User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch104

Hi!

There's a name I haven't seen popping up on my watchlist in a while. Good to see you around again! (I know, there's a certain level of irony that I'm the one saying this... ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey, there ! Not back really, but just had to fix what I had to fix :) Take care, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough - hope you're having fun IRL :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Just sayin', I posted a message a lot like that a year ago.... And still haven't fixed a couple of things that were on the list. Argh. Hope the off-wiki world is treating you well. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Guy ropes

I know you're not really around, but if you do stick your head in over the next few days, your knowledge would be greatly appreciated at this medical DYK, where we're a bit unclear! Harrias ^talk 08:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive4

You were involved in one of the prior WP:FAC or WP:PR discussions about Emily Ratajkowski. The current discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive4 needs more discussants. In my prior successful FACs, success has been largely based on guidance at FAC in reshaping the content that I have nominated. I would appreciate discussants interested in giving guidance such guidance.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3

I am taking one last run at getting Emily Ratajkowski promoted to WP:FA in time for a 25th birthday WP:TFA on June 7th. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3 needs discussants. Since you were a Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive2 participant, I am hoping you might give some comments.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Issues in the Cerebellum article

Hi,
I'm editor-in-chief of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, and we're about to consider a snapshot of the Cerebellum article for publication in this journal: Wikiversity Journal of Medicine/Cerebellum. This would make it easier for external sources to use and cite this work, and after we've advanced the journal these publications will be searchable in PubMed as well. Since you have been one of the most active contributors to this article, we would like to include you in the "author" list, but we want these to be the authors' real names. If you approve, you may edit that article to change your username to your real name, or include it in a reply to me. Otherwise, you will be attributed by a link to the history page of the Wikipedia article. Also, the work has undergone peer review, and I'd appreciate if you could have a look into the peer review comments, and help amending the mentioned issues before publication in the journal: /Cerebellum#Peer review. You may also check at its history to see what corrections have already been made by other authors.
Best regards,
Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd email Sandy, who only edits intermittently these days (sadly). Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Covent Garden

The Covent Garden article has been scheduled to appear on the main page at the end of this month on the 30th. Shortly after it was scheduled, a FAR was opened by User:Scott: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Covent Garden/archive1. I am looking at addressing his concerns, though they are vague, and he appears unwilling to expand on his concerns. As you were involved in the FAC in 2011 (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Covent Garden/archive1) would you mind looking at the review, and providing some guidance as to how to proceed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Eega/archive2

If you are free and interested, please do visit this and leave some constructive suggestions and comments. Having said that, you are free to ignore this if you wish to. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 05:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Understanding citation needed

When I reverted your necessary {{citation needed}} on the Jamie Grace article, I wrote "already tagged with previous". If you looked at the previous sentence, it read, "Grace graduated from college on May 12, 2012 from Point University", and that was tagged correctly with a citation needed template. The next sentence was simply indicating what type of degree she apparently earned. You tagged that statement. I assume that if a reference can corroborate the institution, it will corroborate. I'm sorry if that seems pedantic, but that was my opinion. I simply merged the two sentences so that the section reads, "Grace graduated from college on May 12, 2012 from Point University with a bachelor's degree in children's ministry." It carries one citation needed template.

As for WP:AGF. You might want to read it, because you didn't assume that I knew what I was doing when I reverted you. You clearly didn't understand what I wrote. You also didn't follow WP:BRD. Instead you suggested I should "understand cn on wiki". My advice to you is that you should try to understand English in general. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Walter Görlitz, I'm glad you stopped by. I see you have been keeping that article watchlisted for quite some time now, and your work is most appreciated.

But, there was quite a problem there with non-reliable sources, and I noticed that her Tourette syndrome was not cited; per WP:BLP and WP:MEDRS, it is important that it be cited, and per NPOV and WP:MEDMOS, it is important to use neutral language in describing medical conditions.

You may not have noticed that the date of her degree is not in the citation given; here is one sample only of how you might do further work on the article to bring the rest of the citations up to snuff (I also removed a bit of redundant prose). I don't actively edit as much as I used to, but there is quite a bit of text in that article that could be/should be correctly cited. WP:INTEGRITY is helpful in understanding citation placement.

You may not be aware that you should not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia, but even more so, not in edit summaries, where they stay in history and cannot be redacted. Saying that anyone has a literacy problem, or needs to understand English, is typically construed as a personal attack on Wikipedia; saying it to a very experienced editor doesn't leave a great impression. If there is anything I can do to help with the TS aspect of Jamie Grace, please let me know, and thanks again for keeping that article in order! Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry you think that there was quite a problem with non reliable sources, but you changed the topic. You didn't respond to my issue at all. We were discussing her post-secondary education, not her medical condition. Please stick to a topic.

Her education is not sourced at all. And you added a second {{citation needed}} tag for essentially the same content where there is a one earlier.

So when I say you have a literacy problem it's a personal attack, but when you suggest that I have no clue about how citation needed works, it's just a polite comment? I see you also have no problem with double standards.

If you have any additional issues, feel free to address them at the article. I will not be responding here to any other concern you raised. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Carry on then; should you have any further questions about TS or citation tags, please do come back and phrase them without attacks. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually Sandy, if you have any further questions about Wikipedia, please use the {{help}}. I'm sure someone will be able to clarify any one of your many vast confusions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and thak you for sourcing the information and justifying my removal of the {{citation needed}} you added. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems that my patience and benefit of the doubt are lost on you. You've been editing long enough that you should know better than to leave disparaging edit summaries; it would serve you well to stop. That article is in particularly poor shape; perhaps you would direct your energies to cleaning it up. You might also want to have a look at WP:CITEVAR. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

And you've been alive long enough to know how to stay on-topic.

My efforts are spent in other activities, but thanks for you advice. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Much obliged! In a few months, if I am still actively editing, and you are in a more receptive mood, please stop by and I will explain edit by edit where you misunderstood the citation issues at that article. Not today though; you've overstayed your welcome on my talk page for the moment, as I was only popping in to fix one Tourette error on my notification list.  :) Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Morgellons explained

@Zad68: @JzG: @Dbrodbeck: @Jytdog: @Doc James: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Sandy Georgia. My name is Kelly Braswell. I have just been diagnosed with Late Stage Lyme Disease and Morgellons. Unfortunately, I was diagnosed 5 years too late, and as a consequence, the Bacteria associated with Lyme and Morgellons has entered my brain, nervous system and joints and I now have Epilepsy with Gran Mal and Focal Seizures, Chronic Daily Migraines, Fibromyalgia and Dementia. All of this is quite challenging, as I have a child with chronic, life threatening health problems. The reason I was diagnosed so late was because I also presented with the strange fibers associated with Morgellons, which, at the time, was considered delusional yet is is now known to be a real disease. If I had received timely treatment, my prognosis would have been very hopeful. Now, I am told that Late Stage Lyme Disease is in most cases incurable. Last Spring, I attended a medical conference held by the Charles E Holman Foundation with numerous doctors and researchers from around the world presenting detailed medical studies proving the existence of Morgellons as a real medical disease associated with the same Bacteria as Lyme Disease. These illnesses have, and will continue to debilitate me (and my family). Every day I experience the needle like pricks and emerging fibers. All of these fibers emerge following the needle like pricks, which means I can predict when and where the fibers will emerge beforehand and therefore show my doctors and (finally!) my Lyme/Morgellons Specialist. Obviously, this means my illness is not delusional and the fibers are not implanted. Because many people view Wikipedia as a valid, reliable source of information, writing for Wikipedia is a huge responsibility, as the information presented has a huge impact on society, either positive or negative. I am asking the Morgellons editor(s) for Wikipedia to please consider my words; hear my story; and thoughtfully consider if a revision is the right thing to do. At the end of our lifetime we realize we have left a legacy. Ultimately our legacy is the culmination of all of the decisions we make. As writers, we are blessed to leave a permanent legacy impacting countless lives. As we take our last breath, we realize it is not the image we created that matters, but rather how we genuinely contributed to the lives of our loved ones as well as the lives of the greater good. Our decisions can either help or harm. Many times, our best decisions are our most difficult ones. Please examine your heart as well as the most recent existing medical literature and reconsider if a revision is necessary. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Kelly Braswell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.209.114 (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Kelly; I am glad you stopped by my talk page to tell me your story. IT is nice to meet you :). I am sorry to hear of the suffering you and your daughter are enduring. When my son was much younger, he had chronic Lyme disease, and it robbed him of much of his childhood, so I understand the agony. I am also very close to someone with Morgellons, and have watched it destroy not only her life, but also her finances via quackery.

It sounds like you have done much investigation, but I am wondering if you have tried the mainstream, proven treatments for Morgellons-- namely, olanzapine, risperidone or pimozide? I have read the literature, experienced similar suffering up close and personal, have watched money being thrown at quackery by people who will not even try the proven most effective treatments, and hope you will be encouraged that the good science that goes in to Wikipedia articles can be your best guidance. BEst regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

BY the way, my son is a fantastic fine and healthy young adult today ... The very best chronic Lyme experts in the world were all ... just quacks in the final analysis from the vantage point of years later. The reliable sources upon which Wikipedia depends were right, and I could have saved much money and agida had Wikipedia existed then !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The thing that makes me angry about the quacks who "diagnose" morgellons, chronic Lyme, candida overgrowth and the rest, is that they are preying on people who are genuinely ill. They have no idea what is causing the symptoms, no idea how to cure it, but they have a product to sell and by god they are going to sell it. Guy (Help!) 19:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

And many of them are quite accomplished at doing just that. It is shameful how they prey on people who are desperately ill, and often, can ill afford the money that is being taken from them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Sandy, I think that is very brave and honourable of you, to be so open and helpful here on your Talk Page. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC) [1]

BTDT :) I threw plenty of money at quackery when my son was so ill. But, I had the money to waste, and I figured as long as I knew what was an unproven treatment, and as long as there was no potential for harm, I could afford to try. Most can't. But I never lost my scientific ability to evaluate the stuff, and I always understood how the snake oilers spun a wee bit of what looked like science into what they presented as fact. Then, along came Wikipedia, which requires real sources. And The Fat Lady Has Sung in our case, and quackery is quackery is quackery. Anyway, I do understand the desperation some may experience. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• This is interesting since no reality-based diagnostic criteria exist for morgellons. Who "diagnosed" it? Guy (Help!) 11:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks guys for your kind supportive comments. I know this is a controversial subject. We are sttill learning about Morgellons, and this strange newly emerging disease does seem so hard to believe. I encourage you to google Morgellons 2016 and the names of Some of the presenters- Middleveen, Stricker'Savely, Eva Sapi, Eboni Cornish, Robert C Bransfield, Carston Nicholas.. Read their studies. Morgellons is linked to Lyme disease and the bacteria Borellia Burgdorferi. Brie strange fibers a our own collagen and keratin and the colors are from our melanin. Please keep an open mind. Much research has been done since the CDC study. Remember when AIDS was so controversial and it took Rock Hudson's amazing courage to come out and ultimately validate the disease. The Morgellons Conference was eye opening and validating. I will be in a documentary soon- they taped me and interviewed me throughout the Conference and I am currently collaborating on a book with another author I met at the conference. You will be hearing a lot about Morgellons in the not to distant future. Zumbagirl2327 (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, Zumbagirl2327. The page which describes the kinds of sources required for health content on Wikipedia is at medical reliable sources.

It is possible to get many things/anything published, and the internet has been a force in promoting dubious information about Delusional parasitosis, Morgellons and Lyme disease. Wikipedia strives for reliability, and our first obligation in medical information should be an avoidance of harm. Until and unless the quality of the information you would like to see included rises to the level required by an encyclopedia, the information can't be included on Wikipedia.

I hope you are able to understand that this is not a reliable medical source; in fact, it is a source with a known point of view. I hope you are also able to see the benefit to your health, and others, of having a source of reliable information available for contrast with other information that may proliferate via the internet. I am always intrigued that people who are supportive of unproven theories often turn out to be the same individuals who have never tried the proven therapies. Wishing you well, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

PMID 27269255 is interesting, although not a MEDRS source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Sandy Georgia for Morgellons Explained additional info

Good afternoon Sandy Georgia. I am so appreciative of your continued correspondence. I apologize for the delay (kids etc. have kept me busy). Your last message finally resonated- a light went on in my brain when you used the expressions "Reliable Resources," "Avoidance of Harm/Harm Reduction" and the truth that anyone can publish any study on the Internet, even if it is dubious. My undergraduate and graduate studies placed heavy emphasis on not only creating highly controlled clinical studies which left little room for error or bias, I was also highly trained in examining studies closely for potential flaws and later went on to work for the UT Houston Health Science Center as a Research Assistant analyzing diagnostic tests used in Houston area schools to determine if these tests were both reliable and accurate. As of date, there are not enough studies regarding Morgellons to warrant a complete revision of the definition of Morgellons. And I do see Wikipedia 's side regarding Harm Reduction. Although I can make a good argument for the existence of Morgellons as a real physical illness with physical causes, I also see that it has grown to become a "disease of the Internet/media," thanks to sensationalistic articles and documentaries like The History Channel's Ancient Aliens. The Internet is both a blessing and a curse, and Morgellons is extremely rare and the last thing we want is for people with either mental illness or skin conditions to self diagnose. This illness is so rare. In my situation, I had never heard of the disease when I presented with the unusual symptoms. Because I am of sound mind, and doctors, nurses and family members have seen these fibers emerge, I am one of the rare individuals who has this illness (which I believe will be renamed at a later date, due to Morgellon's association with Delusions of Parasitosis. I am currently part of a global study on this fiber disease associated with Lyme. I was asked to participate, although 1,000's have asked to be in this study. They hand picked only 49 subjects, despite the mass interest. I declined participation in the study until I was told these facts. My best guess is that I am a good representation of a Morgellons patient with true symptoms and a sound, logical mindset. An ER doctor once told me "I'll believe in Morgellons when I see it." I suppose all of us inherently feel this way. It is such an unusual disease. And very rare. And I do now understand why Wikipedia, in the best interest to the general public, cannot make any revisions on its definition of Morgellons. Thank you Sandy Georgia for your patient and honest correspondence with me. You didn't have to reply, but you took the time to help me understand a little bit about how Wikipedia operates. I will study more, so that my responses are appropriate and in alignment with the site's standards. And yes, I do believe that the site does strive to look out for the greater good. Thank you Sandy Georgia for helping me better understand. Have a great day, and I look forward to continued discussions with you, should either of us receive new information on this highly controversial subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zumbagirl2327 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

It has been a pleasure to converse with you. I don't edit as frequently as I once did, so please don't take my absence as a lack of interest :) If you don't mind, I am curious about one thing ... if the doctors have hand-picked you to be part of a study, because of your "mindset", how can it not be a biased study? I'm not understanding how that is a well-designed study? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Morgellons explained- Global Study

Thanks for your quick response. I am not a part of the research team. I don't know the specifics of why they chose me, or why they chose to keep the sample group small. All I can tell you is my hypothesis, based on years of graduate and undergraduate work. There will be a research team who will design the study. I am assuming the study will be a double blind placebo, meaning there will be patients who tested positive for all criteria for Lyme and Morgellons and there will be a group who tested negative for everything. This will be the control group. The research team will not interact but rather give instructions to the doctors/researchers. . Because it is a double blind placebo, the doctors/researchers won't know who has tested positive or negative or who is receiving treatment etc. And vice versa on the patients' side. They will evaluate them with no prior bias. By the way, I must say this is turning out to be a very thorough study. I am receiving volumes of Fed Ex materials requesting very detailed samples and information. Perhaps they are keeping the sample group small because they want a thorough analysis. Morgellons does not receive government funding. I believe we will someday be recognized by the government and they will understand the need to provide funding for more research Keep in mind I am only speculating, and hoping for a brighter future for all of those who suffer from Lyme, and those who suffer from Lyme with the Co-infection of Morgellons. By the way, in response to a previous editor, yes, there is a reality based diagnosis for Morgellons. It is a diagnosis for Lyme with emerging skin fibers, which are now believed to be our own keratin and collagen, with our melanin, which explains the color changes. Lol what A relief. For those conspiracy theorists, this disease is simple, yet complicated. we have Lyme. We are trying to figure out why a very small percentage of people with Lyme develop the skin fibers. There is so much to learn, and so much research is needed. I doubt there will be a specific cure in our lifetime. I have gone into remission through the use of specific supplements I personally researched as well as important lifestyle changes. I let things go over the summer (kids and their activities and needs) but I have been supplementing and training now for a month since they started school and I am starting to have "Good Days". At the Morgellons Conference last April, I had the opportunity to listen to the doctors/ researchers describe the great lengths they went through to truly honor the Scientific Method. For example, one study sent their samples to 7 different labs in which they had no affiliation with in order to ensure accurate lab results. Bottom Line: As a skeptic who has been trained to look for every possible flaw in a research study, I am excited to be a part of this study, and I will definitely keep you posted, as I am delivered the findings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zumbagirl2327 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Backmasking

I have nominated Backmasking for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Translations and attribution

Hi Sandy,

Your comments at TS got me wondering about Virus, which has been translated into several languages. On the Spanish Wikipedia, attribution was given in an edit summary: "añadido apartado de "virus y vida" traducido de la wikipedia inglesa" and the Russian version has this Talk Page notice (in Russian of course):"This article incorporates text, translated from Virus Wikipedia articles section in English. The list of authors is on the page of the history of edits to the original source". Seems fair enough. Graham Beards (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Graham (and it is always so nice to hear from you!). This is reminding of the multiple issues I have with translation on Wikipedia ... it seems the Virus article was handled correctly, but I am hoping to hear from Moonriddengirl on how to stem these rippling issues. TS in Spanish is not correctly attributed, and I am of a mind to do something about these issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that there is an issue. I think attribution in just an (hard to find) edit summary is not sufficient. This should be followed up, if you have the energy. Graham Beards (talk) 16:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I am working on it now, but as you know, I no longer have much interest in editing, and as soon as I'm done being irritated about this, I may give up (again). Maybe not ... as of now, I am quite inclined to pursue this off-Wiki if needed. I expect to see significant change from the medical group doing this, @Doc James:, depending on what Moonriddengirl says. Remember, I worked quite hard on our plagiarism dispatch, verbatim translations are a problem, and we have on top of that an ongoing problem with the integrity of our medical content. So we now have work I have authored involved in two of my three biggest Wiki pet peeves (copyright, dangerous medical content, and student editing). Thanks for the support, Graham. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Have been working on a copy and paste detection tool since 2012 which has now come to fruition here. Does not deal with translation copyright.

If you are creating a new article attribution must occur in the first edit summary. This is the same as the requirement when you split an article into two on a single language of WP.

We have started provide the url from the specific version in the initially edit summary. Are you proposing something further? Enforcing this low bar is hard enough... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Attribution is required in edit summary when articles are copied. I suggest we should also have a template on talk indicating the link copied from and the link translated to (Diffs).

• I am also suggesting, first, better education (on all language Wikis, with more involvement from Those Higher Ups) about attribution and copyvio. Verbatim translation is copyvio. TS is largely my work; I'm willing to do something about it if Wiki Foundation or whatever isn't and ignores the concern. I have now documented on talk multiple problems.
• I am suggesting second that whatever is the medical group involved in doing this, and wherever and however they are organized, they also need to be better educated about attribution, copyvio, and the dangers and disservice to our readers of translating articles in topic areas they are not familiar with and without consulting the original sources. (Generally, you may recall I have never been in favor of this effort for the very reasons I am discovering with TS).
• Third, Doc, please stop doing this. Editors labor diligently for years over every word on topics they know well. Changing them to satisfy translators is quite off-putting, and has now cost us at least two editors I know of, three if I decide to sign off on TS. I went along with your changes because I thought you genuinely found those words above our readership level; realizing that you did this for translators has been a hard pill to swallow, and I've lost the energy to care about the now-awkward lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes I think a template on the talk pages would be good. I built one for this purpose a while ago but never really pushed its us.

"Verbatim translation is copyvio." only if it is not attributed and released under the same license

I nor the medical translation project has been involved with any translation of TS

I am not sure what is wrong with writing the leads of articles for those who may speak English as a second language. But seriously if you wish to revert the lead of TS back to what it was before not a big deal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Sandy, Look at James contribs. After editing Chalazion for an hour, James spent 17 minutes hacking about the lead of Tourette syndrome before moving on to reordering Antisocial personality disorder per MEDMOS (I weep). "simplfying" Waardenburg syndrome meant replacing "pigmentation anomalies" with "pigmentation changes" which is a serious change in meaning and a good example of dumbing down losing vital information. Then onto Trichotillomania for 15 minutes. Apparently "infants" is too complex a word in an article called Trichotillomania. I can barely pronounce Trichotillomania but learned the word "infants" as an infant and, oh, wait, the article used to have a pronunciation guide but that got removed. I don't frankly want to look any further. Arrogant trashing of carefully written text as James's whirlwind flits from one subject to another blessing each page. This is exactly why I left Wikipedia article writing. Best of luck Sandy. -- Colin°^Talk 18:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey User:Colin I am well aware that you hate all that I do. You made this clear a few years ago.

While working on Chalazion I got the University of Iowa to release this image under an open license.[2] And they are happy to release further images upon request under a CC BY SA license.

I also made the lead a summary of the topic in question and added references to recent review articles[3]

I understand that you see all this as negative and I guess that is your right. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

With respect to trichotillomania I also added a summary of the DSM5 and a 2011 review [4].

The reason I did not continue with adding further details from the DSM5 to TS was I wanted to give Sandy a chance to comment on the initial changes. It has been made clear that my efforts are not wanted which is not a big deal. I am happy to move on to other stuff. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

James, you are dodging the point and personal attacks on Colin are not helping. You degraded the prose of a Featured Article without prior discussion and in contravention of policy (and this is not the first time). You know your writing skills need development. You should have copied the text into your sandbox to prepare a translator's copy. Causing hours of work for other editors does not make you popular. Almost every time I see one of your edits appear on my watchlist I know that I will need to correct the grammar, spelling or both. I have done this without comment or complaint. You should make more use of Talk Pages, I don't like your cavalier attitude. Graham Beards (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

While I do appreciate your correcting of my spelling and grammar. I do not consider my replies personal attacks against Colin. But I have crossed out what I presume you are referring to as agree it adds little.

But seriously Sandy did revert back to the prior version and we than discussed it on that talk page. Not sure how to get a "cavalier attitude" out of that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

James, I don't think you have the slightest concept of the difference between editing an article for a year, immersing yourself in the subject and sources, recruiting copy editors and friends to polish it, enduring the FA process, and.... your "cavalier" (as Graham puts it) edits for 15 minutes sandwiched between one subject and the next. Edits that cause serious editors to waste far more than 15 minutes fixing up your mistakes, arguing with you about what you got wrong, and so on. If this is what you are spending your time on WP doing, then I'd say you're a net negative and have been for some years. It's mindbogglingly arrogant to to think you, in a handful of minutes, are superior to all the superb editors who created this FA. I glanced again tonight at Epilepsy. It makes me so sad. Nearly every sentence is utterly awful and the only thing a reader will learn is that the writer didn't have a clue. But we had an expert come to fix it and you chased him away. I would most certainly not recommend anyone to read that article. I looked at a few other articles you've edited recently. It's like listening to someone short of breath. They can. Only say. A few words. At a time. Oh, I'm glad I shifted to pictures. At least nobody can trash your photograph. Sandy, be glad James has offered to move on to other stuff. -- Colin°^Talk 20:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes I really have nothing to say to that. Colin you do take amazing pictures and I still frequently compliment you on your article on a ketogenic diet in talks I give. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Since trichotillomania has been pointed out, Doc, your edits there typify my concern over choppy prose. It doesn't matter much at trich, which has long been a crap article anyway, but prose deterioration does matter in FAs. Look at this in the trich lead of the version you edited, just as an example -- it is not prose; it is a list of factoids run together.

1. The disorder may run in families.
2. It occurs more commonly in those with obsessive compulsive disorder.
3. Episodes of pulling may be triggered by anxiety.
4. People usually acknowledge that they pull their hair.
5. On examination broken hairs may be seen.
6. Other conditions that may present similarly include body dysmorphic disorder, however in that condition people remove hair to try to improve what they see as a problem in how they look.
7. Treatment is typically with cognitive behavioral therapy.

It is fine to introduce prose of that quality, without a narrative or flow, into a B- or C-class article, but if you will announce your aims before digging into an FA or GA, we will all get the job done faster, with more accuracy, and with less agida. TS has lost its narrative, and is now choppy. It is unlikely that I will now be inclined to repair it, since I'm now more concerned over attribution issues. What motivation has one to produce top content on Wikipedia when it can be damaged in so many different ways in the culture that is this place ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I should add that you did make an overall improvement at trich ... in particular by removing a lot of spam that had crept in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I write simple choppy prose in the lead on purpose. I understand that simple prose sounds choppy to many native reader but am going for greater understanding by a larger number of people. Agree it is at odds with what many on FAs are attempting. My apologies for not bringing the changes to the talk page first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology, Doc; appreciated. I am on now to a greater concern, highlighted by our discussion. Waiting to hear from Moonriddengirl on how to approach attribution or copyright concerns, and plan to pursue that as far as needed. It is not, and never has been, a good idea for people to be translating articles without a) knowledge of the topic, and b) consulting the sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

With respect to copyright, why do we not just create a template and put it on the talk page of all the articles that have been translated verbatim? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

That would solve some of the problems, but I am against verbatim translations anyway, and think it should be quite simply discouraged, period. For many many reasons. It is often done by google translate. Editors doing it may introduce errors unknowingly. We have now several FAs on Tourette's in other language wikis that are unlikely to be watched by anyone knowledgeable about the condition. I have always been of the opinion that no information is better than wrong information, so, no, I don't see the value in creating articles in the obscure languages you mention on TS talk. I have no way of knowing how wrong they are, nor do the translators, I suspect.

This is the culture of Wikipedia: more is better, even if pure crap. So with student editing, translators, DYK ... we further garbage, while, if we had no content, internet readers would be consulting sources of repute rather than the junk we churn out. As to Jytdog's statements on TS talk (an editor I enjoy working with who can turn an article's content around faster than a speeding bullet), I submit that there is quite a spread between editors who dedicate themselves to top quality in one topic vs. those who try to hold that finger in this dike of damage. Less than 1% of Wikipedia is featured, and some of that is garbage, too, but almost everything else in the 99% is suspect. And the culture here is to just keep on adding to it ... with (my other pet peeve) no warning to readers that they are reading content written at times by the infamous basement dwellers. This is dangerous to people's health. But that is another topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

We have Template:Copied and Template:Translated page already on EN WP as templates. Our license gives us the right to be attributed and to have the derivations licensed under the same license. It unfortunately does not give us the right to be well translated.

There was previously zero content online on most medical topics in the language Oriya before Subas Chandra Rout a retired physician translated 500 articles into that language. Oriya is spoken by about 40 million people.

That having referenced modern medical content in that language I see as a step forwards. There is NO sources of repute in many languages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Then, if he's that good and that needed, I'd rather see him creating original content in that language than translating content that is most often, statistically on Wikipedia, garbage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

He would still be translating from En sources. While I agree what I write is choppy and does not flow I disagree that it is garbage. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

You misunderstood; it was not my intent to say your content is garbage. I meant, when he is translating from en.wiki, unless he is consulting the sources, it is likely that he is translating garbage or introducing subtle inaccuracies. It would be preferable if he consulted sources and wrote original content, translating directly from those sources. That is, he would have to immerse himself in the topic and sources before attempting to write content on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

He is currently / mostly just translating the leads of articles after they have been reviewed / rewritten by me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

ah, I see ... did not mean to call your work garbage, did not know this. It does lower the bewilderment of why you suddenly descended on TS ! Does he know how to attribute his translations correctly? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Not sure but will ask. I see "(ହାଇପରକାଲେମିଆ ଏକ ନୂଆ ବିଷୟ ଆରମ୍ଭ କରାଗଲା)" but their is no machine translation service in Oriya by Google or anyone else. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

So ... you have no way of verifying the quality of his content or any idea if he is translating your words correctly? And he is operating in a culture/language where other doctors may be quite literally using Wikipedia for medical advice? And yet we should have no medical disclaimer ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

No I have no idea. Each language community must verify itself. And each language community decides how prominent of a disclaimer they put up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl appears to be barely active; this is what I have found:

1. Wikipedia:Translation#License_requirements
2. Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Translating from other language Wikimedia projects
3. Template:Translated page
4. Template:Copied

which is pretty useless, because I would need to find the templates on the other-language Wiki. Would it be more expedient to send a DMCA takedown notice to the Wiki Foundation for every other language TS article, and let them sort their mess? Does a takedown notice by a Wikipedian breach No Legal Threats? IF so, how am I to locate all of these templates in all of these languages? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

arbitrary break 2

James, one thing I have on Commons is far more friends who have English as a second or third language. You insult them with your comment "I understand that simple prose sounds choppy to many native reader but I am going for a greater understanding by a larger number of people". Your intentions are well meaning, if arrogant, I don't doubt that, but you really need to appreciate your limitations better. Have you actually got any training in writing for non-native readers? Have you got consensus that en:wp should be primarily aimed at non-native readers? I thought that was what Simple English was for. Like the Good News Bible is aimed at non-native and young readers and uses a deliberately limited vocabulary. Crap prose is crap no matter what your first language is. The idea that we should make en:wp painful to read so that non-native readers find it easier is astonishing. You admit to actually making our text worse for native readers. To deliberately making FA/GA articles not flow? I suggest you have no competence in making prose readable and simple. "Epileptic seizures are episodes that can vary from..." is not a definition of seizures any more than writing "Bananas are objects that are variable in colour, firmness and size" in the lead paragraph. When you think you are "simplifying" you are actually removing so much information that what you write becomes empty meaningless and worthless. "Epilepsy that occurs as a result of other issues can be prevented" is meaningless and simply untrue on several levels. "Epilepsy becomes more common as people age" -- it hasn't become more common as I've aged!! It may be more common in older people, but that's quite a different thing. Please, do your dumbing down somewhere other than en:wp. -- Colin°^Talk 22:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The more you write unreasonable generalizations like this, the more you discredit yourself. At least in my eyes. Jytdog (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

On this point, I note that reading technical content in the languages I know/speak is much easier than reading the same in colloquial language. At least among the romance languages, the more technical the writing, the more likely the words are to be similar and recognizable. Just look at the word "premonitory" in each translation I checked-- almost invariably the same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

To answer this "Have you actually got any training in writing for non-native readers?" Yes I have.

I did not say "admit to actually making our text worse for native readers" IMO simplification makes it easier to understand for a wider audience / general audience.

Colin your efforts to try to convince me to leave Wikipedia are not appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Re-reading TS talk, it occurs to me we might all admit we're arrogant, and move on to other points. (OK, Graham is an exception, always has been :)

Anyway ... Doc. I can sympathize with how Colin feels about the epilepsy expert who left after encountering this, considering we still have crap content on epilepsy. As we (and Anthonyhcole) disagreed on the medical disclaimer topic, our content affects people's health, and we have an obligation greater than or equal to that of BLPs to get it right. That didn't happen at epilepsy, and I can understand how that trend troubles Colin. I'd guess he just wants this pattern not to be repeated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Am happy to see people point out errors in the epilepsy article. IMO things can be described by what they look like.

Colin wishes I leave en.wp and of course he is welcome to his opinion. If he wishes to force me off he should really take this to ANI or Arbcom though.

How would you paraphrase "However, preventive measures can be applied to the known causes of secondary epilepsy."[5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm really sorry to read the personal attacks by James and User:Jytdog. Neither of you it seems have actually read what I wrote (and in the case of Jytdog, actually read what James wrote on TS). Both just want to write generalisations like Colin hates me or Colin wants me to leave Wikipedia or make venomous (Jytdog's own word for his feelings) comments about people who put the soul into an article. I don't want James to leave Wikipedia. I want him to change his approach to editing articles and working with others and understand his big limitations. He can't write. He knows as much about Epilepsy as my dentist. He assumed he and he alone was God enough to improve the lead of TS in 15 minutes without having read the article first (it takes much longer to read properly) without having consulted the sources, without having thought hard about how the lead should summarise TS. He's wrongly assumed en:wp is aimed at non-native speakers (please cite policy and community consensus for that) yet is going around trashing articles on that assumption and with the misguided notion that. Writing tiny. Sentences. Is how. You. Speak. To the. Foreigners. James, if you had training on this, as you claim, please ask for your money back. I'd like to see you try your writing approach on our literary articles!

James, you write "things can be described by what they look like". That is not how we define a seizure and you'd know this if you consulted any textbook. Does an absence seizure have a visible manifestation? Is electricity the "sparky thing" or is there a better definition that is used by professionals? I'm reminded of Baldrick trying to quickly rewrite Johnson's dictionary and coming up with "Dog: not a cat". We don't attempt our own definitions. Professional bodies agonise in committees about how to define things. But James, A&E doctor, Wikipedia God, thinks he's got his own definition: episodes, like the TV shows.

As for "However, preventive measures can be applied to the known causes of secondary epilepsy.", I wouldn't paraphrase it. I wouldn't base my understanding of epilepsy on a WHO factsheet. You can't write serious major-disease articles based on a lay factsheet. The phrase you wrote "Epilepsy that occurs as a result of other issues" is not a description of secondary epilepsy. It is quite meaningless to the reader -- I can guess what you meant to write but that's because I know the subject and know your problems with writing. You have the barest smear of a concept of what you think it is about but that isn't enough to give you the ability to put it into your own words. You are trying to say "not idiopathic" but the reader isn't ready for that concept here. The words "other issues" doesn't make sense as what is it "other" to? And is "issues" a suitable word for medical conditions, trauma, infection, etc? It's a vague term that doesn't help the reader. Who knows, perhaps your making a political point and arguing Epilepsy can be prevented with government spending and the issues are lack of education or something. Who knows. It's been simplified to such an extent. The WHO sheet lists the very few forms of secondary epilepsy that can be reduced in prevalence: you can't actually prevent all head injury, eliminate birth injury, wipe out parasitic disease. So the concept of "prevention" only make sense at a public health level rather than an individual level. And there are many many forms of secondary epilepsy that aren't in that short list on the fact sheet. Like the countless genetic and congenital disorders that predispose to epilepsy. And we can't, at this point in our medical ability, prevent people getting strokes. Sure there are some drugs that reduce your risk. But shit happens and people get epilepsy. So epilepsy secondary to Tuberous Sclerosis, say, is no more preventable than juvenile absence epilepsy. Thus the idea that secondary epilepsy is, in general, preventable, doesn't in fact hold: it really depends on what it is secondary to. The whole idiopathic/secondary concept is probably too advanced for the lead, and in some ways merely reflects our lack of understanding about what causes some epilepsies.

Writing the lead for epilepsy requires working from the body and from the textbooks on the subject, and working out what are the key facts to get across. It requires knowing which definitions and terms are vital jargon and which could be substituted with other terms. And the ability write them in an engaging form with text that flows and guides the reader and... .makes them want to read the rest of the article. But your approach to writing is just to collect a series of factoids, to use journal papers and factsheets as sources rather than read textbooks, and to write such awful meaningless confusing sentences that no reader would continue. I am pleading with you to stop this style of editing. Slow down. Use your existing medical knowledge and spend time learning one subject for a month and write about that. Stop this flitting from one subject to another. And realise that your limitations with prose, with expressing yourself clearly, mean that what you write is generally weak and needs some polish -- so slow down and work with someone who can write to ensure that what you do write is a net positive. -- Colin°^Talk 08:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about your "How would you paraphrase "However, preventive measures can be applied to the known causes of secondary epilepsy."[6]" question some more, it highlights more than just the weak lay tertiary sources you are using. Your approach is that you've got some factoid in your source that you want to repeat in the article, and you need to paraphrase it for Wikipedia. It's not much better than the awful student assignments we fought against. Whereas my approach, and I'm sure also Sandy and Eubulides and Graham, and other fine writers of Featured Articles, is to read a variety of the best sources you can, online journals and books, fully understand the subject to the best of your ability, and then, based on ones own knowledge and understanding, figure out the best way to transfer, in writing, that knowledge of the subject to the reader. And then tagging some source references onto each paragraph becomes more an exercise in verifiability than in indicating where each of your short sentence factoids was lifted from. That, and the fact I would never consider spending my evenings dumbing down text in dozens of random medical articles, which is just a shocking act of intellectual vandalism. -- Colin°^Talk 17:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Medical disclaimer

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/RFC on medical disclaimer

I would be supportive of a more prominent disclaimer at the bottom of medical, medication, and alt med articles. Not sure if that would be a sufficient compromise / sufficiently address your concerns. It could be placed by bot. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hallelujah! (OF course, though, I want it at the top :) Although that RFC was obliterated and destroyed by the disruptive editing of Werespielchequers, your support might have made a difference. Perhaps we can muster folks to try again, and re-construct the RFC in a tighter way, so WereSpiel can't again edit it into something unintelligible. Anthonyhcole, Tryptofish, Alanyst, Scott, NeilN, Alexbrn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, I'd certainly be happy to participate in another attempt at it.  — Scott • talk 23:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

If we propose to have it go at the bottom I believe we could get support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Grumble, grumble, OK, but ... reread the RFC. IF we take HJ Mitchell's advice, the next RFC would ask one question only-- should medical content have some kind of disclaimer-- leaving form and content for a separate RFC. Sounds like a good suggestion to me. I will wait for others to weigh in from the old discussion, but it doesn't seem I should be the one to write the RFC. I suggest Trypotfish or Anthonyhcole draft it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Happy to sign up to the tattered old flag again.... Johnbod (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I've been involved in so many RfCs lately, many of them rather bloody, that I really cannot stomach crafting another one, sorry (but thanks for thinking of me!). If anyone would like me to help draft the disclaimer itself, I'll be happy to do that – just ping me. But I will enthusiastically support the proposal for the disclaimer. (I notice that editors commonly mistype my username as Trypotfish. Actually, I tried it in college, a long time ago, and I do support its legalization.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

:) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

This is totally off-topic, but early in my editing I attracted a troll who insisted on calling me Typofish. So I guess it stands to reason that typos are easy with my username. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

(←) Medical disclaimers should go at the TOP of the page, in any sane version of reality which incorporates a sense of moral obligation. I will support.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, Lingy-One (miss you :) Read HJ Mitchell's closing comments. Focus on one thing only, or the next RFC will fall into chaos as the last one did. First things first: should medical content have some kind of disclaimer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I have a very microscopic ability to restrain my opinions when I get committed to a position. Hence my lack of admin-ness (and in retrospect I say, "THANK GOD ALMIGHTY").  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Coulda told 'ya to give thanks on that one :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

As stated I do not support one at the top but would support one at the bottom as a compromise. Something similar to what they do on no-wp [7] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello everybody. I like HJ Mitchell's one question at a time approach, too. Can I suggest we first ask whether there should be a "concise and prominent" disclaimer on all such articles. I won't waste my time on a disclaimer that is not noticed or read by most readers. A disclaimer buried at the bottom of the page among all the other small print virtually no one reads (or behind a link or in the left-hand column which no one reads) would be literally a waste of space and nothing more than legalistic ass-protecting or reputation managing - not protecting our readership, which is what interests me. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to spearhead the effort this time 'round, so after sufficient folks are involved and have opined, someone else will need to organize the effort, pulling together whatever useful info can be gleaned from the old RFC. My only strong concern is that it be organized and monitored in such a way that we don't have the kind of disruption brought on by Werespielchequer editing, and that every Tom, Dick and Harry can't add on something extra to dilute the whole thing and throw it into chaos. It needs one, tight, finding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Anthonyhcole what do you think about what no-wp does? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not prominent. It's tucked away at the bottom, among all the other stuff no one reads. And I hope we'll be able to use fewer words. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes agree on the few words part. Would also be good to contain and invite to help fix issues. I guess the question is will we be able to reach a compromise. People come to us for content not warnings. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we may find that the most concise warning to our readers involves telling them they can change the wording. I guess we'd discuss that in the following RFC. I want you to agree to "prominent" before I pursue this, though. If you're not on board with that, we'll end up with the same result as last time. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I guess the question is do you consider the one on wp-no prominent? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't. It's tucked away at the bottom of the article, below the footnotes, among all the other small print virtually no one reads. A prominent disclaimer would be at the top of the article. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Well that was the proposal that did not pass before. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

With your support, and with the results of that Parkinsons disease expert review on the table, it has a much better chance of passing. What possible use is a warning that virtually no one reads? (That's a real, not rhetorical, question.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

My BMJ experience

Remember I was trying to get BMJ to review our medical articles? Do you want to hear how that went? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, please! My waning interest in all things Wikipedia is temporarily waxing, so get me while I care to pay attention-- that will probably go away any moment now :) But I am off for the day now, Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, mine's been waning significantly lately, but seeing you on my watchlist again has perked me up a bit. :) Let me collect my thoughts. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been sleeping. BMJ chose a stellar 5 reviewers: two top authors and 3 accomplished, mid-career researchers in Parkinsons disease. They did a meticulous review of Parkinsons disease (here) and found some serious problems in this Featured article. I fell ill and put the review on hold, and haven't been back to it yet. It's been so long now, I hope BMJ and their reviewers will be willing to pick it up again and sign off on it when I ask them next week.

In that review, the left column shows the reviewers' proposed changes, and their rationale/discussion is in the right hand column. This is one of our few medical featured articles, nominally the best of the best, and yet it is riddled with inaccuracies. This is why we need a prominent disclaimer on all our medical content. And why we need 20 more reviews like this - by genuine topic experts - to tell us how we're really doing, quality-wise.

I've learned a lot from this experience. When it's over, I'll write up a summary. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I am quite pleased that they chose this particular Featured article. For the same problems, they might also review Alzheimer's, Huntington's, and Multiple sclerosis. Garrondo was a diligent and committed editor, but English was not his first language, and he has not edited since 2013. It is unlikely that any of his content should still be featured, and I've pointed this out before. Without constant maintenance and updating, FAs quickly fall into disrepair. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

PS, I did not promote Parkinson's or Huntington's. I failed the first FAC of Alzheimer's, but promoted the second FAC a few months later; the other nominator (OrangeMarlin) also left Wikipedia (in a blaze of glory :). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I just got an email from one of the reviewers asking for an update. I apologised for the delay and responded:

With regard to this review, if you all think you could endorse an article that incorporates your current proposed changes (left column here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anthonyhcole/sandbox ), then I'd like to take your review to the Wikipedia editors, so they can fix the article. Once they've made the changes, I'll then get back to you for a final word on their fixes.

Would you all mind scanning that page I just linked to and telling me if you think it's ready? If you have any doubts at all about the article or the proposed changes, please speak up in the right hand column of that page (preferably) or here (email).

So, that'll be finished soon, hopefully. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Anthony, I'd like to help, but I am completely swamped in real life through the weekend ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

No worries. At the rate these folk work, it'll be weeks before I dump this on Talk:Parkinson's disease, and then it should be pretty straightforward - just incorporating their proposed changes. I'll probably do it myself if no one at WT:MED feels like it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

BMJ review and problems at WPMED and in FA process

There is a very serious problem in the Featured Article process since Raul and I left, which is that only half of the equation is semi-working. (Note the irony that I left based on a promise to Colin to return to medical editing.) FAC is promoting unworthy articles up the line, based on very scanty review (FAs are typically promoted now on three supports: in contrast, Tourette's received an unsurpassed 20+ supports in 24 hours after a year of collaboration and review involving everyone and the kitchen sink). We no longer see that kind of serious review and collaboratoin at FAC or at WPMED (FAs are now mostly promoted by quid pro quo reviews ... if you've already got several FAs, and a group of supportive friends, your FACs are likely to pass). Meanwhile, the other side of the equation (demotion of unworthy FAs), FAR, has gone moribund in the extreme. Scan down the columns at WP:FAS for a glance at how bad this problem is-- caused by a very small group of FA detractors who through self-interest, removed Raul as the FA director, so that the overall process is no longer working. We are now in the territory of "once an FA, always an FA", even as poorly written and researched articles fall into serious disrepair due to missing authors and watchers.

You could either submit Parkinson's to WP:FAR, or attempt to coerce the MED project into fixing it. I've tried. WPMED no longer has the interest or competence to promote or maintain FA-quality articles. Even if you bring this problem to the attention of WPMED, it is unlikely these articles can be restored to FA standard. I pointed this out about a year ago wrt Alzheimer's. Reading Alzheimer's last year caused my last (waxing) surge in improving Wikipedia content-- that didn't last for reasons related to the same cast of characters involved in removing Raul as FA director.

At this point, I'll provide some history of the Med project and the FA process, which Jytdog might be well served to review. Long long ago in another galaxy far away, we had a process of Med collaboration of the month, which worked to turn out top quality articles. We listed those articles at the WPMED page. There was an emphasis on quality, we attracted top-notch editors, and we collaborated to advance MEDRS, which became our saving grace. Most of the editors concerned about top quality in our content have moved on, and most of WTMED is now consumed with other issues. Like quantity over quality.

On another history item, when I first started editing in 2006, there was Not One Single well written neuropsychiatric article on Wikipedia. Autism and Asperger's were featured, and they were DREADFUL in the extreme (still are, since Eubulides left and they have not been updated-- they should be defeatured, too. Wikipedia:Featured article review/Autism, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome/archive1). There was no high quality content in the psychology realm (and there pretty much still is not: see this dismal list compared to Health and medicine). One of my goals in writing Tourette syndrome-- which involved years of work with Colin on MEDRS to make sure our medical guidelines worked for neuropsych conditions as well as they did for diseases-- was to provide a model for how our medical guidelines could be applied to DSM conditions. TS paved the way for improvement in other neuropsych articles, but we lost that momentum when we lost Eubulides, and when the focus of WPMED changed to quantity over quality.

So, do you think this degeneration of WPMED might irritate editors like Colin and me today ... ??? No matter what anyone else states, we would not have the strong MEDRS page we have today if not for Colin. This is what MEDRS looked like in 2006 when Colin first moved this content from the MED page to MEDRS and started work. @Casliber: @Graham Beards: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like a wonderful experience you all had, working together to create FAs.

In my work I have not cared much about the FA/GA process. What I see in that process is mostly people badge-collecting and creating drama over personal style preferences and infoboxes. It is stuff other people do, where I mostly see ugly behavior.

In the current dramah at the Tourette's article, not one new source was brought to the table; and if you look at the most-cited refs, they are near-to-very outdated. I look at what is not being discussed and what is being discussed, and think "yep, this is what FA is about". I reckon FA/GAs could serve a good purpose and but I rarely see it.

I remain grateful for the work that created and elevated MEDRS, including the battles against advocates that drove that work. Very much.

i agree very much that there is a lot of very bad quality content in WP (unsourced, badly sourced, failing NPOV in one way or another). I spend a lot of my effort trying to address that. Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Not one new source brought to the table, not so, Doc in fact is working from and relying on some less-than-best sources. Yes, agree that it is sad we are spending time discussing whether the lead should be dumbed down so translators will have an easier time: but that forced me to rework epidemiology, which was a wreck, so I'm harboring no grudge for the time spent. Drama? If there was some, you played a role. Why no newer reviews? Long topic. I am pretty busy IRL for the next few days, but will get back to you on that. Started some in my sandbox. (One area that needs to be better reworked in the article is Habit Reversal and CBIT.)

Jyt, you do a MOST valuable job of fighting fringe quackery on Wikipedia. One thing that having the bronze star can do is to put the quacks out of business. In the case of the Tourette's article, it put them out of business not only on Wikipedia, but pretty much off Wikipedia as well. It was a jungle out there before we had an FA quality article here, and the alt-fringe-nutcases had a field day. Same for autism, same for Asperger's ... oh my, who remembers that walled garden of sheer quackery on autism that Eubulides and I took on ... Since that is more in line with your interests (at least I think so), I hope you can be enticed to view FAs differently. More tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: the main purpose (the value of which outstrips all other aspects by an order of magnitude) of FAC is to provide some form of stable revision. Much of the problem in many conditions is the lack of consensus on them. Aspergers has even been dumped from DSM5, so not longer exists officially. I was not aware of the Parkinson's review above. Will take a look. The worry for me was that there would always be some sort of founder effect as the original workhorses moved away. I'd disagree with some of Sandy's comments above but agree we need to look at our medical articles. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes I agree that many of our articles have serious and substantial problems. If folks want to spend their time fine-tuning language that is great (really great) but it needs to be kept in perspective; i react strongly and negatively to high drama around that as some kind of absolute value. One value among many, sure. Am not going to say more here unless asked. Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

While I agree ADAM is a poor source, NINDS is a decent one.[8] No source of course is perfect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email)

Jytdog, you questioned the dates of most used citations in TS. See my summary of my latest tour through PubMed in my sandbox. I semi-annually (or more often at times) check PubMed for every recent review, and am usually dismayed to find that most of the literature for about the last five to eight years has been focused on a) the not very useful or practical but very profitable and sexy Deep brain stimulation, or b) the PANDAS controversy. The conclusions about the application of DBS in TS have not changed, it is potentially useful for an EXTREMELY small minority of people, and we say all we need to say about it in the article, but DBS dominates the research literature. $$$$$ Ditto for PANDAS.

I can typically scroll through five pages of reviews and find one or two overviews of the condition, read them, find them not better than the ones I've used. So the only reason for switching would be if I could find a top-notch review that is freely available (as a service to our readers), which they aren't. A freely available review that is as good as the ones I use has not surfaced, to my knowledge.

The Tourette Syndrome Association years ago stated a goal of making TS "irrelevant" (that is, get people to understand what it really looked like compared to the senationalized perception). They seem to have accomplished that, which makes it not a very attractive field for researchers. There's not a lot new to say about TS, and there's more money in other fields of research.

In my sandbox, there are a couple of things I need to track down. I do not have journal access ... there are two articles there I need to get hold of, but I really would like to have is a freely available review that is as excellent as those that I use-- from the heyday of TS research.

I also had this To Do list on my user page before I lost interest in Wikipedia last time ...

IF you have a particular review that is not freely available that you want me to look at, I'd love to have a copy. But I suspect that, as I often find, I can go through the exercise of updating the citations only so the dates will be more recent ... which is boring work. Busy all day tomorrow, Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Other problems at WPMED

Copied from Talk:Tourette syndrome

Or, as this policy was often alternately stated in FAC reviews (or at least was in the past), do not require readers to click on a wikilink to understand the lead ... if a term is used in the lead that is not commonly understood, use the link, but define it in parens. But the idea that we should aim at 7th grade is new since my tenure at FAC: we aimed for upper level high school If I Recall Correctly. Too many years ago to find those old conversations about reading level, though ... More tomorrow, busy day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Just checked WP:MEDMOS, and do not find that our recommendations have changed since I was last hyper-active here on Wiki, but that was a quick scan, and I may have missed something. The NIH has a very different audience than an online encyclopedia does. If someone proposes or has proposed a 7th grade reading level at MEDMOS, I would oppose. NIH has handouts that are given to a very different demographic than readers of an online encyclopedia. Has there been a change that I missed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

We have "The leads of articles, if not the entire article, should be written as simply as possible without introducing errors." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I see the problem. To be continued. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Doc, please hear what I am saying to you as a friend, because it is the same thing Colin is saying from a position of deeper concern and involvement (if for no other reason than I have been rather inactive of late). Jytdog, thank you for the post that called this to my attention: as you all know, I haven't been very active for a year.

The primary reason we have a significant MEDRS guideline today, which benefits editors who were not here during the years of struggle to get that guideline in place and in spite of significant opposition, is that Colin worked very hard to make sure that our guideline did not go beyond the wider project guideline of WP:RS.

@ Doc. In your unilateral MEDMOS edits over the last year to the writing style section,[9] [10] with no talk discussion (yet another indication of the changing character of WPMED) at MEDMOS that I can find, you have taken MEDMOS beyond and in contrast to what is stated in the project-wide pages of:

1. WP:LEAD and
2. Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable.

There is nothing in LEAD that discusses the order of content items in the lead, and yet you have been imposing your preference on medicine articles. In many cases (eg Tourette's), these changes rendered the lead out of compliance with FA requirements for the lead (now fixed).

Your wording at MEDMOS to write "as simply as possible" is not in line with the very guideline you link to, WP:TECHNICAL, which calls for "understandable" (not simple) language, adding the importance not to WP:OVERSIMPLIFY. We can't oversimplify leads to the point of inaccuracy, and that issue at Tourette's is where this all started.

Those edits to MEDMOS, as for as I can tell, are untilaterally yours and they do not reflect project-wide guidelines-- they are your personal preferences.

The concern that I have is that when WPMED goes beyond project-wide guidelines, our hard fought gains could be lost. We already see frequent complaints from the quacky fringe at ANI about MEDRS.

Since you unilaterally altered MEDMOS, I would request that you adjust those edits to be in line with project-wide guidelines. We don't have a prescribed order for items in the LEAD, and this is not Simple English Wikipedia. Please give LEAD and TECHNICAL a careful read, and adjust the changes you made to MEDMOS.

Jyt, this is an example of where a FAC experience could provide benefit via exposure to wider guidelines on Wikipedia (I say that because I noted a discussion on your talk page which indicates a glaring deficit of your basic understanding of WP:V and WP:RS relative to WP:PARITY. You may pretty much never use a source that is not a reliable source on Wikipedia. But you did. And that edit is still there. And that a medical editor who so effectively combats quackery would use a source that does not meet project policies (WP:V) and guideline (WP:RS) is a concern.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion was here in June 2015[11] and there was unanimous support for the added wording by the 5 editors involved. Your claim that their was "no talk discussion" is simply false.

With respect to the statement "imposing your preference on medicine articles", I am rewriting and referencing the leads of medical articles to make them a proper summary of the topic in question.[12][13] You make this sound like a bad thing.

With respect to the ordering of content in the lead, I have repeatedly said that you are more than welcome to reorder Tourette syndrome in whatever way you see fit. It is also reasonable to have the lead introduce content in a different order than the body of the text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually there were 5 in the discussion: 1 against & 4 in favour (including me). Johnbod (talk) 02:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The guidance at Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_understandable#Write_one_level_down is not entirely consistent with Einstein's dictum on simplicity, but not far off either: it should have "elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience". LeadSongDog come howl! 20:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I supported James's addition of the following to WP:MEDMOS: "The leads of articles, if not the entire article, should be written as simply as possible without introducing errors." The quest for simplicity often leads authors - particularly in biomed - to ambiguity, which may cause the reader to misinterpret the text, so I've added "ambiguity" in this edit. It now reads

"The lead of an article, if not the entire article, should be written as simply as possible without introducing errors or ambiguity."

Perhaps we could consider using "clear" instead of "simple". --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

We should definitely be writing for a general audience, especially the lead. We could say "simply and clearly" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

{

Sorry for the belated response. Are any of you understanding that an individual Wikiproject guideline cannot go beyond Wikipedia's general guidelines? And that the reason we got MEDRS accepted was that editors (like Colin) made sure we didn't overreach? And that if you do overreach, there is likely to be a backlash? Doc, I'm sorry I couldn't find the talk discussion when I looked, but nonetheless, MEDMOS is now at odds with both LEAD and the Technical writing guideline. (See WP:CONLEVEL.) So don't be surprised when editors continue to make claims at ANI about medical editors wrt MEDMOS and MEDRS.

Similarly, don't be surprised that WPMED alienates some of its finest founding members, like Colin, who understand the consequences. Doc, I am opposed to any change (that one included) that puts Med project guidelines out of sync with general guideline and policy pages. And I'm sorry to see that only five med editors is what it takes now to change a guideline. That is evidence of a dying project.

Meanwhile, it still remains true that Featured Articles must comply with Wikipedia guidelines before WikiProject guidelines that don't have broad consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, SandyGeorgia. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Revealing...

I thought I was misinterpreting or misunderstanding the problems with FA and even Good articles in Project Med. Now I see that my observations match those of you, SandyGeorgia, indeed the Emperor has no clothes. Thanks for saying what you mean. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Alas

I didn't find enough. I'm sorry, and best anyway. Ceoil (talk) 05:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia!

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Hogmanay!

		Happy Hogmanay!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Hogmanay. May the year ahead be productive and harmonious. --John (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

i have been dealing with a vandal for a while and i cant stop them

the page User:Melcous follows me making changes to all my contributions. i cite sources. the page erases my contributions it has gone on for days. and i believe it to be unhealthy to the environment. and if you look at their history i am not alone in this matter.

Talk:Raven's Home#Reparaphrasing_the_lead_section

Hi Sandy, I'm having a conflict with another user over WP:MOS#Layout/Television guidelines. Can you please respond and comment, considering you used to be one of the delegates for approving WP:FACs? Thank you. ATC ^{. Talk} 22:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of History of Rush for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article History of Rush is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Rush (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Women in Red 2017

		Announcing Women in Red's November 2017 prize-winning world contest Contest details: create biographical articles for women of any country or occupation in the world: November 2017 WiR Contest Read more about how Women in Red is overcoming the gender gap: WikiProject Women in Red
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Jamez42 (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

[[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) → SandyGeorgia (Talk)

to

[[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) → SandyGeorgia (Talk)

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for updating your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, SandyGeorgia. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia!

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free and you not often get distracted by dice-playing. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Xmas

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello SandyGeorgia, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018. Happy editing, Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Christmas and All That

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and best wishes in all things!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)