User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch115

FAR

If youre looking for additional articles that should be delisted, see Hubble Space Telescope and Titanium. 2001:4455:1A9:E100:84EE:382D:7BB5:286C (talk) 11:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not “looking for additional articles that should be delisted”; I am, though, interested in seeing more people work to maintain the overall pool of FAs. Titanium was noticed in December; I know it has deficiencies, and I can nominate one article per week. As an IP, you cannot start a FAR, but you can read the instructions at WP:URFA/2020, and enter comments at Hubble Space Telescope and add them to URFA and WP:FARGIVEN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Why can't an IP start a FAR? There's nothing in the instructions against it. If you can't create the page Wikipedia:Featured article review/Titanium/archive2, you can ask someone else to do it on your behalf. (t · c) buidhe 12:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

That’s what I meant (it is my understanding they can’t create pages). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, 2001: I have added your notice at WP:URFA/2020A. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello

Hello again. Apologies for this super random message, but I just wanted to pop in and see how you are doing. Best of luck with your work on the J. K. Rowling article. It is a lot of a lot since she is a very well known figure who has attracted a lot of coverage and is very controversial so two difficult points to handle and untangle. I hope you are having a wonderful weekend so far. Aoba47 (talk) 06:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Aoba47 Happy New Year! Great to hear from you. Yes, Rowling is quite the chore, but probably well worth it considering the high page views. The article has turned around considerably in only five days, but my back is not thanking me. I hope you are well; we are utterly surrounded by COVID, and cancelling plans right and left, hunkering down at home, as everyone around us is sick. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• Congratulations with all the work on the Rowling page. I agree that it is important to make sure articles with high page views are presenting the information accurately and in a way that best reflects Wikipedia (and more specifically featured articles). I am sorry to hear about your back. I live in Florida so I think that says it all regarding COVID lol. I am trying my best to be responsible and stay as safe as possible for the benefit of everyone. It is not a surprise, but 2022 is not looking great in respect to the pandemic. Aoba47 (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for another message, but I have a quick question. An editor cleared my sandbox because of its "promotional language" and left a very odd message on my talk page. Do you have any advice on how I should respond to this situation? Aoba47 (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Sit tight ... I can look within the hour but not at this minute ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Take as much time as you need. I thought it would be best to turn to someone else for advice. Aoba47 (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

hmmmm ... needs admin intervention. Lots of problems. First, it appears to me that they used rollback to remove content from a user sandbox, not an article, and I doubt that rollback should be used for that even if in an article. The first step in DR is always to discuss with the editor, but I wonder what that editor is up to and whether discussion will be productive. How would you like me to help ? I think it likely that editor may need to have some restrictions. Jo-Jo Eumerus ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• I agree that it is best to discuss this with the editor, but to be honest, I was uncertain about what to say. I think I will take a few hours away from Wikipedia to collect my thoughts and come back and compose a message to them about the subject. I am uncertain if the discussion would be productive or not either, but I should make the attempt anyway. I just found this situation to be very surprising so I wanted to reach out to someone to make sure I was not imagining something. Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  AGF is always a good place to start. Maybe they didn't realize it was user space, and maybe they don't realize rollback is only for vandalism. But that just reinforces that they shouldn't have rollback privileges. Maybe start by asking questions, to determine their level of awareness of what they have done. If an immediate and profuse apology follows, I'd feel better about the whole thing ... if not, I'd be asking admins to remove rollback there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  PS, the other problem is they have no business editing your user sandbox without your permission, absent some serious policy violation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Commented on the rollback on their talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  That’s an … impressive … user talk page :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Peer review/SpaceX Starship/archive2 § Meta-comments by CactiStaccingCrane. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Accident?

Pretty sure this was an accident? I'd fix it but I don't have the right. If it's intended as an example, could you add it to /doc instead? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

ugh, so sorry. I must have clicked on the wrong page when I was attempting cleanup on a different page from all of those bot edits. Have I corrected it now? iPad editing; if not fixed, I will need to get on real computer to see better …. Thanks for letting me know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

No worries. Looks fine now. Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Rowling sources...

I will try, today was spent trucking across Utah...with very spotty internet. Tomorrow should be better, but I have a work meeting (yes, while I’m on the road over the internet...and on a Saturday...go go gaming industry...) and then I need to make up for the time I lost today in some game work first, before wiki....and I have so fucking idea if the Hilocaust in Poland ArbCom request is going to be accepted or not so that’s hanging over my head like a sword... I was supposed to be working on horse research this trip!.Ealdgyth (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I may be following in your footsteps soon, but am really worried about what it would be like to get COVID on the road. Undecided whether to attend an important family event.

You sound even busier than I thought, so now I feel bad for asking, but J.K. Rowling is very highly viewed, there are no good bios, and I am starting to worry that her bio is becoming less and less bio as the FAR proceeds. Just need your opinion on whatever bios there are, none of which are grand.

I have peeked into the arb request enough times to see some eye-popping posts and for it to trigger the Wiki-equivalent of PTSD over some of my most painful times on Wikipedia, things that seem to stick with me no matter the years that pass, and to know all I can do is sit on my fingers and worry that Nothing Will Ever Change at RFAR. But then, I forgot to vote this year, so I can’t complain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Travel hasn't been that bad... as long as you've got your boosters and you take the usual precautions (and don't go to big huge indoor gatherings like a concert ...) you should be relatively safe. I got the source thing done - it wasn't that hard, I just needed to set the laptop up instead of just using the ipad ... it's too hard to juggle multiple windows and doing copy-paste with the ipad. Off to my meeting!! Ealdgyth (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

THANK you ever so much! (What I don't like is thinking about what would it be like to get COVID on the road ... would hotels reject you ... ugh ... ) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

We stayed at a couple of hotels on our way to the inlaws for the holidays ... they didn't ask for vaccination status or take our temps or anything... just took our money. I will say that if you're planning on going/stopping at anything within a Native reservation, expect MUCH more stringent protocols. We just stopped at a Native American travel plaza connected to a casino last night (as an aside, those are some of the nicest truck stops around...) and they took our temp and required masks and all that... so be warned. California wasn't imposing any restrictions on us going into and out of truck stops that we noticed. Haven't been to the east coast so no clue there. Scott says Oregon is a bit more restrictive than California. Take it for what it's worth. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that info, Ealdgyth ... tough decision whether to go for my father's 90th birthday. Still undecided ... but we'd be taking the same route you took on the way there. Have fun now! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

J. K. Rowling

Sorry - Wiki seems to have rolled back one of your edits. I brushed a touchscreen by accident, cancelled immediately, but there may have been a timing issue because you were currently editing. Mea Culpa - have you a copy of the missing edit? Ian Dalziel (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

No prob... that happens ALL the time. I can fix it ... not to worry ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The Foundation owes you $35. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Seriously, if I had just done that this morning, my back would be thanking me. It's very hard to read/navigate online, but I suspect there is a ton of good stuff in there. Now off to find the three that were published after 2017. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

About Special:Diff/1065501580: think you still have the second printing of Smith checked out, so I checked this one. That version doesn't say specifically that Christopher Little only did adult thrillers, although it does imply it. But the overall story about her being taken on because Evans liked the book seems ... sort of normal, insofar as agents presumably employ readers who are not likely to recommend a manuscript for a writer they don't already rep unless someone at the agency says it is good. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

AleatoryPonderings returned it now for a short food break. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

My thought re: starting a discussion on a rewrite of the section on transgender issues now was that it would good to get wider comment earlier rather than later—as inevitably there would be a torrent of criticism about it no matter when we started. I got carried away with the general pace and, seeing this as the last big section to "check off" and rewrite, that's what I did. I now see what you mean about saving energy on the hardest parts till last. If I've derailed things, I'm sorry. Frankly, I'm getting exhausted with this article and need a break. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@AleatoryPonderings: Awww … not to worry … as “they say”, if this is the worst that happens, it’s not so bad. I had observed, though, that several of the key participants in the Transgender controversy/RFC had not yet even weighed in, so didn’t want us to get our energy dissipated by contentious disagreement before we had gotten the basics nailed down on the rest of the article, for fear of burnout! Nothing is irrecoverable; we can slow down now, and we will get there. If you do take a day off, it always help to come back refreshed ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Heroic work on the chronological inconsistencies. I was amused to discover that this inability to keep basic facts straight extends to The Christmas Pig, published last year: Kirkus and the NYT can't even agree on how old the main character is. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

It's crazy making. What I think I can do quickly ends up taking hours as there are so many mistakes. It is not possible for her to have met Arantes 18 months after arriving in Portugal ... the numbers don't add up. Everything has to be checked ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Cholera and MEDRS

(Yes, I know this isn't a fun New Years' Eve topic). So I'm rather slowly reworking a bio of a 19th-century political and military leader (Sterling Price) who contracted cholera during the Mexican-American War in the 1840s. A 1970s bio of Price (which actually appears to be the most recent major scholarly bio of him) claims that having cholera during the war led to Price having intestinal disorders for the rest of his life. Both the lifelong bowel problems and the cholera are well-attested, but without any real knowledge about cholera, I have no idea if this is a standard effect of the disease that I can source to the non-MEDRS biography, or if this is a more extraordinary claim that should be left out without a stronger source for medical claims. Hog Farm _Talk 17:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Graham Beards is the expert on this one :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Hog Farm I did some checking myself. Uptodate.com (a very good source) says “ In general, there are no long-term complications of cholera when it is appropriately treated. However, like other causes of childhood diarrheal illness, cholera may contribute to the development of chronic enteropathy and malnutrition in young children.” So I think that gives you what you need. At any rate, you can still attribute the statement for extra coverage … lifelong bowel problems which Price attributed to cholera … SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hog Farm and Graham Beards: where does this stand? How can I help? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Ummm ... I kinda got busy getting ready to get married and never got around to updating that in the article - will go through and attribute the statement just to be on the safe side. Hog Farm _Talk 18:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hannah Montana FAC

Hello again! I currently have Hannah Montana up as a Featured Article Candidate. If you are able to, I would appreciate your comments on the nomination, and thought you might be interested in the topic. It was excellent having your feedback on my previous Featured Article - Hi-5 (Australian group). I would appreciate any of your feedback, but I understand if you are unable to. Thank you! SatDis (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, SatDis; my apologies for the late response. I have been quite tied up elsewhere, and will be for the foreseeable future. I'm sorry to say that it is unlikely that I will get to that FAC, but wish you the best of luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Just a note

Hi Sandy, hope all is well. Just a note in appreciation for everything you do here. Specifically, your peer reviewing of my Whitman articles greatly increased both their quality and (hopefully) my ability to write. Regardless, it means a lot to me and the encyclopedia greatly benefits from it. Thanks again, and wishing you and yours all the best in 2022. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Eddie891; my apologies for the late response, as I've been excessively entertained elsewhere. Thank you ever so much for the kind words; we never have enough of that in here :) I do so like reading your articles; thanks for all you do, too! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Rowling other

Ealdgyth are you about, and do you have a moment for me? If this is too much for you to explore, I just need to know where to go to ask my non-admin questions. AFAIK, I have never dealt with arb enforcement-- possibly because they make it messy enough that no mere mortal would want to wade in there.

See Talk:J. K. Rowling. There are two templates about discretionary sanctions: for BLPs and for gender-related topics. When I attempt to follow up on those a) I can find no user talk template for alerts similar to what is available for COVID, and b) I cannot even figure out if those sanctions are still in place (I hit conflicting info).

If we have gender-related nastiness spilling over in to a FAR, where do I take that? Do I start an AE action, or do I go to ANI? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I am about - we're about to get possibly snowed in in Ohio for a day ...heh. I'm not a big hand at adminly stuff at ArbCom, but I do have some experience with it (blech!). To be honest, if I was you, I'd lean on @Barkeep49: for whether to go to AE or ANI. I'd lean AE myself, but ... here I'm going to be frank - if I was you, I'd just give up on Rowling. The fighting over the article is going to be nasty. If no one at the talk page is interested in saving the article's star, there's no reason you should get into that amount of stress over it. And I've not seen any sign that the "warriors" are at all caring about FAR at all... they are too busy digging into their positions. Ealdgyth (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I can't bother BK on this one; BK is a book editor and is needed on that article. And there is a big bunch of editors working on improving that important and highly visible BLP (who going in, may not have known of the long-standing tensions there). I am of no mind to let POV warriors of any kind run over a fine and collaborative effort to save a star; even if we can't save the star, we can at least leave the article in better shape than we found it. Who can help me figure out if those sanctions are still in place, what they mean, and how they are enforced? Or should I just make a fool of myself, and ask my dummies 101 questions at ANI? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Try @Casliber:? I really don't play much at AE, I've got enough on my plate with Holocaust stuff. Maybe @Dennis Brown:? Or @Guerillero:? Ealdgyth (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Ealdgyth; stay warm there. Cas is a FAR Coord, so can't really get involved unless he recuses, leaving it all to Nikki and DrKay. If any of those other folks weigh in, they might look below, with respect to NewImpartial following my edits here and this kind of unhelpful snark appearing on the FAR pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Sandy; I hope you don't mind me weighing in. WP:GENSEX is still active, as can be seen in this recent AE case, and NewImpartial is aware of them, per this notice they gave Tewdar. Beyond this, however, I cannot help. BilledMammal (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much; that helps, although it will take me quite some time to digest, as I'm not familiar with AE. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

If you have direct diffs of misconduct, I am interested to see them. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• SandyGeorgia, Template:Ds/alert is what we use for user talk page templates, and has the list. There are four options for gender, but I think they are all shortcuts to the same template. "gg" is commonly used, from the old arb name. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality is the case. Only edits that violate the discretionary sanctions but are done after the user talk page notice is given, will be considered by WP:AE, which is the venue of choiice. Gender related Arb relief is enforced with a vigor by several admins, I've noticed, so getting resolution is seldom a problem. I seldom participate in those discussions myself, as there are plenty of other admin willing and I tire of the drama surrounding each case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Dennis Brown and Guerillero: thanks so much (and for Ealdgyth who pinged you); considering I am a 15-year editor, the amount of stuff I don’t know can be surprising. Somewhere in my search for how AE and DS works, I came across a page that did not list all the alerts, which confused me, but now I don’t know where I found that. So now I do know where to find this stuff.

  But one (hopefully final) question: is this the list for which an editor can be sanctioned, or do we have to go back to the individual arb case and highlight a specific arb finding? If that’s the list, then is it true that failure to AGF is sanctionable, as we expect editors in a FAR discussion related to sexuality to not bring baggage from previous encounters with other editors ala personalizing statements, and if those personalizing statements are consistent and multiple, they could be considered disruptive and not an attempt at consensus building?

  Hopefully, with some clarity on those questions, we won’t see such behavior taking hold on the FAR talk pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Template:Ds/alert is probably the best place to find the list of what is subject to DS and it has a link to each of the Arb cases, so it is all pretty concise. Anytime there is an issue with an editor in a DS covered area, you want to use the proper template on their page first. It stops you from doing that at first, giving you the chance to see if someone else has in the last 12 months. But that kind of starts the clock. Might want to find a place to park that link so you can refer to it quickly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Here is what the alert|gas notice looks like - it is still in force (and was streamlined last year)

Continued from #Rowling other SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Enforcement, if necessary, is typically handled at WP:AE (which is also the venue for the seldom-enforced BLP topic sanctions, as well). Newimpartial (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Why thank you. Now would you please stop the unnecessary personalization on the talk pages? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I will try. But one of my interlocutors there was a frustrating POV contributor to the RfC on the article's lead, who appears to be attempting to circumvent the RfC close through non-policy-based argumentation. And another is particularly notable for consistent cherrypicking of sources and tendentious invocation of policy on this topic. The behaviors seen on the FAR pages are part and parcel of the patterns of contribution of these editors on the same issues elsewhere; FAR is not some kind of "hermetically sealed room".

I also get the feeling that some of the FAR specialists are not readily able to distinguish protecting the FA status of the article from protecting the subject of the article - as the trans topic is the one that has done the most to tarnish the subject's reputation over the last four years, it is of course going to expose this tension the most. Newimpartial (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Please don't continue personalizing issues on my talk page; there is an entirely new and neutral group of editors on the FAR who are beyond competent to form their own opinions about sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not convinced that the new and neutral group of editors have formed, or will form, their own opinions about sources in a balanced way when they are kept unaware of the POV issues that have been raised already, e.g., in the lead RfC, or if they are only keenly aware of one side in that dispute. And if you see that reflection of mine as personalizing, then I sadly suspect we do not use language in the same way at all. Newimpartial (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial it's too early for this discussion and you really shouldn't be assuming bad faith in regards to editors who are working hard. Furthermore, SandyGeorgia's page isn't the place for this discussion. I'd suggest posting your concerns at Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1 where you can make the FAR coordinators and others working on the FAR aware of these concerns. In my view, they're not warranted. Victoria (tk) 03:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think I have any issues for the FAR coordinators; I certainly recognize that a number of editors are working hard, and I respect their work. However, there is always the potential for the FAR process to interact in unpredictable ways with editorial disputes over sensitive content, especially within discretionary sanctions areas, and that seems to be happening in the article section under discussion (and this was happening before I made any comments about the section concerned).

I would suggest that you at least read the recent RfC, in which a number of those currently participating in the FAR discussion participated (myself included, of course), before dismissing the salience of the issues I have recently raised. Newimpartial (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I. am. there. because. I've. had. the. page. on. watch. for. years. Please do not make assumptions (about anything) and take these accusations elsewhere. If you believe the FAR process is deficient then FAR is place for that discussion. Not here. Sorry Sandy, bowing out now. Victoria (tk) 03:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

What accusations? Neither of my comments to which you have replied contained an accusation towards anyone, in any form. I am at a loss here. Newimpartial (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you do is stop digging. It doesn't matter if you agree with the hole or not, it's not your hole. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know, stating without evidence that another editor is making accusations (or personalizing, for that matter) is itself an ASPERSION. And I don't think that's my shovel talking, either. Newimpartial (talk) 13:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I think the problem is that statements like I would suggest that you at least read the RfC imply that Victoria didn't read the RfC. Taking stock of the FAR, it seems like people have decided to work on the lead [which was the subject of the RfC] last, so it wouldn't be immediately relevant to the FAR work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, I understand what you are saying, but what I am saying is: (1) gender and sexuality is a controversial public issue, as well as a DS area; (2) the BLP in question pertains to one of the most visible public figures with respect to that issue, at the present time; (3) WP editors take conflicting, even polarized views with respect to the issue; (4) the range of these views is expressed (often with a degree of distortion, but still in important ways) in the recent lead RfC; and therefore (5) people proposing to edit the section of this article on this controversial issue ought to read the very recent RfC on how it is to be summarized in the lead, if only to avoid the pitfalls that the FA discussion has already encountered.

And I don't think expressing this logic - in however compressed or detailed a form - constitutes a problem, whether you happen to agree with it or not. Newimpartial (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Newimpartial, if you have doubts about the capabilities of editors involved at WP:FAR, the place to raise that concern is not my talk page. I don't share those concerns.

To the original point that brings us to my talk page—my request that you not personalize discussions at FAR—below are examples of what I view as personalizing discussions, adding more heat than light, rehashing old discussions from elsewhere, or failing to assume good faith, rather than collaborating to build consensus. The points could have been made without the portions I have bolded.

1. 19:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC) The fact remains, AleatoryPonderings, that your draft completely ignores the best literary and academic sources on the trans-related controversies, while also ignoring the responses of mainstream LGBT+ and feminist organizations and most other public figures. The current version (current at this time; I am not bothering with a diff) is hopelessly cherry-picked, BOTHSIDESist and WHITEWASHing. This is not policy-compliant for any article, much less a FAR BLP. It is as though you had not read any of the sources cited in the RfC about her trans-related views in the lead, and were prepared to simply take Crossroads' word for what the best sources are - talk about BIASED sourcing! Newimpartial (talk)
2. 19:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC) Just to be clear, I don't think even Crossroads would object to my statement that he is biased in his selection of sources. Newimpartial

   They did object, for the record.

3. 19:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC) Just for the record,AleatoryPonderings, you have ignored Hotine as well as Keller. And your use of Duggan seems strangely selected, at least to me - the choice of mainstream broadsheet/news sources seems equally selective, but that might be Crossroads' influence for all I know. Newimpartial
4. 00:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC) You seem oddly strongly motivated to dismiss some of the better sources available on this topic, for some reason. You have certainly not given any evidence that peer-reviewed scholarship and literary long-form writing are not suitable for this topic compared, e.g., to broadsheets. Newimpartial

   Which drew a response from the person you attached "odd motivations" to.

5. 02:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC) As I suggested elsewhere, I have difficulty understanding why you object to higher quality sources for a section where lower-quality sources are used. AFAICT, you appear to be pursuing by other means the fairly extreme remove from body and lede !vote you offered in this RfC, (unfortunately you did not date your amended !vote, so a diff is not readily available, but it is the first comment under your name). Your position came nowhere near consensus, but the POV behind that position seems to animate your arguments on this issue. Newimpartial (Dragging old business from a different discussion to FAR, and attaching motive.)

   Which also drew a response, and continued ... to user talk with a failure to AGF:

   "I can only conclude that, having failed to ensure that the topic is removed from the article, you wish to exclude sources that could support text critical (in both senses) of Rowling's commentary on these issues. If there is another explanation, I would love to hear it, but it feels like a rehash of the RfC."Newimpartial 03:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

   The fact is that you reached a provisional conclusion (and !vote) before looking for sources; you then did a JSTOR search that excluded, by accident or by design, the recent RS that would cover the topic in question, and then you make original speculations about RSOPINON and magazines, and about the scope of peer-reviewed journals, to dismiss RS presented by others. I can't speculate about your motives, of course, but the pursuit of the POV reflected in your !vote, now by other means, is plain to see. Newimpartial (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I've not seen anyone else speaking like this on the FAR, and wish you would consider adopting a different tone and approach. FAR is a new forum and there is no need to bring old business to a new discussion, or fail to assume everyone is working in good faith towards consensus, as that creates an environment detrimental to the purpose for which we are all working. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I understand that FAR is a "new forum", but that does not magically erase the comments previously made by Crossroads and BilledMammal (on this same topic, Rowling and trans people), and it is easily demonstrated that neither of these editors have changed their POVs on this issue since the recent RfC.

As far as my comment towards AleatoryPonderings goes, it is as though you had not read... was an WP:AGF attempt, for the record, rather than assuming consciously biased selection.

Also, you seem confused about what I mean by "POV" and by "motive". I follow an elementary sociological perspective that everyone has a POV, all of the time. People can follow their POV blindly, or can contribute more critically in ways that transcend their narrow POV. And I certainly do not regard POV as a "motive" - I have not speculated about motives at all in this discussion, just editors following (and defending) their POV rather than listening to others and transcending their starting points.

One of the ways the editors in question have followed their POVs is to dismiss sources with which they disagee; I am not attributing "motive" to that, but their contributions to that effect are quite evident. And in doing so, I am not expressing doubt about the capabilities of editors - I am reacting to their interventions in the discussion of sources on Rowling's trans views, interventions that reflect the POVs both editors have pushed forcefully in the RfC discussion, views that were not notably backed by consensus, and views that other FAR-page contributors appear not to be taking into consideration when they are affecting FAR. How you could think this was a discussion of their capabilities, on my part, I have no idea.

Finally, you request that (I) not personalize discussions at FAR - and then you excerpt (and misinterptet) responses I have given on my own Talk page as being somehow relevant to this. Such actions on your part suggest that there is, in fact, no advantage to trying to keep more controversial discussions off FAR talk pages - if editors are empowered then to come to my Talk page for explanation, not listen to my answer, and then have my Talk comments dragged up in a discussion of propriety on FAR Talk pages. Something like a catch-22, here. Newimpartial (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Working backwards, my apologies for the unintended Catch-22; the five examples I raised are from the FAR talk page, and the fifth led to your talk page, so I added the followup commentary, which was probably not a great idea (from the middle-of-the-night, walking the old pooch, who wakes me every night now). Nonetheless. I hope all of the examples, including from your talk, give you an idea of how you come across to others and how you might alter your tone and approach. At FAR, we work on articles of all types for all reasons and most of us couldn't care less what kind of topic it is. For example, I've given as much effort to hurricanes as I have to this article. We work towards leaving articles better than we found them by following best practices. If you can approach this FAR from that point of view, and leave behind past encounters and feelings, it could help.

Comments on this page about capabilities relate to your implication that editors working on the FAR are ignorant of the article's history; that is the concern I don't share, and I can relate to how it may have offended others. Quite the opposite; because of the article's history, we have worked to get the rest of the article in shape before even approaching the Transgender people section, knowing that work on that section will require full focus and there is still other work to be done.

Regarding focus on the RFC on the lead (which failed to gain any consensus), we have not even begun to work on the lead (which is always best left til last), and a no-consensus, bludgeoned RFC is not something we should be excessively dragging in to the FAR discussions in personalized ways.

I hope this helps explain where I'm coming from, and my apologies if I overlooked anything that required response; I would like to get to work on tying up the bio bits in the article, so please let me know if I have failed to respond to something critical, and I'll look in here again tonight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

This isn't urgent, and once again, I appreciate the work FAR contributors do to improve our articles. But I would like to correct your misapprehension that because the RfC on Rowling's transgender-related controversies was about the lead, it is therefore not something FAR contributors need to take into consideration with respect to the main text section on the same topic. In my view, this is codswallop ill-advised. For several years now, the treatment of Rowling's trans-related controversies has been the most contested aspect of the article, probably because (1) these have generated most of the news coverage related to Rowling since 2019 and (2) this is part of a topic area that is controversial among WP editors (hence the discretionary sanctions). I fail to see how ignorance of the most recent iteration of that controversy on Talk:J.K. Rowling would be beneficial for FAR editors intending to contribute to, or comment on, that section.

Furthermore, it is my view that it is beneficial for FAR contributors to be aware of the positions editors took on that RfC, particularly where their evaluation of sources reflects the POV they had previously argued for. Evidently you disagree with my view about this, but your very rapid move to use such language as personalizing, and your apparent willingness to police the language of others on Talk pages (which I regard as a type of WP:OWN behaviour) - rather than trying to WP:AGF about my edits - have undoubtedly resulted in creating, rather than reducing, wikidrama. I try not to speculate about motives, but this result was presumably the opposite of what you had intended.

Finally, I want to point out that I have limited my contribution on FAR pages fairly strictly to (1) offering sources when asked, (2) responding to comments on sources made by others, and (3) participating in a discussion started by another editor who expressed concerns about the draft text. Upon reflection, I do not believe that any of these forms of commentary were out of scope for the FAR pages, and while I understand that you may disagree, I am unaware of any policy or guideline that would discourage any of these types of contribution in those venues. Newimpartial (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial Sorry for not responding last night; after finally chunking in the last bits of the early life bio at Rowling, I was tired.

I disagree that asking to cease personalization on the FAR is either OWN or that the result was the opposite intended; indeed, I hope you noticed that after that, another editor went back and struck their personalization, which Is A Good Thing. The discussion, now and always, should focus on sourcing, and calling out individual editors for POV, no matter how labeled or perceived, won't help advance the work. My view on behaviors at FAC and FAR is largely formed from the years I served as a FAC Coord; I could only watch helplessly as discord unfolded, because if I weighed in, the charge could be made that my neutrality was compromised, and I always hoped reviewers would step in to address behaviors that could derail the FAC. I've never heard someone say that such a request is a form of OWN, but I'll consider your viewpoint going forward.

In my view, the work was briefly derailed because we moved too quickly to a draft, and I've expressed that to AleatoryPonderings and on the FAR page. Later today I hope to add an update.

I understand your emphasis on the comments placed at the lead RFC, but suggest that you take into account that there is an entirely new group of editors now hard at work, and that is a group that well knows how to build an article to best standards. It's not helpful to re-hash a no-consensus, bludgeoned RFC with a new group of editors whose priority is not only the transgender issue, but making sure that all of this highly viewed BLP is written to best standards. This group of editors is a) able to read that RFC, and b) form their own opinions about sources, and c) more importantly, knows that you can't get a silk purse from a sow's ear, and you write the best possible article before trying to sort the lead. That's where we are now. I understand that the previous focus at Rowling was only on the transgender issue; I believe It's A Good Thing that now the entire article (less the transgender section and lead, which are being left 'til last) is being written in a collaborative fashion, to the best standards.

I think we now know where we agree and disagree and hope you'll take my advice to work with that collaborative process, not use it to re-hash old discussions and differences or call out individual editors, and trust that the editors working on the article now are experienced enough to know to read an RFC on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

That seems to be a pretty good place to leave this discussion; my last comment is that I have at this time no lived reason to trust the FAR contributors, as you do, and some lived reason not to trust them (or you, for that matter, with your implicit threats that I have been not entirely able to diffuse). That is all. Newimpartial (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that; it's never too late to start over. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for being so kind and helpful while teaching me about FAs :) I always look forward to reading your comments and your feedback is always immensely useful. I hope you've had a good start to the year and your work here feels intrinsically valuable to yourself.

A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

A. C. Santacruz how very kind of you; thanks so much! It has been a pleasure getting to know you (and quite a few other editors I had never encountered before the Rowling FAR-- one of my favorite aspects of working at FAR). I hope you know how much trouble you are in now, as you are now on the short list of editors I will call on when needing Spanish-language help. Having learned Spanish while living in Latin America as an adult, my fluency in speaking and reading does not extend to my writing, and I don't tackle long complex legal topics. The start to the year left much to be desired, as we lost a friend to COVID, but here's to health and happiness going forward. All the bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Biblio

(Feel free to move this section wherever you like but I wasn't sure where to thread it.) Should I convert the dates in the bibliography into hard-typed dmy format or were you saving the ISO dates for sorting later? The DATEFORMAT script doesn't seem to be doing it. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I think ISO dates work better for tables as they all have the same size ... in fact, I think somewhere in MOS it mentions something to that effect ... and they're sortable ... so I would leave them. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

PS, I think that's also why the date script leaves them ... they are preferred for tables. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Gotcha. Will leave them be. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

FASAs to close without awarding

Hey Sandy, the reason I opened a FASA for The Million Dollar Homepage was because it was sitting on Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/FASA as a pending nomination. I don't want to have articles sitting there indefinitely. You expressed that it would be better not to open a FASA in a case like this, so how should we decide what or when an article should be removed from the pending nominations list? Z1720 (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I figured that was your thinking. Back when we were playing catchup on 2021, I listed them all on talk just to help get us going, but I feel like if we open a nomination, only to reject it, we are sending a negative message. I would say just ignore the old ones I parked on talk; we can set up talk archives. The pending nominations ... aren't really ... until someone nominates them, while the open nominations are decided by the Coords. Does that make sense ? Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

And the less we open, the less for the Coords to have to close; that is, we only "open" a nomination if we intend to nominate, not reject. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

We should go through the ones that are left there then: if one is to be opened, we can open it, and if in a week there's nothing we can delete the list and move on. Hopefully for future keeps someone will be on the ball and nominate a FASA if need be. Z1720 (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I went through them last month, and nominated all I thought warranted; moving forward, we just keep up as FARs are archived as Kept. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

About revert

Hi Sandygeorgia. Thanks for your up-to-date and complete article (DBL), In connection with reversing my edit, The first image I added had the aspect of beautifying the article, but second image, Examines the epidemiological aspect of dementia with lewy bodies among other dementias (Age<65); and this statistic was not mentioned in the text of the article. I don't understand your reason for finding it unhelpful. Please explain a little, thank you Pereoptic ^Talk✉️   08:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I did that already on article talk; the images were only decorative and the epidemiology contained data not mentioned anywhere in any recent secondary review (see WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDDATE), and from a ten-year old review on a different topic (early-onset dementia). Images should not be used only for decorative purposes. See Talk:Dementia with Lewy bodies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Related, reveals, this is concerning (not accurate even in 2016). Maybe someone has time to stub it, or I can get to it when not iPad typing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

FA CCI followup

AHHHHHHH!

I kept on saying I would get around to helping with your several questions at the FA sweeps, but I never got to it. Either something would happen on wiki, or I would get distracted doing revdels and following up with warnings, or some contrived wacky loony-tunes thing would happen intrude IRL. I feel really guilty, I'm really sorry. Given all the pings, I figured I'd just respond to the unaddressed ones here instead across several pages:

Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Tropical Storm Allison/archive1 - copying there were no drowning deaths in flooded homes isn't ideal but I'm struggling on how to rephrase it. When I'm thinking of rephrasing something instead of removing it I try and read the source to get more context on what I'm removing. In this case I didn't find doing that helpful and the copying is minor enough, so I don't believe it needs to be removed. It's not essential that A tropical wave moved off the coast of Africa on May 21, 2001 needs attribution but you may as well- I've now done so. I'm of the opinion that cool offshore sea surface temperatures is brief enough that it does not need attribution, on the other hand.

Here, where you say In this case, the first two iterations of the article did contain public domain text without attribution, but that has since been rephrased, so I assumed (??) that attribution in the article was not needed- yeah, it's not needed, and your check on that article was excellent.

fF you have any other questions or I missed something, please ask- I promise I won't take so long to respond... Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 06:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Nobody drowned/died in the flooded houses? (t · c) buidhe 07:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

That'll work, thanks! Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 17:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Moneytrees no worries about the delay; I can’t imagine what your world is like! Since it seems like I’m on the right track, I’ll continue with same if an article looks like it will be a keep at WP:FAR or a promotion at WP:FAC, but I’m not sure I can commit to more than that. It is very demoralizing work, and hats off to those of you who do it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Merchandise Giveaway Nomination – Successful

A Wikimedia t-shirt!

Hey SandyGeorgia,

You have been successfully nominated to receive a free t-shirt from the Wikimedia Foundation through our Merchandise Giveaway program. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Please email us at merchandisewikimedia.org and we will send you full details on how to accept your free shirt. Thanks!

On behalf of the Merchandise Giveaway program,

-- janbery (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Janbery (and Sdkb), but you can save the postage, and I will be content with the picture. No one at WMF has my name and address, and I've resolved lately not to even give that info to T&S, but I do appreciate the thought. If it's possible for me to donate my t-shirt to Sdkb, or someone else, I would be interested, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I second Sdkb getting this shirt, then. Haven't they done enough to deserve one? Just sayin'. Panini!^🥪 17:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

​If the program is expanded in the future at some point to allow for virtual gifts that wouldn't require you to disclose your address, I'll certainly have you in mind for that, as you deserve the wikilove! For now, if it's possible to do a transfer like that, I would very graciously accept. Thank you so much {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Awesome! Then I shall email them to see if that is possible, bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Done, please keep me posted if t-shirt is received. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Will do; thanks again! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Sdkb my Wikipedia notifications are telling me I have an email from you about the t-shirt, but there's nothing new in my inbox ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, odd; I haven't sent any new email. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, I never figured out how those irritating notifications thingies work, and I'm in a hurry, and .. I just realized it is dated days ago. Mark All Read! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Sdkb did you get the darn shirt? I tend to use my talk page as a To Do list, and don't want to archive this until I'm sure it's done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I haven't heard from them yet; I'm sure they have their hands full from my large group nomination, so it might take a while. There's no rush, though. Thank you for checking in! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

PANDAS

Moved to Talk:PANDAS § Recent revert

 – SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, PANDAS Parent, per your username, please review WP:COI and consider whether you can edit neutrally in this content area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Queen angelfish

Queen angelfish

I listed this article for a copyedit a month ago and still nothing. Do you think the prose is good enough for FAC? LittleJerry (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think Lifecycle is one word, is it? Biological life cycle
• Two completely different thoughts, not well connected: "Queen angelfish live in harems consisting of one male and two to four females, and within a large territory."
• "During midday," is odd.
• What is rushing? "The male tends to each of them, rushing, circling and feeding next to them."
• This can be tightened. "Spawning in this species occurs year round[19] and is observed within minutes of sunset and within a couple days or a week of a full moon.[14]" What is the meaning of "observed"? That is, do not know for sure because that is only when it has been observed, or is that actually always when it happens? "Within a couple of days or a week of a full moon" ... from a few days to a week after a full moon? Or before a full moon as well?
• "Angelfish spawn in pairs" and is confusing, but is later explained. Not sure that part is needed, as to a layreader, it seems like ... doesn't it always take two to tango? So it isn't a meaningful clause until later.
• How long is a spawning cycle?
• Pelagic is undefined and unlinked.
• After around 3–4 weeks from hatching, when they have reached a length of 15 to 20 mm (0.6 to 0.8 in) they settle on the floor. Juveniles live ... --> Between about three and four weeks after they hatch and they have reached a length of 15 to 20 mm (0.6 to 0.8 in), juveniles settle on the ocean floor. They live ...
• Why "may" (that is, what causes variation or differences)? "The queen angelfish may reach adulthood after six months."

User:LittleJerry I looked only at that one section, but I think you would have a much easier time at FAC if someone went through the entire article first. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Request for advice...

I've been planning to bring TRAPPIST-1 to FAC someday and have opened up a peer review as the initial step since I have zero experience with astronomical objects. So far there has been little input, though, at least there.

Separately, I'd like a second opinion on whether it's a good idea to bring this kind of topic there. TRAPPIST-1 is subject to a lot of academic literature [much of it speculative or pre-print] and it's possible that in the next year there will be a lot more attention on the star, if the due-to-be-launched James Webb Space Telescope finds evidence of an atmosphere on its planets. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Jo-Jo … I have guests arriving for Christmas, and am avoiding digging in to anything that requires sustained attention until after the 26th. I will have a look then, but if I forget or delay, please bug me here again :). All the bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Someone else asked a similar question. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Jo-Jo Eumerus. First, I owe you an apology for the late response. It was not a happy holiday season here due to a death in the family on Thanksgiving, and then cancellation of our Christmas when other family got COVID. We were craving the time together with family, and having to spend Christmas alone wasn't a happy thing for us. So, I spent all of December basically ignoring anything that made me think, and keeping distracted with busy work that I didn't have to think too much about. And I never sent a Christmas card this year (sorry ... I did finally just send thanks to those who sent me a card, hoping that will help me get back into the swing of things.) Since I had to think about this query, I hope my brain is working today.

Second, since I returned to Wikipedia editing following the ugly socking that affected the Menstrual cycle FAR, I haven't re-engaged the pre-FAC PR, which was something I was proud to have helped create. I am less and less convinced that my efforts at FAC have made any improvements there, but am nonetheless willing to review articles for those who have been helpful at FAR and URFA. If there is something I can help with, don't hesitate to keep pinging me, although you know how far behind I can get :)

Looking at the Village pump thread, I have some comments:

• User:Phil Bridger said It would be difficult (but maybe not impossible) for an article to pass Featured article criteria 1b and 1e, that the article should be comprehensive and stable, if it was about such a topic. While this may be true, I am concerned that this reflects a trend of misinterpretation or misunderstanding of WP:WIAFA. WIAFA 1e has to do with ongoing edit wars or changing events now, not predicted leading to unstable text; it doesn't mean to say we can employ a crystal ball about future events (will Barack Obama become president, meaning a whole new article, will McCain be elected president, will some future discoveries completely change a given article, etc). If that were the case, I could never write a medical FA, as content changes constantly, and we could never FA an actor, as they always have new productions, etc. On comprehensive, we have to mean comprehensive today-- no crystal ball.
• I think Hog Farm's summary of Generally, things that are not "settled" or are actively changing don't make good FAC candidates is good. I may agree with HF, but the dividing line is whether an active and experienced FA writer is on board. FAC knows I'll maintain my medical article even as the science changes. FAC knows you keep your FAs current. We can't expect you to have a crystal ball, but if you were not the kind of editor who kept up with your FAs, I'd expect to see a silence in terms of support (since opposes have to be based on the criteria, not what we wish the criteria were).
• I looked at the two SpaceX Starship FACs, and I think the nominator somewhat misunderstands the level of problems there. The responses there reinforce my two points above; it's not 1b and 1e per se in that article but much more that raises concern, which was expressed as 1b and 1e, and I have no doubt that you would not bring an article to FAC in such an unfinished state. Those are the kinds of FACs that should be getting shut down on day one, providing faster turnaround for the nominator, and better allocation of scarce resources at FAC.

So, all-in-all, I don't find any valid reason for there to be opposes in your case because of something that could happen sometime in the future. We can only apply 1b to now and today, and we can't foresee future changes in any area. That doesn't assure you'll get support, though, as the shortage of reviewers at FAC has passed critical levels. All the best, always, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if the shortage of reviewers at FAC is past critical levels. It's not as bad as the shortage of copyeditors at WP:GOCE/REQ or reviewers at WP:GAN, and probably similar badness to the NPP backlog. (t · c) buidhe 18:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Scary stuff ... it's everywhere :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Buh. COVID-19 is everywhere - even our Christmas celebrations spent half of the time discussing the coronavirus. My condolences.

I wouldn't agree with I am less and less convinced that my efforts at FAC have made any improvements there I think that your contributions at FAR were quite useful at bringing that process back to life. On the SpaceX Starship thing, I actually saw its PR and recruited someone I know from offsite who is interested in the Starship project to help them.

To be clear, my issue with TRAPPIST-1 isn't so much whether it'd fail 1e but more on whether the amount of updating work that would be needed is too much. I mean, discovering life on any of the TRAPPIST-1 planets would surely result in a tsunami of new research; do your medical articles get similar ground-breaking discoveries? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus; my apologies for the late response (as you can see, I have been distracted elsewhere), as I never responded to your final question. I don't know how you manage to keep so many FAs updated. I think the medical example that most resembles what you must go through is the 2013 rewrite of DSM-IV-TR to DSM-5. That one publication/rewrite meant that the entire psych/neuropsych suite needed updating, and some of the changes were so considerable that we lost, for example, both autism and Asperger's syndrome as FAs; the only editor who could have/would have updated the entire site (Eubulides) is long gone. On a lesser scale, when the new consensus guidelines for dementia with Lewy bodies were published in 2017, they required a major rewrite of DLB, which I undertook beginning in 2018, and spent several years on, so yes, we do have examples of full rewrites needed, but the more common scenario is the month-to-month dribs and drabs of incorporating new reviews. From that angle, medical work is probably far easier than what you do, because we can simply go to PubMed and restrict our search to recent reviews (and Pubmed makes that easy to do), and pick the highest quality, where you probably have to sort through everything new. I guess I'm saying-- hats off to you for the work you do, and more, for the fact that you do it, while some FA writers let their articles fall out of date. I'm sorry to have not been more help of late; hopefully once the Rowling FAR is closed, I can return to more active reviewing elsewhere. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I have to admit that if I were to get much more FACses/GANs passed at some point it might be too much for me to maintain. Doubly so if I were ever to find employment. So I wouldn't take my annual updates as granted - in the future I might need to space them out.

Thanks in advance for any future review help. I am dallying with sending Ojos del Salado here but it's a tough decision because I don't have access to all the sources. And on TRAPPIST-1 or Proxima Centauri b I have never written an astronomy FA. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Neurodiversity

Hey Sandy This is about The Wikipedia Neurodiversity Page I am the originator of the concept of Neurodiversity. I want to contest the whole page as it is both full of errors, out of date, and subject to a mess of hostile edits and rewrites. Can you tell me how to proceed? Judy Singer What is Neurodiversity? Jsinger (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jsinger, I suggest you start by identifying specific examples of what you consider wrong and/or outdated information and post on Talk:Neurodiversity. You can use the {{Request edit}} template on the talk page to request specific edits. (t · c) buidhe 06:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Jsinger thank you for registering an account. I have been extremely busy on another project that required my full attention, but I should be able to give you some answers tomorrow or the next day here, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

New JKR heading

A lot of the cruft was me preemptively trying to avoid this problem with Visual Editor in case we reused refs named inline. There really is not an elegant solution to this, is there ... AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I wish I hadn't started doing that tonight: I didn't need another reminder of the kind of junk we have to try to build content around that was probably designed by someone who doesn't build content. When I'm trying to write, or copyedit, I want an easy to remember ref name that tells me which source it is. They come up with one hair-brained thing after another that just makes editing harder. I'm done now, but what was supposed to be a mindless task to take my mind off of how screwed we are turned into a realization of more of same. For example the quote marks around the ref names ... totally unnecessary bulk to have to edit around. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Imagine that you're in edit mode, copyediting, and you hit this:<ref name="scotsman20021109"/><ref name="scotsman20030616"/> ... you have to exit to figure out which is which. When you know the name of each article. But this one took the prize: <ref name="J.K. Rowling Defends Trans Statements In Lengthy Essay, Reveals She's A Sexual Assault Survivor & Says 'Trans People Need And Deserve Protection'"> Two lines of text to name a ref that is never even reused! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

PS, I can see why Victoria is complaining about having to try to copyedit around this much cruft. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

iPad curly quotes

I edit on an iPad a lot too. I wish it could be configured to default to straight quotes. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking of inquiring at VP:T if there is a way to fix it … iPad editing in general is no fun, but the curly quotes are irritating as all heck, as it makes me look like I don’t respect MOS :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

If you use iOS, you should be able to go into your Settings : General : Keyboard and turn off the toggle for "smart punctuation" to stop the auto smart quotes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

test "smart stupid off". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

David Fuchs you are wonderful! I'd give you my first born, but I've already given them away too many times! So, by turning this off, I'd best investigate what else I've turned off ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bri: who may need same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Note if you're in either mode and want to just quickly insert a different quote than the default, you can long press on the quote character, and a menu will pop up, letting you choose from different quote characters. (Long press works for other things like currency symbols, modified letters, and different colours for emojis.) isaacl (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

- – — thank you, isaacl; know I know how to get an endash or emdash on iPad ... the final frontier has been attained! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

You give away your child for simple advice? Panini!^🥪 09:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

They don't seem to mind :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

GAR of Nonmetal

Nonmetal has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

DSM again

Is File:PMDD Symptoms.png a copyvio? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Casliber mentioned getting hold of a DSM-5 (which I don't have); Cas? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Markworthen might also have one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hang on - looking. It is close to the original but has been simplified and written in more abbreviated and less prosey manner. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

My copy of DSM-5 is at work, but I agree with Cas Liber - it seems the diagnostic criteria were summarized by the editor in a PNG image, so yes, it is likely a copyright violation. // IMHO diagnostic criteria should be in the public domain since so many (U.S.) government agencies rely on them. But darn it, the powers that be did not ask for my opinion! ;^). Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 05:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

Thanks for participating in the WikiProject report! Cheers, and happy February! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 18:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, EricPupper; it was a pleasure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	A gentle introduction to the Arcane Lore of FAR for me then  :) thanks! SN54129 19:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 thanks, and welcome to FAR (a fun and pleasant place to hang out with mostly nice and knowledgeable editors who aren't climbing the greasepole)!

Here's the index to the Arcane Lore of FAR:

FAR did a ton of work, and some, one or all of us ended up as a significant contributor on an FA that remained a dog

FAR did a ton of work on an FA that wasn't saved, but at least we don't show up as significant contributors to black goo on the internet

The FA was not saved, no work involved

An FA was saved, but it took a ton of work from everyone at FAR to make it happen

An FA was saved, but I didn't have to bust my buns

An FA was saved, and I didn't have to do a darn thing ... awesome !!!

(oops, I forgot, I'm not allowed to say the word darn anymore). Thanks for the awesome help, which as you can see, is All About Me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Brilliant  :) that should be WP:SANDYSLORE! SN54129 17:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	I learn a lot from you just watching your edits! Wtfiv (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Wtfiv; happy to provide entertainment among my many typos :) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

FAC: When to 'Oppose'?

Hi Sandy! Re your recent comment at WT:FAC, I have few thoughts. On one hand, I agree with you that we need to have few opposes for insufficiently prepared nominations; we don't want FACs to be peer reviews. But, my approach to opposing is bit different. I think opposing a FAC often discourages the nominator. There have been few cases (most recently this and this one), where, on the first read, I could have easily opposed saying "the prose it not upto FA standards, and there are lot of inconsistencies", giving a few examples. But I don't think that would honestly have helped the nominator. I'd rather give a 50 points detailed review than opposing, especially if it is a first-time nominator. Not that I have not opposed any FAC; I did oppose where it felt certain to do so. But that brings me to the question: When should one oppose a FAC? Is opposing better than providing detailed comments and suggestion, when you feel that after all those 50 comments are implemented, the article will be FA standard? I'll add that only experience I have on FAC is my three nominations and reviewing few others in last 6 months. Just wanted to know your views, as you seem to be active at FAC since years! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

When should one oppose a FAC? Whenever the work needed is more than could be most effectively and productively done at FAC, and can be concluded more easily and more efficiently at WP:PR, so as not to a) stall the FAC page, b) mis-utilize FAC resources, and c) send the wrong impression about the purpose of FAC. FAC is not peer review. Editors have come to expect eventual, delayed, but assured promotion via a FAC nomination, to the point of abuse of the process, and contributing to the downfall of PR. Using FAC as peer review has had a detrimental effect on FAC, and the impressions surrounding its utility. Getting an ill-prepared article off the page as quickly as possible, to where the article can be re-worked under less pressure, can be the fastest route to eventual promotion. Many reviewers simply do not want to have to engage a lengthy back-and-forth that requires response, whereas at PR, one is not obligated to return and return and return to re-visit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

If an oppose—over minor things—is withdrawn, does it suggest an unspoken support  ;) SN54129 17:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it more likely suggests an unspoken discomfort with supporting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

When I support, I say so. I won't "support on sourcing" because that's silly. If I don't oppose on sourcing, then it's a case of either the sourcing is great or I've left some stuff for others to consider, but it's not worth opposing over. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with most of it; we don't want FACs to be peer reviews. But the peer review project is not as active as it used to be. Lets take a standard example: An article goes to PR pre-FAC. It waits for a review, yet there is no activity on the PR page except a note that it has been added to pre-FAC PR template. After two months, the nominator nominated it for FAC. It gets archived in two days with opposes based on prose and source issues. Now, from the point-of-view of that nominator, what should be the next step? All they received were comments on broad issues, without detailed explanation of how should they resolve it. Opening another PR would not be to encouraging, given that they have waited 2 months just for reviews. I think thats why most of the first time nominators face issues with their nominations. I am still not suggesting FAC to an alternative for PR, but the fact that peer review simply does not have many peers, nor many reviews creates a deadlock for first-time nominators. Again, I am just new to this process; I might be wrong here. Just a thought! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

But the peer review project is not as active as it used to be. Circular reasoning. Chicken-egg. Cart-horse. Why should/would anyone go to PR when they get a PR at FAC? Why should reward culture adherents care about helping out at PR, if PR happens at FAC? Why shouldn't FAC be part of the solution instead of part of the problem? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

We'll see how more source review opposes go... Ealdgyth (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, Ealdgyth, I am unsure FAC will be able to find its way out of the woods it is in. I am reminded almost daily of your advice to run from Rowling, and yet, even if the star is not saved, the article has been massively improved, and that is the overall trend of FAR, which makes it a satisfying place to work towards improvements on highly viewed articles. The most curious aspect of your current dilemma is that WP:MEDRS saves my content area from that very problem. We have to cite to secondary sources except in rare circumstances. The issue of when to cite primary sources comes up in Education, and I often wonder about all other scientific areas, since any quack can get anything published these days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I could expound on one of my favorite hobby horses and vent about how everyone seems to think they can be a historian even without any sort of training in the craft, but I'll spare you. Instead, I'll go back to shuffling books around in my newly-restored shelves (finally got the shelves back up from the Bookvalance(tm) in early fall... so I can find books again) and being cranky because (1) Hubby is back out on the road and I'm not (2) it's cold out (3) I've got a monster headache and (4) I don't wanna work but I should be working to catch up from six weeks on the road... Ealdgyth (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

And how could I forget (5) DIET! ARGH! Ealdgyth (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, my personal opinion is that the primary vs. secondary source distinction is a nice concept from historiography that does not automatically fit into other fields of science. In particular, the distinction between an analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis and a non-analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis does not neatly correlate to being firsthand vs. secondhand - an academic paper's conclusions and discussion section is analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis but not typically considered "secondary". Then you have people who forget that "secondary" usually implies "second-hand" and that often means another chance for errors, rather than corrections, to slip in. In historiography second-hand analyses usually are more reliable than first-hand accounts but that's not so everywhere else.

Personally, I think that when it comes to evaluating WP:WEIGHT issues the definitions used at WP:MEDRS are more useful/definitive than these of WP:PSTS, even if the subject isn't medicine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Evolution and URFA

The article evolution was promoted in 2007 and not reviewed since. There are some issues that I listed on the talk page, but I don't feel confident to evaluate the content or sourcing. What do you think? (t · c) buidhe 07:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Buidhe I had a look and it's kind of a mess, but I'd rather stay away from that article per past conflicts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

New peer review

Wikipedia:Peer review/Saint Vincent Beer/archive1 may be of interest to you or your talk page watchers. A short article about a beer that reveals a weird time in US history. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Guerillero now that looks like a fun article that will be a pleasure to review! I will get there, once I get a bit more of the Rowling pieces tied up (still have some writing to do). Should I forget, please do pester me here ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

It has been about a month and I got a copyedit and round of feedback from Ceoil, so I am putting this back on your radar. I know the Rowling work is still ongoing and you might be still tied up with it -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Will do ... thanks for the reminder! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Closest I'll ever get to writing medical content

Daniel Sickles's leg. More MILHIST than medical, but at least I got to use a pmid. Hog Farm _Talk 04:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Ugh! I'm going to have to buck up and wait to read that until I'm caffeinated tomorrow. First sentence in and grossed out alraedy! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Ha, wasn't that bad after all, but I did leave some darn smartaleck edit summaries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Jester's privilege for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jester's privilege, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jester's privilege until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Red panda peer review

Would you be able to peer review the red panda article? We could use another non-biology person to look it over. Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Medical content query

Hi Sandy, I've been working on the torture article and I was wondering if you could take a look at the Torture#Effects section (the only part of it that is medical related). If you could let me know if you think it's appropriately cited or have any suggestion for improvement I would really appreciate it.

Cheery subject I know but it's an important article that was in need of improvement. (t · c) buidhe 03:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Got it ... will look, but lots biomedical info requiring MEDRS sourcing, and lots of sources to be evaluated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Buidhe I had a look and will type up more tomorrow from real computer (iPad editing now), but meanwhile, there is an ISBN error on Research Handbook on Torture: Legal and Medical Perspectives on Prohibition and Prevention, and all of those chapters from that same book should be cited as chapters within the book, with the editors identified. More tomorrow, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

PS. Have a look at J._K._Rowling#Works_cited for how we organized chapters of books under the same book (first entry suffices there). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Also PMID 34952116, PMID 33582098, PMID 33836478, PMID 32946970, PMID 32997481, PMID 33456942, PMID 31261840.

Also, as someone well versed in the torture in Venezuela, furthered by Cubans, it is troubling that most of the images in that article depict torture by the United States; I know that images may be hard to come by, but the images are conveying a POV. More tomorrow, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I think there is more than one valid citation style for chapters and the one I use (identifying the author rather than editors, organizing by author rather than by book) has passed through FAC. The ISBN is correct, I double checked to the version of the book I accessed.

There is an information paradox regarding human rights abuses, which is discussed in the article. If there are any good free images from Venezuela, Cuba, or non-Western places, I don't know about them. (t · c) buidhe 05:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

That's odd (to not identify the editors on a book source) ? At any rate, I now found the book ISBN using a different tool, so ISBN is good.

El-Khoury is not a review, and neither of the Amris articles are, but the book is good, and so is Hamid.

If you add PMIDs on journal articles, it's much easier to check what type of article it is. As examples, see

• Amris (Journal article, not flagged as review) https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/esummary.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=25537694
• Hamid (Flagged as journal article and meta-anaysis) https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/esummary.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=31550249
• Armstrong (A sample review from DLB, so you can see how it is flagged as a journal article and as a review) https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/esummary.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=30707190

You've removed El-Khoury as a source on bio-medical content, I believe, but added Amris, neither of which (2015, 2019) are flagged as reviews by PubMed. Maybe some of those I listed above can be useful? Otherwise, you can go to the PubMed search engine, and using the choices on the left-hand side of the screen, restrict your search to review, literature review, and meta-analysis, yielding:

• https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Torture&filter=pubt.meta-analysis&filter=pubt.review&filter=pubt.systematicreview&filter=datesearch.y_5&sort=pubdate

(for five years). For example, both PMID 34952116 and PMID 31261840 are newer than Hamid (I don't have access to the first, but maybe you can access it.) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, thanks so much for your feedback! I've learned a lot about which sources are acceptable per MEDRS rules. (t · c) buidhe 15:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Buidhe Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches may help; it is old, but generally still good, and was written by two of the old masters. (Not to mention how badly medical editing has declined since then, note the issue of picking at the scab on the wound of the lay-url though :(. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Major depressive disorder

Moved to Talk:Major depressive disorder

 – SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

a potential TS link

Really just an excuse to say a quick hello to you Sandy :-) But if you'd like to check this edit towards the end of Ehlers–Danlos syndromes#Other manifestations rapidly for any ip-ed bloopers (or possible improvements to the language) of course you'd be most welcome! Best as always, 86.180.70.18 (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello there! Happy New Year to you. First I've heard of it, and the entry at EDS looks good (although I don't think the finding rises to the level of including it at tic disorder or TS). Colin might want to have a look (he's not only a lot smarter than I am, but also more thorough :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The evidence level is low but the text added seems fair and appropriate in that article. -- Colin°^Talk 17:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. And happies! I definitely agree that a putative association not a good reason for listing it as a tic disorder. I wasn't sure whether ==See also== -type links on other pages might be at all helpful [?] (and I wouldn't presume...) Thanks also for checking the somewhat lengthy sentence. You're both linked into my style manual here :-) :-) Best, 86.180.70.18 (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Let's dance!

What would it take to convince you to register an account ? I had something come up a few months ago (can't remember what) that I really wanted you to look at, but I had no way to reach you. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Lol, hum... maybe you could try posting here with an '86' alert somewhere (I might pick up on it even if masquerading that day as a 30-something, ahah ;-). Cheers, 86.186.120.128 (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Will try that next time ... if I am not masquerading as a 30-something and can remember ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Some virtual sfràppole for you Sandy. 86.186.120.128 (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, quite a bleak day; the treat would go well with some Nocello on the rocks! (The days when I would spend Carnival at the beach in Venezuela, or in New Orleans, now seem so unimaginable.) Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Greetings

Hello SandyGeorgia! Since the discussion about the Great Fire of London FAR in early January, I have not edited on Wikipedia (and likely won't be able to do so in any capacity for a while), but I thought it might be good to give a sign of life. Thanks for your help with that FAR. Renerpho (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for popping in Renerpho; I hope you are well, and should you have further concerns down the road, we should be able to address them on article talk. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Star Trek VI

Are you going to be leaving additional commentary/edits on the article, or are you mostly through? No hurries, since I've got my running FAR to work on in the meantime, just interested in scope of work (also, that article predates me being an intelligent being with half a brain to save my PDFs of sources once I was 'done' with an article, so it's going to be a spell for me to re-collate everything. Curse me from more than a decade ago for making more work for myself.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: ... My goal was just to process through some of the older "one satisfactory" marks at WP:URFA/2020, and yours are the oldest/first marks there, so I wanted to process them first. After finding uncited text, I thought I'd hold off on reviewing more of the older Star Treks to give you time to deal with sourcing. That is, I'm not concerned and not in a hurry, and hope others agree that the main thrust of URFA/2020 should be to locate and process through the most problematic first. Those are nowhere near the most problematic, and having URFA/2020 carry the one- or two-satisfactory as long as needed doesn't worry me--overall improvements are occurring across the board, which is a win-win.

Separately, I am still mortified about my typos in edit summary, and wondering if it would be within policy for me to ask someone to revdel those. You would think that, considering my history of typos everywhere all the time, I'd have checked those more carefully. But no, I'mADork. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Haha, I really would not worry about it. Perils of the last name (and it makes you realize when choosing typefaces you need to pick one which has as different-looking an 'h' from a 'k'.) It'll be hidden in the edit history soon enough, though if you really want you can probably have the edit summary hidden without touching the edits. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

They are standing out as redlinks :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll ask the pro for help :) Risker, on a "Happy New Year" note, are you able to do anything about my two unfortunate typos in edit summary at Star Trek VI? They are really an embarrassing tribute to the Queen of Typos. If only User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (or Moni3) were around to rub my face in it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, folks. This has been addressed as a revision deletion of the edit summaries. Unfortunately, there isn't a good log summary for "embarrassing typo" but I've listed it as uncontroversial housekeeping.  :) Hope all's well! Risker (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Risker! I have been worrying about your relative inactivity, and hope all is well. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Nah, I've been doing some behind-the-scenes stuff and, well, an awful lot of shoveling these past few weeks. (One of the things I was working on was reviewing the transcript for this, an interview I did a couple of months ago.) We've had rather a lot of snow this year, and now we're hitting the freeze/thaw cycle so every time it thaws, it's critical to get that ice off walkways and driveways. Last thing I want to do is break a hip... Risker (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Well glad I wasn't totally crazy. I went back to the promoted revision and then spot-checked my sources and yes, all the material that appears to be missing references were just someone going through and adding some paragraph breaks and not adjusting the ref calls. Still a bit more cleanup to do on this one and the others of its vintage (looking back I have no idea why I thought the citation scheme for these ones made much sense, or was going to be understood by other editors) but not a major issue of having to painstakingly go through a bunch of old scans. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Awesome; is it ready yet for a recheck? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I've got a bit more ref cleanup to do, and will probably want to run through and do a fresh copyedit first. It should be all good this week for more appraisals. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Great ... but I'd much rather see you spending your time on the Crater :) :) I'll look in after a few weeks, when I get my next burst of energy for URFA reviewing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Clips of tics

Template:Clips of tics has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Endwise (talk) 05:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

ASD

@SandyGeorgia: I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure this and this edit is problematic. Could you take a look at it? Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 09:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Wretchskull. I appreciate you bringing this here, but must (respectfully) decline to be involved. The situation at the autism suite of articles is a testament to the dismal state of the medicine project, and is not something I am able to take on alone.

Back in 2007, I started a project which User:Eubulides copied over to user:Eubulides/sandbox/autism; we managed (with the help of many WP:MED editors) to clean up the walled garden in the entire suite, and push back on advocacy editing (via bringing the highest quality sourcing to the articles) that had taken over this important and highly viewed suite of articles. In those days, WPMED was overall quite involved in maintaining articles at a featured level; that stopped around 2015.

Since Eubulides stopped editing in 2010, and WPMED stopped caring about featured content, advocacy editing has again returned, and indeed, taken over the suite. I can't keep up with these suites of articles alone, and have stopped trying. No one cared to tend either autism or Asperger syndrome, and they were defeatured. I was recently reminded that those of us who do care about keeping articles at featured standard are abnormal on Wikipedia, rather than an example to show how to edit generally.

As alarming as it is to see such highly viewed articles falling in to complete disrepair, I can't offer to work on them any longer; I've tried to hold the line alone for a decade, and have now accepted that the suite is just another collection of hopeless black goo on the internet, like so much of our medical content that no one cares to tend. Advocates have again taken over, and without WPMED interest, 'tis a lost cause. Viewing articles that were once featured, as they turn to black goo on the internet, after I worked so hard to bring them to a featured level is not pleasant so I prefer to unwatch.

Sorry to disappoint; take care, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Thank you for the response, Sandy! That is extremely depressing to hear, and I can't believe you had to do this for a decade. If that's the case, shouldn't there be a policy or note to prevent these abysmal redirect requests from ever taking place? We cannot just let a few editors decide that walls of info from different articles should be compounded to a few headings at ASD; this is borderline WP:ANARCHY, and I've never been so furious over Wikipedia. Looking at the userpages of these contributors tells a lot about why they want them merged. Wretchskull (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The problem is, no one took on the updates as DSM-5 changed, then ICD changed ... and no way could I do all of that alone. I understand the "never being so furious"; that is why I can't even bear to look. We had accomplished an amazing suite of articles in autism. All gone now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey, I saw this exchange and I thought if I was in your position, having watched something I put serious work into many years ago degrade over time from lack of care, I might be reassured to know that the main change being discussed here is simply the most obvious first step towards bringing Wikipedia's autism coverage in line with DSM-5 and ICD-11. Both manuals, as you no doubt know, now have one unitary category for autistic spectrum disorders, divided on a dimensional rather than categorical basis and subsuming nearly all previous autism diagnoses. In line with this, I am proposing that Wikipedia's autism and autism spectrum pages should also be merged; I haven't taken a view on which title they should be merged under, but it seems clear that the central autism page should reflect current diagnostic categorisations. I've been puzzled to meet such hostile resistance to what should be an uncontroversial (if practically difficult) change. Meanwhile, we have another separate page for Low-functioning autism, covering what autism says it is supposed to cover, which is where classic autism redirects to. There ought to be one page for this historical category.

Not particularly asking for your help or input here - as I say, it's just that I think this would be reassuring to hear if I was in your position. We can probably all agree that Wikipedia's autism content could use a lot of work! Oolong (talk) 09:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Oolong I should/could be reassured that the amount of work needed is now recognized and the article is receiving attention. But I'm not, because I see limited indications that those participating so far understand medical sourcing or will bring the article(s) to a standard that reflects the best and most recent sources. Instead, since the articles were defeatured and {{recruiting}} is fully engaged, the door is open now to marginal sourcing and further advocacy editing.

My suggestion would be to take a different approach. Rather than proposing to merge two dated and huge articles, how about trying to see if anyone on board so far is able to rewrite even a small portion of any of the existing articles to high quality recent MEDRS sources? You'll have a much easier time determining what the correct article names should be, and merging text to the correct place, if you start with ... accurate and updated text. I suspect you won't get that, though, as autism advocates would rather push pet views and theories, rather than understanding how to write medical content to the best and most recent medical sources, while the medical editors who are capable of doing that are distracted elsewhere and uninterested in maintaining the most highly viewed medical content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I have just proposed such a plan here. I think we need to identify all of the articles in question first as there are many with what appears to be some duplication on a surface level, and then define what their scope currently is and should be after we finish before we can have any discussions on merging. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)