User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch105

There you are!

Hey, there you are! I'm delighted to see you! Bishonen | talk 22:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC).

I am always delighted to "see" you, dear Bishonen. Regardless, though, of how I miss interacting with my dearest friends here, I can only approach Wikipedia sporadically by firmly holding my nose against the stench of psychopathy and piss-poor content. I am not really here, just bothered (again) at how shoddy Wikipedia articles are. [1] I may have lost my yahoo password, so now use gmail. I hope you are well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Glad to see your name around, Sandy. Hoping all is well with you and your family. ceranthor 20:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Ceranthor, how are things with you? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, dear, Ceranthor, my edit summary was one letter off ... instead of re, I got ew ... nothing personal, just my usual typos~ 02:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

No worries. I was in Cuba until two days ago, so I didn't even see it. Things are fine; not great, not bad. Thanks for checking in. ceranthor 13:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

What did you find in Cuba? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey

Hi Sandy. Remember me? I used to be User:Jinkinson here. I'm that guy you had to keep reminding to follow MEDRS and stuff. I hope you stick around and keep improving medical articles. Every morning (there's a halo...) 18:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Everymorning, of course I remember you! I watched your editing improve and improve ... hope you are well! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Things

Yesterday was like the old days, but then its also stark as to how little has changed. You vocalised many thing I was stretching to say, but a very well made point was about null sets - diffs are suited to proving rather than disproving. Diffs are a particularly aggressive way to argue, dredging up old conversations so you can go gotya, and reinforce an adversarial, battleground mentality. And its compulsory apparently, on pain of a block! A sane person would run the hell away from this. For example you have done this. Ceoil (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, Ceoil, just because it is nuts in here, here's my the copyvio free of the latest love song with dear hubby ... happens that a very close personal friend wrote it. [2] I hope you and LizKafka are well. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

You go girl!

You are right on. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 19:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The New York Times was a major source supporting the content on Prostate Cancer screening. So weird. Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 21:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

knock knock

Of course I've sorta seen what's been going on.. I dearly wish I could help, but all medical discussions are far better off without my blinding lack of knowledge arcing around the forum. So sorry... in better news, Outriggr seems to be back... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Good luck

Hi Sandy. I'm very sorry to hear about your husband's health issues. I would drop off a casserole if I could! Take care, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Awwww, that is so very nice of you! Did you see my note about breastfeeding? I did a double-take when I saw you mention that it was an FA, and wondered when that had happened :) It's so kind of you to stop by and send us well wishes ... hope you are well, too. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I got your note, and refactored mine. Good catch :) Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

BMJ

"Prostate cancer now kills more people than breast cancer: cause for alarm?"

References

Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 06:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Barbara. I have been aware of this headline since my fast immersion into the world of prostate cancer, and am glad this blogger did the age adjustments rather than spout meaningless data. It is the age factor that makes prostate cancer a big issue with respect to Medicare, which is related to the importance of the role played in the US by the USPSTF. Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Clarification of wording of Barbara's topic ban

Sandstein has closed the User:Barbara (WVS) ANI discussion with a topic ban worded "is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from medical articles". Following discussion with Sandstein regarding the scope of that topic ban (User_talk:Sandstein#What_the_topic_ban_covers), it is felt that further wording is required. Therefore it is proposed that the wording of the topic ban is amended to read:

"By consensus of the community, Barbara (WVS) (talk · contribs), also editing as Bfpage (talk · contribs), is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed, and is also banned from interacting with Flyer22 (talk · contribs) (WP:IBAN)."

As you took place in the discussion, please visit Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_for_clarification_of_scope_of_topic_ban to give your views. SilkTork (talk) 08:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

AN notice

Probably nothing serious, but since it was an URL you posted: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedi0. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Autograph :)

Hi, could you please sign here. You are an experienced editor, I do not really want to add unsigned template. Thanks. --Titodutta (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Came up at ANI...

Reese Witherspoon…doesn’t appear to reflect our best work...FAR? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

First indication to look for problems is that nominator hasn't edited since 2012. Just scanning the page, two things jump out right away:

1. A boatload of one-sentence paragraphs or one-sentence sections-- probably stuff dropped in carelessly since no one is watching.
2. A boatload of seemingly bland sentences followed by a long string of citations ... why?
3. Bare url to youtube in the citations.

So, yes ... stuff seems to have been carelessly dropped in. Whether or not it could survive FAR would depend on whether there are also a lot of unreliable sources or prose problems. But possibly, it could be a FAR save. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Curiously, in 10 years, the readable prose has hardly changed. Did she stop having a life? If little happened, again, could be a FAR save. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Wishing you the best...

	Wishing you the best...
	So sorry to hear you're having medical issues. Will make an offering to Aesculapius in hopes that things improve soon. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

And if you need a shoulder to whine on, from someone that's been through the whole spouse-with-cancer-thing, I'm always around. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Ealdgyth dear ... I will fill you in when I am able, but for now, I have to give myself some safe spaces ... I compartmentalize my grief :) How are you? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

We are slowly chugging along. I totally understand about the safe spaces thing - hubby had some very minor surgery in January (nothing scary, outpaitent, etc) and even after 12 years, I had a very very hard time dealing with the doctors/hospitals/etc. I almost feel like I have PTSD from dealing with the first husband's cancer and death - I certainly had some panic attacks in January dealing with what was minor surgery. Take your time, but if you need a shoulder, its available. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Glad to have a sister. Never knew the question “how are you?” Could be used in such thoughtful, and thoughtless, ways. Such a big difference between “how are YOU”, and “how ARE you”, and times when it would be nice if people would stop asking (how many times can you tell the same story), and just bake the damn casserole already! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Back in

@NeilN:, I am back home now, sooner than expected, but since things are quiet, I am hoping we can leave it that way for now, and resume discussion in a few days. I hope that is agreeable to you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course, whenever you want. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: I have to be at the hospital with my husband tomorrow (prostate cancer), so will check in with you on Wednesday. By then, hopefully things will be completely calm. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

PS, I have spent most of today working towards cleaning up the mess left from the parties on that SPI, and still have more of that to get done today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

All right; good wishes to your husband. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, @NeilN: we had an incredibly positive day, with good findings. Back in. Over at WT:FAR, the mess with the socked FAs unfolds.

The main things I mostly wanted to point out in that post on Lingzhi's page were:

1. The statement, "just restoring those two specific pages makes one believe that [he] knew all along that DCGeist was editing with two accounts," had little to do with an SPI, and was just casting of aspersions. People are human, they have pride, and that statement stood for a long time. If I had been thinking more clearly, I would have put up stronger evidence to try to get the case closed sooner. I am also pretty sure that if I said something like that, someone would be standing by to block me (reference the history of my unjustified block log).
2. Again, people are human. Other editors trying to cheer a friend is not the same as enabling; there wasn't a rush to ANI or anything like that. At the point you mentioned "enablers", no one was really talking about the block or the behavior, just the overall changes in Wikipedia and the sadness of what had happened. A lot of people feel pretty duped by the socking.
3. And, when we've known someone for more than 10 years, we hope we know how to cheer them after a bad time ...
4. And, in those "olden days", there was often a lot of restoring of user pages going on (heck a whole ton of us would be blocked today for what went on at The Fat Man's user page), and ...
5. Sometimes, people who focus mostly on writing quality content don't really stay on top of what is viewed as Very Egregious Behavior, which really does change from one year to the next in here.

All of this was raised to try to help calm the situation, cheer a good editor who was clearly upset over the SPI revelations and being included in the socking allegation. We like him and hope we can continue to enjoy his significant and valuable contributions. The "art cabal" on Wikipedia produces amazing content, but their ranks have been weakened over the years because of the usual Wikipedia stuff, and that makes folks sad. I hope this doesn't muddy the waters or inflame the situation again. Just my thoughts about why I weighed in there, and also weighed in at Lingzhi's. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

FAC...

Actually reviewing is a lot different than it used to be. And opposing is harder - see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jill Valentine/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jill Valentine/archive2 for examples. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

out of control. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

having Catholic Church nightmares just reading it :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for not replying on FAC talk, and also I've meant to stop by here to welcome you back but haven't gotten around to it. Needless to say, it's great to see you again. Victoriaearle (tk) 16:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Victoria ... I hope you are doing OK there ... Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I hope that works out for you. What tends to happen when editors who have long been bulled see that other editors are no longer standing for it, is that people come out of the woodwork. A tour through your routine editing habits will not bode for well for you. Did you not just call Colin a "POV pusher" in the last few days? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

And by the way, in case you celebrate, Happy Easter, or Passover, or Spring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Happy Spring, Passover, Easter to everyone

To all the kind people who sent me well wishes, we got very good news a few hours ago about progress with the cancer. Hooray! @Clayoquot: @WhatamIdoing: @Ealdgyth: @Ceoil: @Lingzhi: @MastCell: @Casliber: @Barbara (WVS): @Flyer22 Reborn: @Victoriaearle: @Johnuniq: @SilkTork: and oh my who else did I miss? Happy everything to everybody. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Very happy your news is so good.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC))

thank you, thank you! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

That's great Sandy, enjoy the holiday!! Outriggr (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, and I hope you will enjoy whatever you celebrate. Spring is coming! Maybe I will still help with your project ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Great news! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks you, dear E! Happy spring to you! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Very pleased to see your good news, Sandy. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, SV! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

What wonderful news to start the weekend with! I'm delighted for you. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is! We feel ready for whatever comes next ... point those rays at us, we will win! Thanks, Clayoquot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Nice one. Thanks for sharing. SilkTork (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for caring! Happy to share good news, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Happy Easter Sandy, so glad to hear the very great news. Hope to hear more positive updates.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Literaturegeek! There's a long road ahead, so we celebrate any little bit we can :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Happy everything, SandyGeorgia. Thank you for sharing the good news. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

And thank you! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• such happy news! Jytdog (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes! Thank you, Jyt ... we are getting used to living with it :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• Great news - very happy for you both! Johnbod (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you Johnbod, we are happy for us, too! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Yeah, (audible sigh of relief) congrats/good luck, have a nice four day holiday...cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Thank you, dear Cas ... and I hope you have a wonderful weekend as well. Best to you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Very happy to hear this, Sandy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Flyer ... hope you are well! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• So happy for ye both to hear this!!! Ceoil (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Ceoil ... happiness to you and KL! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• I can only imagine the relief and how this gives a new horizon and lease of life. The things you thought not possible in your darkest hours; well, coming out the other end is very cathartic. Ceoil (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Sandy, thanks for the ping and apologies for the belated reply. So happy for you and yours and the good news. I'm well aware of the difficulties associated with these illnesses, both for patient and for family members. Sending good thoughts and best wishes for a happy spring and a wonderful weekend. Victoriaearle (tk) 16:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you dear! Long course of daily radiation starting next week ... as dear hubby says, "It's just another adventure". I hope you are well, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, he's right - it's best to approach the treatments as a series of adventures. You all will get very familiar with the radiation center and staff there, expect fatigue, and then it'll be over. Victoriaearle (tk) 16:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Fatigue every day after the actual session? Oh my ... we are in it daily, for many weeks ... please tell me more! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
        • So, I had cancer when I was 40 (BRCA breast) and had very aggressive chemo. At first it was fine, no nausea or fatigue or anything. Lost my hair about three or four weeks in, which was dramatic, but whatever. By week six or so the fatigue started to creep in; by week 12 or 15 (can't really remember) the word fatigue doesn't describe how I felt. But my kids were little, which kept me going. I've heard radiation is similar, but it depends on each patient, the type of cancer, the radiation, and so on. If all goes well, there won't be much fatigue, but don't be surprised if he gets tired towards the end of the treatment. Will shoot you an email when I get a chance (if you're still at the gmail account?). Victoriaearle (tk) 17:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
          • Yes, gmail, but I hate gmail and rarely remember to read it. It is my understanding (we still have two appts this week to get everything set up) that his radiation will be small daily doses over a very long period of time, so maybe that will mean we don't get the fatigue. Our exciting news was that they agreed he didn't need hormonal ablation (i.e.; surgical castration) to deprive him of testosterone; he said, "but I don't want to grow boobs, get fat, and cry for no reason" :) So, since the hospital is an hour away, I'll be on the road a lot! Be well, best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
            • Yes, well, that's what they do to women to prevent metastasis. It ain't fun, but anything to stay alive. Still that is great news and from what I know the smaller the doses of radiation the fewer the side effects. Will send good thoughts your way. Victoriaearle (tk) 17:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Osmosis concerns

User talk:Jimbo Wales#Osmosis: Wikipedia medical articles hijacked by paid editors working for private foundation

Mentioned you. I see that, for medical articles, Wikipedia is no longer primarily a collaboratively edited text & image encyclopaedia, but a platform for documentaries created by a private third party. Videos which Wikipedians have no ability to edit, nor our readers any ability to verify facts against sources. This is not Wikipedia. -- Colin°^Talk 11:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Seriously Doc James, you just accused me of a falsehood at WP:V? Do you think that's where you want to be right now?

Surely you realize the importance of accuracy in terms in medicine? For example, they say their source for the Tic Disorder video is the DSM. Could you please produce the place in the DSM where tics are described as "quick"? Surely, as a physician, you are aware of the distinction between quick motor movements and sudden motor movements? They aren't.

On breastfeeding, are you going to argue they were right?

On Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), this is the 2017 consensus. That is the most recent consensus, and published by everyone who is anyone in the field of Lewy body dementias. Here are your/Osmosis sources:

• Le, T., Bhushan, V., Sochat, M., & Chavda, Y. (2017). First Aid for the USMLE Step 1 2017 (27 edition). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education / Medical.

First aid for DLB? Really? Would you consider that a high quality MEDRS source on this particular topic?

• Sattar, H. (2017). Fundamentals of pathology: Medical Course and Step 1 Review (1 edition).

A 2017 book, when the new criteria were published in 2017; are they reflected in that book? MEDRS asks for updated sources-- yours are outdated. (Not that this explains why the producers of the video don't know what REM sleep behavior disorder is, or understand the timing of the onset of symptoms in DLB, or understand the differences in memory impairment between DLB and Alzheimer's disease.

• Kumar, V., Abbas, A. K., and Aster, J. (2015). Robbins and Cotran: Pathologic basis of disease. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders

A 2015 book when the new consensus was published in 2017. Good, now which source was used for which part of the text, so that I can verify it?

You mystify me. It is strange that you are defending outdated sources, when MEDRS should be a top priority for all medical editors. They did not just use the wrong words; it's much worse than that. They don't understand the topics at all. Why are you defending them?

I would not recommend that you be accusing me of falsehoods at this particular point in the evolution of this problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Per "Could you please produce the place in the DSM where tics are described as quick?"

Sure, I am now home and have a copy on my bookshelf of the DSM 5. It says on page 81:

"A tic is a sudden, rapid, recurrent, nonrythmic motor movement"

Now we are required by law to paraphrase. "Quick" is similar enough to "rapid" for me.

Anyway I have productive encyclopedia work to get back to. I would rather have 1,000s of decent understandable and accessible medical articles than one perfect and overly complicated one.

You are making a mountain out of a molehill. And yes I would appreciate it if you would stop. Is the use of a 2015 book a horrible tragedy of the commons? Is it so outdated that everything it supports needs to be deleted on site with nothing being better than what it supports? Sorry, no. I am not buying. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Doc James:, I am not going to take the time to educate you or them in content errors (which are accumulating). I hope you will rethink your approach, because having "1,000s of decent understandable and accessible" LEADS is not achieving your goal of the same in MEDICAL ARTICLES. Quite the opposite. Content is going downhill in direct proportion to the efforts going in to dealing with these external projects. You would like me to stop what? Working to improve content? I was minding my own business at dementia with Lewy bodies, and encountered the same issues, and what a timesink today was, when I was close to finishing that article. Did I ever expect to go over to DLB and find more of ... this??? If you want Wikipedia to consist of only article leads, why not ask all of these projects to work at Simple Wikipedia? Please rethink your tone-- up to the point of you accusing me of lying on WT:V, this was a content dispute. I would like to keep it that way. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

And for gosh sakes, look at this-- what on earth is going on? Are you happy with where this lead business is leading? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes this is an amazing time sink. I do not think that you are lying, just making more out of issues than what is present.

You asking me to go to Simple Wikipedia would be like me asking you to go to Scholarpedia or Citizendium. :::::With respect to this. I do not follow the article.

With respect to "content going downhill" your are welcome to your opinion. To make it clear, I do not share your opinion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I know :) Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I share your concerns, Sandy. I can only imagine what would happen if I got together with some private foundation to promote videos on one side of some historical debate. And then got those videos prominently placed in the lead of history articles on Wikipedia. If I worked with say, the Ricardian Society (the society that promotes the view that Richard III was railroaded by the Tudors and by Shakespeare) and placed their videos in the lead of all related articles, I'd be run out of Wikipedia for POV editing, not to mention the problems with not being sourced and perhaps wrong. And that FA was... ugh. I obviously need to find time somewhere to get back to working at FAC... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: You won't be sad about missing this beauty! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Minor note: First Aid for the USMLE appears to be a series of study books for American medical students. It's not just about first aid or emergency medicine; it covers everything that could be on the USMLE tests. Citing it is a bit like citing the Cliff Notes for Shakespeare: it's probably accurate enough, but it's not going to impress your teacher as much as citing the "real literature". It meets the usual criteria for a reliable source (i.e., it is fact-checked, it has editorial control, etc.), but it is unimpressive, so it would probably offend some of our editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Cliff's Notes would not in general be accepted as a reliable source for any Shakespeare-related article I can think of. And I'm not even thinking of FAC here; just as a general rule of thumb for any article of quality above an unsourced stub. As such, your example appears emminently appropriate to the situation at hand. --Xover (talk) 09:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

And WMF money

Putting this here so I can get back to meta: [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Just pointing out that "Colin and the Videos" would be a good name for a band. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC) [4]

the individual responsible for recent disruptions ...

Prostate

You have brought a lot of emotion into this. A lot of our content in WP, everywhere in WP, needs updating and this is true for this topic as well. That is a valid thing to bring up always. But your stressing over and over that there is a bias here is pure bullshit and you have exhausted most of the sympathy I have for your situation.

The evidence is overwhelming that free use of PSA led to procedures that caused many men a lot of harm and wasted a great deal of money and time.

Things perhaps swung too far back against PSA but what actually happened in the era before the recommendations changed is simply reality.

We do not have good science to distinguish aggressive PC from indolent; PSA has been part of the problem leading to harm and waste.

Your behavior here has been awful and your editing here is more than awful since you are driving your own bias into the content and ignoring sources opposing what you wish were true.

As you know, people in your situation hammering our articles about autism is exactly why MEDRS was created. I understand that you actually lived through that and worked through it - something I respect enormously.

But if you cannot edit neutrally and behave in a way that honors what we try to do here, please stay away from this topic. Jytdog (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Jyt. Since we go way back, I think it advisable to avoid claiming "respect" while coming to my talk page to lodge easily verified false claims about my editing. You know I have scarcely been editing content, so claiming bias in my editing (along with respect) means I gotta call bullshit on an old friend. If you want to claim biased editing, provide a diff, and we'll go head-to-head on sources.

Don't patronize me or pull sexist overemotional overwrought woman editor claims on me-- I have been around here much too long to let that sort of thing get to me. That I don't do Gender Cop doesn't mean I don't recognize the issue when I see it.

I am sorry to hear that poor medical content in Wikipedia is not a concern for you; it is for me. It has always been a concern for me, and not just in prostate cancer. But you know this; nothing new. Our content is frequently dangerously wrong. And when it's medical, my opinion is that it matters more than on daisies, and I think it should be fixed as quickly as we are able (not by cursory runs through the lead by editors who aren't fully up on the content area).

Whenever multiple recent secondary reviews are ignored, based on no consensus or valid reasoning, bias results in any content area. But in the medical content area, that can create a deadly problem.

I have not driven ANY content into the articles, as I have scarcely edited them, and you know that quite well, because you have been around for my editing when I do undertake to fix an article. If I were editing this suite of articles (or I should say, if I had the time to edit them), I would have fixed the problems in a day. It is not hard to reflect controversy among multiple sources by including all the valid sources. As things stand now, weeks go by, and the articles aren't substantially changing.

I am sorry that I have exhausted you; your exhaustion could be addressed by perhaps stepping back from a topic that tires you? This topic does not tire me, because I understand it, and have spent two months now immersed in recent secondary reviews (which I can only access when I am actually at the hospital, and is part of what makes it hard for me to edit). I know it is hard to find yourself at a disagreement with someone who knows our guidelines, policies and medical editing as well as you do, but I usually manage to remain civil and polite, even with extenuating life circumstances. So please, let's keep it that way.

Jyt, you accused me of a specific poor edit summary on article talk, and have not yet answered my query about what the problem with an edit summary of "bias" is.[5] Yes, I could have entered a longer edit summary explaining why it was bias, but the post itself did that.[6] Please explain the problem with that edit summary; I would like to understand what the issue is. If you cannot, then please do not lodge unnecessarily emotional claims on talk. When I am trying to edit from an iPad (which will happen when I am sitting in a hospital waiting room), my edit summaries will be brief. They will never, though, say "fuck you". What is your objection to an edit summary of "bias" in a post that is explaining bias? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

References

I am not going to engage with this. I gave you my view, you will do as you will.

I have been reading the sources but have stayed away from editing so far, as what is going is a train wreck, and you are the engine driving it. Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you know as well as I do that your statements are not true. Perhaps you can focus on dealing with the editors who aren't editing competently. Or worry, as I do, that we have almost no one who can or does edit competently.

Meanwhile, for the third time, you have not backed up your false claims about my editing, or retracted your statements that amount to calling me an overwrought woman because my husband has cancer, and you must know you have no valid reason to treat me that way. Here are my six edits to the article:

1. 2012 guidelines, updated, completely wrong content. [7]
2. Still biased, but I did not edit, I tagged. And when my legitimate and justified tag was removed, I have not yet reinstated it. Restraint on board. [8]
3. Removed commercial sources, left text, tagged. You object? You can revert me and reinstate the commercial sources. [9]
4. For all your complaints about PSA screening, here is where you then should be working, Jytdog. [10]
5. Doc James removed text yesterday which indicates that he may be editing too quickly again, since I had just supplied a source. Explained on talk.[11] Reinstated, but rewrote to conform with source I had just provided on talk. Yet your complaint is with me, because I am relentlessly pointing out that Doc James edits too fast, without an in-depth understanding of the article. [12]
6. Corrected someone else's too close paraphrasing. You object? [13]

So, I have spoken up about some really bad articles, and some other editors are making really bad edits. That is somehow my fault? Shoot the messenger much?

Jyt, please ... what has happened to you? You are here basically attacking me for doing exactly what we are supposed to do on Wikipedia-- discuss controversial content on talk. And you were once a superbly helpful editor. Yes, this place can make people nuts-- but really? You know what I am going to do... calmly and politely point out when you are wrong, and then go back to being able to be friends. Can you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I made two more edits yesterday:

7. Minor MOS correction: [14]

8. Filled out a citation: [15]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't write here lightly. I have no desire to harm you or write things that aren't true as I see them. I spoke plainly, which is what I do.

Again, articles get out-dated. Claiming there is bias is just bullshit. My saying that you are not in a place to be working on this neutrally has nothing to do with your being a woman - it would be true of anybody going through a personal crisis around something. That you even brought that makes me want to engage with you even less at this time. I will not be replying here further. Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

allrighty then carry on as you will, but I feel pretty badly for you that these verifiably false claims are the best you can offer for collegial behavior ... and that you indicate no willingness to engage correctly on talk or consider sources that do not agree with your personal views. Not everyone is an enemy, Jyt. Take care there, I hope you will reconsider not your POV on this article, but your approach to collegial editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

More than 10 days later, without having engaged on talk to answer query about edit summaries, Jytdog, you are spreading your dispute to unrelated pages: [16] WP:LEAD is the place for discussions about leads, not interpersonal issues that you have so far refused to discuss. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• If you continue abusing the talk pages of the prostate articles as soap boxes and chat forums, I will seek a topic ban. I am now completely out of patience. Jytdog (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Jytdog, I urge you to step back and regain some perspective. You are unilaterally closing off active and helpful discussions on talk. Being hot-headed rarely ends well, can cloud judgment, and I value you as an editor in here. Perhaps you will think about your approach overnight, and reconsider? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
    • My talk post removed;[17] Jytdog, your interpretation was twice corrected: [18] [19] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

In August 2017, with the USPSTF backing off of its flawed recommendations, and with two other posters saying the same then as I said in early 2018,[20] Jytdog nonetheless reinstated the outdated text,[21] and re-added it again in February 2018.[22] The conversation then was quite emotional, with a poster saying to Jytdog, "have a heart you cold blooded murder".[23] This sheds new light on who is reacting emotionally or rationally since I highlighted these outdated articles. Yikes. So, put it aside, and work to fix it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

So you are starting to "keep score" here. Please be aware that if you don't use this soon, it will violate USERPAGE via WP:POLEMIC.

If you do bring a case, I will be able to bring plenty of diffs in response. Why you want to waste time on something that will distract us both from editing and most likely lead to a temporary TBAN on prostate for you and an IBAN between us, I don't know.

I do appreciate it that you have made the claim of "bias" in the prostate articles less and less frequently.

The wave of disruption generated by your initial storming-in has died down and I will start improving those articles soon, starting at the sub-articles. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, you think so differently than I do. What I would like to see happen is that a) you discuss, talk resolve with me rather than continue to threaten me; b) answer my question about why you object to my edit summaries; c) otherwise, stop spreading that claim to other pages like LEAD; d) get back to having a collegial relationship with me. We can ill afford to lose a single medical editor in here. I hope, once again, you will consider all of this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Why you want to waste time on abusing a good editor? If you are unable to communicate in a pleasant manner (I'm referring to the whole saga, not just this page), it would be highly desirable for you to find something else to worry about. Wikipedia is not your sole responsibility and if you can't do the job in a helpful way, please leave it to others. Johnuniq (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Johnuniq. Why do you ask fake questions? Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I am sympathetic towards what you do because I know that you have no idea how you come across. There's not much that can be done about that at Wikipedia but you might give some fleeting thought to it for real life. Johnuniq (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

That was a nonanswer to a real question but whatever. It is nice that you say you are sympathetic toward me. Jytdog (talk) 04:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

But Jyt, aside then from Johnuniq's point, your intended message was lost because of the way you came across, and we were talking at cross-purposes for weeks. I pondered for days why you would respond to a reasonable post (NYT is not a MEDRS) in the way you did, checked out socking probability (my best guess at the time), and could only conclude that maybe Wikipedia had turned you into a hardened meanie (it will do that :). Only yesterday did I understand what your point was. I can't stand gender-based anything, but underneath it all, prostate cancer is still a very real men's health problem, that Wikipedia has neglected. On the simple reality that one in six will deal with it, it should be an area that we prioritize. Thank you, too, for weighing in Johnuiq. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

If you go back and look at the discussion you opened at WT:MED about this, you will see that me and Doc James and others tried to respond respectfully but resisting or just stepping around the claims of bias, and two of our most tendentious and poorest editors responded emotionally there, specifically to the claims of bias, and both ran right over and made a hot mess of the articles and their talk pages. I came very close to finally seeking an indefinite block for QuackGuru based on what he was doing spurred by your goading (he too is attracted to drama and claims of bias, and ever since James got fired from the WMF board a couple of years ago, has become erratic and has increasingly turned his berserker tactics on mainstream medical topics) but fortunately he has calmed down. And yes the wash is coming out with Barbara at ANI.

There is no way that I was going to become active on the topic with those two running amok, continually goaded by your ongoing claims of bias and urgency.

I cannot imagine other competent editors had much interest in entering into that mess either. The subject matter is hard and nuanced editing is required; that sort of editing is very difficult in the atmosphere you have been creating, not to mention the layers of unpleasantness (including people being very aware of what you - who we all care about - are living through and your bringing your emotion over that into arguments about content). Not something most people want to get involved with, however important the subject matter.

Your behavior has been counter-productive to your goals of getting the articles improved.

Because the subject matter is important and because I saw the cycle not ending anytime soon, I finally posted here, addressing you about your behavior (and not going into the distraction of the effects it was having on others). Yes I am blunt sometimes. I do know how that can come across. I should have found a way to say it less bluntly/confrontationally. I appreciate that you have been toning it down.

I am looking forward to the ruckus settling so we can work on improving the articles. Jytdog (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I saw what was happening with other editors, acknowledged that above with my comment, "So, I have spoken up about some really bad articles, and some other editors are making really bad edits," and I point out that the personal parts were on a user talk page (Anthonyhcole). I suspect that problematic editors would have behaved same no matter how I had presented the issue, but now that I have context, I understand and accept your criticism. I did find myself in strange company, and that (more than anything you said), caused me to refrain from editing the articles, and turn instead to trying, on talk, to get that sort of editing to stop (e.g. massive and premature RFCs).

A problem with your bluntness is that all I saw in the first post was a vague insinuation about Barbara's "weirdness", that I had no context for, so it just looked you had turned mean. And then, I thought that meanness was now to be directed at me, for reasons unknown, but what felt like an accusation that I was behaving "like a girl" in a time when ... well, d'oh.

Where we likely disagree, is that IMO @Doc James: had an equal negative impact on this suite of articles as other editors mentioned. In general, I think he tries to do too much, and should slow down. His typical editing pattern is to come across one source, that he uses to edit in one sentence, without taking the overall picture into account. But this suite cannot be effectively piecemeal edited; getting the nuanced parts of what the heck do physicians do about prostate cancer screening amid the controversy is important. Wikipedia had glossed it over to, "doesn't work, don't do anything", and it's a significant topic in terms of men's health. (As I have now discovered, since that's how we ended up with prostate cancer beyond the cure stage :( I don't need to point out anything about your revert of me, because that is already above, but to me, the bias felt like two editors were insisting on using (almost exclusively) an outdated government source when we have so much better. My concern about bias was not so much a gender-based issue: it is bias in sources, caused by over focus on USPSTF. I got the impression that Doc and you were married to the USPSTF as THE defining source, even though they had to back down from their earlier stance. That is why I suggested using a model for writing as this gov't source, because it shows how all parts of the controversy can be included and discussed neutrally. I hoped it would give the two of you an alternate, yet still government, viewpoint. When Doc (too typically) leaves something like this in an article,:

• A 2018 review recommended against primary care screening for prostate cancer with DRE due to the lack of evidence of the effectiveness of the practice.[23] If a digital exam suggests anomalies, a PSA screening is then performed. If an elevated PSA level is found, a digital exam is then performed.[2]

IMO it causes equal damage to that which came from the others. In practice today, doctors (GPs and specialists alike) are recommending biopsies based on DRE. If that were not the case, my husband's cancer would still be undetected, since GP completely ignored doubling than tripling of PSA. We have to write a complete article, not just drop in individual sentences that leave our readers more confused. What on earth can we conclude from those two contradictory sentences?

I am glad we're talking; this feels more like the Jyt I used to know. With crap out there like the vaccine controversy, Lyme controversy, and Morgellons, we need all the good editing help we can get in here. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

We can deal with content at the relevant articles and their talk pages. Hopefully without drama, just looking at refs and what they say. Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Break

If it was just the USPSTF that made the recommendations against PSA screening maybe you would have a point Sandy. But it isn't and I am not seeing this acknowledged. We actually have a lot of sources that make this statement. With respect to the currency of the USPSTF should we use the current statement (which is 2012) or the draft? Or both? I often wait for the draft to be finalized. In this case you wanted to use the draft which I am also okay with. Was using the current version outdated or wrong? Not really.

I am not interested in having a battle with you over this. I am also not willing to allow Wikipedia to be tilted entirely towards the position of someone with a financial conflict of interest. This test may have helped your loved one in retrospect, sure. However if it was applied broadly it will also harm potentially equal or greater numbers. Screening is very much epidemiology. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Your response again highlights only one position -- that is, the outdated USPSTF position -- while ignoring others. (Since the draft is what is in use in practice your question concerns me. I hope you realize that, but I am beginning to wonder if you do-- it is possible that you rarely deal with PSA testing or prostate cancer in practice, much less relative to US Medicare payments.)

In this response, you have -- either deliberately or intentionally or through carelessness or through misreading -- misrepresented my edits, so please have a look at the actual edits and the responses they got:

In this text which you reverted, I had replaced the USPSTF as a sole (outdated) position, with FIVE (updated) positions, which included not only the USPSTF, but also organizations and groups that actually deal with prostate cancer:

1. The American College of Physicians,
2. American Cancer Society,
3. American Urological Association,
4. US Preventive Services Task Force, and
5. American Society of Clinical Oncology

You misstate the facts or have not paid attention to what my actual edits were (I will accept Jyt's criticism of how I presented my concerns). Please review my edits and understand what I actually wanted to use. You reverted my edit (apparently in haste without understanding), to again preference only one group-- the USPSTF. That, @Doc James: is why I am stating bias. (In this edit, @Jytdog: did the same thing.)

And I am not seeing you acknowledge that you are prioritizing one position, by one group that has no oncologists or urologists, while excluding the positions taken by those who actually deal with prostates and cancer and practice in the field. When all is said and done, I hope you will come around to understanding what you are doing here, how it biases the articles, and make sure it is corrected. I offered a well-written government source as a model that covers the entire controversy, without ignoring the fact that doctors still have to do something in practice to detect and treat prostate cancer. This model shows it can be done, comprehensively and neutrally.

You will have to deal with these problems, whether or not you are interested, if we end up with bias, because that is a breach of a core policy. Please recognize what you are doing when you preference one organization/group over many others.

With respect to, "Wikipedia to be tilted entirely towards the position of someone with a financial conflict of interest", your response is either disingenuous, careless, obtuse, or a reflection of too hasty reading and posting. I have not suggested tilting the article entirely towards Catalona. I have suggested that the article needs to reflect ALL sources, and that Catalona is one that explains the dilemma well, and I have provided multiple other recent secondary reviews on talk that have so far been ignored. Perhaps that is only because people are waiting for the bad editing to die down; time will tell.

More significantly, your response here did not even address my main concern about your editing; that you have not apparently even tried to understand my position or the sources shows again my concern. You edit too fast, you leave behind errors, you don't take the time to address the whole when you insert a piece, and I am concerned that the focus of your editing efforts at en.wikipedia is not aimed at improving our medical articles as much as it is aimed at two other projects (translation and that little box thingie). If you are losing interest in improving articles here, then at least please do not revert editors who do insert updated and comprehensive information.

Will you please try to slow down and take the time to understand the problem here? I replaced the outdated USPSTF position, with the updated USPSTF position PLUS FOUR other associations, and that you reverted that, which is not only biased-- it is extremely unhelpful to our readers.

I hope we can all start reading to hear, and that these articles will eventually be corrected, as they are important articles for men's health. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

This text you added "providing supportive information for decision-making about PSA screening" is unclear. IMO this is clearer "Informed decision making is recommended when it comes to screening." and better reflects the source in question. You will notice that I did not remove the reference in question.

Are you saying the "draft" is the "current version"? Or that you feel the "current version" is oudated? That the USPSTF has a draft for a new version indicates they feel it needs updating aswell but it does not mean they have already updated it.

Catalona expresses a position on the debate yes. And a somewhat lop sided opinion at that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Your text says the same thing mine said. Doc, please don't try to go in circles with me. You REMOVED the fact that pretty much everyone who counts is in on informed decision making between patient and physician, while leaving your preference for USPSTF. Do you disagree that our readers deserve to know where physicians and physician associations stand on the matter? Why did you remove the other four?

I am saying that Medicare pays for PSA screening; the 2012 guideline is outdated. The 2012 USPSTF guideline has a significant place in the history of prostate cancer. The text and sources I added reflected current practice.

Just as lopsided as the USPSTF 2012 was. Whether you want to claim that Catalona's positions are finance-based (I prefer to think he understands that the USPSTF caused prostate cancer to be detected at a later, incurable stage, hence his motive is altruistic, not financial, but not ours to know or say), there are nonetheless other sources saying the same, and we are neglecting them. The bigger question is why you are so tied to one group, USPSTF, which does not have any member who practices in urology or oncology.

And I still hope you will slow down, listen to others, and recognize that you cannot continue to address articles by plopping your preferences in to the leads and ignoring the overall picture. Prostate cancer is a controversial and nuanced topic; your editing style led to the problems there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree the positions on PSA have become more nuanced since 2012. Our article now reflects that which is an improvement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

This presented a situation for you to contemplate how seriously we should take our content. Real harm happens. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

PSA

Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention. I noticed it yesterday (don't remember where already, maybe at Jimbo talk) and have spent considerable time reading and getting up to speed, on several talk pages and noticeboards. You have my support. Just wanted to let you know that, this reading inspired me yesterday to quit procrastinating and schedule that annual physical I've been putting off. Since my doc told me my PSA jumped up significantly since my previous physical and I should have it rechecked in six months (I didn't). Since my younger brother told me last November that he had been diagnosed (though biopsy found just a little, so "watch & wait"). Still didn't call doc (what I read online probably had something to do with my procrastination). Now I finally have an appointment. My brother recommended this book by Sheldon Marks, MD; I checked it out from my local library and am reading it now. Just in the preface and first six pages I've already learned a lot. Indeed good news below! Best, wbm1058 (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Wbm1058:, I am so glad someone was helped by my/our misfortune :( We missed out on early detection, so ended up with more advanced cancer than where we coulda/woulda been two years ago, when PSA first jumped. And with a family history, you really must stay on it.

This is a book I recommend. As I understand it, there is a big problem with Gleason 6 men running around demanding aggressive treatment, which is better addressed by watchful waiting, but we are beyond that. By the way, we have become friends with a Gleason 9, Stage 4 guy who is doing great years after surgery: it is true that prostate cancer can change your life, and make a mess of everything, but not necessarily kill you. Just makes you enjoy every day a bit more, and be more grateful.

I am sorry to say that the problems in Wikipedia's articles have not been addressed yet, so be sure to get up-to-date books if needed. :( Best of luck to you, and you can email me anytime. I am TERRIBLE about checking or responding to my Wikipedia email, though, hardly use it at all, so you probably have to ping me if you write. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

medical FA editnotices

Hi SandyGeorgia! I can't help but look at whatever good work you're doing lately (aw shucks), and I came across your sandbox with a list of medical FA editnotices like Template:Editnotices/Page/Alzheimer's disease. Would you support standardizing the text of those by, um, using a template? The advantage being that the text could be amended for all of them in one place, as needed. This is recommended at batches of edit notices. The only counter-indication would be some foreseeable need to have various unique wordings in the notices (which I've not seen). I ask because I'd be willing to work on that; because you created most of those pages, I think; and with the caveat that I'd have to try to get (temporary) template-editor permissions. Outriggr (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I would say I love you, but dear hubby would see it. Could you would you? I have template editor, if you tell me how, I could do them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

oh, but a couple of them are unique ... British English ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Ugh. BrEng might be workable with a yes or no toggle. If I told you what to do, then you'd have to do it all. Well maybe I create the template, and you would then edit the nn edit notices? Is that fair? As an aside, when you view an edit notice, does the text wrap across characters within words? It does for me, including logged out in another browser. That's bad. (All edit notices, not just the med FAs.) Outriggr (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I have a vague memory of there being other differences, not just that some have BrEng wording, so I will have to group the for you by what is in them. All is fair-- you just have to walk me through it. I don't have the problem you mention ... ??? I will go to my sandbox talk and set up a list of the templates grouped by wording. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Outriggr: I started at my sandbox talk, and wor

ds split like this ??? (Oh, the things one can accomplish when sitting in hospital waiting rooms :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I mean. Sandy, we'll start with a generic wording for as many as possible. I have created Template:Medical FA editnotice, which you can sub into whatever editnotice you'd like to test with. Outriggr (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

PS I copyedited the default text as follows, for the record. I am using a completely inappropriate template here that will do a before and after... 00:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Attention editors
Alzheimer's disease is one of the English Wikipedia's featured articles. While it is open for editing like any other, it has gone through a community review process where it was checked for high quality sources, a thorough survey of the relevant literature, and compliance with the featured article criteria, including a consistent citation style. It is requested that you discuss significant changes of text or images on this article's talk page before editing.

As a medical article, this article must also comply with Wikipedia's medical content and sourcing guidelines.

 Attention editors:
"Alzheimer's disease" is a featured article. While it is open for editing like any other, it has gone through a community review process, which ensures that the article represents a thorough survey of the relevant literature, uses high-quality sources, and complies with the featured article criteria, including a consistent citation style. It is requested that you discuss significant changes to text or images on this article's talk page before editing.

As a medical article, this article must also comply with Wikipedia's medical content and sourcing guidelines.

Yep. @Bishonen:, could you look at what we're up to here? This article is no longer an FA, so might you delete the page? Template:Editnotices/Page/Keratoconus?

There, that was an excuse to see if Bish will make you a template editor? Outrigger, I have to drive (sedated) hubby home from hospital now, which takes an hour ... back later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Outriggr: I'm so sorry, but I need to apologize and withdraw. I have not the slightest interest in lifting even one little finger to help those nincompoops over at the medical project. I'm so sorry to let YOU down, but there is no reason for me to expend any effort to benefit the very people who are tearing down medical content and medical FAs on Wikipedia. Perhaps Bish or someone can make you a template editor and you can take that project on yourself. I will finish the article that I am doing because it interests ME, and then be gone again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

No worries, I know it's (beyond) frustrating. I only bothered ya because I thought you were "back" like I'm "back" (and anyway it was supposed to be my doing, maybe I can get the permission or find someone else to do it) . ;-) So many of us appreciate your voice... but what's best for you. Outriggr (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

well, as Moni would say, this place sucks great big green donkey balls. I have an article I want to finish because it will make me happy. After that, fuck 'em. Sorry that it came to this just when you came back and asked for my help. You can take those templates and do whatever you would like with them ...  :( :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Unrelated: has anyone noted that those videos cite wikipedia as a source? I assume they have, but there's a lot of discussion there. Thought you'd probly know? Outriggr (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Yea, we've noted all that and more. They aren't even pretending to read over at WT:MED. One would expect higher cognitive levels in a medical group. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Outriggr: ok, ready to go.

• I have the list at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox#Medical_FA_editnotices
• We will need a BrEng template that transcludes the Template:Medical FA editnotice and adds extra info.
• In the "Other" section, Moni asked me to one for Donner Party, so will leave that alone, and Kerataconus is defeatured, so waiting for it to be deleted.

So, do I just subst: the Template:Medical FA editnotice in to each one, or is there more you wanted to do? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Did Template:Editnotices/Page/Tourette syndrome for Tourette syndrome as first test. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

ok, I noticed it didn't display the article name properly. That should be fixed now... Outriggr (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

PS Whatever page you test with, all you need to put on it is {{Medical FA editnotice}}. Outriggr (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be working at Tourette syndrome-- except for the weird word chop thing. Out for the evening-- my son's birthday-- let me know if I should do the rest later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Yup, should be good to replace all of them now. I will request semi-protection for the template at some point soon, so it can't be vandalized. The word chop thing is unrelated to this endeavor... (for the BrEng or other variants, you could still use the template, but keep the existing page content as well, only trimming it down to the BrEng sentences or whatever.) Outriggr (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

To Do

• Wikipedia:Featured articles/Editnotice templates
• {{Active editnotice}}
• {{Medical FA editnotice}}

Yo. You know, it's not clear to me that "Active editnotice" does anything. It didn't put TS in a category; as far as I can tell it doesn't do anything with article pages. (I see that it is recommended at the bottom of... some navbox about editnotices.) Do you know something I don't? (well I don't mean generally) ;) Outriggr (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

PS there's {{British English editnotice}} that you could combine with the new Med template, but you'd lose the specific word examples, like "diarrhea", which I won't attempt to smell spell in BrEng. Outriggr (talk) 03:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know nuttin! I was thinking maybe it just hadn't populated the categories yet? So, I did Donner Party, the Br Eng, and TS, and was going to check in the morning before continuing. Then can figure out if using the BrEng is preferable to not. I'll continue tomorrow night probably ... maybe we'll both be smarter by then :) Thanks for getting this moving, Outriggr. Too bad it's not as fun in here as those days! (no music) If you figure out what I'm supposed to do with Active editnotice, let me know. G'night! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Outriggr:, discussion here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Figured it out. The documentation there is wrong, but it does work on article talk. I'll work on the rest of these later tonight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Got the templates done while I was burning the potatoes, will do the talk page notices later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

FYI

I'm about to log off now, but will get back to DLB tomorrow. Also, I recently asked you a question at Doc James' talk page, and it would be good if you would reply there. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Trypto. I have no interest in ever visiting Doc James' talk page again, and I think the question was rather obviously already answered by the fact that, in order to get back to work, I simply left all of the citations in the article lead, although no guideline or policy requires them. That meant that I had to continue adding even more citations where they aren't necessary, and that in turn constrains prose. But it is easier to just leave them than to try to get Doc James to see the effect on others of extending a guideline beyond its intent, especially when others interfere when I try to resolve differences with him. Long and short-- not worth the hassle, when I just wanted to finish the article, and would hope that one can "show by doing" that collaboration should be what it's all about, not one person imposing personal preferences across the entire medical suite. Once this article is done to my satisfaction, it is unlikely I will ever engage anything medical on Wikipedia again, so I don't think the question is that relevant anymore. Look at ANI right now (latest "fuck off" incident at WP:MED) and ask yourself how one can be proud to be associated with all that has happened in the name of a well-intentioned MEDRS, which has turned into the bludgeon of a private club, where multiple members have lost all sense of civility? Thanks for your help on the article. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Concur with Sandy. In a recent discussion at WP:MED, newbies who had not yet reached the perfection required of others, and who are less privileged in their access to journals, are labelled "lazy and sloppy". This, and what I see is the constant use of revert and remove, rather than add and discuss, just demonstrates that WP:MED seem only interested in bullying and defeating other editors, or modifying pages to fit with some off en-wp agenda. They do not in my experience seem interested in writing collaboratively, and in encouraging fine writers, people with enthusiasm for a topic, and real actual subject experts, to stay. -- Colin°^Talk 11:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I would rather not discuss WP:MED anymore; as I said, I will finish this article best I can, and hopefully rarely or never visit that place or medical topic(s) again. Editing is supposed to be a fun hobby. I cleared my talk page because I have to be every weekday an hour away at a clinic for months, and have no interest in trying to reach those who will not hear. Perhaps Doc James will see on article talk that collaborative editing is how top content is produced. I will give Trypto the right to respond, and archive this topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, on a positive note, I'd like to add that it was Sandy's featured article Tourette syndrome, that encouraged me to believe I could achieve one too, and still sets the standard for accessible medical articles on WP. -- Colin°^Talk 11:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, I just wanted to make sure that you hadn't missed it. I certainly won't argue with you about it, and you should feel free to archive this thread anytime you want. (And yes, that ANI conflict is disappointing.) If there are any situations where you think that I can help, please don't hesitate to ask me. On a more important front, I'm glad that I can be of help at the DLB page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Trying

Hi. I keep having minor crises and emergencies errupt around me. I'm trying to get to WP. Should be free in five hours or so. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Goodnight

[24] I worry, but its also very good to edit with people like you and Eric. Ceoil (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Back at you two, from us two. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh that is lovely and tinged with sadness. Ceoil (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

And hope. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Hichki

Hi! This is a mainstream Bollywood released recently in which the protagonist has Tourette’s syndrome. Have not seen it, but watched the trailer. Just FYI!--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Hichki

Hi! This is a mainstream Bollywood released recently in which the protagonist has Tourette’s syndrome. Have not seen it, but watched the trailer. Just FYI!--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Dwaipayanc, where have you been ? Good to "see" you. Yes, I saw that .. it is a take off on Brad Cohen's movie. I should go add it to the Sociological article ... now that it is actually out. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk)

Hi there

I'm fine, just way too busy for this any more (although I'll probably edit slightly in the future on here). I'm writing full time for 10 firearm magazines and just became the Editor for Tactical World Magazine. When I'm turning paid writing jobs away, it doesn't make much sense to write for free these days. Thank you for all your help and friendship over the years, you probably played a pivotal role in getting me where I am today as a professional author and editor! Stay in touch!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Keyboard

I'm glad I'm not the only one, although for you its a one off - for me its endemic! "Smooth prosing" conjures so many ridiculous images, all delightful. Yoman would weep with joy at the possibilities, well done :) Ceoil (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

ah, the dear Yoman! I am gobsmacked at my doctor. Went for a routine checkup yesterday, nurse wanders in to give me the new shingles vac, says I may have some soreness at the site, and when I get home, I read on the insert that 1 out of 6 will get fever, chills, headache, soreness ... for two to three days ... enough to interfere with normal life. Sheesh, I feel like crap and had an important event today ... they might have better explained, no? My brain is mush, but I've been in bed for about 30 hours now ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

PS @Ceoil: have you worked all the magic you can at dementia with Lewy bodies? I don't want to call in Eric until the current issue subsides, but I'm done as far as I know. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I've been happy with the article with about a week. And from following the talk it seems as if all the substantive issues are largely resolved, so yes it may be time to call in the prose heavies, ie Eric, to polish. PS, sad to hear you are feeling unwell. Had something similar a few weeks back re a prescription I could get due to snowstorm. Ceoil (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson

I saw that you reverted some of the changes made to the article of Samuel Johnson, some of those edits being added by me. Your justification for doing this is, as per your words, either because you haven't verified the text or because you feel the edits are not needed. It's good that you're vigilant, but I wasn't aware that the article was under special status where Wikipedia rules don't apply. Unless an article is protected, as far as I'm concerned, we can edit it and add sources without having someone verify them. On top of that, you removed content because you felt it wasn't significant, but if that's the case, you can discuss the issue, and not just remove the text. The reason why I added his height--and him being three-in-one-thousand of that stature--is because his height and "robust figure" is mentioned in the article (as it should), and if we are to know that he was tall, we can just as well know how tall he was. Not only that, but Johnson's physique is, as you must know, a topic of interest due to his mannerism and unique way of expressing himself (his tics included). On top of that, the section deals with Johnson's physical appearance. Overall, the information about his height adds substance to that insight.

Since I believe that you have the best interest at heart--since no Johnson reader would be anything but sensible and aim for precision--I like you to believe the same about me and anyone who invests in that article, so I'm asking you to take a second look and perhaps find a context for that information and improve the flow. Note. You also removed the sourced info about Adams remark about Johnson and you say it's a repeat, but I searched the article and I don't find this information elsewhere. Thanks. --Cei Trei (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Cei Trei: in fact, I kept quite a few of your edits, and I did not revert any edits because I hadn't verified them (I noted that I hadn't verified edits when cleaning up MOS and citation errors that should not be introduced to an FA). For example, I did not remove his height; I moved it to a footnote, because it was introduced in a way that didn't flow. Please review the policy page at WP:OWN#Featured articles; after you have done that, we can discuss your edits on article talk. The article is quite large, and uses summary style, so often, new text can be added to a sub-article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

shows

What gets me is that sshowx was entirely foreseeable, down to the finest detail. But there was quite a delay, granted, probably attributable to how few eyes there are on this project any more. (Vandalism patrol, since I requested rollback, and slooow protection requests, have taught me that.)

Regards, Outriggr (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I almost feel like I should feel bad for someone over this comedy of errors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Lewy Body Dementia or Dementia with Lewy Bodies?

Dear Sandy,

I am currently studying neurodegenerative diseases. Reading Wikipedia articles is always a good start as it gives you a good overview and is a bit more comprehensible than research papers. Reading the Wikipedia article on Lewy Body Dementias, I learned that this is supposed to be an umbrella term for both PDD and DLB. I was wondering whether this really is a consensus opinion? The reference cited (Walker 2015: Lewy body dementias) confirms this and states that the DSM-5 adapted this nomenclature. I was, however, not able to confirm this as I can't find the term 'Lewy Body Dementia' anywhere in DSM-5. Furthermore, every other scientific publication I read on this topic either uses the two terms DLB and LBD interchangibly, or exclusively use the term DLB. Do you know of other publications that use the term LBD for both DLB and PDD?

Many thanks for your help!

Best

Phil

@62.159.94.122: Hi, Phil. Yes, it's pretty general. Since others are likely to have the same question, I will start a thread at Talk:Lewy body dementia listing multiple sources. Give me some time to dig back into all my sources! Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Responded on article talk. I would be curious to see a high quality, recent secondary review that uses the terms interchangeably. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sandy,

thanks for the swift reply and the detailed examination of the references cited! Seems there isn't really a consensus on the use of 'LBD' as an umbrella term, but perhaps a trend towards it, as also the NIH is using the term now. Keep up the good work!

Best Phil 62.159.94.122 (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi there

Hi SandyGeorgia, I see you've declined many times in the past, but wanted to see if you'd accept my request to turn this blue? I think you have demonstrated plenty of good will and may find some of the additional utilities useful. Keep in mind, you would never be expected to use any specific utility that you did not want to. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 18:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Sasha_(Welsh_DJ)#Requested_move_5_July_2018

Your input as an editor who has edited Sasha (Welsh DJ) substantially is needed in this requested move - Talk:Sasha_(Welsh_DJ)#Requested_move_5_July_2018. Please consider participating. The editor whose username is Z0 13:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, SandyGeorgia. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

FAC archive

"for that matter, I once archived a FAC that had 28 supports. One solid review finding problems offset 28 fan supports in that case"

Out of curiosity, which FAC was that? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Jo-Jo. Someone else might remember the name of the woman, as 10 years is a long time for my memory :) It was a well-known female Indian actress, from the time period when we had gazillions of very active editors from India. Probably 2008. The FAC received mostly drive-by fan supports, which were easily offset by uninvolved reviewers who engaged the FA criteria correctly. On a side note, a good deal of what I see these days at FAC would qualify as "fan support", which I would have disregarded. It is always good to have clearly uninvolved reviewers ... when the same small set of reviewers known to work together are consistently supporting each others' articles, I would not promote unless an uninvolved reviewer is also in there. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Seasons

	Gothic Seasons Greetings
	Wishing you all the best for x-mass and miss you as always. Thought what happened to you this year was shocking, but not surprising, and I notice, frankly, that karma has come around. Keep on fighting the good fight my dear. Ceoil (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2018 (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 17:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Greetings and Salutations

To SandyGeorgia:

Hello!

Congratulations!

You have been included in my first, and possibly only, Very Early Christmas List!

As an earnest fellow believer in Santa Claus, and possibly in Our Redeemer Liveth as well, you may wonder how you got on this list.

I have no idea!

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Unless I tracked down the connection in our user talk archives, in which case you know who you are!

Or not.

All the best for you and yours this Christmas 2018 and New Year 2019!

– Athaenara jingles all the way 02:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Best wishes

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Shepherds (Cariani) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

	Season's greetings!
	I hope this holiday season is festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2019 will be safe, successful and rewarding...keep hope alive....Modernist (talk) 12:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Austral season's greetings

	Austral season's greetings
	Tuck into this! We've made about three of these in the last few days for various festivities. Supermarkets are stuffed with cheap berries. Season's greetings! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Xmas

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Seasonal Greetings

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

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 heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 06:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.