorgia. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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.

--Mssemantics (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Ping

Sandy, I've emailed you. Tony (talk) 06:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Tony1; I recommend Colin, Jbmurray, Mike Christie or Moni3. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Derwick Associates

Hi! I've looked through the talk page of this article and find you seem to be one of the few erudite, experienced wikipedians that have edited. The page is undergoing a massive edit war. I have made significant contributions to the page and added a lot to the talk discussion in the last week, with warnings. The page is beset by sock puppets and PR folks. This company, which is only notable in RSs because of the accusations leveled against it, is wanting to be turned by some single purpose users into some kind of PR puffery page. They even tried to add 8,000 characters lifted from the company's website. Any help or moderation would be greatly appreciated. Please read the parts in talk about the findings of Reporters Without Borders. It's frightening27.122.12.79 (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation join the new Physiology Wikiproject!

Physiology gives us an understanding of how and why things in the field of medicine happen. Together, let us jumpstart the project and get it going. Our energy is all it needs.

Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles relating to the field of physiology, the new WikiProject Physiology has been created. WikiProject Physiology is still in its infancy and needs your help. On behalf of a group of editors striving to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to come on board and participate in the betterment of physiology related articles. Help us to jumpstart this WikiProject.

• Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
• You can tag the talk pages of relevant articles with {{WikiProject Physiology|class=|importance=}} with your assessment of the article class and importance alongwith. Please note that WP:Physiology, WP:Physio, WP:Phy can be used interchangeably.
• You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing physiology articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
• We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
• Why not try and strive to create a good article! Physiology related articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!
• Your contributions to the WikiProject page, related categories and templates is also welcome.
• To invite other editors to this WikiProject, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • {{subst:WP Physiology–invite}} ~~~~
• To welcome editors of physiology articles, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • {{subst:WP Physiology–welcome}} ~~~~
• You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.

Hoping for your cooperation! Diptanshu^Talk 12:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Bolivarian propaganda article deletion #2

Hello again! I just wanted to thank you for your help on the Venezuelan pages again. However, the Bolivarian propaganda article is up for deletion again after your large contributions have been made to it. I had just recently discovered the article when it was put up for deletion after my edits. 10 edits before my first on the article, you and other users made substantial changes to the article. I just wanted to know your opinion on the 2nd request for deletion. Since I have just discovered the article, I plan to make substantial changes as well. Once again, thanks for your help on other Venezuelan articles and keeping A LOT of us in line.--Zfigueroa (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

"Bolivarian propaganda" - Move

The article is up to be moved by Zozs. Please discuss what you think at Talk:Bolivarian propaganda#Move.--Zfigueroa (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

hey Sandy...

...just want to say "hi" from the past. good to know you're still around and they haven't driven you away for being objective and neutral. bestest r b-j talk 02:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.182.44 (talk)

Obvious agenda at work

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Denise_Donnelly There is an obvious agenda at work to remove all mentioning of involuntary celibacy from Wikipedia. Same people who were behind the deletion of merged content are behind this again. It's amazing some of you more rational members don't see what is going on. Can anything be done about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrey Rublyov (talk • contribs) 12:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Economic policy of the Nicolás Maduro government

I was wondering if you could check out the Economic policy of the Nicolás Maduro government article and make any needed changes to it. I just know you are very neutral editor and it is definitely needed for this article. Yo have also fixed a lot of stuff and you always do a good job at it too. Go ahead and add more since it is pretty bare as of now.--Zfigueroa (talk) 10:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change to Consensus for a unified approach to bias categories at Category:Antisemitism

Due to your involvement in the 2011 CFD that decided on a unified approach to bias categories, you may be interested in a current proposal to change that approach with regard to the Category:Antisemitism. Dlv999 (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Any new developments in the medical disclaimer initiative?

Hi Sandy, I was just curious, have there been any new developments in the attempt to get a disclaimer for medical Wikipedia articles? --Holdek (talk) 03:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Holdek, I saw your note here. I haven't seen any progress or even any serious discussion on this point in months. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the letting me know, WhatamIdoing. I may start an RFC related to this effort. --Holdek (talk) 06:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I got this note from Sandy a little while back. What do you think is the best approach to the RfC, Holdek? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:34, 24 July 2014‎ (UTC)

Hi Anthonyhcole.

My proposal would be more limited than the one Sandy made a couple of months ago. Instead of requesting comment on multiple specially-designed templates for medical articles from among which people would comment and give their opinions on (and which contributed to the previous RFC to ballooning into something unmanageable), I would instead propose that the notice "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," be located above all articles (or at least medical ones), since that's what appears on the Main Page anyway, or to have the link to the Medical disclaimer, which is currently located in tiny font below every article, moved to the top of the articles so that people are aware of it before reading the article (and make it at least normal-sized text).

Anyways these are my thoughts at the moment. I don't want to propose anything too radical so that the whole idea doesn't get too mired down with objections, and these are just moving important information that Wikipedia wants its readers to know anyway to more prominent places.

Please let me know the best place to continue this conversation (maybe here?). --Holdek (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I was a big supporter of the disclaimer in Sandy's RfC. Today I'm less sure, though. The turning point for me was this paper, which is the most rigorous study of the accuracy of medical content in WP I'm aware of. The authors found that Wikipedia was the most accurate among 11 sources examined in each of two subject areas, ahead of Britannica, WebMD, the NIMH website, Mayo Clinic, even a major psychiatry textbook. Admittedly the scope of that study was small, yet the authors wrote, "These findings largely parallel those of other recent studies of the quality of health information on Wikipedia", and cited eight other studies. In light of this kind of objective evidence of WP's quality, how can we justify a message that would encourage readers to look elsewhere?

It's weird, though. As a Wikipedian, my subjective experience of this place is that it's cruddy, and I wonder why anyone uses it. Yet both the scientific literature, and the opinions of my fellow academics, are consistently more positive than I'd expect. I think it's because we're the sausage makers. The errors we find stick in our minds; discussion boards draw our attention to WP's worst articles; we're exposed to all sorts of behind-the-scenes drama, most of which does not directly reduce article quality. We're probably also more likely to read articles about WP in the popular press, which I'm pretty sure are strongly biased toward reporting negative findings about WP. Collectively, these forces focus our attention on Wikipedia's weaknesses, distorting our perceptions of it's overall quality. Which is kind of a good thing, really – if there's one group of people you'd want to have focusing on WP's weaknesses, it's Wikipedians. But it means it takes considerable effort for us to step back, hit Random article a few times, and notice just how good most of our articles actually are. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 15:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback.

The study that you cited was limited to information about depression and schizophrenia. While it is encouraging, a more recent study on "entries in the areas of health, nutrition, medicine, and complementary and alternative medicine" states, "These findings together with those from other studies indicate that the information provided by Wikipedia is mostly of high quality but that significant errors and omissions are fairly common." While it appears that articles are improving, it's the second part of that sentence that is still problematic. And, there are several links to problems posted on Sandy's user page, as well as more here and here.

I personally do not believe that we should have a message necessarily encouraging readers to look elsewhere, only a message that reflects the fact that the vast majority of pages on Wikipedia at any given time can contain material written by anyone without being checked for accuracy first. I think it's the appropriate amount of disclosure, and as our reliability is founded on the reliable sources cited in our articles I'd prefer our readers to read Wikipedia as a general introduction to medical topics but then if necessary to pursue the actual references to be sure about things related to life-or death issues. Holdek (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Link to the earlier RfC: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/RFC on medical disclaimer

There have been many individual studies of the reliability of our health-related content.

Extended content

Taylor-Mendes C (2007). "Proceed with caution: using Wikipedia as a reference". Neonatal Netw. 26 (3): 140–1. PMID 17521060. Mühlhauser I, Oser F (2008). "[Does WIKIPEDIA provide evidence-based health care information? A content analysis]". Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes (in German). 102 (7): 441–8. PMID 19209572. Johnson PT, Chen JK, Eng J, Makary MA, Fishman EK (2008). "A comparison of world wide web resources for identifying medical information". Acad Radiol. 15 (9): 1165–72. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2008.02.010. PMID 18692758. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Lacovara JE (2008). "When searching for the evidence, stop using Wikipedia!". Medsurg Nurs. 17 (3): 153. PMID 18686418. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Williams N, Mughal S, Blair M (2008). "'Is my child developing normally?': a critical review of web-based resources for parents". Dev Med Child Neurol. 50 (12): 893–7. PMID 19160461. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Clauson KA, Polen HH, Boulos MN, Dzenowagis JH (2008). "Accuracy and completeness of drug information in Wikipedia". AMIA Annu Symp Proc: 912. PMID 18998977.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Clauson KA, Polen HH, Boulos MN, Dzenowagis JH (2008). "Scope, completeness, and accuracy of drug information in Wikipedia". Ann Pharmacother. 42 (12): 1814–21. doi:10.1345/aph.1L474. PMID 19017825. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Stillman-Lowe C (2008). "Wikipedia comes second". Br Dent J. 205 (10): 525. doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.2008.994. PMID 19023293. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Pender MP, Lasserre K, Kruesi L, Del Mar C, Anuradha S (2008). "Putting Wikipedia to the Test: A Case Study". Conference abstract.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Wolff A (2009). "[Letter on the article "Is medical and health information available from Wikipedia on the Internet evidence based?--a content analysis" published online 2008.06.09]". Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes (in German). 103 (1): 34. PMID 19374286. Fiore F (2009). "[Medications in Wikipedia. Comparison of reliability]". Perspect Infirm (in French). 6 (5): 11. PMID 20120299. Pender MP, Lasserre KE, Del Mar C, Kruesi L, Anuradha S (2009). "Is Wikipedia unsuitable as a clinical information resource for medical students?". Med Teach. 31 (12): 1095–6. PMID 20050104. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Laurent MR, Vickers TJ (2009). "Seeking health information online: does Wikipedia matter?". J Am Med Inform Assoc. 16 (4): 471–9. doi:10.1197/jamia.M3059. PMC 2705249. PMID 19390105. Kitchen R (2009). "Not an authority (Comment on: Wikipedia use)". Br Dent J. 206 (5): 241. doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.2009.180. PMID 19287406. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Shawkat E (2009). "Wikipedia use (Comment on: Wikipedia comes second)". Br Dent J. 206 (3): 117. doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.2009.68. PMID 19218928. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Wolff A (2009). "[Letter on the article "Is medical and health information available from Wikipedia on the Internet evidence based?--a content analysis" published online 2008.06.09]". Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes (in German). 103 (1): 34. PMID 19374286. Younger P (2010). "Using wikis as an online health information resource". Nurs Stand. 24 (36): 49–56, quiz 58. doi:10.7748/ns2010.05.24.36.49.c7772. PMID 20527486. Friedlin J, McDonald CJ (2010). "An evaluation of medical knowledge contained in Wikipedia and its use in the LOINC database". J Am Med Inform Assoc. 17 (3): 283–7. doi:10.1136/jamia.2009.001180. PMC 2974620. PMID 20442145. Wood A, Struthers K (2010). "Pathology education, Wikipedia and the Net generation". Med Teach. 32 (7): 618. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2010.497719. PMID 20653388. Leithner A, Maurer-Ertl W, Glehr M, Friesenbichler J, Leithner K, Windhager R (2010). "Wikipedia and osteosarcoma: a trustworthy patients' information?". J Am Med Inform Assoc. 17 (4): 373–4. doi:10.1136/jamia.2010.004507. PMC 2995655. PMID 20595302.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Rajagopalan MS, Khanna VK, Leiter Y; et al. (2011). "Patient-oriented cancer information on the internet: a comparison of wikipedia and a professionally maintained database". J Oncol Pract. 7 (5): 319–23. doi:10.1200/JOP.2010.000209. PMC 3170066. PMID 22211130. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Metcalfe D, Powell J (2011). "Should doctors spurn Wikipedia?". J R Soc Med. 104 (12): 488–9. doi:10.1258/jrsm.2011.110227. PMID 22179287. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Haigh CA (2011). "Wikipedia as an evidence source for nursing and healthcare students". Nurse Educ Today. 31 (2): 135–9. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2010.05.004. PMID 20646799. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) "Reliability of Wikipedia as a medication information source for pharmacy students". Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning. 3 (2): 154–8. 2011. Haigh CA (2011). "Wikipedia as an evidence source for nursing and healthcare students". Nurse Educ Today. 31 (2): 135–9. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2010.05.004. PMID 20646799. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Kupferberg N, Protus BM (2011). "Accuracy and completeness of drug information in Wikipedia: an assessment". J Med Libr Assoc. 99 (4): 310–3. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.99.4.010. PMC 3193353. PMID 22022226. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Rajagopalan MS, Khanna VK, Leiter Y; et al. (2011). "Patient-oriented cancer information on the internet: a comparison of wikipedia and a professionally maintained database". J Oncol Pract. 7 (5): 319–23. doi:10.1200/JOP.2010.000209. PMC 3170066. PMID 22211130. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Ozdoba C (2011). "Wikipedia: A good address for neuroradiologists?". Clin Neuroradiol. 21 (3): 181–2. doi:10.1007/s00062-011-0098-x. PMID 21853303. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Reavley NJ, Mackinnon AJ, Morgan AJ; et al. (2012). "Quality of information sources about mental disorders: a comparison of Wikipedia with centrally controlled web and printed sources". Psychol Med. 42 (8): 1753–62. doi:10.1017/S003329171100287X. PMID 22166182. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Wicks P, Bell V (2012). "Letter to the editor: quality of mental health information on Wikipedia". Psychol Med. 42 (4): 891. doi:10.1017/S0033291712000086. PMID 22313634. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Natarajan A, Racherla S (2012). "Wikipedia: encyclopaedia cardiologica". J R Soc Med. 105 (5): 191. doi:10.1258/jrsm.2012.120012. PMID 22637767. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Aldairy T, Laverick S, McIntyre GT (2012). "Orthognathic surgery: is patient information on the Internet valid?". Eur J Orthod. 34 (4): 466–9. doi:10.1093/ejo/cjr046. PMID 21459834. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Pusz MD, Brietzke SE (2012). "How good is Google? The quality of otolaryngology information on the internet". Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 147 (3): 462–5. doi:10.1177/0194599812447733. PMID 22597577. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Volsky PG, Baldassari CM, Mushti S, Derkay CS (2012). "Quality of Internet information in pediatric otolaryngology: a comparison of three most referenced websites". Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol. 76 (9): 1312–6. doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2012.05.026. PMID 22770592. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Thomas GR, Eng L, de Wolff JF, Grover SC (2013). "An evaluation of Wikipedia as a resource for patient education in nephrology". Semin Dial. 26 (2): 159–63. doi:10.1111/sdi.12059. PMID 23432369.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Edwards KL, Salvo MC, Ward KE; et al. (2014). "Assessment and revision of clinical pharmacy practice internet web sites". Ann Pharmacother. 48 (2): 258–67. doi:10.1177/1060028013510899. PMID 24259640. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Archambault PM, van de Belt TH, Grajales FJ; et al. (2013). "Wikis and collaborative writing applications in health care: a scoping review". J. Med. Internet Res. 15 (10): e210. doi:10.2196/jmir.2787. PMC 3929050. PMID 24103318. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) Archambault PM, van de Belt TH, Grajales Iii FJ; et al. (2012). "Wikis and collaborative writing applications in health care: a scoping review protocol". JMIR Res Protoc. 1 (1): e1. doi:10.2196/resprot.1993. PMC 3626140. PMID 23612481. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) Dunne SS, Cummins NM, Hannigan A, Shannon B, Dunne C, Cullen W (2013). "Generic medicines: an evaluation of the accuracy and accessibility of information available on the Internet". BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 13: 115. doi:10.1186/1472-6947-13-115. PMC 3851567. PMID 24099099.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) Schmidt T (2013). "Informal education of medical doctors on the Internet". Stud Health Technol Inform. 190: 92–4. PMID 23823386. Burgos C, Bot A, Ring D (2012). "Evaluating the effectiveness of a wiki internet site for medical topics". J Hand Microsurg. 4 (1): 21–4. doi:10.1007/s12593-012-0064-0. PMC 3371116. PMID 23730084. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Azer SA (2014). "Evaluation of gastroenterology and hepatology articles on Wikipedia: are they suitable as learning resources for medical students?". Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 26 (2): 155–63. doi:10.1097/MEG.0000000000000003. PMID 24276492. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Fahy E, Hardikar R, Fox A, Mackay S (2014). "Quality of patient health information on the Internet: reviewing a complex and evolving landscape". Australas Med J. 7 (1): 24–8. doi:10.4066/AMJ.2014.1900. PMC 3920473. PMID 24567763.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Hasty RT, Garbalosa RC, Barbato VA; et al. (2014). "Wikipedia vs Peer-Reviewed Medical Literature for Information About the 10 Most Costly Medical Conditions". J Am Osteopath Assoc. 114 (5): 368–73. doi:10.7556/jaoa.2014.035. PMID 24778001. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Some have been well-designed and -conducted, others not so much. What's missing is a critical, systematic review of those studies collapsed above by a recognised expert in study design, to give us a useful overview of the current research. My feeling, after having looked at all and read most of those studies, is that nothing can be said with any confidence about the reliability of our medical offering, other than that it is imperfect - something that can be said about most online sources. Once the serious systematic review has been conducted, assuming it finds what I expect it will, we'll then need a very large, well-designed and -conducted study. Meanwhile, I think we should acknowledge that - using the same ontology we demand for any fact-claims in this encyclopedia - there is nothing we can reliably say about the reliability of our health-related content.

I agree that we should word the disclaimer so as not to drive readers away to other resources that may be just as poor (amazingly, there appears to be no good research into the reliability of all the major online health offerings). I would hope we can come up with wording that just gives readers due warning. What's "due" is something to discuss. (I like both of Holdek's suggestions - a link to the medical disclaimer at the top of each medical article and the implicit warning "Welcome to Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit" at the top.)

I think Sandy's page is as good a place as any for the initial discussion. It's watched by most active medical editors, as well as a great many GA and FA writers - the kind of crowd whose input would be most important at this early stage.

WMF Board members Jimmy and SJ both support a more prominent disclaimer, I think, and I'd appreciate their input at this stage, as well as the thoughts of the other board members - especially the other community representatives, Phoebe and Raystorm, if they have any thoughts on the prominence of our medical disclaimer. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, all ... I just saw all of this, but I'm not going to have enough free time to respond until Monday (28th) ... shortcut to what will be a long response is that a disclaimer is still unlikely to happen on a website where consensus is determined and affected by the uninformed, whose input is weighed the same as those familiar with the issues, so ... we still desperately need a BLP-type policy allowing us to shoot poorly sourced, unsourced, or inaccurate medical info on sight. We should care as much about medical misinfo as we do about BLP misinfo. (Look at the rest of my talkpage for the eggshell membrane garbage we recently ran on the mainpage ... one author, two primary sources, junk promoted by two studies from one author ... got through DYK ... and Wikipedia has been a rather shameless force in the promotion of medical cannabis.) When I have time, I'll read the info posted above, but I am MOST surprised that any study could find our articles on depression and schizophrenia valuable, yikes, that is just scary. A BLP-style policy would go a long ways towards protecting our readers from medical misinfo. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Wholehearted agreement, and maybe the LLP (Lives of Living People) approach might be the most effective tactic to take. This isn't really my field, but let me know if you think I can help. John Carter (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I was actually thinking about a BLP policy for medical info as well. But I think that it might run into more resistance than the two disclaimer ideas I posted above, since it involves a wholesale policy change. But I would support it personally. Holdek (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I think a modest proposal, along the lines of Holdek's, above (link to medical disclaimer and "anyone can edit this article" at the top), has a good chance of passing. It would have a better chance if the WMF board were to come out early in support. As for elevating WP:MEDRS - or its essence - to policy like WP:BLP, I'd be very interested to hear the board's thoughts on that. My fear is that we will have to wait for a confirmed overdose or death before they even comment on that proposal. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@Anthonyhcole: Have you run an RFC before? --Holdek (talk) 05:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Nothing like this. I initiated an open-ended discussion on categorisation of people once, which wasn't aiming for any consensus - just an airing of ideas. I'm travelling for the next few days but would be keen to collaborate with you and anyone else on drafting something once my feet touch the ground. Feel free to propose a draft here and get the discussion happening now, though, if you like. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I've never run one before. I'd like to collaborate with you on drafting one. I may also post a notice to the Medicine WikiProject to see if they have any opinions on the ideas posted here so far. As summary, the main proposals seem to be:

1. Move the disclaimers from the bottom to the top of articles, and increase the font to a normal size
2. Add the "Welcome...anyone can edit," notice to all pages, not just the main page
3. Extending the BLP policy of deleting poorly-sourced, contentious content to medical articles

Some sort of combination of the above

I'll start writing a rough draft for proposal 1, my preferred one so far, and just let me know when you're back, or if I finish before then I'll just post it here. Holdek (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Small update: I've left a message at the Medicine WikiProject asking them to weigh in. --Holdek (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

First of all here is a systematic review looking at the quality of Wikipedia from 2014 [1]

Second Wikipedia is currently better than much of what is currently out their that contains "warnings" no more prominent than ours. I am of the opinion that it is a much better use of everyone times to try to "fix" Wikipedia than to try to convince people to use something else. We have an entire popular press that continually repeats how bad Wikipedia is. They can and have educated the world on this point and the world does not seem to care. Thus I shall try to continue to improve the medical content where people are reading it.

With respect to telling people to use the better sources out there. Exactly what are these better sources? WebMD is covered in advertising which is not good for peoples health. One of the reasons the US has such poor health outcomes IMO. ADAM hosted by the NIH is not particularly good (I could say more but will not in a public forum). Uptodate costs nearly $500 per account per year and is slow to Update. When I brought to their attention that they were still recommending activated protein C for sepsis a month after the Cochrane review found it worsened outcomes and Wikipedia was accurate they blew me off. Uptodate did not correct their article until the company and FDA pulled it more than six months after concerns were found.

The discuss about containing a more prominent warning has unfortunately has split medical editors.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Doc James, thanks for weighing in. As I wrote above, "I personally do not believe that we should have a message necessarily encouraging readers to look elsewhere, only a message that reflects the fact that the vast majority of pages on Wikipedia at any given time can contain material written by anyone without being checked for accuracy first. I think it's the appropriate amount of disclosure, and as our reliability is founded on the reliable sources cited in our articles I'd prefer our readers to read Wikipedia as a general introduction to medical topics but then if necessary to pursue the actual references to be sure about things related to life-or death issues." Holdek (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/eggshell membrane

SandyGeorgia, can I ask you to take a look at this DYK and its eggshell membrane associated article? There are medical claims being made here, and I'd like someone who knows what they're doing taking a look at both. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Please fill out your JSTOR email

As one of the original 100 JSTOR account recipients, please fill out the very short email form you received just recently in order to renew your access. Even though you signed up before with WMF, we need you to sign up again with The Wikipedia Library for privacy reasons and because your prior access expired on July 15th. We do not have your email addresses now; we just used the Special:EmailUser feature, so if you didn't receive an email just contact me directly at jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks, and we're working as quickly as possible to get you your new access! Jake (Ocaasi) 19:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:JSTOR access

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior or User:Ocaasi sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.

YGM

I sent you an email. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

What belongs?

Hello again SandyGeorgia! First, I would like to state that I am not attempting to canvass in any way and that I am just trying to find out what belongs on the Bolivarian propaganda article. If you take a look at its talk page, you can see what is going on. I just know that you're one of the most neutral users I know and you have put in a lot of time to the article trying to improve it. Thanks!--ZiaLater (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Charlotte's Web (cannabis)

Hi Sandy. I noticed your deletion, and your edit summary:

• "Removed continued use of overquoting of emotionally laden material which creates POV, still plenty of same, sample only."

May I ask which policy justifies this deletion? Also, which other "plenty of same" are you referring to? I'd like to take a look at them and evaluate their status and framing. As you are aware, I seek to stick to properly sourced content, including opinions (very few), and have stayed away from including huge amounts of promotional and emotional potential content found in RS. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Have a look at edit summaries going back to your creation of the article; you will see that overquoting (particularly of emotionally laden or one-sided POV) has been an long-standing problem in that article ... do a search on my edit summaries. Then have a look at WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:LONGQUOTE. Quotes have been chosen in that article since its creation that present an emotional, rather than encyclopedic, tone. That is, the article has long had a problem of furthering POV with the overuse of emotionally laden quotes, specifically those related to laypersons or parents who have an impartial view of the value of the substance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah! I thought you were referring to existing content. I have usually agreed with your deletions of some of the previous quotes, but I'm not so sure this time. I don't think you should be the sole voice in this matter. WP:IMPARTIAL doesn't apply, since this is not a description of a dispute, improperly using Wikipedia's voice in a partial tone. We're documenting a governor's opinion, not "creating a POV", and that's what we do all the time. We are obligated to convey the POV found in the sources, and most RS which discuss CW are unequivocally favorable. So far you have succeeded in deleting many such mentions.

There is no question it's Scott's opinion, not Wikipedia's opinion. Besides, it's one relatively short quote in an article with very few such quotes. Most of the quotes we have are very balanced and even tend to downplay and dis CW and pot as a treatment. I fear your zeal is going a bit too far this time. Wikipedia editors must stay neutral, but their sources don't have to be neutral. The sources can go either way, and that's what the sources in this article do. Some are positive, while others are cautious and even negative. I don't see any policy-based reason for deleting this one quote explaining Governor Scott's motivation for signing the bill. It's a rather notable opinion which has no bearing on the scientific aspects of the matter. Those aspects get their due weight in abundance. I have no intention of including every governor's opinions, but since many sources singled out this quote, I felt it deserved mention. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Sandy, did you mean "specifically those related to laypersons or parents who may not have an impartial view of the value of the substance"? It doesn't seem to read right the other way. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Gold but old

Sandy, what is the recommended practice for including solid but a bit dated (ca 2001) systematic reviews in wikipedia articles, when there is no newer (even close to equally good) reference available? Is the practice to simply exclude the reference; or to provide it but with the year of review prominently mentioned in main-text (the option I chose); or, .... This concerns this specific edit of mine. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The diff is confusing, so FYI the specific text added was A 2001 systematic review of Ayurvedic treatment of diabetes concluded that some of the herbal formulas merited further study, while noting the heterogeneity in the Ayurvedic treatment regimens and the significant methodological shortcomings of the reviewed studies. and the citation was to this AHRQ report. Abecedare (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your observations about student editing. After looking at a few hundred student sandboxes in the last couple weeks, I was thinking about incorporating student edits, and you've helped crystallised those thoughts. Hopefully I'll be able to do something useful with that. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Treatment with liothyronine

Hi Sandy,

I wrote about the liothyronine treatment issue on the talk section of the hypothyroidism page. My addition was a reference to the European Thyroid Association guidelines on the topic, which surprisingly were not commented at all. As you can see there, my text it's almost a copy of one of the guidelines recommendations, so I hope there is no problem in adding it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badxellos (talk • contribs) 22:56, November 25, 2014‎ UTC

PANDAS

Hello, the increasing large community of PANDAS parents and medical providers is not in agreement with your choice of words like "hypothetical" and "theorized". We already do and will continue to take action to get current, research based information about PANDAS to the general public without the incorrect ambiguity that you state about the disease. Please see this article and many others that show no ambiguity: http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/cap.2014.0084 What do you have against medical truthfulness and PANDAS? This seems petty and malicious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandasisreal (talk • contribs) 15:26, November 22, 2014 UTC

Question

Sandy,

Do you get paid for monitoring that PANDAS page on Wikipedia? Just curious. You describe Wikipedia as "tearing itself apart". I describe Wikipedia's representation of PANDAS as "tearing families apart". It's irresponsible and downright criminal to post such one sided information that hurt these children. There are many parents of children with this syndrome who are so desperate to get medical attention while others simply adjust web pages. When a mother is trying to prevent her child from jumping out of a moving vehicle at 60 miles an hour just to arrive at a hospital where she learns "this diagnosis is controversial" there is a problem.

Clearly I know not to use Wikipedia as a resource. Anyone with any level of education knows this. However, many therapists do just that. I agree that the researchers do not yet know what causes PANDAS. Please tell me how I can change this article without having it reverted back to its original content. I can quote research articles all day long. In addition, my comments are absolutely verifiable. Why are they being removed? Why do you get to decide if my content is removed? I am very qualified to speak to this issue. I am an expert in my field. I am also an expert with regards to the desperation of this syndrome. What is the motive in keeping information from the public that could help save just one child? My child is better. He will be on antibiotic (antiviral) therapy for another 9 months at least. He was jailed, locked up in a psych hospital all because of the "controversy". I will not sit by and allow that to happen to other innocent victims of one sided posting.

Respectfully, Elizabeth Harris La Bella e Famosa, CEO CelluSleek, CEO Alleia Skin, CEO Spa Group America, CEO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.48.137 (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

See also contribs from Betty Jeanne Harris, and La Bella e Famosa. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep up the good work!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your great work on articles and in discussions. You are an example to us all. Please keep up the good work. John (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, John; most kind of you and the encouragement is appreciated. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Duck hunting

The WikiProject Medicine QuackStar

Quack!

Quack!

Your exceptional duck-hunting efforts on Wikipedia have not gone unnoticed; for all your hard work in defending the Wiki from the legions of badly edited quackery, I award you the WikiProject Medicine QuackStar.

Also, good hunting. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 09:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

You did a ton of work on the cannabis articles and preserving FA's over the past few months. So, I wanted to say:

Lol...nice job though. ;) Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 10:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Top medical editors

		The Medicine Barnstar
		You were one of the top 10 medical contributors to Wikipedia in 2013. Many thanks for all your hard work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Greetings

Hello. It appears you've finally left the nuthouse. Keep in touch. Gimmetrow 21:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Gimme! Curiously, just today in my personal searches on medical conditions, I happened across another mess of a Wikipedia medical (featured) article, and was just coming over to attempt to do something about it. I miss the good folks (like you :) but not the lack of governance and mob rule! I hope you are well. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Good to see you back. Would love to see AD updated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, I emailed you. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. Gimmetrow 01:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Please support my proposal in Wikipedia talk:Community portal

Currently the portal's section "help out" lacks "Create these articles", "Represent a worldwide view" and "Add historical information", which is odd since there are still plenty of notable uncreated articles, e.g. smokers' rights and Joseph Charles Aub, plenty of articles with geographic imbalances and plenty of articles lacking sufficient historical information, and the issues are no less serious than the fact that there are still many articles requiring update. So please go to that page and support my proposal to add "Create these articles", "Represent a worldwide view" and "Add historical information" to the section "help out".--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

creditability

If I provide you with scanned copies of my medical history, would it be creditable then? lostthespot.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ James William Fletcher (talk • contribs) 19:53, November 22, 2014 UTC

Responded at User talk:James William Fletcher. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia genealogy project

Just wondering if you have any thoughts re: the idea of WMF hosting a genealogy project. If so, feel free to contribute to this discussion. And apologies if I have made this request before. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

"Get concurrent at MEDMOS please, that's enough of IPs representing outside groups unilaterally changing WIkipedia guidelines"

Are you going to withdraw/apologise for this crap?? At any rate, you are barking up the wrong tree, so please stop. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Altering an article against guidelines, and then going and trying to change the guideline to match what one wants is not good practice under any circumstance: doing it while an article is at FAC is even worse, since FAs need to a) meet guidelines, and b) be stable. And no, I don't believe I'm barking up the wrong tree. We are seeing more and more outside groups determining special-interest agendas throughout Wikipedia, including medicine. The move that just happened above smells like ... entitlement in action. Make a change that goes against a years-old guideline while an article is at FAC, while asking for the guideline to change. Backwards, and not the best way to proceed with a FAC. I understand this is upsetting for you as you are working with a group on that FAC, but consider how this kind of action (make a change, then propose a guideline change to match your wish) would be viewed for any other article or circumstance. If it were not your FAC, or editors you work with, I would be surprised to find you supporting that kind of editing. If the article is not yet stable according to current Wikipedia guidelines, it might have been better to go through GA and get these things sorted first. (I am still meaning to help you clean up citations and do a complete review, as soon as I can catch up with several other things.) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

What I'm objecting to is the clear and repeated suggestion ("representing" etc) that those edits were anything other than a volunteer editor pursuing a personal idea. They weren't. The article has had an unusually long PR, & edits had died down until I launched the FAC, since when the fire has burst back into life, if at a lower rate. Perhaps it's dying down again. In my (limited) personal experience, a GAN has never fixed anything. But of course thanks for taking an interest in it, & It's great to see you back in the medical area. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Yes, I'm sorry for that impression. I took a few months off and came back to find multiple things going on at WT:MED that seem to reflect "diseases" while overlooking the kinds of "conditions" I tend to edit. If I'm not around to speak up, do I become complete chopped liver (never mind, don't answer, rhetorical :)

I woke up today determined to get over there to review, and have spent several hours just catching up on IP edits here on my talk. I am thinking, John, that I will wait until all the docs have been through, since then my layperson check for jargon can be more effective, and I can clean up citations as well. Also, since I have off-Wiki commitments today and tomorrow, I'll probably get over there over the weekend. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, great. It has been the year of Ebola, Dengue fever and cancer, among some other things, at the Med project. If the FAC concludes this year, I'll be surprised and gratified. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Endometrial cancer/archive1, (which was supported by a CRUK review, but entirely the nom's idea, btw) took almost 2 months in Sept/Oct, though with some delays in the nom's responses. These days many FACs take longer, usually because of fewer reviewers. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 13:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not pleased at several FAs with medical content that have gotten through FAC in its current state, but if I'm not around to oppose, I guess I can't complain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Fwiw, I hadn't spotted this section when I made my posts below. I'd just like to take the opportunity to say to John that I obviously had no intention of disrupting the FAC process. I also have no wish to be conflictual. I would just ask Sandy to address the actual merits of the question in this particular article at FAC. 86.164.164.29 (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

"...by IPs no less"

Hello, Sandy :) So what? I really think you should be addressing the content, not the individual. Fyi, I prefer to edit as a logged-out user. Regards, as always, 86.164.164.29 (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Also fyi, I raised the point at PR, several weeks ago on 23rd November, and it was then (not now!) that I made the suggestion at WT:MEDMOS. I have been editing scientific medical papers most of my life, and I seriously do not think that "Classification" is a particularly helpful heading for a section of an article on a clinical topic that does not actually address clinical classification as such. 86.164.164.29 (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I feel the need to add that I did not change the guideline, only made what I felt was a constructive suggestion that came out of the "Pancreatic cancer" PR.

I'm somewhat shocked to see how much malcontent this gf suggestion seems to have caused... but then again, I'm really no longer surprised by these inadvertent conflicts (talk pages / internet forums seem to be accidents waiting to happen). Avoiding personal involvement in such situations is one of the main reasons I actively choose to edit as a logged-out ip - a choice that fully complies with WP regulations. It's either that or losing this contributor. 86.164.164.29 (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Request a response on this

I think I have made it clear [2] that I consider the personal allegations you have made about my contributions to be serious enough to require some form of retraction (eg by striking them). Fwiw, I would prefer to get these personal issues sorted before perhaps seeking clarification on the more general issue you raised about whether it is appropriate for a logged-out user to provide gf contributions in WP discussions/processes. 86.164.164.29 (talk) 10:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

What gave you the impression that I do not consider it "appropriate for a logged-out user to provide gf contributions in WP discussions/processes"? The discussion was about editing an article that is currently at FAC in ways that take it out of compliance with MOS guidelines, which could compromise its FAC candidacy on both 1e and 2. I've worked with Johnbod for a very long time, and did not want to see a candidate put up by him edited against guideline, leading to a potentially messy FAC. Thank you for the later clarification of your edits and that you are not a member of the off-en.wiki group working on the article. Whether you are or are not a member of any group promoting an article, and whether you are an IP or a logged in user, is not relevant and the issue is the same: please take care when editing an article at FAC against current guidelines. I see that I have one statement at the MED discussion that implies you are part of one off-Wiki group, which is poor wording that I will correct shortly. But I do not see where you conclude that I consider IP contributions inappropriate (they do make it hard to know who is saying what, since not all IPs are static).

Separately, there have been WP:MED discussions in the past aimed at promoting guidelines of one (different US) off-Wiki group, in addition to the problems in Wikipedia medical articles coming from staff and members of the Education Program, leading to the concern that paid editing is apparently valued more than volunteer time, so I appreciate that you have clarified your part in the edit I reverted. There have been changes to the MED guidelines in the last few months where wording favors "diseases" and neglects "conditions" that don't have underlying disease processes: as a long-time medical editor, I hope you have edited non-disease conditions and understand that concern.

Finally, in discussions I have the habit of referring to editors by name, and don't find it very friendly to refer to a number, and having a name helps me remember who's who. If we cross paths in the future and I fail to recognize that we've "met" already, please pardon the lapse ... the 86s, 22s, 77s etc I've met over the years can be hard to keep straight. If you choose to edit as an IP, then you probably accept that people may not remember having "met" you. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thamks for this. Some more precision in terms would be useful. 86 can be regarded as active in helping Wikipedia:WikiProject CRUK, and I think would agree that he has edited Pancreatic cancer & its FAC (also Esophageal cancer in particular) essentially because these were main targets of that project. Whether that should be described as an "off-Wiki group" (just above), "one outside group" and "one UK Cancer Group" (huh?, both in this diff), or "representing outside groups" (edit summary here) is very doubtful. As has always been transparent from the project page, the medical project talk (during your absence), and elsewhere, the project is about working with the existing medical editors, including "86", to improve content on cancer by various methods. For this, I am employed by Cancer Research UK (CRUK), a large cancer research charity, but this is funded by Wellcome Trust, I think the world's largest medical charity. The project involves using in various ways the considerable expertise CRUK has access to, and this means some direct editing of WP by other CRUK employees, all of whom disclose this on their user pages. But by far the majority of the editing that the project can claim as resulting from it is by regular editors with no such relationship with CRUK, like "86", doing their own thing as they always do. The language you have been using, vague though it is, might easily be taken as implying that you think "86" is someone from Big Pharma marketing. The set of MEDMOS header changes proposed in August came out of a pre-Wikimania event at CRUK in London, see this page, which focused on accessible language, in various ways. When professional writers for the web (and CRUK has these addressing a range of different audiences) look at WP, the inaccessibility of the language is generally the big thing that sticks out for them. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

ah, thanks for all of that clarification, John. I should mention to 86 then that my concerns and frustrations stem much more from the issues being caused by the Education Program, and John you may recall the past discussions with the NIH group, who seemed to have a vested interest as well as a COI in promoting Cochrane above everything else. It seems that every time I take a break and return from editing, there's a new program to come up to speed on, with a lot of that information coming from off-Wiki! And from the list of participants at that session, I can see how conditions that do not have underlying disease processes might have been overlooked. I hope you'll remember those orphans in the future :) So I can see where my statements about 86 could leave the wrong impression, and I'm sorry for that. John, I have not been able to catch up yet on your FAC, and have had several real-life commitments; if you are aware of or come across any other posts I made that need clarification, please point them out to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

"....the NIH group, who seemed to have a vested interest as well as a COI in promoting Cochrane above everything else."
What? You surely know that the NIH and the Cochrane Collaboration are entirely separate organizations. Again, a totally unfounded allegation, though on an entirely different scale. (One of the contributors with the greatest potential we've ever had works at the NLM.)

Shooting from the hip can be really destructive. You're so clearly sincere in all the valuable work you do, Sandy. And that's genuinely respected. But please, please rethink the friendly fire. None of us here wants to kill... [3].
86.164.164.29 (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I surely do. And work from the two overlapped on Wikipedia and in Wiki discussions per this (yes, precision in terms is useful ... we had NIH people pushing views on Cochrane). — SandyGeorgia 00:22, 7 December 2014 — continues after insertion below

Nope, and I certainly didn't see any pov-pushing from her either. (How best to integrate evidence from Cochrane into Med articles is a different matter, imo.) 86.164.164.29 (talk) 13:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you take something useful from the kill article? That is, did you really think it described Wikipedia accurately? — SandyGeorgia 00:22, 7 December 2014 — continues after insertion below

Some key issues spotlighted there, imo. (I'd like to respond on this, perhaps in a separate section, if that's ok with you...) 86.164.164.29 (talk) 13:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

86, I'm sorry for things I said earlier that offended you, and hope I've struck and remedied them wherever they occurred; if your IP is static, it will be easier to carry on a discussion, but as of now, I don't know if your talk page will be "yours" from one day to the next, so if you come across something I failed to remedy, pls ping me here on my talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Sandy. Whether from the perspective of an IP or from that of a registered user, I'd just like to say that there's no need to be known to each other (through talk page discussions or wherever) to AGF. And also that working extensively across med content is not a precondition for providing pertinent editorial observations. 86.164.164.29 (talk) 13:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

86, please don't chop my posts ... personal pet peeve resulting from years of reading lengthy chopped posts at FAC and not being able to sort who said what without stepping back through diffs.

On the "Kill" article, no, I don't want to discuss it here, if you don't mind. It has many shortcomings, IMO, but one cannot discuss those without discussing Awadewit, and speaking ill of the dead is never good manners.

On the "known to each other" aspect, that seems to be the way Wikipedia runs these days-- that is, much more goes on in here that is based on off-Wiki connections than on-Wiki deliberations. That pretty much sums up my overall concerns, and what led to our interaction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not that off-line communication is in a bad thing in itself. Actually I think it can be very useful (as for example in the case of the pre-Wikimania meeting at CRUK). But I do think it's a key issue if ingroups, in one way or another, whether on-wiki or off-wiki, effectively exclude what they perceive as "outgroups" (IPs being just one possible example among many). 86.164.164.29 (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

well ... in other areas of my work, I've been on the receiving end of most unfortunate "ingroupism" that was a direct result of the boys having beers together at Wikimania. In that case, most clearly to the detriment of the website IMNSHO. And even if we look at what happened between you and me, if an unknown IP had edited an article while it was at FAC against guideline, no one would have hesitated to revert. Now, in your case, the ingroupism resulted in a stream of emails to me saying, basically, hang on Sandy, we know that IP. Strange way for things in here to work, would you agree? I'm out of time this morning ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, Sandy, I can honestly say that 1) I knew nothing of any of those emails (...and I was under the impression that I'd encouraged this dialogue myself :-/); and 2) I most certainly wasn't plotting against you or anyone else at Wikimania. I seriously don't want to take up your precious time. But I'm glad we've had this conversation and have settled, I think, the initial incomprehension (ps - whether that particular edit was "against guideline" is a moot point [4]) 86.164.164.29 (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) RE that article (sorry I didn't want to get personal in any way), what I think could be really useful to consider (sometime... someplace...) is the anthropological picture presented here (I've yet to get a copy of the book), together with the psychological motivators represented (by Hydra Rain, I think) in the figure here. 86.164.164.29 (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I also had problems with Hydra Rain's (oversimplified) analysis. That one, we could discuss openly (for example, the notion about the autism and AS articles mentioned here.

I've never yet seen an article discussing Wikipedia that really hits on the severity, depth, breadth or nature of the problems in here. Both articles are oversimplified to the point of misinformation. (There is unlikely to be a sometime, someplace to discuss the "Kill" article for me. I've read many off-wiki discussions of that article, and it's just not possible for me to discuss that article without breaching "never speak ill of the dead". I do not hold Awadewit up as a shining example of good things on Wikipedia.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't quite what I meant, but anyway... :) 86.164.164.29 (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I need to either get or read up on that book to know what you're getting at. 'Spose I should, but I long ago gave up on seeing any helpful discussion of the inner workings of Wikipedia anywhere ... all the authors seem to miss the boat, or be drinking the kook-aid. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Best, 86.164.164.29 (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Postrel article

FWIW, a great deal of what I see in the Postrel article rings true with me. I don't see that Adrienne's contributions are key to its thesis; you could just as easily have substituted Giano's early architecture articles ('07ish?) which I rather vaguely recall as having the same sort of strong, sweeping editorial voice. I'm not convinced the lack of such a voice is a problem–that can be a very destructive style in the hands of lesser mortals, myself included–but I think the bulk of the article stands without it: knowledgeable amateurs find it hard to make substantive contributions because it can take years of marinating in our internal processes full-time to achieve mastery of them. You and I both contribute somewhat sporadically; we don't find this a problem because we've been here for years and are laden with knowledge of the processes that grew up around us, but if I were starting to edit Wikipedia today, I'm not convinced I would *ever* be able to make what substantive contributions I can now manage. I'd just be doing mindless things like tweaking categories and tagging talk pages for projects. But after all the vaporing over Doc James' recent block, my enthusiasm for arguing "lower barriers for good people vs. higher barriers for disruptive people" has dropped to "Thbbft!" (in the immortal words of Bill the Cat). Choess (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

ah, Choess, there is so much to be said about the Postrel article, and I still hesitate to weigh in because I find it hard to say what has to be said without speaking ill of the dead. But I shall give it a try after several more cups of coffee :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Quotes:

1. "... doesn’t degenerate into gibberish and graffiti".

   It does. Routinely. Postrel and the editors interviewed perhaps have not surveyed our extensive and dangerous gibberish in the psych and neuropsych realms, or the extensive POV gibberish and graffiti in the suite of Venezuelan articles. Of course, I might have a different view of Wikipedia if I edited in the relatively safe cookie-cutter realms of ships, hurricanes, or coins. Every time another article spreads the notion that Wikipedia is not gibberish, they are potentially pointing people to and endorsing the seriously bad medical info in here, or seriously POV political info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

2. "Unlike open-source software contributions, working on Wikipedia provides few career advantages."

   Not entirely true. First, let's consider what is going on these days with WMF funding, and the growing number of paid staff (running programs like the Education Program, that are making volunteer editors' work more difficult). Second, anyone who thinks Awadewit's Wikipedia career had no impact on her academic career wasn't paying attention. She's not the only example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

3. "Jensen, a retired history professor, is a credentialed scholar, which makes him unusual among Wikipedia’s editors."

   We frequently see the claim that editors like Jensen are unusual. In terms of sheer numbers, they may be. In terms of who is adding and vetting meaningful content, I doubt it. And, one wonders if Postrel has ever had the unique opportunity to edit with and around Jensen. If s/he had, she might have offered a more detailed analysis of the very issues raised in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

4. "Forced to defend the site’s integrity, incumbent editors become skeptical, even hostile, toward the newcomers who could ensure its future."

   As usual in these articles, cast the "hostility" endemic to Wikipedia as "us vs them", but nowhere in the article is there mention of the much bigger problem in here of "us vs us". Postrel didn't do his/her homework, and on that score, I will say no more (see my comments above). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

5. "... one of the few academics who contribute heavily to the site".

   See 3, superficial.

6. " In his introduction, Jemielniak explains he will “try to solve the puzzle of why Wikipedia’s novel organizational design works; it should not, but it does.”" Followed, ironically, by a discussion of the Five pillars.

   Seriously? Specifically on the five pillars, Wikipedia is a failure. Of the many things Wikipedia is, it is not the five pillars. It is not neutral, it is not based on reliable sources, it is an anarchy, it is not free of advertising and spam, it is ALL ABOUT COPYVIO (and who remembers how Wikipedia drove the SOPA debacle?), shall I go on? Superficial. Another missed journal opportunity for an author to really highlight the problems in here. But we don't do that ... we get reports of deceased Wikipedians in the New York Times because we (WMF) want to promote Gender Gapism, but when medical editors ask, beg, plead for something to be done about the dangerous medical content and student edits affecting same, we get silence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

7. "Contrary to widespread belief, the most controversial pages are often the most substantial and balanced, ... "

   Bologna (see all of the above). And then go read Hugo Chavez. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

8. "Disputes end only when an arrangement acceptable to all participants is reached."

   What does that even mean? Sheesh, certainly not the case. No mention of admin abuse, bad ArbCom decisions, unfortunate bans, abusive blocks, and just how bad it gets in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

9. "These debates and discussions give participants a strong sense of agency and belonging."

   I don't think so; see the posts at the top of my user page. They give participants quite often a sense of despair and a desire to walk away. "Us vs them"? The "us vs us" costs us many good and experienced editors, who have no desire to belong to a club like this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

10. "In reality, Wikipedia functions as a largely closed community, using procedural knowledge and a sort of passive-aggressive resistance to deter outsiders." Followed by long discussion of treatment of "outsiders" and "new editors", but nothing of the internal problems with long-standing or former editors (several of whom he mentions in the article, who I will refrain from naming).

    See all of the above, and I will sit on my fingers on where I've encountered both passive-aggressive and outright aggression from "us vs us". The us vs us problem in here is far worse than the us vs them, where at least we have WP:BITE.

11. "But the us-against-them attitude threatens Wikipedia’s future, as existing editors drift away and aren’t replaced." Followed by Awadewit as an example, and a superficial and incomplete analysis of her participation and legacy.

    Sitting on my fingers. See all of the above.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
@Moni3: @86.164.164.29: @Choess: @Eric Corbett: @Casliber: @MastCell: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. I'd LOVE for someone to have dealt with the POV-pushing on Middle Ages late last year and early this year by immediately blocking the guy. I should have been so lucky. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Based on your user page....

...I think that we are going to be friends. I joined, and have largely stayed involved with the goal of cleaning up medical misinformation on the site. In particular, the fluoroquinolone articles, which were highjacked by a group engaged in litigation against the manufacturers for over 2 years, motivated me to start editing in 2011. Levofloxacin is used for pneumonia, and early treatment is inversely correlated with survival. I sometimes wonder how many people read the pre-2012 version of the levo article, stopped taking their antibiotic, and died as a result.

The psychiatric drug articles have been another area of interest. The prozac article for example, didn't even list 8 of the 9 indications it is approved for until recently. Case reports of rare side effects, on the other hand, were covered in excrutiating detail. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, 98: nice to meet you, but I'm not around much anymore. Two years ago, I thought sustained attention to medical articles might make a difference (see Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive55#FAC delegate resignation). I no longer think that. Good luck here ... what went on in the cannabis suite was just one of the many last straws for me! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes yes, I hear you. I'll limit my response to avoid offending some people here but I think we are very much on the same page. Formerly 98 (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Formerly 98, here's today's example! Have you ever heard of long cough? Has anyone ever heard of long cough? Well, Wikipedia has for at least nine months.[5] Another apparently unwatched pharm article (which by the way, should have ALL of that uncited text removed, as it's been tagged for four long years). Daily example of pharm articles on Wikipedia (which has now been mirrored dozens of times on the internet). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I was reading somewhere lately about how some users (admins?) could see a list of unwatched pages. I wonder how many MED pages there are which are currently unwatched? (and - hi Sandy! good to see you back!) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: It's Special:Unwatchedpages. I believe that only admins can access it, although I haven't tested that presumption. (I'm reminded that I made a campaign promise during my RfA to monitor this list; see Q.1A). The list itself isn't that useful; there are probably well over 10,000 articles on it. As time permits, I could probably whip up a quick script to pull out the intersection of UnwatchedPages && WP:MED-tagged articles, which we could then go through. (I did something similar to identify WP:MED articles which cite the Daily Mail as a source). MastCell ^Talk 18:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

D'oh... having played around with the API a bit, it turns out that Special:Unwatchedpages caps out at 5,000 pages, which isn't even enough to get into the beginning of the alphabet (it's still on the numerals). Apparently this bug has been reported more than 5 years ago but remains unaddressed. So there may not really be any way to address the question. MastCell ^Talk 00:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

There is also a problem with that list excluding pages that are "watched" by editors who haven't logged in for a decade.

Dispenser used to maintain a tool that provided a list of pages watched by active editors (any edit during the last 30 days). There are links and descriptions at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T51506 but some of Dispenser's tools were removed because they were non-free/proprietary, and consequently it may not be possible to build from there. With that approach, you could start with the WPMED list, check the count for active editors at each article, and construct the list of unwatched-in-practice articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: That's an excellent idea! I'll pull the WP:MED articles, check the date of last edit, and flag those that haven't been edited in >n months. (I'd probably set n to 3, but it's arbitrary). Thanks! MastCell ^Talk 16:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• Alexbrn, WhatamIdoing: Here it is, a table listing WP:MED articles which haven't been edited in >3 months. (I didn't debug my script thoroughly, so some of the article titles with special characters are a bit messed up, but they should be easy enough to find). The table is at User:MastCell/Ignored medical articles. MastCell ^Talk 01:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• MastCell that method misses boatloads of unedited medical articles because of edits by bot and editors who run scripts. See, for example, Klazomania (Queen of the obscure topic here ... I was just looking at Klazomania because it was editing from NeuroJoe's students, now mentioned at WT:MED and at ANI,[6] that led to this three months after Klazomania. And now, Zefr and Doc James are again dealing with that course ... five years on, who knows how much copyvio and primary sourcing his students have added, since they edit obscure topics like Klazomania that no one watches, and he doesn't seem to watch them, but cleaning up after them is what made me see how bad the problem was three years ago, and it's only gotten worse! Got home late tonight, so will add to the WT:MED discussion tomorrow. ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

MastCell would it be feasible to ignore minor edits when generating the table, so that bot and script edits won't hide articles that haven't been edited substantively? (btw Non-admins do indeed get a permission error when trying to access Special:UnwatchedPages.) Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 15:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• MastCell - thanks! that list is horrifying - it gives a flavour of the scale of the QA problem we have with medical content. It makes me hanker after a proper query mechanism for WP content, to be able to locate what the most serious problem articles were ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Virtual tinfoil hat applied.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Note: Levoquin is used to treat community acquired pneumonia. Treating early and stopping treatment before the mycobacterium is completely eradicated would lead to death. This could be the reason for the inversely proportionate relationship described above. PCR is the only test that determines the presence of this bacterial parasite. This mycobacterium is most likely the cause for many of the autoimmune diseases, multiple neurological diseases and some types of cancer. It's probably the reason cancer continues to comes back. Chemo may kill the infected cells but won't kill the live bacterial infection still present in the host. Just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.48.137 (talk • contribs) 13:14, December 2, 2014 UTC

Civility issues

Chris troutman's civility issues have been problematic for a long time now. If you intend to pursue the matter, let me know and I'll support you. Viriditas (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I apologize

I shot my mouth off, overreacting to your comments. This semester has been difficult and many student editors have caused me stress. Although I thought about what I typed and considered your intent understood, I've apparently misjudged your statements. Wikipedia is supposed to be about building something and I don't want to harm good-faith contributors like yourself. I retract my foolish comments towards you. In the future, always feel free to let me know about anything going wrong in situations like this. I value your input. When I see stuff on a noticeboard I assume you've given up on letting me handle it myself and are just "putting me on blast", as the kids say. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into the local language

	The Cure Award
	In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

Doc James, Bondegezou and Ocaasi, is this that? There was no date on the post, and I was just archiving my talk and see that I never responded. Of course, any one of my talk page stalkers could have responded, so I'm not sure about the adequacy of that survey methodology.

So, the alarming info in the Op-ed is that of 32 respondents, 6 had high school education or less. Would you consider a percentage that high to really be "reassurance about the reliability of content"? I find it troubling.

I'm also wondering about the conclusion that "three articles (autism, Asperger's syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome) showed a very different pattern with considerable editing by patients and others affected by those conditions". How do we know who has what (anyone can be anything on the internet)? Autism and Asperger's syndrome were almost wholly authored by Eubulides, so I'm not sure what that statement is saying, but then, I don't have access to the full journal report. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No this is prior work. The above barnstar survey is still in publication. Many of those without an educational background are involved with non clinical stuff like categorizing, fixing refs and dealing with vandalism. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Doc James: So, the post above wasn't dated ... should I respond? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The post above was from 6 or 7 months ago. No need to respond now. Data analysis has occurred and been submitted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

and i was so hoping for my 15 minutes of statistical fame ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

As User:Doc James has clarified, that was a different survey to my study with User:Hydra Rain. James's study will be out in due course, but in so far as the two studies overlap, they broadly agree. Studies like these do rely on self-report, but self-report is generally reliable. If we have a mix of editors, the next question is how that mix contributes to the final result. If many of the editors are healthcare professionals, will their input be sufficient to catch any errors introduced by other editors? What sorts of edits are different people making? I concur with James that many editors without a relevant educational background are making useful edits of a gnomic nature.

The bit about 3 articles with significant patient input was from a pilot study that hasn't been properly written up. It also reflects the situation a few years ago rather than those articles now. I offer it as an observation, but it requires more investigation. Again, the article is the product of many different editors, so multiple people may be involved, but the end result still largely reflect the work of just one person. An editor may have a very important role reverting vandalism to an article, yet never contribute any original content themself. But these are challenges for future research.

Thanks for your interest. Bondegezou (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Civic pride for you! (new wiki-love message)

Salumi, including mortadella

Dear Sandy, do please consider visiting the real Bologna – a damn fine city!

While in Bologna, you'll get the chance to enjoy some of the many local delicacies, including genuine mortadella and other salumi, which you might like to wash down with a glass of sparkling pignoletto at the Osteria del Sole. Just don't expect to find any spaghetti bolognese (or other baloney). Though there'll certainly be plenty of good tagliatelle al ragù...

Cheers! 86.164.164.29 (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

goodness me, 86, why would you think I haven't visited Bologna? It's not my favorite Italian city, but nonetheless ... I did live in Italy, 'ya know :) (I'm personally a risotto and carpaccio type.) 86, methinks you're just being nice to me because you can tell I'm about to give up and go away again :) As in, ci vediamo dopo !!!! For general jollies, I've posted below for you one of my most treasured barnstars from one of Wikipedia's finest (now banned) editors; folks in here could learn a lot from our favorite portly gentleman. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

To the First Lady of (April)-Tomfoolery

The Fat Man is pleased to present his favourite taskmistress with this vile, pungent wheel of wriggling Casu marzu in recognition of her heel-nipping, whip-cracking, arm-twisting, irrefutable-offer-making illustriousness. The product of her beneficent tyranny is evidenced here and, like, a zillion other places. Please age this cheese in a cool, damp place (away from direct sunlight) until a suitable occasion arises for its reemergence. Enjoy responsibly.

This made my day, and I totally mean it. Your friend, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well thanks Sandy (I think...). That's actually brought back a series of recollections, including one about something that had to be moved from a cupboard following complaints. As a renowned president of the Bologna football team is said to have opined when interviewed on the radio after a resounding win, SINE QUA NON... 86.164.164.29 (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Notes to students

Thanks or putting that together. As you requested, I posted a note for all the students registered in that class. I'm working on creating a lot of suggestions like these, and dropping notes to students throughout future semesters as they edit. (I plan to steal from what you've written as well...with credit, of course.) It might be worth having some of those things dropped on student talk pages at certain points in their editing career as they reach certain milestones in the class.

Anyway, thanks for all you've done. I know, given the circumstances, that it sounds a little trite, but I still think it's something I need to say. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Pings

Hi Sandy, I don't know what the problem is but your ping to me at WT:FAR didn't reach me... Bencherlite^Talk 18:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Weird ... second time you've reported that. I don't know what to do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Ping doesn't work when you do this[7]. It only works when the edit that adds the ping also adds the signature of the sender. DrKiernan (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thx for letting me know, I tried again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems it didn't work that time either, for Bencherlite. I can't see what the problem is but the rules for notifications are complex - they only seem to operate if you ping the editor just so. Hope you get well soon! DrKiernan (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks DrKiernan. I guess all I can do is ... I dunno! Thanks for the well wishes-- I definitely got the flu, in spite of having gotten the shot. Bummer for my holiday plans :( I will get over to the FAR discussion as soon as I finish dragging my sorry corpse through my watchlist. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

For someone who's got the flu you seem still to do a remarkable amount of editorial work. Do get well soon, Sandy! 109.158.8.201 (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC) ex- 86.164.164.29

Well, I had a gazillion other things I shoulda been doing today, to prep for the holidays, but editing the WP beats staring at the ceiling and sniffling and coughing ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Glad you found good cause to award a barnstar to one of the students (who knows if internal motivation will take over at some stage too...). 109.158.8.201 (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

She really got short-changed on the GAN, but she handled the whole thing well. If she does stick around, it would be grand! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this. With regard to the edit summary, let's just be thankful that there weren't any quick opposes (yet)! DrKiernan (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

AN/I

Hi Sandy. Just to check, is there any obscure Wikipedia rule against me asking you to have another look at an AN/I case you've previously commented on? Because if there is, obviously I won't do so.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. But it seems to me that ANI has died down, so no need to add to it. I think my final say on it was something along the lines of "either you follow controversy, or controversy follows you". Maybe you could enjoy editing some less controversial areas? I'm involved in both medical and Venezuelan articles, and I wouldn't touch either of those two. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've added several diffs today about both Doc James and QuackGuru. Right now Doc is reverting an edit made by an admin yesterday with no attempt to seek consensus or even discuss it at all, while accusing me of edit-warring. Quack's behavior this morning was some of the most incompetent and IDHT I've ever seen, and I'm including myself back when I drank more!--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

<sigh> OK, I'll go have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your help with the MCM article and all others. I'm sorry if I left a mess with the sources or anything like that.--ZiaLater (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem, ZiaLater, thanks for the content additions! I've been needing to do a citation cleanup for quite a while now. Felicidades, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Sympathy

	Feel better soon
	I hope that you feel better soon. I suggest adding a good dollop of honey to this mint tea; there's more evidence for honey soothing a cough than for dextromethorphan doing anything. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, WhatamIdoing; I'm downing equal amounts of honey-flavored tea and dextromethorphan, and getting worse by the day :) If dh catches this from me, our Christmas plans are toast :( Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Education Program

I see you are working with the education program a lot, I suggest you request eponline permissions on the WP:EDUN - this is the Online Ambassador role and can be added by any of the WikiEd people; it lets you see a bit more information on courses, and you would be able to be directly added to specific courses that you wanted to help out with. If you are interested start a new topic on WP:EDUN requesting "Course Online Volunteer" access. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok?

Sandy, I hope you're feeling better (or will be soon).

A query: Are you ok with this? It seemed like a sensible thing to do following your previous edit (though it did mean moving your post too). If you're not comfortable with that, please feel free to revert, and perhaps you can leave me to collapse my small posts.

Best wishes, 109.158.8.201 (talk) 09:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC) (ex-"86")

Hi, 109. I'm not entirely better, and had to cancel my travel plans, but I've decided as of today, to heck with it, I can't stare at the walls any longer, so I'm gettin' on with it today, in spite of the cough. I hope I'm no longer contagious. Thanks for the wishes!

Yes, that move is good for two reasons: 1) less off-topic for the Coords to read through, and 2) templates slow down the load time and cause problems in FAC archives, so I also wanted to removed my hat/hab templated tops. When there get to be too many of those in the FAC archives, they get doublecounted on transcluded files, and then the end of the FAC archives can be chopped.

Happy Holidays to you! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you've had to change you're travel plans, Sandy (if today's weather forecast comes true I may end up doing the same...) Hope the cough eases off soon.

Thank you very much for the explanations (I rather followed suit after you moved stuff over yesterday). Since I'm by no means confident I get it it all, please do feel free to correct any technical blunders I commit, or make any other modifications you feel could help ease the process. I've been doing my best to keep my comments brief and to the point on the FAC page itself, but as you know some editorial considerations have to be nuanced. Adding: I also have concerns about outstanding issues, including unsourced statements etc. I'm trying to look at further ways to help, but that isn't always straightforward. In particular, there seems to be no real consensus at present about the opening paragraphs of ==Diagnosis==, where there are also some sourcing gaps. I'd like to help improve subsection on management of PanNETS, but unfortunately I don't have access to all the cited (good) sources. So, I'm going very much one step at a time (at least until John gets back).

Tanti auguri! E buone feste! 109.158.8.201 (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The FAC has been going three weeks, with no support. (I closed 'em at two if there wasn't some supprot.) I don't get that, whatevs. I don't have time to keep checking back to see if my issues have been addressed, so I'm about ready to unwatch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what's meant by "support". Fwiw, I've been doing my best to help out, though I did feel the need to take a break, and as I indicated above there are limits to what I feel I can do without clear consensus (and full access to certain sources). I think this is the first medical article FAC that John has brought (though not his first successful FA nomination), and there are some different sorts of issues here. (Personally, I tended to feel that it was a bit early in the day, but I realize likely rl considerations likely influenced the timing.) My request to you would be to try to be patient on this one, at least until John gets back. I don't know if JFW – who has been quite supportive [8] – has some more useful suggestions on how to take this forward for now. Best, 109.158.8.201 (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, 109, but I'm feeling really sick again, and in more than a physical sense. Later, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that Sandy. (Certainly no hurry from me.) Best wishes to you, 109.158.8.201 (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

(←) Get well soon Sandy. I hope it won't spoil seasonal celebrations. I would support a few more days in the FAC incubator for the pancreatic cancer article. It is looking pretty good in many ways. JFW | T@lk 20:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I said (to Sandy) at the beginning that I expected it to go well into January, which would not be unusually slow for an FAC with many reviewers, and even more with others just editing the article without giving reviews so far. I won't be able to spend significant time on it until the 27th at the earliest. There have been over 300 edits to the article since the FAC launched, not all that many of them by me. It is great to see the attention the article has had, but it makes it difficult to address issues when the body is moving. I'd come back in the w/c January 5. Happy holidays to all! Wiki CRUK John (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Wiki CRUK John, I gather from 109's posts that you're traveling? Have a wonderful holiday! On the FAC, I 'spose you can understand how odd is it for me to observe (in contrast to the older days of "FAC is not PR") a FAC running for three weeks with no support, and still having uncited text. Uncited text on the first review-- and not corrected-- would have resulted in an archival four years ago, under the "FAC is not PR" scenario. Different times. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm back at base now, and it was (mostly) work travel, but just busy now. Best for the holidays. My Christmas card to all is Adoration of the Magi (Fra Angelico and Filippo Lippi), Wiki CRUK John (talk) 01:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Man, it's a killer in here :) Thanks, Doc. I do it as long as I can, and then ... leave. It is just too discouraging to spend all of one's time cleaning up bad edits after editors who never return. I always liked mentoring new editors, because of the payoff in turning them into good contributors, but there is no payout here, either in content or in developing new editors. We have ill-prepared, under-supervised kids adding medical content to one of the world's top websites. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we/they could be using some input from here... 86.164.164.29 (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

On that User:WhatamIdoing has a list of gaps in basic nursing concepts such a class ought to be able to helpfully add to. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

"Helpfully add[ing] to" the website involves engaging the website. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's a fortunate example, I think, of a student who seems to display internal as well as external motivation. 86.164.164.29 (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If that's not a username violation, it ought to be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Somehow, some people just love pessimism--and manage to create negativity absolutely uselessly. --Jelly Bean MD (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Jelly Bean MD; nice to meet you! Would you agree that, per Wikipedia:Username policy, presenting yourself as an MD when you're not is misleading? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps--yet the deception will soon be over! --Jelly Bean MD (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Well Sandy, while I understand the frustrations you've been experiencing in cleaning up after poorly-prepared classes, I think any gf breach of WP guidelines/processes, such as the one you've mooted here, must be readily sortable. Whereas acquiring and retaining good contributors to MED, including the highly relevant Translation task force, isn't always quite so easy... Personally, I believe good new editors like Jelly Bean deserve all the support we can give them (irrespective of whatever...!). Best, 86.164.164.29 (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This page is a policy. Did you know that Bill Moyers (a published author in the healthcare field) showed up to edit schizophrenia? [9] (Is Jelly also part of the "cleaning up after poorly-prepared classes"? If so, I was unware.) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Leaving aside the usual strawman... Sandy, a straight query: Do you believe we already have a sufficient population/reserve of good MED editors? (I, for one, don't.) If not, shouldn't we be encouraging (rather than biting) promising newcomers? A separate example... This contribution to Talk:Obesity (by an apparently new editor named Orthopedicfootwear) seemed to me to be excellent and highly pertinent. Perhaps because the comment didn't actually oppose any existing content, it hadn't elicited any response. When I went to the new editor's talk page to see how the user had been welcomed, I found this. Oh yes, WP:Whatever... But is this really a desirable first approach to a new, worthwhile contributor if we want to promote the best possible reliable medical information on Wikipedia? And especially looking to the future...

More generally, I don't think it's necessary to speak ill of the deceased to recognise a paradoxical situation in which Wikipedia is, in certain respects, making itself both beneficiary and prisoner to its own processes and most hard-working editors. And, please don't misunderstand me Sandy, I don't mean anything personal by that aimed at you: it's the underlying mechanisms that concern me rather than particular individuals. I'm just taking advantage here of the hospitality of your talk page to raise matters that I feel really need discussing elsewhere... perhaps at WT:MED? 86.164.164.29 (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

We don't have enough "good" editors in most content areas-- why single out MED? Well, because bad medical content is dangerous, and we should have a BLP-style policy, but I don't think that's what you're getting at.

In the instance you give with orthopedicfootwear, it looks to me like someone might have welcomed the user before querying the name; I'm wondering if you've taken that up with Pcfan500? In this case, Jelly Bean has been editing quite a while, so I don't feel that politely asking about his username is BITEY. And I do think that presenting as an MD, when one is not, is a bit more serious than the example you give of footwear.

No problem raising discussion on my talk-- I enjoy it !

Now, I can give you recent examples of behaviors I find more troubling in deterring new editors. The example of a premature GA promotion thrust what looks to me to be like a promising new student editor into a difficult spot unnecessarily. When folks advocating for the Education Program impose different standards on students than other editors, they do them/us no favors. I'm seeing that daily in interactions that make it harder to talk with the students and hopefully retain them as editors. It is sometimes to the point of condescension ... as if, because they are students, they can't digest the real guideline, policy-based interaction in here ! Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy, I appreciate that. (And I do appreciate that the education settings generally constitute special case/s.) Why MED? Why indeed... good question! Well, I suppose because this topic area seems especially challenging and relevant. And also because the MED situation may be particularly marked (representative?). The current reliance on a handful (or a few handfuls, no more) of particularly committed editors. And with lots of good intentions for fostering good new editors, including outreach events and excellent presentations, coupled with an on-wiki environment that (unintentionally) doesn't always seem the most welcoming. So, yes I do feel that having a MED conversation on this is good. And I'm afraid I rather laboured Doc James and Johnbod, together with Hydra Rain (who has a particular interest in these questions), on such concerns for the best part of an evening at Wikimania. 86.164.164.29 (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not so certain I'm ready to agree that MED is different from other content areas in this respect.

The other content area where I have invested huge amounts of time is Venezuela-related topics, and the problem there is much worse than at MED. In the Venezuela case, there is a small handful of editors (although the makeup of that small group has changed over the years) who diligently OWN and preserve pro-Chavez POV to the point that one can't even get a well-justified POV tag to stick, and no matter the stream of new editors who appear to challenge the poor sourcing and POV, they are met with hostility and chased out. I've seen the same thing happen in another, completely different content area, involving POV on an FA biography.

In what ways do you think there is a MED problem, rather than a Wikipedia problem? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

My normal stomping-ground in the visual arts has also a handful of key editors, probably a smaller one, and from looking at other areas of science when I was at the Royal Society for the first part of the year, and trying to stir up interest in stuff, I'd say the Medical WikiProject & its talk page is one of the most active - possibly the most active - of these after MilHist. Fortunately art is mostly uncontroversial in wiki terms. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I didn't mean to imply that Med had an untypically scanty number of (highly-committed) editors – rather that it's a particularly/intrinsically challenging content area. 86.164.164.29 (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Apparently the "thanks" button is not activated for IPs, so thanks for the auguri. Off to bed with my cough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Feliz Navidad

	<font=3> Wishing you a "Feliz Navidad and a Prospero Año Nuevo" (Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year) Tony the Marine (talk) External audio Jose Feliciano's "Feliz Navidad "

Epale, Marine 69-71, tanto tiempo sin hablar !! Felicidades en esta epoca tan bella tambien para ti y los tuyos. Saludos, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings

		Seasonal Greetings and Good Wishes
		Christmas greetings for 2014, and best wishes for 2015. Here's to another year's successful editing and reviewing and down with the trolls, vandals and bores. Peace on earth and goodwill to all, and get well soon! Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Brianboulton. I hope you have a wonderful holiday season and a joyous and health-filled New Years!. Best as always, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Bzuk; Merry Christmas to you as well! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Google

Well, it certainly wasn't my friend! Anyway, in my last moments as a Wikipedian I want to apologise for lying to you. You were friendly and fair, which is an increasingly rare quality here these days, and I do feel bad about deceiving you. The rest, pardon my French, can aller se faire foutre, but you're an OK human being. So am I sometimes. So farewell etc.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

And merry Christmas/happy holidays/whatever you celebrate. I'm having cake.

Get bent, Fergus. When Chavez lied, people died. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. It isn't something I'm proud of. As I say, I'm truly sorry.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

		The Detective Barnstar
		for that google fu, sigh was willing to assume good faith on him Avono (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Tone

Hi SandyGeorgia. I wanted to thank you for improving parent management training and countless other WP articles. However, I also wanted to make you aware that your tone in doing so can come off as condescending and accusatory. As a therapist, when I teach my clients effective, evidence-based communication skills, the first lesson is always to acknowledge the other person's efforts and point of view. This puts the other person less on the defensive and makes them much more likely to respond well to any requests for change. I cannot speak for the rest of my class, but I know that I was very excited about improving dissemination of psychological knowledge through WP until you unceremoniously honed in on the shortcomings of parent management training without first acknowledging my considerable efforts to improve the article (you should have seen what it looked like 3 months ago). I am now much less inclined to contribute to future articles.

Additionally, you had no way of knowing this, but I will also note that you began your campaign on the articles that our class had edited at the beginning of final exams week followed by the holidays, so that it was much more overwhelming to try to address your myriad requested changes than usual, and that may be another reason why you did not get a great response.

I hope you will consider these remarks in the context of everyone's shared goal to make WP better in the long-term, which includes not alienating new WP users with your tone. That is all I have to say; I'm leaving the site until I hear back about the GAN of parent management training. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kguan10 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Kguan10! This is my talkpage, so it's not necessary to ping me by linking my username-- I will see the post without a ping. Also, you can sign your talk page entries by entering four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after them.

If your intent is just to come by my page to say "I don't like you, I'm picking up my marbles and going home", then we're not going to be able to have much of a meaningful dialogue that will help either of us. If, on the other hand, you want to discuss the ways the Education Program set you up for failure, perhaps we could make some headway. We could talk about how a professor who has never edited Wikipedia could possibly give students any notion of how to do so, and why -- in spite of having the access afforded you by a University library-- you were given the impression that it was OK to put content on one of the world's most viewed websites that was based on sources almost 20 years old. The first thing the prof might have done is to show you where to find the abundance of recent, high quality secondary reviews that are available on the topic and that should have been the first stopping place, because accuracy in health content is crucial. A knowledgeable prof might also have better prepared you that your content may be criticized and heavily edited on Wikipedia, which is quite different from criticizing the contributor. (I do criticize the profs who turn ill-prepared students into victims of an unfortunate program.) If you are unable to deal with criticism of content, Wikipedia will be a difficult fit for you.

He might also have explained that students are no different than any other editors, and content that is viewable to thousands of readers daily is not likely to just sit there while you finish exams; I was never waiting for a response from you. As soon as I got my hands on the sources, I was going to remove the outdated and inaccurate info.

I'm glad the topic is as meaningful to you as it is to me, and should you decide to stick around and talk about your expectations (and the unrealistic ones given you by an ill-prepared prof), we might reach some meaningful conclusions so that editing Wikipedia can be enjoyable for you. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Medical sources

As someone who doesn't know a damn thing about medicine, I think it might be useful for some to look at the guidetoreference.org page, which lists about 1200 reference sources, generally recent ones, which can be useful. Anyone can get a free two-month trial membership in the site by asking for it. FWIW, I do intend at some point to getting around to adding those works to the relevant pages in Bibliography of encyclopedias and a yet to be created Bibliography of reference works, and then going through ARBA for the past few years for further updates. The downside is, honestly, I think that will take at least several months. A lot of those are somewhat out of date, granted, but a lot of them in general (I haven't checked the med page yet) also have webpages which presumably get updated fairly regularly. John Carter (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, glad you came by! I checked it out, but you have to be a subscriber, so I can't "see" anything in there. Someone like me, who has no university library access, is at a disadvantage. Really, as I just posted over to WP:ENB,[10] if we could just get students to use the PubMed search engine, and restrict to reviews, we'd get a much better result than we're getting now from students, and we'd all have more free time to actually write articles.

On a separate matter :) About that offer you made offsite re an FA ... Dude ! No, just no. For starters, just having an FA no longer means what it used to, since reviewing standards have gone down. Just look at the case of Hahc21, who had all kinds of "featured" content. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't mean as much to some as it does to most others, including me, but I saw a couple of voter guides which disqualified someone for arbitration because they weren't admins, and an FA is one of the ways to get to admin. Also, FWIW, although that site isn't our best friend, I don't think he is necessarily the least friendly one to us there. I've been over there for a while now, and I haven't seen anything of a grossly negative comment from him yet. Most of what I've seen from him there is no worse than a lot of things some admins and others have said there, or, sometimes, here. And I think that someone who described himself as a professional writer, which I think the person I think you mean has said he is, probably wouldn't need much more help than research, although I think in San Diego where he says he lives he probably has as good of access to most material as I do.

Also, if you wanted, I could forward to you the contents of the medical sections, as I do have the free subscription and e-mailed the listings to myself already. The one downside I've seen already, and this is having gone through only a few of the 60 or so lists they have, is that it looks to me like there might be a bit of overly detailed categorization involved. I've seen some works on plant diseases in both the "biology' and "agriculture" lists already. There are quite a few other databanks and bibliography sources in the few lists I've gone through so far too, which is only up to "biology" and not through bibliography and biography, and at least some of them are free. Some of them most people in medicine might already know, some might be a bit more focused and almost obsessive. I think that we have enough notability to establish a Bibliography of reference websites, which would include the website you referenced and at least a few others. I might start that before the much longer Bibliography of reference works, a lot of which are not that up to date. John Carter (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

After writing voter guides for several years, I've decided it's a waste of time. People just know who the good folks are, ya know? It's like porn: you can't define it, but you know it when you see it. And what we need in arbs are folks who are out there, in the trenches, engaged in article writing, regardless of assessment level of the article. (That's why I'm generally wary of the clerk-y types.)

That an FA is a route through RFA is just wrong on too many levels; all too often, "voters" at RFA don't even scrutinize the DYKs, GAs, FAs that are offered up as proof that one is a "content contributor". Again, just look at Hahc21.

If you were to forward me a couple of samples from guidetoreference.org on Tourette syndrome, I could evaluate how useful it might be. I'll email you so you have my email. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I regret to say that the Tourette syndrome pages are specifically separated. You got the whole bloody section sent to you, I'm afraid, all 1100+ in two separate e-mails, because their server only does 1000 per e-mail out. I suppose a search of the content should be able to indicate which mention Tourette's. John Carter (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal greetings

	Merry Christmas and best wishes for a happy, healthy and productive 2015!
	Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

		Happy Holidays
		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 15:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas! Hope you have a great New Year!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!!

I know I don't have flashy messages like the people above me but Merry Christmas! I wanted to thank you for all of your contributions during this time of giving and hope you have a great new year.--ZiaLater (talk) 06:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)